Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think dear mr president has enough going on in this country to keep him busy and he needs to stay his butt in the white house and take care of his countrys problems and stop telling people what they need to be doing . I think he needs to keep his butt home and worry about his own country ie : joblessness, homeless and etc .... and what is his wife doing there ? must she accompany him on everything . I think the both of them are glory hounds and they will most certainly miss the cameras when they are no longer in office . I did mean they cause michelle acts like she is the vice president .
The First Lady always goes on these types of trips - it is nothing new.
So you think Obama should not have attended the G20 Summit? That is crazy talk.
No ability to discern good from bad at all... People who oppress basic human rights deserve zero legitimacy. If they were arguing over gays being able to marry, that would be considered a success. Instead they kill women for being raped, they hang men for being gay and they lock people up for life for having wine while the oppress the freedom of speech. In NK, Kimmie is so oppressive is people are actually below the normal growth rate of civilized nations because of malnutrition (the thing everyone gawked at McCain about during the election).
There is no better example of what people behind the lines feel than Poland.
Natan Sharansky: (While in the soviet gulags)
Vaclav Havel:
Though it might not be in the form of the red army anymore it still carries the same ugly face of the beast. Appeasement goes all the way back to Carthage and the Punic wars and probably even further back, you'll notice it was a failure then too. Bodies are left mangled and littered throughout the world and history with the hopes of appeasement, although it's been called many other names in the past. We're closer now than ever before to world wide freedom, but we can give in and up if it'll make you "feel" secure.
The stern father figure is the only thing that has worked throughout history. Find one appeased nation that was thirsty for control of the state and power and was oppressive that gave up when "asked" to and turned to freedom.
Okay, BJ, so what exactly do you thing we should do about these oppressive regimes? Cut off all diplomatic and economic ties with them? Bye-bye oil. Or should we invade them all and put our version of good government in charge? Besides being impossible, there are lots of problems with that approach. Do you have another suggestion?
Because it seems like sitting down and talking with these governments, and possibly achieving peaceful solutions to conflicts, isn't that bad an idea.
You don't legitimize them with talks that's for sure. You feed the nation what it wants and for places like Iran that's an American type of life, they really despise their government but can't do much about it feeling like if they do they die, propaganda, funding movements. NK is a little different in that China sort of sticks up for them, like we would with other democracies. It's quiet simple though in terms of the ideas behind it, you don't reward bad behavior. Positive reinforcement for a negative action is how children, drug users, animals..etc continue on doing anything they want, and if that's beating people for being gay or killing wpmen for being raped there is no room to give. If given anything they'll take more.
It's not easy but simple. It's not something that solves the problem tomorrow like appeasement does so it's not as pretty, in the end though you have no other choice because it always ends up with the same results and eventual crossing of paths and it's usually not pretty. Maybe behind the scenes Obama is doing that and we won't know till his presidency is over. What it looks like on the surface is the same old failed policies of the past.
I can't stress enough: A people free to choose will always choose peace. That doesn't mean there will not be disagreements but oppression breeds wars and terror. Maybe it's unrealistic to expect everyone to be free, but it's an admirable goal and one I would feel completely hypocritical about if I allowed myself to accept that others are not free and that was okay.
You don't legitimize them with talks that's for sure. You feed the nation what it wants and for places like Iran that's an American type of life, they really despise their government but can't do much about it feeling like if they do they die, propaganda, funding movements. NK is a little different in that China sort of sticks up for them, like we would with other democracies. It's quiet simple though in terms of the ideas behind it, you don't reward bad behavior. Positive reinforcement for a negative action is how children, drug users, animals..etc continue on doing anything they want, and if that's beating people for being gay or killing wpmen for being raped there is no room to give. If given anything they'll take more.
It's not easy but simple. It's not something that solves the problem tomorrow like appeasement does so it's not as pretty, in the end though you have no other choice because it always ends up with the same results and eventual crossing of paths and it's usually not pretty. Maybe behind the scenes Obama is doing that and we won't know till his presidency is over. What it looks like on the surface is the same old failed policies of the past.
I can't stress enough: A people free to choose will always choose peace. That doesn't mean there will not be disagreements but oppression breeds wars and terror. Maybe it's unrealistic to expect everyone to be free, but it's an admirable goal and one I would feel completely hypocritical about if I allowed myself to accept that others are not free and that was okay.
I appreciate the thoughtful response, but still didn't find what course of action you propose. And you continually expound on the issue of appeasement, but diplomacy and appeasement are two different things. Talking to people you have conflicts with isn't appeasement. Negotiation doesn't have to be appeasement. By the way, I'm Polish, so when you talk about appeasement and Poland, you are trying to make the discussion emotional (at least to me). While it's hard to separate emotions from politics, when it comes to diplomacy, it's necessary.
No ability to discern good from bad at all... People who oppress basic human rights deserve zero legitimacy. If they were arguing over gays being able to marry, that would be considered a success. Instead they kill women for being raped, they hang men for being gay and they lock people up for life for having wine while the oppress the freedom of speech. In NK, Kimmie is so oppressive is people are actually below the normal growth rate of civilized nations because of malnutrition (the thing everyone gawked at McCain about during the election).
And yet they look at us and see our soldiers stripping their brethren naked and humiliating them. They see us torturing other humans. They see us invade sovereign countries, create a situation in which estimates of hundreds of thousands are killed, throw out their governments, and implant our own.
I am NOT defending the horrific actions of these countries. You simply seem locked in a "Yay America" worldview and don't perceive that we are doing the very things to them that you find so outrageous.
Imagine, for a moment, if the European Union felt we had become too corrupt and too many thousands of people had died at the hands of our government. They chose to invade and overthrow our government, then worked with us to build a new one.
How would that go over with you? Not very well. Sitting face to face with one's aggressors takes a great deal more strength and maturity than punching them in the face. Every fifth grader learns that on the playground.
Quote:
The stern father figure is the only thing that has worked throughout history. Find one appeased nation that was thirsty for control of the state and power and was oppressive that gave up when "asked" to and turned to freedom.
Yes. It worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan when the Russians and the British invaded. It worked so well under the British Empire.
Come on, BJ. A strong marriage has a balance of the masculine disciplinarian and the feminine nurturer. You're promoting a worldview significantly misaligned from that balance.
We experienced your worldview the past 8 years. It failed.
I appreciate the thoughtful response, but still didn't find what course of action you propose. And you continually expound on the issue of appeasement, but diplomacy and appeasement are two different things. Talking to people you have conflicts with isn't appeasement. Negotiation doesn't have to be appeasement. By the way, I'm Polish, so when you talk about appeasement and Poland, you are trying to make the discussion emotional (at least to me). While it's hard to separate emotions from politics, when it comes to diplomacy, it's necessary.
Would you go talk to the crack dealer on the corner? What do you expect to get out of that meeting? It's really no different. I guess you missed the first part of my post. You can fight wars without bullets. You size up your opponent in all aspects that support them from the very religions they believe in to the food they eat. War is not always a negative action, positive actions to oppressed people has some profound influences on people. For example the spread of the bible in the 15th and 16th centuries. The spreading of propaganda talking about the suppression of religion in the soviet union.
You don't legitimize them with talks that's for sure. You feed the nation what it wants and for places like Iran that's an American type of life, they really despise their government but can't do much about it feeling like if they do they die, propaganda, funding movements. NK is a little different in that China sort of sticks up for them, like we would with other democracies. It's quiet simple though in terms of the ideas behind it, you don't reward bad behavior. Positive reinforcement for a negative action is how children, drug users, animals..etc continue on doing anything they want, and if that's beating people for being gay or killing wpmen for being raped there is no room to give. If given anything they'll take more.
It's not easy but simple. It's not something that solves the problem tomorrow like appeasement does so it's not as pretty, in the end though you have no other choice because it always ends up with the same results and eventual crossing of paths and it's usually not pretty. Maybe behind the scenes Obama is doing that and we won't know till his presidency is over. What it looks like on the surface is the same old failed policies of the past.
I can't stress enough: A people free to choose will always choose peace. That doesn't mean there will not be disagreements but oppression breeds wars and terror. Maybe it's unrealistic to expect everyone to be free, but it's an admirable goal and one I would feel completely hypocritical about if I allowed myself to accept that others are not free and that was okay.
Exactly. Russian-born spies for the USA during the Cold War were paid well for the intelligence they gathered for America. However, in the transcripts of conversations with one of the spies that was ultimately caught by the KGB, it was revealed that more than money, he was most happy to receive a fresh copy of Playboy every month. Playboy folks. This guy helped break the back of the Cold War USSR and we made him happy with a magazine. If you've never traveled to a country whose people are oppressed, you simply can't understand the appreciation that other people have for the American way of life.
A few years later, however, in 221 BC, a young man, only twenty-five years old, assumed command over Carthaginian Spain: Hannibal. At first, Hannibal gave the Saguntines wide berth for he wished to avoid coming into conflict with Rome. But the Saguntines were flush with confidence in their new alliance and began playing politics with other Spanish cities. Hannibal, despite direct threats from Rome, attacked Saguntum and conquered it.
Quote:
The Romans attempted to solve the problem with diplomacy and demand that Carthage dismiss Hannibal and send him to Rome. When Carthage refused, the second Punic War began in 218 BC. Rome, however, was facing a formidable opponent; in the years following the first Punic War, Carthage had created a powerful empire in Spain with a terrifyingly large army. Hannibal marched that terrible army out of Spain and across Europe and, in September of 218, he crossed the Alps with his army and entered Italy on a war of invasion. Although his army was tired from the journey, he literally smashed the Roman armies he encountered in northern Italy. Within two months, he had conquered the whole of northern Italy, with the exception of two cities. These spectacular victories brought a horde of Gauls from the north to help him, fifty thousand or more; his victory over Rome, as he saw it, would be guaranteed if he could convince Roman allies and subject cities to join Carthage.
Rome: The Punic Wars wsu.edu (http://wsu.edu/%7Edee/ROME/PUNICWAR.HTM - broken link)
Cato- "Carthago delenda est": Carthage must be destroyed
Cato may have very well been our first neo politician and purveyor of mans free will.
Would you go talk to the crack dealer on the corner? What do you expect to get out of that meeting? It's really no different. I guess you missed the first part of my post. You can fight wars without bullets. You size up your opponent in all aspects that support them from the very religions they believe in to the food they eat. War is not always a negative action, positive actions to oppressed people has some profound influences on people. For example the spread of the bible in the 15th and 16th centuries. The spreading of propaganda talking about the suppression of religion in the soviet union.
So you are advocating cold war tactics when it comes to these oppressive governments? I'm not going to address the spreading of the Bible in the 15th and 16th centuries, because I think a discussion of those practices is better dealt with in the history forum, and also because the strategies of that period of time don't transpose well to modern times. I don't think the use of propaganda to affect change in the oppressed nations you are talking about is a strategy that's been taken off the table. And having communication between our President and their leaders doesn't negate such strategies. And having face-to-face talks with Syria, Iran or Hamas would seem to add to the whole "sizing-up" your enemy policy you seem to be advocating. So you then agree that Obama is behaving properly and rightly in sitting down with these people?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
