digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at jedreport.com

James Baker: Talking to enemies isn't appeasement

jedreport.com — Another example of why John McCain hates YouTube. Former Sec'y of State James Baker, a McCain supporter, directly contradicted McCain's current position on diplomacy in 2006.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • tcbishop12, on 05/20/2008, -8/+148Reagan Secretary of State James Baker knew: If there is anything that has been discredited by history, it is the argument that every enemy is Hitler, that negotiations constitute appeasement, and that talking will automatically lead to a slaughter of Holocaust-like proportions. It is an argument that conservatives made throughout the Cold War, and, if the charge seemed overblown at the time, it is now positively ludicrous with the clarity of hindsight.

    And Baker knew: When Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1987, which for the first time eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons, William F. Buckley's National Review dubbed it "suicide." The Conservative Caucus took out a full-page newspaper ad saying "Appeasement is as unwise in 1988 as in 1938." It paired photos of Reagan and Gorbachev with photos of Neville Chamberlain and Hitler.

    Containment, negotiation, nuclear stability -- each of these things has helped to protect the United States and frankly, ended the Cold War. And yet, at the time, conservatives thought each was synonymous with appeasement.

    The Bush administration has been little different, refusing for years to talk to North Korea or Iran about their nuclear programs because it wanted to defeat evil, not talk to it. The result was that Pyongyang tested a nuclear weapon and Iran's uranium program continued unfettered. (By contrast, when the administration negotiated with Libya -- an act that its chief arms controller, John Bolton, had previously derided as, yes, "appeasement" -- it succeeded in eliminating Tripoli's nuclear program.)

    But John McCain accused President Clinton of "appeasement" for engaging North Korea, instead calling for "rogue state rollback". And now he dismisses, out of hand, the idea of negotiations with Iran.

    Hindsight, as they say, is 20-20. Given the extremist right's historical record, Sen. Obama's inclination to negotiate seems the only sensible and rational approach to long term problem solving and stability within the region.

    When will the fearful, xenophobic rabid right learn that it is 2008, not 1938?



    • Dumbledorito, on 05/20/2008, -5/+29"It paired photos of Reagan and Gorbachev with photos of Neville Chamberlain and Hitler."

      Rush Limbaugh, at the time, kept referring to all of the progress being made with Russia as a "Gorbasm," and that the whole Perestroika thing was a dirty trick.
      • Rikety, on 05/21/2008, -0/+0Wrongo Dumbledority.

        Limbaugh (when I thought he was worth listening to, waaayyyy back) referred to a 'Gorbasm' as those things that were unique to Gorbachev and a departure from things in the usual Russian way. That is to say, bland, xenophobic, and generally the 'my way or the highway,' attitude.

        Gorby, about two years ago, took 'responsibility' for the decline of the Soviet Union, and said that he never meant it to happen. He was just nudging the boulder a little bit into the democracy track, and the people just took it from there - totally uncontrolled. Ending up in Disaster for their country...as it was.
    • oldhick, on 05/20/2008, -15/+8I don't argue with any of your logic whatsoever except the Clinton point. I think you're dead on right about "talking" with our enemies. However, we provided North Korea with millions/billions in aid so that they could begin to develop nuclear technology...
      Its a fine line between "talking" and sticking your head in the sand. I certainly don't pretend to have the answers and I don't think Clinton was wrong in trying to work out a diplomatic solution. But I DO believe that we need and should demand assurances on where our money will go and towards what ends.
      Anyway, nice post.
      • Dumbledorito, on 05/20/2008, -1/+8Actually, you prove the point. Plans were that the talks/aid with North Korea were going to continue when Bush took office. His then-Secretary of State, Colin Powell, even said this would be the case.

        Then Bush started his diplomatic reign of destruction and cut the pins out from under both Powell and the work that had already been established with N. Korea (this is when Powell should have realized that he'd pretty much been had and that he was about as important to BushCo as the traditionally "pardoned" White House Thanksgiving turkey, except that the turkey got to keep its dignity).

        It's an interesting (and utterly despair-inducing) bit of trivia about the Bush administration is that they didn't keep the previous diplomatic corps on for an additional 6 months so that the transition could be smooth and those we were in talks with couldn't claim we'd said or promised something we didn't or that they hadn't agreed to anything. Nope, ideology was more imporant than contiuning a sensible policy that had been in effect for every previous modern presidency.
      • PhilLesh69, on 05/20/2008, -2/+7Dumbledorito, you're right. But to be fair, even the Clinton Administration had this idea that "You don't go into negotiations without certain preconditions" which is a politically loaded term that basically means you can't negotiate until certain things have been agreed upon. It hopes that people don't figure out that in order to meet "preconditions", there needs to be some sort of negotiation, in order to lay those conditions on the table and have the other party agree to them.

        Both sides play these ideologically strict and unbending games that serve only their party or their faction within their party, and harm this country.
        • shekissesfrogs, on 05/20/2008, -2/+4And you just very eloquently described the reason that the Israeli-Palestinian issue won't be solved this year. Clinton, Rice, and Israel use this strategy to no end.
        • PhilLesh69, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2I think that goes without saying.

          This is the source of all of our problems. Maybe not the source, but at least the reason that all of our problems continue to fester and only get worse.
      • sa9e, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2First, neither McCain nor Bush have said "there will be no talking to Iran under any circumstances". Indeed, we have been talking to Iran during the entirety of the Bush term. The critical difference is the notion captured by Obama's debate promise to meet *at the presidential level, with no preconditions* with leaders like Ahmadinejad, Chavez, and Kim.

        Had the leader of Iran not defied the world consensus that Iran must not enrich uranium, had he not spoken openly about the imminent destruction of Israel three dozen times in three years, and were he not responsible for deaths of American soldiers in Iraq, the notion of direct, presidential talks (but NOT "negotiation") would be far less problematic.

        Obama supporters can seem to find no basis for critiquing his off-the-cuff policy statements, but this is only because they refuse to acknowledge Ahmadinejad's rap sheet. I'd like to see just one of you show some awareness of the role Iran has played in the deaths of American soldiers, and then tell me there is nothing wrong with promising Ahmadinejad an equal place at the table.

        Same goes for N.K.'s Kim. He got high level negotiations, made lots of promises that Clinton and Albright took credit for, but the negotiations basically consisted of bribing N.K. and praying that they stop. Well, they never stopped, and even up until the point that they tested a nuclear bomb a few years ago, were claiming that they had.

        So promising "unconditional" talks at the presidential level is essentially saying to these men that there are no consequences for defying agreements, killing Americans, and developing nuclear weapons. That is why Obama is a complete naif in global politics, and not remotely to be trusted to save the world from nuclear rogue states.

        It is easy to make similar points for Hamas, Hizbollah, Assad, Castro, and Chavez.
    • jbenson2, on 05/20/2008, -28/+3Barack Obama cited John F. Kennedy and his meeting with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna in 1961. He absent-mindedly left out the details (one of his more common weaknesses).

      The earnest, young American president wanted to forestall any possibility of misunderstanding and to win Khrushchev’s commitment to the international status quo. The blustery, risk-taking Soviet premier wanted to bludgeon Kennedy into making concessions that would further the Soviet goal of global revolution. With such clashing objectives, the two leaders didn’t exactly hit it off.

      When Kennedy thought he was being accommodating, Khrushchev thought he was being weak. He pocketed rhetorical concessions by Kennedy and demanded more. Afterward, Kennedy called it “the roughest thing in my life.” Kennedy adviser George Ball later said that Khrushchev had perceived Kennedy as “young and weak,” and Kennedy confidant Gen. Maxwell Taylor thought Khrushchev concluded he could “shove this young man around.” Vienna was the backdrop for Soviet assertion in the Cold War flash points to come.

      The O-man either does nor learn from history's lessons or does know history. Either scenario (a buffoon or an idiot) is not what we should have in a President.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 05/20/2008, -2/+17But G W Bush is demonstrably both a buffoon and an idiot.. oh, wait, I'm talking to jbenson2, idiot Right Wing Shill and multiple account loser.

        You're always wrong, jbenson. Always. Get used to the words: President Obama.
        • jbenson2, on 05/20/2008, -4/+1Every time the O-man opens his mouth without a teleprompter he digs himself deeper into his self-made grave.
      • shekissesfrogs, on 05/20/2008, -1/+13Can you write your own material? Which do you prefer: plagiarist, buffoon, or idiot?
        http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDUwNTRmMDI1N ...
        Barack Obama may be the most articulate orator of our time, and he certainly didn't develop the skill without being just as good of a listener. He has proven himself worthy to smack down armies ridiculous attacks on his suitability for the Presidency.
        Why are you carrying water for these republicans, now that they don't represent limited government, sound fiscal policies, or strict construction interpretation of the constitution?
        Our country is effectively an autocratic oligarchy, can you tell us what have they done for any of us tax payers? I'd like to encourage you to think for yourself, so please, if you reply, use your original thoughts and your own words. .
        • jbenson2, on 05/20/2008, -4/+1The O-man needs to study the First Rule of Holes.

          Kruschev's meeting was a humiliation for the new President Kennedy. Kruschev understood that, and he judged President Kennedy to be so weak at that point, weak as a person, that many historians think it was a significant factor in Kruschev’s decision to put those missiles in Cuba.

          This is one of Senator Obama’s biggest weaknesses. His lack of experience forces him to talk in vague generalities, and he thinks he can get away with it. He does not realize that’s not how a President conducts foreign policy in the real world. Fortunately, the O-man will never have the chance.
      • haydesigner, on 05/20/2008, -1/+8"He absent-mindedly left out the details (one of his more common weaknesses)."

        You're kidding right? Care to show how often Bush, McCain or even Huckabee go into details when they talk about such things? How about all of the history behind all the foreign policy decisions of the last 40+ years??
        • jbenson2, on 05/20/2008, -4/+1The O-man is trying to run for office. If he wants to stick with his current plan of reciting historical issues that end up biting him in the ass, he will only see the White House from the sidewalk.
    • chaosium, on 05/20/2008, -3/+14"When will the fearful, xenophobic rabid right learn that it is 2008, not 1938?"

      When it stops appealing to the GOP base demographic.
    • PhilLesh69, on 05/20/2008, -2/+17jbenson2, I think you might have picked that right out of the national review, or maybe it was also reiterated on Fox News.

      Krhushchev concluding that he could shove Kennedy around, and Vienna being the backdrop for Soviet assertion in the cold war flash points to come is only looking far enough to find confirmation of your own personal beliefs.

      The Soviets challenged Kennedy by building a wall between East and West Berlin, and blocked the allied movements through East Germany, from West Germany to West Berlin. Kennedy called up reserve troops to Berlin, and sent 1500 sodliers to march the route. They went unchallenged, and this action allowed allied troops to continue moving through East Germany to and from Berlin.

      When the Soviets placed nuclear missiles in Cuba, directly threatening most of the eastern United States, there was a showdown, and eventually the Soviets withdrew those missiles.


      Don't stop looking into something after finding a fact or two that supports your preexisting way of thinking. Follow it through to the end, and then form an opinion.
      • shekissesfrogs, on 05/20/2008, -3/+3If I'm not mistaken, when Castro overthrew the government of Cuba, The US gov. became highly concerned only after he decided to shut down CIA / US mafia activity in gambling casinos and drugs, then he nationalized oil.
        That put him on the hit list and operatives tried to assasinate him multiple times, resulting in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. If he hadn't aligned himself with Russia he would be dead so in that regard he really made a smart move. Bush 41 was the head of the CIA, and had an oil wells in the region.
        • PhilLesh69, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Let's disentangle your thoughts, a bit.

          The CIA/Mafia? The Mafia owned casinos in Havana prior to the revolution. The CIA had/has relationships with the Mafia going back to WWII to prevent German infiltrators interfering with shipping in NYC harbors. There may have been a relationship with the Mafia that influenced CIA motives to invade Cuba and overthrow castro. But the CIA was not involved with Mafia run casinos in Havana. Unless you have some new information that the rest of us haven't been privy to.

          George HW Bush was not head of the CIA until 1976. The Bay of Pigs was in 1961.

          Don't get me wrong, I understand what you were getting at. Castro wanted to be aligned with the US, but because the Mafia had a grudge against him because he took away a lucrative market from them, and because the Mafia had political influence over our government, the US chose to embargo him, attack him, attempt to assassinate him, etc.

          When faced with this reality, of being unilaterally labeled an enemy of one superpower, he had only one choice, to seek help from the other superpower.

          Castro was not a communist during the revolution. As a result of US actions, his only option in order to survive was to seek help from the antithesis of US power, the communist soviets.

        • shekissesfrogs, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Thanks for the disentanglement :)
          You really know your stuff. Are you the CIA?
          I'll try fto find the CIA Mafia Connection
        • sa9e, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2I'm not sure what the point was of going back to Kennedy to understand the implications of Obama's promise to meet with terrorist supporting dictators during a time of open, hot war in the middle east.

          Detente with Iran would be a great step, but it's really a step for Iran to take. But for Obama to suggest that we should try to negotiate politely with Ahmadinejad, just one more time, is an insult to the families of the American soldiers who have been killed by the Iranian special groups in Iraq.
    • petrodollar, on 05/20/2008, -2/+14"However, we provided North Korea with millions/billions in aid so that they could begin to develop nuclear technology..."

      Talking =/= providing billions of dollars worth of aid.

      Thanks for playing!
    • petrodollar, on 05/20/2008, -2/+10"When Kennedy thought he was being accommodating, Khrushchev thought he was being weak."

      That's great, except that you forgot to mention this part: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis# ...

      "At 9 a.m. on October 28, a new message from Khrushchev was broadcast on Radio Moscow. Khrushchev stated "the Soviet government, in addition to previously issued instructions on the cessation of further work at the building sites for the weapons, has issued a new order on the dismantling of the weapons which you describe as 'offensive' and their crating and return to the Soviet Union.""
      • PhilLesh69, on 05/20/2008, -1/+9Yep. This is an example of people who stop reading once they find something that supports their flawed logic. Had they only read a little bit further, they would realize (if they were intellectually honest) that they were wrong.

        So what if Khrushchev thought Kennedy was weak. It turns out Khrushchev may have fatally underestimated his opponent.

        I'm sure many of our modern day "enemies" can fall victim to the same fate.
        • ptanonimo, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1They will fall victim of the same fate.
          Do you have any idea of the gap between the real power of al-qaeda and the power they think they have? It's big and yoiu should explore it
  • rbrahmson, on 05/20/2008, -6/+26This is a great and thorough comment!
    • tcbishop12, on 05/20/2008, -2/+12Thanks Roger. The video of James Baker on the Jed Report website -- and all of the related videos on that site -- offer very revealing historical looks at the issue. Many of the Reagan era Republicans - as well as Secretary of State Condi Rice and Powell (both of whom I also respect) actually had some common sense---a practical approach and realistic world view of what is actually required to solve our common problems with each other. The Jed Report is doing a great job of presenting these issues - and exposing hypocrisy - in ways which are quickly understandable and self-evident.

  • spinchange, on 05/20/2008, -4/+48It's truly depressing that paleocons like Baker have no place in the GOP anymore, and yet they publicly support their ***** insane neocon offspring, while privately pulling their hair out.
    • Hillsfar, on 05/20/2008, -2/+11Republicans close ranks.
    • Dumbledorito, on 05/20/2008, -2/+12That's the 11th Commandment for you.
      • Fordi, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5Thou Shalt Not Get Caught?

        I don't know. I usually prefer the 7 habits of highly effective pirates.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlock_Mercenary#The ...

        "There is no overkill. There is only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload.'"

        It just struck me - I think the present administration may be taking these rules seriously...
      • Dumbledorito, on 05/20/2008, -1/+6That might be the subtext, but it's usually "Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Thy Fellow Republican."
    • synaesthesia, on 05/20/2008, -2/+12No *****..the GOP wouldn't be a dying brand facing an inevitable loss this year if those within it's ranks stood up for their beliefs. There ARE smart minds within the party, but they let the hawkish neocons bully them into silence (I'm looking at you, Colin Powell). Why did Baker show himself to be capable of promoting intelligent diplomatic strategy and then endorse the candidate who is not?
      • petrodollar, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5"Why did Baker show himself to be capable of promoting intelligent diplomatic strategy and then endorse the candidate who is not?"

        His law firm butters its bread with fat legal bills to some notable folks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_Botts#Notable_c ...

        --------------
        Notable clients

        * Prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia
        * Halliburton
        ----------------
      • shekissesfrogs, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1This should be treason or something...
    • plimpton777, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Well said, sir.
  • Hillsfar, on 05/20/2008, -6/+17McCain will talk paint himself into a corner.
    • bjornski, on 05/20/2008, -1/+17"Appeasement" is what got him released from his P.O.W. camp.
    • postalblowfish7, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1a clean, safe looking all-white corner that 40%+ of the american populous (the moron vote) will go for.
      • PolishLogic, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1If you consider almost 1/2 the country to be morons, what are you hoping to salvage? If that's truly the case, we're ***** no matter who wins the election. We might as well just hurry up and get this whole America thing it over with, then.

        That is, if you truly believe what you're saying.
        • postalblowfish7, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1um - half the country voted for a second bush term. so yes, i'm saying that half of the country are morons.
  • lennyrrt, on 05/20/2008, -18/+4Vague threats aren't working, so in consideration of talks, Obama says... WE'LL DO IT LIVE!
    • plimpton777, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS
    • MagikPoo, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Yo! Dude! What the ***** are you talking about???
  • moolaismyfriend, on 05/20/2008, -14/+20It's funny now the press and people start calling the GOP on it's BS talking points.

    Remember "cut and run" If you voted for a Democrat you were a cut and run coward. Of course that made no sense, like when Bush cut and run from talks with N. Korea and they tested a nuclear bomb and now he is back to talks with them. Or is that appeasement with the N. Koreans?
    • ZhugeLiang, on 05/20/2008, -9/+8Uh.....North Korea is actually dismantling its nuclear program, perhaps you should get up with the times.
      • moolaismyfriend, on 05/20/2008, -6/+15Uhh hello McFly, that was when Bush decided to negotiate with them after Korea tested the bomb you historically challenged goon!
        • Jamihabs, on 05/20/2008, -5/+7Uh Hello!! Bush never sat down with Kim Jong Il. Lower level representatives met behind the scenes. No free publicity and gravitas for Kim Jong Il. No humiliating photos of Kim standing up to the president of the United States and telling him to “f” off to his face.
        • moolaismyfriend, on 05/20/2008, -6/+8LOL yeah ok buddy what are you 12 and not pay attention to history until like a year ago?

          I ain't gonna waste my time with you neo-con revisionist.

        • shekissesfrogs, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2China negotiated with N. Korea.
    • RAEP, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1wat
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/20/2008, -5/+4You mean the bomb North Korea built while negotiating with Clinton?
      • nalen33, on 08/29/2008, -0/+2You realize 90% of the people who read and post on Digg were teenagers in the 90s and have no recollection of what actually occurred during that time. I was one of them until I started reading books and magazines that weren't shoved in front of me by a professor or teacher. People should try it sometime.
    • MagikPoo, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1...and exploded while NOT negotiating with Bush 1 and 2? If my memory serves me correct, Reagan negotiated with Iran to free the hostages, then negotiated weapons for food, and send rumbsfelt to talk to Saddam Hussein? Holy crap I'm so tired of the Neo-Con Bull *****! Things turned to ***** when Shrub senior stopped talking to anyone they saw as a terrorist. North Korea Started testing and acually sent a Nuclear Rocket During both Bush's Occupation. Do your home work!
  • ZhugeLiang, on 05/20/2008, -29/+5Buried for what is actually little more than the manufactroversy started when Obama was dumb enough to fall into Bush's trap over his appeasement remarks. It never was about Obama, the comments were actually a reference to Jimmy Carter and his dealings with Hamas.

    • moolaismyfriend, on 05/20/2008, -7/+15No they weren't you gullible little Neo-Con. The White House hours later said that after the press and the American public became appalled by the comments and the lack of respect they showed to the nation.

      Hey you wanna buy a bridge pal?
  • utahnkid, on 05/20/2008, -17/+7There's a VERY good reason our government doesn't negotiate with terrorists abroad or at home (well at least not publicly). The SECOND it becomes widely known that all you have to do is push us a little bit and we'll bend over will be when this country falls.
    • Fordi, on 05/20/2008, -4/+11It is very seldom that a government has a direct hand in terrorism. They may be aware of it, they may support it, whatever, but whatever a government's reasons for, essentially, looking the other way, are political.

      Most of the world's governments are smart enough to know that if they are connected with a terrorist group, their country will get decimated, but quick, by a coalition of nations. Afghanistan was a damned good show of that, and all that was needed, really.

      Diplomacy, in these cases, is thus: "We know you're either sponsoring terrorists, or ignoring them. Shut them down, and we won't get the rest of the civilized world to help us reduce you to the stone age. Crack down on it before our big ham hands do your stamping out for you; you seriously don't want that.

      "We'll be back in six months; you'd better hope that the world intelligence community has good news for us when we do. If that's the case, we can talk about other, more mutually beneficial matters."

      Basic diplomatic formula for a nation with internal forces violently hostile to your interests: Assert that there is a problem, that talks cannot commence until it's solved, and that if the problem isn't solved, there will be consequences. Then drop a nebulous carrot in front of them as a last note so that there's something to look forward to as fruit for their efforts. Make no promises. Make no threats. Assert the problem, the easy way, and the hard way, and the potential benefits of the easy way.

      "There's a VERY good reason our government doesn't negotiate with terrorists abroad or at home; the SECOND it becomes widely known that all you have to do is push us a little bit and we'll bend over will be when this country falls."

      You're right; we don't negotiate with terrorists. Those doing the planning and execution are decidedly unreasonable, otherwise, they wouldn't be involved in murder - but their sponsors, they may be a lot of things, but they're either politicians or businessmen first.

      We don't negotiate with terrorists, because terrorists have no strings to pull. Sponsors of terrorism have plenty - and we have a vested interest in pulling the string that disconnects them from their interest in terrorism.
      • utahnkid, on 05/20/2008, -3/+4This is the problem.. It's so easy for rational people to talk these problems out, but alas we aren't the ones to worry about. It's the tyrannical zealots that truly don't care or respect logic. You have to find a common denominator and sadly for humans it's who can hurt who more. If you show weakness they WILL exploit it. I agree it's the business men and politicians that provide the wood for the fire but you and I know they would never fight their own battle. Once the higher ups realize their pathetic threats mean nothing they'll have nothing but broken promises and threats on their track record.. Not the kind of stuff that builds enough confidence in one's self to suicide bomb some place and think it's actually going to do anything.
        • Fordi, on 05/20/2008, -1/+4The problem is that when you go in guns first against someone you could have talked down, you're committing the morally worst Type II error possible: a false positive with death as a consequence.

          Mind you, 9/11 was the morally worst Type I error possible: a false negative with death as a consequence. The reason for that was intelligence failure, not diplomacy.

          If you have the dialogue, and it ends up they need blown to kingdom come to get some results - that's one thing - but if you never give them a chance to fix things, you'll never know if you had a reason to go to war, or if you're just a murderer.

          Our leaders are supposed to have the sort of reason necessary to avoid tragedies like this.
      • utahnkid, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1"Some men aren’t looking for anything logical. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just wanna watch the world burn."
        • Fordi, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2This is true... but telling the difference between an unreasonable despot and a despot who acts this way because his reason tells him that he has to in order to keep the peace - that takes sitting down and having a chat with him.
      • shekissesfrogs, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1Fordi, this is gonna hurt but... our government absolutely pays "terrorists" to commit crimes and create terror. There is more covert activity than public.
        The problem is that we label groups like this for public effect when they aren't on our side, but sometime in the future we'll use them as mercenaries; they still have the designation but that doesn't stop us, they just get erased from the list.
        Technically The CIA, M15 and the Mossad are terrorists.
        They engage in covert operations, extra-judicial killings, psy-ops wars, kidnapping, torture, false flag operations....
        We trained the Taliban, AlQueda, Fatah, The Guerillas in South America, Installed Pinochet... I could go on and on..
        Check out Seymour Hersch
        http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/0703 ...
        and look up the "School of the Americas". It's where we train the worst terrorists in the world.
        • Fordi, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1I'm already quite aware. I'm attempting to explain how to *reverse* the situation.
    • pintomp3, on 05/20/2008, -5/+7which terrorist governments? the ones that shoot down passenger airplanes?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
      or the ones that overthrow democratic governments to install dictators?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
      • utahnkid, on 05/20/2008, -5/+5If you're insinuating that America has a terrorist government and we're so horrible you need to research into some history.. Our slate is pretty clean compared to ANY other major nation this planet has ever seen. Europe has enough horror stories to make you sick
        • pintomp3, on 05/20/2008, -4/+4we were the last western democracy to still have slavery and the last one still supporting the apartheid government in south africa. we are the last industrialized country that uses the death penalty. we have more of our own citizens in jail than any other country. we are the only country to have dropped nukes on civilians. we are one of the few countries to launch a preventive war, putting us in the great company of nazi germany and israel. i am well aware of the atrocities committed by the colonial powers of europe. the problem is we seem intent on emulating the worst of their behavior.
        • utahnkid, on 05/20/2008, -2/+4We're not even close. You obviously don't have a clue. Look up the holocaust, genius.
        • StarlessKnight, on 05/20/2008, -2/+3@utahnkid: Well, as long as we haven't caused a "Holocaust" the United States is still on that side of 'evil.' Are you lowering the bar that far? Is that really what it would take for you to say "We've gone too far?" We have to slaughter 6 million innocent people?
      • yellowcakewalk, on 05/20/2008, -6/+6More acts from the USA terrorist government:

        On 8 March 1985, a car bomb exploded 9-45 metres[1][2] from the house of Islamic cleric Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah in Beirut, Lebanon, in a failed assassination attempt. The bombing, later discovered to be the work of CIA-trained Lebanese mercenaries, killed more than 80[3] people and injured 200.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Beirut_car_bombi ...

        Most of those killed by the CIA mercenary terrorists were women and children.
  • kolinkoolface2, on 05/20/2008, -7/+21as much as i don't like Obama, i must say, i think it is wise to talk to iran. We are not appeasing anything by simply talking to them. Chamberlain appeased hitler by letting him take yugoslavia, just because Iran is obtaining nuclear technology does not mean they are anywhere close to creating a weapon out of it. Diplomacy and appeasement are two separate entities that should never be confused.
    • moolaismyfriend, on 05/20/2008, -9/+6Actually it was half of Czechoslovakia, which is now called the Czech Republic.
    • synaesthesia, on 05/20/2008, -4/+16I'm not sure why you're getting dugg down; because you don't like Obama?

      Eight years, our diplomatic strategy has been LA-LA-LA-WE-DONT-HEAR-YOU, and where has that gotten us? A stronger, more influential Iran well en route to achieving a full-fledged nuclear program and a North Korea who managed to test an actual nuclear device.

      The only successes we've had with either nation in the past few years (minor cooperation in Iraq with Iran and the removal of the NK nuclear program) have come when we've engaged in the diplomatic process and negotiating.

      Like you said, Obama-fan or not, to support the strategy of simply ignoring your enemies is utterly retarded foreign policy.
      • dagamer34, on 05/20/2008, -2/+9That's not even a policy. That's what kids do on the playground when they hear info they know is right but stupidly ignore.
    • chaosium, on 05/20/2008, -2/+14I don't think anyone really "likes" Iran's administration, but there are a number of Iranians that DO like us and our culture. The worst thing we can do to the younger generations is cockwave and call them all evil as Bush and others have done.
    • PhilLesh69, on 05/20/2008, -0/+6http://www.newsweek.com/id/137518/page/1

      excerpt from Newsweek:

      Perhaps Gates noticed that violence has declined in Iraq largely because the United States decided to engage with Sunni militants whom it had regarded for years as sworn enemies, giving cash to those whom we called terrorists only a few months earlier. In fact, this administration's few successes have come when it's agreed to talk with its adversaries. Bush authorized negotiations with Libya and North Korea—both of which he regarded as terrorist states and one of which he placed in the Axis of Evil. As for Iran, we've talked with Iranian officials on several occasions over issues relating to Afghanistan and Iraq. James Dobbins, the administration's representative in the 2002 talks to form the government in Afghanistan, described the Iranians as "straightforward, reliable and helpful. They were critical to our success." President Bush's remarks on the solemn occasion of Israel's 60th anniversary may have been political. But much worse, they were dishonest.
    • ZeRux, on 05/20/2008, -4/+2Baker is no better than Chamberlain because in 1991 he told Yugoslavian leaders that they're free to fight a war aganst all nations who declare independence. Several days later, Slovenia declared independence and the war in ex-Yugoslavia started, later expanding to Croatia and Bosnia. In my eyes, Baker and old Bush are one of the people who are the most reponsible for it.
    • peterinjapan, on 05/20/2008, -2/+6I'm curious, why don't you like Obama? I'd really like to know what the average person (if you are average) has against him. My mother was for Hillary, but then she's a middle aged woman -- I understand that. I understand anyone who dislikes any intelligent person who attended a university on the East Coast, although it's retarded. Unless Obama turns out to be a huge left-leaning person who's going to raise the income tax level to 70% (he's not) I think he'll basically be okay.
      • dayalsoap, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1He's just another guy looking to expand the government control. Regardless on whether it's overseas, or on our soil, it's still government expansion.

        Do you want someone like Bush having more control over our medicine? There will be further bad presidents, congressmen/women, and senators. Why give them control over something they shouldn't have in the first place? Let alone, increase the control.
        • lived666, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Republicans say they want a smaller weaker federal government but when they get in power they increase the size and authority of the govt.
  • makkaveli19, on 05/20/2008, -3/+52When did diplomacy become the last resort?
    • synaesthesia, on 05/20/2008, -0/+12When it became easier to convince the American people to bomb another nation than to risk exposing themselves to unpleasant ideas (such as the people we hate aren't that different from us after all).
      • PhilLesh69, on 05/20/2008, -1/+7Hate and fear mongering is something you can sell to just about every lowest common denominator fool out there.

        Basically, it is easier to sell to the bell curve. You know, where 5% have IQs below 75, 5% have IQs above 125, and the other 90% fall in the middle?

        I guess they figured it is easier to convince the people at the lower end of the IQ spectrum, because it takes too much effort to explain yourself to people who can actually understand complex ideas.
    • pintomp3, on 05/20/2008, -2/+13when war became profitable for the military industrial complex and no-bid contracts for war-profiteers became the norm.
    • PhilLesh69, on 05/20/2008, -1/+6When Carlyle Group took office.

      "When you make hammers for a living, everything looks like a nail"
    • BradHAWK, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5Since Bush realized there are no interpreters who can translate between Farsi and giberish.
  • ZhugeLiang, on 05/20/2008, -11/+2Through multilateral talks which resulted in an achieved objective. You're not very analytical are you? Try thinking before you speak.
    • Rikety, on 05/21/2008, -0/+0It's not just 'talk to despots' that's the issue. It's how and when you talk to them, the whole diplomacy thing.

      You 'Obamatists always think things are simple and there is a tendency to express yourself that way...creating confusion and misunderstanding in your opponents - a very, very dangerous thing.
  • hivoltage815, on 05/20/2008, -8/+3your supporters don't have to agree with everything you say - McCain has no reason to hate YouTube because of this.
  • Xcel, on 05/20/2008, -2/+34McCain is senile.
  • Jamihabs, on 05/20/2008, -14/+3Nothing Baker said contradicts anything McCain has said. Sending Baker to meet and talk to our enemies is not the same as the President meeting and talking with our enemies, without any preconditions. Even Obama knows this and he is trying to wiggle out of his earlier statements.
    • foofightrs777, on 05/20/2008, -1/+5Eisenhower (Kruschev), Kennedy, Nixon (Mao), and Reagan to name a few would all disagree.
      • Jamihabs, on 05/20/2008, -4/+3Oh contraire. None of those meetings happened without lower level negotiations and pre-conditions.

        Meeting with Ahmadinejad, without pre-conditions would be stupid. Nothing would make Ahmadinejad happier than to publicly tell the President of the United States to “f” off, right in his face. Then what does President Obama do? Go to war, or walk away looking weak and humiliated?
        • foofightrs777, on 05/20/2008, -1/+4If your scenario came to pass, which is a logical fallacy in itself, we would certainly have more options than walking "walking away humiliated" or "going to war".

          First off, we certainly would have lower level meeting prior to any engagement between two world leaders, just as it's always done. If this wasn't the case a large portion of the State Dept wouldn't have jobs. This fact is a given and it's disingenuous to imply the meetings would be held in a manner otherwise. Second, if we came to the table simply with the goal of warming relations between American and Iran we would have two main benefits. First, we would begin to regain face and support in the international community. Decreasing our diplomatic isolation and a showing of western solidarity would certainly reverberate throughout the Middle East and Far East. Additionally, a less belligerent America would deprive the hardliners in Iran of their most potent ammunition and greatly increase the credibility of the moderate voices in the country. So right there we clearly have more options than the two scenarios you provided.

          Am I saying this is a sure-fire solution? Certainly not. But a thawing in relations would certainly help maximize the efforts of elements friendly to the US inside Iran.
        • Jamihabs, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2Careful! Your beginning to sound conservative!
    • PhilLesh69, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1I'm not sure Obama has ever said that HE specifically would be the one negotiating. I think he's a little smarter than you, and realizes there is a very large E street complex filled with people who's job it is to engage in diplomacy. They call it the State Department.

      McCain hopes that there are people like you out there that believe Obama said he was going to spend his entire presidency sitting down for little chats with terrorists and other "enemies". Baker has contradicted McCain. McCain has contradicted McCain.
  • synaesthesia, on 05/20/2008, -1/+30First the GOP condemns Obama's 'strike within Pakistan' statement as "naive and reflective of his inexperience", only to later emulate it to great success.

    Now, they're condeming Obama's willingness to negotiate with those whom we have differences with, only for it to emerge that Gates, Baker and anybody else with half an ounce of common sense agrees that it is unrealistic and unproductive to simply ignore our enemies.

    Foreign policy is one of Obama's greatest strengths and a traditional Democrat weakness- the tables are turned this time around, but they've turned too fast for the GOP to realize that they're on the wrong side. They're going to spend the entire first half of the general election season trying to hit Obama on his perceived weakness before realizing that the weakness is theirs.
    • dagamer34, on 05/20/2008, -1/+8Honestly now, they don't want to admit anything about Obama because it discredits the a ***** of history of how politics is SUPPOSED to work. It really just shows how much common sense has been MISSING in the last 8 years when a guy like Obama can come from nowhere 4 years ago to arguably be in the best position in Presidential politics in a long time.
    • skteoievtehr, on 05/20/2008, -0/+0I agree and disagree. Foreign policy was never a Democratic "weakness." It was simply portrayed that way by the lunatic right. The perception caught on and it became the narrative for the time being. It was never true, though. Republicans are the weak ones on foreign policy. They think this is the 7th grade and you get ***** done by whacking off in other countries' faces and expecting them to swallow. Bush and McSame are idiots.
  • warlokaz2004, on 05/20/2008, -7/+2McCain secretly believes this -- he's closer to the James Baker vs. the Dick Cheney philosophy of things anyways...he just needs to speak the "We can't talk to the enemies or its appeasement" party line thru election day to keep the neo-cons in line. I can't wait till McCain gets elected...the Dick Cheney/Donald Rumsfeld wing of the party will be put out to pasture and talk radio will be out in the wilderness...
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5Well, you'll be waiting a long time, because McCain aint gonna get elected.
    • shekissesfrogs, on 05/20/2008, -1/+4I agree Warty, McCain lost my respect when he stopped standing up for what he stood for. Now he reminds me of someone who's been invaded by body snatchers. I can't beleive he doesn't have hoof'n mouth disease yet, usually it's obvious hes reading from a telepromter, but every time he says something unscripted of off the cuff he shoves his foot in his mouth. By the time the ramifications reverberate back to him the whole country has moved on. Maybe the press doesn't ask him for rebuttals anymore because it's like going to visit your insane grandmother. I'm sure he's not in touch with the world, and it's new complexities. And he's married to the mob.
    • oldgal, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Be careful what you wish for.
  • ZhugeLiang, on 05/20/2008, -17/+2LMFAO! Personal attacks, baseless assumptions, and wild claims pulled out of your ass all in one barely intelligible post. Quite an impressive feat of dumb, even by Digg standards. Do you honestly have nothing better to do than to make an utter jackass of yourself?
    • foofightrs777, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4So then, you follow your initial statement with exactly what you were criticizing? Brilliant!

      PS: Learn to use the reply button please. This comment out of context makes you look even more foolish.
      • ZhugeLiang, on 05/20/2008, -5/+1Wow, just wow. Do yourself a favor, know when to quit, I'm getting embarrassed for you.
  • foofightrs777, on 05/20/2008, -0/+11This thread is plagued by people who don't know how to use the reply button. Or more accurately, upmod whores who want their comment to get maximum exposure even though out of context they don't make much sense. It really makes convos easier to follow so please use the reply feature.
  • radiofrequency, on 05/20/2008, -17/+4James Baker's comments aren't an adequate defense of Obama's crazy ideas. I think Obama should explain why he wants to talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terror, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, a man who says that Israel is a "stinking corpse", wants to wipe Israel and 7 million people off the map, and denies the Holocaust.

    You gotta wonder what people - besides Rev. Wright - Obama is listening to when evaluating the consequences of potential future policy decisions if he's ready to "sit down and talk" to a complete raving lunatic and psychopath like Ahmadinejad.
    • synaesthesia, on 05/20/2008, -2/+15Yea, Obama's "craaazy ideas". Watch out for old Obama, he might TALK to people! Not just people we agree with either, but those other ones, the ones with whom we politically disagree! It's the horror of the decade!

      Reasons for talking to Ahmadinejad? How about because he is the head of state whose nation borders Iraq, wields considerable regional influence, impacts the oil market every time they fart and can either make or break the United State's ability to achieve it's military and diplomatic objectives in Iraq? How about because 8 years of ignoring them, imposing sanctions and subtley threatening war hasn't worked?

      If you're really curious who Obama is taking advice from (and I think you're just using the occasion to regurgitate a tired and invalid smear attempt), one of his leading foreign policy minds was Samantha Powers. Watch her talk on youtube and see if you don't want her advising the next Commander in Chief.
      • oldgal, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1Actually Ahmadinejad is not the head of state.
    • dagamer34, on 05/20/2008, -2/+14Listening to a person doesn't imply agreeing with them. Otherwise, ignoring them much more EASILY leads to the heated rhetoric we hear spewing from candidates. For example, would it be wise to say "we should obliterate Iran" if they attack Israel? From an outsiders standpoint, we are just as guilty of foolishness in talk as the Iranians are. Last I checked, it's the government we hate, not its people.

      And are we going to be spending money to rebuilt the infrastructure of Iran after we "obliterate" them. Sounds like the 21st century British Empire to me.
    • phrenzy, on 05/20/2008, -1/+8Who was Nixon listening to when he met with Mao (who had killed millions already)?
    • foofightrs777, on 05/20/2008, -1/+12Since when did talking become more crazy than dropping bombs and killing people?
    • StarlessKnight, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4"The Supreme Leader of Iran is responsible for the delineation and supervision of "the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran". The Supreme Leader is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, controls the military intelligence and security operations; and has the only power to declare war. The heads of the judiciary, state radio and television networks, the commanders of the police and military forces and six of the twelve members of the Council of Guardians are appointed by the Supreme Leader. The Assembly of Experts elects and dismisses the Supreme Leader on the basis of qualifications and popular esteem--none have ever been dismissed.[9] The Assembly of Experts is responsible for supervising the Supreme Leader in the performance of legal duties."

      Who is the Supreme Leader? Ayatollah Khomeini.

      "The Constitution defines the President as the highest state authority after the Supreme Leader. The President is elected by universal suffrage, by those 15 years old and older[1], for a term of four years. Presidential candidates must be approved by the Council of Guardians prior to running. The President is responsible for the implementation of the Constitution and for the exercise of executive powers, except for matters directly related to the Supreme Leader. The President appoints and supervises the Council of Ministers, coordinates government decisions, and selects government policies to be placed before the legislature. Currently, 10 Vice-Presidents serve under the President, as well as a cabinet of 21 ministers, who must all be approved by the legislature. Unlike many other states, the executive branch in Iran does not control the armed forces. Although the President appoints the Ministers of Intelligence and Defense, it is customary for the President to obtain explicit approval from the Supreme Leader for these two ministers before presenting them to the legislature for a vote of confidence."

      Who is the President? Ahmadinejad.

      Who said they want to wipe Israel off the map? Ahmadinejad.

      What about the Supreme Leader? "Dealing with the presidents who have served during his reign, Khamenei has successfully scuttled President Rafansjani's attempts to find a modus vivendi with the United States, President Khatami's aspirations for a more democratic Islamic state, and President Ahmadinejad's desire for confrontation."

      "In 2005 Khamenei responded to President Ahmadinejad's alleged remark that Israel should be "wiped off the map" by saying that "the Islamic Republic has never threatened and will never threaten any country."[52] Moreover Khamenei's main advisor in foreign policy, Ali Akbar Velayati, refused to take part in Holocaust conference. In contrast to Ahmadinejad's remarks, Velayati said that Holocaust was a genocide and a historical reality.[53]"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iran
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei#Politica ...

      Don't let fact get in the way of a good rant. Khamenei may not be a saint, but he isn't the devil either.
    • allengeer, on 05/20/2008, -1/+6Yea... lets just say there's a guy looking at me... and hes got a knife. Now its not a big knife, and its not going to kill me but it might hurt if I go fight with him. Now, why would I go fight with him and get stabbed, when I could just talk to him and try to get him to put the knife down so that I don't get stabbed and we don't have to fight?
    • Anntink, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Why is Israel even a part of this discussion? Its not our business to take care of them...They have an army and, I might add, nuclear weapons. They're perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. You obviously have no problem having US soldiers die and US taxpayers bear the financial burden of defending Israel? If they need defending, why isn't it their butt and their money on the line? God knows they have more $$ than we do!
  • pintomp3, on 05/20/2008, -2/+16oliver north also called dealing with iran "appeasement". yes, oliver north of iran-contra fame.
    • foofightrs777, on 05/20/2008, -2/+5If good ol' Olllie said it, it must be true!
    • scottc, on 05/20/2008, -1/+7Don't make fun of Ollie, now. He's one of our terrorists.
    • whalt, on 05/20/2008, -0/+7To be fair he said talking to them was appeasement, he didn't say anything about selling them arms or sending Ahmadinejad a birthday cake so he's not a hypocrite.
  • TheTruthHurts, on 05/20/2008, -3/+4we don't need to talk , We’ll just shock and awe them.. bahaha
  • sherbertbones, on 05/20/2008, -7/+2I wish someone would tell Jimmy Baker to pass the peas, and I don't mean his urine sample!

    GAOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
  • bugsy187, on 05/20/2008, -0/+9My question is why does anyone take the Bush admin. seriously? Whether you think they lie or make mistakes, their claims should be ignored unless backed up by large amounts of solid evidence. Time after time they've demonstrated detachment from the facts.
  • ZeRux, on 05/20/2008, -2/+4So says the man who appeased Yugoslavian regime in 1991. by telling them them they're free to start military intervention if Slovenia declares independence, which happened one week after his visit to Belgrade. He deserves to be sentenced for war crimes because of this.
  • bhavna12, on 05/20/2008, -6/+1You guys would love to see this. Film makers have one thing in comon passion. And by the looks of it, this guy has a lot. A must read if you're passionate about the movies. http://www.film-crew.blogspot.com/
  • frenchmeat, on 05/20/2008, -1/+5haha I actually shook James Baker's hand on Friday night here in London. He spoke at MAP (Medical Aid for Palestinians.) I have to say, this guy is NOT as bad as bush and the other neocons. He recognizes that Israel needs to halt their settlements before any negotiations will proceed. He is somewhat sensible compared to the others and seems to have a clear idea of the plight of "both sides" but most of all he is actually engaged with the region and the leaders.

    I don't know, maybe he can't do anything, but I thanked him personally for his involvement and shook his hand for enduring many of the crazy people that were yelling at him from the Audience. There are irrational people on both sides, and I'm not saying Israel or Palestine is right or wrong in what they've done but I think he recognizes the way to move forward is to look to the future which is what is stopping progress on both sides really everyone is stuck in bitterness.

    That said, McCain is a fool.
  • frisk415, on 05/20/2008, -0/+7Very unusual that Fox has someone on there who knows what the ***** they're talking about.
    • fuzzynyanko, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2The two guys on Fox I actually like: Sheppard Smith and Andrew Napolitano. The rest are just too awful.
  • whalt, on 05/20/2008, -0/+7It's only appeasement if Democrats do it seems to be their argument. When Republicans do it then it's tough diplomacy.
  • jack104, on 05/20/2008, -9/+3Another amazing twist of words to make McCain look like an ass. Digg has it's own agenda if you haven't noticed.
    • charlietuna, on 05/20/2008, -4/+3I know, it's getting nasty now. I had a friend send me a link of clips smearing McCain. It said I should send it to ten friends. I told him that i asked ten friends to vote for him instead. This is done every election.
    • OralCavity, on 05/20/2008, -1/+4yes, i'm sure Kevin Rose secretly has algorithms written to embarrass McCain.
      • charlietuna, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1No, it's just more entertaining to slam the old guard, and embrace something novel. Case in point: people who thing Ron Paul would share a ticket with Dennis Kucinich. What do they have in common besides a shared desire to demilitarize? McCain is a standup guy who leads more often than the majority politicians.
        You may disagree with his positions, but that is the essence of democracy.
    • lewhich, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Explain what you mean by "twist" else you are no different from Kevin James ... If you have nothing to say, maybe you should listen ... even a quiet fool can be taken for a wise man
      • jack104, on 05/22/2008, -1/+0Twist - Taking a word or sentence intended to mean one thing and applying it towards another meaning in an effort to smear the person who said it. For example, when McCain said we would be in Iraq for another 100 years and every liberal this side of the Ohio river started crying wolf that McCain was going to stay in Iraq indefinetly and expand the war. All he meant was that when the job is done over there, and it will be done, a small QRF force will be left behind in Iraq to ensure stability and prevent war between factions. Thats a twist my friend.....and yes a quiet fool can be taken for a wise man, but if the "quiet fool" never speaks words, how can others know if he is wise or not?
        • lewhich, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1You did not answer the question ... What did Baker say that is being "twisted"?
        • jack104, on 05/22/2008, -0/+0Your correct that baker himself didn't twist McCain's words, but the publisher of the article did. As a matter of fact, its not his words that the author is twisting, its McCain's beliefs. As I understand it, McCain is against NEGOTIATING with terrorists, but talking with a nation who could be considered our enemy (Like Iran for obvious reasons) is not something McCain has condemned. There is your twist.
  • vision777, on 05/20/2008, -4/+2Doesn't matter because the majority of people will never see this because the MSM will ignore it.
  • gkiltz, on 05/20/2008, -3/+4Look at World War II- The US was allied with the communists, the royalists the anarchists and the elitists! We were saving Britain from the NAZIs while, at the same time aiding and supplying terrorists in British-mandated Palestine! We were also allied with two dictators, in Etheopia, and Nationalist China, who were just as blood-thirsty as Hitler, and simply didn't have his means! One of those was an arrogant, elitist SOB, and the other was an unreliable drugged up nut!
    Soooo, maybe we would turn things around if we got back to our roots!
    • markgl, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2yeah its called the lesser of the 2 evils. take the worst country and take them out first. deal with the others afterwards. ever hear of the cold war after WWII?
  • gkiltz, on 05/20/2008, -4/+1Apologies to all French people and those of French ancestry, in my rant I forgot about the Gaulists!
    My Bad!
  • SuperVepr308, on 05/20/2008, -5/+1Meeting with the nutbar in Iran grants him legitimacy. What about that don't you people understand? It is more than just sitting down and taking and oBAMa doesn't seem to get that. Think about it, folks.
    • charlietuna, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2I'm not sold that Obama is so awful, but I'm also not sold that he has the international experience. When Obama gets elected, you can be sure it's in reaction to two terms of George W. Bush.
      • PolishLogic, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Oddly enough, most people have forgotten what happens when your vote comes from a strictly reactionary place. See this Congress for a perfect example. Reactionary voting based on their disappointment with a Republican Congress gave us complete garbage.

        It's a shame when people vote based on emotion, rather than on rational thinking and an even-tempered examination the issues at hand, the ranking of their importance, and the candidates' platforms concerning those issues. If people can do all that and still decide that their candidate is the right one, great. However, those that base their vote strictly on emotion are doing nobody a favor.
  • Anonchrist, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2Faux News is sort of like the Onion, so I am not going to give this to much credit. Sure I agree with the idea of diplomacy and prefer it to war, but I really doubt McCain is really dumb enough to discourage negotiations with Iran. All of this is just another media spin designed to bring up Iran in a negative light. Fox News = Propaganda - Do not praise it for the same skewed perspective that you hate it for.
  • nullvector, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1It's not the talking that's the problem.

    What is Obama going to do, beg on his knees for Ahmadinejad to behave? Ahmadinejad is a clown who calls for the destruction of other nations. Why should we respect someone like that?

    Talking leads to compromise. Are we going to compromise with him and let him have nukes? What are we going to give him to make him like us?
  • phydeaux70, on 05/20/2008, -3/+1Seems to me that this is a No win Situation. The UN has already spoken to this and has stated it's case. It's about time somebody in that worthless organization stepped up and enforced what they apparently are able to dictate. Otherwise this will turn into another Iraq.

    It was a different world when Baker mattered. We always had the Soviets to counter all that we did. Now that we are the only true superpower, we must lead. If you let a country like Iran dictate to us what they will do it will only open the doors for any marginal country in the world to do the same.

    The Iranian government doesn't treat it's only citizens like human beings....why the hell should we treat them with kid gloves???? That makes no sense to me at all. These countries are in it for themselves and we had better get on board and start doing the same.
  • JEWestbrookJR, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1I love this "Talking to the enemy is appeasement" *****. If you don't reason with the enemy, the only answer will ALWAYS be war... I guess the GOP likes it that way though.
  • potto007, on 05/20/2008, -1/+0Republican's don't like it when people try to look at historical records for truth, do they? Republican strategy - revisionist history.
  • mondojml, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2Wake up America. You can't afford another war. At nearly 10 trillion dollars, or nearly $31000/person, you simply cannot afford to go to war with Iran. You economy is screwed for decades to come.
    • yalphi, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1This country's been in debt for a century, and we'll be in debt for another 100 years if we have to, but this country will not crumble.
  • URnotheonly1, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1What did we do in the 70's? We talked! what did we do in the 80's? we talked, hell we helped them. what did we do in the 90's? WE IGNORED THEM, and after 911, after Afghanistan, Iraq, you want to talk more. WHAT YA want to talk about?
  • SwordofKahless, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1We have been talking to Iran since 2003 so both candidates are not only wrong but should keep this kind of dangerous foreign policy rhetoric out of the campaign.
  • dagnew, on 05/20/2008, -1/+4dubya's grampa went way beyond appeasement - he gave aid and comfort to the enemy (the Nazis) by serving as their US banker. See http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051908M.shtml
  • URnotheonly1, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1I trust no opinions from anyone PRE- 911. They are almost irrelevant, hell its their fault we are in this position. ***** you baby boomers
    • learn2, on 05/20/2008, -0/+0This country is 232 years old (which is not even that old). Ever since this country was formed money has been the source of power. More money, more power. More power, more insane actions taken to receive more power/money. War is very, very profitable for those in that position (the ones who REALLY run this country, behind the scenes). 911 was probably an inside job.
  • junkwheel, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1John McContradiction should start his own YouTube channel to put all these great videos on.
  • JebBlack, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Post 9/11 foreign policy....Bomb first, ask questions later. This has been an expensive policy, the american people are hurt the most from this ignorant path we've been on. The dollar plunging, markets falling, inflation, high fuel costs, food costs rising.....all tied to a failed war policy & a war we were all lied into by neo-cons who planned this long before 9/11. They profit from it, we suffer daily as our soldiers die and american's are numb to it. The economy is the top issue now and guess why, it's the war stupid!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.