Hail to the appeaser-in-chief

[typomaniac]

Referring to the news article posted here (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=14352)...

The soon-to-be-gone occupant of the White House:

1. Had a grandpa who negotiated with Hitler during the war (the apple never falls far from the tree)

2. Has been sucking Saudi cock for both terms, making 9/11 all that much easier

3. "Doesn't care" where Osama is.

Now he wants to stump for McSame in Jerusalem? Real presidents don't campaign when they're overseas. They never have.

Not that the connies care: they're just making a pathetic attempt to spin this into another excuse to attack Obama...

[Yurt]

do you have link? or are you too busy thinking of cock sucking .. perv

[typomaniac]

do you have link? or are you too busy thinking of cock sucking .. perv

You mean apart from the one I gave to begin with? Okay:

1. Google bio information on Prescott Bush. (I'm not spoon feeding something that's already well-known.)

2. Read House of Bush, House of Saud.

3. Press conference, 3/13/02:


Q: Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. ...I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him,

Source (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html)

[Yurt]

obama's relatives owned slaves....osama is on the run, cornered, so bush is spending time on other things besides just osama at the moment...its also posturing, basically saying osama is weakened, which is true.

[Hagbard Celine]

Every president except this one has communicated with our enemies including GHW Bush. He was on the phone with Gorbechev every other weekend. The Republicans hypocrisy is embarrassing at this point.

[avatar4321]

Every president except this one has communicated with our enemies including GHW Bush. He was on the phone with Gorbechev every other weekend. The Republicans hypocrisy is embarrassing at this point.

you and MFM really need to coordinate your arguments. You are arguing that President Bush never communicates with our enemies and MFM is arguing that President Bush is an appeaser. Those two arguments directly contradict one another.

Yet neither of them is really true.

Oh and you can communicate with someone and not be in the same room or on a phone or email with them.

[retiredman]

you and MFM really need to coordinate your arguments. You are arguing that President Bush never communicates with our enemies and MFM is arguing that President Bush is an appeaser. Those two arguments directly contradict one another.

Yet neither of them is really true.

Oh and you can communicate with someone and not be in the same room or on a phone or email with them.

neither of them is true, and yet, somehow, your replies to both are filled with wisdom and clarity and truth.

I see.

can you type that with a straight face?:lol:

[avatar4321]

neither of them is true, and yet, somehow, your replies to both are filled with wisdom and clarity and truth.

I see.

can you type that with a straight face?:lol:

yeah. its not really that difficult.

[retiredman]

so...I take it you think that it is perfectly OK for our nation to talk with, and arm, and pay the very thugs that were killing our troops mere months ago, but think that Obama is an "appeaser" for expressing a willingness to have a dialog with our enemies. Have I got that about right, oh delphic oracle?

[bullypulpit]

It would seem that the Bush administration, its slavish supporters and John McCain have a distorted understanding of the word "appeasement".

For those here who continue in their role as bushbots, let's clarify, shall we?

<blockquote>ap·pease·ment (-mənt)

noun

1. an appeasing or being appeased
2. the policy of giving in to the demands of a hostile or aggressive power in an attempt to keep the peace</blockquote>

The most famous instance of appeasement occurred under Neville Chamberlain, the conservative PM of Britain from 1937 to 1940, and French Prime Minister, Édouard Daladier, when they essentially ceded Czechoslovakia to Hitler in the Treaty of Munich.

This, however is not what Bush nor McCain nor the bushbots mean when they talk about "appeasement", however. Their definition of "appeasement" is nothing more than talking with the enemy. Now, it's a simple thing to talk to one's friends and allies. It's a much harder thing to talk to one's enemies and adversaries. It requires intelligence, imagination, a willingness to listen and a willingness find an equitable solution to the situation at hand on the part of both parties. There is a word for the act of exercising those qualities...Qualities which have been notably lacking in the Bush administration, regardless of the issue...It's called negotiation.

[stephanie]

Oh-my-Gawd..:lol:

now we have the boy kings supporters explaining the definition of Appeaser to us all..

[Yurt]

It would seem that the Bush administration, its slavish supporters and John McCain have a distorted understanding of the word "appeasement".

For those here who continue in their role as bushbots, let's clarify, shall we?

<blockquote>ap·pease·ment (-mənt)

noun

1. an appeasing or being appeased
2. the policy of giving in to the demands of a hostile or aggressive power in an attempt to keep the peace</blockquote>

The most famous instance of appeasement occurred under Neville Chamberlain, the conservative PM of Britain from 1937 to 1940, and French Prime Minister, Édouard Daladier, when they essentially ceded Czechoslovakia to Hitler in the Treaty of Munich.

This, however is not what Bush nor McCain nor the bushbots mean when they talk about "appeasement", however. Their definition of "appeasement" is nothing more than talking with the enemy. Now, it's a simple thing to talk to one's friends and allies. It's a much harder thing to talk to one's enemies and adversaries. It requires intelligence, imagination, a willingness to listen and a willingness find an equitable solution to the situation at hand on the part of both parties. There is a word for the act of exercising those qualities...Qualities which have been notably lacking in the Bush administration, regardless of the issue...It's called negotiation.

proof? i am sure NC and ED said the same thing as YOU. do you have some other proof? you opinion is not proof.

[Gaffer]

It would seem that the Bush administration, its slavish supporters and John McCain have a distorted understanding of the word "appeasement".

For those here who continue in their role as bushbots, let's clarify, shall we?

<blockquote>ap·pease·ment (-mənt)

noun

1. an appeasing or being appeased
2. the policy of giving in to the demands of a hostile or aggressive power in an attempt to keep the peace</blockquote>

The most famous instance of appeasement occurred under Neville Chamberlain, the conservative PM of Britain from 1937 to 1940, and French Prime Minister, Édouard Daladier, when they essentially ceded Czechoslovakia to Hitler in the Treaty of Munich.

This, however is not what Bush nor McCain nor the bushbots mean when they talk about "appeasement", however. Their definition of "appeasement" is nothing more than talking with the enemy. Now, it's a simple thing to talk to one's friends and allies. It's a much harder thing to talk to one's enemies and adversaries. It requires intelligence, imagination, a willingness to listen and a willingness find an equitable solution to the situation at hand on the part of both parties. There is a word for the act of exercising those qualities...Qualities which have been notably lacking in the Bush administration, regardless of the issue...It's called negotiation.

You don't understand what appeasement is. It's giving in to your enemy in the hopes he will be satisfied and not push for more. Like paying ransom and expecting no one else to be kidnapped. Just do what they say and no one will get hurt.

[retiredman]

You don't understand what appeasement is. It's giving in to your enemy in the hopes he will be satisfied and not push for more. Like paying ransom and expecting no one else to be kidnapped. Just do what they say and no one will get hurt.

like giving guns and money to sunni warlords in hopes they will continue to honor their agreement to not use those weapons against us? Is that what you are talking about.

[manu1959]

hmmmmmmmm lets see......

appeasement....

2. the policy of giving in to the demands of a hostile or aggressive power in an attempt to keep the peace....

bush and his family and all pubs are all appeasers.......

appeasers are bad.....

obama is not an appeaser.......he would not negotiate with our enemies.....such as hamas.....

which would mean.....he would not give into any demands to keep the peace.....

so when he talks to our enemies except hamas....remember talking is not negotiating.....he will engage in tough diplomacy......but not appease....i sure hope "pretty please" works.....

[Gaffer]

like giving guns and money to sunni warlords in hopes they will continue to honor their agreement to not use those weapons against us? Is that what you are talking about.

You do realize that those warlords already have their own weapons. They don't get weapons from the US military. if they get any weapons its after they have been checked out and are enlisted in the government programs like the sons of iraq. Those that work for us are paid a weekly salary. hey are not just given money. There's a lot more to it than your simpleton spin. You should become a headline writer for the NYT. They need more people like you that are bias and only tell a small part of the story.

[retiredman]

You do realize that those warlords already have their own weapons. They don't get weapons from the US military. if they get any weapons its after they have been checked out and are enlisted in the government programs like the sons of iraq. Those that work for us are paid a weekly salary. hey are not just given money. There's a lot more to it than your simpleton spin. You should become a headline writer for the NYT. They need more people like you that are bias and only tell a small part of the story.


actually. they DO get additional weapons from the US. and yes..they must agree to join the paramilitary groups we created to allow them to serve independently from the Iraqi military and police.

bottom line: we are arming and paying the very people who were killing us earlier based upon their agreement to not kill us anymore as long as we arm them and pay them. but, because it is being done by team Bush, it is heroic somehow and not appeasement.

I understand.

[Yurt]

actually. they DO get additional weapons from the US. and yes..they must agree to join the paramilitary groups we created to allow them to serve independently from the Iraqi military and police.

bottom line: we are arming and paying the very people who were killing us earlier based upon their agreement to not kill us anymore as long as we arm them and pay them. but, because it is being done by team Bush, it is heroic somehow and not appeasement.

I understand.

ok, lets see bush's words... put them up, if they are hypocritical, i'll say it. but lets see all you your examples, to compare, e.g., put up what you say is hypocritical, exactly and explain it. if you can't, then .....

[retiredman]

ok, lets see bush's words... put them up, if they are hypocritical, i'll say it. but lets see all you your examples, to compare, e.g., put up what you say is hypocritical, exactly and explain it. if you can't, then .....


I am not sure what you want here. Are you suggesting that we have not armed and paid sunni militiamen in Iraq who had previously been engaged in killing american troops?


Isn't paying and arming someone who had been killing your people on their promise that, if you did arm and pay them, they would no longer kill your people, some form of "appeasement"?

[Gaffer]

actually. they DO get additional weapons from the US. and yes..they must agree to join the paramilitary groups we created to allow them to serve independently from the Iraqi military and police.

bottom line: we are arming and paying the very people who were killing us earlier based upon their agreement to not kill us anymore as long as we arm them and pay them. but, because it is being done by team Bush, it is heroic somehow and not appeasement.

I understand.

The warlords came to us because they were fed up with AQI. We agreed to help them. It wasn't appeasement. It was an agreement. The sunni's stopped fighting us and turned on AQI. The paramilitary units were formed and those that pass the background checks can join the regular military or police.

Those who were our enemy saw what the future held for them with AQI and switched sides. An agreement beneficial to both sides, not appeasement.

[retiredman]

The warlords came to us because they were fed up with AQI. We agreed to help them. It wasn't appeasement. It was an agreement. The sunni's stopped fighting us and turned on AQI. The paramilitary units were formed and those that pass the background checks can join the regular military or police.

Those who were our enemy saw what the future held for them with AQI and switched sides. An agreement beneficial to both sides, not appeasement.

it was an agreement to arm and pay them as long as they promised to go after AQI instead of us. but that is not appeasement?

if it walks like a duck.... and quacks like a duck....

[Yurt]

I am not sure what you want here. Are you suggesting that we have not armed and paid sunni militiamen in Iraq who had previously been engaged in killing american troops?


Isn't paying and arming someone who had been killing your people on their promise that, if you did arm and pay them, they would no longer kill your people, some form of "appeasement"?

WE were talking about HAMAS... your boy says you are wrong..... change the the topic

[retiredman]

WE were talking about HAMAS... your boy says you are wrong..... change the the topic

I have already said I disagree with Obama's recently stated position regarding Hamas. Is there some specially worded declaration you would like from me on that? I was not trying to change any topic.

and the post from me you quoted in #18 was NOT talking about Hamas in any way.

[Gaffer]

it was an agreement to arm and pay them as long as they promised to go after AQI instead of us. but that is not appeasement?

if it walks like a duck.... and quacks like a duck....

It was an agreement. We had a mutual enemy. The arming and paying came after they proved they were serious and provided information and locations. They gave up more than we did, and they suffered a lot more casualties among the civilian population. If we had been appeasing them then we would have paid them, armed them and they would have done nothing in return. That has not been the case.

If it looks like a pile of shit....and smells like a pile of shit....

[retiredman]

It was an agreement. We had a mutual enemy. The arming and paying came after they proved they were serious and provided information and locations. They gave up more than we did, and they suffered a lot more casualties among the civilian population. If we had been appeasing them then we would have paid them, armed them and they would have done nothing in return. That has not been the case.

If it looks like a pile of shit....and smells like a pile of shit....

they had been killing our troops. we now arm them and pay them on the promise that they won't. that's appeasement. but I realize that because your beloved president has presided over such an arrangement that you are honor bound to vehemently deny that fact. That's alright.

[Gaffer]

they had been killing our troops. we now arm them and pay them on the promise that they won't. that's appeasement. but I realize that because your beloved president has presided over such an arrangement that you are honor bound to vehemently deny that fact. That's alright.

Read my posts in the other thread. This arguing about appeasement in three different threads is getting old. You don't seem to understand the meaning of appeasement. Maybe Buck Rogers can explain it to you.

[bullypulpit]

You don't understand what appeasement is. It's giving in to your enemy in the hopes he will be satisfied and not push for more. Like paying ransom and expecting no one else to be kidnapped. Just do what they say and no one will get hurt.

That's what I said. Perhaps I should have used smaller words to facilitate your reading comprehension.

[bullypulpit]

hmmmmmmmm lets see......

appeasement....

2. the policy of giving in to the demands of a hostile or aggressive power in an attempt to keep the peace....
bush and his family and all pubs are all appeasers.......

appeasers are bad.....

obama is not an appeaser.......he would not negotiate with our enemies.....such as hamas.....

which would mean.....he would not give into any demands to keep the peace.....

so when he talks to our enemies except hamas....remember talking is not negotiating.....he will engage in tough diplomacy......but not appease....i sure hope "pretty please" works.....

You really need to pay attention. You conflated appeasement with negotiation...two entirely different words with two entirely different meanings... just as the Bush administration, McCain and the rest of the bushbots hoped you would.

Time for another definition...

<blockquote><b>ne·go·ti·ate</b> Pronunciation: \ni-ˈgō-shē-ˌāt, ÷-sē-\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): ne·go·ti·at·ed; ne·go·ti·at·ing
Etymology: Latin negotiatus, past participle of negotiari to carry on business, from negotium business, from neg- not + otium leisure — more at negate
Date: 1599

intransitive verb: to confer with another so as to arrive at the settlement of some matter

transitive verb <b>1 a:</b> to deal with (some matter or affair that requires ability for its successful handling) : manage <b>b:</b> to arrange for or bring about through conference, discussion, and compromise (negotiate a treaty)</blockquote>

At no point does the definition suggest surrendering anything to anyone.

[diuretic]

At last! I was trying to make sense of it myself but that hit it right on the head.

[namvet]

You mean apart from the one I gave to begin with? Okay:

1. Google bio information on Prescott Bush. (I'm not spoon feeding something that's already well-known.)

2. Read House of Bush, House of Saud.

3. Press conference, 3/13/02:



Source (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html)

yeah you really do need to suck more cocks. there's a black one that need its it bad.

[LuvRPgrl]

neither of them is true, and yet, somehow, your replies to both are filled with wisdom and clarity and truth.

I see.

can you type that with a straight face?:lol:

I see you sidestepped the point that you and your liberal left wing nutcase buddy here stated opposite "facts".

[LuvRPgrl]

actually. they DO get additional weapons from the US. and yes..they must agree to join the paramilitary groups we created to allow them to serve independently from the Iraqi military and police.

bottom line: we are arming and paying the very people who were killing us earlier based upon their agreement to not kill us anymore as long as we arm them and pay them. but, because it is being done by team Bush, it is heroic somehow and not appeasement.

I understand.

If they are agreeing to give something in return, EXCEPT to not attack us, then its an AGREEMENT, not appeasement.

[avatar4321]

So lets see if i understand the liberal arguments on this thread:

President Bush is appeasing our Al Qaedi in Iraq by arming the Sunni warlords who are their common enemy. Yet, he wont even communicate with our enemies.

So we are appeasing them without talking to them. Got ya.

[typomaniac]

yeah you really do need to suck more cocks. there's a black one that need its it bad.
Not my idea of a fun time: sorry, but you'll have to look elsewhere :(


So lets see if i understand the liberal arguments on this thread:

President Bush is appeasing our Al Qaedi in Iraq by arming the Sunni warlords who are their common enemy. Yet, he wont even communicate with our enemies.
As usual, you haven't been paying attention. Your boy in the WH has appeased nearly every Islamonutjob group from Morocco to Indonesia, whenever one of his people told him he could get away from it. All for the sake of commandeering Saddam's oil. If you stopped plugging your ears and singing "la la la," it wouldn't be so difficult to understand.

[LuvRPgrl]

Not my idea of a fun time: sorry, but you'll have to look elsewhere :(


As usual, you haven't been paying attention. Your boy in the WH has appeased nearly every Islamonutjob group from Morocco to Indonesia, whenever one of his people told him he could get away from it. All for the sake of commandeering Saddam's oil. If you stopped plugging your ears and singing "la la la," it wouldn't be so difficult to understand.

Because you say so? Ok,

I suppose if I wanted to be a rage filled bitter ego maniac like you I would follow your opinion. Hmmm, but no, I enjoy being happy.:salute:

[typomaniac]

Because you say so? Ok,

I suppose if I wanted to be a rage filled bitter ego maniac like you I would follow your opinion. Hmmm, but no, I enjoy being happy.:salute:

You're not fooling anyone: you sound far too bitchy to be happy. :lol:

[NightTrain]

Time for another definition...

<blockquote><b>ne·go·ti·ate</b> Pronunciation: \ni-ˈgō-shē-ˌāt, ÷-sē-\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): ne·go·ti·at·ed; ne·go·ti·at·ing
Etymology: Latin negotiatus, past participle of negotiari to carry on business, from negotium business, from neg- not + otium leisure — more at negate
Date: 1599

intransitive verb: to confer with another so as to arrive at the settlement of some matter

transitive verb <b>1 a:</b> to deal with (some matter or affair that requires ability for its successful handling) : manage <b>b:</b> to arrange for or bring about through conference, discussion, and compromise (negotiate a treaty)</blockquote>

At no point does the definition suggest surrendering anything to anyone.

Now look up the definition of compromise, Slick.