Overheard (v. 11)

Overheard — By on May 16, 2008 at 12:32 am

Though not a big fan of the fantasy genre, the first Narnia earned my eternal goodwill in a single scene. Any film that has Santa Claus handing out weapons to young children is a-okay by me.

- From a review of Prince Caspian at Libertas

°°°°°°

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

President Bush during a a speech to the Knesset in honor of Israel’s 60th anniversary.

°°°°°°

It’s easy for people to strike if they’re not working on a regular basis. They already have a restaurant job, they already have another life. That’s just the case of our union. Most people in it don’t work regularly.

The Office‘s Kate Flannery on talk of an actor’s strike.

°°°°°°

Warning: If you treat your church like a business, you will treat other churches like your competition.

Jared Wilson

°°°°°°

Employees experience a continuous stream of encounters – one defect is a low failure rate. Customers experience a single defect as a 100% failure rate.

– From Mistake-Proofing: Designing Errors Out by Richard B. Chase and Douglas M. Stewart (Via Kevin Kelly)

°°°°°°

I don’t think [the upcoming Sex and the City movie] is just for girls. I am a reasonably well-adjusted bloke and I am looking forward to seeing the film with my girlfriend. I am then looking forward to poking my eyes out with red-hot pokers, burning my skin off, and rolling around in salt for a while.

– British filmgoer Phil Mann expressing a sentiment soon to be shared by thousands of American men.



  • ex-preacher

    Appeasing bullies is wrong, but talking is not appeasement.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Indeed, if that Senator had gotten the chance to talk to Hitler and Hitler invaded Poland anyway WWII would have turned out no worse.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Robert Gates, George Bush’s Nazi appeaser Sec of Defense
    “We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage … and then sit down and talk with them. If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can’t go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us.”

  • Peddlethorpe

    Of course the President didn’t write that speech, is not remotely a student of history and likely knows nothing of the context leading up to Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler. He just read it and hoped to dig Obama. He was successful.
    Which doesn’t exonerate him or the right-wing talking heads who confuse talking with appeasement. There’s lots to talk about without ever suggesting that “Ok, you can have Poland if you just don’t be mean to us.” It’s sad how puerile politics has become.

  • Peddlethorpe

    Oops! Read Czechoslovakia for Poland.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Good point, the appeasement was not talking to Hitler but telling hem he could have Czechoslovakia if he behaved himself afterwards. No one is giving Iran anything except Bush who gave Iran 60% of Iraq…more or less…

  • smmtheory

    Opinion is such a poor substitution for fact.

  • Nick

    Negotiating with the IRA and Sinn Fein has been such a failure. Can’t we go back to the good old days of bombings and tit-for-tat murder and torture?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Some facts
    http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/05/extravagant-fol.html
    1. Bush’s own administration has repeatedly offered to negotiate with Tehran should Iran suspend uranium enrichment
    2. It’s also worth pointing out, as several Israeli security officials and political observers have recently done to me here, a bit of recent history Bush neglected to mention at Israel’s parliament. That Israel and the Palestinian Authority have chiefly him to thank for Hamas having a degree of political legitimacy it otherwise would not have had. After all, they point out, it was the Bush administration that “twisted the arm” of Israeli and Palestinian leaders against considerable resistance and skepticism on their part to allow the Palestinian militant group Hamas to run in 2006 Palestinian elections that Hamas won — an outcome to its policy interventions that the Bush administration once again failed to anticipate.
    3. We have ongoing negotiations with N. Korea, Libya, and Syria.

  • smmtheory

    I see nothing that substantiates 60% of Iraq having been given to Iran. Care to try a different set of facts that actually apply to your opinion?

  • http://HTTP://WWW.STORMLOADER.COM/GRACEHEART/INDEX.HTML ROBERT DINKLE
  • ucfengr

    Appeasing bullies is wrong, but talking is not appeasement.
    Let’s call these people what they are; bullies are big kids that chase little kids off the playground. People that launch Katushya rockets at pre-schools, set off bombs at weddings, and threaten their neighbors with nuclear destruction are not bullies.
    Good point, the appeasement was not talking to Hitler but telling hem he could have Czechoslovakia if he behaved himself afterwards.
    Which is what people like Jimmy Carter, and maybe even Obama, are advocating for Israel. Make some concessions to Hamas and then hope they will stop launching Katushya rockets at your schools

  • smmtheory

    When all is said and done though, the Democrats and the Press have managed to own the “Appeaser” label for Barack Obama big time. It must have been a Karl Rove plot.

  • http://salesianity.blogspot.com/ Padre Steve

    I have to agree with President Bush. He is finally speaking up and I think he hit the nail on the head on this one! Also, I saw Narnia last night and enjoyed it very much! But, if I were to see a movie a second time I would go back to see Ironman again! That was excellent! God bless! Padre Steve

  • ucfengr

    Indeed, if that Senator had gotten the chance to talk to Hitler and Hitler invaded Poland anyway WWII would have turned out no worse.
    An equally likely outcome would have been the Senator “persuading” Hitler to settle for a portion of Poland, putting Hitler in a stronger position, and the West in a weaker one, when he makes his next demand.

  • ex-preacher

    Also overheard this week:
    “That was Barack Obama. He just tripped off a chair. He’s getting ready to speak and somebody aimed a gun at him and he — he dove for the floor.”
    – Republican Mike Huckabee on May 16 2008 responding to an offstage noise during his speech Friday to the National Rifle Association.
    “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”
    – Albert Einstein in a January 3 1954 letter to the philosopher Eric Gutkind. The letter was sold this week to an unnamed bidder for $404,000. It had been expected to sell for between $12,000 and $16,000.
    “ . . . we conclude that, under this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.”
    – The California Supreme Court in a May 15 2008 4-3 decision striking down two state laws that had limited marriages to unions between a man and a woman.

  • http://www.lofitribe.com Shawn

    “If you treat your church like a business, you will treat other churches like your competition.”
    great! Love that one!

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    I see nothing that substantiates 60% of Iraq having been given to Iran. Care to try a different set of facts that actually apply to your opinion?
    Perhaps the fact that both the political party of Iraq’s President & the leading opposition party actively seek the endorsement and support of Iran’s clerical establishment?
    ucfengr
    Which is what people like Jimmy Carter, and maybe even Obama, are advocating for Israel. Make some concessions to Hamas and then hope they will stop launching Katushya rockets at your schools
    One again demonstrating the level of honesty we’d expect from someone who claimed Bush was “amazingly honest”.
    An equally likely outcome would have been the Senator “persuading” Hitler to settle for a portion of Poland, putting Hitler in a stronger position, and the West in a weaker one, when he makes his next demand.
    The would be appeasement. Once you decide whether or not to talk you are, of course, faced with the question of what do you say. It takes a pretty one dimensional mind to think the only thing that can be said is appeasement. But why argue about this policy? Bush’s administration has been one lie after another. The only case where he kept to the policy he now embraces is Cuba.
    Speaking of honesty, the Senator who wished he could have just talked to Hitler was a Republican & there’s serious question as to whether he really said it. The first time the quotation appeared in print it was 20 years after he died.

  • http://www.jkjonesthinks.blogspot.com J. K. Jones

    I saw the Narnia movie last night. They have made so significant departures from the book, but the book would not have made a good movie. I liked the show. Keep in mind that the Christian notion of a “just war” is prominent in this movie.
    I also like Ironman better. I was an Ironman comic book fan for a long time, and the movie was flat out the bet superhero movie I have ever seen.

  • ucfengr

    One again demonstrating the level of honesty we’d expect from someone who claimed Bush was “amazingly honest”.
    Once again demonstrating that you have no real arguments.
    The would be appeasement.
    So, you really think Obama or Hillary will be able to win over Hamas/Iran/North Korea/etc. with their bright smiles and engaging personalities? They won’t have to offer anything to “appease” them? They will just dazzle them with their brilliant oratory and they will see the light? Please…Help me out here, Boonton; convince me you really aren’t as stupid as that last post makes you sound.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Actually negotiation has little to do with dazzling rhetoric. Since so much of it has to happen with translation it’s certainly likely that even if Clinton or Obama could ever match Bush’s masterful rhetorical heights such brillance would be lost in translation. Negotiation does, however, attempt to bring two sides to a sensible solution that meets both their interests (or at least minimizes the harms they have to accept).
    Does it always work? Of course not but when things do work, it almost always involves some measure of negotiation. That’s why for all the tough talk Bush lied in his speech. His administration, to one degree or another, has either negotiated directly or indirectly with all the modern day ‘Hitlers’ out there. At this point, though, no one really cares. He’s taught us not to expect anything better.

  • ex-preacher

    And don’t forget that McCain has also indicated a willingness to talk to Hamas if they renounce terrorism and accept Israel’s right to exist, the same preconditions set by Obama (see quote at the bottom of this post).
    Also, Obama has pointed out that President Nixon opened talks with China, “with the knowledge that Mao had exterminated millions of people.” Was this appeasement, ucgengr? How eaxctly do you define appeasement? Obviously, as Boonton pointed out, anytime you negotiate with anyone you are offering something the other side wants (like its own country) in exchange for something you want (end of warfare, mutual recognition). Are you suggesting that we should never negotiate with anyone who does not share all of our values. If so, then was Reagan (and every other president since FDR) wrong to negotiate with the Soviets?
    – – – – –
    From an interview with John McCain by James P. Rubin in 2006:
    Rubin: Do you think the American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?
    McCain: They are the government, sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations have such antipathy towards Hamas – it is because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse to but practise, so…but it’s a new reality in the middle east, I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah never gave them that.
    Rubin: Should the US be dealing with the new reality through normal diplomatic contact to get the job done for the United States?
    McCain: I think the US should take a step back and see what they do when they form the government, see what their policies are and see the ways in which we can engage with them and if there aren’t any then there may be a hiatus but I think part of the relationship will be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the US acts.”

  • smmtheory

    Perhaps the fact that both the political party of Iraq’s President & the leading opposition party actively seek the endorsement and support of Iran’s clerical establishment?

    I don’t think that means what you think it means, so you are back to assertion and opinion and nothing to substantiate your claim. You think you know what is going on over there? Really? Where do you get your information from?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    I think it means that Iran’s influence in Iraq has increased dramatically. Is there anyone here who can honestly say that is not true?

  • ucfengr

    Also, Obama has pointed out that President Nixon opened talks with China, “with the knowledge that Mao had exterminated millions of people.” Was this appeasement, ucgengr?
    No. I think the problem here is that many people don’t know the difference between “negotiation” and “appeasement”. “Negotiation” is a process by which goods and/or services are exchanged. It is a morally neutral term. A negotiation can be where I offer a neighbor boy money to cut my lawn, or it can be where I offer a kidnapper money for the return of my daughter. “Appeasement”, on the other hand, is a morally charged term. It is the the process by which one or more of the parties to the negotiation offers or demands something to which they have no right. For example, the kidnapper has no right to my daughter, and Hamas has no right to launch rockets into Israel, and certainly no right to target schools; they also have no right to any Israeli land. Iran has no right to support terrorist groups, like Hamas. There is also a component of “good faith” involved in “appeasement”, in other words one of the parties is not negotiating in “good faith” and the other party has strong reason to believe this is the case. The difference between “negotiation” and “appeasement” is the premise under which negotiations occur.
    Obviously, as Boonton pointed out, anytime you negotiate with anyone you are offering something the other side wants (like its own country) in exchange for something you want (end of warfare, mutual recognition).
    In this case, you are assuming that Hamas has the right to launch rockets into Israel and has a right to Israeli land, and that to onus is on Israel to accommodate Hamas. I don’t agree with this premise.
    Are you suggesting that we should never negotiate with anyone who does not share all of our values.
    No, but I am suggesting that we should only negotiate with people that we believe are acting in good faith and that we shouldn’t negotiate for things that one or both of the parties have no right to. Using the most prominent historical example, neither Chamberlain nor Hitler had any right to any portion of Czechoslovakia, but yet they were negotiating for it. Furthermore, Chamberlain had no reason to believe that Hitler was negotiating in good faith and yet he negotiated anyway.
    From an interview with John McCain by James P. Rubin in 2006:….
    I don’t love McCain any more than I love Bush. I think McCain will be marginally better than either Clinton or Obama, and that may be enough to drag me out of bed on election day to vote for him, or it may not.

  • smmtheory

    I think it means that Iran’s influence in Iraq has increased dramatically. Is there anyone here who can honestly say that is not true?

    Is there anyone here who can back up with fact the assertion that it is true?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    ucfengr has had an amazing career as a commentator here. He consistently acts as if everyone else is an idiot while making a fool of himself over, and over and over again.
    No. I think the problem here is that many people don’t know the difference between “negotiation” and “appeasement”. “Negotiation” is a process by which goods and/or services are exchanged. It is a morally neutral term. A negotiation can be where I offer a neighbor boy money to cut my lawn, or it can be where I offer a kidnapper money for the return of my daughter. “Appeasement”, on the other hand, is a morally charged term. It is the the process by which one or more of the parties to the negotiation offers or demands something to which they have no right
    This is well and good. Therefore, it follows that in order to accuse someone of appeasement you need to show not that they want to negotiate with someone by offering them something they have no right too. Such a charge is serious and ucfengr should be able to back it up on anyone he accuses of appeasement. If he can’t then he should retract any such charge an apologize for making it.
    Needless to say, even while his own definition paints him to be an idiot, his definition is itself idiotic. Ask yourself, in what world can offering a kidnapper money not be appeasement unless ucfengr thinks there’s some right to go around kidnapping people’s daughters and demanding ransom?
    Appeasement is offering something to someone who is behaving badly in the hopes that they will behave less bad in the future without reasonable assurances that they will carry though. Many wars have ended successfully with negotiations. Do you think that the negotiators had to go back to the beginning of the war and ask which side was right and which side was wrong? If they did few wars would be solved except by the total anniliation of one side….which would make peacemaking pretty moot. Likewise many perfectly valid negotiations happen outside of what would be right in an ideal world. When a credit card company offers to settle a deadbeat account for $0.80 on the dollar that is not appeasement…even though the debtor has no ‘right’ to settle his debt for anything less than the full balance of what he owes the company.
    More seriously, what about a hostage negotiation. Does the hostage taker have any ‘right’ to whatever demands he is making? Of course not but police forces nevertheless negotiate for everyone’s best interest. If you have a negotiator who gives away the store, well that is valid grounds for correcting him but not an argument to eliminate negotiation as a policy to begin with.
    The ‘rights talk’ is hopelessly niave and illustrates what’s wrong with neocons like ucfengr. The US offered Japan surrender while keeping the Emperor on the throne. Did anyone stop and say does any human beign have the right to sit on a throne calling himself a living god? Of course not because no such ‘right’ exists and the US was founded upon the premise the compelte opposite premise. Likewise the US later negotiated an end to the Korean War. Was it saying the gov’t of N. Korea was within its rights to exist and to dominate the people of North Korea? Of course not. In ucfengr’s rose colored world, though, both Truman and Eisenhower are appeasers just like Chamberlain. They should have let the war go on and on and not negotiate until you had a perfect gov’t that was perfectly respecting all rights. Of course, if everyone and everything was perfect you wouldn’t need to negotiate to begin with!
    In regards to Israel, Hamas, Iran and so on…no charge of appeasement can be made unless someone actually makes an offer (or advocates making an offer) that can be fairly characterized as appeasement.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    I think it means that Iran’s influence in Iraq has increased dramatically. Is there anyone here who can honestly say that is not true?
    Is there anyone here who can back up with fact the assertion that it is true?
    I will have my question answered first before I accept any ‘assignments’. If you don’t have the time to answer my question I see no reason to entertain yours. Does smmtheory honestly feel the assertion is not true? (Or anyone for that matter?)

  • smmtheory

    I will have my question answered first before I accept any ‘assignments’. If you don’t have the time to answer my question I see no reason to entertain yours. Does smmtheory honestly feel the assertion is not true? (Or anyone for that matter?)

    What? You don’t like your own rhetorical style?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Requested: Evidence that Iran’s influence over Iraq has dramatically increased.
    Submitted: smmtheory’s refusal to disagree with said assertion despite several invitations to do so.
    Since no one else has submitted anything into the evidence pile I’ll leave it at that. I wouldn’t want to pull so far ahead that he gets discouraged and gives up.

  • smmtheory

    Requested: Care to try a different set of facts that actually apply to your opinion (iow, “No one is giving Iran anything except Bush who gave Iran 60% of Iraq…more or less…”)?
    Submitted: More opinion and assertion by Boonton. To wit: “Perhaps the fact that both the political party of Iraq’s President & the leading opposition party actively seek the endorsement and support of Iran’s clerical establishment?” and “I think it means that Iran’s influence in Iraq has increased dramatically.”
    Since the only ‘evidence’ purported to be issued was a moral relativist’s idea of the truth (iow, his own opinion), I’ll assume that none is forthcoming.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Since the only ‘evidence’ purported to be issued was a moral relativist’s idea of the truth (iow, his own opinion)
    That’s odd since I submitted your own opinion (or lack of one) as evidence. Perhaps you fancy yourself to be a figment of my imagination? Sorry to burst your bubble but you don’t make the cut.

  • smmtheory

    That’s odd since I submitted your own opinion (or lack of one) as evidence. Perhaps you fancy yourself to be a figment of my imagination? Sorry to burst your bubble but you don’t make the cut.

    Which further proves my point that your arguments rely on things you cannot substantiate. You weave your Emperor’s New Clothing out of nothingness and then don them expecting everybody to be dazzled by their brilliance.

  • ucfengr

    Appeasement is offering something to someone who is behaving badly in the hopes that they will behave less bad in the future without reasonable assurances that they will carry though.
    I seem to remember writing something about only negotiating with “people that we believe are acting in good faith”. Maybe you should read my comments a little more closely before you respond to them, especially if you are going to be rude and unpleasant, like calling someone an idiot. Obama has said that he would meet, without preconditions, the leaders of Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. So unless you are assuming that all of those people would negotiate in good faith, Obama is proposing that we engage in a policy of appeasement.

  • ex-preacher

    The notion that even talking to someone who might be acting in bad faith constitutes appeasement is somewhat bizarre. The U.S. has often negotiated with countries and their leaders that we didn’t fully trust at the time, including Nixon with Mao and Reagan with Gorbachev. Every president, including the current one, has negotiated with “folks” of dubious credibility (including, indirectly, the North Koreans and Iranians).
    For a better definition, consider this excerpt from wikipedia:
    “The meaning of the term “appeasement” has changed throughout the years. According to Paul Kennedy in his Strategy and Diplomacy, 1983, appeasement is “the policy of settling international quarrels by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, thereby avoiding the resort to an armed conflict which would be, expensive, bloody and possibly dangerous.” It gained its negative reputation for its use in the build up to World War II. It had previously been employed by the British government successfully in the Treaty with Ireland 1921.”
    Appeasement, even with its current negative connotation, involves actually giving in to the unprincipled demands of an aggressor. Uncfengr might think that even talking to someone is giving them something, but the examples of previous leaders works against him again. To borrow Boonton’s example, should the police refuse to negotiate with hostage-takers for fear that doing so would actually meet one of their demands? Are we so arrogant that we think even our stooping to talk to a badly behaving, weak nation bestows great honor on them? There have been (and still are) scores of nations that behave badly that we maintain excellent relations with (let’s see – Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan, Russia jump to mind).

  • Robski

    “Since the only ‘evidence’ purported to be issued was a moral relativist’s idea of the truth (iow, his own opinion), I’ll assume that none is forthcoming.”
    I would give as much weight to the opinion of a moral relativist as I would to a moralist relative. ;-)
    “So unless you are assuming that all of those people would negotiate in good faith, Obama is proposing that we engage in a policy of appeasement.”
    Not exactly. It might be appeasement if one met with one’s enemies despite assuming that “those people” would NOT negotiate in good faith. I don’t think Obama would talk to them if he didn’t think there were a chance that they would negotiate in good faith. Why would he? I think you are prepared to believe the worst of your ideological opponents. Has he given you any reason to believe he would seek to appease the foes of peace? Tell me, and maybe I’ll see things your way.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Which further proves my point that your arguments rely on things you cannot substantiate.
    If I was a relativist who believed my opinion alone determined reality why would I cite your inability to have an opinion as evidence? On the contrary, my evidence is quite objective. You often defend Bush’s policies. If I was wrong when I asserted Iran’s influence in Iraq has exploded during Bush’s admin. you would be among the first to jump down my throat. Since you refuse to take any stand and try to direct the argument towards demands for evidence this implies you know that I’m correct about that assertion and simply don’t want to give up the ground.
    Now as far as evidence goes that’s very weak but since no one else wants to cite anything else, I’m king of the hill for the moment. Rather than fire up Google I’ll sit on top of the evidence hill for now.
    ucfengr
    I seem to remember writing something about only negotiating with “people that we believe are acting in good faith”. Maybe you should read my comments a little more closely before you respond to them
    As for good faith/bad faith, look again at my definition that calls for “reasonable assurances that they will carry though.” In the case of someone you trust and have a good relationship with (such as between the US and the UK), a reasonable assurance can be a simple handshake. In cases of less trust you would require more. For example, I remember reading once that the US and USSR agreed to limit a certain missile. Since neither trusted the other, they both agreed to open the doors of their missile silos once a month so the other side’s spy satellites could count them. The assumption there was that both sides were negotiating in bad faith so a verification mechanism was created that would immediately alert either side if one party cheated. In the case of North Korea it would probably entail on-site inspections or handing over nuclear material and machines.
    Ex-
    I think your ‘official’ definition is better than the ones provided by ucfengr and myself. The negative connotation of the word, though, means essentially making a stupid deal or giving someone something unjustly (such as, say, letting Serbia ‘cleanse’ Bosnia of Muslims). The assertion that you can only negotiate with ‘good guys’ is absurd. You don’t need to negotiate with ‘good guys’ because your disagreements are going to happen with ‘bad guys’.

  • ucfengr

    If I was a relativist who believed my opinion alone determined reality why would I cite your inability to have an opinion as evidence? On the contrary, my evidence is quite objective.
    What evidence have you offered? Unsupported assertions aren’t evidence.
    On the contrary, my evidence is quite objective. You often defend Bush’s policies. If I was wrong when I asserted Iran’s influence in Iraq has exploded during Bush’s admin.
    Exactly, you asserted. Assertions are not evidence.
    As for good faith/bad faith, look again at my definition that calls for “reasonable assurances that they will carry though.”
    I am not sure what your point is. Believing that your opponent is “negotiating in good faith” is the same as believing that they will “carry through”. Are you just trying to be disagreeable here or are you really that obtuse?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    1. In regards to whether or not Iran has more or less influence in Iraq:
    My evidence is quite objective. The usual suspects here would immediately leap down my throat if that was false. They haven’t therefore that is evidence the statement is true. More simply:
    If A is false, then smm will scream.
    Smm refuses to scream
    Therefore A is not false.
    Not fantastic evidence I’ll grant you but since nobody here cares to put forth any evidence at all I win by default.
    Believing that your opponent is “negotiating in good faith” is the same as believing that they will “carry through”.
    I’m not sure why this point confuses you so much. You don’t have to believe your opponent is “negotiating in good faith”. You have to be sure that whatever agreement you negotiate can be reasonably enforced.
    Right now, Bush, who you seem to love, is negotiating with N. Korea. Do you honestly feel N. Korea can be trusted on anything they say? If not then what is in ‘good faith’ about the negotations? Nevertheless, whatever deal that gets cut will hopefully be reasonably enforceable.
    Very little would ever get done besides endless wars if before you could negotiate with your opponant you first had to make sure he was a fine, upstading chap.

  • smmtheory

    You often defend Bush’s policies…. (redacted) you would be among the first to jump down my throat. Since you refuse to take any stand and try to direct the argument towards demands for evidence this implies you know that I’m correct about that assertion and simply don’t want to give up the ground.

    That’s not ringing a bell with me. I don’t recall defending the President’s policies often at all, if any. You might be confusing me with somebody else. President Bush is a grown man after all, why do I need to defend his policies? What I DO remember is often jumping down your throat for policies or view points that you advocated. If you want to go blaming anybody in particular for anything in particular, you really ought to be able to back up what you’re saying with facts. If you can’t handle your assertions being questioned, you’ve left them in the wrong forum.

  • ucfengr

    I’m not sure why this point confuses you so much. You don’t have to believe your opponent is “negotiating in good faith”. You have to be sure that whatever agreement you negotiate can be reasonably enforced.
    I think you are the one who is confused. “Good faith” is not the same a blind trust. I invest money in several companies and I partially base my decisions on the contents of their annual reports. I generally trust that the people who write the reports are honest, but I also know there is an enforcement mechanism to ensure they are operating honestly.
    Right now, Bush, who you seem to love, is negotiating with N. Korea.
    I am not going to defend Bush, but why is Bush negotiating with N. Korea? Is it because he believes Kim Jong Il is an honest man who will honor his agreements or is it because of political pressure, mostly from your side? I think negotiating with Kim Jong Il is a fool’s errand and it has cost Bush some of my respect, but the reality is the push to negotiate with these tyrants comes from your side, not mine. Does Obama’s commitment to sit down with people like KJL, without preconditions trouble you as much as Bush’s attempts at dealing with him?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Re smm in #40: Notice he still refuses to actually disagree with what I said? Hmmmmmmmmm…
    ucfengr-
    I invest money in several companies and I partially base my decisions on the contents of their annual reports. I generally trust that the people who write the reports are honest, but I also know there is an enforcement mechanism to ensure they are operating honestly.
    Unless you are Warren Buffett buying these companies, you are not negotiating in this example. You are deciding whether or not to accept an offer on the table with the information available to you.
    I think negotiating with Kim Jong Il is a fool’s errand and it has cost Bush some of my respect, but the reality is the push to negotiate with these tyrants comes from your side, not mine. Does Obama’s commitment to sit down with people like KJL, without preconditions trouble you as much as Bush’s attempts at dealing with him?
    Actually it came from the utter failure of the Bush administration to accomplish anything with N Korea. The alternatives to negotiating were either to ignore their development of nukes or to go to war with them.
    As far as “my side” making Bush negotiate with N. Korea….well I guess Obama’s rhetoric really must be magical if he is able to penetrate even Bush’s skull.
    Does Obama’s commitment to sit down with people like KJL, without preconditions trouble you as much as Bush’s attempts at dealing with him?
    Neither bother me. You, remember, are the one who equates negotiation with appeasement. If Bush or Obama trades a few thousand gallons of diesal fuel and bags of rice for a nuclear reactor it will be a pretty good deal.

  • ucfengr

    Actually it came from the utter failure of the Bush administration to accomplish anything with N Korea.
    Because of course the problem is Bush, not the bad faith of NK (and probably China). Obama with his dazzling smile and brilliant, uplifting oratory will be able to convince KJL and probably even OBL of the error of their ways.
    The alternatives to negotiating were either to ignore their development of nukes or to go to war with them.
    Why should we care if they develop nukes, unless we are concerned that might use them against us.
    Neither bother me. You, remember, are the one who equates negotiation with appeasement.
    No, I equate negotiation with negotiation and appeasement with appeasement.
    If Bush or Obama trades a few thousand gallons of diesal fuel and bags of rice for a nuclear reactor it will be a pretty good deal.
    Unless we are concerned that the nuclear reactor may ultimately be use against us, why should we give them anything for it? If we are concerned that it may be used against us, then we are essentially paying them blackmail, which as you have argued, is appeasement.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Unless we are concerned that the nuclear reactor may ultimately be use against us, why should we give them anything for it? If we are concerned that it may be used against us, then we are essentially paying them blackmail, which as you have argued, is appeasement.
    How exactly would it be used against us if we have it? (Or more realistically it would be disabled under international supervision).
    Because of course the problem is Bush, not the bad faith of NK (and probably China). Obama with his dazzling smile and brilliant, uplifting oratory will be able to convince KJL and probably even OBL of the error of their ways.
    If you want to go to North Korea and campaign for them to change their policies I’ll be happy to contribute to your one way plane ticket. In the real world it we don’t get to choose which nations we inhabit this planet with. North Korea exists and the question we have to ask ourself is what policies we should apply to bring us as close as possible to the state of affairs we would like to see.
    Neocons rolled into office telling us that the Clinton administration’s policies with NK were appeasement and they would do better. Since then we have seen NK advance its program, refine the capability of their long range missiles and produce material for maybe a half-dozen working bombs. As a result of this failure of their policy, they have essentially picked up the old Clinton policy where it was left off. If the result is additional development is stalled pr even rolled back to a degree then it would be an improvement in our state of affairs.

  • smmtheory

    Re smm in #40: Notice he still refuses to actually disagree with what I said? Hmmmmmmmmm…

    As if this thread were not a typical example of me disagreeing with a lot you have said. But whether or not I disagree with you is irrelevant to establishing whether or not you made a baseless accusation about President Bush.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Since I’ve actually presented evidence you’ve failed to show I made a baseless accusation.
    Let’s note again he still refuses to disagree!!!! He is so careful he won’t even say he is trying to show I made a false accusation about Bush.
    Now let me say it would be almost trivial to go to Google and produce a dozen cites for Iranian influence in Iraq. Anyone whose followed the war in even a half-assed manner must have heard that argument. But for the moment watching smm & ucfengr wiggle and squirm is too much fun. Besides, would citations really be appreciated by this crew? I doubt it.

  • smmtheory

    Here let me fix that for you Boonton…

    Since I’ve actually presented ever more unsubstantiated and unprovable assertions you’ve failed to get me to admit I made a baseless accusation.
    Let’s note again (because I can’t think of any other argument to counter a lack of evidence) he still refuses to disagree!!!! He is so careful he won’t even say he is trying to show I made a (since I don’t know what baseless means, I’ll assume it’s not the same as) false accusation about Bush.
    Now let me say it would be almost trivial to go to Google and produce a dozen cites for Iranian influence in Iraq (at least one of which I am personally responsible for… how dare you not acknowledge my brilliance!). Anyone whose followed the war in even a half-assed manner (as presented by the MSM in sound-bites only) must have heard that argument. But for the moment watching (me try to make) smm & ucfengr wiggle and squirm is too much fun. Besides, would citations (from the fever swamp of BDS) really be appreciated by this crew? I doubt it.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    So does he disagree that Iran’s influence in Iraq has dramatically increased? The world wonders? Well actually not quite the world but maybe a half dozen people still here wonder.

  • http://payday-on-line.biz/ Damek

    Good evening. I guess we’d be living in a boring, perfect world if everybody wished everybody else well.
    I am from Belarus and too poorly know English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Find the vacation package of your dreams.”
    Thanks for the help :-D, Damek.

  • Andrew Ramsey

    Good Day. Most folks are about as happy as they make up their minds to be.
    I am from Emirates and too poorly know English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “Find and book cheap flights, hotels and car rentals to and from any internationl or domestic location.”
    With love ;), Ty.