Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_minnesota_senate

Now lord obama is even closer to having free reign to push his epic fail pile of crap down American throat’s.

Because there are much better ways to piss money up the wall. Like starting a pointless War or three?

Ain't democracy and the rule of law a bitch.

Well the good news is in the 2010 elections the dems will not be able to blame anyone but themselves. And with the policies they have been enacting unemployment will be in the mid teens by that point.

If we are going to waste money as a country might as well spend it killing people that don't like us.

Mango wrote:Well the good news is in the 2010 elections the dems will not be able to blame anyone but themselves. And with the policies they have been enacting unemployment will be in the mid teens by that point.

Actually, it'll be pretty easy to continue blaming Republicans. What with the lack of constructive dialogue, or original rhetoric.

Either way there are only, at most, 4 swing seats in 2010. And several potentially key states that the RNC is not expected to fund.

Mango wrote:
If we are going to waste money as a country might as well spend it killing people that don't like us.

Thank you, Dick Cheney. And in other news, the failure of every single Imperial project in history.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Because there are much better ways to piss money up the wall. Like starting a pointless War or three?

Three?

And appeasement has a better track record?

And here I was hoping those two would just kill each other so we could elect someone else.

Mango wrote:And appeasement has a better track record?

Better? No.

Appeasement has a track record roughly equivalent to that of warfare. They both fail when applied in the wrong circumstances, but can be resounding successes when applied in the correct ones. Appeasement simply has the benefit of being essentially free in the short-run.

dogma wrote:

Mango wrote:And appeasement has a better track record?

Better? No.

Appeasement has a track record roughly equivalent to that of warfare. They both fail when applied in the wrong circumstances, but can be resounding successes when applied in the correct ones. Appeasement simply has the benefit of being essentially free in the short-run.

Appeasement is only a short-term solution, and it can only make things worse in the long term.

Starting wars and appeasement are the only two international policies in existence.

Yeah, they're not filibuster proof, they're theoretically filibuster proof if all of the Dems and all two Independents don't toe the line, which everyone knows some will if something is controversial enough.

warpcrafter wrote:
Appeasement is only a short-term solution, and it can only make things worse in the long term.

You aren't particularly familiar with the Balance of Power method of international relations, are you?

War is rarely final.

Also, stating that appeasement can only make things worse is purely speculative.

But but but but Hitler

avantgarde wrote:But but but but Hitler

The counter-example being the British at Malta.

Or you could reach even further back and conclude that, had Versailles not been so harsh, Hitler would never have been able to rise to power. A case where over-aggression lead to greater loss on both sides.

But who will appease the "mid-roaders" ?!

warpcrafter wrote:Appeasement is only a short-term solution, and it can only make things worse in the long term.

You’re falling for a silly and obvious piece of politicking. ‘Appeasement’ is almost always used in reference to the policy of Chamberlain in dealing with Hitler. In that situation the western powers struck a deal with Hitler, the key element here of which was to give him exactly what he wanted in exchange for nothing but empty promises*.

The problem is that using the same term to apply to the diplomatic policies of the Obama administration is nonsense. He isn’t looking to appease or to buy off anyone, he’s just saying it’s good to have lines of communication – that between ‘give people anything they want’ and ‘go to war’ there’s this idea of ‘talk to other countries’.

I know they’re ‘your side’ and all, but you really need to start applying critical thinking to the rhetoric you hear.




*It’s been argued that the French and British knew that war was coming, but needed time to rebuild their neglected militaries. Certainly both countries had been increasing military spending dramatically before the Munich talks, and increased them even further afterwards. But I’m no expert on the issue and it seems strange anyway, given how rapidly the Germans were rebuilding their military at the same time. Even if true it’s a pretty dodgy thing to surrender an ally over to an aggressor state just to buy a little breathing space… but it is worth thinking about.

*edit ^Curse you, I wanted to name drop Chamberlain. The idea was that Britain could out tech and out produce two of the future Axis powers, so Britain should try to buddy up with at least one so it wouldn't get jumped by all three. Chamberlain did beef up the RAF, which turned out to be a really good idea.

dogma wrote:

avantgarde wrote:But but but but Hitler

The counter-example being the British at Malta.

I was making fun of the fact that when people cite appeasement as a failure they are almost always alluding to the build up to World War II since most HS textbooks sell Chamberlain's policies as cowardly. It wasn't a bad policy since Britain was being threatened by all three Axis powers, one of them being Britain's largest trading partner, and the other Allies were leaving her hanging. Also which Malta conference, the British attended both and I'm not terribly interested in cold war politics.

dogma wrote:Or you could reach even further back and conclude that, had Versailles not been so harsh, Hitler would never have been able to rise to power. A case where over-aggression lead to greater loss on both sides.

I disagree, the German economy had recovered before the Depression due to American loans, and reparations weren't a problem until the American economy collapsed. The main gripe with Versailles was the Germany assumes blame clause, the treaty was a cause of National Socialism's rise but not the cause.

If they really wanted to make sure Germany never came back for another go they should have gone harsher and undone Kaiser Wilhem and Bismarck's work by balkanizing the German Empire at Versailles. Let all the upstart German political parties feud over the provinces instead of letting one militant party take over a bitter nation and biting the Allies in the ass two decades down the road. It's not like the Germans could reject a break up of the Empire outright, it had existed for less then 50 years and what alternative would they have? Continue the war? Their people were starving, disillusioned and had the Russian Revolution as an example to follow. Of course the Allies would have never carried out a break up out of economic cocerns, sympathy, fear of socialism, fear of French Continental supremacy and a dozen other reasons. So this is an entirely hypothetical situation were over aggression could have diverted WWII, which has the same merit (in the sense of being hypothetical) of saying being forgiving to postwar Germany would do the same.

avantgarde wrote:I disagree, the German economy had recovered before the Depression due to American loans, and reparations weren't a problem until the American economy collapsed. The main gripe with Versailles was the Germany assumes blame clause, the treaty was a cause of National Socialism's rise but not the cause.

As long as US loans were available, it wasn't an overwhelming problem, but it was still a problem and the loans were never going to last. Assigning Germany full responsibility was a problem, but more significant was the carving up of Germany to be given to other European powers.

Your suggestion to carve up Germany wouldn't have worked. Look at how easily the Nazis took control in Austria.

Versailles wasn't the only factor, but it was a big one.

avantgarde wrote:I was making fun of the fact that when people cite appeasement as a failure they are almost always alluding to the build up to World War II since most HS textbooks sell Chamberlain's policies as cowardly. It wasn't a bad policy since Britain was being threatened by all three Axis powers, one of them being Britain's largest trading partner, and the other Allies were leaving her hanging.

Sorry about that, I was in smarmy banter mode.

Anyway, I agree with you. Though I'd also like to mention that it cannot be underestimated the effect that WWI had on the psyche of the allied political establishment (especially in France). Losing nearly an entire generation to conflict is nothing to sneeze at. It made both nations afraid of war. Not surprising since the method of engagements changed very little for either military.

Britain and France expected any war with Germany would be fought in a manner very similar to that of WWI. The Blitz was revolutionary, so they can hardly be faulted for the mistake.

avantgarde wrote:
Also which Malta conference, the British attended both and I'm not terribly interested in cold war politics.

Oops, sorry. I meant to refer to the Yalta conference.

avantgarde wrote:
I disagree, the German economy had recovered before the Depression due to American loans, and reparations weren't a problem until the American economy collapsed. The main gripe with Versailles was the Germany assumes blame clause, the treaty was a cause of National Socialism's rise but not the cause.

The entire treaty was a slap in the face. Not only did Germany assume blame, but they were forced to make reparations in excess of what any person living then could ever imagine. Even after the payments were reduced through American intervention the nation would still have been in debt until 1984. Throw in the military restrictions, and you have a pretty clear cut wound on the German psyche.

There were other factors in the rise of the Nazis, but I really think that its pretty tough to overstate the importance Versailles had in facilitating it.

avantgarde wrote:
If they really wanted to make sure Germany never came back for another go they should have gone harsher and undone Kaiser Wilhem and Bismarck's work by balkanizing the German Empire at Versailles. Let all the upstart German political parties feud over the provinces instead of letting one militant party take over a bitter nation and biting the Allies in the ass two decades down the road. It's not like the Germans could reject a break up of the Empire outright, it had existed for less then 50 years and what alternative would they have? Continue the war? Their people were starving, disillusioned and had the Russian Revolution as an example to follow. Of course the Allies would have never carried out a break up out of economic cocerns, sympathy, fear of socialism, fear of French Continental supremacy and a dozen other reasons. So this is an entirely hypothetical situation were over aggression could have diverted WWII, which has the same merit (in the sense of being hypothetical) of saying being forgiving to postwar Germany would do the same.

I'm not sure how long such a division would have lasted. It didn't take much to seize Austria, and I can only assume that the party would have had little trouble coordinating across what many would have seen as largely artificial borders.

I don't necessarily buy the rhetoric that Obama is trying to appease anyone at all, in the sense that they're using that word, but I honestly wonder what the man is feeling talking to some of these people. Does the idea of having to be polite to someone like Chavez not hit you on a visceral level; does it make you a little ill? I understand the logic of it, but I'm not a man for that, unfortunately, I go on what I feel, not what I think. For some of us, there is pride.

There was a time when Republicans didn't think diplomacy was just "appeasement." It wasn't even that long ago.

Good to see the US is firmly on ths side of Chavez and the Castro brothers on the Honduras issue.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

Frazzled wrote:Good to see the US is firmly on ths side of Chavez and the Castro brothers on the Honduras issue.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

That's just a link to Obama's performance tracking, it doesn't say anything about Castro or Chavez.

Thats correct. Two different, though not unrelated items.

Edit: here's the really cool historical pres tracking poll. They haven't updated for the 30th yet (was hoping they would). It plays a little positive. I love it though as it like candy to the statistician in me.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php

Frazzled wrote:Good to see the US is firmly on ths side of Chavez and the Castro brothers on the Honduras issue.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

It isn't surprising that the administration is taking a hit for its foreign policy choices. America is notoriously idealistic with regard to international affairs, and the last President to conduct this type of engagement was Nixon.

Also: 40% say we weren't aggressive enough in supporting Iranian reformers? What do the idiots want? Nixonian interventionism without the accompanying diplomatic tact? That's just warmongering.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

Ah, so poetic grandstanding. Gotcha.

It takes Obama a week and Clinton prodding to decide, sort of, to speak out about the killings going on in Iran.

But he immediately supports someone trying to set himself up as a Chavez dictator in Honduras. Interesting that.

Honduras won't be firing rockets at our oil rigs. Iran might have.

So he supports wannabe dictators but only if they can't shoot rockets at us?