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.
Comments
Neither is appeasement.
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.
Talking isn’t appeasement. In fact, it could be a threat or an ultimatum.
That doesn’t mean we should kiss their ass either.
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 . . .
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.
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
Even North Korea isn’t beyond reasoning with
If by “reason” you mean “take bribes in exchange for meaningless promises”, then you are correct…
was=war
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.
It’s just the ramblings of an empty suit. Richardson, on the other hand, does have actual foreign policy experience.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Doesn’t “destroy two US cities” = nuke you into oblivion?
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.
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.
Talking isn’t appeasement.
When a Liberal American Prez “talks” with a despotic socialist or fascist leader, it ends up being exactly that.
Even North Korea isn’t beyond reasoning with.
Sean, seriously, are you high or something?
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.
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!”
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.?”
Speaking of no class, Ward Churchill has been canned.
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.
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.
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).
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
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!!
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).
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.
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.
AGGGH !! FUCK.. look at these boobs!
Damn it, why don’t attractive women become activists anymore?
All the hot chicks are banging their students or getting arrested.
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.
Better than them being totally celibate until marriage. Spread the joy, I say.
Next entry: Ten Times Wrong
Previous entry: Scream For Me, Belgium!
Server Drive
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 4337
Total Logged in members: 2
Total guests: 52
Total anonymous users: 0
Miguelito,
ron k,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
Virtual Hell
(6 total, Last @ 07:32)
Mississippi Yankee: Sterilization may not be the most libertarian though in this case but then again I'm a father with custody of his child.
Is This Thing On?
(2 total, Last @ 07:24)
Mississippi Yankee: These salaries and per student cost, at some point, need to be seriously dialed back. That won't happen as long as the NEA and the left continually feed each other. One requires power the other money to bestow power... wash, rinse, repeat. Break that cycle and indoctrination goes back to…
Is This Thing On?
(2 total, Last @ 07:14)
Hal_10000: The unions in California make about 1/3 of the political donations i the state. That's a power that only a massive popular will can resist.
Virtual Hell
(6 total, Last @ 06:16)
InsipiD: There are already laws to prevent stuff like this from happening. They failed, and adding one more wouldn't help at all. They'll be punished for this, and likely serve time. That's how it should be.
Virtual Hell
(6 total, Last @ 03:15)
Seattle Outcast: Nothing is ever our fault. I see you've met my nephew....
Last 30 Comments
Diplomacy by not talking with the people you detest isn’t really diplomacy.