Añadido: May 16, 2008
De: mtambors
Duración: 7:2
Appeasement does not equal diplomacy!! If anything George Bush is the one guilty of appeasement because he is giving Al Qaeda exactly what they "want," an excuse to kill Americans.
Categoría: News
Tags: appeasement chamberlain chris green hardball james kevin mark matthews neville
Rating: 5.00 (7 ratings) Visto: 1501 Comentarios: 20
UnspokenRequest Says:
May 16, 2008 - Wow! Classy!
mtambors Says:
May 17, 2008 - Thank you for pointing that out. After I'd uploaded the video, I realized the goof. The perils of unscripted ranting...:)
UndyingSilentm Says:
May 17, 2008 - Good job! You explained all the ramifications of these conepts very well.
mdemory Says:
May 17, 2008 - i talk like that when i am high too lol
itsonthewall Says:
May 18, 2008 - there's still hope.
LiberalAchi Says:
May 18, 2008 - Thank you. I love being on the intelligence side. Keep up the enlightment
mtambors Says:
May 18, 2008 - Thanks:)
mtambors Says:
May 21, 2008 - You know...I find those whose arguments really on insults and vulgarity really have no argument at all.
mtambors Says:
May 21, 2008 - If you're talking about Bush, I agree with you!
Faelsun Says:
May 21, 2008 - Well this is all after the fact now, correct but after the fact. Best thing for you all to do now instead on dwelling on Matthews destroying an idiot is learn how to do it yourself by knowing the history relevant to your arguments.Thats how republicans browbeat you by ignoring logic and mouthing off general terms and just flat out lies. Chris Matthews used what I call a roadblock of knowledge against BS. I suggest you watch what Laura Ingraham does and be ready, shes the best BSr there is.
kraigpullam Says:
May 23, 2008 - Don't know who you are...but you are RIGHT ON POINT. PERIOD!!!
mtambors Says:
May 23, 2008 - thank you:)
Oligarch2006 Says:
May 31, 2008 - I agree with you. However, in an effort to help you bolster any future confrontations with neocon supporters I'd like to mention two things: 1. You stated that we don't know whether Iran really wants to destroy/occupy/cede Israel. Yes we do...Ahmedinejad has publicly stated he wants to wipe Israel off the map. 2. On "we're not giving in to what Iran wants": Iran wants nukes - if they do - that could (technically) qualify as appeasement (still, the Chamberlain analogy is wrong)
Oligarch2006 Says:
May 31, 2008 - ...if they do get nukes, that is.
mtambors Says:
May 31, 2008 - on point 1, I don't recall saying that, but if I did, you are right. on point 2, I that would be true if we allow them to develop nukes, but as far as I know, no candidates position includes allowing Iran to continue their nuclear program, so no one can make the accusations. I think we can all agree on one thing, war should only be used as a last resort, and we it's unacceptable to circumvent the geneva convention in doing so. Thanks for the comments!
Oligarch2006 Says:
May 31, 2008 - So, are you willing to support a war against Iran if they obtain nukes? If not, that is, technically, appeasement. That is, unless we recognize Iran's right as a sovereign nation to pursue a nuke, the same way Israel and Pakistan have. Just some food for thought. BTW, Geneva Convention(s) deal with the conduct of war...the U.N. Charter and the U.S. Constitution deal with the valid justifications/commencement of war.
mtambors Says:
May 31, 2008 - you have a point, which is why the whole thing is extremely complicated. On one hand, Iran says they want to use the uranium as an alternative energy source, but on the other hand, Ahmedinijad has said that he wants to wipe Israel off of the map, which makes the first statement dubious. If they do obtain nukes, the game does change, but of course, there would need to be real evidence, not the kind that got us into Iraq.
mtambors Says:
May 31, 2008 - you're right about the geneva convention...I misspoke:)
Oligarch2006 Says:
Jun 1, 2008 - ...but then, how exactly do you carry out an unprovoked attack on a nation that has nuclear weapons? Furthermore, since when did the U.S. become a nuclear licensing agency for the rest of the world - after all, we made ISRAEL the only country with nuclear capabilities in the Middle East. These are the types of things dumbwitted neocon sheep do not think through before "talking through strength" (I think Hitler actually made similar arguments in many of his speeches in the 30's).
mtambors Says:
Jun 1, 2008 - I agree with you completely. By saying the game would change, I did not mean to suggest that I would endorse war, only that it would change the scenario in a significant way. Although it would never happen, I think the best solution would be complete worldwide nuclear disarmament period. How unfortunate.
juliaisafilmbuff Says:
Jun 22, 2008 - Ahmadinejad never said he wanted to "wipe 'Israel' (a fake-ass colonial state) off the map"; in fact, he has talked about having dialogue in order to end this illegal occupation of Palestine. Iran is not the bad guy; moreover, Israel is. I agree with your other points though. Remember what Nixon did with China and what Reagan did with the Soviets. Diplomacy can work, too bad the people in Washington don't know that.
mtambors Says:
Jun 22, 2008 - 1. Like it or not, Israel is a sovereign nation. 2. I don't remember the source for that quote, but if he said that or something similar, I'm sure it wasn't just because he hates Jews. 3. I'm not defending Israel, but you can't let Iran off the hook. They both must share part of the blame. In my opinion, the only good guys in this conflict are the innocent civilians who only wish to live their lives free.
juliaisafilmbuff Says:
Jun 23, 2008 - Not necessarily. Ahmadinejad never stated he wanted the destruction of Israel (go to the Representative press channel on YouTube and look it up). He said, "The occupiers must vanish" or something similar to that. He talks about some good things, it's just the fact that the western media has constantly censored him to make him look like a lunatic.
mtambors Says:
Jun 23, 2008 - Not necessarily what? I don't think we're disagreeing all that much. I am totally against a pre-emptive strike against Iran or any country. We should use our power for defense, not offense. I don't doubt this many of his quotes have beed misrepresented, but I also doubt that he's the best thing for Iran right now. At best he's the Iranian version of GWB. All countries need to learn to keep their military within their borders.
UnspokenRequest Says:
May 16, 2008 - You can't talk to terrorists orgs at the UN. They are not represented. Only states are represented. Hamas, won't find them, AlQaeda neither, Hezbollah, nope not there True Iran and Syria helps the two Hs, but they can't speak for them. + The notion that UN always acts as the middleman in negotiations between two states is false. Diplomacy works through many channels. I repeat USA talked with its worst enemy of all time: the USSR If USA could talk to the USSR, why can't USA talk to Iran?