Concern Troll Op-Ed is concerned.

So you're saying he shouldn't talk to Hillary anymore?

Reggaenomics: Concern Troll Op-Ed is concerned.

Is anyone who disagrees with you a troll, now? Is it going to get to the point where anyone who disagrees with anything Obama says or does is going to be attacked as a troll of some sort?

negotiating is never a bad thing.

accepting bad terms is, but negotiating to find out if there can be a peaceful resolution is not.

jeeez...6 months to go...fark!! If only Lincoln had lost the war.

I know I know, I'm a "concern-troll"

Nabb1: Reggaenomics: Concern Troll Op-Ed is concerned.

Is anyone who disagrees with you a troll, now? Is it going to get to the point where anyone who disagrees with anything Obama says or does is going to be attacked as a troll of some sort?

i don't think he's trolling, i think he's just expressing an incredibly obtuse point of view that ignores any semblance of critical thinking about the subject.

to be trolling he'd have to be doing it just to get a reaction, which i doubt he thought far enough into the process to do. trolls are smarter than this guy.

burndtdan: negotiating is never a bad thing.

That is not what the article said. Not at all.

burndtdan: i don't think he's trolling, i think he's just expressing an incredibly obtuse point of view that ignores any semblance of critical thinking about the subject.

The writers? I'm sorry, but any student of history and/or political science can tell you what a grevious misfire Kennedy made in rushing to meet Kruschev. Those who do not learn from history, after all...

obama has never said we should concede anything to countries like iran, only that if we have a problem with them we should engage them in good faith before we get drawn into a decade long occupation.

this is the basic position of every president of the US except bush. watching bush's dead-enders react to the return to normalcy is a little like what i imagine it would be like seeing a vampire caught in the sunrise.

Reagan talked, Gorbachev triump...never mind.

Nabb1: Is anyone who disagrees with you a troll, now

Especially if you're dissin' Da' Man!

Nabb1: burndtdan: negotiating is never a bad thing.

That is not what the article said. Not at all.

did i say i was agreeing with the article?

Nabb1: burndtdan: i don't think he's trolling, i think he's just expressing an incredibly obtuse point of view that ignores any semblance of critical thinking about the subject.

The writers? I'm sorry, but any student of history and/or political science can tell you what a grevious misfire Kennedy made in rushing to meet Kruschev. Those who do not learn from history, after all...

hmm... here's some of that critical thinking...

Senior American statesmen like George Kennan advised Kennedy not to rush into a high-level meeting, arguing that Khrushchev had engaged in anti-American propaganda and that the issues at hand could as well be addressed by lower-level diplomats. Kennedy's own secretary of state, Dean Rusk, had argued much the same in a Foreign Affairs article the previous year: "Is it wise to gamble so heavily? Are not these two men who should be kept apart until others have found a sure meeting ground of accommodation between them?"

But Kennedy went ahead, and for two days he was pummeled by the Soviet leader. Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, cautioned America against supporting "old, moribund, reactionary regimes" and asserted that the United States, which had valiantly risen against the British, now stood "against other peoples following its suit." Khrushchev used the opportunity of a face-to-face meeting to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was "very unwise" for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases.

kennedy met with him. kennedy did not walk out of the meeting having made any ground, and didn't impress khrushchev.

but, had kennedy done nothing, he also would not have made any ground, and would not have impressed khrushchev. therein lies the truth of the matter. barring agreeing to terms that are destructive and ignorant, the worst that can happen from a negotiation is that nothing is achieved.

thus, it is not a bad thing to negotiate. it can be a pointless thing, but a bad thing it is not.

Nabb1: Those who do not learn from history, after all..

What surprised me was: his Harvard thesis was titled "Appeasement at Munich"

I did not know this. Seems Kennedy didn't remember it.

burndtdan: negotiating is never a bad thing.

accepting bad terms is, but negotiating to find out if there can be a peaceful resolution is not.

If you RTFA, you'd realized that negotiating can sometimes be very bad. Even if you don't accept any terms, as TFA says, if you show yourself to your adversary as weak you will get walked upon (like JFK). Some things are best left to back-channels and lower level diplomacy.

Saying it can be a bad thing is not the same as saying it's always a bad thing. The NY Times op-ed raises a legitimate concern. That doesn't mean Obama would do it, but it would be more comforting if a presidential candidate with limited experience articulated what he meant a little more precisely so it wasn't open to interpretation.

More than likely I'll vote for Obama, he's unquestionably smart and I trust that, his campaign rhetoric not withstanding, he'll do the right thing when the time comes. But I think you have to be a little concerned about his lack of experience on an international stage.

Nabb1: Reggaenomics: Concern Troll Op-Ed is concerned.

Is anyone who disagrees with you a troll, now? Is it going to get to the point where anyone who disagrees with anything Obama says or does is going to be attacked as a troll of some sort?

A "concern troll" is someone who pretends to be a supporter of candidate X that criticizes candidate X. The whole point, of course, is to discredit candidate X under the guise of being "concerned" about his candidacy.

Of course, you're doing nothing more than spouting the usual right-wing bullshiat that's been spreading around this site.

Kennedy was a great President but it was far more luck than skill that got him through missile crisis. He used up all is luck by 63.

burndtdan: kennedy met with him. kennedy did not walk out of the meeting having made any ground, and didn't impress khrushchev.

but, had kennedy done nothing, he also would not have made any ground, and would not have impressed khrushchev.

"Impressed"? Seriously? This is impressed?

"Khrushchev's aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed 'very inexperienced, even immature.' Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was 'too intelligent and too weak.' The Soviet leader left Vienna elated - and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world."

Kennedy ended up in a worse position with Kruschev than before he went in. Kruschev never respected JFK.

TheCid: A "concern troll" is someone who pretends to be a supporter of candidate X that criticizes candidate X. The whole point, of course, is to discredit candidate X under the guise of being "concerned" about his candidacy.

Of course, you're doing nothing more than spouting the usual right-wing bullshiat that's been spreading around this site.

No, I know what a "concern troll" is. I fail to see how the authors of this article are posing as Obama supporters. And as for "spouting the usual right-wing bullhiat," at least I am discussing the merits of the actual article, not merely launching personal attacks because I disagree, which is the refuge of the ignorant and insecure.

Being an idiot can also be a bad thing.

burndtdan: but, had kennedy done nothing, he also would not have made any ground, and would not have impressed khrushchev. therein lies the truth of the matter. barring agreeing to terms that are destructive and ignorant, the worst that can happen from a negotiation is that nothing is achieved.

Actually, the worst that can happen is that you embolden your adversary as he now thinks you are weak based on your desire to compromise. Unlike Western society, a willingness to compromise is often looked upon as a weakness in other societies, especially those in the Middle East. Why do you think we don't see Moqtada al-Sadr coming out in public saying he wants to negotiate a solution with the US? Or why the Ayatollah isn't coming out in public to say he wants to negotiate with the US?

It's all about perception, and often the first person who admits to being willing to negotiate is perceived as weak even if that is not the case.

SangamonTaylor: Even if you don't accept any terms, as TFA says, if you show yourself to your adversary as weak you will get walked upon (like JFK). Some things are best left to back-channels and lower level diplomacy.

This times 1000. Imagine if Obama goes to meet with Kim or the Ayatollah or Raul Castro and one of those leaders gets the impression that he has no spine or is too weak/inexperienced to handle a true crisis. It will embolden them to "test" him, and that's not really something we as a nation should be looking forward to.

In McCain's defense, at least all of those leaders know he is crazy and wouldn't be afraid to throw down if push came to shove.

(new window)

But you can't be an APPEASER!!!

Click it, it's awesome.

Nabb1: ...at least I am discussing the merits of the actual article, (A) not merely launching personal attacks because I disagree, (B) which is the refuge of the ignorant and insecure.

Hmm... statements A and B do not seem to agree.

Nabb1: "Impressed"? Seriously? This is impressed?

He's not saying Kennedy impressed Kruschev at all. What he's trying to say is that the negotiations changed nothing.

I'm not sure if I agree, but that's what he's saying.

Reggaenomics: Nabb1: ...at least I am discussing the merits of the actual article, (A) not merely launching personal attacks because I disagree, (B) which is the refuge of the ignorant and insecure.

Hmm... statements A and B do not seem to agree.

I was assaulting the tactic, not the person. There is a difference.

"Let us never negotiate out of fear,
But let us never fear to negotiate."

Name that candidate, folks.

burndtdan: negotiating is never a bad thing.

accepting bad terms is, but negotiating to find out if there can be a peaceful resolution is not.

Rain-Monkey: "Let us never negotiate out of fear,
But let us never fear to negotiate."

Name that candidate, folks.

Someone did not RTFA.

JPJ007: Nabb1: "Impressed"? Seriously? This is impressed?

He's not saying Kennedy impressed Kruschev at all. What he's trying to say is that the negotiations changed nothing.

No, the negotiations made things worse. After this, Kruschev went forward with the Berlin Wall and started moving missiles into Cuba. He sniffed out Kennedy as weak and adjusted Soviet policy accordingly. Now, maybe he would have done it anyway, or would have done it later, or maybe not, but Kruschev won that engagement, hands down.

The article is basically suggesting the Berlin Wall was built because Kennedy met with Kruschev, therefore Obama shouldn't meet with our adversaries, or else they will rebuild the Berlin Wall. Because Obama will be a bad at it, like Kennedy was.

Or, we shouldn't meet with adversaries for fear of losing the debate.

Nabb1: I was assaulting the tactic, not the person. There is a difference.

By defining the tactic as the refuge of the ignorant and insecure, then calling people out for using said tactic, you are in essence attacking the individual and labeling them an ignorant and insecure person.

Hence statement A does not agree with statement B.

Oh yea..we're on a roll today. Another green humpfest!!

I really don't think the Germans would let the Ayatollah build a wall in the middle of Berlin, even if the Ayatollah does think Obama is a pussy.

Reggaenomics: Nabb1: I was assaulting the tactic, not the person. There is a difference.

By defining the tactic as the refuge of the ignorant and insecure, then calling people out for using said tactic, you are in essence attacking the individual and labeling them an ignorant and insecure person.

Hence statement A does not agree with statement B.

Read it that way if you wish. Or discuss the merits of the article. If you want to argue just for the sake of arguing, then I really am not interested.

tallguywithglasseson: I really don't think the Germans would let the Ayatollah build a wall in the middle of Berlin, even if the Ayatollah does think Obama is a pussy.

But, hypothetically, the Ayatollah may think Obama is a pussy and send Iranian troops into Baghdad once the US leaves under an Obama administration because he thinks that Obama won't have the balls to re-deploy the troops.

tallguywithglasseson: I really don't think the Germans would let the Ayatollah build a wall in the middle of Berlin, even if the Ayatollah does think Obama is a pussy.

Are you trying to say that the problems of 40+ years ago are somehow different than the problems we face today?

/outrage

tallguywithglasseson: Or, we shouldn't meet with adversaries for fear of losing the debate.

I think we should meet with our enemies, make them comfortable. Maybe some Earl Gray and a massage. And then when they feel all comfortable...BOOM, headshot!. Put the head on a Pike and drink their blood just to bring home the point. How's that for diplomacy?

Nabb1: No, the negotiations made things worse. After this, Kruschev went forward with the Berlin Wall and started moving missiles into Cuba. He sniffed out Kennedy as weak and adjusted Soviet policy accordingly. Now, maybe he would have done it anyway, or would have done it later, or maybe not, but Kruschev won that engagement, hands down.

He would have "won" it regardless. The US did not have any jurisdiction in Cuba or Germany. There is nothing we could have done. If he had not gone to talk to Kruschev then we would be sitting around saying he should have.

Kennedy was not all he was cracked up to be and Kruschev was insane.

KaponoFor3: But, hypothetically, the Ayatollah may think Obama is a pussy and send Iranian troops into Baghdad once the US leaves under an Obama administration because he thinks that Obama won't have the balls to re-deploy the troops.

Wow, you must have gotten the GOP talking points for 2010 early.

Iraq is a mess because of President Obama and those Democrats!

/Jeb Bush 2012
//he'll fix what his brother broke

GaryPDX: How's that for diplomacy?

Sounds messy

quickdraw: Kennedy was not all he was cracked up to be and Kruschev was insane.

A lot of people believed he gave away the farm to appease the russians over Cuba. He traded the missiles in Turkey and the hawks hated him for that.

GaryPDX: I think we should meet with our enemies, make them comfortable. Maybe some Earl Gray and a massage. And then when they feel all comfortable...BOOM, headshot!. Put the head on a Pike and drink their blood just to bring home the point. How's that for diplomacy?

I prefer English Breakfast with my despot head blood.

Etchy333: Wow, you must have gotten the GOP talking points for 2010 early.

Iraq is a mess because of President Obama and those Democrats!

GOP talking points? Please.

Another example apparently here about how anyone who isn't an Obama dick holder is ZOMG Republitard!

the Ayatollah may think Obama is a pussy and send Iranian troops into Baghdad once the US leaves under an Obama administration because he thinks that Obama won't have the balls to re-deploy the troops.

You think Iran really wants another war with Iraq?

quickdraw: He would have "won" it regardless. The US did not have any jurisdiction in Cuba or Germany. There is nothing we could have done. If he had not gone to talk to Kruschev then we would be sitting around saying he should have.

Kennedy was not all he was cracked up to be and Kruschev was insane.

I'm not disagreeing, but if things had gone better, maybe Kruschev would have come away thinking Kennedy was not a man to be trifled with and would have been more cautious about engaging in a brash act of provocation by putting nuclear missiles 90 miles off the coast of the US. And, BTW, that's precisely what he intended by it. Kruschev was ready to let those things fly.

KaponoFor3:

Actually, the worst that can happen is that you embolden your adversary as he now thinks you are weak based on your desire to compromise. Unlike Western society, a willingness to compromise is often looked upon as a weakness in other societies, especially those in the Middle East. Why do you think we don't see Moqtada al-Sadr coming out in public saying he wants to negotiate a solution with the US? Or why the Ayatollah isn't coming out in public to say he wants to negotiate with the US?

It's all about perception, and often the first person who admits to being willing to negotiate is perceived as weak even if that is not the case.

The article is a labored attempt to link one meeting with the Cuban Missile Crisis, which is ridiculous especially as the Cuban Missile Crisis is one of the greatest examples of why you use diplomacy in recent history. We even conceded a few military sites outside of the USSR and managed to largely keep that out of the press; it was a masterful use of negiotation in the face of nuclear war. I don't know why of all the possible historical topics you would lead up to this.

Even the way he tries to link it is asinine, as evidenced with the gem "And while there were many factors that led to the missile crisis, it is no exaggeration to say that the impression Khrushchev formed at Vienna was among them."

Secondly, what are people proposing instead of diplomacy? War and Nothing. Those are the only other two options on the table according to those who are attacking Obama. Somebody buy these guys a history book

This times 1000. Imagine if Obama goes to meet with Kim or the Ayatollah or Raul Castro and one of those leaders gets the impression that he has no spine or is too weak/inexperienced to handle a true crisis. It will embolden them to "test" him, and that's not really something we as a nation should be looking forward to.

In McCain's defense, at least all of those leaders know he is crazy and wouldn't be afraid to throw down if push came to shove.

OOOOH Raul Castro, the current gravest threat to mankind. I'm sure we'll be occupied in no time. And here it is again: war or nothing. Instead of discussions about one meeting that was a small factor in something that lead up to something that would have farking happened anyways and was solved by diplomacy, why don't we talk about what war or nothing have done lately? We have Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, terrorism and the drug trade for you to pick from.

tallguywithglasseson: You think Iran really wants another war with Iraq?

Like the Iraqi army, now made up mainly of SCIRI Shiite fighters, would oppose them in large numbers. It's highly unlikely. I could easily see the Iranians rolling in and anointing al-Sadr as the new leader -- he's right along the same revolutionary Islamic lines as the Ayatollah.

They really wouldn't see any resistance unless they tried to move into Sunni dominated areas.

SnakeLee: Secondly, what are people proposing instead of diplomacy? War and Nothing.

Not at all -- read the article, they say that Kennedy's advisers pushed him to allow low level diplomats to take care of these types of issues and contacts.

High executive level contacts were what they were trying to avoid, which is exactly what Obama has said he will be willing to do without precondition.

This is part of why I don't think I can vote for Obama -- I believe that he will initiate these types of meetings at the highest levels, look weak (maybe he is, maybe he isn't) and inexperienced (which he is), and cause those leaders to become emboldened and think they can "test" him early on in his term. McCain, even though I'm not his biggest fan, wouldn't embark on such a reckless path.

I'm all for diplomacy, but high level executive contacts is not the best shot to fire right out of the gate.

Nabb1: maybe Kruschev would have come away thinking Kennedy was not a man to be trifled with

What would you have had him do? Punch him? Whip his dick out? Show him pics of Marilyn naked? If being POTUS and Marilyn Monroe's booty call doesn't trump every other possible Man Cred I don't know what would. Do you think he would have been more impressed by Jesse Ventura?