Appeasement - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Honus · #1 05-21-2008, 04:32 PM

I became an Obama supporter when I heard him say that he would meet with leaders of hostile countries. That's not the only reason I support him, but that's when he sealed the deal with me. He probably should have qualified his answer somewhat because the circumstances need to be right before our President sits down with Raul Castro, for example. That said, he is clearly on the right side of the issue. The notion, perfected by W and adopted by McCain and Clinton, that we should not talk to our adversaries makes no sense to me.

And it doesn't make sense to people who, unlike me, actually have expertise on the subject:

Quote:

A video clip of former secretary of state James A. Baker is making the rounds of the Internet, providing an interesting counterpoint to the furious argument between Sen. Barack Obama and the Republicans over whether it is proper to talk to enemies. President Bush started a furor when, during a speech to the Israeli parliament last week, he said that negotiating with "terrorists and radicals" such as Iran was "the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, joined in the attack, which was decried by Obama and Democrats. "Why does Senator Obama want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism? What does Senator Obama want to talk about with [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad?" McCain asked reporters.

But now Baker's Oct. 6, 2006, interview on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" has emerged. In the interview, he emphatically dismisses the notion advanced by his Republican brethren that talking with enemies -- even state sponsors of terrorism -- is any sort of appeasement.

"You don't just talk to your friends, you talk to your enemies as well," an animated Baker said. "Diplomacy involves talking to your enemies. You don't reward your enemies necessarily by talking to them if you are tough and you know what you are doing. You don't appease them. Talking to an enemy is not in my view appeasement."

Baker noted that when he was secretary of state for President Bush's father, he made 15 trips to Syria in 1990 and 1991, "at the time when Syria was on the list of countries who were state sponsors of terrorism. On the 16th trip, guess what, lo and behold, Syria changed 25 years of policy and agreed for the first time in the history to sit at the table with Israel, which is what Israel wanted at the time."

Baker concluded: "All I am saying, that would never happened if I, if we, hadn't been sufficiently dedicated that we were going to keep at it."

Baker, incidentally, has endorsed McCain, telling reporters in February: "John is what I think I am, a principled pragmatist. He prefers to get things done rather than to insist on ideological purity."

McCain welcomed his support and praised his acumen at the time. "Secretary Baker has a distinguished record of service to our country and our party," said McCain. "I look forward to his counsel and am honored to have his support."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/20/baker_says_talking_with_enemie.html?hpid=topnews

McCain and others have expressed dismay that Obama would meet with these evil people without any preconditions. There is probably a legitimate point there, but it's a fairly picky criticism when compared to the lunacy of W's approach.

Isn't it completely obvious that we should engage our enemies and potential enemies in regular discussions? The only reason not to, AFAIK, is ego.

LaRondo · #2 05-21-2008, 04:40 PM

Now let's see ...

Merriam-Webster comes up with this:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appeasing

Honus · #3 05-21-2008, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaRondo

Now let's see ...

Merriam-Webster comes up with this:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appeasing

The first definition given by Mirriam-Webster is "to bring to a state of peace or quiet", which sounds OK. I think the definition that W intended in his recent comments to the Israeli legislature was the third definition: "to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles", which doesn't sound OK.

I don't see how talking to someone necessarily results in concessions at the sacrifice of principles. So, my question remains. Isn't Obama clearly in the right on this issue? If not, why not?

LaRondo · #4 05-21-2008, 05:01 PM

I didn't see a 3. definition. I just think, it's always a good idea to go back and start assessing from the original meanig of the word.

As we all know, words' meanings have evolved from it's original sense, particularly when it comes to the arena of politics.

A remarkable example is "Voluntary" applied to the US tax system. We all know, it's not voluntary, yet by simply calling it such and comparing it to other tax systems, which are not called voluntary, the creators of it insist on saying it is voluntary.

Back to appeasement.

As it is evident, it all comes down to Chamberlain and his concessions to Hitler.
It produceses the same anology everytime and closes the gap to 3. Reich history and from there serves as a general justifier for any preemtive measure.

I'd like someone to show me, where the term appeasement is used in a different political context.

Honus · #5 05-21-2008, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaRondo

I didn't see a 3. definition...

Click on the link in your post and it's right there:

Quote:

appease

Main Entry:
ap·pease Listen to the pronunciation of appease
Pronunciation:
\ə-ˈpēz\
Function:
transitive verb
Inflected Form(s):
ap·peased; ap·peas·ing
Etymology:
Middle English appesen, from Anglo-French apeser, apaiser, from a- (from Latin ad-) + pais peace — more at peace
Date:
14th century

1: to bring to a state of peace or quiet : calm
2: to cause to subside : allay
3: pacify, conciliate; especially : to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles

[emphasis added]

Idolotor · #6 05-21-2008, 05:10 PM

You have made a fatal error in judgement in how the U.S. conducts itself and should conduct itself.

"The U.S. does not, never has, and never will, negotiate with terrorists."

Obama has no clue as to what he's talking about!

Clueless = Dangerous

Honus · #7 05-21-2008, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idolotor

..."The U.S. does not and never has, and never will negotiate with terrorists."...

Even if that's true, and I doubt that it is, it 's just rhetoric. It doesn't answer the question. For example, is the President of Syria a "terrorist"? His country has been recognized for years as a state sponsor of terrorism, yet George H.W. Bush sent his Secretary of State to negotiate with him. Do you believe that he should not have done that?

Idolotor · #8 05-21-2008, 05:21 PM

The problem here, of course, is that Obama wants to negotiate with people who are actively engaging in terrorism against Israelis and others across the world. This does nothing but acknowledge that such acts of terrorism, if sustained long enough, will make us want to give in and negotiate. Which, in turn, simply encourages more acts of terrorism by other factions who want to get us to talk to them as well.
It’s ludicrous, naive policy and something tells me that the Israelis don’t really mind Bush using the anniversary of their country to call Obama out on it. You don't negotiate with terrorists! Ever!

Chas H · #9 05-21-2008, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idolotor

You have made a fatal error in judgement in how the U.S. conducts itself and should conduct itself.

"The U.S. does not, never has, and never will, negotiate with terrorists."

Obama has no clue as to what he's talking about!

Clueless = Dangerous

John McCain should be on your list too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzDBi2nURNk

davidmash · #10 05-22-2008, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idolotor

You have made a fatal error in judgement in how the U.S. conducts itself and should conduct itself.

"The U.S. does not, never has, and never will, negotiate with terrorists."

Obama has no clue as to what he's talking about!

Clueless = Dangerous

Did we not negotiate with N Korea?

cmac2012 · #11 05-21-2008, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaRondo

I didn't see a 3. definition. I just think, it's always a good idea to go back and start assessing from the original meanig of the word.

As we all know, words' meanings have evolved from it's original sense, particularly when it comes to the arena of politics.

Right wing hawks would have us believe that “appeasement” means doing anything other than acting as though we have the right to control the world unilaterally.

Botnst · #12 05-21-2008, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Right wing hawks would have us believe that “appeasement” means doing anything other than acting as though we have the right to control the world unilaterally.

Left-wing pussies would have us believe that surrender is just a tool of negotiations.

B

Botnst · #13 05-21-2008, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

The first definition given by Mirriam-Webster is "to bring to a state of peace or quiet", which sounds OK. I think the definition that W intended in his recent comments to the Israeli legislature was the third definition: "to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles", which doesn't sound OK.

I don't see how talking to someone necessarily results in concessions at the sacrifice of principles. So, my question remains. Isn't Obama clearly in the right on this issue? If not, why not?

If the most important thing in life is peace, then Obama is unquestionably the best leader possible.

B

450slcguy · #14 05-21-2008, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

If the most important thing in life is peace, then Obama is unquestionably the best leader possible.

B

And if not peace, make war. McCain would truely be your guy. He'll make us all safer.

cmac2012 · #15 05-21-2008, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

The first definition given by Mirriam-Webster is "to bring to a state of peace or quiet", which sounds OK. I think the definition that W intended in his recent comments to the Israeli legislature was the third definition: "to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles", which doesn't sound OK.

I don't see how talking to someone necessarily results in concessions at the sacrifice of principles. So, my question remains. Isn't Obama clearly in the right on this issue? If not, why not?

Bush and supporters have a flag draped over the shoulder and a bible in the hand. Jesus spoke of loving one's enemies. Bush and McCain are not willing to accord them even the respect of having the right to live or to have an opinion on matters that affect them directly, such as, oh, little things like being bombed.

Iran is not a small country -- bigger than Texas, California, Montana, and Georgia combined, with a population of more than 60 million. Their borders have not changed significantly since the 1600s. We think they're evil? Newsflash, they think the same of us. Not good enough reason to assume we can bomb first, talk later.