[surveyor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]My problem is that I don’t have a great fear of Islamic hegemony. Were it an widely emerging popular ideology (which it is not) it would not of major concern. The last time there were large Islamic empires they existed as one of the pinnacles of Mediterranean development. They had great works, religious tolerance (for montheists) and tremendous economic and intellectual developments. The only Islamic regimes to be concerned about are the ones that would be of concern regardless of religion. Those are nations with great control of vital resources and no popular sovereignty or even consultative oligarchy. The religious aspect is a way of controlling dissent. With no social groups permitted they frame any social group, movement, or assembly as religious.[/quote]

Um, I figured you thought like this. =sigh= I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.

(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)

a) Gaffes – While the gaffes are not important to you, they are important to other people (including me). If I agreed with his policies, but he made gaffes, I would probably disregard the gaffes. However, combine the gaffes with his lack of knowledge in history, his lack of experience, and it just becomes a little disturbing. Yes, gaffes by themselves are immaterial, but Obama is supposed to be a great orator. If he doesn’t have that, he has little else left to offer other than the fact that he is not Bush. It’s not personal, but it is a lack of substance argument.

b) Kennedy – well let’s look at the event. Kennedy met with Krushchev similar to how Obama wants to meet with “rogue states”. It is generally acknowledged by most that Kennedy looked really bad and essentially got schooled by Krushschev. Even Kennedy said so. Do you want your adversary to find out you are weak? That’s what happened with “no preconditions.” Maybe Krushchev would have done the same thing, whether or not he thought Kennedy was weak, but he would have paused if he thought Kennedy was stronger.

Still, the larger point is that Obama looked at that meeting as a success for the U.S., when it was actually the opposite. Here is evidence that he has a limited understanding of history. You can argue about Kennedy all you want, but this is the point that Bolton makes, and he is correct in it. David Duke can tell you 1+1=2. It doesn’t matter that he’s a racist. Irrelevant. Hitler can tell you 1+1=2. He’s still right. You cannot just disregard someone’s analyses just because you think he is a wacko. See, that’s called “close-minded.” Also, it’s an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem attacks do nothing to refute the argument. It is a logical fallacy to think that just because John Bolton is not respected, that he is wrong. I cannot stress this enough. An ad hominem attack is a weak argument.

c)[quote=urbanrealtor] Regarding the cost of negotiation:
First, time is only expensive as an opportunity cost. If we would be using the time for negotiations. If meeting meant some top aids spending a week locked in some hunting lodge talking, I am not clear as to what opportunities that would cost us. We still keep vigilant and keep up pressure. Unless that week is one we would have spent bombing Tehran (which we have shown no signs of doing in 29 years), its not like it really hurts us to get to constructive conversation.[/quote]

You’re not sure what opportunities are lost to us? Well, when you don’t have time, you can’t go to the UN to help with Iran. You can’t. It’ll take months for a “non-binding” resolution. You can’t enact sanctions. They take time to work. You can’t all of a sudden pursue regime change. That takes time. Meanwhile, Israel is screaming that they’re going to be attacked by Iran and begging you to do something. Meanwhile, the Iranians are only a year away from a nuclear weapon. Guess what? When you have been painted into a corner, that is a FAILURE of diplomacy.

Hey, the Europeans have only been negotiating with them for more than FOUR YEARS. Let’s go ahead and order more. Not only does Obama want to have more negotiations, he wants negotiations without “preconditions.” I’ve already established that this is not a smart idea already, and yet this is exactly what Obama wants. If you think they’ll roll over for Obama after a week, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Yes, time is an opportunity cost. The opportunities to deal with Iran without having to go to the military option are now gone because of an adherence to the “diplomacy/negotiation” only policy. When you’ve lost leverage, you’ve lost options. Does that sound “smart” to you?

d)[quote=urbanrealtor]Second, Neville Chamberlain just doesn’t apply here. I mean seriously, he gave away a whole country to Hitler. He even signed it. Thats a lot different from discussing how to build more mutually beneficial relationship.[/quote]

The story of Neville Chamberlain is used as an example of failed diplomacy (although it was heralded as a success at the time). After four years of European negotiations, the Iranians on the verge of nuclear weapons, the promise of a new middle east conflict on the horizon, and few options available to the U.S., I’d say the analogy is apt. Disagree if you wish. I’m just wondering after four years of negotiations, when can you call it an abject failure?

Neville Chamberlain => example of failed diplomacy.
European-Iran negotiations = example of failed diplomacy.

I don’t know, it looks analogous to me.

[quote=urbanrealtor]Their conflict with us is based on the terrible things we did to that country (like taking out their prime minister in 1953). The animosity we have with their regime is primarily based on their rhetoric and the revolution (which had popular support). Unless we want to re-install a dictator there (or exterminate them), we have to try working things out at some point.[/quote]

Hrm, there’s that “blame America first” thought process. You really want to go negotiate with the Iranians with that mindset? So we should let them have nuclear weapons?

[quote=urbanrealtor]Regarding Italy:
Who really cares who they pray to?
I come from a country (my blood not my country of birth) that makes a point of not caring. That not just because anabaptists settled Manhattan Island or because our first president was a deist but also because there were lots of Jews in early America. My point is that these are essentially political fights. Thats why Tehran has the Mid-east’s larges Jewish community outside of Israel.[/quote]

=shrug= Here’s why it matters: Europe is becoming rapidly Islamic. The next few decades, they will become islamic by demographics. You obviously have a benign view of Islam. I’m afraid you’re in for a rude awakening.

(next book to read: America Alone, by Mark Steyn).

[quote=urbanrealtor]Actually I agree. We should be able to call him on it. However, my point is that these are cheap shots. You would make a better case by just saying that his policies are weak and then explain why. If you are looking to just do cheap shots, then I submit to you that this may be too intelligent a blog for you (and thats kind of sad). I don’t say this to be insulting. I say this because I would like to actually discuss policy with you. You have something good to say but you keep hiding it behind weak lines and cheap shots. Please step up dude. I’ll wait for you. I really would like to hear your real points. [/quote]

I hate to break it to you dan, but what you call cheap shots I call “weaknesses.”

[quote=urbanrealtor]Regarding religious tolerance:
It is widely accepted by historians that Christians and Jews lived well among the Muslims prior to the reconquista and various crusades. Also, citing examples of ethno-religious cleansing does not go far in making your point.[/quote]

And this is specifically what happens when you cite “trusted and respected” sources. You, sir, could not be more wrong. The idea that Christians and Jews lived well among the muslims is extremely false. I haven’t read Andrew Bostom’s “The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism” but the details of how intolerant the muslims were towards “people of the book” (jews and christians) are there. Also a good read is the “Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades” by Robert Spencer.

(by the way, the Crusades were launched after CENTURIES of abuse, jihad, and conquering of christian territory by the muslims).

[surveyor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]My problem is that I don’t have a great fear of Islamic hegemony. Were it an widely emerging popular ideology (which it is not) it would not of major concern. The last time there were large Islamic empires they existed as one of the pinnacles of Mediterranean development. They had great works, religious tolerance (for montheists) and tremendous economic and intellectual developments. The only Islamic regimes to be concerned about are the ones that would be of concern regardless of religion. Those are nations with great control of vital resources and no popular sovereignty or even consultative oligarchy. The religious aspect is a way of controlling dissent. With no social groups permitted they frame any social group, movement, or assembly as religious.[/quote]

Um, I figured you thought like this. =sigh= I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.

(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)

a) Gaffes – While the gaffes are not important to you, they are important to other people (including me). If I agreed with his policies, but he made gaffes, I would probably disregard the gaffes. However, combine the gaffes with his lack of knowledge in history, his lack of experience, and it just becomes a little disturbing. Yes, gaffes by themselves are immaterial, but Obama is supposed to be a great orator. If he doesn’t have that, he has little else left to offer other than the fact that he is not Bush. It’s not personal, but it is a lack of substance argument.

b) Kennedy – well let’s look at the event. Kennedy met with Krushchev similar to how Obama wants to meet with “rogue states”. It is generally acknowledged by most that Kennedy looked really bad and essentially got schooled by Krushschev. Even Kennedy said so. Do you want your adversary to find out you are weak? That’s what happened with “no preconditions.” Maybe Krushchev would have done the same thing, whether or not he thought Kennedy was weak, but he would have paused if he thought Kennedy was stronger.

Still, the larger point is that Obama looked at that meeting as a success for the U.S., when it was actually the opposite. Here is evidence that he has a limited understanding of history. You can argue about Kennedy all you want, but this is the point that Bolton makes, and he is correct in it. David Duke can tell you 1+1=2. It doesn’t matter that he’s a racist. Irrelevant. Hitler can tell you 1+1=2. He’s still right. You cannot just disregard someone’s analyses just because you think he is a wacko. See, that’s called “close-minded.” Also, it’s an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem attacks do nothing to refute the argument. It is a logical fallacy to think that just because John Bolton is not respected, that he is wrong. I cannot stress this enough. An ad hominem attack is a weak argument.

c)[quote=urbanrealtor] Regarding the cost of negotiation:
First, time is only expensive as an opportunity cost. If we would be using the time for negotiations. If meeting meant some top aids spending a week locked in some hunting lodge talking, I am not clear as to what opportunities that would cost us. We still keep vigilant and keep up pressure. Unless that week is one we would have spent bombing Tehran (which we have shown no signs of doing in 29 years), its not like it really hurts us to get to constructive conversation.[/quote]

You’re not sure what opportunities are lost to us? Well, when you don’t have time, you can’t go to the UN to help with Iran. You can’t. It’ll take months for a “non-binding” resolution. You can’t enact sanctions. They take time to work. You can’t all of a sudden pursue regime change. That takes time. Meanwhile, Israel is screaming that they’re going to be attacked by Iran and begging you to do something. Meanwhile, the Iranians are only a year away from a nuclear weapon. Guess what? When you have been painted into a corner, that is a FAILURE of diplomacy.

Hey, the Europeans have only been negotiating with them for more than FOUR YEARS. Let’s go ahead and order more. Not only does Obama want to have more negotiations, he wants negotiations without “preconditions.” I’ve already established that this is not a smart idea already, and yet this is exactly what Obama wants. If you think they’ll roll over for Obama after a week, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Yes, time is an opportunity cost. The opportunities to deal with Iran without having to go to the military option are now gone because of an adherence to the “diplomacy/negotiation” only policy. When you’ve lost leverage, you’ve lost options. Does that sound “smart” to you?

d)[quote=urbanrealtor]Second, Neville Chamberlain just doesn’t apply here. I mean seriously, he gave away a whole country to Hitler. He even signed it. Thats a lot different from discussing how to build more mutually beneficial relationship.[/quote]

The story of Neville Chamberlain is used as an example of failed diplomacy (although it was heralded as a success at the time). After four years of European negotiations, the Iranians on the verge of nuclear weapons, the promise of a new middle east conflict on the horizon, and few options available to the U.S., I’d say the analogy is apt. Disagree if you wish. I’m just wondering after four years of negotiations, when can you call it an abject failure?

Neville Chamberlain => example of failed diplomacy.
European-Iran negotiations = example of failed diplomacy.

I don’t know, it looks analogous to me.

[quote=urbanrealtor]Their conflict with us is based on the terrible things we did to that country (like taking out their prime minister in 1953). The animosity we have with their regime is primarily based on their rhetoric and the revolution (which had popular support). Unless we want to re-install a dictator there (or exterminate them), we have to try working things out at some point.[/quote]

Hrm, there’s that “blame America first” thought process. You really want to go negotiate with the Iranians with that mindset? So we should let them have nuclear weapons?

[quote=urbanrealtor]Regarding Italy:
Who really cares who they pray to?
I come from a country (my blood not my country of birth) that makes a point of not caring. That not just because anabaptists settled Manhattan Island or because our first president was a deist but also because there were lots of Jews in early America. My point is that these are essentially political fights. Thats why Tehran has the Mid-east’s larges Jewish community outside of Israel.[/quote]

=shrug= Here’s why it matters: Europe is becoming rapidly Islamic. The next few decades, they will become islamic by demographics. You obviously have a benign view of Islam. I’m afraid you’re in for a rude awakening.

(next book to read: America Alone, by Mark Steyn).

[quote=urbanrealtor]Actually I agree. We should be able to call him on it. However, my point is that these are cheap shots. You would make a better case by just saying that his policies are weak and then explain why. If you are looking to just do cheap shots, then I submit to you that this may be too intelligent a blog for you (and thats kind of sad). I don’t say this to be insulting. I say this because I would like to actually discuss policy with you. You have something good to say but you keep hiding it behind weak lines and cheap shots. Please step up dude. I’ll wait for you. I really would like to hear your real points. [/quote]

I hate to break it to you dan, but what you call cheap shots I call “weaknesses.”

[quote=urbanrealtor]Regarding religious tolerance:
It is widely accepted by historians that Christians and Jews lived well among the Muslims prior to the reconquista and various crusades. Also, citing examples of ethno-religious cleansing does not go far in making your point.[/quote]

And this is specifically what happens when you cite “trusted and respected” sources. You, sir, could not be more wrong. The idea that Christians and Jews lived well among the muslims is extremely false. I haven’t read Andrew Bostom’s “The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism” but the details of how intolerant the muslims were towards “people of the book” (jews and christians) are there. Also a good read is the “Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades” by Robert Spencer.

(by the way, the Crusades were launched after CENTURIES of abuse, jihad, and conquering of christian territory by the muslims).

[surveyor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]My problem is that I don’t have a great fear of Islamic hegemony. Were it an widely emerging popular ideology (which it is not) it would not of major concern. The last time there were large Islamic empires they existed as one of the pinnacles of Mediterranean development. They had great works, religious tolerance (for montheists) and tremendous economic and intellectual developments. The only Islamic regimes to be concerned about are the ones that would be of concern regardless of religion. Those are nations with great control of vital resources and no popular sovereignty or even consultative oligarchy. The religious aspect is a way of controlling dissent. With no social groups permitted they frame any social group, movement, or assembly as religious.[/quote]

Um, I figured you thought like this. =sigh= I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.

(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)

a) Gaffes – While the gaffes are not important to you, they are important to other people (including me). If I agreed with his policies, but he made gaffes, I would probably disregard the gaffes. However, combine the gaffes with his lack of knowledge in history, his lack of experience, and it just becomes a little disturbing. Yes, gaffes by themselves are immaterial, but Obama is supposed to be a great orator. If he doesn’t have that, he has little else left to offer other than the fact that he is not Bush. It’s not personal, but it is a lack of substance argument.

b) Kennedy – well let’s look at the event. Kennedy met with Krushchev similar to how Obama wants to meet with “rogue states”. It is generally acknowledged by most that Kennedy looked really bad and essentially got schooled by Krushschev. Even Kennedy said so. Do you want your adversary to find out you are weak? That’s what happened with “no preconditions.” Maybe Krushchev would have done the same thing, whether or not he thought Kennedy was weak, but he would have paused if he thought Kennedy was stronger.

Still, the larger point is that Obama looked at that meeting as a success for the U.S., when it was actually the opposite. Here is evidence that he has a limited understanding of history. You can argue about Kennedy all you want, but this is the point that Bolton makes, and he is correct in it. David Duke can tell you 1+1=2. It doesn’t matter that he’s a racist. Irrelevant. Hitler can tell you 1+1=2. He’s still right. You cannot just disregard someone’s analyses just because you think he is a wacko. See, that’s called “close-minded.” Also, it’s an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem attacks do nothing to refute the argument. It is a logical fallacy to think that just because John Bolton is not respected, that he is wrong. I cannot stress this enough. An ad hominem attack is a weak argument.

c)[quote=urbanrealtor] Regarding the cost of negotiation:
First, time is only expensive as an opportunity cost. If we would be using the time for negotiations. If meeting meant some top aids spending a week locked in some hunting lodge talking, I am not clear as to what opportunities that would cost us. We still keep vigilant and keep up pressure. Unless that week is one we would have spent bombing Tehran (which we have shown no signs of doing in 29 years), its not like it really hurts us to get to constructive conversation.[/quote]

You’re not sure what opportunities are lost to us? Well, when you don’t have time, you can’t go to the UN to help with Iran. You can’t. It’ll take months for a “non-binding” resolution. You can’t enact sanctions. They take time to work. You can’t all of a sudden pursue regime change. That takes time. Meanwhile, Israel is screaming that they’re going to be attacked by Iran and begging you to do something. Meanwhile, the Iranians are only a year away from a nuclear weapon. Guess what? When you have been painted into a corner, that is a FAILURE of diplomacy.

Hey, the Europeans have only been negotiating with them for more than FOUR YEARS. Let’s go ahead and order more. Not only does Obama want to have more negotiations, he wants negotiations without “preconditions.” I’ve already established that this is not a smart idea already, and yet this is exactly what Obama wants. If you think they’ll roll over for Obama after a week, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Yes, time is an opportunity cost. The opportunities to deal with Iran without having to go to the military option are now gone because of an adherence to the “diplomacy/negotiation” only policy. When you’ve lost leverage, you’ve lost options. Does that sound “smart” to you?

d)[quote=urbanrealtor]Second, Neville Chamberlain just doesn’t apply here. I mean seriously, he gave away a whole country to Hitler. He even signed it. Thats a lot different from discussing how to build more mutually beneficial relationship.[/quote]

The story of Neville Chamberlain is used as an example of failed diplomacy (although it was heralded as a success at the time). After four years of European negotiations, the Iranians on the verge of nuclear weapons, the promise of a new middle east conflict on the horizon, and few options available to the U.S., I’d say the analogy is apt. Disagree if you wish. I’m just wondering after four years of negotiations, when can you call it an abject failure?

Neville Chamberlain => example of failed diplomacy.
European-Iran negotiations = example of failed diplomacy.

I don’t know, it looks analogous to me.

[quote=urbanrealtor]Their conflict with us is based on the terrible things we did to that country (like taking out their prime minister in 1953). The animosity we have with their regime is primarily based on their rhetoric and the revolution (which had popular support). Unless we want to re-install a dictator there (or exterminate them), we have to try working things out at some point.[/quote]

Hrm, there’s that “blame America first” thought process. You really want to go negotiate with the Iranians with that mindset? So we should let them have nuclear weapons?

[quote=urbanrealtor]Regarding Italy:
Who really cares who they pray to?
I come from a country (my blood not my country of birth) that makes a point of not caring. That not just because anabaptists settled Manhattan Island or because our first president was a deist but also because there were lots of Jews in early America. My point is that these are essentially political fights. Thats why Tehran has the Mid-east’s larges Jewish community outside of Israel.[/quote]

=shrug= Here’s why it matters: Europe is becoming rapidly Islamic. The next few decades, they will become islamic by demographics. You obviously have a benign view of Islam. I’m afraid you’re in for a rude awakening.

(next book to read: America Alone, by Mark Steyn).

[quote=urbanrealtor]Actually I agree. We should be able to call him on it. However, my point is that these are cheap shots. You would make a better case by just saying that his policies are weak and then explain why. If you are looking to just do cheap shots, then I submit to you that this may be too intelligent a blog for you (and thats kind of sad). I don’t say this to be insulting. I say this because I would like to actually discuss policy with you. You have something good to say but you keep hiding it behind weak lines and cheap shots. Please step up dude. I’ll wait for you. I really would like to hear your real points. [/quote]

I hate to break it to you dan, but what you call cheap shots I call “weaknesses.”

[quote=urbanrealtor]Regarding religious tolerance:
It is widely accepted by historians that Christians and Jews lived well among the Muslims prior to the reconquista and various crusades. Also, citing examples of ethno-religious cleansing does not go far in making your point.[/quote]

And this is specifically what happens when you cite “trusted and respected” sources. You, sir, could not be more wrong. The idea that Christians and Jews lived well among the muslims is extremely false. I haven’t read Andrew Bostom’s “The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism” but the details of how intolerant the muslims were towards “people of the book” (jews and christians) are there. Also a good read is the “Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades” by Robert Spencer.

(by the way, the Crusades were launched after CENTURIES of abuse, jihad, and conquering of christian territory by the muslims).

[surveyor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]My problem is that I don’t have a great fear of Islamic hegemony. Were it an widely emerging popular ideology (which it is not) it would not of major concern. The last time there were large Islamic empires they existed as one of the pinnacles of Mediterranean development. They had great works, religious tolerance (for montheists) and tremendous economic and intellectual developments. The only Islamic regimes to be concerned about are the ones that would be of concern regardless of religion. Those are nations with great control of vital resources and no popular sovereignty or even consultative oligarchy. The religious aspect is a way of controlling dissent. With no social groups permitted they frame any social group, movement, or assembly as religious.[/quote]

Um, I figured you thought like this. =sigh= I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.

(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)

a) Gaffes – While the gaffes are not important to you, they are important to other people (including me). If I agreed with his policies, but he made gaffes, I would probably disregard the gaffes. However, combine the gaffes with his lack of knowledge in history, his lack of experience, and it just becomes a little disturbing. Yes, gaffes by themselves are immaterial, but Obama is supposed to be a great orator. If he doesn’t have that, he has little else left to offer other than the fact that he is not Bush. It’s not personal, but it is a lack of substance argument.

b) Kennedy – well let’s look at the event. Kennedy met with Krushchev similar to how Obama wants to meet with “rogue states”. It is generally acknowledged by most that Kennedy looked really bad and essentially got schooled by Krushschev. Even Kennedy said so. Do you want your adversary to find out you are weak? That’s what happened with “no preconditions.” Maybe Krushchev would have done the same thing, whether or not he thought Kennedy was weak, but he would have paused if he thought Kennedy was stronger.

Still, the larger point is that Obama looked at that meeting as a success for the U.S., when it was actually the opposite. Here is evidence that he has a limited understanding of history. You can argue about Kennedy all you want, but this is the point that Bolton makes, and he is correct in it. David Duke can tell you 1+1=2. It doesn’t matter that he’s a racist. Irrelevant. Hitler can tell you 1+1=2. He’s still right. You cannot just disregard someone’s analyses just because you think he is a wacko. See, that’s called “close-minded.” Also, it’s an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem attacks do nothing to refute the argument. It is a logical fallacy to think that just because John Bolton is not respected, that he is wrong. I cannot stress this enough. An ad hominem attack is a weak argument.

c)[quote=urbanrealtor] Regarding the cost of negotiation:
First, time is only expensive as an opportunity cost. If we would be using the time for negotiations. If meeting meant some top aids spending a week locked in some hunting lodge talking, I am not clear as to what opportunities that would cost us. We still keep vigilant and keep up pressure. Unless that week is one we would have spent bombing Tehran (which we have shown no signs of doing in 29 years), its not like it really hurts us to get to constructive conversation.[/quote]

You’re not sure what opportunities are lost to us? Well, when you don’t have time, you can’t go to the UN to help with Iran. You can’t. It’ll take months for a “non-binding” resolution. You can’t enact sanctions. They take time to work. You can’t all of a sudden pursue regime change. That takes time. Meanwhile, Israel is screaming that they’re going to be attacked by Iran and begging you to do something. Meanwhile, the Iranians are only a year away from a nuclear weapon. Guess what? When you have been painted into a corner, that is a FAILURE of diplomacy.

Hey, the Europeans have only been negotiating with them for more than FOUR YEARS. Let’s go ahead and order more. Not only does Obama want to have more negotiations, he wants negotiations without “preconditions.” I’ve already established that this is not a smart idea already, and yet this is exactly what Obama wants. If you think they’ll roll over for Obama after a week, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Yes, time is an opportunity cost. The opportunities to deal with Iran without having to go to the military option are now gone because of an adherence to the “diplomacy/negotiation” only policy. When you’ve lost leverage, you’ve lost options. Does that sound “smart” to you?

d)[quote=urbanrealtor]Second, Neville Chamberlain just doesn’t apply here. I mean seriously, he gave away a whole country to Hitler. He even signed it. Thats a lot different from discussing how to build more mutually beneficial relationship.[/quote]

The story of Neville Chamberlain is used as an example of failed diplomacy (although it was heralded as a success at the time). After four years of European negotiations, the Iranians on the verge of nuclear weapons, the promise of a new middle east conflict on the horizon, and few options available to the U.S., I’d say the analogy is apt. Disagree if you wish. I’m just wondering after four years of negotiations, when can you call it an abject failure?

Neville Chamberlain => example of failed diplomacy.
European-Iran negotiations = example of failed diplomacy.

I don’t know, it looks analogous to me.

[quote=urbanrealtor]Their conflict with us is based on the terrible things we did to that country (like taking out their prime minister in 1953). The animosity we have with their regime is primarily based on their rhetoric and the revolution (which had popular support). Unless we want to re-install a dictator there (or exterminate them), we have to try working things out at some point.[/quote]

Hrm, there’s that “blame America first” thought process. You really want to go negotiate with the Iranians with that mindset? So we should let them have nuclear weapons?

[quote=urbanrealtor]Regarding Italy:
Who really cares who they pray to?
I come from a country (my blood not my country of birth) that makes a point of not caring. That not just because anabaptists settled Manhattan Island or because our first president was a deist but also because there were lots of Jews in early America. My point is that these are essentially political fights. Thats why Tehran has the Mid-east’s larges Jewish community outside of Israel.[/quote]

=shrug= Here’s why it matters: Europe is becoming rapidly Islamic. The next few decades, they will become islamic by demographics. You obviously have a benign view of Islam. I’m afraid you’re in for a rude awakening.

(next book to read: America Alone, by Mark Steyn).

[quote=urbanrealtor]Actually I agree. We should be able to call him on it. However, my point is that these are cheap shots. You would make a better case by just saying that his policies are weak and then explain why. If you are looking to just do cheap shots, then I submit to you that this may be too intelligent a blog for you (and thats kind of sad). I don’t say this to be insulting. I say this because I would like to actually discuss policy with you. You have something good to say but you keep hiding it behind weak lines and cheap shots. Please step up dude. I’ll wait for you. I really would like to hear your real points. [/quote]

I hate to break it to you dan, but what you call cheap shots I call “weaknesses.”

[quote=urbanrealtor]Regarding religious tolerance:
It is widely accepted by historians that Christians and Jews lived well among the Muslims prior to the reconquista and various crusades. Also, citing examples of ethno-religious cleansing does not go far in making your point.[/quote]

And this is specifically what happens when you cite “trusted and respected” sources. You, sir, could not be more wrong. The idea that Christians and Jews lived well among the muslims is extremely false. I haven’t read Andrew Bostom’s “The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism” but the details of how intolerant the muslims were towards “people of the book” (jews and christians) are there. Also a good read is the “Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades” by Robert Spencer.

(by the way, the Crusades were launched after CENTURIES of abuse, jihad, and conquering of christian territory by the muslims).

[surveyor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
If we are doing a comparison of gotchas and verbal gaffes, then why use Obama as a target?[/quote]

Well, he’s only running for president. I do notice that many people are critical of George W. Bush because they say he lies, that he can’t speak well, and they use that to insult his intelligence and make fun of him. However, when Obama does the same things, people object to calling him out on those mistakes. Hardly sounds fair. As Americans, we should be able to kick the tires before we buy the car, can’t we?

And besides, if Obama is unable to speak well, he has a thin resume, has a lack of understanding regarding history, and then he lies, what else does he have to offer? Is this really a person you want for president? Really?

I actually don’t mind Obama making mistakes (in my view, the only way not to make mistakes is to not do anything), but we should be able to at least call him to task for it.

[surveyor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
If we are doing a comparison of gotchas and verbal gaffes, then why use Obama as a target?[/quote]

Well, he’s only running for president. I do notice that many people are critical of George W. Bush because they say he lies, that he can’t speak well, and they use that to insult his intelligence and make fun of him. However, when Obama does the same things, people object to calling him out on those mistakes. Hardly sounds fair. As Americans, we should be able to kick the tires before we buy the car, can’t we?

And besides, if Obama is unable to speak well, he has a thin resume, has a lack of understanding regarding history, and then he lies, what else does he have to offer? Is this really a person you want for president? Really?

I actually don’t mind Obama making mistakes (in my view, the only way not to make mistakes is to not do anything), but we should be able to at least call him to task for it.

[surveyor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
If we are doing a comparison of gotchas and verbal gaffes, then why use Obama as a target?[/quote]

Well, he’s only running for president. I do notice that many people are critical of George W. Bush because they say he lies, that he can’t speak well, and they use that to insult his intelligence and make fun of him. However, when Obama does the same things, people object to calling him out on those mistakes. Hardly sounds fair. As Americans, we should be able to kick the tires before we buy the car, can’t we?

And besides, if Obama is unable to speak well, he has a thin resume, has a lack of understanding regarding history, and then he lies, what else does he have to offer? Is this really a person you want for president? Really?

I actually don’t mind Obama making mistakes (in my view, the only way not to make mistakes is to not do anything), but we should be able to at least call him to task for it.

[surveyor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
If we are doing a comparison of gotchas and verbal gaffes, then why use Obama as a target?[/quote]

Well, he’s only running for president. I do notice that many people are critical of George W. Bush because they say he lies, that he can’t speak well, and they use that to insult his intelligence and make fun of him. However, when Obama does the same things, people object to calling him out on those mistakes. Hardly sounds fair. As Americans, we should be able to kick the tires before we buy the car, can’t we?

And besides, if Obama is unable to speak well, he has a thin resume, has a lack of understanding regarding history, and then he lies, what else does he have to offer? Is this really a person you want for president? Really?

I actually don’t mind Obama making mistakes (in my view, the only way not to make mistakes is to not do anything), but we should be able to at least call him to task for it.

[surveyor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
If we are doing a comparison of gotchas and verbal gaffes, then why use Obama as a target?[/quote]

Well, he’s only running for president. I do notice that many people are critical of George W. Bush because they say he lies, that he can’t speak well, and they use that to insult his intelligence and make fun of him. However, when Obama does the same things, people object to calling him out on those mistakes. Hardly sounds fair. As Americans, we should be able to kick the tires before we buy the car, can’t we?

And besides, if Obama is unable to speak well, he has a thin resume, has a lack of understanding regarding history, and then he lies, what else does he have to offer? Is this really a person you want for president? Really?

I actually don’t mind Obama making mistakes (in my view, the only way not to make mistakes is to not do anything), but we should be able to at least call him to task for it.

[surveyor]

[quote=Shadowfax]
Not to beat a dead horse, Surveyor, but you HAVE said repeatedly that your position on g’s questions re foreign policy options is irrelevant and then spent the rest of each post just taking him to task for several (rather dull and insulting) paragraphs. I think, in all fairness, all g is asking is for you to provide your opinions re foreign policy. That might spark his interest enough to actually read your post.
[/quote]

shadowfax: I say that my foreign policy positions are irrelevant because a) I’m not running for president and I am not able to change or suggest policy, b) often when people are asked for their foreign policy views, it is used against them as a means to label them as wacko, crazy, or as an indictment, and finally, c) posting my views of foreign policy would not only take so much time (in order to speak precisely), it would detract away from the discussion of whether Obama’s policies are correct or wrong, or even if McCain’s policies are correct or wrong.

As for the “insults”, I feel that I have to respond forcefully when certain people have said to my face that I am “full of sh!t” or imply that I am a “partisan” and use that as a veiled insult. I certainly am not directing it at anyone else other than gandalf. I have never said anything of the like to anyone else, but when it is directed at me, I do tire of it.

[quote=gandalf]BTW, surveyor? I actually do read yer posts. I can’t make sense of them!! But I read them… Soldier on. I’ll keep reading. Maybe we end up on the same side of a housing issue one of these days.[/quote]

I rest my case…

Gandalf, there are quite a few issues that we are on the same side on, despite our differences. I certainly support energy independence, I support going after Saudi Arabia and holding their feet to the fire more forcefully. You’d probably be surprised at how many positions that you and I are on the same side.

[surveyor]

[quote=Shadowfax]
Not to beat a dead horse, Surveyor, but you HAVE said repeatedly that your position on g’s questions re foreign policy options is irrelevant and then spent the rest of each post just taking him to task for several (rather dull and insulting) paragraphs. I think, in all fairness, all g is asking is for you to provide your opinions re foreign policy. That might spark his interest enough to actually read your post.
[/quote]

shadowfax: I say that my foreign policy positions are irrelevant because a) I’m not running for president and I am not able to change or suggest policy, b) often when people are asked for their foreign policy views, it is used against them as a means to label them as wacko, crazy, or as an indictment, and finally, c) posting my views of foreign policy would not only take so much time (in order to speak precisely), it would detract away from the discussion of whether Obama’s policies are correct or wrong, or even if McCain’s policies are correct or wrong.

As for the “insults”, I feel that I have to respond forcefully when certain people have said to my face that I am “full of sh!t” or imply that I am a “partisan” and use that as a veiled insult. I certainly am not directing it at anyone else other than gandalf. I have never said anything of the like to anyone else, but when it is directed at me, I do tire of it.

[quote=gandalf]BTW, surveyor? I actually do read yer posts. I can’t make sense of them!! But I read them… Soldier on. I’ll keep reading. Maybe we end up on the same side of a housing issue one of these days.[/quote]

I rest my case…

Gandalf, there are quite a few issues that we are on the same side on, despite our differences. I certainly support energy independence, I support going after Saudi Arabia and holding their feet to the fire more forcefully. You’d probably be surprised at how many positions that you and I are on the same side.

[surveyor]

[quote=Shadowfax]
Not to beat a dead horse, Surveyor, but you HAVE said repeatedly that your position on g’s questions re foreign policy options is irrelevant and then spent the rest of each post just taking him to task for several (rather dull and insulting) paragraphs. I think, in all fairness, all g is asking is for you to provide your opinions re foreign policy. That might spark his interest enough to actually read your post.
[/quote]

shadowfax: I say that my foreign policy positions are irrelevant because a) I’m not running for president and I am not able to change or suggest policy, b) often when people are asked for their foreign policy views, it is used against them as a means to label them as wacko, crazy, or as an indictment, and finally, c) posting my views of foreign policy would not only take so much time (in order to speak precisely), it would detract away from the discussion of whether Obama’s policies are correct or wrong, or even if McCain’s policies are correct or wrong.

As for the “insults”, I feel that I have to respond forcefully when certain people have said to my face that I am “full of sh!t” or imply that I am a “partisan” and use that as a veiled insult. I certainly am not directing it at anyone else other than gandalf. I have never said anything of the like to anyone else, but when it is directed at me, I do tire of it.

[quote=gandalf]BTW, surveyor? I actually do read yer posts. I can’t make sense of them!! But I read them… Soldier on. I’ll keep reading. Maybe we end up on the same side of a housing issue one of these days.[/quote]

I rest my case…

Gandalf, there are quite a few issues that we are on the same side on, despite our differences. I certainly support energy independence, I support going after Saudi Arabia and holding their feet to the fire more forcefully. You’d probably be surprised at how many positions that you and I are on the same side.

[surveyor]

[quote=Shadowfax]
Not to beat a dead horse, Surveyor, but you HAVE said repeatedly that your position on g’s questions re foreign policy options is irrelevant and then spent the rest of each post just taking him to task for several (rather dull and insulting) paragraphs. I think, in all fairness, all g is asking is for you to provide your opinions re foreign policy. That might spark his interest enough to actually read your post.
[/quote]

shadowfax: I say that my foreign policy positions are irrelevant because a) I’m not running for president and I am not able to change or suggest policy, b) often when people are asked for their foreign policy views, it is used against them as a means to label them as wacko, crazy, or as an indictment, and finally, c) posting my views of foreign policy would not only take so much time (in order to speak precisely), it would detract away from the discussion of whether Obama’s policies are correct or wrong, or even if McCain’s policies are correct or wrong.

As for the “insults”, I feel that I have to respond forcefully when certain people have said to my face that I am “full of sh!t” or imply that I am a “partisan” and use that as a veiled insult. I certainly am not directing it at anyone else other than gandalf. I have never said anything of the like to anyone else, but when it is directed at me, I do tire of it.

[quote=gandalf]BTW, surveyor? I actually do read yer posts. I can’t make sense of them!! But I read them… Soldier on. I’ll keep reading. Maybe we end up on the same side of a housing issue one of these days.[/quote]

I rest my case…

Gandalf, there are quite a few issues that we are on the same side on, despite our differences. I certainly support energy independence, I support going after Saudi Arabia and holding their feet to the fire more forcefully. You’d probably be surprised at how many positions that you and I are on the same side.

[surveyor]

[quote=Shadowfax]
Not to beat a dead horse, Surveyor, but you HAVE said repeatedly that your position on g’s questions re foreign policy options is irrelevant and then spent the rest of each post just taking him to task for several (rather dull and insulting) paragraphs. I think, in all fairness, all g is asking is for you to provide your opinions re foreign policy. That might spark his interest enough to actually read your post.
[/quote]

shadowfax: I say that my foreign policy positions are irrelevant because a) I’m not running for president and I am not able to change or suggest policy, b) often when people are asked for their foreign policy views, it is used against them as a means to label them as wacko, crazy, or as an indictment, and finally, c) posting my views of foreign policy would not only take so much time (in order to speak precisely), it would detract away from the discussion of whether Obama’s policies are correct or wrong, or even if McCain’s policies are correct or wrong.

As for the “insults”, I feel that I have to respond forcefully when certain people have said to my face that I am “full of sh!t” or imply that I am a “partisan” and use that as a veiled insult. I certainly am not directing it at anyone else other than gandalf. I have never said anything of the like to anyone else, but when it is directed at me, I do tire of it.

[quote=gandalf]BTW, surveyor? I actually do read yer posts. I can’t make sense of them!! But I read them… Soldier on. I’ll keep reading. Maybe we end up on the same side of a housing issue one of these days.[/quote]

I rest my case…

Gandalf, there are quite a few issues that we are on the same side on, despite our differences. I certainly support energy independence, I support going after Saudi Arabia and holding their feet to the fire more forcefully. You’d probably be surprised at how many positions that you and I are on the same side.

[surveyor]

Hi, dan!

Let me just point out that I never called anybody names. I’ve been critical of certain people, but I never went personal. But you had a good post, which I wish I could have gotten about 10 thread pages ago…

[quote=urbanrealtor]On this I disagree with you. I think that often the labels are good as thumbnails. They have a lot of utility. Hence, why they are used. You do have a fair point with regard to the limits of their utility. (Two of) Our biggest capitalist competitors are “socialist” India and “communist” China. These point out that while labels can be misleading, it is more a matter of limitations of language rather than intentional deception. I think that the thrust of Zakarias’ article. Examples that are considered conservative are being followed by someone labeled as liberal.[/quote]

I agree that labels can be useful in some instances, but when some posters and I were hashing out labels, it was used as a way to defuse an argument or make stretches of policy statements that were at best “slippery slopes.” That’s why I wanted to avoid the labels. Still, some people are caught up in the labels and I acknowledge that. For me, though, I just avoid those discussions. Or at least try to move beyond them.

[quote=urbanrealtor]Islamofacism. As labels go this one seems problematic. It has the difficulty of referencing some old conquering powers.[/quote]

I acknowledge there is some problems with the definition of islamofacism and the threat of islamic hegemony. For me, islamofacism is the attempt to produce a fascist government based on islamic principles. Until a better term comes along, I’ll use that.

[quote=urbanrealtor]The uninformed part is of course subjective. Some of the suggestions that would indicate ignorance on his part don’t fly. I find it less than plausible that a native Hawaiian who went to college in the US (and high school in Honolulu) does not have basic familiarity with the largest military action in Hawaiian history.[/quote]

Like I told gandalf, if it was one gaffe in one speech, I would have disregarded it (there are a lot of things Obama has done that I have disregarded because I thought they were immaterial to the discussion of his qualifications). However, he has said certain things that lead me to question how informed he really is. For example, his lack of knowledge of the islamofacism threat, his not knowing that Iraq and Afghanistan speak different languages, his screwing up of the Selma March dates in relation to his parents. I’ve said before that these details are not important to most people, but it is important to me.

Anyways, moving on.
[quote=urbanrealtor]
[quote=surveyor]
Consider his facile observations about President Kennedy’s first meeting with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, in Vienna in 1961. Obama saw it as a meeting that helped win the Cold War, when in fact it was an embarrassment for the American side. The inexperienced Kennedy performed so poorly that Khrushchev may well have been encouraged to position Soviet missiles in Cuba in 1962, thus precipitating one of the Cold War’s most dangerous crises.[/quote]

Thats a tremendous stretch. I think Robert McNamara would disagree. Or rather he does disagree. And he has met with the actors involved in the crisis. He was one.[/quote]

Well take a look at this article and see if you still agree:

Mr. Burlatsky stressed that Khrushchev, who met Kennedy in Vienna in 1961, believed that the American President was ”very young, very intelligent, but not very strong.”

Krushchev believed that the U.S. was going to invade Cuba, but he certainly wouldn’t have tried to place missiles there if he thought the U.S. had a strong president. So there is affirmation at least of Bolton’s assessment of the meeting.

[quote=urbanrealtor]While implications are subjective, I disagree with Mr. Bolton’s assessment. Negotiations are a starting point for getting what you want. We have never tried this with either Iran or Cuba. We undermined democracy in both countries and then were shocked when our puppet governments were taken down and more popular (though evil) regimes installed. Talking would not hurt our current stalemate. Mr. Bolton has to reach back to Kennedy for an (unconvincing) example of diplomacy harming our interests. Reagan’s negotiations with Gorbachev were instrumental in dealing with a much bigger country. They achieved our aims where all the “tiny” country actions failed. If negotiations fail we will have lost nothing from where we are now.[/quote]

Actually that is grossly incorrect. As Bolton has pointed out in interviews, you lose TIME. Negotiations are useful, but if they are used to gain more time for the Iranians to get their objectives or to move into a stronger negotiating position, then yes, you actually have lost something. Time gives you the flexibility to respond with something other than negotiation. Remember, the Europeans have been negotiating with Iran all this time and they got nothing and lost time. The Iranians are closer to a nuclear weapon, they are in a stronger negotiating position (because of oil prices and their proximity to a nuclear weapon), and lastly, we do not have the time to set up or pursue other options (such as regime change, sanctions, etc.). Negotiations is also a way of showing your hand, to show how strong your convictions are. The Europeans, negotiating on our behalf, showed that they were not very forceful, which allowed the Iranians to break agreements, stall, and eliminate options for the U.S.

I also brought this up before, but let’s not just go to the Kennedy administration to show how negotiations and diplomacy can be used against us. Let’s go to the start of World War II, where Neville Chamberlain essentially convinced Hitler that the Allies were more interested in not fighting than confronting him. We all should know the result of that little adventure.

[quote=urbanrealtor]Countries don’t “go” communist. Typically either they have an unstable gov’t which sees a popular revolution (eg: Iran and Cuba) or they get invaded.[/quote]

Italy was an “example.” By the way, don’t worry about Italy. It’ll turn Islamic (as well as the rest of Europe) soon enough.

[quote=urbanrealtor]In the future your posts would be stronger if you used articles or opinion pieces by respected thinkers on these topics. John Bolton is not respected by most people who work in foreign affairs. That includes the Republicans and most conservative thinkers. His public comments that the UN is an irrelevant institution mean that he is seen as an extremist in his field. That is part of the reason he could not get confirmed by a Republican congress. [/quote]

So just because they are not respected, they should be disregarded? That was the main point of contention between gandalf and me. Gandalf attempted to imply that the arguments posted by Bolton were wrong simply because he was a “neocon”. Whether he is a neocon or not respected, that does not mean his arguments or analyses are wrong. It also does not matter if he is seen as an extremist, or if he could not get confirmed by Congress.

and lastly:

[quote=urbanrealtor]
[quote=surveyor]
Most famously, Kirkpatrick forever seared the San Francisco Democrats by saying that “they always blame America first” for the world’s problems. In so doing, she turned the name of the pre-World War II isolationist America First movement into a stigma the Democratic Party has never shaken.[/quote]

As liberal democrat from San Francisco this is just a wasteful name-calling exercise. This was dull the first time I heard it at age 12.[/quote]

Well, is the assertion correct? Are the leftists/Democrats/Obama blaming America for the problems of the world or the root of the problems of the world? Is the belief out there that if only America was nicer to the world, that the world will become a better place?

In the previous threads, I used the analogy of a lawyer representing a client, but that the lawyer believed that it was the client’s fault. Given that mindset, would the lawyer be able to fight tooth and nail for the benefit of the client? If so, great. If not, I would choose another lawyer. A lawyer that believes in the client.

Anyways, good notes, good post, dan.

[Author]

Posts