B-b-b-but Chamberlain....

APPEASER!

Looks like a new defense secretary will be coming soon

He did the same thing as Chamberlain! The same thing!

Majick Thise: APPEASER!

Looks like a new defense secretary will be coming soon

Not really. Gates worked for President Daddy. President Baby isn't going to be so quick to get rid of him. Ignore him, perhaps. Get rid of him, probably not.

"APPEASER!! APPEASER!! (Oh God make him stop!) APPEASER!! APPEASER!!"

Kome: Majick Thise: APPEASER!

Looks like a new defense secretary will be coming soon

Not really. Gates worked for President Daddy. President Baby isn't going to be so quick to get rid of him. Ignore him, perhaps. Get rid of him, probably not.

But wasn't Gates supposed to come in and clean up President Baby's mess? Wipe President Baby's nose? That hasn't gone so well so I am wondering if President Daddy will care so much if President Baby gives Gates the axe. At this point I think President Daddy is probably wondering if he could get away with claiming President Baby was adopted.

I just typed that whole paragraph just so I could use the terms President Daddy and President Baby multiple times. Thank You Kome: these terms have made my evening.

"Develop some leverage and then sit down and talk with them," doesn't sound like negotiating to me. More like, "Nice house you have here. It'd be a shame if something happened to it."

I see Media Matters continues to distort the facts in order to make it seem like somebody is saying something they were not saying.

Obama's version is "Lets talk to Iran"

Gates version is "Let's force Iran to to talk to us on our terms."

Notice the difference? But yes, do continue to listen to Media Matters and Daily Kos for all your biased and totally distorted information.

Will the REAL appeaser please stand up:

Lionel Mandrake

I just saw that yesterday. WOW.

Did Fark link to that video? If not, it really needs to.

jjorsett: "Develop some leverage and then sit down and talk with them," doesn't sound like negotiating to me. More like, "Nice house you have here. It'd be a shame if something happened to it."

No, sounds like negotiating. Talking. Kind of like what the president said was a bad thing. The level of idiocy that has engulfed the entire Republican party is just amazing.

jjorsett: "Develop some leverage and then sit down and talk with them," doesn't sound like negotiating to me. More like, "Nice house you have here. It'd be a shame if something happened to it."

I doubt they are going to chat much about the big upcoming summer movies. They might do a bit of that but I bet they'll slip in a little something about policy and stuff. The difference between that and negotiation is splitting hairs and calling someone out as being like a Nazi appeaser when you have the same plans is lame bullshiat.

jjorsett: "Develop some leverage and then sit down and talk with them," doesn't sound like negotiating to me. More like, "Nice house you have here. It'd be a shame if something happened to it."

I don't know how long you've been an adult, and how many cars you've bought in your lifetime, but now you're ready to actually have a conversation with a car salesman.

Has anyone pointed out that this is appeasement?

Majick Thise: Thank You Kome: these terms have made my evening.

Anytime.

You know, I always try to be as adult and grateful about politics as politics will allow, but I'd be lying if I said I'm not just a little gleeful at watching the deterioration of the right-wing machine into a rusted-out hulk.

randomjsa: I see Media Matters continues to distort the facts in order to make it seem like somebody is saying something they were not saying.

Obama's version is "Lets talk to Iran"

Gates version is "Let's force Iran to to talk to us on our terms."

Notice the difference? But yes, do continue to listen to Media Matters and Daily Kos for all your biased and totally distorted information.

What's your point? Why should we force them to talk to us on our terms? Because they're eeeevil? Because they're daaaaangerous? Because Ahmadenijad went to a Holocaust deniers conference? Because he doesn't like Israel? What's the flavor of the day?

randomjsa: ...do continue to listen to Media Matters and Daily Kos for all your biased and totally distorted information.

Right...I'll listen to the Preznit talking smack about candidates overseas when he's supposed to be "celebrating" Israel's birthday. The man has no fkn shame - nor do his enablers.

BTW, I have no problem with "talking" to anyone...or are you one of those fkn morans that equates talking with "appeasement?"

Start talking. If there's no progress, then stop. No harm, no foul.

randomjsa: I see Media Matters continues to distort the facts in order to make it seem like somebody is saying something they were not saying.

Obama's version is "Lets talk to Iran"

Gates version is "Let's force Iran to to talk to us on our terms."

Notice the difference? But yes, do continue to listen to Media Matters and Daily Kos for all your biased and totally distorted information.

"forcing" someone to talk to you "on our terms" usually isn't conducive to productive discussions.

The goal isn't to make Obama look like an appeaser, it's to make him look like just another politician (via equivalencers), thereby reducing his 'change' motto to mere political sloganeering.

And you're all playing right into it.

GoRedSoxGo: What's your point? Why should we force them to talk to us on our terms? Because they're eeeevil? Because they're daaaaangerous? Because Ahmadenijad went to a Holocaust deniers conference? Because he doesn't like Israel? What's the flavor of the day?

Because meeting with them on any other terms except those dictated by us strengthens and legitimizes Ahmadenijad. What are you going to say to somebody whose stated intention is the destruction of millions of people even if it costs him one half of all the people in his own country? What are you going to say to a government that aids and sponsors terrorism and is directly responsible for the deaths of American soldiers? You cannot negotiate with people like that.

Aside from that my point was that Media Matters is lying, as always.

randomjsa: I see Media Matters continues to distort the facts in order to make it seem like somebody is saying something they were not saying.

Obama's version is "Lets talk to Iran"

Gates version is "Let's force Iran to to talk to us on our terms."

Notice the difference?

Not really, no.

jjorsett: "Develop some leverage and then sit down and talk with them," doesn't sound like negotiating to me. More like, "Nice house you have here. It'd be a shame if something happened to it."

Dude, why even bother? You'll never be as good as the people who actually get paid to spin this shiat, and even they've done a terrible job.

Meh, we already have leverage, dumbass. It's called "our nuclear arsenal." The conversation goes something like this:

Implied threat: Hey, you know all those submarine nukes we still have? Yeah, we still have them.
Conversation starter: "Mr. President, in the interests of keeping the peace in the Middle East, we'd like to sit down and discuss the nuclear weapons program in Iran."
Implied threat: Since we've still got those nukes, a military presence on your west, and a military presence on your east, let's sit down and talk.

President Ahmanenidjad: "Um, okay."

How much more "leverage" do we need? Just take the farking gloves off.

There are two points: hoping that dialog and unilateral concessions will be enough to solve problems is foolish, and president-to-president negotiations with any dictator in the world is a bad idea. At no point has it been said that dialog on any level with Iran is, in itself, a bad thing.

You don't have to accept these premises as true, but you can't honestly argue that Gates proposing non top-level negotiations involving some sort of leverage (that is, bilateral concessions) is at odds with the crap Bush spews out.

/not that an argument being dishonest is really a bar for either side

Media Matters is the worst kind of liar: the kind that lies by providing lengthy video and audio clips of people saying things that Media Matters claims they said.

Those fkn BASTARDS!

moothemagiccow: Notice the difference?

Not really, no.

Ok I'll put it in terms for you then.

Force Iran to quit threatening Israel, quit supplying arms to terrorists in Iraq, and quit sponsoring terrorism in general, quit developing nuclear weapons and once these goals are accomplished then and only then we will accept talking to Iran on OUR terms.

The version Obama wants is: Don't make Iran meet any preconditions at all and meet with them, thus legitimizing them further and giving them that much more leverage.

Got it now?

randomjsa: Because meeting with them on any other terms except those dictated by us strengthens and legitimizes Ahmadenijad...

Treating the man as an embodiment of evil is what legitimizes him to his own people. It's been pretty thoroughly shown that Bush's finger wagging and denouncements were what caused a massive shift of votes toward Ahmadinejad when he was elected. Keep on doing that and his people will just stick more closely by him. Iranians are a very nationalist lot (sort of like Americans) and will rally around even a bully of a president when they feel threatened by outside forces (also like Americans).

What Obama's suggesting isn't appeasement. It's discussion with an enemy to help strengthen our base and focus on the true villain, which is al Qaeda. It's exactly what FDR and Churchill worked toward by meeting with Stalin to focus their attack on the remaining Axis threat.

randomjsa:
Because meeting with them on any other terms except those dictated by us strengthens and legitimizes Ahmadenijad. What are you going to say to somebody whose stated intention is the destruction of millions of people even if it costs him one half of all the people in his own country? What are you going to say to a government that aids and sponsors terrorism and is directly responsible for the deaths of American soldiers? You cannot negotiate with people like that.

Aside from that my point was that Media Matters is lying, as always.

First of all, they're not going to meet with us on terms dictated by us. Second of all, there's little that would strengthen and legitimize Ahmadinejad. He's enormously unpopular in Iran - but Iranians can't stand us even more. Forcing him to talk to us on our terms does us no good when it comes to undermining his power (of which he has little) or legitimizing us with the Iranian people. Third of all, his stated intention is not the destruction of millions of people. He hates Israel's regime, but I'll forgive you for the mistranslation because it's possible that your Persian ain't so good. (And hey, isn't that Israel's problem?)

Fourth of all, and I can't state this strongly enough, Ahmadinejad has no military power. Iranian military operations don't even get close to him - they all go through the Supreme Leader, Sayyid Ali Khamenei. Who has issued a fatwa stating that nuclear weapons are antithetical to Islam. Fifth of all, your comment that they're "directly responsibly for the deaths of American soldiers" is rather intellectually dishonest, as is your holier-than-thou condemnation of a government that aids and sponsors terrorism - you oughta look in a mirror at the US before you start with that.

I don't trust Media Matters or Daily Kos half the time either, but don't be so intellectually obtuse.

Finally, if we have to say it again, talking does not equal appeasement. And if you talk, you can STILL bomb if you need to. If you bomb, you can't really go back and talk. Any talk of attacking Iran at this moment is profoundly stupid.

There. I'm done explaining this to you folks.

randomjsa: moothemagiccow: Notice the difference?

Not really, no.

Ok I'll put it in terms for you then.

Force Iran to quit threatening Israel, quit supplying arms to terrorists in Iraq, and quit sponsoring terrorism in general, quit developing nuclear weapons and once these goals are accomplished then and only then we will accept talking to Iran on OUR terms.

That's cute. In other words, we won't be talking to them.

"Force" Good plan.

Lionel Mandrake: Media Matters is the worst kind of liar: the kind that lies by providing lengthy video and audio clips of people saying things that Media Matters claims they said.

Those fkn BASTARDS!

Don't work yourelf into a fret. Papa Bear Bill O'Reilly uncovered the conspiracy some time ago:



Makes perfect sense.

randomjsa: Force Iran to quit threatening Israel, quit supplying arms to terrorists in Iraq, and quit sponsoring terrorism in general, quit developing nuclear weapons and once these goals are accomplished then and only then we will accept talking to Iran on OUR terms.

"So, you know all those things we want you to do? Yeah, do them, then we'll talk to you about it."

Gee, why isn't this brilliant plan working?

randomsja
Force Iran to quit threatening Israel, quit supplying arms to terrorists in Iraq, and quit sponsoring terrorism in general, quit developing nuclear weapons and once these goals are accomplished then and only then we will accept talking to Iran on OUR terms.

Point 1:
US (to Iran): Stop threatening Israel.
Iran (to Israel): I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!

Point 2:
How do you prove they have stopped?

Point 3:
See Point 2

Point 4:
They've been enriching uranium for energy purposes (so they say). Prove they're building weapons.

Damn, LionelMandrake did it better than me.

WFern: Don't work yourelf into a fret. Papa Bear Bill O'Reilly uncovered the conspiracy some time ago:

I don't know what that is...I've never seen that...I don't know what that means...what does that mean?....arrrghhh...I can't do it! WE'LL DO IT LIVE!! FK IT!! WE'LL DO IT LIVE!!! FKN THING SUCKS!!!

There's a big difference between "developing leverage" and talking "without preconditions". But I guess you folks don't see that.

Why don't you kids take a break and have a some more

Lionel Mandrake: I don't know what that is...I've never seen that...I don't know what that means...what does that mean?....arrrghhh...I can't do it! WE'LL DO IT LIVE!! FK IT!! WE'LL DO IT LIVE!!! FKN THING SUCKS!!!

This is different from appeasement because Republicans are doing it.

randomjsa: moothemagiccow: Notice the difference?

Not really, no.

Ok I'll put it in terms for you then.

Force Iran to quit threatening Israel, quit supplying arms to terrorists in Iraq, and quit sponsoring terrorism in general, quit developing nuclear weapons and once these goals are accomplished then and only then we will accept talking to Iran on OUR terms.

The version Obama wants is: Don't make Iran meet any preconditions at all and meet with them, thus legitimizing them further and giving them that much more leverage.

Got it now?

How do they figure out your demands without talking to them?

bulok: There's a big difference between "developing leverage" and talking "without preconditions". But I guess you folks don't see that.

What's the difference?

moothemagiccow: randomjsa: moothemagiccow:

How do they figure out your demands without talking to them?

Strongly worded letter.

bulok: There's a big difference between "developing leverage" and talking "without preconditions". But I guess you folks don't see that.

Didn't Obama admit to having "misspoke" about that? It's the same reason he criticized Carter's meeting with Hamas.

He does hold preconditions but, unlike the living, collective disaster that is the Bush Administration, he will not threaten them beforehand, then act shocked and bewildered when they refuse to cooperate.

You win more flys with honey than you do with vinegar.

moothemagiccow: randomjsa: moothemagiccow:

How do they figure out your demands without talking to them?

Send him a Facebook invite for the "Give up your nuke program now" application.

GWShenlong05: You know, I always try to be as adult and grateful about politics as politics will allow, but I'd be lying if I said I'm not just a little gleeful at watching the deterioration of the right-wing machine into a rusted-out hulk.

you're not the only one

randomjsa: But yes, do continue to listen to Media Matters and Daily Kos for all your biased and totally distorted information

Wait, doesn't media matters just post unedited transcripts/video? How could they be lying then? Or is that another site?

with preconditions: "we'll talk when you stop making nuclear material"

without preconditions: "we'll talk right now"

leverage: "we can sanction/bomb/bankrupt you"

they're 3 separate categories but the right wing seems to think preconditions and bombing go hand in hand, as if we're on a playground and when some kid acts up you just beat him into a bloody pulp so he'll get back in line

what's going to happen when Obama steps into office? we'll go from preconditions to no preconditions, the leverage isn't going anywhere... you people are dense, no wonder you failed for 8 years

AdamK: with preconditions: "we'll talk when you stop making nuclear material"

without preconditions: "we'll talk right now"

leverage: "we can sanction/bomb/bankrupt you"

they're 3 separate categories but the right wing seems to think preconditions and bombing go hand in hand, as if we're on a playground and when some kid acts up you just beat him into a bloody pulp so he'll get back in line

what's going to happen when Obama steps into office? we'll go from preconditions to no preconditions, the leverage isn't going anywhere... you people are dense, no wonder you failed for 8 years

We were goofing with you. The point is that there is nothing wrong with talking. Did you shiat on Bush for asking the Saudis to raise production, even though he got shot down? Hell no.

How do you guys get dates? It rarely hurts to ask, no matter how stupid you might feel if you get rejected. Threatening is not diplomacy. Shoot first ask questions later is not diplomacy. The point of diplomacy is to get what you want while avoiding conflict, and generally they doesn't involve waving a gun around. If diplomacy gets nowhere - Big Deal. It's always worth a shot.

moothemagiccow: How do you guys get dates?

We're Farkers. We don't.