Right Thinking From The Left Coast
Never trust a computer you can't throw out a window - Steve Wozniak

The Gang’s All Here
by Lee

Now that’s class.

Sen. Barack Obama, the candidate who once neglected to mention that he would counterattack if al Qaeda destroyed two U.S. cities, tonight pledged to meet, one-on-one, in his first year as president, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashir Assad, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and Kim Jong Il.

He should bring along Michael Moore.  They could go on a global dictatorship healthcare fact-finding mission together.

Posted by Lee on 07/24/07 at 01:03 PM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by Sean Galbraith on 07/24/07 at 01:19 PM from St. Pierre and Miquelon

Diplomacy by not talking with the people you detest isn’t really diplomacy.

Posted by on 07/24/07 at 01:30 PM from United States

Neither is appeasement.

Posted by on 07/24/07 at 01:30 PM from United States

Obama is, at the very least, a hardcore socialist.

His meeting with various dictators, tyrants, and nutjobs is to be expected as he plans to imitate them at all opportunities.

Posted by on 07/24/07 at 02:01 PM from United States

Talking isn’t appeasement. In fact, it could be a threat or an ultimatum.

Posted by on 07/24/07 at 02:03 PM from United States

That doesn’t mean we should kiss their ass either.

Posted by on 07/24/07 at 02:15 PM from United States

Of course! If we could just talk to these dictators and make them see our point of view, they’ll become friends of the US!  If only Obama had been around to talk with Saddam . . .

Posted by Sean Galbraith on 07/24/07 at 02:23 PM from St. Pierre and Miquelon

It isn’t about them becoming friends of the US, it is about them becoming less of a threat. China and Russia is an excellent example of what can happen when you talk to your enemies and not just yell at them from afar. Even North Korea isn’t beyond reasoning with.

Posted by on 07/24/07 at 02:31 PM from United States

Ya, I’m sure puffing your chest and swinging your balls at them will work too. Sometimes you guys act like a bunch of drunk rednecks in a bar.

If the current was is any indication, the US is NOT capable of pounding the piss out of every tin pot dictator in the world.

And just to fan the flames further:

You can’t win, but there are alternatives to fighting. -Obi-Wan Kenobi

Posted by on 07/24/07 at 02:31 PM from United States

Even North Korea isn’t beyond reasoning with

If by “reason” you mean “take bribes in exchange for meaningless promises”, then you are correct…

Posted by on 07/24/07 at 02:31 PM from United States

was=war

Posted by on 07/24/07 at 02:57 PM from United Kingdom

Obama is in a long line of terrible but charismatic Democrats, following Kennedy and Clinton.  I hope Americans realise how vacuous and dreadful he is in time.

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 07/24/07 at 03:10 PM from United States

It’s just the ramblings of an empty suit. Richardson, on the other hand, does have actual foreign policy experience.

Posted by howco on 07/24/07 at 03:13 PM from United States

You destroy two US cities Ive got something for you. But you are more than welcome to to destroy them one by one if you like.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 07/24/07 at 03:13 PM from United States

I’m all in favor of diplomacy. But my feeling is that one-on-one meetings are things you have after they’ve show some indication fo being anything other that blood-thirsty maniacs.  Some hints of reform or change.

China and Russia, Sean, are different cases as they were superpowers. These guys are maniacs and at least one (Il) is certifiable. We didn’t have one-on-one meetings with Idi Amin, did we?

We should be grateful, actually. He hasn’t said he’ll meet with Robert Mugabe.  Yet.

Posted by ? on 07/24/07 at 03:28 PM from United States

yada yada yada.  Funny ever heard of keep you friends close and your enemies closer.  OH that would be for pussies.  Well Bush’s doesnt talkt to his enemies and look how great he has done.  I dont think chicken hawks have anything to criticism anyone else.

david

Posted by on 07/24/07 at 03:29 PM from United Kingdom

It makes sense not to meet someone when they have no power, ie a president travelling to Zimbabwe would seem silly unless there was some real hope of a solution.

But when these countries are already foreign policy issues, I can’t really see how not meeting them helps.

The whole “not meeting the leader” goes back to the idea of not legitimising the government which is really back to the idea of the west being able to force regieme change. I think Iraq has shown that the west is really unable to nation build (we simply don’t have the money or the will to do so) - so I wonder if living in this fake world where us pretending we can pick the leaders we want for other countries makes any sense, perhaps we just need to accept them and do the best we can with them in place.

Posted by on 07/24/07 at 03:45 PM from Canada

Even North Korea isn’t beyond reasoning with.

Check this
out and then see if you can make that statement again.

As for regime change, it’s not impossible, it’s just incredibly violent.  Something the west doesn’t have much of a stomach for.  As for costly?  In the short term, yes.  In the long term, the income is far greater than the expense.

Posted by on 07/24/07 at 03:45 PM from United States

Doesn’t “destroy two US cities” = nuke you into oblivion?

Posted by on 07/24/07 at 04:04 PM from Canada

Doesn’t “destroy two US cities” = nuke you into oblivion?

I would hope not.  No matter what happens, I hope it doesn’t actually go nuclear.  Invasion and regime change (if done right) would be necessary.

Posted by on 07/24/07 at 04:34 PM from United States

If the current war is any indication, the US is NOT capable of pounding the piss out of every tin pot dictator in the world.

Actually, pounding the piss out of a tin pot dictator is the easy part.

Posted by on 07/24/07 at 04:43 PM from United States

Talking isn’t appeasement.

When a Liberal American Prez “talks” with a despotic socialist or fascist leader, it ends up being exactly that.

Posted by Ed Kline on 07/24/07 at 05:07 PM from United States

Even North Korea isn’t beyond reasoning with.

Sean, seriously, are you high or something?

Posted by on 07/24/07 at 05:58 PM from United States

Ya, I’m not sure you can reason with batshit insane. But, you can manage it and possibly keep it at bay until it’s dead.

Posted by on 07/24/07 at 06:01 PM from United States

When a Liberal American Prez “talks” with a despotic socialist or fascist leader, it ends up being exactly that.

Or the flip-side is shoot first, ask questions later with the current “conservative” president.

“Well dangit, Rummy egged me on!”

Posted by on 07/24/07 at 06:14 PM from United States

By following the rules of the Film Actors Guild, the world can become a better place that handles dangerous people with talk and reasoning.

That is the F.A.G. way.

One day you’ll all look at the world us actors created and say,

“Wow. Good going, F.A.G. You really made the world a better place, didn’t you, F.A.G.?”

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 07/24/07 at 06:23 PM from United States

Speaking of no class, Ward Churchill has been canned.

Posted by on 07/24/07 at 06:25 PM from Japan

When a Liberal American Prez “talks” with a despotic socialist or fascist leader, it ends up being exactly that.

Actually, Democrats have a pretty strong record for starting wars - many of them equally unneccesary. Let’s not get partisan over this.

Posted by Para on 07/24/07 at 07:42 PM from United States

It’s funny, Obama doesn’t mentioning meeting with anyone considered an ally.

Is his total foreign policy plan to do exactly the opposite of what George Bush would do?

I thought we tried that with Clinton and it only got us attacked.

Posted by on 07/24/07 at 07:52 PM from Japan

Is his total foreign policy plan to do exactly the opposite of what George Bush would do?

Obama (or one of his underlings) also wrote a 5000 word article in this months ‘Foreign Affairs’. He comes off as being way too hawkish for the left (including myself). There wasn’t a lot of daylight between him and Romney in the same issue (apparently - I haven’t got to my copy yet).

Posted by ? on 07/24/07 at 07:59 PM from United States

Wow,

I must have been on crack.  We got attached on 9/11 because of clinton. Of course he was the president so ultimately he is responsible.  Oh, no Bush was president and didn’t do one thing to check the terriorist fro 8 months.  But of course the president of the United States should take zero blame for 9/11.  It was the guy who was not president and had not been president for 9 months and had no power.  yes you are right guy in change has no responibility but it guy who was out of the white for 9 months he is responsible fo 9/11.  No wonder the government is totally fucked up.  This nonsense passes for adult talk inside the washtington beltway.

david

Posted by HARLEY on 07/24/07 at 08:12 PM from United States

Obama’s still a empty suit, a pretty face, but in the end he simply does not have the experience… as much as i despise her, Hillery is more qualified.

oh, THIS is a political function i would REALLY love to go to!!

Posted by HARLEY on 07/24/07 at 08:14 PM from United States

AGGGH !! FUCK..  look at these boobs!

Posted by on 07/24/07 at 08:22 PM from United States

Oh, no Bush was president and didn’t do one thing to check the terriorist fro 8 months.

Do we have to beat this dead horse again??? Bush may have given 8 months of “neglect”, but Clinton gave us 8 years of it (without the scare quotes).

Posted by Para on 07/24/07 at 08:30 PM from United States

David,

Dou you recall that the World Trade Center was actually attacked before 9/11, and the USS Cole, and countless other attacks during Clintons’ administration?

At least Bush RESPONDED to the first attack of his time in the White House.

Posted by on 07/24/07 at 08:35 PM from United States

Are you kidding me?  You don’t engage these countries in one-on-one talks until they demonstrate they deserve the respect and credibility that comes with formal talks with the most powerful county in history.  You guys are on crack thinking we legitimize these nutjob dictators with such talks.

Posted by Thrill on 07/25/07 at 12:26 AM from United States

AGGGH !! FUCK..  look at these boobs!

Damn it, why don’t attractive women become activists anymore?

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 07/25/07 at 01:14 AM from United States

All the hot chicks are banging their students or getting arrested.

Posted by Thrill on 07/25/07 at 01:33 AM from United States

PJ O’Rourke once wrote that you can tell what direction this country is heading by where the beautiful women are.  If the beautiful women are all going to jail for drunkeness and pedophilia, I’d say we’re well fucked and far from home.

Posted by on 07/25/07 at 04:27 AM from Australia

Better than them being totally celibate until marriage. Spread the joy, I say.

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: Ten Times Wrong

Previous entry: Scream For Me, Belgium!

<< Back to main