jesseledesma

Join Date 12/2003

Bush right about policy of appeasement.

Hiallry and Obama to sensitive.

In speaking to Israel, the president of the United States was right. Obama, Hillary, and many democrats have espoused the idea that if we just leave the terrorist alone they would leave us alone. Obama, himself wants to sit down and have a heart to heart with a man who calls Israel the "little satan" and the US the "big satan", who must be destroyed.

What"s the matter Obama? Didn't you know that Iran's leadership is responsible for most of the world's terrorism. Everyone and their cat and dogs knows this fact. How in the world can you aspire to be president, if you are not aware of who exactly the world leaders of nations are in real life.

And as for Hillary's comments about we don't talk about we don't take our troubles to other nations, have democrats not been to meet with Hugo Chaves, Syria, Iran, and Iraq? In addition, wasn't your husband all over Europe talking about how bad America is in the world? Really! Get a clue before you speak.

Mr. Bush in addressing Israel was speaking about and attitude of appeasement that can be destructive. He did not mention Obama, nor any other democrat by name. Mr. Bush spoke of history, which is plain for anyone to see.

There are evil people in this world. Sometimes these evil people give you no option but to use your military. The US did not ask to be center of these radical's focus. However, sticking your head in the sand will guarantee you become barbequed ostrich.

I think the problem here is that Hillary and Obama are trying to win on an anti-Bush campaing. Here is some news for these two. Mr. Bush is not running in 2008. Moreover, McCain is about as left from Bush as possible. Bush never played politics in order to get elected. All I see from McCain is politics for the sake of winning.

Bush has principles and stands up for them. I don't see were Hillary, Obama, and McCain have the conviction of their beliefs.

ALEGRIA MALL

history

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Can you change the font to something more readable?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Can you change the font to something more readable?

Why, his idiocy isn't worth reading regardless of what font it is in.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Firstly, let me say i've still not made up my mind on appeasment yet. As i fully don't understand issue such as the Kurdish oppression in Northern Iraq before we went in, the treatment of women in countries like Afganastan etc. something i'm currently researching, also i've not actually been to Israel or Palestine yet so my view is that of history books, the internet and (although i try to avoid it) the media.

Let me start with:

Bush never played politics to get elected.

He played beuracracy (if you even wanna call it that), to get elected. I don't think this particular presidencey can be considered any other than a disaster for America and indeed the rest of the World. Putting that aside however as if i carry on i risk derailing your article let's look at Mr Obama.

I think Obama's stance on appeasment has been compromised recently by his pastrues former involvement with the Nation of Islam (which incidentley is as right wing and facist as they come). It's unfortunate because i'm sure Mr. Obama doesn't share these views, but people will attribute them to him now. As such whatever his arguement for appeasment is, the average person just isn't going to listen unfortunatley.

Let's look at the issue of the middle east itself and indeed the arguement of whether or not appeasment is desired over there.

One of the problems with the middle east is Fundementalisim, and one of the few things that encourages fundeamentalisim is desperation and poverty.

Now the west has a massive history in the middle east. That's probably a notion that many people fail to understand. The Israeli / Palestinian conflict can be attributed to the era of the British Mandate (promising both sides what they wanted, depending on which side was of more use to them on the lead up to the second world war). The Iraq/Iran war, the Afaganastan and Soviet War etc.

In a lot of cases (excluding the Afagan / Soviet war peraps), the decisions made by the west in these reigions have left the area empoverished and desperate. Whether this was incidental or not is an entirely seperate issue.

I think the real question is, how do help the people in these dire situations get out of them and as such cut off support for fundementalisim? Why can't Mr Bush ask these questions, or indeed other Western Leaders? I think then we'd see less attacks on the West.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Really? This goes against history, Scotteh. Want proof?

Let's start with one of your oen examples:

In the 1980's, we provided aid to a faction in Afghanistan to assist them in gaining sovereignty against the Soviet Union. As Communism collapsed, that faction rose to power and proceeded to house the terrorists responsible for hijacking 4 planes and promtply slamming two of them into the most prominent features of the New York City skyline and a third into the Pentagon. Yeah, that worked really well.

We can also point to a countless line of Third World dictators who have fueled their war machines with humanitarian aid that we provided for starving children.

I disagree strongly with Bush's foreign policy response, but believe the "kinder, gentler" response is equally flawed. The answer to "can't we all just get along?" is a definitive "NO!" and we should not waste resources that could be better spent elsewhere trying to appease brutal dictators. Because appeasement is essentially empowerment.

That being said, jesus ledesma is simply a "yes man" for George Bush and incapable of independent thought.

Successfully updated karma reason!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24635229#24635229

Sometimes Keith Olberman makes me smile.

This time he made my jaw drop to the floor.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Obama's stance on appeasment

He has NEVER advocated appeasment. In fact if you actually know what appeasment means you cannot be an appeaser simply by speaking to someone.

by his pastrues former involvement with the Nation of Islam (which incidentley is as right wing and facist as they come)

geez, all i can say is SPELLCHECK.

Successfully updated karma reason!

As Communism collapsed, that faction rose to power and proceeded to house the terrorists responsible for hijacking 4 planes and promtply slamming two of them into the most prominent features of the New York City skyline and a third into the Pentagon. Yeah, that worked really well.

I notice you left out the part about how the US lost any and all interest in actually helping the people of Afghanistan the second the Soviet Union left. The funding was cut, the experts were gone. Its a joke to pretend that the US involvement there had ANYTHING to do with helping develop a Democracy.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Bush never played politics in order to get elected.

uum... he didn't ??? and how do you suppose he became president?

but regardless, the fact that this has become such an issue is really not surprising. Bush is going to be marked for everything he says from now until November. People are going to shape it, form it, mold it into any fashion they can to make it fit their argument. No he didn't mention Senator Obama, but come on we know better... it was used to get the American people to start thinking about issues that the republican party wants and needs to become the forefront in this campaign. Bush did nothing wrong, he took the advantage of a situation without making a direct attack to Obama. Now we all know who he was directing it towards, no need to for us to say otherwise, but he was not wrong in the method and the time. The argument is real and with the economy going the direction it is, National Security is falling from the top of political issues. This is what the Democratic party is working on. Foreign policy has always been the Democrats weak point and has been the the republican party's Strength, second to family values. And this is politics people, this stuff is going to come up, get over it. The fact of the matter these are important issues that need to be discussed and brought back into the debate. We need to know what type of President, Obama will be if he is elected. So let them debate, I for one would like to know what Obama's view is on this subject and I want hard answers. “ I will be tough” is not good enough for me. If Obama is ready to big politics then there should not be an issue about discussing this stuff.

Successfully updated karma reason!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK0d8ENS__c

Successfully updated karma reason!

I don't think this particular presidencey can be considered any other than a disaster for America and indeed the rest of the World.

Speak for yourself, and not the rest of the world.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001407.html

Iraqi Kurds are very happy with this presidency, as are Israelis and Kosovo-Albanians. The people in southern Sudan also like him (and the peace treaty he brokered) and Bush's work in Liberia was also a success.

Other people are very unhappy, but they do not constitute "the rest of the world" (although they usually pretend to speak for the world) and nor is it objectively important to please them.

There have been demonstrations, often by violent people, against George Bush; and there have been demonstrations, mostly underreported because they happened in truly unimportant (to the left) countries in central Asia, for George Bush.

The opinions of Arab nationalists who gassed Kurds count less than the opinions of Kurds, or should. Why cannot the Kurds be "the rest of the world"?

They are for me.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Bush never played politics in order to get elected.

Crap, the man is a politician and he played politics beautifully beating the other politicians in order to get elected.

The politico:

He has NEVER advocated appeasment. In fact if you actually know what appeasment means you cannot be an appeaser simply by speaking to someone.

You are correct Senator Obama has not stated he would use appeasement as a way of carrying out foreign policy but since every other option has been used except two it makes it easy to figure out which one the Senator would use. The two remaining options are war and appeasement since he claims to be anti war that only leaves one. To sit down and have frank discussions with Iran as the senator has said he would do without preconditions would mean little as it has happened already, first with President Carter, remember the 444 days of captivity along with the botched rescue making us look even more weak? Followed by President Reagan with his frank talk, “you better not still have those people when I become president.”

President Bush had frank discussions with Iran after 9/11 and they went quiet until the liberals showed we were a nation divided and then they went back on the path of evil.

so in order to get Iran to do what we want will take appeasement, offering concessions to the enemy in hopes that the enemy won’t do the things they want to do to hurt us.

The last appeaser in chief was President Carter and because of him Afghanistan was invaded by the nation he tried to appease.

SCOTTEH,
Your understanding of the Middle East situation is cartoonish at best. You use all the phrases of the typical under educated over degreed liberal. What I mean is you may have book smarts but the books you rely on have bad data because of the political slant they were written with.

I have been to the Middle East more than once and not to sightsee. It is not poverty that caused this mess it was the manipulation of the people by several different countries. The UN mandated that the land be divided and or shared. Israel kept its part of the bargain, any Arab or non-Jew that lived within the original boarders was free to become an Israeli citizen. Many took them up on the offer and have had no problems with the Israeli government to this day. What was left was a bunch of people that Egypt and Syria told not to become citizens and to hold out in order to be the launching point for the destruction of Israel. These people are called Palestinians. Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan all rather rich at the time poured millions into Palestine, not for infrastructure, to build roads, housing, businesses, they just gave money to buy weapons and instruments of death and terror.
So while Israel struggled and then prospered as best it could the Palestinians did all they could to tear down the nation and purge the land of Jews.

Lebanon gave up and became less hostile, Egypt, signed a peace treaty, Jordan became feckless and poor. Syria was the only real enemy after the Soviet Union fell then Iraq and Iran started the funding again and we are back to square one. Any Palestinian that wants to become an Israeli citizen is free to do so as almost a quarter of the nation is made up of Arab Israelis. You won’t see most of this in your college text books or in the news as it would not advance the lie that if we could just eliminate poverty all will be well.

Bin Laden was a millionaire, and all of the leadership are college educated with good jobs. So it is not poverty.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Bin Laden was a millionaire, and all of the leadership are college educated with good jobs. So it is not poverty.

Good points.

I think it is also worth mentioning that the living standards in the territories are higher than in Egypt and Jordan. That's why the Gazans bought the Sinai empty when the border was open. It was quite a shock for the Egyptians, who know as much about Gaza as Scotteh.

And it should be noted, I think, that truly desperate people, like the hungry in Africa (as opposed to Web-surfing Palestinian Arabs who get billions in aid from the UN and foreign countries) do NOT conspire to exterminate another people and never blow themselves up to kill children.

Successfully updated karma reason!