Comments on: The President “goes negative” (??)—and the Times goes fully insane… http://neoneocon.com/2008/05/17/the-president-goes-negative-and-the-times-goes-fully-insane/ Wed, 23 May 2012 19:17:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Artfldgr http://neoneocon.com/2008/05/17/the-president-goes-negative-and-the-times-goes-fully-insane/#comment-68245 Artfldgr Mon, 19 May 2008 20:18:42 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2008/05/17/the-president-goes-negative-and-the-times-goes-fully-insane/#comment-68245 2400+ words and a few ovations and thats all america heard of what the president said. 2400+ words and a few ovations and thats all america heard of what the president said.

]]> By: Sdferr http://neoneocon.com/2008/05/17/the-president-goes-negative-and-the-times-goes-fully-insane/#comment-68207 Sdferr Mon, 19 May 2008 14:09:02 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2008/05/17/the-president-goes-negative-and-the-times-goes-fully-insane/#comment-68207 Amanda, Debacle? You, madam, are unhinged. Amanda,
Debacle? You, madam, are unhinged.

]]> By: Richard Aubrey http://neoneocon.com/2008/05/17/the-president-goes-negative-and-the-times-goes-fully-insane/#comment-68204 Richard Aubrey Mon, 19 May 2008 13:49:57 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2008/05/17/the-president-goes-negative-and-the-times-goes-fully-insane/#comment-68204 Obama said, before he didn't say it, that he'd meet with no preconditions. That's a waste of time for us, and a godsend for our nutty opponents. IOW, appeasement. The appeasement, however, is of the nutcase left in the US. What the result is among our enemies is hardly a concern. Obama said, before he didn’t say it, that he’d meet with no preconditions.
That’s a waste of time for us, and a godsend for our nutty opponents.
IOW, appeasement.
The appeasement, however, is of the nutcase left in the US. What the result is among our enemies is hardly a concern.

]]> By: Stan http://neoneocon.com/2008/05/17/the-president-goes-negative-and-the-times-goes-fully-insane/#comment-68202 Stan Mon, 19 May 2008 11:34:59 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2008/05/17/the-president-goes-negative-and-the-times-goes-fully-insane/#comment-68202 The idea that we are in a position to know whether the costs outweigh the benefits of being in Iraq is absurd. That evaluation is a long time off. As for the media, I am more struck by the breathtaking incompetence than the pathetic propaganda. The idea that we are in a position to know whether the costs outweigh the benefits of being in Iraq is absurd. That evaluation is a long time off.

As for the media, I am more struck by the breathtaking incompetence than the pathetic propaganda.

]]> By: Amanda Reckonwith http://neoneocon.com/2008/05/17/the-president-goes-negative-and-the-times-goes-fully-insane/#comment-68176 Amanda Reckonwith Mon, 19 May 2008 00:34:19 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2008/05/17/the-president-goes-negative-and-the-times-goes-fully-insane/#comment-68176 Sdferr: In one sense, you are correct. If we ignore the costs and look only at the benefits, it's clear that eliminating Saddam and unseating the Taliban were important, even spectacular, achievements. But it makes more sense to measure a policy's performance by comparing its benefits to its costs and against the alternatives. This is where Iraq war has failed and the Afghanistan war is in the process of failing. There is a good chance the Afghanistan mission can be salvaged, but the costs of the Iraq debacle are already "sunk" regardless of the war's final outcome. I would also take issue with your characterization of the government of Iraq as moderate and democratic. It certainly has the potential to achieve either or both of those, but at present has not. Sdferr: In one sense, you are correct. If we ignore the costs and look only at the benefits, it’s clear that eliminating Saddam and unseating the Taliban were important, even spectacular, achievements.
But it makes more sense to measure a policy’s performance by comparing its benefits to its costs and against the alternatives. This is where Iraq war has failed and the Afghanistan war is in the process of failing.
There is a good chance the Afghanistan mission can be salvaged, but the costs of the Iraq debacle are already “sunk” regardless of the war’s final outcome.
I would also take issue with your characterization of the government of Iraq as moderate and democratic. It certainly has the potential to achieve either or both of those, but at present has not.

]]> By: Sdferr http://neoneocon.com/2008/05/17/the-president-goes-negative-and-the-times-goes-fully-insane/#comment-68165 Sdferr Sun, 18 May 2008 22:08:01 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2008/05/17/the-president-goes-negative-and-the-times-goes-fully-insane/#comment-68165 Amanda, you wrote: ...More important, its biggest successes to date have resulted directly from this kind of “appeasement.” I disagree with you as to what constitute "the Bush administrations"..."biggest successes". First on the list is ridding the Afghans of the rule of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Second, the so far successful installation of a government generally acceptable to Afghanis. Third on the list is ridding the world of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen/Baathists. Fourth, the establishment in his place of a moderate, democratic government in Iraq, which though not complete at this writing we can nevertheless see coming on in the near term. Was there appeasement in any of these acts? Amanda, you wrote:
…More important, its biggest successes to date have resulted directly from this kind of “appeasement.”

I disagree with you as to what constitute “the Bush administrations”…”biggest successes”. First on the list is ridding the Afghans of the rule of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Second, the so far successful installation of a government generally acceptable to Afghanis. Third on the list is ridding the world of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen/Baathists. Fourth, the establishment in his place of a moderate, democratic government in Iraq, which though not complete at this writing we can nevertheless see coming on in the near term. Was there appeasement in any of these acts?

]]> By: Amanda Reckonwith http://neoneocon.com/2008/05/17/the-president-goes-negative-and-the-times-goes-fully-insane/#comment-68164 Amanda Reckonwith Sun, 18 May 2008 21:29:46 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2008/05/17/the-president-goes-negative-and-the-times-goes-fully-insane/#comment-68164 Sergey brings up Reagan, saying: ``All these examples, just as Reagan’s talks with Gorbachev, are not appeasement of insane intransigent enemies, but efficient diplomacy, urging opponents to cooperate.'' I agree. My point is that "efficient diplomacy'' is dismissed by many Bush supporters as "appeasement" whenever it's the product of a Democratic administration. Reagan's record, of course, includes more direct examples of appeasement. In response to the bombing of a Marine barracks in Lebanon that killed more than 200 Americans, he immediately withdrew the troops. His response to the taking of hostages by Iranian agents was to offer them missiles in exchange for their influence in returning the hostages. I defy anyone to come up with examples from a Democratic president that match the definition of appeasement as closely as the above examples do. Sergey brings up Reagan, saying: “All these examples, just as Reagan’s talks with Gorbachev, are not appeasement of insane intransigent enemies, but efficient diplomacy, urging opponents to cooperate.”

I agree. My point is that “efficient diplomacy” is dismissed by many Bush supporters as “appeasement” whenever it’s the product of a Democratic administration.

Reagan’s record, of course, includes more direct examples of appeasement. In response to the bombing of a Marine barracks in Lebanon that killed more than 200 Americans, he immediately withdrew the troops.

His response to the taking of hostages by Iranian agents was to offer them missiles in exchange for their influence in returning the hostages.

I defy anyone to come up with examples from a Democratic president that match the definition of appeasement as closely as the above examples do.

]]> By: BillyR http://neoneocon.com/2008/05/17/the-president-goes-negative-and-the-times-goes-fully-insane/#comment-68142 BillyR Sun, 18 May 2008 14:09:59 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2008/05/17/the-president-goes-negative-and-the-times-goes-fully-insane/#comment-68142 <i>No ad hominem responses please.</i> Sorry, but you don't get to dictate the kinds of responses you get, but the fact that you chose to try speaks volumes about you. Pakistan is a powder keg all right, but it has been contained so far. At least they aren't, at least that I know about, advocating or trying to destroy Israel. Sometimes you have to ally with some pretty nasty people, but sometimes that's the best alternative. What would be yours? No ad hominem responses please.
Sorry, but you don’t get to dictate the kinds of responses you get, but the fact that you chose to try speaks volumes about you.

Pakistan is a powder keg all right, but it has been contained so far. At least they aren’t, at least that I know about, advocating or trying to destroy Israel. Sometimes you have to ally with some pretty nasty people, but sometimes that’s the best alternative. What would be yours?

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://neoneocon.com/2008/05/17/the-president-goes-negative-and-the-times-goes-fully-insane/#comment-68141 Ymarsakar Sun, 18 May 2008 13:26:20 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2008/05/17/the-president-goes-negative-and-the-times-goes-fully-insane/#comment-68141 To the Democrats or their supporters, they think everybody can be talked to, that anyone can be dealt with via the "Deal". It is the fundamental basis of all US politicians that they can get anything they want through "The Deal". So long as you have what some other politician or figure of power wants, you can "Deal". When you look at the structure of Democrat power, meaning how they derive electoral victories, it is not far of a leap to understand how appeasement, giving your opponents what they want in return for what you want in the short term, is something Democrats both love yet abhor hearing since the reminder of Hitler+Chamberlain is not good PR and thus not good for Democrat power. The one thing the history books still teach is that Chamberlain appeased Hitler and it failed. Since Democrat power is based off of turning Hitler into a traitor of socialist and communist principles, Democrats have too much invested to reverse the public trends on "appeasement". Democrats would much rather talk about diplomacy and coming to a greater understanding of each other, because that is how Democrats shackled African Americans in the United States once more when the Civil War broke those shackles before. To the Democrats or their supporters, they think everybody can be talked to, that anyone can be dealt with via the “Deal”. It is the fundamental basis of all US politicians that they can get anything they want through “The Deal”. So long as you have what some other politician or figure of power wants, you can “Deal”.

When you look at the structure of Democrat power, meaning how they derive electoral victories, it is not far of a leap to understand how appeasement, giving your opponents what they want in return for what you want in the short term, is something Democrats both love yet abhor hearing since the reminder of Hitler+Chamberlain is not good PR and thus not good for Democrat power.

The one thing the history books still teach is that Chamberlain appeased Hitler and it failed. Since Democrat power is based off of turning Hitler into a traitor of socialist and communist principles, Democrats have too much invested to reverse the public trends on “appeasement”.

Democrats would much rather talk about diplomacy and coming to a greater understanding of each other, because that is how Democrats shackled African Americans in the United States once more when the Civil War broke those shackles before.

]]> By: Sergey http://neoneocon.com/2008/05/17/the-president-goes-negative-and-the-times-goes-fully-insane/#comment-68139 Sergey Sun, 18 May 2008 13:17:08 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2008/05/17/the-president-goes-negative-and-the-times-goes-fully-insane/#comment-68139 All these examples, just as Reagan's talks with Gorbachev, are not appeasement of insane intransigent enemies, but efficient diplomacy, urging opponents to cooperate. Bush specifically pointed out when diplomasy can work and when it can not. Religeous fanatics could not be coerced to cooperate, they can only be isolated and destroyed, and everything damaging these goals is conterproductive. All these examples, just as Reagan’s talks with Gorbachev, are not appeasement of insane intransigent enemies, but efficient diplomacy, urging opponents to cooperate. Bush specifically pointed out when diplomasy can work and when it can not. Religeous fanatics could not be coerced to cooperate, they can only be isolated and destroyed, and everything damaging these goals is conterproductive.

]]>