The 2008 Presidential Campaign (was Obama Phenomenon 2)

Post by **Cerin** » Fri May 16, 2008 7:44 pm

I totally reject this bogus equating of Iran with Hitler. I can't quite believe everyone was baited into accepting this false premise as the framework for the argument.

Iran is not invading its neighbors. Iran is not aggressing. If anyone could legitimately be said to be imitating Hitler, we'd be the closest candidate, having unprovokedly invaded a nation who posed no threat to us.

What a mammoth load of codswallop. Talking to other countries isn't appeasement.

edit to correct 'codswollop' after seeing vison spell it correctly

Post by **vison** » Fri May 16, 2008 7:45 pm

Churchill was a hero. He made mistakes, and he was indeed a self-serving historian, but within reason: he was not the only reason the Allies won the war, but he deserves all the credit he is given and most of what he gives himself.

To hear Mr. Bush compared to Churchill is to make one gag. If Sir Winston Churchill was able to comment on or to Mr. Bush I suspect his usual frank and racy language would penetrate even that thick skull and cause some kind of international incident.

It is worth imagining.

solictr, your "explanation" of why America didn't enter the war until Pearl Harbour is just a tad disingenuous. You go right on thinking that way if you like, I'm sure it's a comfortable place you're in.

Post by **solicitr** » Fri May 16, 2008 7:52 pm

.....and why a nuclear war in the Mid-East is the epitome of a bad idea.

Except that the Iranians think that the idea of a nuclear war in North America is the epitome of a good idea.

Mark my words- they're not so stupid as attck us directly with a missile marked "Made in Iran" (they don't have one with that range yet anyway). But when ready (which could be 4-6 years, if they have upgraded their centrifuges to P-2s), Hezbollah or some other proxy will smuggle a weapon into the US and vaporize an American city - taking responsibility in the name of the "Islamic Front for the Popular Liberation of the Global Jihad" or some other non-existent group. And no matter whjat the evidence pointing to Iran, it will be dismissed by the Carter II administration as neocon propaganda- while they hasten to accede to the "IFPLGJ's" demands.

As far as current US-orchestrated regime changes go, our successes in Iraq and Afghanistan sorta speak for themselves. As does Iran, in its own way. Let's quit while we're ahead.

The idea (which the Bushies never figured out) is to get rid of the existing Bad Regime and then let the chips fall where they may. After all, ANY replacement in Iran would be a huge improvement (and with no surviving military or nuke capability).

Persica delenda est.

Post by **solicitr** » Fri May 16, 2008 7:53 pm

Iran is not invading its neighbors. Iran is not aggressing.

Paid any attention to the recent news from Lebanon?

Iran has a vile, hideous, loathesome, inutterably evil regime, every particle as Satanic as Hitler's.

Post by **solicitr** » Fri May 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Okay, vision, what's your explanation for why the US held aloof from the European war until 12/7?

Post by **vison** » Fri May 16, 2008 7:56 pm

solicitr wrote:
Iran is not invading its neighbors. Iran is not aggressing.
Paid any attention to the recent news from Lebanon?

Iran has a vile, hideous, loathesome, inutterably evil regime, every particle as Satanic as Hitler's.

Codswallop.

Hyperbole of that nature renders any sense in your arguments non-existent.

Post by **solicitr** » Fri May 16, 2008 8:05 pm

To hear Mr. Bush compared to Churchill is to make one gag

Am I remotely comparing Dumbyuh to Winnie? What a ridiculous comparison!

Comparing Obama to Chamberlain, however, is entirely apposite.

Fri May 16, 2008 8:08 pm

I really don't know how to parse out levels of "evil". Iran's government is bad. Ahmadinejad has said and done some very bad things. Whether he is "as bad" as Hitler I can't say, and I don't really care. Where the analogy really falls apart is in the relative strengths of the nations.

soli, I noticed that you totally ignored the NIE that I posted. The facts simply don't support the notion that Iran presents the kind of threat that the Bush administration (and you, apparently) are trying to present it to be.

Post by **Cerin** » Fri May 16, 2008 8:29 pm

solicitr wrote:Iran has a vile, hideous, loathesome, inutterably evil regime, every particle as Satanic as Hitler's.

And they think the same about us.

*round and round and round she goes; where she stops, nobody knows*

BOOM!

Post by **Cerin** » Fri May 16, 2008 9:11 pm

Borrowed from our sister site, as it seemed just the right place for it:

An intelligent discourse on Barack Obama's appeasement

Fri May 16, 2008 9:33 pm

Cerin, I'm not really sure what the relevance of that is. What does it really matter what some some radio host knows or doesn't know?

Post by **solicitr** » Fri May 16, 2008 9:37 pm

Voronwë, the NIE rather optimistically assumes Iran's cascades all are and will remane P-1's. We don't know that- because the Iranians have shut the IAEA inspectors out.

Cerin, your link is a lame argument- trying to discredit a position by trotting out the most moronic exponent thereof you can find. Does it weaken your anti-war stance any to know that Cynthia McKinney endorses it?

solicitr wrote:
Iran has a vile, hideous, loathesome, inutterably evil regime, every particle as Satanic as Hitler's.

And they think the same about us.

And they're wrong.

Your argument is relativism run totally amok!

Post by **vison** » Fri May 16, 2008 9:47 pm

solicitr wrote:
To hear Mr. Bush compared to Churchill is to make one gag
Am I remotely comparing Dumbyuh to Winnie? What a ridiculous comparison!

Comparing Obama to Chamberlain, however, is entirely apposite.

You know something, solictr? Mr. Obama has not yet been elected president!!!! He hasn't even been named as candidate!!! And here you are, vibrating with terror! Holy cats. Calm down. The bogeyman won't find you under the bed. I promise.

You know, you guyz might be playing this card too soon. I know, I know, you think if you just say "Chamberlain" and "Hitler" often enough people will believe it and connect it to an as-yet-unelected man who hasn't gone anywhere to talk to anyone. But solictr, most American don't have a clue who Chamberlain was.

It might be more useful to compare Mr. Obama to Jane Fonda? Some of the younger voters could remember her. Not sure.

I recall that she was single-handedly responsible for America losing in Viet Nam. Except for the guyz who claim America didn't lose in Viet Nam.

Or if it did, it wasn't Jane Fonda by herself, it was all those leftwing liberal wimps back home.

The same ones that want Mr. Obama elected so Iran can get atomic bombs and, you know, obliterate you.

My advice is, don't show your ace in the hole just yet. On the other hand, it is fatal to hold on to it too long. What a silly quandary for the Right, eh? Dither, dither . . . .

btw, I know YOU didn't compare Mr. Bush to Sir Winston, but if you look at the latest playbook, you'll see it's an option. Page 13, I think, Section 41, paragraph (b): comparing Our Leader to that old Englishman Churchill we bailed out in WW II is a good thing if you can work it in to the conversation.

Post by **Cerin** » Fri May 16, 2008 9:56 pm

Voronwë, my point was to show that this 'appeasement' nonsense is nothing more than the latest administration talking point, as evidenced by people like this, who don't even understand the term historically, being trotted out to repeat it.

The question is, how many people will fall for this kind of crap, this time around? What will be the false notion, this year, that the majority of Americans will end up believing is true through the sheer force of inane repetition? Maybe we should set up a poll thread for that?

Post by **Faramond** » Fri May 16, 2008 9:58 pm

We can talk to Iran without it being Obama and Ahmadinejad getting together for the whole photo-op thing. There are levels of talking, yes? As long as Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons, and also intent on declaring that Israel has no right to exist, with the dread implication between those two facts that they'd like nothing quite as much as to aim a nuke at Tel Aviv, then they haven't earned the right to such a meeting. As long as they support terrorist organizations we shouldn't give them such a meeting. They haven't shown that there would be any point in actually having a conversation with them. You can't have a conversation with a madman, anyway. ( I'm not saying Ahmadinejad is literally crazy. )

What good could it possibly do for Obama and Ahmadinejad to sit down together? Is Obama really going to convince him of anything? Does he perhaps think American threats will be more convincing in person? To me it is so obviously a concession that he would meet with this man as an equal that I wonder what else he would concede in a naive belief that he was buying peace or cooperation. I want to believe that Obama will learn on the job, quickly. It's great that Obama wants to find a diplomatic solution to the Iran crisis. But the meeting between Obama and Ahmadinejad should not be the first thing that happens. Only when Iran has made it clear through their actions that they are really willing to talk, and listen, should the meeting happen.

This is something even Hillary and Edwards said back in Sept of 2007.

What exactly does Obama want to say to Ahmadinejad? Has he ever answered that question?

Post by **ToshoftheWuffingas** » Fri May 16, 2008 10:03 pm

If we are still talking about Churchill I suppose I might as well post one of his aphorisms; 'Jaw-jaw is better than war-war.'

I can't say it was one of his most polished contributions but it is at least apposite to the discussion. And true.
I am not certain where soli gets his certainty that Obama will adopt an appeasing diplomacy other than partisanship. When asked what his reaction to an Iranian attack on Israel he was reported as saying his response would be 'forceful'.
Was Reagan's and Ollie North's approaches to Khomeini's Iran appeasement?

Post by **vison** » Fri May 16, 2008 10:08 pm

Um. Faramond? The guy isn't president yet. When he is (and he will be) he will no doubt send the appropriate message to the Iranians, and that message may well contain precisely the caveats you think it ought. I think this hysteria is completely out of hand, and I might just toss my cookies if I see the name "Chamberlain" one more time today.

The only good thing about this hysteria, this jibbering stuttering terror, is that it can't be maintained. Some new monster will be found, no doubt, created by the factory that created this one. (RoveToys, Inc., main plant in Dong Key, China.)

Does anyone remember Richard Nixon? Does anyone remember Richard Nixon going to China?

At the time, China was ruled by a murderous butchering raving loony, had the most appalling human rights record on the planet, had lots of nuclear bombs, supported America's enemies in hundreds of places in hundreds of ways . . . . and when Mr. Nixon sat down with Mao, the world did not end. China did not nuke America or anyone else. China is our Chum now.

Fri May 16, 2008 10:08 pm

Okay. I agree that Matthews made a good point in describing the difference between "talking" and "appeasement". But I really would have rather not watched the whole thing. What a pathetic example of discussion of the issues.

Post by **solicitr** » Fri May 16, 2008 10:10 pm

What will be the false notion, this year, that the majority of Americans will end up believing is true through the sheer force of inane repetition?

You mean like 'tax cuts for the rich'? Or perhaps 'NAFTA costs jobs'?

Demagoguery is not confined to one party.

Post by **halplm** » Fri May 16, 2008 10:12 pm

The only thing I can get out of this thread, is that people have radically different views of how the world works... and they are not compatible.

Vison, I compaired Obama to Carter... and the more I learn of his foriegn policy plans, the more that comparison makes sense to me.

It is not a good thing to be compared to.