History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedObama=Chamberlain II?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 13:12
South Ossetia (and North for that matter) has the right to self-determination just as much as Kosovo does. To oppose independence for Ossetia and support it for Kosovo, or oppose it for Kosovo and support it for Ossetia are both just playing silly and dangeroous power games.
 
The only principled stands are either supporting self-determination for both or supporting self-determination for neither.
 
Personally I'm with the west on Kosovo and with Russia on Ossetia.
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 511
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 13:24
Romanian president: Kosovo issue foreshadows similar direction in South Ossetia

    BUCHAREST, Aug. 20 (Xinhua) -- What happened with Kosovo foreshadows a similar direction in South Ossetia, the visiting Romanian President Traian Basescu said on Wednesday in Chisinau.

    "At present, sovereign and independent countries are dismantled in the name of collective rights of the minorities," Basescu said when talking with his Moldovan counterpart Vladimir Voronin.

    "This is what happened with Kosovo and Serbia lost a part of its territory, and the things foreshadow a similar direction in South Ossetia and, should I dare say it, in Abkhazia," the Romanian president stressed.

    "You know that Romania is among the countries that did not recognize Kosovo, considering that the decision of setting up a state on the soil of another sovereign and independent state runs counter to the laws of an international right, runs counter to the principle of territorial integrity and inviolability of state borders," said Basescu.

    "No kind of right can prevail upon the one of the national integrity, sovereignty and inviolability of state borders of an independent state," Basescu said, stressing that Romania is an unreserved supporter of the integrity and sovereignty of the Republic of Moldova.

    In the context of the frozen conflicts in the area of the BlackSera, the two heads of state examined the situation of the conflict in Moldova's Transdniestr, concluding that "this conflict perfectly matches to what happened in Kosovo, to what happened in South Ossetia."

    Basescu emphasized that the situation in South Ossetia is a proof of the fact that these frozen conflicts do not have a correct tension defusing mechanism.

    "As regards the Transdniestr, we reached to the conclusion that the involvement of the European Union is fundamental and essential in finding a solution in line with the international legislation and that will fully observe the territorial sovereignty and integrity of the Republic of Moldova," Basescu underscored.

    Moldovan President Voronin reiterated that his country will decide the Transdniestr issue only at the table of negotiations, only in a peaceful way.

    Romanian President Basescu is on a tour on Wednesday and Friday to Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. The meeting with Voronin took place in the same day in which the head of the Romanian state met in Kiev with his Ukrainian counterpart Viktor Yushchenko.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-08/21/content_9563328.htm

Correspondence between German Politicians Reveals the Hidden Agenda behind Kosovo's "Independence"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8304


Edited by Bankotsu - 21-Aug-2008 at 13:26
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4003
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 15:47
Regardless of who wins the election, Obama or McCain will have to negotiate with Russia for the simple fact that the U.S. lacks the manpower to do anything, even if its leaders wanted to do something about it.

Many American war hawks actually demonstrate their ignorance on matters of war an American when they go around merrily advising that we should use force to solve every problem. First, it shows how they can't count: diplomatic relations are a lot cheaper than wars, and you got to keep your war bucks safe for a rainy day. Second, they don't seem to understand that armies have limits of resources and men. With the U.S. armed forces having a backdoor draft just to keep the Afghan and Iraq operations going, the U.S. has no way of fighting a third front. For that matter, not even at the height of the Cold War was it ever designed for fighting 3 wars/fronts at a time.

Many neocon war hawks are just drunk with the idea of power and violent displays of it, regardless of human cost and treasure.
To judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more oppress.


Back to Top
Kevin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Editor

Joined: 27-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 789
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kevin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 02:47
Originally posted by hugoestr hugoestr wrote:

Regardless of who wins the election, Obama or McCain will have to negotiate with Russia for the simple fact that the U.S. lacks the manpower to do anything, even if its leaders wanted to do something about it.

Many American war hawks actually demonstrate their ignorance on matters of war an American when they go around merrily advising that we should use force to solve every problem. First, it shows how they can't count: diplomatic relations are a lot cheaper than wars, and you got to keep your war bucks safe for a rainy day. Second, they don't seem to understand that armies have limits of resources and men. With the U.S. armed forces having a backdoor draft just to keep the Afghan and Iraq operations going, the U.S. has no way of fighting a third front. For that matter, not even at the height of the Cold War was it ever designed for fighting 3 wars/fronts at a time.

Many neocon war hawks are just drunk with the idea of power and violent displays of it, regardless of human cost and treasure.


Of course it's obvious that we can't use force against them unless they attack another NATO member but I was suggesting that I feel Obama will just not  be tough in dealing with them.
Back to Top
Kevin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Editor

Joined: 27-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 789
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kevin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 02:48
Originally posted by Kevin Kevin wrote:

Originally posted by hugoestr hugoestr wrote:

Regardless of who wins the election, Obama or McCain will have to negotiate with Russia for the simple fact that the U.S. lacks the manpower to do anything, even if its leaders wanted to do something about it.

Many American war hawks actually demonstrate their ignorance on matters of war an American when they go around merrily advising that we should use force to solve every problem. First, it shows how they can't count: diplomatic relations are a lot cheaper than wars, and you got to keep your war bucks safe for a rainy day. Second, they don't seem to understand that armies have limits of resources and men. With the U.S. armed forces having a backdoor draft just to keep the Afghan and Iraq operations going, the U.S. has no way of fighting a third front. For that matter, not even at the height of the Cold War was it ever designed for fighting 3 wars/fronts at a time.

Many neocon war hawks are just drunk with the idea of power and violent displays of it, regardless of human cost and treasure.


Of course it's obvious that we can't use force against them unless they attack another NATO member but I was suggesting that I feel Obama will just not  be tough in dealing with them and may display the same attitude towards Putin and the Russian leadership that Bush has.
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1368
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 04:20
I think you underestimate Obama, Kevin. In fact this is a typical unfair criticism of democratic presidential candidates made by Republicans. Often they say that Democrats are weak and don't want to fight, these comments are made with absolutely no basis in fact. Obama has not claimed that he would never use force. He has claimed, however, to only use it when it is needed. That is that he would not have gone into Iraq but he would go into Afghanistan.

Keep in mind that Obama also hasn't said that he would give up any land of the US or any other country in order to avert a war as Chamberlain did.
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 511
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 04:36
On 26 November 1937, one week after Halifax’s conversation with Hitler, Chamberlain wrote to his sister:

"I don’t see why we shouldn’t say to Germany, ‘Give us satisfactory assurances that you won’t use force to deal with the Austrians and Czechoslovakians, and we will give you similar assurances that we won’t use force to prevent the changes you want if you can get them by peaceful means."

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=YmleaUJLsqYC&pg=PA1
Back to Top
Kevin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Editor

Joined: 27-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 789
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kevin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 05:05
Originally posted by King John King John wrote:

I think you underestimate Obama, Kevin. In fact this is a typical unfair criticism of democratic presidential candidates made by Republicans. Often they say that Democrats are weak and don't want to fight, these comments are made with absolutely no basis in fact. Obama has not claimed that he would never use force. He has claimed, however, to only use it when it is needed. That is that he would not have gone into Iraq but he would go into Afghanistan.

Keep in mind that Obama also hasn't said that he would give up any land of the US or any other country in order to avert a war as Chamberlain did.


Even though he has said he would fight a war when needed, do you think he will actually follow through if needed at the end of the day? Also keep in mind the Clinton Administration's record on foreign policy and defence issues and how poorly they were handled then. However to be fair the Bush Administration hasn't exactly gotten things right ether in matter of fact far from it, for example I thought Bush appeased the DPRK to some extent on the nuclear weapons issue and Bush was foolish to think Putin was completely trustworthy and not to mention the handling of Post-Saddam Iraq.          
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 511
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 05:24
Originally posted by Kevin Kevin wrote:

for example I thought Bush appeased the DPRK to some extent on the nuclear weapons issue


USA appeased DPRK in what way?
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1368
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 05:24
Originally posted by Kevin Kevin wrote:


Originally posted by King John King John wrote:

I think you underestimate Obama, Kevin. In fact this is a typical unfair criticism of democratic presidential candidates made by Republicans. Often they say that Democrats are weak and don't want to fight, these comments are made with absolutely no basis in fact. Obama has not claimed that he would never use force. He has claimed, however, to only use it when it is needed. That is that he would not have gone into Iraq but he would go into Afghanistan.

Keep in mind that Obama also hasn't said that he would give up any land of the US or any other country in order to avert a war as Chamberlain did.
Even though he has said he would fight a war when needed, do you think he will actually follow through if needed at the end of the day? Also keep in mind the Clinton Administration's record on foreign policy and defence issues and how poorly they were handled then. However to be fair the Bush Administration hasn't exactly gotten things right ether in matter of fact far from it, for example I thought Bush appeased the DPRK to some extent on the nuclear weapons issue and Bush was foolish to think Putin was completely trustworthy and not to mention the handling of Post-Saddam Iraq.          
I do indeed think he would follow through at the end of the day. Again my point stands that you underestimate Obama and possibly over-estimate McCain. As others have said it is important to know the difference between diplomacy and appeasement, they are not mutually exclusive.
Back to Top
Ninurta View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jul-2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ninurta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 07:16
"do you think he will actually follow through if needed at the end of the day?"

This seems like a weak statement, one that may be based on a "vibe".
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Superfluous Enabler of Sekostan

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8681
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 14:32
Originally posted by King John King John wrote:

Originally posted by Kevin Kevin wrote:


Originally posted by King John King John wrote:

I think you underestimate Obama, Kevin. In fact this is a typical unfair criticism of democratic presidential candidates made by Republicans. Often they say that Democrats are weak and don't want to fight, these comments are made with absolutely no basis in fact. Obama has not claimed that he would never use force. He has claimed, however, to only use it when it is needed. That is that he would not have gone into Iraq but he would go into Afghanistan.

Keep in mind that Obama also hasn't said that he would give up any land of the US or any other country in order to avert a war as Chamberlain did.
Even though he has said he would fight a war when needed, do you think he will actually follow through if needed at the end of the day? Also keep in mind the Clinton Administration's record on foreign policy and defence issues and how poorly they were handled then. However to be fair the Bush Administration hasn't exactly gotten things right ether in matter of fact far from it, for example I thought Bush appeased the DPRK to some extent on the nuclear weapons issue and Bush was foolish to think Putin was completely trustworthy and not to mention the handling of Post-Saddam Iraq.          
I do indeed think he would follow through at the end of the day. Again my point stands that you underestimate Obama and possibly over-estimate McCain. As others have said it is important to know the difference between diplomacy and appeasement, they are not mutually exclusive.
 
I really don't understand the support that Bush receives from so many conservative Americans. My understanding was that Clinton won a war, Kossovo. My understanding is that the economy was in good shape (yes, the stock market was reliving the roaring twenties before the crash but it still...). My understanding is that we had more partners to do our dirty deeds with. Ever since freedom fries and various countries dumping BW chronies left and right, we are stuck with little world support and most all of the work in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let's go team!
 
What was the sales pitch in this thread again? Oh yeah, that Democrats are soft on terror, war, blah blah blah... Hmmm, would Obama follow through at the end of the day? As president he better be. It's not like this scenario presents itself on a regular basis though. Anyone would have reacted with strength after 911. Not just Republicans. However, most anyone would have kept better rapport with allies and not lost their support.
 
The propoganda machine is alive and well in certain American circles.
Copyright 2004 Seko
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4003
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 14:44
Kevin,

Historically, the greatest war time presidents that this country has had had been Democrats: Wilson and FDR and Truman are on top of the pack here, followed probably by George Herbert Walker Bush and then Nixon. Clinton is not with the great, but even he invaded countries and bombed them when he felt it was necessary to do so. Recent history should make it clear that a Democratic president will handle foreign affairs with military solutions and more often than not, succeed.

Also, I want to bring to your attention two big 60s icons: Kennedy and Nixon. Kennedy also was painted as a dove. He overcompensated by backing up a crazy invasion of Cuba which almost destroyed the world when most of the active members of this board were young, babies, or not even born yet.

It was dumb luck, the luck of having the loud mouth Khrushchev who apparently was willing to lose face to save the world and remove strategic nuclear missiles from Turkey that saved the world. Had the current leader of the USSR had been a hothead, we may not be having this discussion right now.

On the other hand, Nixon, perceived as a war hawk, had as his greatest legacy establishing relations with a hostile China.

The point here is that people who are perceived as being too much as doves may end up overcompensating to prove the public otherwise. I don't know how Obama will react, but we should keep in mind that he may do this as well.

As for McCain, he has been so over the top hawkish that any diplomatic measures that he would take would be an improvement. (Sigh! I miss the old McCain of 2000. )
To judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more oppress.


Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 15:57
Hello to you all
 
About Seko's question, well, as an outsider who has been exposed to conservative propaganda for some years, mainly Limbaugh but also others, I think the reason why people chose Bush is cultural. Just look at the message the conservatives give and the one liberal do. People hate intellectual talk even if they themselves were highly educated because intellectuals are elitists by nature, they only look down on other people and portray themselves as teachers in a kindergarten and they rest of the people as only children. Their message is always based on big words like the audacity of hope and tenacity of reform. come on, most of the people who do cast votes in America are hard working people who like straightforward talk. GWB won with his town hall rolled up sleeve gatherings not his lectures to the humane society or the Sierra club, if he actually ever went there.
 
The dems can win elections no one can dispute it, they controlled politics across all levels except presendtial one for the last 60 years. They just have to use another strategy. There are more intellectuals amongst republican and conservative ranks than in the Liberal and democratic ranks, the difference is the conservatives don't brag about it, they keep their talk simple and straight while the dems go on endless intellectual debates that will reach them nothing.
 
As for this election, well the fate of Obama was sealed when he began his european triumphal march and was met by european masses, one thing I noticed with my dealings with Americans is they hate any guy who identifies himself with a foreign country. They ditched "French" John Kerry and will ditch Obama.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 16:02
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

I really don't understand the support that Bush receives from so many conservative Americans. My understanding was that Clinton won a war, Kossovo. My understanding is that the economy was in good shape (yes, the stock market was reliving the roaring twenties before the crash but it still...). My understanding is that we had more partners to do our dirty deeds with. Ever since freedom fries and various countries dumping BW chronies left and right, we are stuck with little world support and most all of the work in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let's go team!
 
And if you'll remember, the Republicans opposed intervention in the Balkans; ah what a difference a couple of election cycles and control of the presidency makes. It is, unfortunately likely that whoever is in office will continue our trend of meddling more in the world than we should, simply because that is what we have become accustomed to. Obama's diplomatic naivete may actually be balanced by his less hawkish stance, at least when it comes to redressing our historical willingness to meddle in matters that do not concern us. I would really like to see one or both of the candidates come up with a comprehensive solution for the situation in Darfur, but I wouldn't want to interrupt their mudslinging fest with my petty practical concerns.
 
As for Bush, I think that the reason he continues to receive support on some of his failed policies -- and they are not all failures, but there is certainly enough to criticize -- from American who should know better is that so much of the early criticism of this administration was wildly unfair and over the top. This isn't to excuse people for making irrational choices, or supporting unjust wars; it is to say that those who violently protested the injustices of this administration should take a lesson, step down off their high-horse, realize that no one is obligated to listen to them, and couch their criticism in a more mature fashion. I do not excuse this government for its aggressive actions. I do assert that the war in Iraq would have lost public support long before it did had the most visible, vocal minority in the broader activist community concentrated on what they were protesting rather than the power-trip/drama of the protest itself. Then again, if people just acted like adults we might actually solve our problems, and then what would people talk about on Crossfire, Hannity and Colmes, etc.? LOL
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.