Europe - Thy Name is Cowardice

[sameoldsht]

Some in Europe actually "get it"....

Europe - Thy Name is Cowardice

By Mathias Dopfner
Die Welt (Germany)
December 6, 2004

A few days ago Henryk M. Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe - your family name is appeasement."

It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements. Appeasement stabilized communism in the Soviet Union and East Germany in that part of Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo and we Europeans debated and debated until the Americans came in and did our work for us. Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore 300,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, to issue bad grades to George Bush. A particularly grotesque form of appeasement is reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere by suggesting that we should really have a Muslim holiday in Germany.

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians and directed against our free, open Western societies.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than the great military conflicts of the last century-a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by tolerance and accommodation but only spurred on by such gestures, which will be mistaken for signs of weakness.

Two recent American presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement:

Reagan and Bush. Reagan ended the Cold War and Bush, supported only by the social democrat Blair acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic fight against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.

On the contrary-we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to the intolerant, as world champions in tolerance, which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy-because everything is at stake.

While the alleged capitalistic robber barons in American know their priorities, we timidly defend our social welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive. We'd rather discuss the 35-hour workweek or our dental health plan coverage. Or listen to TV pastors preach about "reaching out to murderers." These days, Europe reminds me of an elderly aunt who hides her last pieces of jewelry with shaking hands when she notices a robber has broken into a neighbor's house. Europe, thy name is cowardice.

Source (http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_topics/research_topics_show.htm?doc_id=252132)

[wacki]

very nice post.

[MMMMMM]

^

[andyfox]

The usual mixture of half-truths, faulty comparisons, and bravado that passes for political analysis in the post-9/11 era. I am always amused when I see that "Reagan ended the Cold War." Usually, the phrasing is that Reagan won the Cold War. It is akin to saying Keith Foulke won the World Series because he got the last batter to ground out. In fact, it was the American statesmen who Reagan always accused of cowardice, appeasement, and malfeasance who won the Cold War. By the time Reagan came into office, the Soviet Union was broke both economically and structurally.

And, of couse, the fight against the "perfidious crusade" by "fanatic Muslims" is equated with the United States' invasion of Iraq. Didn't we learn our lessons from the appeasement of Hitler? The right is correctly incensed when Bush is ridiculously compared, by some on the far left, with Hitler, but sees nothing wrong with using the comparison between a prostrate and hemmed in Saddam Hussien with him, the better to deflect any criticism or move toward anything that smacks of tolerance or accommodation.

[DVaut1]

This is somewhat unrelated - but I believe we ought not heap praises like "nice post!" for a guy who merely did a copy/paste job of someone else's work, IMO.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
This is somewhat unrelated - but I believe we ought not heap praises like "nice post!" for a guy who merely did a copy/paste job of someone else's work, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, it was a damn good copy/paste. He bolded the title, included the author's name, and then provided a clean link.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
But, it was a damn good copy/paste. He bolded the title, included the author's name, and then provided a clean link.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, and true.

[adios]

Hope this doesn't come across as a cross examination. The following questions are an attempt at a positive dialog.

Questions:

1. Were there alternatives to what Reagan did that would have prolonged the Cold War?

2. Were there alternatives to what Reagan did that would have ended the Cold War sooner than it did?

3. What were the two most significant acts of statesmanship that weakened the Soviet Union both economically and structurally? Alternatively what aspects of foreign policy led to the demise of the Soviet Union both economically and structurally?

4. How valuable are Iraq's oil assets?

5. Regarding the U.N. sanctions against Iraq, how much longer would they have lasted had the U.S. not gone to war?

6. Without sanctions in place and Saddam remaining in power, how likely is it that he would have pursued a nuclear weapons program of his own?

7. Did the U.N. sanctions imposed on Iraq "hem" him in and lay him "prostrate ?"

8. Did the U.N. sanctions imposed on Iraq lead to suffering and hardship for the Iraqi people?


Here are my brief answers

1. Of course there were.

2. That's hard to say. I think he did a very good job in dealing with the Soviets. I'd point out that Reagan did negotiate arms reduction treaties with the Soviets.

3. It seems to me that the economic power of the U.S. was used to provide a more effective armament stategy. I list the administrations that served during the Cold War:

- Truman
- Eisenhauer
- Kennedy
- Johnson
- Nixon
- Ford
- Carter
- Reagan
- Bush 41

Which ones were noteworthy in their statesmanship that led to the demise of the Soviet Union?

4. I would say at least $500 billion. Iraqi production capacity for oil is about 3 million barrels a day if memory serves. That's about $150 million a day in revenue for oil that has some of the lowest productions costs in the world. That's a lot of money to put at the disposal of military despot who seized power in Iraq illegitimately.

5. I think it's fairly clear that many nations were losing interest in the sanctions. If you disagree then I assume that you believe sanctions would have continued indefinitely.

6. Given that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program, can there be much doubt that Hussein would have pursued one as well? For that reason alone I believe he would have and I think it's fairly clear that Hussein wasn't particularly enamored with the U.S. either.

7. I don't think so. The Oil-for-Food scandel shows that Saddam was raking in lots of money from the Iraqi oil sold.

8. I think the sanctions were basically ineffective due to the corruption in the U.N. The oil didn't go for food to feed the Iraqis, the oil went to line the pocketbooks of Saddam and those affiliated with the U.N. corruption.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Hi,
2 first main points:
-Most Europeans of today is not proud of European history which has contained cowardice.
-The article has a underlying negativity towards moslems. Unlike Americans who can bomb moslem cities without facing the concequences Europe has a substantial moslem minority which has to be part of the society. Therefore Europe needs a policy based upon humanitarian values and tolerance and not based upon Christianity.

Europe still does not back up its policies by force. There is a logical reason for this. US was the real military force in Europe NATO Soviet Union was the real military force in Eastern Europe. Thus the European military capability is not impressive. This will change as the loyalty to NATO in the population has more or less disappeared while the loyalty to a new European army is strong.

Most Europeans see three main dangers to a progressive development in world:
-Moslem fundamentalists
-American right wing (George Bush etc.)
-Israel
Since there is a broad consensus of this there will also be possible to build a strong Europe as an alternative who will confront these three dangers more aggressively.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
-Moslem fundamentalists
-American right wing (George Bush etc.)
-Israel

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that you list these three items as the most dangerous threats to the world today illustrates complete bankruptcy of the current European worldview. That is since you present yourself as representing the majority European view.

PS Christianity and human values/tolerance are not mutually exclusive.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I am always amused when I see that "Reagan ended the Cold War." Usually, the phrasing is that Reagan won the Cold War. It is akin to saying Keith Foulke won the World Series because he got the last batter to ground out. In fact, it was the American statesmen who Reagan always accused of cowardice, appeasement, and malfeasance who won the Cold War. By the time Reagan came into office, the Soviet Union was broke both economically and structurally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know who Foulke is but my take would be that Reagan was somewhat akin to an excellent relief pitcher in the 8th or 9th inning who protected or ensured a win (without having to go into extra innings;-)).

[ QUOTE ]
And, of couse, the fight against the "perfidious crusade" by "fanatic Muslims" is equated with the United States' invasion of Iraq. Didn't we learn our lessons from the appeasement of Hitler? The right is correctly incensed when Bush is ridiculously compared, by some on the far left, with Hitler, but sees nothing wrong with using the comparison between a prostrate and hemmed in Saddam Hussien with him, the better to deflect any criticism or move toward anything that smacks of tolerance or accommodation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure all you are getting at here, but here are a couple of questions:

Why should we tolerate or accomodate an evil dictator like Saddam who is: 1) our enemy and a thorn in our side, 2) a potentially very dangerous instability in a critical region, 3) a massive butcher of his own people (300,000+ bodies thus far discovered in mass graves) 4) a financial supporter of suicide-bombing?

Accomodate him? How about we just shoot him at dawn? (metaphorically speaking; I think the upcoming trials to be conducted by Iraqis are a good idea)

Also, why should we tolerate or accomodate the fanatic elements of the Muslim community which seek to destroy us?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am always amused when I see that "Reagan ended the Cold War." Usually, the phrasing is that Reagan won the Cold War. It is akin to saying Keith Foulke won the World Series because he got the last batter to ground out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know who Foulke is but my take would be that Reagan was somewhat akin to an excellent relief pitcher in the 8th or 9th inning who protected or ensured a win (without having to go into extra innings;-)).

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's my take on Reagan and the Cold War, keeping with the closer analogy:

Conservatives want to claim that Soviet Communism was a Single A baseball team; fundamentally weak and destined to lose. It is Communism, after all. I can't picture many conservatives claiming Communism had any merit.

They then want to claim Ronald Reagan must be Mariano Rivera, because he closed out a game against a Single A baseball team, as if Tanyon Sturtze or Paul Quantrill (or any major league reliever) couldn't have accomplished the same thing.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
-Moslem fundamentalists
-American right wing (George Bush etc.)
-Israel

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that you list these three items as the most dangerous threats to the world today illustrates complete bankruptcy of the current European worldview. That is since you present yourself as representing the majority European view.

[/ QUOTE ]

In most conflicts in the world of one the three groups is involved. All three groups have put very little effort into international cooperation. All three groups have inhumane moral values.

[ QUOTE ]
PS Christianity and human values/tolerance are not mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree.

[WhatAbout?]

[ QUOTE ]
-[ QUOTE ]
PS Christianity and human values/tolerance are not mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree.

[/ QUOTE ]


What about Affirmative Action?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
-[ QUOTE ]
PS Christianity and human values/tolerance are not mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree.

[/ QUOTE ]


What about Affirmative Action?



[/ QUOTE ]

??????? I don't get your point.

[WhatAbout?]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
-[ QUOTE ]
PS Christianity and human values/tolerance are not mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree.

[/ QUOTE ]


What about Affirmative Action?



[/ QUOTE ]

??????? I don't get your point.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about Rush Limbaugh?

[ACPlayer]

These three items are likely the most dangerous threats to the world torday. This is not just a European view but is shared by almost everyone who is not in one of these three groups. Which group are you in?

PS All religions (at least as practiced) and tolerance are mutally exclusive.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
These three items are likely the most dangerous threats to the world torday. This is not just a European view but is shared by almost everyone who is not in one of these three groups.

[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting also how communication, dialogue and cooperation between all the different groups outside the three groups is improving and has become very good while those three groups speeds towards the edge.

[ QUOTE ]
Which group are you in?

[/ QUOTE ]
Quite small group /images/graemlins/smile.gif: Norwegian, liberal agnostic.

[ QUOTE ]
PS All religions (at least as practiced) and tolerance are mutally exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess many religions have a tolerant fundament, but as you imply it is often practiced otherwise. One sunshine story though:
Conservative bishop seeks reconciliation (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1008720.ece)

[BCPVP]

What About Bob?

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[andyfox]

A few comments:

-The justification for the invasion of Iraq was not that Saddam was embezzling from the oil-for-food program but rather that in the post-9/11 environment, he was a danger to the United States, that, as the president put it, we couldn't wait for proof in the form of a mushroom cloud. This was clearly hyperbole at best, the Big Lie at worst. To compare the danger in not invading Iraq with appeasement of Hitler is an inapt comparison.

-Can't one make a case that Iran is pursuing a nuclear option at least in part because of the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and would not have pursued it as aggressively had Husssein still been in power and the United States not been on its doorstep?

-The United States was very aggressive in pursuing an anti-Soviet strategy under most, if not all, of the administrations that were in power during the Cold War. Certainly the Truman Doctrine (and the associated Marshall Plan) started the ball rolling with the aggressive counter-policy suggested by Kennan in his long telegram and Foreign Affairs article and by NSC67. The wars in Korea and Vietnam were part of our effort against what we perceived as the world-wide Communist conspiracy in its extension to east Asia. Getting rid of governments we saw as Communist-influence in places such as Iran, Guatemala and Chile was a more surreptitious application of the same policy. I would say that the Democrats so roundly criticized by the Reagan wing of the Republican Party were the most ardent Cold Warriors: certainly Truman and Acheson, who began the Cold War, LBJ in his capacity as Senate leader and then drawing the line in Vietnam, and Kennedy, who backed up his "bear any burden" in his Vietnam and Cuba policies were as tough in fighting Communism as the Republicans, who were, in those years, typically less agreeable to foreign "adventures" and more balanced budget-conscious.

[WhatAbout?]

What about high noise to signal ratios?

[ACPlayer]

Almost every religion (perhaps Buddhism is an exception) start with the precept that they have the knowledge of the "correct" way and that the others are wrong and in some way lesser unless they see the light.

THis is the fundamental basis of the intolerance in every religion.

In fact, I would convert to the religious group if the three major judea-christian leaders got together and did a merger of interest and formed one religion that saw all these groups as equal in the eyes of god (as defined by the religious). The recognition that all these people are essentially the same and have the same path to their "salvation" would make me think that perhaps there is a god and a place for religion.

I excluded, the other religions just to make it easier for these people.

[andyfox]

I don't know why I should continue a conversation with somebody who doesn't know who Foulke is, but since it's you, I'll make an exception. /images/graemlins/wink.gif [He's the Red Sox closer.]

It's not an aggressive policy that I object to; it's the inability to temper an aggressive policy with any tolerance or accommodation or compromise or negotiation that I see as the danger in what the original cited
article posited and that I see in much of the neo-con worldview which guides the Bush administration. As Tom pointed out, Reagan, for example, negotiated arms reductions with the Soviets. It doesn't mean that he wasn't tough (or, to continue our analogy, an effective closing relief pitcher); it means that he was pragmatic, that there were times when accommodation, even with the Evil Empire, was +EV.

A comparison that may be more apt than the Hitler/Hussein (or the Hitler/Bush) comparison: Before Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat negotiated their peace agreement, Egypt had been the most fanatical opponent of Israel. Sadat himself was a military man who had had extreme right-wing sentiments earlier in his life (bordering on Nazi sympathy) and Begain was the mastermind of the terror campaign of the Irgun that drove Britain out of Palestine. Two more unlikely peacemakers, both in personal terms and in terms of the emnity between their countries, could not be imagined. Yet precisely through accommodation and tolerance, they made an improbable peace that has lasted these many years.

Sometimes there's a more nuanced policy that leads to better results than just shooting your enemy at dawn.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]


Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmmmm, which were the first countries to declare war on Nazi Germany? When did America join the war?

[Jim T]

" Unlike Americans who can bomb moslem cities without facing the concequences"

Which Muslim cities have we bombed without facing "consequences"? And what additional consequences do you presume Europe would face if it was willing (or able) to take similar actions?

"the European military capability is not impressive. This will change as the loyalty to NATO in the population has more or less disappeared while the loyalty to a new European army is strong."

Please. There is no real interest that I can see in increasing military might in Europe. There isn't any money for it either.

And I really don't know what you are talking about regarding "loyalty" to a non-existent "European army". The EU itself looks to be on the brink of failure with the upcoming vote in France, not to mention similar votes in the UK and other sceptical European countries.

BTW, what exactly would the purpose of a new, more powerful "European army" be? Especially as it would apparently be much more concerned with "humanitarian values and tolerance" than is the US military.

"Most Europeans see three main dangers to a progressive development in world"

I don't take offense at this statement, as I certainly hope that the American right wing continues to be dangerous to "progressive" developments in the world. As long as America continues to bring about (traditional) liberal developments instead, I will be well pleased.

I would be bemused by your lumping American conservative in with Muslim fundementalists, but the "American Taliban" idiocy has been commonplace on the left and in Europe for a while now.

Of course, you would think that you might be happy that two of your "ememies" were fighting each other. I guess that's a little too logical.

"Since there is a broad consensus of this there will also be possible to build a strong Europe as an alternative who will confront these three dangers more aggressively."

Ah, now the reasons for your prospective stronger European army become clearer! You obviously can't use it to "confront" Muslim fundementalists, because you earlier made it clear that you can't face the consequences of dealing with them due to your "substantial moslem minority". So you must want to use it to "confront" the US or Israel when you begin to "back up [your] policies by force".

Good luck with that.

PS I think that you might want to leave the realm of fantasy, and begin think of ways to deal with the very real problems and dangers that Europe will be facing over the next 20-30 years as it ages and it's statist welfare model becomes increasingly untenable. The party was fun while it lasted, but the bill is going to be enormous when it's presented.

[Jim T]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmmmm, which were the first countries to declare war on Nazi Germany? When did America join the war?

[/ QUOTE ]

Which "sphere of influence" was Germany in? Who had defense treaties and alliances with Checkoslovakia and Poland?

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
The usual mixture of half-truths,

[/ QUOTE ]

Which ones?

[ QUOTE ]
faulty comparisons,

[/ QUOTE ]

Which ones?

[ QUOTE ]
and bravado that passes for political analysis in the post-9/11 era.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain.

[ QUOTE ]
I am always amused when I see that "Reagan ended the Cold War." Usually, the phrasing is that Reagan won the Cold War. It is akin to saying Keith Foulke won the World Series because he got the last batter to ground out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is at all a realistic comparison. Reagan's policies and political decisions were definately directly responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. Sure there were other influences, but none as powerful, or important, than the United States actions under Reagan.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, it was the American statesmen who Reagan always accused of cowardice, appeasement, and malfeasance who won the Cold War.

[/ QUOTE ]

What?? Please explain this.

[ QUOTE ]
By the time Reagan came into office, the Soviet Union was broke both economically and structurally.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it was not. When Reagan came into office the Soviet Union was still alive and kicking. Granted it was never on a par with the United States power, but it WAS a threat. Reagans escatlation of the arms battle and his hardline stances that caused the Soviet Union to eventaully collapse. (Forget that the political and economic systems in place would inevitably fail without incredible technological advancements)

[ QUOTE ]
And, of couse, the fight against the "perfidious crusade" by "fanatic Muslims" is equated with the United States' invasion of Iraq. Didn't we learn our lessons from the appeasement of Hitler? The right is correctly incensed when Bush is ridiculously compared, by some on the far left, with Hitler, but sees nothing wrong with using the comparison between a prostrate and hemmed in Saddam Hussien with him, the better to deflect any criticism or move toward anything that smacks of tolerance or accommodation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say. I will say this, only an idiot would honestly attempt to compare GWB to Hitler. It is much more appropriate to compare the actions of Eurpoe in reference to their dealing with Hitler and Hussein.

[Jim T]

"In fact, it was the American statesmen who Reagan always accused of cowardice, appeasement, and malfeasance who won the Cold War."

While I have issues with much of your post, this seems to be the most objectionable.

1. Which "American statesmen" "won the Cold War" instead of Reagan? I would certainly like to be able to appreciate their accomplishment(s).

2. When did Reagan ever accuse those specific Americans of "cowardice, appeasement, and malfeasance"? I can't recall him ever making such statements regarding any Americans, and I certainly can't imagine him making statements to that effect regarding Americans who were apparently so instumental in defeating the USSR and it's "evil empire".

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmmmm, which were the first countries to declare war on Nazi Germany? When did America join the war?

[/ QUOTE ]

America was not in an appeasement mode, we were in the "it's on the other side of the planet" mode. Which was also a huge mistake that we haven't really repeated. This is not the case with continental Europe.

I think you need to reread the reasoning behind the leaders decisions, as well as the subsequent history, before making a comment based on pure dates/numbers. BTW, the US was very well involved in the war long before we declared war.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
A comparison that may be more apt than the Hitler/Hussein (or the Hitler/Bush) comparison: Before Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat negotiated their peace agreement, Egypt had been the most fanatical opponent of Israel. Sadat himself was a military man who had had extreme right-wing sentiments earlier in his life (bordering on Nazi sympathy) and Begain was the mastermind of the terror campaign of the Irgun that drove Britain out of Palestine. Two more unlikely peacemakers, both in personal terms and in terms of the emnity between their countries, could not be imagined. Yet precisely through accommodation and tolerance, they made an improbable peace that has lasted these many years.

Sometimes there's a more nuanced policy that leads to better results than just shooting your enemy at dawn.

[/ QUOTE ]

The key word there is "sometimes." In the case of the Cold War, clearly so, and likewise in the case of the Israeli/Egypt; but I don't believe the case with Saddam's regime to have been one of those "sometimes" when accomodation would have been the best choice (not for us, nor for the region as a whole, nor for the Iraqis themselves: all were harmed by Saddam's holding power).

[andyfox]

Half-truths:

"Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements. Appeasement stabilized communism in the Soviet Union and East Germany in that part of Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities."

And also the paragraph that talks about the 300,000 in Hussein's death camps. While Europe certainly should have to answer for their policies in both regards, to say that appeasement was what cost the Jews lives in the holocaust or in Hussein's Iraq ignores internal conditions in Germnay and Iraq and the responsibility of other parties. Half true at best.

Faulty comparisons: Husssein with Hitler. Appeasment of one with appeasement of the other.

Bravado: no accommodation, no negotiation, no understanding, we're simply up against fanatical Islamic fascists, just hit 'em over the head until they stop hitting us.

As for Reagan's policies being directly responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union, is just isn't so. In fact Reagan was highly critical of United States foreign policy that was partly responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. The inherent contradictions of the Soviet brand of Communisimm which you allude to, and the fact that they spent themselves into bankruptcy were also factors. I've addressed this issue, as well, in my response to Adios.

The Soviet Union was alive but hardly kicking when Reagan came into office. We always overestimated both the vigor of the Soviet military machine and the vigor of its economy.

[Jim T]

[ QUOTE ]


It's not an aggressive policy that I object to; it's the inability to temper an aggressive policy with any tolerance or accommodation or compromise or negotiation that I see as the danger in what the original cited
article posited and that I see in much of the neo-con worldview which guides the Bush administration. As Tom pointed out, Reagan, for example, negotiated arms reductions with the Soviets. It doesn't mean that he wasn't tough (or, to continue our analogy, an effective closing relief pitcher); it means that he was pragmatic, that there were times when accommodation, even with the Evil Empire, was +EV.
...

Sometimes there's a more nuanced policy that leads to better results than just shooting your enemy at dawn.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean like dithering at the UN for a year and a half? Giving Saddam an 11th hour out (or more like an 11:59 hour out)? Not annihilating Sadr and (the remainder of) his followers, and instead letting him play politician? I could go on with many, many more examples of the Bush Admin's forebearance in Iraq.

Then let's go into their policy regarding N. Korea. What force have we used against Kim Jong Il?

What have we done with regard to Iran, even in the face of it's support for the "insurgents" in Iraq?

Similar commments for Syria.

And how about that impressive miltary showing in Libya that brought Kaddafy to his knees!

Yep, the Bush Doctrine is obviously: "Shoot first, shoot later, who needs questions or negotiations?"

Don't let little things like facts get in the way of a good mischaracterisation.

[andyfox]

1. Truman began the Cold War. Immediately upon taking office, he was taken abackby what he saw as Soviet perfidy and failure to keep their agreements, as he understood them. The Truman Doctrine asserted that we were going to fight Communism and it was backed up with aid to Greece and Turkey. He began the arms race as well, committing us to developing the hydrogen bomb. He committed us to fighting in Korea.

Eisenhower and Dulles brought the techniques of subversion of what they saw as unfriendly governments into the battle. In Iran and in Guatemala, they saw their subversion of leftist governments as something which would keep the Soviets from gaining inflluence in the middle east and in Latin America.

Kennedy, of course, was an ardent Cold Warrior, and expanded our commitment to fighting Communism in the Far East and stood up to the Soviets in Cuba, also trying to overthrow Castro in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. LBJ was party to the United States secret foreign policy in Guatemala and Iraq while the leader in the Senate in the 1950s and committed half a million troops to defending "freedom" in Vietnam, also invading the Dominican Republic to counter "Soviet" influence.

While Nixon was the author of detente and a rapprochement with Communist China, he also was responsible for getting rid of Allend in Chile and refusing to pull out unconditionally from Southeast Asia.

The countering of Soviet power and the defeat of Communism was thus a constant of United States policy all during the Cold War from its very inception in 1945.

2. I'll address your question about Reagan in a separate post later.

[Jim T]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Truman began the Cold War. Immediately upon taking office, he was taken abackby what he saw as Soviet perfidy and failure to keep their agreements, as he understood them. The Truman Doctrine asserted that we were going to fight Communism and it was backed up with aid to Greece and Turkey. He began the arms race as well, committing us to developing the hydrogen bomb. He committed us to fighting in Korea.

Eisenhower and Dulles brought the techniques of subversion of what they saw as unfriendly governments into the battle. In Iran and in Guatemala, they saw their subversion of leftist governments as something which would keep the Soviets from gaining inflluence in the middle east and in Latin America.

Kennedy, of course, was an ardent Cold Warrior, and expanded our commitment to fighting Communism in the Far East and stood up to the Soviets in Cuba, also trying to overthrow Castro in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. LBJ was party to the United States secret foreign policy in Guatemala and Iraq while the leader in the Senate in the 1950s and committed half a million troops to defending "freedom" in Vietnam, also invading the Dominican Republic to counter "Soviet" influence.

While Nixon was the author of detente and a rapprochement with Communist China, he also was responsible for getting rid of Allend in Chile and refusing to pull out unconditionally from Southeast Asia.

The countering of Soviet power and the defeat of Communism was thus a constant of United States policy all during the Cold War from its very inception in 1945.



[/ QUOTE ]

Who is questioning the contributions of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, et al towards the Cold War? You did say that you'd respond to my 2nd question later, but I find it VERY hard to believe that Reagan made the statements you ascribe to him about any of the people you listed.

Obviously when you have a decades long, world-wide struggle, there are going to be many, many, many people who make various and sundry contributions which can help and/or hurt. So talking about any single person as being soley responsible for winning it is absurd if the question is taken literally. I think that Reagan is the logical choice for the person who was most responsible for the end of the USSR however.

The analogy which I think may best explain is if I claimed that the generalship of Grant won the Civil War. To which someone responded that he didn't "really" win the Civil War. He just took the army that McClellan made so McClellan was "really" the general most responsible for the victory. Or someone responds that the South couldn't really compete with the North anyway due to it's lack of manpower, manufacturing, transportation, inefficiencies of slavery, etc., etc., etc. so the Union's victory was inevitable anyway - therefore all Grant did was waste a bunch of lives.

To point out that countering and defeating the Soviets was our policy from 1945 on is like pointing out that the Union was trying to win the Civil War from 1861 on. True but ultimately irrelevant to the question. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy et al tried to win the Cold War just like McClellan, Hooker, Burnside tried to win the Civil War. You could say that Reagan was fortunate with regard to timing, but you could make the same argument about Grant.

[andyfox]

Try reading what I said again.

The originally cited article from this thread was an argument against nuanced policy, against tolerance or accommodation or "appeasement." The neocon worldview is remarkably similar to this argument. And much of that worldview indeed guides the Bush administration.

This doesn't mean they their policy is shoot first, shoot later, etc.

However, it is evident that many neocons in the Bush adminstration and advising it had made up its mind about what to do about Hussein before 9/11.

[andyfox]

"I think that Reagan is the logical choice for the person who was most responsible for the end of the USSR however."

I think that's absurd. While you say "who is questioning the contributions of Truman . . . " it was precisely Reagan who questioned their contributions, saying for many years that their indifference to the threat and their incompetence in the face of it, would doom us to a thousand years of darkness.

[Jim T]

[ QUOTE ]
"I think that Reagan is the logical choice for the person who was most responsible for the end of the USSR however."

I think that's absurd. While you say "who is questioning the contributions of Truman . . . " it was precisely Reagan who questioned their contributions, saying for many years that their indifference to the threat and their incompetence in the face of it, would doom us to a thousand years of darkness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you are refering to his 1964 speech (http://www.presidentreagan.info/speeches/the_speech.cfm) in support of Barry Goldwater where he concluded:

" You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done."

Odd how he could be said to be critizing Truman, Kennedy, Eisenhower, etc. and their handling of the Cold War when he's talking of a FIRST STEP - in 1964. And let's leave aside the pretty obvious fact that he is talking about domestic policies, not the Cold War.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
In most conflicts in the world of one the three groups is involved. All three groups have put very little effort into international cooperation. All three groups have inhumane moral values.

[/ QUOTE ]

International cooperation is overrated. It has its place but isnt the panacea that some would make it out to be. Secondly lets assume that your premise of lack of international cooperation is a common thread amongst the three group is true, it hardly makes the three groups equal in terms of them being a threat to the world.

Also as a member of the "American right wing" I would like to know what inhumane values I hold.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
These three items are likely the most dangerous threats to the world torday. This is not just a European view but is shared by almost everyone who is not in one of these three groups.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wishful thinking doesnt make that so. Just so, even if that is a true statment, so what? That doesnt make them thinking those things true.

[ QUOTE ]
All religions (at least as practiced) and tolerance are mutally exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
International cooperation is overrated. It has its place but isnt the panacea that some would make it out to be.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL. This has made Europe into a peaceful continent, it has gradually made Asia into a peaceful continent. This kind of statement shows lack of historical perspective. Tens of millions of youths were killed during the two world wars. Instead of hatred, the countries managed to create understanding (unlike those three groups mentioned).


[ QUOTE ]
Secondly lets assume that your premise of lack of international cooperation is a common thread amongst the three group is true, it hardly makes the three groups equal in terms of them being a threat to the world.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I rank them as follows:
1. American right, not from insanity but from size of power and lack of intelligently applying it and enlarging group 2.
2. Moslem fundamentalists, can destabalize a lot of countries.
3. Israel, as enlarging group 2.

[ QUOTE ]
Also as a member of the "American right wing" I would like to know what inhumane values I hold.

[/ QUOTE ]
Death penalty, torture, preventive attack in residential areas.

[PhatTBoll]

I'm sure having American bases dotting the continent has had nothing to do with the peace in Europe.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure having American bases dotting the continent has had nothing to do with the peace in Europe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Played a major role after World War II. Now, without effect.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL. This has made Europe into a peaceful continent, it has gradually made Asia into a peaceful continent. This kind of statement shows lack of historical perspective. Tens of millions of youths were killed during the two world wars. Instead of hatred, the countries managed to create understanding (unlike those three groups mentioned).


[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. War, go figure, is what brought peace to Europe. And by the way, I havent seen much in the way of cooperation in the former republic of Yugoslavia. As for Asia, why is it that Japan is the country it is now? Oh yeah, international cooperation...not.

[ QUOTE ]
No, I rank them as follows:
1. American right, not from insanity but from size of power and lack of intelligently applying it and enlarging group 2.
2. Moslem fundamentalists, can destabalize a lot of countries.
3. Israel, as enlarging group 2.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you privy to some terrorist census that none of the rest of us are ? The one that tells you how many terrorists have been "created". Well , guess what, America tried the "other way" and it resulted in terrorists ramming commercial airplanes into American buildings.



[ QUOTE ]
Death penalty, torture, preventive attack in residential areas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Death penalty- I dont support this. You are right the majority of the right does. Im not quite sure how supporting this puts us in the top 3 threats to the world.

Torture- Wrong.

Preventive attack in residential areas- Sorry thats war. Its an ugly thing. If terrorists want to hide in the neighborhoods, thats where they are going to be hit. Fact of the matter is that the American military goes to great lengths to prevent civilian casualties. They still happen and no one likes it.

[Stan the man]

[ QUOTE ]
International cooperation is overrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Education is underrated in America.

[ QUOTE ]
Torture- Wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bullshit. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Preventive attack in residential areas- Sorry thats war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats war? /images/graemlins/frown.gif Did you know that every war is wrong?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Education is underrated in America.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont completely disagree with you. Whats your point?

[ QUOTE ]
Bullshit

[/ QUOTE ]

Find me something that proves that the American right condones and espouses torture. And define exactly what you mean by torture.

[ QUOTE ]
Thats war? Did you know that every war is wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

No I didnt know that. I was under the impression that WWII stopped attempted genocide by Nazi Germany. I guess that was wrong.

[zaxx19]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL. This has made Europe into a peaceful continent

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I have to show my friend from Srarjevo this post he is gonna have a good laugh....

[Stan the man]

[ QUOTE ]
Whats your point?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that international cooperation is overrated, then You and your friends need more education.

[ QUOTE ]
Find me something that proves that the American right condones and espouses torture. And define exactly what you mean by torture.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care about this sh*t (politics forum) so find your sources yourself! /images/graemlins/mad.gif (hint: try Google)

[ QUOTE ]
No I didnt know that. I was under the impression that WWII stopped attempted genocide by Nazi Germany. I guess that was wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about Vietnam and Iraq? If you think that war's are right, then you are just an idiot. (hint: more international cooperation = less war's )

[zaxx19]

[ QUOTE ]
If you think that war's are right, then you are just an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think the whole world is like Scandanavia.........

[andyfox]

Reagan had been giving speeches on foreign policy for many years before his speech at the 1964 Republican Convention. But in that speech you cite, he took the Democratic Party to task for being Socialist and Communist. He was talking not of taking a first step in that criticism, but of its past policies:

"February 19 at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for Presdient on the Socialist Party ticket, said, 'If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States,' I think that's exactly what he will do.

"But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the Amreican people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returtned til the day he died--because to this day, the leadership of that Party hads been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socilaist Party of England."

[Regan didn't make clear how somebody could, in 1936, draw parallels to "the present administration" in 1964, but it is clear he meant the Democratic party's long "administration" of federal policy from FDR's time to LBJ's.]

Reagan on the Carter administration: "We now [1980] enter one of the most dangerous decades of Western civilization."
He claimed Vietnam had "annexed" Indochina, that Castro was turing the Caribbean into a "red sea" that would engulf Mexico. Carter had led the country through an era of "vacillation, appeasement and aimlessness," the result of which was that "we find ourselves increasingly in a position of dangerous isolation." Several times in the campaign he compared American policy toward the Soviet Union to the Allied appeasement of Hitler. "I believe we are seeing the same situation as when Mr. Chamberlain was tapping the cobblestones of Munich." Carter had made a "shambles" of defense because he was "totally oblivious to the Soviet drive for world domination." The United States was "unilaterally disarming." The country, he warned, "is in greater danger today that it was on the day of Pearl Harbor."

Going back to 1976, Reagan charged Ford and Kissinger with recklessness. He said Kissinger had presided over the loss of American power and that President Ford had shown "neither the vision nor the leadership necessary to halt and reverse the diplomatic amd military decline of the United States."

But all this was nothing new. Reagans' advisers called his speeches, "The Speech," because he made the same one countless times. His campaign manager John Sears said, "There's a generation gap between what Reagan thinks he knows about the world and the reality. His is a kind of 1952 world. He sees the world in black and white terms." And, indeed, Reagan had learned his politics in the 1950s, from the Republican right, the part of the party dominated by Robert Taft. He had made similar comments about the foreign policies of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson. For example, remarking about Johnson's Vietnam policy, Reagan said (on October 19, 1965): "It's silly talking about how many years we will have to spend in the jungles of Vietnam when we could pave tehw hole country and put parking strips o nit, and be home by Christmas." [As late as October 16, 1967, he said "I have a feeling that we are doing beter in the war than the people have been told."]

We can debate whether Reagan was right or wrong in his assessments. But there is no question he was a constant and longstanding critic of American foreign policy as conducted by both the Democrats and Republicans since the onset of the Cold War.

[ACPlayer]

Me thinks perchance you are the one guilty of wishful thinking. Both in your assessment of the dangers to the world of foreign piolicy and the tolerance of religions.

But then the right wingers on the forum are usually not guilty of even attempting any introspection.

[ QUOTE ]
Wishful thinking doesnt make that so. Just so, even if that is a true statment, so what? That doesnt make them thinking those things true.

[/ QUOTE ]

My semantic analyzer broke down on this paragraph. What the dickens does it mean.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
If you think that international cooperation is overrated, then You and your friends need more education.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are confusing the words overrated and useless. In a perfect world, we could always work things out through "international cooperation". I am quite sure we dont live in a perfect world and am quite sure that the primary threat to the world (which I happen to agree with Arfinn on) , Islamic fundamentalism, specifically the form that encourages terrorist acts, has little desire for international cooperation and most of Europes' response to this #1 threat is to put their heads in the sand.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't care about this sh*t (politics forum) so find your sources yourself! (hint: try Google)

[/ QUOTE ]

If you dont care, why post here? Also, you made the assertion, not me, hence the onus is on you to provide evidence. Without that, your argument is dead in the water already.

[ QUOTE ]
How about Vietnam and Iraq? If you think that war's are right, then you are just an idiot. (hint: more international cooperation = less war's )


[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think "wars are right". I think war is often a necessary act. Please answer my question about WWII and the prevention of genocide by the Nazis. Was that a necessary war? Did it not serve a very noble and moral end?

And please leave the stupid insults out of your next post. Also try providing some facts, some reasoning. I might think arfinn is a wacko but generally speaking, he does those things to some degree and in some cases puts together a cogent argument.

[vulturesrow]

Weak reply AC, I expect more from you. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


First off, I dont believe anything that we have done foreign policy wise during this administration has been a danger to the world. You obviously feel differently. I think history is going to prove me right on this one. We shall see.

As for your assertion regarding the tolerance of religion, I invite you to investigate some of the following:


<ul type="square"> Pope John XIII's Encyclical, Pacem in terris, dated April 11, 1963 Second Vatican Council's Declaration, Dignitatis humanae, promulgated on December 7, 1965 Redemptor Hominis, an encyclical by Pope John Paul II [/list]


Admittedly, my viewpoint is Catholic-centric. And I am well aware of the fact that some people twist religion to suit their ends. Yes religion, at least Christianity, is intolerant of sins. I dont think you would argue against say the evil of rape. But but I wouldnt say you were "intolerant" in the usual sense of the word. Same thing applies to religion I believe.

[andyfox]

"I think war is often a necessary act."

Often?

[Stan the man]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are confusing the words overrated and useless. In a perfect world, we could always work things out through "international cooperation". I am quite sure we dont live in a perfect world

[/ QUOTE ]

More cooperation = less war's

[ QUOTE ]
am quite sure that the primary threat to the world Islamic fundamentalism, specifically the form that encourages terrorist acts

[/ QUOTE ]

Primary threat to the world? They are primary threat to America and Israel, not to the world. American right wing lunatics are the primary threat to the world.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you made the assertion, not me, hence the onus is on you to provide evidence. Without that, your argument is dead in the water already.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK,Link (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/14/afghan10320.htm)

[ QUOTE ]
Please answer my question about WWII and the prevention of genocide by the Nazis. Was that a necessary war?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, but so what? Unnecessary war's vs. necessary war's 100-1 or something like that.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Primary threat to the world? They are primary threat to America and Israel, not to the world. American right wing lunatics are the primary threat to the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ask the Spanish and the Filipinos for starters if they think Islamic terrorists are only a threat to the US and Israel.



[ QUOTE ]
OK,Link

[/ QUOTE ]

Your link does nothing to support the assertion that the American right supports or condones torture.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe, but so what? Unnecessary war's vs. necessary war's 100-1 or something like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow nice made up stat. My point was that war is sometimes a necessary and correct action.

[Stan the man]

[ QUOTE ]
Ask the Spanish and the Filipinos for starters if they think Islamic terrorists are only a threat to the US and Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Weak, 4 countries.

[ QUOTE ]
Wow nice made up stat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it is made up stat. My point is that, virtually every war is unnecessary.

[ QUOTE ]
I think war is often a necessary act.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
My point was that war is sometimes a necessary and correct action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Often and sometimes /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[theBruiser500]

"Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo and we Europeans debated and debated until the Americans came in and did our work for us."

I've read that genocide was a tiny problem compared to what it became AFTER the US started bombing the area

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
Torture- Wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

One example, independent Amnesty on Guantanamo:
Amnesty on Guantanamo (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510022005)

Or an a more general basis, here:
Amnesty on human rights in USA (http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/usa-summary-eng)

In addition there is revealed several cases where US has lobbied to transfer prisoners to countries which use torture.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. This has made Europe into a peaceful continent

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I have to show my friend from Srarjevo this post he is gonna have a good laugh....

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there any war there now? I speak of the current. To your info, both Croatia and Serbia wants to get closer ties with the EU. This reduces the chance that they will conduct atrocities against the moslems in Sarajevo again.

[ACPlayer]

The intolerance of religion is fact not opinion.

As I mentioned in another post in this thread, the intolerance of religion begins with the concept of the religion being the Right. Christianity (as practiced -- not necesssarily the core theology -- this is true of Islam as well) looks down on non christians as heathens, Muslims consider non-moslims as infidels, Jews consider themselves the "Chosen" people. The intolerance may not be that of color etc(though some christian churches in the past have used scripture to accept slavery etc), but in its own way it is intolerance. Few religions start out by accepting that each way of getting to God is just as good as any other way (Sikhism is one that codifies this concept in the first lines of its texts) and most religions spend a great deal of time and and effort in trying to get people to follow their particular rituals (and of course contribute to the political organization that they really are).

So, the politics of groups creates the intolerance.

Regarding Catholics, I suggest that its views on the role of women in the church hierarchy, its positions on homosexuals, be reconsidered before it can even begin to consider itself tolerant. Again this is my opinion as are all position on tolerance. Of course I know that the pope will kiss a black baby in addition to the white, brown and green ones.



Regarding the middle east, perhaps history will prove you right. The short term history of the past two years has clearly demonstrated that the administration was wrong (IMO) -- but that is a battle of opinions.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

Ask the Spanish and the Filipinos for starters if they think Islamic terrorists are only a threat to the US and Israel.

---------------------------------

Weak, 4 countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a lot more than just 4 countries that have been attacked by Islamic terrorists. Just of the top of my head, let's add Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Iraq, Malaysia, Egypt. I'm sure there are others if you'd care to research it.

[twowords]

Well theres still no doubt that the US is target #1 and Isreal is target #2. Anyone really think that this is NOT primarily a product of the foreign policies of these two countries?

I am quite sure it is. Most recently, the War in Iraq has widened the islamic terror following significantly by many accounts. Anyone actually doubt that?

If the above points are agreed than perhaps we can agree to consider a change in our (US) foreign policy. The US is not all powerful, it is in fact in a relative economic decline, we cannot enforce any sort of world peace on our own (as W is trying to do). We must look to work with the world community and we do need the support of our traditional alllies in Europe. Not just for the sake of everyone but for the sake of the US itself (for you realists). This problem with the islamic terrorists and global anti-americanism is beyond the capabilities of the US military. Please realize this.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
And also the paragraph that talks about the 300,000 in Hussein's death camps. While Europe certainly should have to answer for their policies in both regards, to say that appeasement was what cost the Jews lives in the holocaust or in Hussein's Iraq ignores internal conditions in Germnay and Iraq and the responsibility of other parties. Half true at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

While the internal situations in Germany certainly had some influence in the holocaust, if cannot be said that any one thing was more responsible (besides those perpetrating it) than European appeasement. It is somewhat understandable, honestly, that Europe would favor appeasement in the case of Hitler's Germany. After suffering through the horror of the Great War, they simply did not have the desire to face anything like that again. Yet, face it they did, BECAUSE of their unwillingness to face the threat. In doing so now, which I believe they most certainly are, they are making themselves culpable for whatever comes at them in the future. They failed to learn their lesson, and they will reap what they sow. If you honestly think that the radical Islamic terrorists will not attack you because you don't oppose them, you are a fool. In essence, your attempt to paint appeasement being a cause as a half truth is not intellectually honest. Aside from those directly responsible for the horrors, the appeasers are the most responsible.

[ QUOTE ]
Faulty comparisons: Husssein with Hitler. Appeasment of one with appeasement of the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that the comparison is unfair. But I do see why you would say so. The problem is that the US didn't appease Hussein, we stood up to him when he attacked Kuwait. We then kept the pressure on him despite Europes inaction and illegal dealings. Is it any wonder that France, Germany, and Russia opposed the US resuming hostilities with Iraq when they were essentially in Hussein's pocket?

[ QUOTE ]
Bravado: no accommodation, no negotiation, no understanding, we're simply up against fanatical Islamic fascists, just hit 'em over the head until they stop hitting us.

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot accommodate people who's singular goal is to kill you. You cannot negotiate with people who want nothing more than you dead and your society destroyed. The problem is that those standing up DO UNDERSTAND what is at stake, its the appeasers who DO NOT UNDERSTAND what we deal with.

[ QUOTE ]
As for Reagan's policies being directly responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union, is just isn't so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Revisionist.

Who is more responsible? Gorbachev? Please, nothing would have changed in the Soviet Union, at least nothing like what happened, had it not been for the constant pressure, politically, economically, and militarily that Reagan applied. No one man was more responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union than Reagan.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact Reagan was highly critical of United States foreign policy that was partly responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cite this please.

[ QUOTE ]
The inherent contradictions of the Soviet brand of Communisimm which you allude to, and the fact that they spent themselves into bankruptcy were also factors. I've addressed this issue, as well, in my response to Adios.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I do accept that they are factors. However, there was no impending collapse pre Reagan. Regean and his policies were the catalyst. You just don't like it.

[ QUOTE ]
The Soviet Union was alive but hardly kicking when Reagan came into office. We always overestimated both the vigor of the Soviet military machine and the vigor of its economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but to not consider them a threat would have been absurd. They may not have been able to win a war with the US or win economically. However, mutually assured destruction was certainly a possibility.

[jaxmike]

Roflmao. No, they were the cause, not the effect.

[andyfox]

For some of Reagan's criticisms of U.S. Cold War policy, see my last post to Jim T. He was always a critic, claiming that we were falling behind and not doing enough to combat the Soviets. According to his own autobiography written in 1965 ("Where's the Rest of Me?") he had been giving "the Speech" for the last fifteen years, so his critique dates back, by his own account, to 1950. This would make sense as it was about that time that he was feeling Communist pressure in the motion picture industry while he was active in the Screen Actors Guild and switched from being a New Deal Democrat to a conservative Republican.

[jaxmike]

What you are talking about and I am talking about are two different things. In fact, what you refer to only bolsters my position. I say that Reagan was most responsible for ending the Cold War. You reply by saying Reagan was a critic of the US policies that led to the end of the Cold War. However, you don't admit that you refer to policies that Reagan changed when he came into office.

Your argument is a joke.

[andyfox]

I say the Reagan had very little to do with ending the Cold War. It was winding down. The Soviet Union was bankrupt in every sense of the word. In fact, Boris Yeltsin was passed out drunk at the meeting where Gorbachev officially disbanded the Soviet Union. It was the Soviet Union that was a joke at that point. The United States leaders who fought the Cold War were always roundly criticized by Reagan for being incompetent and for not doing enough in fighting it. And yet the way they fought it led to the USSR's bankruptcy. What policies did Reagan change when he came into office that led to the disbanding of the USSR?

[andyfox]

It has become conventional wisdom that it was the relentlessly tough anti-communist policies of the Reagan Administration, with its heated-up arms race, that led to the collapse and reformation of the Soviet Union and its satellites. American history books may have already begun to chisel this thesis into marble. The Tories in Great Britain say that Margaret Thatcher and her unflinching policies contributed to the miracle as well. The East Germans were believers too.

When Ronald Reagan visited East Berlin, the people there cheered him and thanked him "for his role in liberating the East". Even many leftist analysts, particularly those of a conspiracy bent, are believers. But this view is not universally held; nor should it be. Long the leading Soviet expert on the United States, Georgi Arbatov, head of the Moscow-based Institute for the Study of the U.S.A. and Canada, wrote his memoirs in 1992. A Los Angeles Times book review by Robert Scheer summed up a portion of it:

"Arbatov understood all too well the failings of Soviet totalitarianism in comparison to the economy and politics of the West. It is clear from this candid and nuanced memoir that the movement for change had been developing steadily inside the highest corridors of power ever since the death of Stalin. Arbatov not only provides considerable evidence for the controversial notion that this change would have come about without foreign pressure, he insists that the U.S. military buildup during the Reagan years actually impeded this development."

George F. Kennan agreed. The former US ambassador to the Soviet Union, and father of the theory of "containment" of the same country, asserted that "the suggestion that any United States administration had the power to influence decisively the course of a tremendous domestic political upheaval in another great country on another side of the globe is simply childish." He contended that the extreme militarization of American policy strengthened hard-liners in the Soviet Union. "Thus the general effect of Cold War extremism was to delay rather than hasten the great change that overtook the Soviet Union."

Though the arms-race spending undoubtedly damaged the fabric of the Soviet civilian economy and society even more than it did in the United States, this had been going on for 40 years by the time Mikhail Gorbachev came to power without the slightest hint of impending doom. Gorbachev's close adviser, Aleksandr Yakovlev, when asked whether the Reagan administration's higher military spending, combined with its "Evil Empire" rhetoric, forced the Soviet Union into a more conciliatory position, responded:

"It played no role. None. I can tell you that with the fullest responsibility. Gorbachev and I were ready for changes in our policy regardless of whether the American president was Reagan, or Kennedy, or someone even more liberal. It was clear that our military spending was enormous and we had to reduce it."

Understandably, some Russians might be reluctant to admit that they were forced to make revolutionary changes by their arch enemy, to admit that they lost the Cold War. However, on this question we don't have to rely on the opinion of any individual, Russian or American. We merely have to look at the historical facts. From the late 1940s to around the mid-1960s, it was an American policy objective to instigate the downfall of the Soviet government as well as several Eastern European regimes. Many hundreds of Russian exiles were organized, trained and equipped by the CIA, then sneaked back into their homeland to set up espionage rings, to stir up armed political struggle, and to carry out acts of assassination and sabotage, such as derailing trains, wrecking bridges, damaging arms factories and power plants, and so on.

The Soviet government, which captured many of these men, was of course fully aware of who was behind all this.

What were the fruits of this ultra-tough anti-communist policy? Repeated serious confrontations between the United States and the Soviet Union in Berlin, Cuba and elsewhere, the Soviet interventions into Hungary and Czechoslovakia, creation of the Warsaw Pact (in direct reaction to NATO), no glasnost, no perestroika, only pervasive suspicion, cynicism and hostility on both sides.

It turned out that the Russians were human after all -- they responded to toughness with toughness. And the corollary: there was for many years a close correlation between the amicability of US-Soviet relations and the number of Jews allowed to emigrate from the Soviet Union. Softness produced softness. If there's anyone to attribute the changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to, both the beneficial ones and those questionable, it is of course Mikhail Gorbachev and the activists he inspired.

It should be remembered that Reagan was in office for over four years before Gorbachev came to power, and Thatcher for six years, but in that period of time nothing of any significance in the way of Soviet reform took place despite Reagan's and Thatcher's unremitting malice toward the communist state.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Well theres still no doubt that the US is target #1 and Isreal is target #2. Anyone really think that this is NOT primarily a product of the foreign policies of these two countries?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think al-Qaeda's attacks are primarily NOT due to American and Israeli policy.

They have attacked any country, including Saudi Arabia, that does not subscribe to their extremely narrow and totalitarian religious worldview.

They call the entire Arabian peninsula "Arab lands", and want all non-Arabs out of the Middle East, which is a very Islamofascist and Arab Imperialist sort of perspective.

They demanded that the U.S. convert to Islam.

They consider the lives of all who do not subscribe to their narrow worldview, to be worthless.

They are totally fanatical. That in my opinion is the primary problem and primary root cause of their attacks.

This is not to say that certain foreign policies may not have exacerbated things somewhat. However foreign policy is far from the root cause.

These al-Qaeda terrorists are simply not rational people in the sense that you and I are rational. The ONLY thing that makes any sense to them is the literal interpretation of the Koran.

[jaxmike]

You will believe what you want. Revisionist history is a favorite of your type.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
I say the Reagan had very little to do with ending the Cold War. It was winding down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove it.

[ QUOTE ]
The Soviet Union was bankrupt in every sense of the word.

[/ QUOTE ]


Prove it.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, Boris Yeltsin was passed out drunk at the meeting where Gorbachev officially disbanded the Soviet Union.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is totally unrelated to your point that Reagan didn't win the Cold War.

[ QUOTE ]
It was the Soviet Union that was a joke at that point.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was not a joke.

[ QUOTE ]
The United States leaders who fought the Cold War were always roundly criticized by Reagan for being incompetent and for not doing enough in fighting it.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you find it odd, yet totally unrelated that it ended under his leadership. Naieve, and on purpose no less.

[ QUOTE ]
And yet the way they fought it led to the USSR's bankruptcy. What policies did Reagan change when he came into office that led to the disbanding of the USSR?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. Increased political pressure on the USSR. Increased production of military equiptment which led to military and economic pressure on the USSR. Gorbachev inherited an empire that was indeed in trouble, in a few short years Reagan had done more to end the cold war than any prior President. Gorbachev disbanding the Soviet Union was in RESPONSE to the conditions that were developing within Russia. If he would not have done what he did, he WOULD have been overthrown through use of force (more than what actually happened).

Tell me how you can honestly sit here and tell me how Reagan was not the key actor in ending the Cold War. Is it just coincidence that as soon as he was elected he started to put pressure on the USSR and then, after almost a decade the Berlin Wall was torn down. Your dream world does not exist. Reagan WAS the primary force behind the defeat of the Evil Empire.

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well theres still no doubt that the US is target #1 and Isreal is target #2. Anyone really think that this is NOT primarily a product of the foreign policies of these two countries?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think al-Qaeda's attacks are primarily NOT due to American and Israeli policy.

They have attacked any country, including Saudi Arabia, that does not subscribe to their extremely narrow and totalitarian religious worldview.

They call the entire Arabian peninsula "Arab lands", and want all non-Arabs out of the Middle East, which is a very Islamofascist and Arab Imperialist sort of perspective.

They demanded that the U.S. convert to Islam.

They consider the lives of all who do not subscribe to their narrow worldview, to be worthless.

They are totally fanatical. That in my opinion is the primary problem and primary root cause of their attacks.

This is not to say that certain foreign policies may not have exacerbated things somewhat. However foreign policy is far from the root cause.

These al-Qaeda terrorists are simply not rational people in the sense that you and I are rational. The ONLY thing that makes any sense to them is the literal interpretation of the Koran.

[/ QUOTE ]

My thoughts:

I think your response reflects a misperception that is subscribed to by a lot of poeple in the US, including a lot of the current administration.

Osama Bin Laden had a video send out near election time. Read the english translation and I believe you will find a general summery of the terrorist mantra.

The death and destruction of the rest of the world is not their goal. They have people in the US right now no doubt. Why not attack a bunch of malls around the US? No one would shop for fear, economy gets screwed. Why not shoot up a bunch of schools? No one would go to school for a long time. They could really mess up the US right now.

They do not want Americans dead because they hate our culture or because we are not muslim. Or ok maybe they would still hate us but they would not be suicide bombing just because of this. Not most of them. Their war, the reason for the terror, is with our government but obviously the American people are paying the price.

They need reason to do these things, so how about not giving them any more reasons.

Another thing:

Even if you disagree with what I think above, consider this. If these pure, blind, fanitical killers will stop at nothing to destory every man, woman, and child who is not with them (is this really believable?), then the US STILL needs to make some serious policy changes. A "War on Terror" is not winnable by the US alone. We need a united front. The US is not all-powerful, more and more will defy unilateral US action. If Europe condemns us, the terrorists are encouraged. Reports say the terrorists in Iraq believe the world is on their side. Maybe they fight on hoping some may eventually come to their aide.

But who would defy a combined powers stance against terrorism/rouge nuclear states? Unilateral action like the Iraq War mulitplies our enemies and shortens our list of allies. And was our national security even at stake? Nope.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you disagree with what I think above, consider this. If these pure, blind, fanitical killers will stop at nothing to destory every man, woman, and child who is not with them (is this really believable?), then the US STILL needs to make some serious policy changes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is EUROPE that needs to make the policy changes. They need to step up and defend themselves, something they have been very poor at doing in recent times.

[ QUOTE ]
A "War on Terror" is not winnable by the US alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

People have always doubted the US, but I digress.

[ QUOTE ]
We need a united front.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, join us.

[ QUOTE ]
The US is not all-powerful, more and more will defy unilateral US action.

[/ QUOTE ]

And do what exactly?

[ QUOTE ]
If Europe condemns us, the terrorists are encouraged.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, stop fighting us, and help us.

[ QUOTE ]
Reports say the terrorists in Iraq believe the world is on their side. Maybe they fight on hoping some may eventually come to their aide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who? Who is going to actually stand against the US? Who is actually on their side? Why not SHOW them that you don't want them to win. Join us, fight for your freedom.

[ QUOTE ]
But who would defy a combined powers stance against terrorism/rouge nuclear states? Unilateral action like the Iraq War mulitplies our enemies and shortens our list of allies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Europe chose to side with the money, not what was right.

[ QUOTE ]
And was our national security even at stake? Nope.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess billions of dollars in physical damage, billions in financial damage, and thousands of lives do not constitute a threat to our national security.

[twowords]

Iraq did not attack us on Sept 11, sigh.

Bottom line is Europe and all the naysayers were right. The war in Iraq has been a huge mistake. Over a thousand Americans are dead, tens of thousands of Iraqis (most civilians) are dead, Iraq is a war zone. Is Iraq better off in the LR? Hopefully. Is the US? No way jose. Our allies are fewer and we have added all sorts of fuel to the fire that is Islamic terrorism. Agree to a foreign policy which actually goes to war as a last resort, actually values alllies, and actually views US national security as the ONLY reason for a agressive war. Please. Again Iraq did not attack us, it was not a threat to us or even its neighbors. Sadam was an ass but theres plenty of them out there. Please don't find some excuse to go after them.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Iraq did not attack us on Sept 11, sigh.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said they did.

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line is Europe and all the naysayers were right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I think that they were wrong. You have your opinion, I have mine. But you cannot make the blanket statement that they were in fact right.

[ QUOTE ]
The war in Iraq has been a huge mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I disagree. You have your opinion, I have mine.

[ QUOTE ]
Over a thousand Americans are dead, tens of thousands of Iraqis (most civilians) are dead, Iraq is a war zone. Is Iraq better off in the LR? Hopefully.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how they could be worse off in the long term.

[ QUOTE ]
Is the US? No way jose.

[/ QUOTE ]

How on Earth do you figure that???

[ QUOTE ]
Our allies are fewer and we have added all sorts of fuel to the fire that is Islamic terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may indeed be true. It may not. But you cannot say that this, in and of itself, will actually NOT make the US better off long term.

[ QUOTE ]
Agree to a foreign policy which actually goes to war as a last resort, actually values alllies, and actually views US national security as the ONLY reason for a agressive war.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because that might not be in the best interests of the US. Our foreign policy does value our allies. I would also argue that our foreign policy has not ever been to use war only as a last resort. And as to you calling Iraq an aggressive war, thats your opinon. It is simply NOT supported by the facts.

[ QUOTE ]
Please. Again Iraq did not attack us, it was not a threat to us or even its neighbors.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not really accurate or applicable. Iraq attacked Kuwait and Iran. It remained a threat to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Israel, etc. We went to war to enforce UN resolution after UN resolution. It is clear, now, that EUROPE had NO INTEREST in supporting us because they were CORRUPT.

[ QUOTE ]
Sadam was an ass but theres plenty of them out there. Please don't find some excuse to go after them.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, since Hitler never attacked the US directly (before we declared war), we never should have gone to war with Germany? THE WHOLE POINT OF THE ARTICLE IS THAT EUROPE HAS TURNED INTO COWARDS. YOU ARE SUPPORTING THIS VIEW WITH YOUR OWN RHETORIC.

[twowords]

Just a couple things:

1) If Europe thought its national security was at stake do you really think any of those countries would remain passive because of some bribes from Sadam? Iraq was not a threat to them at all, so why attack it they thought. UN Resolutions? The UN was not supportive of the War in Iraq. So is the UN relavent or not? If yes, than listen to it and don't go to war. If not, then its resolutions are meaningless and are no justification for an invasion.
2) Years of sanctions had taken its toll on Iraq. It was not the military power it was around 1980-1990 (also, resistance to the US invasion was minimal). It was not a threat to its neighbors. Any furthur action against its neighbors in the 21st century would be foolhardy with the US's itchy trigger finger in play.
3) Sadam=Hitler is so stupid an argument that I might give up on you. Think about some key differences for yourself please.

[jaxmike]

First, why do you put words into my mouth. At no time did I say that Saddam = Hitler.

[ QUOTE ]
Just a couple things:

1) If Europe thought its national security was at stake do you really think any of those countries would remain passive because of some bribes from Sadam? Iraq was not a threat to them at all, so why attack it they thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. They were in an illegal business deal. Thousands of Iraqi innocents go without food from Oil For Food, and the French and Saddam get rich.

[ QUOTE ]
UN Resolutions? The UN was not supportive of the War in Iraq. So is the UN relavent or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read what I wrote? There were many UN resolutions that Iraq failed to meet up to. The UN was not supportive of the war because they are quite anti-American. No the UN is no longer relevant.

[ QUOTE ]
If yes, than listen to it and don't go to war. If not, then its resolutions are meaningless and are no justification for an invasion.

[/ QUOTE ]

The UN became irrelevant in part because of its actions regarding Iraq. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Years of sanctions had taken its toll on Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clarify. The PEOPLE of Iraq. Because of Saddam and his European\UN counterparts.

[ QUOTE ]
It was not the military power it was around 1980-1990 (also, resistance to the US invasion was minimal). It was not a threat to its neighbors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it was. Do you think Kuwait felt safe? Israel?

[ QUOTE ]
Any furthur action against its neighbors in the 21st century would be foolhardy with the US's itchy trigger finger in play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite.

[ QUOTE ]
3) Sadam=Hitler is so stupid an argument that I might give up on you. Think about some key differences for yourself please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I never made that argument. However, there are MORE similarities between the two then differences when talking about security of their own people and their neighbors.

[twowords]

Time to take a break from Fox News, you sound like Sean Hannity. Any reply now would just be repeating myself.

If you really think Europe leadership would take $ over national security (since Iraq was a threat you say), if you really think the UN can be relavent (when making some resolutions) and irrelevent (when against Iraq war) at the same time, and if you really think the War in Iraw is EV+ for the US and for the world, then theres nothing more I can do for you.

[andyfox]

Revisionist history is often the more accurate history. Our first analysis is sometimes the result of blurry vision and lack of documentary evidence.

For example, was John Kennedy the saint we thought he was when he was assassinated? Or do we now have a better idea of what kind of person and president he was?

BTW, What is my type?

[andyfox]

"Is it just coincidence that as soon as he was elected he started to put pressure on the USSR and then, after almost a decade the Berlin Wall was torn down."

Pressure had been put on the USSR since 1945. See the thoughts of Soviet expert George Kennan in my post you labeled "revisionist," who agrees with your statement that "Gorbachev disbanding the Soviet Union was in RESPONSE to the conditions that were developing within Russia." If Reagan was president when those conditions resulted in Gorbachev ending the Soviet Union, if the United States had any contribution to those conditions, it was certainly the thiry-five odds years of pressure that Reagan's predecessors had put on the USSR, pressure which Reagan excoriate at every opportunity.

The logic of the "Reagan won the cold war" argument escapes me. According to Reagan, we did woefully little to contest the Soviet Union, and the little we did was usually incompetent, from 1945 until 1980. But then in Reagan's term they suddenly saw the light and because of the pressure Reagan put on them, they decided to disband the country.

Anyway, enough. We hijacked this thread. Please feel free to have the last words.

[jaxmike]

I need you to do nothing for me. I don't want to turn into someone like you.

The UN can be relevant, but to do so they need new leadership, desperately. Their beauracracy also must be dismantled. There far too many corrupt people working at the UN for them to be considered relevant. Afterall, who can take a Human Rights commission seriously with the nations they have on it?

The UN is a joke.