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

[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.