Appeasement is a good description of what liberals try to accomplish when dealing with the sworn enemies of the US. However, using the word "appeasement" gives the connotation of weakness or cowardice. They like to use the word "accommodation" or phrases as "establishing dialogue" or "unilateral agreements." Some even honestly think they can talk our enemies who would chop are heads off the first chance they can get into becoming peaceful law abiding world citizens. If only they could meet with Osama face to face terrorism would suddenly be a thing of the past.
They gain "acceptance" with our enemies by blaming the US on all the worlds problems. I wonder why Obama is getting such great support from the Hamas terrorist organization?
Peace is through strength not appeasement. Evil cannot be appeased it must be defeated.
Wars r brutal, we need to understand that. Most ppl take war as some kindergarten game.. where there will b no casualties. The way we r fighting we will never win.. we need to fight the way we fought in WWII. No play, all action.
Bret, You are an idiot....NEGOTIATION is not appeasement! You and your brain trust don't know the meaning of either. The USA will NOT win the world through war.....we only have 5% of the population you idiot, and we have massive debt to countries like China, who could destroy our economy now with on swoop of their hands!
I don't know who you are talking about appeasing, but 9/11 was carried out by our own CIA, and its operatives....why else would Bushco ignore ALL warnings of the attack, and even warn certain government government employees to steer clear of New York on 9/11?
The only terrorists Americans need to be concerned about exist within our own government....the Islamic terrorists are for the most part...a fabrication...sure, there are a few cells here, and there, but not like our government has brainwashed us to believe....our government has created the fear....and used it to seize our rights....the "Patriot Act" is the single most unPatriotic thing that has ever happened to all of us!!!!
Do your homework...America has killed way more innocent folks since WWII than any other country...We have become the terrorists!!!! With millions of lives lost at our hands....GOD is NOT on our side when it comes to murder...Face the facts...our government murders at will.....I wish I could leave this godforsaken country of corporate controlled murderers, but there is not way I can sell my house because they have destroyed the value of our dollar with their satanic acts.....how anyone could possibly support our government now amazes me....democrats, and republicans are zombies who work for big business, and banks only!!!
We are not in a recession! We are in a depression....because their will be no bounce back.....Without manufacturing power here...there simply is no way to exit a recession....the only path is towards a depression....My advice to all, it to liquidate ALL assets you can, and buy GOLD.....and exit any debt you can right now.....
I wonder why neocons have no clue what the word actually means? Oh yeah...because they listen to and worship at the alter of the likes of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, and Faux "news."
Neocon wingnut nutbags such as clueless Bertie here will forever be the most ignorant persons on the planet, because they willfully choose to be so.
The term appeasement is being used to apply to anyone who suggests diplomacy or any other means instead of war. It won't stick because it is the wrong term.
AlQaeda has released videos claiming credit for 9/11. They had video wills of Hijackers... what more proof do u want. I don't doubt that CIA carries out evil plans in other parts of the world but they don't harm our own citizens.
Why aren't we doing everything we can to disturb Al Qaeda. Certainly, Iraq is a diversion from any effort to do something about these terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/2001.
I didn't agree with war to begin with but now we have stay there & fight hard as AQ is there now. If we leave they will make it a bases to launch attacks on other Middle Eastern countries.
How can you say it makes liberals go nuts? A week ago you did not know what the word meant. Clearly you are still confusing negotiation with appeasement. It happens with you are not familiar with using a word.
I say we make this thread ours. There are too many people who think it is funny to mince words. When it comes to Al Qaeda the words have to be clear and easy to understand.
"The term appeasement is being used to apply to anyone who suggests diplomacy or any other means instead of war. It won't stick because it is the wrong term."
The term appeasement is used to apply to LIBERALS who suggest diplomacy because liberal "diplomacy and negotiations" only offer concessions to our enemies in an attempt to gain peace.
"Detente" is another word liberals have preferred over appeasement in describing their attempts at negotiating with foreign leaders who hate the US. However detente does not work when dealing with evil. It didn't work for Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, nor Jimmy Carter during the cold war. The cold war was not won by appeasement, but by an arms race that bankrupted the Soviets. Evil leaders only make promises. They don't keep them. Evil can only be defeated through strength.
Umm...the word "appeasement" doesn't cause an emotional response in me. I'm a bit left of liberal so maybe I'm immune.
BTW, I've had a yellowcake and anthrax booth for quite a few years at a secret illegal swap meet patronized by illegal aliens. You can get some great deals on Costco sized packages of snack foods there too.
Nippy, could the difference be that Hitler had a powerful and technologically advanced military and had at that point occupied most of Europe, while Al Qaeda is a small and now scattered and disorganized group of fanatics who are best treated as dangerous criminals rather than a belligerent nation?
I try not to pay much attention to ideology when it comes to politics. Using ideology is a lot like using drugs except that it's not nearly as much fun. I have biases but I try not to pay too much attention to them except when giving in to temptation looks like the more rewarding option. :)
Appeasement is a loaded word that sucks all the air out an argument. It's typical right-wing talk radio rhetoric. Call someone's views socialistic or communistic and you put them on their heels. Call them an appeaser and what's inferred -- they must be unpatriotic and soft on defense? They probably don't wear a flag pin.
Nixon and Kissinger attempted detente and it didn't work. Soviet oppression expanded under their leadership.
Reagan despised detente.
"Détente—isn't that what a farmer has with his turkey—until thanksgiving day?" -Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan would not even meet with any Soviet leaders until Gorbachev came along. He jokingly claimed they kept dying on him before he had a chance to meet them. In reality he understood they could not be trusted so diplomacy and negotiations were pointless.
President Ronald Reagan was criticized by most every one and even called an amiable dunce. My high school teachers hated him and let all of us students know it. I came to believe that he was just a war monger who wanted power and didn't care about any domestic issues. I was devastated because he failed to cut a deal with Gorbachev to end the arms race. Reagan had the chance to win the Nobel Peace prize and be a world hero yet he refused because he knew that the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapsing. Reagan had the courage to take a stand against evil and because of it we no longer are under the threat of Soviet annihilation and many have been freed from the bondage of communism.
Today Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi and Jimmy Carter attempt to gain peace with our Islamic enemies through detente. Neither one have any authority to negotiate with foreign governments so I can only assume their "diplomacy" is only an attempt at appeasement. They go as far as bashing and criticizing the US while on the soil of our enemies. I consider these foreign excursions which are not authorized by the State department as treason because it gives aid and comfort to our enemies.
Do we realize what is at stake here if we lose against Islamic terrorism? Let's be clear here. These people want to destroy us. They will take every chance they get to kill Americans. They are not going to give up until we defeat them. We can't appease them like Israel has tried to do by giving away land. They are EVIL. Appeasement is a sign of weakness to them. They are willing to kiss the hand of their enemies until they are strong enough to cut it off. They will not stop terrorizing us if we pull out of the mid-east. We can not wish away this problem. We have to defeat evil.
But, Lee - eventually Reagan worked with not against the Soviet Union didn't he. Nixon tried many things that did not work. It was evidence of his inability rather than the failure of detente. Nixon gets credit for our relations with China, to be sure. But, one cannot praise Nixon for his foreign relations, otherwise.
Appeasement is a term that bothers people...it's been an insult for decades. One sees how the debate on Iraq has shifted because of the very likely election of a Dem for 2009 as president. Given the Repubs failures, they are likely to lose seats in both Houses also. That said, the Dems will be in total charge---and that means all blame/credit becomes theirs.
I don't hold much with polls but despite the vitriol of someone like Tony, most Americans of all political stripes seem to want Iraq to mean something after all the blood/treasure lost there. The Dem demands for a quick retreat are dying out as few want the Dem president (whoever it may be) to get the blame for an Iraqi collapse/bloodbath. By quieting down on that demand, they will leave their party manuever room on the issue. I don't think the Dems want their perceived foreign policy/defense weakness to get reinforced and that will halt any dramatic change in Iraq.
"But, Lee - eventually Reagan worked with not against the Soviet Union didn't he."
Reagan worked with the Soviets only after the Soviet economy imploded, the Berlin wall was torn down, Soviet dissidents were released from prison, freedom of religion restored, and private industries were allowed. If Reagan would have bowed to the pressure from the liberal establishment to appease the Russians by cutting an arms deal none of this would have happened. The Soviets made a wonderful offer to limit their arms even to the point of destroying missiles the US knew they didn't even have and could not possibly afford to build. The Soviets wanted Reagan to give up on SDI. He refused and that was the deal breaker! No appeasement was offered and this is what lead to the fall of the "Evil Empire."
Why a person gets excited about Olmert trying to appease Syria with the help of Americans is beyond me.
Olmert still hasn't figured out that land for peace does not work or he is just so corrupt and only cares about increasing his own wealth by accepting bribes.
I think many of the Israelis are beginning to understand appeasement does not work. This is why Benjamin Netanyahu who is opposed to land concessions is leading in the polls.
I don't recall any coups or any type of revolution that took over the USSR. It dissolved because of economic problems brought on by communist imperialism, the arms race, and Reagan's foreign policy. Reagan would not give the Soviets loans or sell them grain. He supported resistance movements in communist controlled countries such as Afghanistan. which cost the Soviets billions. The Gipper did everything he could to undermine the power of the USSR. I'd say history can give more credit for the fall of USSR to Ronald Reagan than any other person.
ha ha - no I can't stop laughing here because what drives me and other liberals nuts is the right-wingers willful abuse of words. It should be no surprise Bush is guilty of using words incorrectly and in incorrect contexts, but for so many dictionary deprived right wingers to jump on it was just stunning.
Reagan continued the foreign policy designed by (Democrat, if it matters) George Kennan back at the dawn of the cold war. I think one could say that we fought an economic war of attrition with the USSR from the late 40s till the collapse in the 80s. Different administrations played variations on the theme of containment but it was still the theme.
Reagan's major achievement was that the USSR happened to collapse during his presidency. If Carter had had a second term it might have happened while he was president.
Politicians are always happy to take credit for coincidence when it happens on their watch. It's one of those things that truly crosses party lines.
Reagan didn't contain communism. He fought it. Carter would have gave the United States to the Russians as an act of appeasement just like he gave away US rights to the Panama Canal.
You are blaming UN sanctions for the deaths of Iraqis? That makes about as much sense as blaming gun manufactures for murder!
Why are you saying the Iraqi war is my war? I had nothing to do with Saddam's refusal to abide by the UN resolutions he originaly agreed to. I was'nt a congressman who voted to fund the war.
Go ahead bash President Bush all you want. Doesn't bother me in the least.
But I don't understand why you think I am evil. Is it because I think the US should fight against evil instead of trying to appease it?
n. [1] A relaxing or easing, as of tension between rivals. [2] A policy toward a rival nation or bloc characterized by increased diplomatic, commercial, and cultural contact and a desire to reduce tensions, as through negotiation or talks.
(*shudder*) Ooooh . . . that sounds HORRIBLE! Good people like those pom pom shakers in the filthy, corrupt Booshie world HATE reducing tension. Let's INCREASE it! Yeah! That's the ticket!
Nobody I know hates the word appeasement. It's the idiotic a-hole who uses it without a clue as to it's meaning that's the problem. While Prescott BUSH was doing his damndest to support Hitler and the Nazis (taking a break to try to overthrow the US government) and the rest of the spinless, yellow backed cowards were all supporting Chamberlain . . . led by (as Nipster correctly pointed out) Taft and 'Lucky' Lindbergh, Liberals opposed Chamberlain's appeasement policy.
Keep spinning those wheels of anti-rational GOP spin though. Sucks to be you people come election day when your party finally gets the bitch-slapping it deserves!
Gee Lee what do you think Ronnie was doing with Ollie North? Don't you think providing high tech weapons to Iran, a nation Reagan promised NEVER to deal with, as "appeasement" of terrorists? Your "understanding" of history is thru the kalidescopic lens of RW ideology, not verifiable fact.
Reagan and the CIA had no clue the economic and military state of the Soviet Union. The arms build up begun before Reagan and further under his Admin created a economic strain that was the final straw on a crippled system and economy. Ronnie just happened to be in office at the time. Reagan contributed to Saddam AND Khomeni. He gave money, training and arms to Afghans that are now killing Americans. The "Gipper" had no more respect for law and due process than the Cracker in Chief.
Charles what America want's Iraq to "mean" after all the blood and treasure is a true accounting of how we got there, why we got there and how we were led into an unwinnable debacle. The raging anger at the Repubs and the Cracker and upcoming rout of the conservative movement is proof positive of that. There is an accounting due the perpetrators of this pack of lies and thievery.
The status quo in Iraq is unworkable, a failure and there WILL be fundemental change.
Doyle -Reducing tension apparently is the ultimate goal of liberals. Appeasement of this sort either yields no peace or just temporary peace. I prefer negotiations that promote liberty of all people on both sides. Most often these negotiations cause much tension.
Sam - You TRUMPED me! Bringing up Iran-Contra ends all arguments on the subject of appeasement. NOT!
IC was used to appease Iran so Iran would appease Hezbollah to release US hostages. Amazing isn't it. The Reagan administrations negotiations WORKED (unlike Carter's fiasco)! Although it did work, it was illegal. And although the deal was done indirectly through Iran it showed the US is willing to appease terrorists. Were the American lives saved worth all this? That's a tough question to answer. This peace we gained through appeasement was short lived. At the time of IC Iran was not the sworn enemy of the US. Now they are. Hezbollah has just taken complete control over Lebanon in recent weeks. The long term affects of this type of appeasement can be disastrous.
Iran-Contra is a perfect example of how appeasement through concessions does not work. Thanks for bringing it up!
"The Reagan administrations negotiations WORKED"....."Iran-Contra is a perfect example of how appeasement through concessions does not work." You don't need me to "trump" you. You're doing fine on your own.
Carter's main international agenda was the pursuit of human rights. The seeds of the natural rights of all men planted by his admin did more to provoke the downfall of Soviet empire than all guns, bullets, pandering rhetoric and deficit run up by Reagan. The people in the food lines of Moscow, Warsaw and Kiev did not give a damn for "Star Wars" and the other military pipe dreams. They overthrew the government because the system did not work.
"I don't recall any coups or any type of revolution that took over the USSR. " So what happened in Hungary? Poland? Ukraine? Georgia? The Baltics?
"But it appears I understand more about history ...." Apparently not.
Reagan's negotiations to release the hostages did work, Sam. But in the long run appeasement through concessions does not work because it empowers terrorists groups like Hezbollah and now the regime that controls Iran. Or did you think the Iran-Contra affair had all positive results?
Most people in Moscow, Warsaw, and Kiev probably didn't even hear about SDI! They didn't have freedom of the press. But the Soviet leaders knew exactly what SDI would do. And they offered to destroy arms including missiles they didn't even have if Reagan would kill his SDI.
Hungary? What's Hungary have to do with USSR other than the fact it was once a communist country?
Poland? I don't think any of the Polish people would like you to think of them as Soviets. Poland was occupied by USSR not a part of it!
Ukraine became independent not by revolution but by the dissolution of the USSR in 1991.
Georgia was invaded by the Red Army in 1922 and eventually considered part of the USSR which again gained independence when the USSR dissolved in 1991.
Most Westerners including myself have considered the Baltic States as having been occupied by the USSR not part of the USSR!
USSR did not dissolve because of Carter's "give up all US arms including the kitchen sink" foreign policy, but because of Reagan's "surrender your insane communist oppression before the US implements the Strategic Defense Initiative" foreign policy.
Carter's PD is all about concessions. What US arms he was willing to give up. Note there is little in it about what he expected the Soviets to concede. Reagan's PD #75 was a comprehensive plan on how his foreign policy would undermine Soviet aggression and oppression. Carter was all about appeasing through concessions while Reagan was about defeating the Soviets by showing them they could not afford to continue their communist insanity. This is a BIG difference. To say that Reagan just happened to be in office when the USSR collapsed is ridiculous. And Slick Willie just happened to be in the Oval Office with is pants down when Monica walked in. Could've happened to any President!
Lee you argue on one hand it was Reagan's tough-no appeasement stance that brought down the USSR and on the other hand it was his illegal appeasement with known exporters of terrorism that yeilded "success" in releasing the embassy hostages and yet you can percieve no contradiction. The flaw cannot be made more clear. How can you percieve from any comment I've posted that I find Iran-Contra had "positve results?" That's a pretty lightweight sham.
During the cold war the CIA and Fed government was shot thru with Soviet moles. They knew exactly the threat of SDI, which was no threat at all. We knew nothing but the disinformation given to us. The peoples under the Soviet heel were in dire straights long before Ronnie came along. It is true, but completely irrelevent to this discussion, that Poland, the Baltic states and Hungary were not part of the Soviet Union. Are you claiming they had freedom to act or have government of their own choice without approval from Moscow? Let us just include the Warsaw Pact in the discussion because they were defacto in political and economic thrall of the Russians. So now, given that schoolboy enlightenment, do you recall Hungary 1956? How about the dock workers in 1956 and 1980 in Poland? Georgia had nationalist anti Soviet riots in 1956, 1978, 1988 and on. Ukraine had been decimated by Stalin but retained its religious roots in defiance until the USSR fell. Riots and demostrations occured throughout the Baltics from the 1970's on. 1986 there were mass anti-soviet demonstrations in Kazakhstan. The USSR was crumbling from a Russian imperilist cancer. It's long been the vanity of the RWN's to claim Ronnie's John Wayne silver bullets did in the "evil empire" but it is factually crap.
It was Carter that provided the first funds and training to the Afghans against the Soviet invasion. He shares the ultimate outcome of that mistake. But it was not Reagan's initiative. Carter inherited the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, another muck up and intel failure as well as a public burnt out over another corrupt Repub, Nixon. He had to deal with the oil embargo crisis and re-tooling of US auto industry as well as our national consumption of oil. Under his conservation practices it took the US 20 years to consume the same volumne of oil than pre 1973, thereby beating OPEC at it's own game. Wasn't until the Cracker's deregs that the oil market went insane.
You RWN's are all the same: Same old discredited talking points spewed out by your thought masters and when things get desperate, talk about Monica. Pathetic.
"Lee you argue on one hand it was Reagan's tough-no appeasement stance that brought down the USSR and on the other hand it was his illegal appeasement with known exporters of terrorism that yeilded "success" in releasing the embassy hostages and yet you can percieve no contradiction."
There is no contradiction because they are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT events! I have no intention to some how defend the wrong doing of Reagan and his administration concerning Iran-Contra. It was appeasement that had short-lived "success." The most successful thing that came out of it was the release of the hostages by INDIRECT appeasement with Hezbollah. Despite the fact that it was much more effective than Carter's bury my head in the sand and hope the problem will go away tactics Reagan's successful hostage release plan was illegal. But none of this has anything to do with the dissolution of USSR.
"During the cold war the CIA and Fed government was shot thru with Soviet moles. They knew exactly the threat of SDI, which was no threat at all."
If this is true why did the Soviets insist that Reagan kill SDI at the REYKJAVIK Summit?
"Mr. Gorbachev, at a news conference, attributed the failure to American intransigence on the plan for a space-based missile defense, known officially as the Strategic Defense Initiative, and popularly as ''Star Wars.''.....
...He [Secretary of State George P. Shultz] said the United States would not pay the price for having Mr. Gorbachev go to the United States if it meant accepting constraints on the missile defense program.
He said that the tentative package of ''extremely important potential agreements,'' extending into areas other than arms control, failed when Mr. Gorbachev insisted that the 1972 treaty limiting defensive missiles, known as the antiballistic missile treaty, be changed to prevent research, testing and development of the proposed defenses beyond the laboratory. ''As we came more and more down to the final stages,'' Mr. Shultz said, ''it became more and more clear that the Soviet Union's objective was effectively to kill off the Strategic Defense Initiative program, and to do so by seeking a change - described by them as strengthening, but a change in the ABM treaty - that would so constrain research permitted under it that the program would not be able to proceed at all forcefully....''
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/13/international/europe/13REAG.html Do you consider the NY Times a mouth piece for RWNs' propaganda and talking points?
"It is true, but completely irrelevent to this discussion, that Poland, the Baltic states and Hungary were not part of the Soviet Union." You are correct. I don't understand why you mentioned them in the first place.
This is what I said about Joe's idea that "what happened in the Soviet Union was the direct result of the people's revolt.": "I don't recall any coups or any type of revolution that took over the USSR." NONE of the countries or states under Soviet oppression that rebelled against it "TOOK OVER the USSR." Did this opposition from these people undermine Soviet power and expansion. Absolutely. I have not been arguing against it. But this was not the defining event that brought the house down according to the Soviets and non-liberal historians.
"Reagan's SDI was a very successful blackmail. … The Soviet Union tried to keep up pace with the U.S. military buildup, but the Soviet economy couldn't endure such competition."
I'm just wondering what negotiating one does with Iran's lunatic president, who has publicly stated his desire to wipe Israel off the map and refers to Israel as a "a stinking corpse"? Would Obama negotiate a timetable for the extermination? Or perhaps get Achmedinjead to agrre to exterminating only 75% of the jews in the middle east? Negotiation is compromise. How does one reach a compromise on genocide? Please someone tell me I am dying to know
Chris, not only is that true, but that F***tard has no real power, the power is held by the Mullahs, who are the religious fanatics responsible for Muslim hate in the wider region.
Joe, "Detente worked for Ronald Reagan?" Really, because I thought it was Charlie Wilson's War that did most of the work. For Regan and Wilson, Detente was the same as Teddy Roosevelt's. Speak softly and carry a big stick.
Damn, a Democratic hero, and the Democrats ignore his contribution if it doesn’t suite their current socialist argument. Denial of to history is another symptom of Fascism.
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
Please select the part of the post you are reporting.
Please select why you are reporting this content.
Please enter a description.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 49
You are so bad.
They gain "acceptance" with our enemies by blaming the US on all the worlds problems. I wonder why Obama is getting such great support from the Hamas terrorist organization?
Peace is through strength not appeasement. Evil cannot be appeased it must be defeated.
I don't know who you are talking about appeasing, but 9/11 was carried out by our own CIA, and its operatives....why else would Bushco ignore ALL warnings of the attack, and even warn certain government government employees to steer clear of New York on 9/11?
The only terrorists Americans need to be concerned about exist within our own government....the Islamic terrorists are for the most part...a fabrication...sure, there are a few cells here, and there, but not like our government has brainwashed us to believe....our government has created the fear....and used it to seize our rights....the "Patriot Act" is the single most unPatriotic thing that has ever happened to all of us!!!!
Do your homework...America has killed way more innocent folks since WWII than any other country...We have become the terrorists!!!! With millions of lives lost at our hands....GOD is NOT on our side when it comes to murder...Face the facts...our government murders at will.....I wish I could leave this godforsaken country of corporate controlled murderers, but there is not way I can sell my house because they have destroyed the value of our dollar with their satanic acts.....how anyone could possibly support our government now amazes me....democrats, and republicans are zombies who work for big business, and banks only!!!
We are not in a recession! We are in a depression....because their will be no bounce back.....Without manufacturing power here...there simply is no way to exit a recession....the only path is towards a depression....My advice to all, it to liquidate ALL assets you can, and buy GOLD.....and exit any debt you can right now.....
Neocon wingnut nutbags such as clueless Bertie here will forever be the most ignorant persons on the planet, because they willfully choose to be so.
Like this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK0d8ENS__c
AlQaeda has released videos claiming credit for 9/11. They had video wills of Hijackers... what more proof do u want. I don't doubt that CIA carries out evil plans in other parts of the world but they don't harm our own citizens.
Why aren't we doing everything we can to disturb Al Qaeda. Certainly, Iraq is a diversion from any effort to do something about these terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/2001.
I didn't agree with war to begin with but now we have stay there & fight hard as AQ is there now. If we leave they will make it a bases to launch attacks on other Middle Eastern countries.
Try READING sometime and turn off the boobtube.
The term appeasement is used to apply to LIBERALS who suggest diplomacy because liberal "diplomacy and negotiations" only offer concessions to our enemies in an attempt to gain peace.
"Detente" is another word liberals have preferred over appeasement in describing their attempts at negotiating with foreign leaders who hate the US. However detente does not work when dealing with evil. It didn't work for Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, nor Jimmy Carter during the cold war. The cold war was not won by appeasement, but by an arms race that bankrupted the Soviets. Evil leaders only make promises. They don't keep them. Evil can only be defeated through strength.
BTW, I've had a yellowcake and anthrax booth for quite a few years at a secret illegal swap meet patronized by illegal aliens. You can get some great deals on Costco sized packages of snack foods there too.
Apply logic to a debate like this at your own risk.
Nixon and Kissinger attempted detente and it didn't work. Soviet oppression expanded under their leadership.
Reagan despised detente.
"Détente—isn't that what a farmer has with his turkey—until thanksgiving day?"
-Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan would not even meet with any Soviet leaders until Gorbachev came along. He jokingly claimed they kept dying on him before he had a chance to meet them. In reality he understood they could not be trusted so diplomacy and negotiations were pointless.
President Ronald Reagan was criticized by most every one and even called an amiable dunce. My high school teachers hated him and let all of us students know it. I came to believe that he was just a war monger who wanted power and didn't care about any domestic issues. I was devastated because he failed to cut a deal with Gorbachev to end the arms race. Reagan had the chance to win the Nobel Peace prize and be a world hero yet he refused because he knew that the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapsing. Reagan had the courage to take a stand against evil and because of it we no longer are under the threat of Soviet annihilation and many have been freed from the bondage of communism.
Today Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi and Jimmy Carter attempt to gain peace with our Islamic enemies through detente. Neither one have any authority to negotiate with foreign governments so I can only assume their "diplomacy" is only an attempt at appeasement. They go as far as bashing and criticizing the US while on the soil of our enemies. I consider these foreign excursions which are not authorized by the State department as treason because it gives aid and comfort to our enemies.
Do we realize what is at stake here if we lose against Islamic terrorism? Let's be clear here. These people want to destroy us. They will take every chance they get to kill Americans. They are not going to give up until we defeat them. We can't appease them like Israel has tried to do by giving away land. They are EVIL. Appeasement is a sign of weakness to them. They are willing to kiss the hand of their enemies until they are strong enough to cut it off. They will not stop terrorizing us if we pull out of the mid-east. We can not wish away this problem. We have to defeat evil.
I don't hold much with polls but despite the vitriol of someone like Tony, most Americans of all political stripes seem to want Iraq to mean something after all the blood/treasure lost there. The Dem demands for a quick retreat are dying out as few want the Dem president (whoever it may be) to get the blame for an Iraqi collapse/bloodbath. By quieting down on that demand, they will leave their party manuever room on the issue. I don't think the Dems want their perceived foreign policy/defense weakness to get reinforced and that will halt any dramatic change in Iraq.
Reagan worked with the Soviets only after the Soviet economy imploded, the Berlin wall was torn down, Soviet dissidents were released from prison, freedom of religion restored, and private industries were allowed. If Reagan would have bowed to the pressure from the liberal establishment to appease the Russians by cutting an arms deal none of this would have happened. The Soviets made a wonderful offer to limit their arms even to the point of destroying missiles the US knew they didn't even have and could not possibly afford to build. The Soviets wanted Reagan to give up on SDI. He refused and that was the deal breaker! No appeasement was offered and this is what lead to the fall of the "Evil Empire."
Why a person gets excited about Olmert trying to appease Syria with the help of Americans is beyond me.
Olmert still hasn't figured out that land for peace does not work or he is just so corrupt and only cares about increasing his own wealth by accepting bribes.
I think many of the Israelis are beginning to understand appeasement does not work. This is why Benjamin Netanyahu who is opposed to land concessions is leading in the polls.
I don't recall any coups or any type of revolution that took over the USSR. It dissolved because of economic problems brought on by communist imperialism, the arms race, and Reagan's foreign policy. Reagan would not give the Soviets loans or sell them grain. He supported resistance movements in communist controlled countries such as Afghanistan. which cost the Soviets billions. The Gipper did everything he could to undermine the power of the USSR. I'd say history can give more credit for the fall of USSR to Ronald Reagan than any other person.
Reagan's major achievement was that the USSR happened to collapse during his presidency. If Carter had had a second term it might have happened while he was president.
Politicians are always happy to take credit for coincidence when it happens on their watch. It's one of those things that truly crosses party lines.
Tony are you saying Saddam was innocent?
That makes about as much sense as blaming gun manufactures for murder!
Why are you saying the Iraqi war is my war? I had nothing to do with Saddam's refusal to abide by the UN resolutions he originaly agreed to. I was'nt a congressman who voted to fund the war.
Go ahead bash President Bush all you want. Doesn't bother me in the least.
But I don't understand why you think I am evil. Is it because I think the US should fight against evil instead of trying to appease it?
LOL! I may not understand much, Tony. LOL!
But it appears I understand more about history and the Islamic terrorist's than most who have posted on this thread!
Bret has proved his point. The word "appeasement" does make the liberals go nuts!
n.
[1] A relaxing or easing, as of tension between rivals.
[2] A policy toward a rival nation or bloc characterized by increased diplomatic, commercial, and cultural contact and a desire to reduce tensions, as through negotiation or talks.
(*shudder*) Ooooh . . . that sounds HORRIBLE! Good people like those pom pom shakers in the filthy, corrupt Booshie world HATE reducing tension. Let's INCREASE it! Yeah! That's the ticket!
Nobody I know hates the word appeasement. It's the idiotic a-hole who uses it without a clue as to it's meaning that's the problem. While Prescott BUSH was doing his damndest to support Hitler and the Nazis (taking a break to try to overthrow the US government) and the rest of the spinless, yellow backed cowards were all supporting Chamberlain . . . led by (as Nipster correctly pointed out) Taft and 'Lucky' Lindbergh, Liberals opposed Chamberlain's appeasement policy.
Keep spinning those wheels of anti-rational GOP spin though. Sucks to be you people come election day when your party finally gets the bitch-slapping it deserves!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Reagan and the CIA had no clue the economic and military state of the Soviet Union. The arms build up begun before Reagan and further under his Admin created a economic strain that was the final straw on a crippled system and economy. Ronnie just happened to be in office at the time. Reagan contributed to Saddam AND Khomeni. He gave money, training and arms to Afghans that are now killing Americans. The "Gipper" had no more respect for law and due process than the Cracker in Chief.
The status quo in Iraq is unworkable, a failure and there WILL be fundemental change.
Sam - You TRUMPED me! Bringing up Iran-Contra ends all arguments on the subject of appeasement. NOT!
IC was used to appease Iran so Iran would appease Hezbollah to release US hostages. Amazing isn't it. The Reagan administrations negotiations WORKED (unlike Carter's fiasco)! Although it did work, it was illegal. And although the deal was done indirectly through Iran it showed the US is willing to appease terrorists. Were the American lives saved worth all this? That's a tough question to answer. This peace we gained through appeasement was short lived. At the time of IC Iran was not the sworn enemy of the US. Now they are. Hezbollah has just taken complete control over Lebanon in recent weeks. The long term affects of this type of appeasement can be disastrous.
Iran-Contra is a perfect example of how appeasement through concessions does not work. Thanks for bringing it up!
Carter's main international agenda was the pursuit of human rights. The seeds of the natural rights of all men planted by his admin did more to provoke the downfall of Soviet empire than all guns, bullets, pandering rhetoric and deficit run up by Reagan. The people in the food lines of Moscow, Warsaw and Kiev did not give a damn for "Star Wars" and the other military pipe dreams. They overthrew the government because the system did not work.
"I don't recall any coups or any type of revolution that took over the USSR. " So what happened in Hungary? Poland? Ukraine? Georgia? The Baltics?
"But it appears I understand more about history ...." Apparently not.
But in the long run appeasement through concessions does not work because it empowers terrorists groups like Hezbollah and now the regime that controls Iran. Or did you think the Iran-Contra affair had all positive results?
Most people in Moscow, Warsaw, and Kiev probably didn't even hear about SDI! They didn't have freedom of the press. But the Soviet leaders knew exactly what SDI would do. And they offered to destroy arms including missiles they didn't even have if Reagan would kill his SDI.
Hungary? What's Hungary have to do with USSR other than the fact it was once a communist country?
Poland? I don't think any of the Polish people would like you to think of them as Soviets. Poland was occupied by USSR not a part of it!
Ukraine became independent not by revolution but by the dissolution of the USSR in 1991.
Georgia was invaded by the Red Army in 1922 and eventually considered part of the USSR which again gained independence when the USSR dissolved in 1991.
Most Westerners including myself have considered the Baltic States as having been occupied by the USSR not part of the USSR!
USSR did not dissolve because of Carter's "give up all US arms including the kitchen sink" foreign policy, but because of Reagan's "surrender your insane communist oppression before the US implements the Strategic Defense Initiative" foreign policy.
Compare Carter's Presidential Directive #40 (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pd/pd40.pdf)
with Reagan's Presidential Directive #75 (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/nsdd-075.htm).
Carter's PD is all about concessions. What US arms he was willing to give up. Note there is little in it about what he expected the Soviets to concede. Reagan's PD #75 was a comprehensive plan on how his foreign policy would undermine Soviet aggression and oppression. Carter was all about appeasing through concessions while Reagan was about defeating the Soviets by showing them they could not afford to continue their communist insanity. This is a BIG difference. To say that Reagan just happened to be in office when the USSR collapsed is ridiculous. And Slick Willie just happened to be in the Oval Office with is pants down when Monica walked in. Could've happened to any President!
During the cold war the CIA and Fed government was shot thru with Soviet moles. They knew exactly the threat of SDI, which was no threat at all. We knew nothing but the disinformation given to us. The peoples under the Soviet heel were in dire straights long before Ronnie came along. It is true, but completely irrelevent to this discussion, that Poland, the Baltic states and Hungary were not part of the Soviet Union. Are you claiming they had freedom to act or have government of their own choice without approval from Moscow? Let us just include the Warsaw Pact in the discussion because they were defacto in political and economic thrall of the Russians. So now, given that schoolboy enlightenment, do you recall Hungary 1956? How about the dock workers in 1956 and 1980 in Poland? Georgia had nationalist anti Soviet riots in 1956, 1978, 1988 and on. Ukraine had been decimated by Stalin but retained its religious roots in defiance until the USSR fell. Riots and demostrations occured throughout the Baltics from the 1970's on. 1986 there were mass anti-soviet demonstrations in Kazakhstan. The USSR was crumbling from a Russian imperilist cancer. It's long been the vanity of the RWN's to claim Ronnie's John Wayne silver bullets did in the "evil empire" but it is factually crap.
It was Carter that provided the first funds and training to the Afghans against the Soviet invasion. He shares the ultimate outcome of that mistake. But it was not Reagan's initiative. Carter inherited the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, another muck up and intel failure as well as a public burnt out over another corrupt Repub, Nixon. He had to deal with the oil embargo crisis and re-tooling of US auto industry as well as our national consumption of oil. Under his conservation practices it took the US 20 years to consume the same volumne of oil than pre 1973, thereby beating OPEC at it's own game. Wasn't until the Cracker's deregs that the oil market went insane.
You RWN's are all the same: Same old discredited talking points spewed out by your thought masters and when things get desperate, talk about Monica. Pathetic.
There is no contradiction because they are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT events! I have no intention to some how defend the wrong doing of Reagan and his administration concerning Iran-Contra. It was appeasement that had short-lived "success." The most successful thing that came out of it was the release of the hostages by INDIRECT appeasement with Hezbollah. Despite the fact that it was much more effective than Carter's bury my head in the sand and hope the problem will go away tactics Reagan's successful hostage release plan was illegal. But none of this has anything to do with the dissolution of USSR.
"During the cold war the CIA and Fed government was shot thru with Soviet moles. They knew exactly the threat of SDI, which was no threat at all."
If this is true why did the Soviets insist that Reagan kill SDI at the REYKJAVIK Summit?
"Mr. Gorbachev, at a news conference, attributed the failure to American intransigence on the plan for a space-based missile defense, known officially as the Strategic Defense Initiative, and popularly as ''Star Wars.''.....
...He [Secretary of State George P. Shultz] said the United States would not pay the price for having Mr. Gorbachev go to the United States if it meant accepting constraints on the missile defense program.
He said that the tentative package of ''extremely important potential agreements,'' extending into areas other than arms control, failed when Mr. Gorbachev insisted that the 1972 treaty limiting defensive missiles, known as the antiballistic missile treaty, be changed to prevent research, testing and development of the proposed defenses beyond the laboratory. ''As we came more and more down to the final stages,'' Mr. Shultz said, ''it became more and more clear that the Soviet Union's objective was effectively to kill off the Strategic Defense Initiative program, and to do so by seeking a change - described by them as strengthening, but a change in the ABM treaty - that would so constrain research permitted under it that the program would not be able to proceed at all forcefully....''
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/13/international/europe/13REAG.html
Do you consider the NY Times a mouth piece for RWNs' propaganda and talking points?
"It is true, but completely irrelevent to this discussion, that Poland, the Baltic states and Hungary were not part of the Soviet Union." You are correct. I don't understand why you mentioned them in the first place.
This is what I said about Joe's idea that "what happened in the Soviet Union was the direct result of the people's revolt.": "I don't recall any coups or any type of revolution that took over the USSR." NONE of the countries or states under Soviet oppression that rebelled against it "TOOK OVER the USSR." Did this opposition from these people undermine Soviet power and expansion. Absolutely. I have not been arguing against it. But this was not the defining event that brought the house down according to the Soviets and non-liberal historians.
"Reagan's SDI was a very successful blackmail. … The Soviet Union tried to keep up pace with the U.S. military buildup, but the Soviet economy couldn't endure such competition."
~ Gennady Gerasimov, senior Soviet Foreign Ministry spokesman
Reagan vindicated: SDI works - http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58297
I don't mind being labeled a "RWN"
But please don't call me a Republican. They have become too much like the Democrats!
Joe, "Detente worked for Ronald Reagan?" Really, because I thought it was Charlie Wilson's War that did most of the work. For Regan and Wilson, Detente was the same as Teddy Roosevelt's. Speak softly and carry a big stick.
Damn, a Democratic hero, and the Democrats ignore his contribution if it doesn’t suite their current socialist argument. Denial of to history is another symptom of Fascism.