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: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.

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?

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.

__________________

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

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

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?

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!

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/bush_slams_obama_from_israel_on_willingness_to_talk_with_terrorists/

Like Syria, for example?Obama isn't suggesting anything different than what James Baker did in Syria when George H.W. Bush was President.Understood. Now maybe you could respond to what Obama has proposed.

Interesting site. I like the comments from "realitybasedbob". He links to a site with the headline: "Exclusive Video: McCain Was For Talking To Hamas Before He Was Against It..." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/exclusive-video-mccain-wa_n_102031.html

I say that W's position, and McCain's and Hillary's, is a bunch of rhetorical baloney.

Obama is very naive...

And probably very trusting... but not at all experienced in what he's talking about.

Talk is talk. Yours enemy's actions speak the loudest.

Negotiation only goes so far...

I agree wholeheartedly on this issue, dculkin. Talking to leaders of unfriendly countries is a sign of strength and leadership, while not talking to them is nothing but ego and fear. As Obama recently said, what are Bush and McCain afraid of? The US talking to enemies is nothing new and only recently has it been officially frowned upon by our administration. Curiously even Sec. of Defense Gates supports talking to enemies. Either W is so clueless that he doesn't even know what his own administration is doing, or he and McCain are just playing to the ears of the mindless neocons and war hawks or a little bit of both.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Talking to our enemies is not appeasement, it's called communicating our differences and solving problems through diplomacy and statesmanship. Something our current leadership sorely lacks.


What are our alternatives? Do we just ignore our opponents and let them go on with their agendas, unfazed by our useless rhetoric? That will certainly work and lead us to a more secure future.

Maybe we should just nuke their asses, surely we could do that. Not a bad Idea, kill'em all. Yea that's the way to go. Problems solved.

__________________
Question Authority before it Questions you.

Here's a good one from http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/:That site links to a McClatchy article that says, among other things, the following:http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/37976.html

So, what do think of them apples, Mr. Idolotor? Now even Israel is appeasing terrorists.