<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bush on Appeasement: Barack Chamberlain Snaps Back</title>
	<atom:link href="http://moorethoughts.com/2008/05/15/bush-on-appeasement-barack-chamberlain-snaps-back/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://moorethoughts.com/2008/05/15/bush-on-appeasement-barack-chamberlain-snaps-back/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:10:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Rick</title>
		<link>http://moorethoughts.com/2008/05/15/bush-on-appeasement-barack-chamberlain-snaps-back/#comment-232337</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 00:19:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moorethoughts.com/2008/05/15/bush-on-appeasement-barack-chamberlain-snaps-back/#comment-232337</guid>
		<description>H.B......I'd call the hiring mercenaries,a common used tactic in war,  not appeasement.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>H.B&#8230;&#8230;I&#8217;d call the hiring mercenaries,a common used tactic in war,  not appeasement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: H.B. Keats</title>
		<link>http://moorethoughts.com/2008/05/15/bush-on-appeasement-barack-chamberlain-snaps-back/#comment-232252</link>
		<dc:creator>H.B. Keats</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 21:52:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moorethoughts.com/2008/05/15/bush-on-appeasement-barack-chamberlain-snaps-back/#comment-232252</guid>
		<description>Rick:

Well, I'd say giving cash to the Sunni insurgents in order to bribe them into fighting on our side conforms to the definition of "appeasement" you yourself cited above.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rick:</p>
<p>Well, I&#8217;d say giving cash to the Sunni insurgents in order to bribe them into fighting on our side conforms to the definition of &#8220;appeasement&#8221; you yourself cited above.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick</title>
		<link>http://moorethoughts.com/2008/05/15/bush-on-appeasement-barack-chamberlain-snaps-back/#comment-232213</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 20:53:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moorethoughts.com/2008/05/15/bush-on-appeasement-barack-chamberlain-snaps-back/#comment-232213</guid>
		<description>The anti-appeasement part I have a problem with is for the US President "dignifying" the bad guys with a one on one across the table relationship. 
 Communication without dignification could provide intell or some other type of progress.  I have a problem with the type of appeasement Chamberlin gave Hitler, the type Stalin got, and the such. Communication does not equate with appeasement,you would communicate  in order to gain the advantage, and appeasement does not mean that you are communicating or gaining anything.

Also, H.B., buying intell is not what I'd call appeasement, or building schools and hospitals.

The word elected keeps coming up with you guys.
Hitler was elected, Saddam was elected, Stalin was elected, one way or another.  Elected does not always mean the same thing as it does here, or does it warrant the same respect.
Heck, Bin Laden was probably elected by his peers!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The anti-appeasement part I have a problem with is for the US President &#8220;dignifying&#8221; the bad guys with a one on one across the table relationship.<br />
 Communication without dignification could provide intell or some other type of progress.  I have a problem with the type of appeasement Chamberlin gave Hitler, the type Stalin got, and the such. Communication does not equate with appeasement,you would communicate  in order to gain the advantage, and appeasement does not mean that you are communicating or gaining anything.</p>
<p>Also, H.B., buying intell is not what I&#8217;d call appeasement, or building schools and hospitals.</p>
<p>The word elected keeps coming up with you guys.<br />
Hitler was elected, Saddam was elected, Stalin was elected, one way or another.  Elected does not always mean the same thing as it does here, or does it warrant the same respect.<br />
Heck, Bin Laden was probably elected by his peers!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick</title>
		<link>http://moorethoughts.com/2008/05/15/bush-on-appeasement-barack-chamberlain-snaps-back/#comment-232205</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 20:35:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moorethoughts.com/2008/05/15/bush-on-appeasement-barack-chamberlain-snaps-back/#comment-232205</guid>
		<description>Sean.. where did eliminate come from?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sean.. where did eliminate come from?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: H.B. Keats</title>
		<link>http://moorethoughts.com/2008/05/15/bush-on-appeasement-barack-chamberlain-snaps-back/#comment-232204</link>
		<dc:creator>H.B. Keats</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 20:34:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moorethoughts.com/2008/05/15/bush-on-appeasement-barack-chamberlain-snaps-back/#comment-232204</guid>
		<description>How is paying off the Iraqi Sunnis not appeasement?

Appeasement IS the current policy in Iraq.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How is paying off the Iraqi Sunnis not appeasement?</p>
<p>Appeasement IS the current policy in Iraq.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean Braisted</title>
		<link>http://moorethoughts.com/2008/05/15/bush-on-appeasement-barack-chamberlain-snaps-back/#comment-232198</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean Braisted</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 20:21:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moorethoughts.com/2008/05/15/bush-on-appeasement-barack-chamberlain-snaps-back/#comment-232198</guid>
		<description>Rick,

You have to be numb in the mind to think John McCain was saying we should eliminate Hamas in that statement.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rick,</p>
<p>You have to be numb in the mind to think John McCain was saying we should eliminate Hamas in that statement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick</title>
		<link>http://moorethoughts.com/2008/05/15/bush-on-appeasement-barack-chamberlain-snaps-back/#comment-232192</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 19:58:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moorethoughts.com/2008/05/15/bush-on-appeasement-barack-chamberlain-snaps-back/#comment-232192</guid>
		<description>Guys, go to the holocaust museum in D.C., stand in that round room, and look down at the shoes of the victims, young and old, men and women, work shoes, and dress shoes. Then talk to the man in Iran who says it never happened.

Watch the news of Burma, a government that is letting thousands die each day for what? How do you dignify their authority.

The genocide in the Sudan, we must need to have a chat with those guys.

Stalin was a great guy to chat with, he killed more of his own people than Hitler.

Maybe if Bin Laden would only apologize, we could all get along.

Can you reason with radical islam?  Is there anything on the table that you could offer them?  Heck, they don't even accept that we exist as equal human beings, change that, human beings period.

Yes Sean, "deal with sooner or later",  deal with, not dignify.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Guys, go to the holocaust museum in D.C., stand in that round room, and look down at the shoes of the victims, young and old, men and women, work shoes, and dress shoes. Then talk to the man in Iran who says it never happened.</p>
<p>Watch the news of Burma, a government that is letting thousands die each day for what? How do you dignify their authority.</p>
<p>The genocide in the Sudan, we must need to have a chat with those guys.</p>
<p>Stalin was a great guy to chat with, he killed more of his own people than Hitler.</p>
<p>Maybe if Bin Laden would only apologize, we could all get along.</p>
<p>Can you reason with radical islam?  Is there anything on the table that you could offer them?  Heck, they don&#8217;t even accept that we exist as equal human beings, change that, human beings period.</p>
<p>Yes Sean, &#8220;deal with sooner or later&#8221;,  deal with, not dignify.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean Braisted</title>
		<link>http://moorethoughts.com/2008/05/15/bush-on-appeasement-barack-chamberlain-snaps-back/#comment-232012</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean Braisted</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 14:09:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moorethoughts.com/2008/05/15/bush-on-appeasement-barack-chamberlain-snaps-back/#comment-232012</guid>
		<description>Talk about appeasement...

&lt;i&gt;"They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."&lt;/i&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Talk about appeasement&#8230;</p>
<p><i>&#8220;They&#8217;re the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it&#8217;s a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.&#8221;</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick</title>
		<link>http://moorethoughts.com/2008/05/15/bush-on-appeasement-barack-chamberlain-snaps-back/#comment-231966</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 12:44:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moorethoughts.com/2008/05/15/bush-on-appeasement-barack-chamberlain-snaps-back/#comment-231966</guid>
		<description>As said by Winston Churchill[1]:

“ An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last. ”</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As said by Winston Churchill[1]:</p>
<p>“ An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last. ”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick</title>
		<link>http://moorethoughts.com/2008/05/15/bush-on-appeasement-barack-chamberlain-snaps-back/#comment-231963</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 12:40:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moorethoughts.com/2008/05/15/bush-on-appeasement-barack-chamberlain-snaps-back/#comment-231963</guid>
		<description>Googled "appeasement"... from Wikipedia..........Appeasement, literally: calming, reconciling, acquiring peace by way of concessions or gifts (the verb 'to pay' also goes back to the Latin 'pax' = peace). Most commonly, appeasement is used for the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Usually it means giving in to demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war. Since World War II, the term has gained a negative connotation in the British government, in politics and in general, of weakness, cowardice and self-deception.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Googled &#8220;appeasement&#8221;&#8230; from Wikipedia&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.Appeasement, literally: calming, reconciling, acquiring peace by way of concessions or gifts (the verb &#8216;to pay&#8217; also goes back to the Latin &#8216;pax&#8217; = peace). Most commonly, appeasement is used for the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Usually it means giving in to demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war. Since World War II, the term has gained a negative connotation in the British government, in politics and in general, of weakness, cowardice and self-deception.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: William</title>
		<link>http://moorethoughts.com/2008/05/15/bush-on-appeasement-barack-chamberlain-snaps-back/#comment-231753</link>
		<dc:creator>William</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 05:50:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moorethoughts.com/2008/05/15/bush-on-appeasement-barack-chamberlain-snaps-back/#comment-231753</guid>
		<description>As a final slam dunk on this stupid "appeasement" fear mongering rhetoric designed for the ignorant and weak-minded ... 
Today, CNN reported on the abject hypocrisy of Bush’s statements:

    "&lt;b&gt;It’s also somewhat ahistorical. The president has authorized American diplomats to talk to the Iranians in Iraq. They talked to them in Afghanistan. They talked to them in Bonn, Germany, during the founding of the Afghan government during which the Iranians and Americans worked together. The president’s own Secretary of Defense is right now arguing that we should be talking to the Iranians. We talked to the Soviet Union and China while they were forming revolutions all over the world and most recently, let’s remember, that David Petraeus has talked to the Sunni insurgents and terrorists who are killing Americans only months earlier. And that - a large part of the success of the surge has been the willingness of Petraeus and the American military to talk to the people who they once called terrorists and insurgents.&lt;/b&gt;"</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a final slam dunk on this stupid &#8220;appeasement&#8221; fear mongering rhetoric designed for the ignorant and weak-minded &#8230;<br />
Today, CNN reported on the abject hypocrisy of Bush’s statements:</p>
<p>    &#8220;<b>It’s also somewhat ahistorical. The president has authorized American diplomats to talk to the Iranians in Iraq. They talked to them in Afghanistan. They talked to them in Bonn, Germany, during the founding of the Afghan government during which the Iranians and Americans worked together. The president’s own Secretary of Defense is right now arguing that we should be talking to the Iranians. We talked to the Soviet Union and China while they were forming revolutions all over the world and most recently, let’s remember, that David Petraeus has talked to the Sunni insurgents and terrorists who are killing Americans only months earlier. And that - a large part of the success of the surge has been the willingness of Petraeus and the American military to talk to the people who they once called terrorists and insurgents.</b>&#8220;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: serr8d</title>
		<link>http://moorethoughts.com/2008/05/15/bush-on-appeasement-barack-chamberlain-snaps-back/#comment-231648</link>
		<dc:creator>serr8d</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 01:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moorethoughts.com/2008/05/15/bush-on-appeasement-barack-chamberlain-snaps-back/#comment-231648</guid>
		<description>All you need to know is, Democrats lose wars. 

'Nuff said.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All you need to know is, Democrats lose wars. </p>
<p>&#8216;Nuff said.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
