Aileron Posted February 8, 2005 Report Posted February 8, 2005 I'll just let the article do the talking this time. I apologize for the brackets, I recieved this article by e-mail. > Matthias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German> publisher Axel> Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in DIE> WELT, Germany's> largest daily newspaper, against the timid reaction> of Europe in the> face of the Islamic threat.> > EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE> (Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer,> AG)> > A few days ago Henry 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 toothless> agreements.> > Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in> the Soviet Union,> then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern> Europe where for> decades, inhuman, suppressive, murderous governments> were glorified as> the ideologically correct alternative to all other> possibilities.> > Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran> rampant in Kosovo, and> even though we had absolute proof of ongoing> m!@#$%^&*-murder, we Europeans> debated and debated and debated, and were still> debating when finally> the Americans had to come from halfway around the> world, into Europe yet> again, and do 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 nearly> 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder> machinery and, motivated> by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has> the gall to issue> bad grades to George Bush. Even as it is uncovered> that the loudest> critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit> billions, no, TENS> of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food> program.> > And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque> form of> appeasement... How is Germany reacting to the> escalating violence by> Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By> suggesting that we> really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany.> > I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial> fraction of our> (German) Government, and if the polls are to be> believed, the German> people, actually believe that creating an Official> State "Muslim> Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the> fanatical> Islamists.> > One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville> Chamberlain waving the> laughable treaty signed by Adolf Hitler, and> declaring European "Peace> in our time".> > 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, directed against our free,> open Western societies,> and intent upon Western Civilization's utter> destruction.> > It is a conflict that will most likely last longer> than any of the great> military conflicts of the last century - a conflict> conducted by an> enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and> "accommodation" but is> actually spurred on by such gestures, which have> proven to be, and will> always be taken by the Islamists for signs of> weakness.> > Only two recent American Presidents had the courage> needed for> anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.> > His American critics may quibble over the details,> but we Europeans know> the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended> the Cold War,> freeing half of the German people from nearly 50> years of terror and> virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the> Social Democrat Blair,> acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in> the Islamic War> 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 those> "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of> "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,> so devoid of a moral compass> > 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 unlike almost all of> Europe, Bush realizes> what is at stake - literally everything.> > While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons"> of America because> they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly> defend our Social> Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get> expensive! We'd rather> discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental> coverage, or our 4> weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors> preach about the need> to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and> forgive".> > These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who,> with shaking hands,> frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when> she notices a robber> breaking into a neighbor's house.> > Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice. > Any thoughts on this?
»Ducky Posted February 8, 2005 Report Posted February 8, 2005 I am not too familiar with Europian Politics, could someone list the encounters that appeasement has solved. I could very well make my decision then.
MonteZuma Posted February 8, 2005 Report Posted February 8, 2005 Any thoughts on this?<{POST_SNAPBACK}>At first I was put off by the length, but I think it is a well-written article with an interesting viewpoint. Very thought-provoking. Thanks. On the other hand though, I think it runs the risk of encouraging narrow-minded people to view all muslims as terrorists. It is a little inflammatory. Debate about a public holiday for muslims for example, hardly amounts to appeasement of terrorists. I don't think Europe wants to appease terrorists. I think they want to be more inclusive of muslims in their society and in their dealings with the outside world. There is nothing wrong with that, and in fact I think that will go a long way to fighting islamic extremism.
Aileron Posted February 9, 2005 Author Report Posted February 9, 2005 If they want to reach out to Muslims, that's great. But, if they want to pacify terrorists they are wasting their time, as well as convincing them that they are making headway in their war against the west.
Yupa Posted February 9, 2005 Report Posted February 9, 2005 > Matthias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German> publisher Axel> Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in DIE> WELT, Germany's> largest daily newspaper, against the timid reaction> of Europe in the> face of the Islamic threat.I didn't read past this point. The article is clearly fodder.
Aileron Posted February 9, 2005 Author Report Posted February 9, 2005 Its a shame you won't really. I for one always read any good liberal articles I can find, because it challenges my own beliefs and betters my arguements. Unwillingness to read an intellectual article (if its a flaming emotionalist, that's different) is only a sign of weakness.
Yupa Posted February 10, 2005 Report Posted February 10, 2005 I think you missed my point. Anyone that considers the problem at hand an "Islamic threat" is an idiot - and I don't care to waste my time reading what idiots think. It is a threat from radicals - most of them just happen to be Muslims, too.
Aileron Posted February 10, 2005 Author Report Posted February 10, 2005 That's just shear arrogance. Am I to take it most terrorists are Buddhists from Japan? This is a very good article, and wasn't even made by an American. How about instead of looking for reasons not to read it, you instead give it the benefit of the doubt, read it, and grow some new brain cells?
MonteZuma Posted February 10, 2005 Report Posted February 10, 2005 Ail. While the article is thought provoking, it is obviously slanted and biased. The dude who wrote it obviously hates muslims. Some comment on that: Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word"equidistance," nowcountenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.The Europeans don't countenance suicide bombing. They countenance the Paslestinian right to self determination. Perhaps it is the Europeans that trying to protect democratic values in that conflict? Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush.Why not? Research published in The Lancet estimated 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq since the invasion began. Add to that the poor Iraqi ASSS that were conscripted into the Iraqi military and you have a frightening statistic. I think we all have a right, if not a moral responsibility to ask whether or not that human cost was justified. And still the violence and killing continues. As for "Islamic fundamentalists" in Europe. Are we talking about organised fundamentalism or the actions of criminals? The article implies a level of organisation. In any case, in The Netherlands for example, "islamic violence" goes both ways. Islamic criminals are setting fire to churches and christian criminals are setting fire to mosques. But the issue of so-called Islamic violence in Europe is being blown way out of proportion. I've read a lot of stuff connecting the killing of Pim Fortuyn with the rise of "islamic violence". But when you look into it, you find out that he was killed by a deranged white Dutch animal rights activist. Western Europe needs to deal with the issue of immigration and make some tough decisions, but to confuse honest Islamic immigrants with the actions of a few criminal elements isn't much better than the nazi's !@#$%^&*ociating jews with all of the problems that afflicted pre-war Germany. Bah. I've said much more on this article than I wanted. The issue is way too complicated. I agree with you Ail that it is an interesting article, worth a read, but Akai is also correct. It is a diatribe.
Yupa Posted February 11, 2005 Report Posted February 11, 2005 That's just shear arrogance.Arrogance? He can't make the simplest of distinctions. What if radicals of _his_ religion became !@#$%^&*ociated with terrorism. I bet he'd be singing a !@#$%^&*ing different tune, then.Am I to take it most terrorists are Buddhists from Japan?It's irrelevant - most terrorists are stupid and radical.This is a very good article, and wasn't even made by an American.Yes, I'm sure it's a very good article full of bull!@#$%^&* - and who cares if it wasn't made by an American- also completely irrelevant.How about instead of looking for reasons not to read it, you instead give it the benefit of the doubt, read it, and grow some new brain cells?How 'bout I travel to Europe and poison this idiot in his sleep and watch as nobody cares.
MonteZuma Posted February 11, 2005 Report Posted February 11, 2005 > Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their> lives as England> and France, allies at the time, negotiated and> hesitated too long before> they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound> to toothless> agreements.An important point.... The author seems to forget that the US remained neutral in WW2 for 2 years longer than the European allies. All the while, jews were being eliminated in death camps and the sovereignty of nations were being trampled. Saddam Hussein was no Hitler. And the threat he posed had already been contained. His whole country was economically and militarally on its knees - thanks to a US-led coalition that involved many European countries. Hussein was hardly being 'appeased'.
Aileron Posted February 11, 2005 Author Report Posted February 11, 2005 That's not really an important point given his objectives. He just wanted to show that appeasement in and of itself is wrong. Besides, the US was involved before the declaration of war. Americans unofficially fought in the civil war in Spain and gave allies lots of weapons. That Iraq was contained is a rationalization. It still requires that we turn a blind eye to the atrocities that occured inside the Iraq border.
Manus Celer Dei Posted February 12, 2005 Report Posted February 12, 2005 Appeasement, it seems this word is coming back into fashion lately. It seems to apply to any person who tries to use diplomacy over more overt action. Because, as we all know, action solves every problem. (!@#$%^&* where did i put those sarcasm html tags?)
Aileron Posted February 13, 2005 Author Report Posted February 13, 2005 Yes, action should be held off as the last resort, but we were beyond that point. Hussein frankly could not bend as far as we needed him to.
MonteZuma Posted February 13, 2005 Report Posted February 13, 2005 That's not really an important point given his objectives.It is important, because he held up the US as the standard. But Europe knows more than the article gives her credit for about the price of 'appeasement'. She also know more than the article gives her credit for about the price of war. Perhaps it is the author that doesn't understand? That Iraq was contained is a rationalization. It still requires that we turn a blind eye to the atrocities that occured inside the Iraq border.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>We all rationalise. We watch GWB do it on TV almost daily. Donald Rumsfeld was probably doing it when he shook Saddam's hand in 1983. The US government did it when they took Iraq's side in the Iran-Iraq war. But I find it impossible to ratilionalise away 100,000 dead civilians in the course of a year or so.
Aileron Posted February 13, 2005 Author Report Posted February 13, 2005 You just did! You rationalized away the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed by Hussein's regime!
Yupa Posted February 13, 2005 Report Posted February 13, 2005 ...or 100,000 fools happily letting themselves get owned without doing anything about Iraq was and is none of our business
MonteZuma Posted February 14, 2005 Report Posted February 14, 2005 You just did! You rationalized away the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed by Hussein's regime!<{POST_SNAPBACK}>I suspect that since 1991, more Iraqis have died as a direct or indirect result of US and allied attacks on Iraq (culminating in the invasion) than from attrocities carried out by Saddam in the same period. And, the situation in Iraq remains unstable, even with a US occupation force and Saddam gone. I see these 2 things to be fundamental flaws in the strategy to invade Iraq. That is how I rationalise my viewpoint. In fact, even if Saddam did kill more people in the same period, I'd rather that a despot be responsible for the death of innocents than my government, or the allies of my government. It is a matter of perception. The UN provided a way for us to work on an Iraqi solution without being percieved as anti-islamic war-mongerers. Unfortunately GWB didn't see it that way. With hindsight, I'd say someone should have kicked Saddam's !@#$%^&* as he came to power. At the time though, I was probably playing Space Invaders and didn't really care too much. No rationalisation needed.
Aileron Posted February 15, 2005 Author Report Posted February 15, 2005 We are trying to avoid loss of life here, not responsibility. Its better that 9 people die on our watch then to have 10 people die on Hussein's. Our notion of self-righteousness will just have to suffer. I doubt that the short term casualties were higher for the war than would have been otherwise. Keep in mind that the kurds were fighting their rebellion the whole time with only slight support from foreigners. In any case, the long term casualties are going to be much lower. The current insurgency will eventually die down within a few years, but if we left him alone Hussein would have been around for decades, and after that we would have had his sons taking over...one of whom mind you took random people of the street and had them tortured to death for his own sadistic amusement. You are right in that we should have went in long ago, but we can't change the past. Bush couldn't turn the clock back a few decades and remove the Baathist regime in the 80s, and if sooner is better in this case, then while the 2000s wasn't the best time, its better than the 2020s or 2040s.
MonteZuma Posted February 15, 2005 Report Posted February 15, 2005 We are trying to avoid loss of life here, not responsibility. Its better that 9 people die on our watch then to have 10 people die on Hussein's. Our notion of self-righteousness will just have to suffer.That is why I believe the US and other countries are in greater danger of terrorist attacks now than they were before the invasion of Iraq. When it comes to fighting terrorism, it is probably most important to be seen to be doing the right thing - to win hearts and minds. I think a better course of action, in terms of global security and fighting international terrorism, would have been to work with the UN and do it their way. The rights of Iraqis are, by necessity, of secondary importance. Individual freedoms and national issues just have to take a back seat when our main concern is international terrorism. Iraq was a mistake. The problems that Iraqis faced should have been handled differently. Let's face it. This is a fight against terrorism. Not a fight against despotism. In any case, the long term casualties are going to be much lower. The current insurgency will eventually die down within a few years, but if we left him alone Hussein would have been around for decades, and after that we would have had his sons taking over...one of whom mind you took random people of the street and had them tortured to death for his own sadistic amusement.Maybe. I'm not sure than all the allegations about Saddam's sons are true. In any case, I hope you are right about the future.
Sass Posted February 16, 2005 Report Posted February 16, 2005 I suspect that since 1991, more Iraqis have died as a direct or indirect result of US and allied attacks on Iraq (culminating in the invasion) than from attrocities carried out by Saddam in the same period. And, the situation in Iraq remains unstable, even with a US occupation force and Saddam gone. I see these 2 things to be fundamental flaws in the strategy to invade Iraq. That is how I rationalise my viewpoint.Nice !@#$%^&*umption but I think you are pontificating because there are unknown number of genocide victims still being found in northern Iraq, and only Saddam himself and few others will know how many that is. That is why I believe the US and other countries are in greater danger of terrorist attacks now than they were before the invasion of Iraq. When it comes to fighting terrorism, it is probably most important to be seen to be doing the right thing - to win hearts and minds. I think a better course of action, in terms of global security and fighting international terrorism, would have been to work with the UN and do it their way. The rights of Iraqis are, by necessity, of secondary importance. Individual freedoms and national issues just have to take a back seat when our main concern is international terrorism. Iraq was a mistake. The problems that Iraqis faced should have been handled differently.Any country is in danger of terrorist attacks when the enemy hates what you stand for. It's more about that than it is about what has been done since 2003. Or did you decide to forget every terrorist action that has happened to the US prior to 2000? Muslim extremists hate Christians and despise Americans because of money. Iraq would have been more of a success if other counties were not so weak in the knees. Action taken by the US leaves terrorists running and hiding. Homeland security attempts to ensure that another attack doesn't happen, but there is no guarantee. Of course, there is no guarantee that terrorism won't happen in any other country as it has in place like Ireland, Philipines, and Sudan for more than two or three decades. People go on. It appears that anti-US people would rather side with terrorists. Go for it dude. Enjoy your cave.
MonteZuma Posted February 16, 2005 Report Posted February 16, 2005 Any country is in danger of terrorist attacks when the enemy hates what you stand for. It's more about that than it is about what has been done since 2003. Or did you decide to forget every terrorist action that has happened to the US prior to 2000? Muslim extremists hate Christians and despise Americans because of money. Iraq would have been more of a success if other counties were not so weak in the knees. Action taken by the US leaves terrorists running and hiding. Homeland security attempts to ensure that another attack doesn't happen, but there is no guarantee. Of course, there is no guarantee that terrorism won't happen in any other country as it has in place like Ireland, Philipines, and Sudan for more than two or three decades. People go on. It appears that anti-US people would rather side with terrorists. Go for it dude. Enjoy your cave.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Yes. Islamic extremists that hate the US or the west have been around for decades. I don't think it is because of money. I think it is because of lifestyle and foreign policy. If we focus on Iraq we see that most Iraqi's don't want the US in their country. The occupation is culturing a new generation of terrorists who will fight for their freedom and their religion. The way that GWB is fighting it, the war on terror is becoming a breeding ground for terror. Enjoy the bread and circuses.
Sass Posted February 16, 2005 Report Posted February 16, 2005 You have no idea what Iraqi's want anymore than what you hear on some lefty news channel. And there is no 'new generation' of terrorists as if some kids suddenly decided to create some new cult. The fundamentalist terrorism has been around for a long long time. They don't fight for freedom, they fight for control over weaker people and oppression.
MonteZuma Posted February 16, 2005 Report Posted February 16, 2005 You have no idea what Iraqi's want anymore than what you hear on some lefty news channel.If by left wing, you mean The Washington Post or NBC, I guess you are correct. Heh. Both polls were sponsored by the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority. The first was before Abu Ghraib. The second after. Note that Iraqis disapproved of the occupation before and after the scandal. And there is no 'new generation' of terroristsWhat were these Iraqi suicide bombers doing before the invasion? If some kid sees his mother shot dead by a US soldier, or killed by a US bomb, he is gonna be angry for the rest of his life. If you can't see how that kid could become angry at the US, and become a terrorist, then you are blind. The fundamentalist terrorism has been around for a long long time. They don't fight for freedom, they fight for control over weaker people and oppression.That is simply wrong. They are fighting for strongly held religious values. And they are fighting out of anger and frustration. To claim that people are killing themselves in order to control and oppress people is ridiculous.
MasterDrake Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 You just did! You rationalized away the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed by Hussein's regime!<{POST_SNAPBACK}>I suspect that since 1991, more Iraqis have died as a direct or indirect result of US and allied attacks on Iraq (culminating in the invasion) than from attrocities carried out by Saddam in the same period. And, the situation in Iraq remains unstable, even with a US occupation force and Saddam gone. I see these 2 things to be fundamental flaws in the strategy to invade Iraq. That is how I rationalise my viewpoint. In fact, even if Saddam did kill more people in the same period, I'd rather that a despot be responsible for the death of innocents than my government, or the allies of my government. It is a matter of perception. The UN provided a way for us to work on an Iraqi solution without being percieved as anti-islamic war-mongerers. Unfortunately GWB didn't see it that way. With hindsight, I'd say someone should have kicked Saddam's !@#$%^&* as he came to power. At the time though, I was probably playing Space Invaders and didn't really care too much. No rationalisation needed.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>O really, the only option that the UN offered as usual was to write a angry letter telling Iraq how anrgy they are with him. Any country is in danger of terrorist attacks when the enemy hates what you stand for. It's more about that than it is about what has been done since 2003. Or did you decide to forget every terrorist action that has happened to the US prior to 2000? Muslim extremists hate Christians and despise Americans because of money. Iraq would have been more of a success if other counties were not so weak in the knees. Action taken by the US leaves terrorists running and hiding. Homeland security attempts to ensure that another attack doesn't happen, but there is no guarantee. Of course, there is no guarantee that terrorism won't happen in any other country as it has in place like Ireland, Philipines, and Sudan for more than two or three decades. People go on. It appears that anti-US people would rather side with terrorists. Go for it dude. Enjoy your cave.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Yes. Islamic extremists that hate the US or the west have been around for decades. I don't think it is because of money. I think it is because of lifestyle and foreign policy. If we focus on Iraq we see that most Iraqi's don't want the US in their country. The occupation is culturing a new generation of terrorists who will fight for their freedom and their religion. The way that GWB is fighting it, the war on terror is becoming a breeding ground for terror. Enjoy the bread and circuses.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Now here monte zuma your justifying the terrorists your saying that its ok for them to attack us becase they don't like that way we live but its not ok for us to do anything back. Now if you remember Bush gave the UN over a year before he went into Iraq and the nations(France and I believe Russia) that shot him down were found be getting lets say " special benefits",
Recommended Posts