With agreed upon swaps. You forget about that part? Which, by the way, means the border is up for negotiations.
Nonsense. What specifically has Obama not done to push Iran away from nukes?
Again, utter nonsense. I expect you to have some facts, not talking points that you can’t support. You are repeating something which is not true.
It’s true. I mean, we’ve barely waged “preemptive war” on any new countries since Obama took office!
Escalating the existing conflicts? Ratcheting up the secret bombing campaigns? The whole world as a battlefield? Yeah right, you hippie pussy!
That is not appeasement, that is Obama’s position on the issue. He gets to have one unfavorable to Israel without it being essentially appeasement of anybody, you know, and if anybody feels appeased, so much the better.
He has done nothing to appease them on the matter. Not taking aggressive action is not appeasement.
If I stop ramming my knee into your guts repeatedly but continue to hold you in a a hammerlock until I’m sure it’s safe to let go, I am not genuflecting to you.
Did you fail to read the words “starting point”?
Well, he opposed the Senate sanctions package on Iran just a few days ago for starters. I think he should have had the courage to support the Persian spring in Iran.
I love the way you respond to something I didn’t say and then attack it…with a link! I was referring to the administration abandoning the missile defense complex in Poland, abandoning an ally in Egypt, weakness in Iran and Pakistan, and appeasement of China by not supplying Taiwan with new F16s just to name a few.
Correct. His position is to appease our enemies.
Your sentence is correct but does not reflect the Obama administration’s foreign policy stance. Your analogy is flawed.
You guys are all Obama appeasers.
Jesus titty-fucking Christ on a pogo stick! Bush called for negotiations to start with the 1949 borders. If calling for the 1967 borders as a starting point is “genuflection”, what the fuck is starting with the 1949 borders?
Statesmanlike.
Not only that, but in August, Netanyahu shifted his position and agreed to the pre-1967 borders as a starting point for negotiations. Is Netanyahu an appeaser?
ETA: Yahoo News: Latest and Breaking News, Headlines, Live Updates, and More
I dunno, but I recall that somebody thought Rabin was.
It never fails to amaze me how this kind of nonsense takes hold and travels around to all the usual sites. “Bu..Bu..Bu..But Bush said it too!”
Here..read up on Obama’s shift on middle east policy…from the Washington Post. You can also check out this page if you are still confused.
Well, Gingrich, at any rate, apparently does not want to appear an appeaser.
FTR, the Palestinians have always lived there, under whatever name. They are simply the descendants of all the peoples who have ever lived in or invaded or colonized Canaan, including Canaanites, Hebrews/Israelites/Jews, Philistines, etc., and Arabs and Turks. They are the cousins of those now called Jews, but their ancestors never left. DNA studies bear this out.
The Palestinians are our enemies? When did that happen?
When we decided to be Israel’s friend.
So, in other words, you’re not going to answer his question? How typical.
Its all part of this poisonous political climate we’re in. Any kind of compromise (which used to be a good thing) is looked upon as weak. Any recognition of other sides of any story is looked upon as traitorous (which used to be called 'a wide perspective). By extension, “appeasement” is just another inflammatory term used to insult and cast the specter of contemptible timidity.
… and since it increases divisiveness and hate amongst our own, the media is having a field day and many are just following along; all in lock step. Let your hate flow!!
sigh
Are you incapable of reading? The links provided address this issue. Please click on the first one, read it, if still confused click on the second one. Does that help?
yorick73 that was not appeasement - that was an attempt to re-start stalled negotiations. About as ineffective as a speech telling the NBA owners you want them to give the players more money. If you look in the dictionary under “Non-starter” you ought to see a picture of Obama’s plan for the Middle East. Obama’s speech presented a plan that everyone instantly ignored, but not a plan of appeasement.
I must add that as an American and a Jew I am at my limit with the strain of US politicians and voters who act as if the US must give Israel anything it wants, anything it says it wants, or anything it might possibly want in the future - no matter how boneheadingly counter to Israeli interests it might be. Let alone to US interests. Israel is a great country with a lot going for it, but it is governed by humans who make mistakes. We as their allies have a role in pointing out their mistakes, as our allies have done for us on occasion. For Israel’s sake I hope their leaders listen better than ours have. Which brings us back to GWB and LBJ, and now I’m all dizzy.
From the first link:
Translation: This undercuts my entire argument, so I’m going to try to ignore it.
So, yeah, I can read. Big time.
BINGO! Here’s how to interpret presidential statements from a right wing perspective:
Bush: “Negotiations should have the 1949 borders as a starting point.” This is an unimportant statement to be ignored.
Obama: “Negotiations should have the 1967 borders as a starting point.” This is proof positive that Obama is an appeaser and is a gaffe of the highest magnitude, never to be forgiven.