Tough Way to Live

[Nords]

It is also because dogs are unclean..
Cats rules dog drool..

Maybe George Carlin would be a big hit at a Tehran stand-up:
"If I could reach where a dog can lick, I'd never leave the house!"

 

[Gumby]

Just remember, these are the people that Obama and others of his ilk want us to negotiate with.

As I recall, he said only that he would meet with their leaders without preconditions, not that he would compromise our principles.

With all due respect, refusing to speak to people with whom we disagree is just stupid. The result of our conversation may well be that we tell them to f*&% off and die. But it might, just might, end with us finding a way to bridge our differences. Who knows, they might even be won over entirely to our side. But one thing is certain, we will never find out if we refuse to meet.

 

[Texas Proud]

As I recall, he said only that he would meet with their leaders without preconditions, not that he would compromise our principles.

With all due respect, refusing to speak to people with whom we disagree is just stupid. The result of our conversation may well be that we tell them to f*&% off and die. But it might, just might, end with us finding a way to bridge our differences. Who knows, they might even be won over entirely to our side. But one thing is certain, we will never find out if we refuse to meet.

Even though he is very liberal... I think he has a good message... and would prefer him over Clinton... so since the repub is set... I just might go vote for him in the primary... then the choice is him or McCain... the way I feel now, either is OK with me...

The problem is that he said HE would talk with the various, not that he would have low level diplomats do some talking and see if there was something that we could agree on....

 

[Gumby]

I would expect that any head of government level meetings would be preceded by one or more lower level meetings. At least, that's how I would do it.

 

[Letj]

"I think if I were a western woman, I’d keep a close eye on Muslim immigration into my country. This doesn’t sound like anything a woman would want."

Are you starting with your prejudice nonsense again? Do you think all Muslims stone women to death? Have you heard of countless women being killed by their husbands in the West? I am neither Muslim nor a member of a minority class but I have to point out that this comment in not necessary.

 

[Marquette]

The problem is that he said HE would talk with the various, not that he would have low level diplomats do some talking and see if there was something that we could agree on....

I'm having trouble finding sources now (read it several years ago) but I recall a case being laid out that the US would be able to go a long way in diffusing N. Korea by meeting directly with their leadership rather than calling them out as an axis of evil... something about how much of Kim Jong-il's behaviors were ego-based and an attempt at recognition and legitimacy. Not sure how realistic the premise is, but it might be worth considering our interactions with the world... it's generally too complex to just be good v evil.

 

[FIREd]

Some Europeans (Dutch, Danes, maybe Swedes, French) are beginning to think that it is us vs them (western civilization vs the Moslem world), that multi-culturalism doesn't work.

I don't think that Europeans necessarily think that "multi-culturalism" doesn't work. IMHO Europeans tend to think (and I agree), that some unequivocally anti-western cultures use Europe's lax immigration laws and freedoms to "colonize" their continent by attacking it from within. In certain parts of America, people complain about the same phenomenon with Mexican immigrants. They arrive in great number and suddenly they demand that we all speak spanish. The big difference is that Mexicans do not pledge to destroy America. You know it's not the Europeans who decided it had to be the West vs. the Moslem World. THEY are the one who declared war on us and drew the line in the sand.

 

[clifp]

As I recall, he said only that he would meet with their leaders without preconditions, not that he would compromise our principles.

With all due respect, refusing to speak to people with whom we disagree is just stupid. The result of our conversation may well be that we tell them to f*&% off and die. But it might, just might, end with us finding a way to bridge our differences. Who knows, they might even be won over entirely to our side. But one thing is certain, we will never find out if we refuse to meet.

There are all kinds of ways of communicating with countries that we disagree with other than having the President of the United States sit down and talk directly with the other countries head of state.

3rd party communications, via folks like the Swiss or the Swedes has been done by hostile nations for hundreds of years. Unofficial talks between lower level diplomats also work.

There are a couple hundred countries in the world, and the President is the leader of the most powerful one. He simply doesn't have to time to talk to all of them. It is a big boost for the prestige of a small country leader to have a Presidential visit/discussion. Witness the excitement that President Bush's Africa trip caused (although you'd never know it was big deal on the basis of media coverage here) . We should not reward countries that call Jews a virus and urge its destruction, or conduct test of nuclear weapons and ICBM, with such a perk.

Senator Obama's and I guess your naievity on these matters is on scary display, when you suggest there is no harm in talking.

Think about this, in order for you and Obama to be right that "talking with no preconditions" is a good idea, than you must think that billions of man hours expended over the last many centuries by diplomats through out the world, setting up exactly the precondition between head of state meetings, must have all been a huge waste.

I think Obama is displaying a different type of arrogance

 

[travelover]

As I recall, he said only that he would meet with their leaders without preconditions, not that he would compromise our principles.

With all due respect, refusing to speak to people with whom we disagree is just stupid. The result of our conversation may well be that we tell them to f*&% off and die. But it might, just might, end with us finding a way to bridge our differences. Who knows, they might even be won over entirely to our side. But one thing is certain, we will never find out if we refuse to meet.

Taking advantage of my Netflix subscription, I recently saw "Fog of War", an hour and a half interview with Robert McNamara. One particularly impressive portion dealt with his return visit to Vietnam in 1995 to meet with the former North Vietnamese Foreign Minister, who to that day was sure the USA wanted to colonize Vietnam like the French and stated that was what drove them to resist so vigorously. McNamara claims the US was not against reunification.

"Mr. McNamara, You must never have read a history book. If you'd had, you'd know we weren't pawns of the Chinese or the Russians. McNamara, didn't you know that? Don't you understand that we have been fighting the Chinese for 1000 years? We were fighting for our independence. And we would fight to the last man. And we were determined to do so. And no amount of bombing, no amount of U.S. pressure would ever have stopped us." - Thach, former Foreign Minister of Vietnam, 1995, as recalled by McNamara.

So, it seems a lot of people died for a lack of an honest dialog.

The Fog of War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Gumby]

There are all kinds of ways of communicating with countries that we disagree with other than having the President of the United States sit down and talk directly with the other countries head of state.

3rd party communications, via folks like the Swiss or the Swedes has been done by hostile nations for hundreds of years. Unofficial talks between lower level diplomats also work.

There are a couple hundred countries in the world, and the President is the leader of the most powerful one. He simply doesn't have to time to talk to all of them. It is a big boost for the prestige of a small country leader to have a Presidential visit/discussion. Witness the excitement that President Bush's Africa trip caused (although you'd never know it was big deal on the basis of media coverage here) . We should not reward countries that call Jews a virus and urge its destruction, or conduct test of nuclear weapons and ICBM, with such a perk.

Senator Obama's and I guess your naievity on these matters is on scary display, when you suggest there is no harm in talking.

Think about this, in order for you and Obama to be right that "talking with no preconditions" is a good idea, than you must think that billions of man hours expended over the last many centuries by diplomats through out the world, setting up exactly the precondition between head of state meetings, must have all been a huge waste.

I think Obama is displaying a different type of arrogance

I seem to recall a rather fruitful meeting between a US president and the head of a nation that actually had thousands of nuclear weapons pointed directly at us. Maybe you recall, it was in Iceland in 1986 between Reagan and Gorbachev. That Reagan, such a rookie mistake.

 

[travelover]

I seem to recall a rather fruitful meeting between a US president and the head of a nation that actually had thousands of nuclear weapons pointed directly at us. Maybe you recall, it was in Iceland in 1986 between Reagan and Gorbachev. That Reagan, such a rookie mistake.

You are forgetting the foolish meeting Mr. Nixon had with Mao in 1972.

1972 Nixon visit to China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JPatrick]

Maybe George Carlin would be a big hit at a Tehran stand-up:
"If I could reach where a dog can lick, I'd never leave the house!"

I cannot even concieve of the number of lashes ol George would pick up for that one.
Hell, come to think of it, you may be at risk for even posting it

 

[Notmuchlonger]

I cannot even concieve of the number of lashes ol George would pick up for that one.
Hell, come to think of it, you may be at risk for even posting it

Might have to go in hiding like old Salman

 

[Marquette]

I seem to recall a rather fruitful meeting between a US president and the head of a nation that actually had thousands of nuclear weapons pointed directly at us. Maybe you recall, it was in Iceland in 1986 between Reagan and Gorbachev. That Reagan, such a rookie mistake.

To be fair, though, there's a difference between making time to meet with a Russia or China versus, say, Luxemburg... I think that was the gist of the point... not every country warrants the president's time.

Given the current landscape, asymmetric force, and the potential impact on our way of life, I'm not sure where the cut off would be for "leave it to the diplomats" versus "give 'em some face time and make them feel important".

 

[Martha]

"I think if I were a western woman, I’d keep a close eye on Muslim immigration into my country. This doesn’t sound like anything a woman would want."

Are you starting with your prejudice nonsense again? Do you think all Muslims stone women to death? Have you heard of countless women being killed by their husbands in the West? I am neither Muslim nor a member of a minority class but I have to point out that this comment in not necessary.

It isn't nonsense to worry about religious fundamentalism, especially when it is government supported. Muslim countries do have a record of disenfranchising women and treating women as second class citizens, or even worse. Plus, I am very uncomfortable with societies that do not have a strong separation between church and state. I no more want Christianity as a state religion than I want Islam. I do not think that it is prejudicial to say that I do not have a lot of respect for cultures that has little respect for me.

I remember a year or so ago a Muslim cleric in the west said that women in public were asking to be raped. His analogy was something to the effect that if you leave your meat out, someone will steal it.

The religious right in the US can scare me and the religious right in other countries scare me too.

 

[Gumby]

Fundamentalists, of whatever creed, are dangerous (and usually misogynistic)

 

[clifp]

I seem to recall a rather fruitful meeting between a US president and the head of a nation that actually had thousands of nuclear weapons pointed directly at us. Maybe you recall, it was in Iceland in 1986 between Reagan and Gorbachev. That Reagan, such a rookie mistake.

Thank you for making my point for me. First, the Soviet Union unlike North Korea or Iran was/is a super power they had thousands of nuclear weapons. Secondly there was hours of pre negotiating on the Reykavick summit.

If wanna be President Obama want to meet with President AMadJihadist to discuss Iran dropping their nuclear weapon program, stopping the supply of IED material for Iraq, and toning down the rhetoric on Israel, that is fine. Same thing is true for North Korea. But that isn't the type of meeting those countries want.

 

[Gumby]

I think if you read all my posts, you would see that I did, in fact, state an expectation that there would be advance meetings between lower level officials. And, yes, I would expect the subjects you have mentioned to be part of any meeting. Why else would we want to talk to them?

Just as I would not impose preconditions, I would not accept them.

P.S. - I believe the President of Iran is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, not "Amadjihadist", but I'm willing to bet you already knew that. Keep listening to Rush; I'm sure he'll come up with another clever one like that.

 

[youbet]

A 70-year-old Iranian man was arrested and sentenced to four months in jail and 30 lashes for walking his dog, Adnkronos.com reported Tuesday. Police caught the man on the street with his dog in Shahr Rey, a suburb of Tehran.

It seems like the punishment of four months in jail and 30 lashes would be appropriate if the man had failed to clean up after his dog "did his duty." People who allow their dogs to poop all about without cleaning up definitely deserve jail and a good whipping.

But, for just walking the dog, the punishment seems extreme IMHO.

 

[youbet]

If wanna be President Obama want to meet with President AMadJihadist to discuss .........

With extreme liberals, there seems to be a special, significant difference between "meeting with someone to discuss....." and "sitting down at the table with someone to discuss....."

It's a little hard to put your finger exactly on the difference, but I think what Obama is talking about, and what differentiated him from Hillary in last night's debate question concerning meetings, is that he wants to "sit down at the table to discuss." He doesn't just want to "meet with and discuss."

 

[twaddle]

Interesting how a story of a girl being stoned by her father turns into a fractious debate between the left and right.

It seems a solution would be to open up our borders to those yearning to be free, don't you think?

 

[Notmuchlonger]

Interesting how a story of a girl being stoned by her father turns into a fractious debate between the left and right.

It seems a solution would be to open up our borders to those yearning to be free, don't you think?

I know. I think Ive about had it with the political threads

 

[Shawn]

Are you starting with your prejudice nonsense again? Do you think all Muslims stone women to death? Have you heard of countless women being killed by their husbands in the West? I am neither Muslim nor a member of a minority class but I have to point out that this comment in not necessary.

A mirror might help you see prejudice. Countless women in the west are not killed by their husbands. In fact, the number of women killed by their husbands is actually quite small, and is not all that different than the number of men killed by their wives. Domestic violence is an equal opportunity crime regardless of how it's portrayed in the media. Husband kills wife. Man is bad. Wife kills husband. Man is bad, he deserved it. Despite what you want to believe, not all men are evil monsters, just like not all Muslims stone women to death. Like I said, a mirror might help you see prejudice.

I don't buy the story ("Iran: Father stones 14-year-old daughter to death"). While I can't say it didn't happen, it has a typical hysterical "women are victims of everything" bent. Even if it's true, my guess is that there's more to it.

In November, it was widely reported that an unmarried Saudi woman who was raped was given 90 lashes for being alone with an unrelated man (she was raped by a group of 7 men, not by the man she was with). Needless to say, the media went on a rampage. Women's groups were outraged. "This is an example of how the Muslim world treats females," they protested. However, what these people conveniently failed to mention is that the man she was with was also raped and was also given a sentence of 90 lashes. But he doesn't count. He's only a man. If you want to discuss the merits of Saudi law, fine. But in this case, in essence, people were upset because the woman was given the same sentence as the man. So much for equality.

True. Saudi women cannot vote. But neither can Saudi men. I've never been to Saudi Arabia so I don't have first hand knowledge, but there was an interesting article in the National Post. The author reports that it is false that women cannot leave the house without a male relative. They can go out all they want. They simply are not allowed to travel cross country, a law designed to protect them from evil men. And while Saudi women cannot drive, they have many rights that are not afforded to Saudi men. For example, they have the right to be supported by their nearest male relative. In a lineup for service, women are served before men. Most attractions have special days on which men cannot attend unless accompanied by a woman, whereas women are free to go at any time. Most parks are designated "for women and children only"; no dogs or men allowed. On buses, men must sit in the back. Women can sit where they like. Men must surrender their seats to women.

If you want to talk about prejudice and discrimination, you only need to look at the United States. For example, 55,000 American men were killed in the Vietnam war. About half of these men, or I should say boys, were *forced* to fight and die via the draft. The number of women killed was 8. The Vietnam War memorial lists all deaths, but there is an additional memorial just for women. Women are more important.

And what do Obama, Clinton, and McCain think about men's issues (health care, longevity, education, draconian divorce laws, child custody, circumcision of male infants, an unequal justice system, suicide, refusal of most tax-funded domestic violence shelters to provide services for men and their children, reproductive freedom, male-only draft, violence against men, prison rape, etc)? Do they even have opinions?

I knew I'd regret posting this. Back to lurking mode.

 

[youbet]

men's issues (health care, longevity, education, draconian divorce laws, child custody, circumcision of male infants, an unequal justice system, suicide, refusal of most tax-funded domestic violence shelters to provide services for men and their children, reproductive freedom, male-only draft, violence against men, prison rape, etc)

I was going to show this list to DW for her comments........ But, wisely, I reconsidered. Why get my butt kicked on an otherwise pleasant Saturday morning?

Thanks for posting this. Takes guts to mention an unpopular minority opinion.

 

[Marquette]

For those of you interested in 'the other side', you might be interested in this blog:

Baghdad Burning

Start at the beginning and work through. Here's a link to the first part of the blog, from August 17th, 2003: Baghdad Burning

It's written by a young Iraqi woman.