Right On The Right

-Just thought of this one: Since you called out Jimmy Carter earlier, based on what I assume are his recent actions regarding Israel and the Palestinians, how do you feel about his actions regarding Egypt and Israel. You know, when he oversaw 'talks' and 'negotiations' that resulted in a peace that still holds to this day.

'“Negotiation,” as you put it, follows war only to tie up loose ends at its conclusion.' That's the fair point I give you. Two points to the man with the USA lapel pin.

'Impassable human conflict'? This isn't Israel that we live in. If the government of Iran doesn't like the government of Israel, let those two fight it out. Doesn't sound like an 'Impassable human conflict' to me, it sounds like a pissing match between two shitty, little countries in the desert.

You're right, whenver there are impassable human conflicts, war always happans as a result, since old white men like you have hard-ons for war. Not an insult, its a statement of fact as your end of this conversation backs up.

I'm dealing with 4 buck a gallon gas. Let Israel nuke Iran, or vise-versa and I'll pay $15.00 a gallon and not one US soldier has to die and none of that blood needs to be on the US's hands. I'll start riding a bike to work, maybe I'll lose some weight and find pleasure in things other than arguing with you.

And yeah, whenever people start bitching about Iran, I see nothing but Israel behind it. The US plays host to lots of scummy little leaders of silly, little countries without one-tenth of the bru-ha-ha that happened last year when AhmenIranajad was in NYC. Of course, not every dictator and military coup leader who comes to the USA has problems with a country filled with and founded by Europeans and their children and grandchildren living in the middle of an Arabic area. So, you know, nobody bitches and whines as much when Putin would visit in year's past, his political crimes and actions in chechnya ignored by the mass media. Or when the unelected leader of Pakistan, who treats the Kurds as bad as Iran treats non-fundimentalists, visits the Daily Show.

And yeah, I've glossed over their alleged sending in of bombs and support to fight the US in Iraq. Which I find totally understandable. Its a goddamned shame that one US person has to be maimed or killed in the middle of a shitty country half-way 'round the world, but imagine us not fighting a covert war against any occupier in Canada or Mexico that we wouldn't want on our doorstep.

And with your Kennedy history lesson, you forget to mention that he pulled the nukes out of Turkey that the US had pointing towards the USSR, which allowed the russkies to take their shit out of Cuba. Unless, of course, your history books glossed over that part of the deal.

When has the little tinpot dictator in Iran said he wanted the destruction of the US? I'm well aware he wants the government of Israel gone, but I must have missed when he publicly stated that the destruction of the United States of America was a goal of his. Of course, I don't listen to much talk radio, but see if you could get me a source on that.

All in all, he's the leader of a country that the US needs to help make the region stable. Its not like Obama says he would sit down and have tea with Carlos the Jackle or Bin Laden here. Like it or not (and I assume you maybe might probably not like it), this dick in Iran is the leader of a country. And one who has legitimate gripes. You want to infantalize him as a child since you can't seem to care for his viewpoint regard his region of the world and the US's role in it, go ahead.

And don't forget that twenty four years ago or so, plenty of hard-right and superpatriot-minded Americans had issues with Ronny Raygun when he talked to Gorby'chef. Plenty of people were pissed, thought there should be no dialogue. And now, decades later, he's held up as the second coming for helping end the cold war by having a willingness to talk to the opposition. Of course, the talk was prefaced with all that 'evil empire' stuff, but he still had a dialogue. (and of course I know that there were many other issues that made the USSR fall, not just Ronny sitting down with the mole-head-man)

And I do realize, though I've not said it in the hopes of stirring shit, is that I think Obama's whole 'let's talk to them' is just a politcal move, a risky one at that, to make himself different from Dame Hillary thatcher Clinton and the Bushies. I have no doubt that President Obama would bomb Tehran the minute he was told to.

We didn’t “negotiate” the end of WWII, we dictated the terms to Japan, who surrendered unconditionally. The only negotiations were with our allies on how to preside over a broken and defeated Germany.

You present your point to defend Obama’s pledge to negotiate as an alternative to war.

Obama distorts history in saying that Kennedy “talked” the Russians out of basing missiles in Cuba. There was no talking: there were letters exchanged by envoys, then Kennedy finally took military action (naval blockade) without which the Russians wouldn’t have blinked. Likewise, you and Obama blow hypothetical smoke rings to suggest that we should “talk” to Iran because they are a comparatively smaller threat than the old Soviet Union armed with nukes. Your mistake is that such talks undeservedly elevate the tinpot Ahmedinijad, who disregards previously agreed accords and has promised our destruction, and shamefully dishonor our allies who stand with us in trying to isolate Iran for its reckless behavior. Why reward an obnoxious, threatening child with adult privileges?

Obama’s professed intentions toward Iran and Hamas are inconsistent. His inexperience in this arena is as painfully obvious as Carter’s naivete, as both have good intentions but are ignorant of history. You and Obama suggest that impassable human conflict can be resolved by negotiation alone. Name one that has.

“Negotiation,” as you put it, follows war only to tie up loose ends at its conclusion.

We talked to them after they were defeated. We still negotiated with nazis, imperial japanese, muderers, SS, generals and the like. The US talked to people whom prior to military defeat, were bad guys. Im sure those history books showed treaties being signed and there weren't empty seats across from the victorious American emissaries.

I never said those wars ended on the basis on talk alone. Nice try though.

The point is, the US could sit at a table and talk to people who murdered their ways through 2 hemispheres, attacked Pearl Harbor, attacked shipping in the Atlantic, killed millions, operated rape camps, yet today refuses to talk to countries who we haven't fought a five year world war with.

Dare I say that we talked to people whose crimes were way worse than any of these parties in the middle east? We left people around Germany and Japan whose crimes were waaay worse than anything Israel, the PLO, Iran or Hezbollah have done. These cats are pikers compared to biological warfare, the assembly line of the killing of the jews, gays, commies and gypsies in Germany or what happened all over Asia in the thirties.

Even your history books should make it clear that we negotiated the terms of the ends of these wars.

We "talked to" the Germans and Japanese to end WWII? Dude, we defeated them. Japan formally surrendered and the Reich collapsed as Hitler killed himself. Neither war ended because we "talked."

The main reason negotiations are futile in the Middle East is because the parties involved have blatantly disregarded previously signed agreements produced by what were deemed fruitful "talks." Oslo Accords, anyone?

What intractable human conflict has ever been solved solely by negotiations?

!

The great republican hero, Abe Lincoln, didn't think blacks and whites could live together. He wanted to send all the free slaves back to Africa.

Now, I don't want to end up seeming like the kind of asshole who would defend any politician, but I don't think Obama ever talked about 'befriending' Syria and Iran. He just mentions 'talking' to them...you know, diplomacy. The US talked to the evil Hun to end WW1. The US talked to Germany to end WW2 after they killed millions, the US talked to Japan to end WW2 after they killed millions (and they did all over Asia), the US gave an approving nod to the UK and Ireland to 'talk' after thousands were killed during 'the troubles'. I could go on and on with other examples of the US 'talking', using diplomacy or okaying said uses of dialogue in the past.

Why is the idea of 'talking' and diplomacy so goddamned horrible when it comes to the Middle East?

These comments are very scary in light of what has come out about the Obama's since she made this speech in February.

To the person who said this is the most inspirational speech he's ever heard - PLEASE! She's just like Barack in that she said absolutely NOTHING!

When she says she's proud of her country because she has discovered we want change - that scares me. I'm really afraid the change she means is the change her pastor for 20 years has talked about. They want an America where black & white are spearate (yes, that's what Black Liberation Theology is all about). It scares me that she's not proud of an America that does so much good in the world and the change she is looking for is an America that would do great evil, by befriending terrorist regimes like those in Iran and Syria. And change that would do great evil by not standing up and fighting when we should - even if it goes against the opinon of elitist countries like France.

Notice they NEVER specify just exactly what change they mean? There's a reason for that my friends. And it's because they change they want is far, far removed from what the average American wants.

-She's lived in an America that many of us will never live in and most blacks never have and never will. She's pandering to the all of them, white and black.

Kind of like how a white guy who grew up in New England, went to Yale somehow developed a southern accent when he wanted to be guv'nor of Texas.

Pander, pander, pander!

Kind of silly that you constitute these comments as 'anti-American' though. There's plenty of people who could rewrite your second paragraph there with all the shit that isn't all that cool about America and it would be just as true...

I'm back! :)

Communism is still very much alive. We've failed horribly to respond to natural disasters at home. People die in fighting every day in the "liberated" country of Afghanistan (not to mention the travesty that's become of Iraq), and Eastern Europe is still in shambles. Exactly which of those is supposed to make her proud?

Nice try.

I watched that speech last night and it was one of the most moving and inspirational speech that anyone in politics has given in my life.

She did say that she was proud of America for the first time in her life... directly followed by this:

-------------
Michelle Obama:

“Hope is making a comeback and, let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change,” she said during a rally in downtown Milwaukee.

“I have seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues and it has made me proud,”
------------

So yes, I agree with her. It is a time to be proud that we as American citizens, We The People, can rise above all and be united. We can stand up and work together no matter what certian people in the media say or no matter what people who are hateful towards "hope" and "change" say.