# The Obama Doctrine......"I would meet with them"..



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

http://www.freedomswatch.org/Edit/Press ... -Them.aspx

i think the majority of people with foreign relations "experience" agree, this is a bad idea.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I guess it doesn't matter when those quotes were made.One is at least 8 years ago.

Even Teddy Roosevelt said "Speak softly,but carry a big stick."But at least do some speaking first.I give Obama credit for at least opening the door.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

well Ken, why don't you check his website. unless he took it down, he proudly states he is the only candidate to be willing to sit down with terrorist nations for talks, without preconditions.

but lately in his speech, he has emphasized the use of "preparations" before his engagements for discussion. Obama is the biggest liar in politics.....he won't take your guns away either...he is running on "change" and Americans's ignorance...you can fall for it, not me.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

We've been speaking to Iran since their take over revolution just as we have always spoke to North Korea and other countries. But it is through diplomatic channels, not by the head of state. Obama opened nothing any more than Pelosi did. What he did was weaken us in the eyes of the worked by saying he would as head of state talk to a terrorist sponsoring nation. Something Teddy Roosevelt would have scoffed at with anger. At best Obama is just naive. At worst he is a fool and the more he talks the more the latter seems to be the case.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

yes, can you imagine? what a great photo op for the Iranians , as Armedjahan sits down with Obama for discussions.....every Muslim in the world would rejoice.....Obama would instantly give the radicals credibility.
have the liberals totally lost their minds?? :eyeroll:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

When is Talking to Enemies_* Not *_Appeasement?

When Republican James Baker is talking, apparently:






I think it is fair to say that Obama was speaking about his administration in lieu of him speaking directly, as would any President sending a diplomatic envoy on his behalf.

But it does make for good Obama bashing to claim otherwise.... keep talking the rhetoric... the entertainment is priceless...

:eyeroll:


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

I'm just curious why, Ryan, you frequent this sight? Are you from ND originally before you left for the west coast? You obviously have a different agenda for your life. Or do you just enjoy argueing for sport? I'm not trying to be confrontational just curious.


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

> I'm just curious why, Ryan, you frequent this sight? Are you from ND originally before you left for the west coast? You obviously have a different agenda for your life. Or do you just enjoy argueing for sport? I'm not trying to be confrontational just curious.
> _________________


So you have to live in North Dakota to visit the site now. I like it when Ryan chimes in and makes some of you ol diehard Republicans look as outdated as our President.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

swift said:


> I'm just curious why, Ryan, you frequent this sight? Are you from ND originally before you left for the west coast? You obviously have a different agenda for your life. Or do you just enjoy argueing for sport? I'm not trying to be confrontational just curious.


no worries... thank you for asking..

Have you visited my profile on Nodak? It lists most of the common answers... (click the number of posts below my name, then click my name again, and you'll drill into my profile from there)

the short of it.. yes I lived in North Dakota for 32 years before moving to Washington. I grew up in Jamestown, went to school in both Fargo and Jamestown, and have lived and/or worked in Jamestown, Fargo, Devils Lake, and New England.

I do have a Libertarian agenda. If you want to know my political leanings you can visit the Cato Institute's website here:

http://www.cato.org/

I don't enjoy argueing. I do however enjoy discussing politics, as long as all sides take the time to consider the merits of the other position. Here on Nodak there is a strong lean to the right, which is to be expected and normal.

However I think there are quite a few who visit here, and they blindly follow the positions of their party without taking the time to really consider what that means. I started out strongly Republican, but have slowly become more and more moderate over time. I was moderate before coming West, however living out here hasn't necessarily "corrupted" me as some would like you to believe. Rather it simply opened my eyes up to taking a look at their side too, with the understanding that much of what I see/hear out here is swayed heavily left. There are a bunch of younger adults out here who are not liberal left, but rather fall into my category of moderate independent Libertarians....they just get forced into voting for R or D as it is often the only thing on the ticket due to how voting is manipulated in this country.

I don't do it for "sport" necessarily, however I think that some need to try and see that they are being conditioned to vote a certain way based on geographically localized media and peers.

That all being said... I do enjoy trying to liven up the political forum. I find it is a good place to share with a bunch of guys I"ve been chatting about hunting with... to come into here and discuss the news of the day, and how politics helps shape our views on that news...just like this article in the beginning of this thread.

If you were to go back and look at this forum, prior to the middle/late January, it had died off... until I started coming here to stoke the fire(s) so to speak... and that was because some other more liberal forum members (for example Big Daddy) who used to post here alot sorta went away, because of all the heat they took on their views. I wanted to bring back both sides to the forum and get some more lively discussion going. You'd be surprised how much traffic my posts generate... (especially from lurkers who like to read and be entertained but might not post as often) 

Of course we always will have some holier than thou types who see my actions as being ego centric and self serving... but we won't go into their reduced intellectual capacity and short sightedness...

Hope this helps...

Ryan


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> I think it is fair to say that Obama was speaking about his administration in lieu of him speaking directly


You think? Why not just pay attention to his words and then you would know. He didn't say we would, he said I would. Not only did he say I would but he expanded it by saying with no preconditions. You go right ahead and keep on thinking. You're right, there is entertainment here and we all thank you.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

cwoparson said:


> > I think it is fair to say that Obama was speaking about his administration in lieu of him speaking directly
> 
> 
> You think? Why not just pay attention to his words and then you would know. He didn't say we would, he said I would. Not only did he say I would but he expanded it by saying with no preconditions. You go right ahead and keep on thinking. You're right, there is entertainment here and we all thank you.


Because right now while campaigning people are asking how he would handle issues, and he is speaking how he would do it. He doesn't always parse or caveat his words to indicate he is speaking on what his Administration would do...

'course the Repugs will exploit that inference and say it is literal...

just as you seem to be doing.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

and the libs, you can depend on it, will say his comments were taken out of context. i think he is pretty implicit, that HE is willing and able to sit down and have discussions face to face, with the terrorist leaders of the world, one on one. only recently, has he referred to using "preparations" before any discussion. *preparations or preconditions, spin it baby Obama, spin it!*


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

hunter9494 said:


> and the libs, you can depend on it, will say his comments were taken out of context. i think he is pretty implicit, that HE is willing and able to sit down and have discussions face to face, with the terrorist leaders of the world, one on one. only recently, has he referred to using "preparations" before any discussion. *preparations or preconditions, spin it baby Obama, spin it!*


Jim Baker. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Your lack of grasping the irony is golden.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Quote:
> I think it is fair to say that Obama was speaking about his administration in lieu of him speaking directly





> He doesn't always parse or caveat his words to indicate he is speaking on what his Administration would do...
> 
> 'course the Repugs will exploit that inference and say it is literal...


I don't think that is fair Ryan. He really doesn't have an administration yet. Also, he better start speaking directly because if he is not I don't trust him. I want to know what he thinks, and he better start telling people. So far he just talks about hope and change. He needs to tell us why we can have hope, and what changes he will make. I know a couple of changes. Heavy taxes, and you should start burying your guns. I'm not trying to be humorous either, or sarcastic.

When he talks about those things they are the ones I do believe.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Don't worry cwoparson. I caught it before it was deleted.

Did the rest of you happen to catch the rest of Obama's followup in regards to the "talk to Iran/talk to Hamas flap"?

If you missed it, yesterday Obama asked what McCain was so scared of, given, for example, _*that Presidents Reagan and Nixon *_et al talked to the fully nuked up Soviets.

This is fine-tuned campaigning from a Democrat. Obama actually reframed the often ridiculed on Nodak "traditionally-doesn't-sound-engaged softy-lib position" of talking to your enemies- and turned it into the _*macho*_ position.

Obama said something to the effect of: "I'm not scared to talk to Iran or Hamas."* (And by extension: I've got something to say to Iran and Hamas.)*

Amazingly, the "sensitive male" position becomes bad *** in contrast to McCain's ostensibly more macho "I'm not talking to them" pose.

Obama reframed McCain's tough act as a sissy cop out.

Well played if I must say...

*And p.s.* Pop quiz for all the McCain Supporters:

Hamas.

Are they Sunni or Shiite? Do you know? McCain didn't.

Yes it matters.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> > Quote:
> > I think it is fair to say that Obama was speaking about his administration in lieu of him speaking directly
> 
> 
> ...


Fair enough points. I expect alot from him during the late summer. I would think that it is going to come up alot during the national debates.

Ryan


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Obama said something to the effect of: "I'm not scared to talk to Iran or Hamas." (And by extension: I've got something to say to Iran and Hamas.)

damn ryan, do you think most folks want a president they have to out guess as to his position and intentions? Obama can't keep playing games, he will be taken to task for substance in the upcoming debates. 
he won't be allowed to use shallow rhetoric to explain himself. 
claiming to be clairvoyant is not a strategy for dealing with rogue nations.

he is very good at two things....soaring rhetoric and not revealing his true intentions/plans for dealing with the rogue governments...actually he will have to rely very heavily upon his advisers to keep from bungling his foreign relations meetings....that should scare the hell out of every American, if you are tuned in, that is.....


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Then why mention it? Within 30 seconds after posting I deleted the post after realizing it was senseless to respond to anything that was simply spoon fed regurgitation from fools. :eyeroll:

Now I know Obama is trying to spin this garbage off as an excuse for his flubs and stupid comments. The Soviets wern't trying to build nukes to pass on to terrorist groups. How anyone can be dumb enough to believe that garbage is beyond me. Comparing the soviets to terrorist sponsors like Iran is simply stupid.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Did you see him flip flop on Iran. Not to long ago he said they were not a serious threat. Yesterday, or was it the day before that he was in Montana? In Montana he said Iran is a serious threat. He was taking some heat for saying Iran was not a serious threat. One of his aids evidently didn't like what he was seeing in the tea leaves after that comment so he switched in something like 24 hours. He's going to make John Kerry look stable. 
Looks like will will get to watch two door knobs slug it out. I think I will vote for the pro gun door knob.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

It is safe to say, The time when Isalm is interested in negotiating with non-believers is at the point where we are discussing the conditions under which Islam will allow us to continue to exist.

In the end it's Conversion, Subjugation or Death ... those are the choices with Islam.

In the final analsis ... that becomes the truth of the matter.

Which choice is it you would like Obama to discuss on our behalf?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Keep in mind that the stupid thing said by James Baker, or McCain do not negate the fact that Obama doesn't know what he is doing. It would appear that because another dumb statement is made by a conservative that somehow it justifies stupidity by a liberal. They are all idiots if they think they can negotiate with radical Islam. One dumb person does not justify stupidity of another.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

decoy dummy is spot on....Obama will only weaken us when it comes to dealing with the Iranians.....yeah, "let's try something different", Barack.
:eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

hunter9494 said:


> well Ken, why don't you check his website. unless he took it down, he proudly states he is the only candidate to be willing to sit down with terrorist nations for talks, without preconditions.
> 
> but lately in his speech, he has emphasized the use of "preparations" before his engagements for discussion. Obama is the biggest liar in politics.....he won't take your guns away either...he is running on "change" and Americans's ignorance...you can fall for it, not me.


Well Hunter....been gone for a few days.But answer me this......Newsweek is reporting that Bush officials have been and still are talking to Sunni rebels in IraQ.And that Bush officials are also talking with Taliban officials in Afganistan.

Talk about hypocrites.That's GWB for you.....talk out of both sides of his mouth.Telling the Israelis that it is a "foolish delusion" to negotiate with terrorists but when it suits him to do the exact same.

The biggest liar?????That would be George(I'm now irrelevant)Bush.
Ryan is right.....Pot. Kettle. Black. uke:


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Sunni or Shiite doens't really matter when it comes to Westerners ...

The Shiite are the minority of Muslims world wide but are fortunate right now in that they are the ones with control of a Nation (Iran).

They would love to have Obama become President ... especially in that he says right up front "I'll talk" to Isalm.

This could long and windy and I haven't post all that much lately, so I might have to go in small bursts 

The goal of Islam is to control more and more and more of the Wrold with it's Theocracy. What we are involved with here is what they call Jihad which is the battle between good and evil ... problem of us is from thier persepective of this Jihad, they are the "Good" and we are the "Evil".

In Jihad ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING IS FAIR FOR THEM TO DO OR SAY in order to move the work of Allah forward. They will be perfectly willing to say or do anything in order to simply keep things moving in a favorable direction for Islam and these folks are willing to work at a pain stakingly slow pace if need be. All they really need is for us to be talking to them instead of destroying them while they gain greater power.

However, Obama could speed the pace up for them considerably. If he is willing to talk to them and imply any understanding, they have won because there is nothing beneficial to our side that can't be easily stated in the current environment at a distance.

When Obama begins to pull out of Iraq ... Muqtada Al Sader, (who is a close partner to Islam in Iran and Shiite military commander for Isalm in Southern Iraq) will quickly fill the void of power in Iraq with a Theocracy emminating directly from Tehran.

Now keep in mind Syria is heavily sponsored by Iran already and even though Assad is Sunni, that does not stop the Shiite authority in Iran from keeping Assad propped up and in power.

Next take into account Hezbolla which is a millitary arm extending from Iran all the way to Lebanon ... these folks have taken a strong political presence in Lebanaon (11 seats in a 24 seat parlament) ... now just imagine that here we have a political party with it's own Military which is financed by Iran a thousand miles away.

So ... here we go ...

President Obama decides we pull from Iraq under the agreement that Iran will do all in it's power to maintain stability in the country as we exit. We leave and Al Sader moves out into the country peacefully (since all Muslims know the price to be paid for defiance to the request of an Islamic Claric) ... Iran almost instantly has control of Iraq ...

Assad in Syria can easily be moved aside even killed (afterall anything is fair in Jihad) in Syria and since the Sunnis are already Muslim that's a much easier conversion than us Westerners will be.

And since Hezbolla already holds the Iranian presence in Lebanon with it's own Military what we then have is an Islamic territory strectching from Central Asia to the Mediteranian all controlled by the "Supreme Leader" in Tehran.

After that Islamic control in Tehran pushes through Jordan and Israel is soon off into the sea. Do some quick teaking in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Counries and there we have a Calipite covering nearly all of Middle East.

The West has done battle with the Islamic Thocracy several times over the past 1400 years and we are ripe for it again ... I really don't think giving up Iraq is a good idea ... and giving Isalm the idea that we can be reasoned with on this is plain deadly for us.

That is the danger.

Or so it seems to.

OH ... did anyone here know that Hezbolla was just today granted veto power in the freely elected parlament in Lebanon? That means no legislation can be brought to the floor for debate or a vote unless Hezbolla agrees to it.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

KEN W

Talking to Sunni rebels or Taliban officials is chicken soup compared to engaging Iran. Those guys are little more than foot soldiers in this war and most are tribal in nature and will go where ever they see benefit to themselves.

You can't possibly equate that to trying to come to an understanding with the "Supreme Leader" in Iran ... can you??


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

*relevant quote.......on the mark.*

"What Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet," Lieberman writes.

"If a president ever embraced our worst enemies in this way, he would strengthen them and undermine our most steadfast allies.

"A great Democratic secretary of state, Dean Acheson, once warned 'no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies.' This is a lesson that today's Democratic Party leaders need to relearn."

*Ken- i guess i missed the summit scheduled with Mr. bush (personally) meeting with the Taliban leadership....?? you have been away too long and have missed the narrative here..... :eyeroll: *


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> .Newsweek is reporting that Bush officials have been and still are talking to Sunni rebels in IraQ.And that Bush officials are also talking with Taliban officials in Afganistan.


One of the problems with trying to spin in a forum is it can be easily checked out. No Ken, the News week article does not say that Bush officials have been and still are talking to anyone. Here is the article. I underlined the areas that seem to have escaped your attention.



> Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggested that the United States "need to figure out a way to develop some leverage with respect to the Iranians and then sit down and talk with them."
> 
> That notion evidently extends to elements of the Taliban. Mark Sedra, a Canadian expert on Afghanistan, says high-level U.S. officials, who he declined to name, admitted during a private Washington think-tank conference earlier this year that there was no purely military solution to Afghanistan's problems and *expressed a "willingness*" to negotiate with "moderate" Taliban figures. Four administration officials, who asked for anonymity when discussing policy deliberations, told NEWSWEEK that Washington has already assented to efforts by Afghan President Hamid Karzai to talk with Taliban factions that do not share the nihilist religious extremism of Supreme Leader Mullah Omar. "If the Afghans want to peel away so-called [Taliban] 'reasonables,' we're fine with that," one of the officials said. Those inside the administration who object, said another of the officials, have been somewhat mollified by the use of semantic legerdemain: "We say it's not negotiation. It's dialogue."




If there was another article in the latest issue of Newsweek I missed, please post same as I would be interested in reading it.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

"Not negotiation it's dialogue"... :rollin: :rollin:


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Here you go Ken.

ne·go·ti·a·tion Audio Help /nɪˌgoʊʃiˈeɪʃən, -si-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ni-goh-shee-ey-shuhn, -see-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation 
-noun 1. mutual discussion and arrangement of the terms of a transaction or agreement: the negotiation of a treaty. 
2. the act or process of negotiating. 
3. an instance or the result of negotiating.

I don't see anywhere in the article that they have discussed any terms or arrangement of agreements.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Obama said something to the effect of: "I'm not scared to talk to Iran or Hamas." (*And by extension:* I've got something to say to Iran and Hamas.)


I'm a little late on my comments to this, but it needs to be pointed out.

Ryan, I see you are afflicted with the same thing all the rest of us are. That is we don't know what the man stands for. We each interpret what we think the man says, because none of us know.

You had to guess when you said "And by extension".

Same here, and I would guess there would be a hundred interpretations of why Obama will talk to Iran and Hamas. From what I know of this elitist who is so impressed with himself I would say (And by extension: I am so brilliant that like none before me I can convince Iran and Hamas, and anyone else in the world to look at things my way. Besides I can hold myself up as Christian at home, and when I go to these Islamic radicals I can hold myself up to them as Muslim by descent . Also the ridicule I get for my pastor at home in America will lend credibility to me in the Muslim world. I'm just so brilliant that lesser people can not understand me. )

That's my take on Obama and what he means by extension.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> > Obama said something to the effect of: "I'm not scared to talk to Iran or Hamas." (*And by extension:* I've got something to say to Iran and Hamas.)
> 
> 
> I'm a little late on my comments to this, but it needs to be pointed out.
> ...


To a degree we are all trying to gather and interpret information from all the candidates. By extension we read into all of their messages. This is not new, nor is it limited to me or a certain political party. It is why we have a political forum.

That is why this entire story is so bogus, and has had waaaayyyyy more weight than it deserves. Similar to other stories that have come out in the past 3 months about Obama. The sad fact is that most Republicans are scared out of their gord realizing that Barack is massively popular. They are scrambling and searching for any flaws, and are needing to stoop to incredible levels that are unprecedented in politics.

Related to this double standard, I have another story I found this morning.. actually a couple that pointedly show this.. I'll see if I can post them up here in a few minutes.

Ironically, this extended Democratic wrangling, is going to be a huge benefit to Barack come fall. McDufus will not be able to dredge up all these old tired rhetorical stories, as they will have already lost steam and importance. The voters will see the candidates for what they truly are and represent.

McDufus will be seen as representing the status quo, keeping us in Iraq for 50 more years, and old and tired having just turned 72? this week?

Obama will be young and fresh looking, representing a change of direction for America, and American foreign politics.

It's not hard to see the writing on the wall....


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> To a degree we are all trying to gather and interpret information from all the candidates.


Yup, I wrote:


> We each interpret what we think the man says, because none of us know.


 That was my point.



> Obama will be young and fresh looking, representing a change of direction for America, and American foreign politics.


We will see. I think if we know the real Obama he will be done for. He sat in that church will Wright for 20 years. I think that means they are both racist. We have just skimmed the surface on Obama and I think we see more dirt than I like already. He is rabid anti firearms, and that isn't a smear, it's from his mouth. What hunter in their right mind would vote away their firearms freedom. Only the ones that like welfare better than burning gunpowder. 
I think your going to be terribly disappointed when we begin to know this man. At least I hope so.


----------

