Obama the appeaser?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Ricter, Oct 19, 2010.

  1. Ricter

    Ricter

  2. That was a great read.Thanks


    I think Obama is an appeaser,and thats why I voted for him.To this day McCain and and Palin are calling for militarily action in Iran as if they are to stupid to see what a mistake Korea, Vietnam,Iraq etc was.

    Kennedy and Ike are 2 of my favorite presidents because they were "appeasers".I can only imagine the consequences if someone like McCain or Bush Jr were in office during the Cuban missile crisis.
     
  3. Yeah, great if you're a cowardly libtard who wants to rationalize that it's a good idea to appease Ahmadinejad and let Iran develop nuclear weapons.
    Nonsense. Kennedy made Khrushchev back down which is more than your idol Odumba will do with Ahmadinejad, and Eisenhower was hardly an "appeaser." You're talking out of your ass trying to justify your libtarded point of view. Kennedy and Eisenhower understood that military force should be the last resort in part because they'd been there but that's entirely different than appeasement. You obviously fail to grasp the distinction. P.S. Thank God Odumba wasn't in office during the Cuban missile crisis.
     
  4. Hello

    Hello

  5. For context, Dallek is a liberal and gushing Obama supporter who would put Chris Matthews to shame, for example here:

    Obama has done what LBJ and FDR couldn’t
    The 44th President cannot yet claim to be one of the greats — but he is on the way

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7071832.ece

    Which is clear from a careful read of his article anyway:
    Even Barack Obama, who rode his opposition to the Iraq war into the White House and has kept his campaign promise to withdraw U.S. combat troops, is not immune from history's illusions.

    First, he didn't keep his promise because 50,000 remain in Iraq, many of whom are combat troops but have simply been renamed and second, "even Barack Obama"? Barf.
     
  6. Fighting wars to a truce always lead to long term faliures.
    Ike "settled" Korea and we have spent 50 years with troops on the DMZ. Now Noth Korea is nuclear.

    Missle crisis lead to the US promising never to invade Cuba, so we had 50 years of Cuba messing in Central and South America and Africa. The net effect is that the people of those affected by Castro are poorer and hopeless.

    Play to win.
     
  7. There's a thing called "conservatism" which says that the country should typically refrain from foreign entanglements. Also, there's a thing called "fiscal conservatism" which says that the country should refrain spending money on useless wars.

    I officially give up. See you guys in six months!
     
  8. Maybe you're a big bad war hawk who thinks that invading Iran like we did Vietnam ,Korea,Iraq is a good idea,but I disagree


    I dont believe American tax dollars should be used and lives sacrificed to protect other countries,Sounds like a form of socialism
     
  9. You might want learn more about the above situations.

    Kennedy didn't make Khrushchev back down.Kennedy agreed not to invade Cuba and to remove US missiles from Turkey,which is what Khrushchev wanted all along.
     
  10. It would have been better not to start these wars rather then them ending in a truce.


    You are correct North Korea is nuclear,but the chances of them attacking the US with a nuke are minuscule.

    Lets say we fought to win N Korea.MacArthur wanted to Nuke China to "win " the war.So we nuke China or we Nuke North Korea which kills Chinese soldiers with a nuclear weapon and now we are in a full scale nuclear war with China and Russia would probably get involved.Or we could have an endless ground war that would probably still be going on today .
     
    #10     Oct 20, 2010