Reincarnation ?

[Guest Patriot]

During the Gen. Petraeus hearings yesterday, Obama stated that he would want to meet with

Iranian President Ahmadinejad. How nice!

Reminds me of Neville Chamberlain wanting to meet Hitler. Hitler interpreted that as weakness

on the part of the British and only encouraged the destruction of Europe.

Every time Obama opens his mouth I'm amazed at his naivety. I'm convinced this rookie junior

Senator is the reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain. (But he has a nice smile).

[Guest Guest]

During the Gen. Petraeus hearings yesterday, Obama stated that he would want to meet with

Iranian President Ahmadinejad. How nice!

Reminds me of Neville Chamberlain wanting to meet Hitler. Hitler interpreted that as weakness

on the part of the British and only encouraged the destruction of Europe.

Every time Obama opens his mouth I'm amazed at his naivety. I'm convinced this rookie junior

Senator is the reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain. (But he has a nice smile).

I'd say "nice try," but it really isn't. There's no comparison, and you're convinced of whatever you want to be convinced of.

[Guest Keith]

During the Gen. Petraeus hearings yesterday, Obama stated that he would want to meet with

Iranian President Ahmadinejad. How nice!

Reminds me of Neville Chamberlain wanting to meet Hitler. Hitler interpreted that as weakness

on the part of the British and only encouraged the destruction of Europe.

Every time Obama opens his mouth I'm amazed at his naivety. I'm convinced this rookie junior

Senator is the reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain. (But he has a nice smile).

Yes, you are right. KILL 'EM ALL! KILL,KILL,KILL KILL KILL KILL.

Maybe you should go and listen to One Tin Soldier. It's applies even more so today.

[Guest Studies and Observations]

"Peace in our Time"...didnt work out so well for Old Nevill, did It. Look at how they treated Churchill as he was sounding the warning about Hitler and the "Narzis" (As Sir Winston called them)..yet he was the one who was right all along... COme to think of it THAT is a parallel today as well, since wnyone who tries to make the case that Islamic Exrtemist Terrorism is alive and well is called everything from a "Fear-Monger" to an outright liar.

[Guest Patriot]

"Peace in our Time"...didnt work out so well for Old Nevill, did It. Look at how they treated Churchill as he was sounding the warning about Hitler and the "Narzis" (As Sir Winston called them)..yet he was the one who was right all along... COme to think of it THAT is a parallel today as well, since wnyone who tries to make the case that Islamic Exrtemist Terrorism is alive and well is called everything from a "Fear-Monger" to an outright liar.

What is it with the Loony Left that they can't recognize danger beyond their noses. If Obama gets

elected (God forbid) and goes calling on Ahmadinejad, that will be perceived in the Arab world as

a weak President groveling before a great Isamic nation. The propaganda value of that for

Ahmadinejad is huge. That Obama doesn't get this is frightening to say the least. Lets hope the

majority of Americans get it.

[Guest Paul]

"Peace in our Time"...didnt work out so well for Old Nevill, did It. Look at how they treated Churchill as he was sounding the warning about Hitler and the "Narzis" (As Sir Winston called them)..yet he was the one who was right all along... COme to think of it THAT is a parallel today as well, since wnyone who tries to make the case that Islamic Exrtemist Terrorism is alive and well is called everything from a "Fear-Monger" to an outright liar.

No one at any high level in American politics is suggesting the Chamberlain approach. In fact, Obama is making the case, correctly in my opinion, that we should redirect our attention into Pakistan and Afghanistan because that is where the terrorist threat is mainly concentrated.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

During the Gen. Petraeus hearings yesterday, Obama stated that he would want to meet with

Iranian President Ahmadinejad. How nice!

Reminds me of Neville Chamberlain wanting to meet Hitler. Hitler interpreted that as weakness

on the part of the British and only encouraged the destruction of Europe.

Every time Obama opens his mouth I'm amazed at his naivety. I'm convinced this rookie junior

Senator is the reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain. (But he has a nice smile).

Considering that Iraq is rolling out the red carpet for him...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/02/...ejad/index.html

...perhaps we should think about it.

It wasn't Chamberlain meeting with Hitler that encouraged Hitler, it was his signing the Munich Agreement. Learn some history.

[Guest Keith]

"Peace in our Time"...didnt work out so well for Old Nevill, did It. Look at how they treated Churchill as he was sounding the warning about Hitler and the "Narzis" (As Sir Winston called them)..yet he was the one who was right all along... COme to think of it THAT is a parallel today as well, since wnyone who tries to make the case that Islamic Exrtemist Terrorism is alive and well is called everything from a "Fear-Monger" to an outright liar.

Of course Islamic extremism is something to be dealt with, It needs to be handled with precision and intelligence, not buffonery and belligerence.

[billydee4]

"Peace in our Time"...didnt work out so well for Old Nevill, did It. Look at how they treated Churchill as he was sounding the warning about Hitler and the "Narzis" (As Sir Winston called them)..yet he was the one who was right all along... COme to think of it THAT is a parallel today as well, since wnyone who tries to make the case that Islamic Exrtemist Terrorism is alive and well is called everything from a "Fear-Monger" to an outright liar.

You just gotta love the "Screw diplomacy; bomb'em to hell" crowd for their consistency. Obama didn't say he would roll over and play dead, he said he would like to meet with Ahmadinejad. Extrapolating anything more is dishonest.

[billydee4]

"Peace in our Time"...didnt work out so well for Old Nevill, did It. Look at how they treated Churchill as he was sounding the warning about Hitler and the "Narzis" (As Sir Winston called them)..yet he was the one who was right all along... COme to think of it THAT is a parallel today as well, since wnyone who tries to make the case that Islamic Exrtemist Terrorism is alive and well is called everything from a "Fear-Monger" to an outright liar.

And the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is going soooo well.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

"Peace in our Time"...didnt work out so well for Old Nevill, did It. Look at how they treated Churchill as he was sounding the warning about Hitler and the "Narzis" (As Sir Winston called them)..yet he was the one who was right all along... COme to think of it THAT is a parallel today as well, since wnyone who tries to make the case that Islamic Exrtemist Terrorism is alive and well is called everything from a "Fear-Monger" to an outright liar.

During the Cold War we kept lines of communication open between the US and the USSR. Unlike Islamic Extremist Terrorism, the USSR could have actually destroyed us. No one is saying that we should capitulate to anyone's demands-in fact, I do think we need to take a hard stance with Iran. Not talking to them hasn't worked so well for the last nearly 30 years though, has it?

[Guest Studies and Observations]

And the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is going soooo well.

If you talk to the people who are actually THERE, instead of listening to the talking heads in the studios in NY, you would find that the majority of them Think it IS going well. Violence is down, the Iraqui Security Forces are handling more and more every day, to the point that the extra troops that compromised the surge are being drawn down. There's even some progress on the Politcal front with Al Sadr calling for peace, and Al-Malachi having a HUGE approval rating even amongst the Sunni and Kurds.

[Guest Guest]

If you talk to the people who are actually THERE, instead of listening to the talking heads in the studios in NY, you would find that the majority of them Think it IS going well. Violence is down,

Not lower than it was before we invaded, idiot.

[Bryan]

Of course Islamic extremism is something to be dealt with, It needs to be handled with precision and intelligence, not buffonery and belligerence.

Keith for president 2008

Semper Fi. Marines.com

[Bryan]

During the Cold War we kept lines of communication open between the US and the USSR.

What was the positive outcome of those communications from our perspective?

Unlike Islamic Extremist Terrorism, the USSR could have actually destroyed us.

You underestimate the danger of asymmetrical warfare in the age of superweapons.

No one is saying that we should capitulate to anyone's demands-in fact, I do think we need to take a hard stance with Iran.

Like how?

Not talking to them hasn't worked so well for the last nearly 30 years though, has it?

Not talking to them is a hard stance, and it has worked somewhat well (though it would work better if Russia and China weren't helping them out on the side). What "hard stance" alternative do you suggest?

Talking to intransigent entities just increases their appearance of standing. The policy of the United States has been to demand good faith as a foundational basis for discussion. Lacking that, engaging in discussion is futile.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/21188

[Guest Patriot]

Considering that Iraq is rolling out the red carpet for him...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/02/...ejad/index.html

...perhaps we should think about it.

It wasn't Chamberlain meeting with Hitler that encouraged Hitler, it was his signing the Munich Agreement. Learn some history.

The Munich Agreement came out of Chamberlain's meeting with Hitler. I'll spell it more thoroughly

for you from now on.

[Guest Kearny Republican]

You just gotta love the "Screw diplomacy; bomb'em to hell" crowd for their consistency. Obama didn't say he would roll over and play dead, he said he would like to meet with Ahmadinejad. Extrapolating anything more is dishonest.

Reading comprehension is not wide-spread among the Kool-Aid crowd. Patriot did not suggest Obama

would roll over and play dead. Patriot said it would be PERCEIVED in the Arab world as groveling and would be a huge propaganda victory for the radicals. Ahmadine would play it up and tell his followers that

that Obama pleaded and begged (insert any other words that fit) before the mighty Arab nation.

[Guest Keith]

Keith for president 2008

Semper Fi. Marines.com

Thanks. My first order of business will be to have you waterboarded , blindfolded and shipped off to gitmo for an extended vaction.

[billydee4]

Reading comprehension is not wide-spread among the Kool-Aid crowd. Patriot did not suggest Obama

would roll over and play dead. Patriot said it would be PERCEIVED in the Arab world as groveling and would be a huge propaganda victory for the radicals. Ahmadine would play it up and tell his followers that

that Obama pleaded and begged (insert any other words that fit) before the mighty Arab nation.

Iran is not an Arab nation. I didn't read PatRat's comment the way you did. Hitler always hated and underestimated Great Britain, just like the Japanese misunderestimated the US. They thought that Pearl Harbor would demoralize the nation and we would beg for peace. In this day of being able to record everything, any meeting between President Obama and Ahmadinejad would be recorded. Of course, anyone could distort and re-edit the recordings (check any right wing blog), but the truth would still be out there.

What would be gained in the way of trying to influence the feelings of the Muslim world by a face-to-face meeting would be far better than just dropping a few thousand bombs.

[billydee4]

If you talk to the people who are actually THERE, instead of listening to the talking heads in the studios in NY, you would find that the majority of them Think it IS going well. Violence is down, the Iraqui Security Forces are handling more and more every day, to the point that the extra troops that compromised the surge are being drawn down. There's even some progress on the Politcal front with Al Sadr calling for peace, and Al-Malachi having a HUGE approval rating even amongst the Sunni and Kurds.

The people on the ground in a war zone often only see a very small part of the conflict. There are vets coming back who say that the war isn't going so well. I bet the people being bombed in the Green Zone the other day thought everything was just peachy.

[Guest Guest]

You just gotta love the "Screw diplomacy; bomb'em to hell" crowd for their consistency. Obama didn't say he would roll over and play dead, he said he would like to meet with Ahmadinejad. Extrapolating anything more is dishonest.

And about all tht can be expected from Mr Semper Lies PatRat

[Guest Patriot]

Iran is not an Arab nation. I didn't read PatRat's comment the way you did. Hitler always hated and underestimated Great Britain, just like the Japanese misunderestimated the US. They thought that Pearl Harbor would demoralize the nation and we would beg for peace. In this day of being able to record everything, any meeting between President Obama and Ahmadinejad would be recorded. Of course, anyone could distort and re-edit the recordings (check any right wing blog), but the truth would still be out there.

What would be gained in the way of trying to influence the feelings of the Muslim world by a face-to-face meeting would be far better than just dropping a few thousand bombs.

I prefer to drop the bombs.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

The Munich Agreement came out of Chamberlain's meeting with Hitler. I'll spell it more thoroughly

for you from now on.

So you're not stupid, you're a liar. Got it.

Intensive diplomacy is what turned the Sunnis to our side (well, that and our money). What exactly do we have to lose by talking to Iran? They'll think we're weak? They already do! They think we're fat and complacent. Our perceived inability to stabilize Iraq hasn't helped, nor has our inability to catch Osama. Not to mention-what exactly will they do? Promote terrorism? They're one of the top state sponsors of terrorism already. Try to build WMDs? They already (probably) are. Attack us or Iraq? Good! All the justification we would need to smack them down.

The thing is, real-world diplomacy is more complex than Age of Empires 2. They aren't dogs who will attack if they "smell fear."

Note to Bryan-I know dogs don't really "smell fear"-they're carnivores who react to someone acting like a prey animal.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

What was the positive outcome of those communications from our perspective?

You underestimate the danger of asymmetrical warfare in the age of superweapons.

Like how?

Not talking to them is a hard stance, and it has worked somewhat well (though it would work better if Russia and China weren't helping them out on the side). What "hard stance" alternative do you suggest?

Talking to intransigent entities just increases their appearance of standing. The policy of the United States has been to demand good faith as a foundational basis for discussion. Lacking that, engaging in discussion is futile.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/21188

I don't underestimate the danger of terrorism-but if they could directly destroy us, they would. Our greatest danger is from escalating conflict (if they get a nuke) or lack of security at home (nuclear plants, chemical plants, etc.). If we lose the war on terror it will because of focusing on the wrong targets.

The problem is, Iraq is talking to Iran. Btw-according to dictionary.com:

in·tran·si·gent

–adjective 1. refusing to agree or compromise; uncompromising; inflexible.

–noun 2. a person who refuses to agree or compromise, as in politics.

Sounds like both countries, doesn't it?

Most of us learn by second grade that "I'm not talking to you!" doesn't really work.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

I prefer to drop the bombs.

Of course you do.