The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on January 31, 2009, 09:35:02 AM
-
US President Barack Obama's offer to talk to Iran shows that America's policy of "domination" has failed, the government spokesman said on Saturday.
"This request means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed," Gholam Hossein Elham was quoted as saying by the Mehr news agency. [I wonder what his DU name is --MSB]
"Negotiation is secondary, the main issue is that there is no way but for (the United States) to change," he added.
After nearly three decades of severed ties, Obama said shortly after taking office this month that he is willing to extend a diplomatic hand to Tehran if the Islamic republic is ready to "unclench its fist".
In response, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a fresh tirade against the United States, demanding an apology for its "crimes" against Iran and saying he expected "deep and fundamental" change from Obama.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.073ba2ee2f1f00668848a4655420fedc.411&show_article=1
Obama's demand to cut 10% of the military budget must also prove encouraging.
We can all look forward to "peace in our time" and the consequences thereof.
-
US President Barack Obama's offer to talk to Iran shows that America's policy of "domination" has failed, the government spokesman said on Saturday.
Dude actually believes the crap they write on the side of the Starbucks coffee cups.
The fall of the Soviet Union occurred because of what? Bueller..... Bueller........
Damn, it is going to be one hell of a long administration.
-
Remember we're talking here about A Saul Alinsky leftist who has never in his life had to (or did) work for a living. SO, you expected different?
-
Remember we're talking here about A Saul Alinsky leftist who has never in his life had to (or did) work for a living. SO, you expected different?
Yessir, a man who knows America -- especially "typical white people" -- and takes pride in her and will do what it takes to protect her.
Not.
-
You know, most American students don't have a clue who Chamberlain is or what he did to precipitate WWII.
Hell, most don't even know who Winston Churchill is.
-
You know, most American students don't have a clue who Chamberlain is or what he did to precipitate WWII.
Hell, most don't even know who Winston Churchill is.
Or even what World War II was and who were the enemies and the allies.
-
Has anyone checked to see if pork is banned from the White House?
-
Has anyone checked to see if pork is banned from the White House?
Not if you mean the stimulus bill.
:-)
-
You know, most American students don't have a clue who Chamberlain is or what he did to precipitate WWII.
Hell, most don't even know who Winston Churchill is.
While Hitler certainly played him for a fool, the result wouldn't have been any different if anyone else had been in charge...England had no realistic capability to prevent the German moves in Czechoslovakia so the English politicial posturing was purely cosmetic either way.
-
While Hitler certainly played him for a fool, the result wouldn't have been any different if anyone else had been in charge...England had no realistic capability to prevent the German moves in Czechoslovakia so the English politicial posturing was purely cosmetic either way.
Well, when France moved into the German industrial sector due to Germany reneging on its reparations obligations it was Chamberlain that insisted France leave over BS snivelling about German hardships. At the time France had the largest army on the continent and actually wanted to stand up for itself but Chamberlain cut their legs out from under them.
-
Well, when France moved into the German industrial sector due to Germany reneging on its reparations obligations it was Chamberlain that insisted France leave over BS snivelling about German hardships. At the time France had the largest army on the continent and actually wanted to stand up for itself but Chamberlain cut their legs out from under them.
Wow.
Are you saying that France, with the largest Army on the Continent, allowed itself to be bullied by one man, who happened to be the English PM?
That France had to retreat from the Ruhr? Because Chamberlain told them to?
What's that telling you about France?
:rotf: :mental:
-
Wow.
What's that telling you about France?
:rotf: :mental:
That they have a reverse gear ?
Heavy equipment has a backup alarm......France has a white flag.
-
While Hitler certainly played him for a fool, the result wouldn't have been any different if anyone else had been in charge...England had no realistic capability to prevent the German moves in Czechoslovakia so the English politicial posturing was purely cosmetic either way.
Perhaps. But Chamberlain put himself into infamous history by his conduct and by giving, essentially, the nod to Hitler to move ahead. Much the same way Obama is now giving the nod to Iran and other terrorist states or terrorist-supporting ones.
-
Wow.
Are you saying that France, with the largest Army on the Continent, allowed itself to be bullied by one man, who happened to be the English PM?
That France had to retreat from the Ruhr? Because Chamberlain told them to?
What's that telling you about France?
:rotf: :mental:
Floppy ears is oversimplifying a lot. The French troops were far from a model of good behavior and their national policy was to steal everything industrial they could unbolt and ship back to France, much like the Russkiis did in 1945-50. Civil wars between the Freikorps and the Reds followed by national economic collapse in Germany post-WW1 resulted in the Germans being really ready to have someone just take charge, and while the rest of the world was booming economically Germany was heading down the crapper, with war debt around its neck to pull it quicker. Their economy recovered from the War long after everyone else's, followed in just a few years by the worldwide Great Depression. By the time it started to become clear that there were problems with the 'Strong man' plan, ol' Adolf was irrevocably in the driver's seat and had closed the gates he had played to get there.
For their part the French were bled white in the War, and had a vindictive outlook that was certainly understandable if ultimately counterproductive and fatal to their own cause. They did not have a civil war between left and right after the war, but they proably would have been better off if they had, because they were chronically incapable of picking a direction and staying with it. The only thing their government could really grasp consistently was that they really wanted to get back at the Germans for the rest of their lives but also that the French public had no real stomach (or voting political support) for any plan that might involve extended ground combat anywhere, especially against Germany and without substantial support from allies.
Chamberlain's ideas were not as insane as the ultimate course of events makes them look in hindsight, if he had been dealing with anyone but a megalomaniac. The Nazi party had peaked short of a majority before Hitler was able to consolidate power, and at the time it probably looked like internal German political forces would eventually constrain him once demands that would actually unite the German people behind him were defuzed. Chamberlain failed to grasp that Hitler had effectively short-circuited all such constraints by the unique (and totally foreign to Anglo-Saxon tradition) idea of holding more than one political appointment at the same time and then abolishing one of the positions as 'No longer necessary.' This little trick should have told everyone all they needed to know about Hitler, but relatively little attention seems to have paid to it at the time by even his die-hard opponents.
-
DAT expounds my point accurately and fairly.