Obomba is the man for them!

Rah, rah, rah.

Boom, boom, Bah.

Go Obomba, go Obomba.

Do the appeasement crawl!

Guess what Senator in 2006 said we should talk to Hamas?

Nope....not Obama...try the old white guy.

McCain is their candidate.....

Look up the word appeasement. It is not the same as discuss.

Diplomacy requires that you talk to people, even your enemies.

The alternative is war. There is no middle course of action. If it cost us 4,000 soldiers to subdue Iraq (and we aren't done yet) then how many will die in Iran?

Your opinion isn't worth a warm bucket of piss.

Go home to your mommy I-man. She'll protect you from those big bad booger-bears.

Yes but there is only one purpose for all that talking and that arrives at some sort of deal. When that deal involves US giving up something in order to prevent the violence threatened by the other side, it is appeasement. What good does just talking do if there aren’t demands and concessions? Why would Iran or Hamas want to talk about the weather? Talking is not just talking. Talking and war aren't mutually exclusive either, many times the talking is but a prelude to the eventual war.

So, let me ask this, when Kennedy talked to Kruschev and got him to take the missiles out of Cuba without firing a single shot, was that appeasement or just intelligent diplomacy?

I know, I know, INTELLIGENT diplomacy is more then we've come to expect from the neocons.

They removed the missles from Cuba because we were prepared to wipe them off the face of the earth. JFK also made it very clear that we were preparing to do just that.

If only the Democrats of today had that kind of a spine I may actually still be one.

Only a nutjob like you would assume that there would have been a victory in a nuclear war with the Soviets. We made a deal with them. We removed missles from Turkey in exchage.

Sickofleft:

They removed the missles from Cuba because we were prepared to wipe them off the face of the earth. JFK also made it very clear that we were preparing to do just that.

So, in other words, it was successful diplomacy.

Thank you.

based on your definition of diplomacy, that it is always appeasement, then I would like to know when you will be enlisting in the war against Iran. That is the alternative. If General Shinseki forcast the need for 300,000 troops to subdue Iraq and it appears that he was right. How many troops will we need for a war with Iran? Remember that they have a population that is 3 times the size of Iraq's.

We are going to have to reinstate the draft and raise taxes by quite a bit, unless you have another way to do the job.

Greatbear452:

Sickofleft:

They removed the missles from Cuba because we were prepared to wipe them off the face of the earth. JFK also made it very clear that we were preparing to do just that.

So, in other words, it was successful diplomacy.

Thank you.

Backed up by the threat of military force, you think Kruschev would have paid any attention to us were it not for the Naval embargo? Keep that in mind the next time your having a hissy fit about someone stating "all options are on the table" when it comes to Iran.

middleview:

based on your definition of diplomacy, that it is always appeasement, then I would like to know when you will be enlisting in the war against Iran. That is the alternative. If General Shinseki forcast the need for 300,000 troops to subdue Iraq and it appears that he was right. How many troops will we need for a war with Iran? Remember that they have a population that is 3 times the size of Iraq's.

We are going to have to reinstate the draft and raise taxes by quite a bit, unless you have another way to do the job.

So your contention is to chat with them, but if they want to build nukes let them? Has it ever it occured to you even for a second that although NO ONE wants a war with Iran however war may very well be upon us soon? MAD will not work with Iran because they are ruled by religous zealots who feel if they wipe Isreal off the map it will bring about the return of one of there prophets? They will use them when they have them.

What if we lose a city? What if they fire a Nuke off the back of a cargo ship (they are practicing firing missles off the backs of cargo ships by the way) and they take out NY. Tell me how is Obama or any president going to answer this question;

"If you understood that this was a possiblity, if you new that they were developing these weapons and you can now tell us where that bomb came from why did you let them have it? Why were the Mullah's in Iran allowed to now hold us hostage?"

Not to channel my inner Newt (who I never cared for until he left office) but what if we do lose a city? Is it going to be all that comforting to the potential thousands killed that we can tell them where the bomb came from after the fact?

You disagree which is fine you will vote for your guy and I will vote for mine. For what its worth I hope your guy is right, I don't feel he is but I really do hope he is.

middleview:

Only a nutjob like you would assume that there would have been a victory in a nuclear war with the Soviets. We made a deal with them. We removed missles from Turkey in exchage.

First of all when did I claim you can win a nuclear war on any level Moonbat?

Second they did in fact make it clear that we were ready to respond with nukes:

On the night of October 23, the Joint Chiefs of Staff instructed Strategic Air Command to go to DEFCON 2, for the only time in history. The message, and the response, were deliberately transmitted uncoded,[clarify] in order to allow Soviet intelligence to capture them.[

"So your contention is to chat with them, but if they want to build nukes let them? "

Where did I post this?

You have stated several times your not willing to go to war to prevent them from having nukes correct?