Jump to content

Appeasement in Europe


Doug69
This topic is 6817 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

After the Spanish elections, many people ran around babbling - with no basis whatsoever - that the reason why the Spanish voted against Aznar's party was because they were angry that it deceived them about the source of the Madrid bombings, and NOT because they fearfully wanted to do Al Qaeda's bidding in order to avoid future attacks.

 

As is so often the case for people who spew opinions with no basis whatsoever, the people who shrieked these conclusions were completely wrong. Now that actual data is being compiled about those elections - rather than ideologically-driven speculation - it is become undeniably clear that the Spanish voted for the Socialist government out of fear that re-electing Aznar's party would provoke more Al Qaeda attacks. In other words, they voted the way they did in order, pitifully, to appease Muslim terrorists.

 

And, worse, that appeasement fear is now contagious, infecting the populations of nations all throughout Europe, the Birthplace of Appeasement.

 

As the Washington Post reported on March 27 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28975-2004Mar27.html)

 

<<Interviews and polling research suggest that voters who ousted the pro-American government of Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar after the Madrid bombings did so at least in part because they believed Spain's participation in the Iraq war had provoked the attacks. Polls in Britain and Italy, whose governments have also been high-profile supporters of the war, suggest voters there fear their countries have also joined al Qaeda's hit list.>>

 

The people who cheered these developments and then denied that appeasement was the cause - and you know who you are, BoN and Trilingual and others - should be ashamed of themselves, not only for cheering on Al Qaeda's victory but also for falsely denying that appeasement was the cause of these results for no reason other than that their ideology was served by such a denial.

 

If Al Qaeda is now able to cower European populations into changing their voting preferences out of fear, how can anyone suggest that we ought to follow, or even care about, the views of Europeans when it comes to fighting terrorism? If we do, we will be hiding with them under the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

>If Al Qaeda is now able to cower European populations into

>changing their voting preferences out of fear, how can anyone

>suggest that we ought to follow, or even care about, the views

>of Europeans when it comes to fighting terrorism? If we do,

>we will be hiding with them under the table.

 

 

The cover of last week's Economist was chilling in this regard:

 

http://www.economist.com/images/20040320/20040320issuecovUS400.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Sanity in Europe

 

I'd say the Economist cover is reassuring, not chilling. I hope the voters in those other countries have the good sense of their Spanish counterparts.

 

As for Doug's crowing, evidently he glided right over the "at least in part" reasoning of the Spanish electorate reported by the Washington Post. If his reading skills were better, he'd see that totally undercuts his position. As is clear from the Post story, Spaniards voted against Aznar for many reasons, including the lying, but also because they saw for themselves that Spain's involvement in Iraq in fact made Spain LESS secure, rather than more secure. In a country like Spain that has already seen more than its share of terrorism in recent years, and is still scarred by memories of its bloody Civil War, those are powerful motives for voting against someone who decreased their security.

 

Just because the new Spanish government isn't willing to go along with Bush's lies and the disastrous occupation of Iraq doesn't mean that it's planning on abandoning the campaign against terrorism. In fact, under the previous Socialist government Spain made major headway against the murderous local ETA terrorist group, and the new government has said it will do everything it can to find and punish the perpetrators of the March 11 attacks. It has also told ETA (which recently made some overtures to the new government) that it would never negotiate with murderers.

 

In addition, the Spanish government has said it WOULD consider keeping its troops in Iraq if the United Nations takes a larger role in the occupation and the transition to Iraqi sovereignt before June 30th, the deadline Spain gave for pulling out its troops. It also has announced that it's beefing up its presence in Afghanistan, the Al-Qaeda heartland and the place

Dougie's clay idol, Shrubya, should have been focused on all along.

 

I realize this doesn't square with Dougie's bizarre construct of appeasement in Europe, but what can you expect of someone who lives in a shack in Appalachia, speaks no foreign languages, has never traveled more than 15 miles from his home hollow and gets just about all his information (and tired rhetoric) from the RNC and Pat Robertson fundraising mailers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>After the Spanish elections, many people ran around babbling

>- with no basis whatsoever - that the reason why the Spanish

>voted against Aznar's party was because they were angry that

>it deceived them about the source of the Madrid bombings, and

>NOT because they fearfully wanted to do Al Qaeda's bidding in

>order to avoid future attacks.

 

You mean the way that the American people are angry that Bush deceived them over Iraq and WMD and abandoning the war on terror to pursue the Iraq agenda?

 

>As is so often the case for people who spew opinions with no

>basis whatsoever, the people who shrieked these conclusions

>were completely wrong.

 

Thank you for providing us without a least a partial rationale for what you post, Dougie.

 

>Now that actual data is being compiled

>about those elections - rather than ideologically-driven

>speculation - it is become undeniably clear that the

>Spanish voted for the Socialist government out of fear that

>re-electing Aznar's party would provoke more Al Qaeda

>attacks. In other words, they voted the way they did in

>order, pitifully, to appease Muslim terrorists.

 

Nope. They were tired of a government that rules by lies and decpetion. This is also why John Kerry will replace the pretendident in November. But, I understand why you would take the analysis of Rx[/font size]ush and Sean Hannity as gospel and consider it impartial and objective.

 

>The people who cheered these developments and then denied that

>appeasement was the cause - and you know who you are, BoN and

>Trilingual and others - should be ashamed of themselves, not

>only for cheering on Al Qaeda's victory but also for falsely

>denying that appeasement was the cause of these results for no

>reason other than that their ideology was served by such a

>denial.

 

Please show me where I have ever endorsed appeasement of AlQaeda.

 

>If Al Qaeda is now able to cower European populations into

>changing their voting preferences out of fear, how can anyone

>suggest that we ought to follow, or even care about, the views

>of Europeans when it comes to fighting terrorism? If we do,

>we will be hiding with them under the table.

 

Al Qaeda would not be in a position to make anyone cower had Shrubya not abandoned the war on terror to go after Saddam. The blame here is laid squarely and fairly at the feet of the Commander in Thief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>You mean the way that the American people are angry that Bush

>deceived them over Iraq and WMD and abandoning the war on

>terror to pursue the Iraq agenda?

 

>Nope. They were tired of a government that rules by lies and

>decpetion. This is also why John Kerry will replace the

>pretendident in November.

 

Not if there is a terrorist act timed right before the election and designed to instill fear in the hearts of every American. I believe that’s where we differ from our European friends because we would most likely do the exact opposite of whatever it is we are being bullied to do.

 

Something in the American psyche (Pride? Arrogance? Backbone?) would never allow a great many people to capitulate in that way – even if it meant four more years of the Bush regime. Hell, I might even vote for the jerk if I felt the terrorists were trying to intimidate us like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>

>Something in the American psyche (Pride? Arrogance? Backbone?)

>would never allow a great many people to capitulate in that

>way – even if it meant four more years of the Bush regime.

>Hell, I might even vote for the jerk if I felt the terrorists

>were trying to intimidate us like that.

>

 

Oh I see, we WILL get the chance to vote after a terrorist attack??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>

>Something in the American psyche (Pride? Arrogance? Backbone?)

>would never allow a great many people to capitulate in that

>way – even if it meant four more years of the Bush regime.

>Hell, I might even vote for the jerk if I felt the terrorists

>were trying to intimidate us like that.

>

 

Oh I see, we WILL get the chance to vote after a terrorist attack??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Oh I see, we WILL get the chance to vote after a terrorist

>attack??

 

Only some of us will get to vote, Glutes. Others of us - those who have criticized The Leader or otherwise committed thought crimes - will be in concentration camps, stripped of your clothes, dignity and right to vote.

 

They are watching, Glutes. Proceed with caution.

 

The paranoid, self-absorbed idiocy continues . . . .

 

Oh, and Glutes - do you ever wake up and look at yourself and say: "Oh, my God - I'm a homo who lives in San Fransisco and I'm very liberal and I think that Republicans are fascist and the U.S. is a dictatorship . . how did I get to be such a total fucking cliche?"

 

Do you ever say that to yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Oh I see, we WILL get the chance to vote after a terrorist

>attack??

 

Only some of us will get to vote, Glutes. Others of us - those who have criticized The Leader or otherwise committed thought crimes - will be in concentration camps, stripped of your clothes, dignity and right to vote.

 

They are watching, Glutes. Proceed with caution.

 

The paranoid, self-absorbed idiocy continues . . . .

 

Oh, and Glutes - do you ever wake up and look at yourself and say: "Oh, my God - I'm a homo who lives in San Fransisco and I'm very liberal and I think that Republicans are fascist and the U.S. is a dictatorship . . how did I get to be such a total fucking cliche?"

 

Do you ever say that to yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>A terrorist attack before the election will show that the

>MisAdministration has been ineffectual at the war on terror

>and will propel John Kerry over the top.

 

So a terrorist attack - even a single one - will show that the Bush Administration has been "ineffectual at the war on terror," and one attack will therefore cause him to lose the election.

 

So I guess it stands to reason, then - assuming that one is engaging in reason - that no terrorist attack will demonstrate that the Administration has been "effectual at the war on terror," and the absence of such attacks will mean that Bush will win?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>A terrorist attack before the election will show that the

>MisAdministration has been ineffectual at the war on terror

>and will propel John Kerry over the top.

 

So a terrorist attack - even a single one - will show that the Bush Administration has been "ineffectual at the war on terror," and one attack will therefore cause him to lose the election.

 

So I guess it stands to reason, then - assuming that one is engaging in reason - that no terrorist attack will demonstrate that the Administration has been "effectual at the war on terror," and the absence of such attacks will mean that Bush will win?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Sanity in Europe

 

>I'd say the Economist cover is reassuring, not chilling. I

>hope the voters in those other countries have the good sense

>of their Spanish counterparts.

 

Yes, but let's hope they'll be smarter than the Spanish. They should just call Osama bin Laden on the telephone and ask their Muslim Master who he wants them to vote for in order to avoid Al Qaeda attacks. Then, when He tells them, they will vote that way and avoid attacks and live in peace.

 

Let's hope all Europeans learn from the Spanish and see that they can avoid punishment if they elect the leaders whom Al Qaeda favors. You, Trilingual, have learned that lesson well, and my guess is that the Europeans will have no greater difficulty with it than you have.

 

>In fact, under the previous Socialist

>government Spain made major headway against the murderous

>local ETA terrorist group, and the new government has said it

>will do everything it can to find and punish the perpetrators

>of the March 11 attacks.

 

LOL!!! "Find and punish the perpetrators" Wow - scary. I'm sure Al Qaeda is quaking in their boots over that plan.

 

It's brilliant, though - everyone knows that finding and imprisoning the perpetrators of terrorist attacks prevents future attacks. That's exactly how terrorism works.

 

>I realize this doesn't square with Dougie's bizarre construct

>of appeasement in Europe, but what can you expect of someone

>who lives in a shack in Appalachia, speaks no foreign

>languages, has never traveled more than 15 miles from his home

>hollow and gets just about all his information (and tired

>rhetoric) from the RNC and Pat Robertson fundraising mailers?

 

Any time you would like to back up these statements by some sort of bet, let me know, and we can see if they are true. Every time you say this, you just reveal your disgusting bigotry - anyone who isn't a leftist sex tourist in a third world country must be an illiterate, monolingual cretin - but don't worry - there's a nice big brown Brazilian cock waiting for you for 30 real in that filthy bathhouse corner over there, and that should make you feel better. I can't wait for the next time when you come here after hiring a Rio whore a few times and tell us all again how you're in love and will probably get married soon. That was half entertaining and half sad - but the half-entertainment part was apparently the more compelling, because I can't wait to watch you parade yourself around with that sort of desperation again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Sanity in Europe

 

>I'd say the Economist cover is reassuring, not chilling. I

>hope the voters in those other countries have the good sense

>of their Spanish counterparts.

 

Yes, but let's hope they'll be smarter than the Spanish. They should just call Osama bin Laden on the telephone and ask their Muslim Master who he wants them to vote for in order to avoid Al Qaeda attacks. Then, when He tells them, they will vote that way and avoid attacks and live in peace.

 

Let's hope all Europeans learn from the Spanish and see that they can avoid punishment if they elect the leaders whom Al Qaeda favors. You, Trilingual, have learned that lesson well, and my guess is that the Europeans will have no greater difficulty with it than you have.

 

>In fact, under the previous Socialist

>government Spain made major headway against the murderous

>local ETA terrorist group, and the new government has said it

>will do everything it can to find and punish the perpetrators

>of the March 11 attacks.

 

LOL!!! "Find and punish the perpetrators" Wow - scary. I'm sure Al Qaeda is quaking in their boots over that plan.

 

It's brilliant, though - everyone knows that finding and imprisoning the perpetrators of terrorist attacks prevents future attacks. That's exactly how terrorism works.

 

>I realize this doesn't square with Dougie's bizarre construct

>of appeasement in Europe, but what can you expect of someone

>who lives in a shack in Appalachia, speaks no foreign

>languages, has never traveled more than 15 miles from his home

>hollow and gets just about all his information (and tired

>rhetoric) from the RNC and Pat Robertson fundraising mailers?

 

Any time you would like to back up these statements by some sort of bet, let me know, and we can see if they are true. Every time you say this, you just reveal your disgusting bigotry - anyone who isn't a leftist sex tourist in a third world country must be an illiterate, monolingual cretin - but don't worry - there's a nice big brown Brazilian cock waiting for you for 30 real in that filthy bathhouse corner over there, and that should make you feel better. I can't wait for the next time when you come here after hiring a Rio whore a few times and tell us all again how you're in love and will probably get married soon. That was half entertaining and half sad - but the half-entertainment part was apparently the more compelling, because I can't wait to watch you parade yourself around with that sort of desperation again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> In other words, they voted the way they did in

>>order, pitifully, to appease Muslim terrorists.

>

>Nope. They were tired of a government that rules by lies and

>decpetion.

 

I cited the Washington Post article as evidence that fear of Al Qaeda attacks motivated the Spanish to elect the Socialists. Other than your own desire that it is true, what is your basis for asserting that it was the Government's "lies and deception" which caused that vote?

 

This is also why John Kerry will replace the

>pretendident in November.

 

The Bush Administration should take great joy it this statement - if I were running for President, the thing I would wish for most is that BoN predicted my defeat.

 

Here's the latest Gallup poll:

 

Gallup 3/26-28

Bush: 51 (+7)

Kerry: 47 (-5)

 

And this, after the worst 2 months of the Bush Presidency in terms of PR and press coverage. But keep proclaiming with more and more certainty that Kerry will win, BoN. At least you'll be able to sleep better until November.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> In other words, they voted the way they did in

>>order, pitifully, to appease Muslim terrorists.

>

>Nope. They were tired of a government that rules by lies and

>decpetion.

 

I cited the Washington Post article as evidence that fear of Al Qaeda attacks motivated the Spanish to elect the Socialists. Other than your own desire that it is true, what is your basis for asserting that it was the Government's "lies and deception" which caused that vote?

 

This is also why John Kerry will replace the

>pretendident in November.

 

The Bush Administration should take great joy it this statement - if I were running for President, the thing I would wish for most is that BoN predicted my defeat.

 

Here's the latest Gallup poll:

 

Gallup 3/26-28

Bush: 51 (+7)

Kerry: 47 (-5)

 

And this, after the worst 2 months of the Bush Presidency in terms of PR and press coverage. But keep proclaiming with more and more certainty that Kerry will win, BoN. At least you'll be able to sleep better until November.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, by all means just my personal opinion, but I'm just a little "sick and tired" of people calling the current living conditions in the USA as being a "dictatorship", especially from people who live in the greatest democratic republic that the world has ever known. I LOVE how you get to voice openly via the media, the internet, voting, public demonstrations, et al your disapproval of the current administration with no "reprisals", and in turn have the "absoulte" audacity to call this government a dictatorship!

 

IMO, it just goes to show that you really "have no idea" what constitutes a dictatorship! When you and your family are "rounded up, imprisoned, executed, etc." for freely expressing your "thoughts and opinions" in opposition of the government, then I will "seriously entertain" your opinions that you are living in a "dictatorship"!

 

Many of us despise the current Bush administration, and many of us disagree with his policies in all areas, but then again many of us will execute our Constitutional privileges via the ballot box to oust him! That is ALL WE CAN DO, and remain true to the principles that this American Democracy and Republic was founded upon!

 

My personal opinion, is that this is the Greatest nation in the entire history of the Earth to live in, and I will personally DIE for the continuance of the foundations of liberty, justice and personal freedom that is guaranteed under our Constitution! I will not advocate "appeasment" to terrorists, as Spain "SO OBVIOUSLY" just recently did, and the rest of Western Europe seems to want to do! FUCK THE ISLAMIC AL QAEDA TERRORISTS! CAST YOUR BULLYING ON THE REST OF THE DAMN WORLD, BUT DON'T THINK YOU'LL GET THE U.S.A. to accede to your FUCKING DEMANDS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, by all means just my personal opinion, but I'm just a little "sick and tired" of people calling the current living conditions in the USA as being a "dictatorship", especially from people who live in the greatest democratic republic that the world has ever known. I LOVE how you get to voice openly via the media, the internet, voting, public demonstrations, et al your disapproval of the current administration with no "reprisals", and in turn have the "absoulte" audacity to call this government a dictatorship!

 

IMO, it just goes to show that you really "have no idea" what constitutes a dictatorship! When you and your family are "rounded up, imprisoned, executed, etc." for freely expressing your "thoughts and opinions" in opposition of the government, then I will "seriously entertain" your opinions that you are living in a "dictatorship"!

 

Many of us despise the current Bush administration, and many of us disagree with his policies in all areas, but then again many of us will execute our Constitutional privileges via the ballot box to oust him! That is ALL WE CAN DO, and remain true to the principles that this American Democracy and Republic was founded upon!

 

My personal opinion, is that this is the Greatest nation in the entire history of the Earth to live in, and I will personally DIE for the continuance of the foundations of liberty, justice and personal freedom that is guaranteed under our Constitution! I will not advocate "appeasment" to terrorists, as Spain "SO OBVIOUSLY" just recently did, and the rest of Western Europe seems to want to do! FUCK THE ISLAMIC AL QAEDA TERRORISTS! CAST YOUR BULLYING ON THE REST OF THE DAMN WORLD, BUT DON'T THINK YOU'LL GET THE U.S.A. to accede to your FUCKING DEMANDS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pay attention, smackie.

 

The MisAdministration has been saying that they have been on the forefront of the war on terror.

 

Terrorist attacks around the world, most recently in Spain have put the lie to that.

 

The war on terror was abandoned by the MisAdministration to pursue Saddam Hussein.

 

Had the MisAdministration stayed the course, Al Qaeda would not have regrouped and there would not have been a bombing in Spain.

 

A second attack on American soil will prove beyond the shadow of a doubt how ineffectual this MisAdministration has been.

 

I hope to God though that proof never materializes.

 

I don't need another terror attack to know that Shrubya needs to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Here's the latest Gallup poll:

>

>Gallup 3/26-28

>Bush: 51 (+7)

>Kerry: 47 (-5)

>

>And this, after the worst 2 months of the Bush Presidency in

>terms of PR and press coverage. But keep proclaiming with

>more and more certainty that Kerry will win, BoN. At least

>you'll be able to sleep better until November.

 

Interesting how you Repiglicans gloat when the pretendident is ahead in the pools. Interesting also how you remind us that Reagan, Bush the Elected and Clinton came from behind to win in Novemeber every time the pretendident is trailing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, well, I see BofN has managed to divert Dougie from attacking me. Thanks, Nick!

 

But Dougie has managed to avoid owning up to the fact that he glided over the "at least in part" statement in the Washington Post story in order to make his specious point. The fact remains that voters in Spain (like in all other democratic countries) usually have their vote formed by multiple factors. The sheer shock of the bombings on March 11 were one, the lying by the Aznar government was another, and the proof that Spain had become a target of international (and not just home-grown) terrorism because of the Aznar government's policies was a third. Spaniards crave security, and Aznar made Spain less, not more secure. (Until the Aznar government, Spain was considered a country that had close and friendly relations with the Arab world, is home to a large Muslim immigrant population, and would have been very unlikely to be a target of Arab terrorism.)

 

As for my private life here in Rio, it's actually been a while since I was in one of the sparkling-clean saunas here. I'm STILL happily married to my dream guy (a handsome, 6'3", staggeringly-endowed math student I met online through Gaydar). He's not one of the sauna boys, although there are one or two of those I'd have considered marrying, if they were available. We live two blocks from the beach in THE most beautiful city on earth. It's a miserable existence, indeed! I realize it's no comparison to the marvels of Dougie-poo's cosmopolitan life in the outer suburbs of Lynchburg. Or is it Wheeling? But I'm keeping a stiff upper lip. (Not to mention a couple of stiff other things. . .)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>

>The people who cheered these developments and then denied that

>appeasement was the cause - and you know who you are, BoN and

>Trilingual and others - should be ashamed of themselves, not

>only for cheering on Al Qaeda's victory but also for falsely

>denying that appeasement was the cause of these results for no

>reason other than that their ideology was served by such a

>denial.

 

I've said this before and never really gotten an answer, but I'll say it again anyway. I don't see what "appeasement" has to do with not wanting to get into a fight between two equally repugnant groups -- the Islamists and the secular tyrants -- about who is going to run the Muslim world. It seems to me the Spanish people were unhappy at Aznar's decision to join Bush by getting in the middle of this fight for no good reason that anyone in Spain (or the US) seems able to articulate.

 

>If Al Qaeda is now able to cower European populations into

>changing their voting preferences out of fear, how can anyone

>suggest that we ought to follow, or even care about, the views

>of Europeans when it comes to fighting terrorism? If we do,

>we will be hiding with them under the table.

 

The fact is that a number of European countries, especially France, which the Right in this country has mocked as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" because they wouldn't join Bush's war, have at least as good a record at fighting terrorism as the US, if not better. French law enforcement is universally acknowledged as having done an excellent job of infiltrating Muslim extremist groups in their own country and in preventing planned attacks on French soil. The answer to the question why we should care about the views of Europeans is pretty obvious. The 9/11 attacks were planned by Muslim exiles in Europe, and without the active cooperation of the governments there we don't have a prayer of stopping more such activities or even finding out about them. Isn't that clear?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I've said this before and never really gotten an answer, but

>I'll say it again anyway. I don't see what "appeasement" has

>to do with not wanting to get into a fight between two equally

>repugnant groups -- the Islamists and the secular tyrants --

>about who is going to run the Muslim world.

 

Just because you didn't like the answer I gave, or didn't agree with it, or didn't understand it, or chose to block it out - doesn't mean that you didn't get an answer. I answered this before expressly, but am happy to do so again, because it's an important point and I don't mind taking the time to educate others about it, even if I have to repeat myself to do it. That's just the kind of guy I am.

 

It seems to me

>the Spanish people were unhappy at Aznar's decision to join

>Bush by getting in the middle of this fight for no good reason

>that anyone in Spain (or the US) seems able to articulate.

 

People who peddle your view can keep ignoring this point but it doesn't mean that it will go away: polls uniformly showed Aznar's party winning the election in the week prior to the election itself. Therefore, his position on the Iraq War cannot explain his party's defeat, since that position was well-known prior to those polls and yet he was still poised to win. Something else must have caused the defeat which occurred after those polls.

 

The ONLY thing that changed in the week after those polls was the Al Qaeda attack on the Madrid trains (along with the party's response to it). This Washington Post article makes clear that a significant reason why the voters changed their mind in response to the attack was because they thought they could avoid future attacks if they elected a government which had policies that Al Qaeda liked better.

 

Now you can agree or disagree with that view if you want, but you can't reasonably deny that it constitutes "appeasement," since that behavior is the very definition of appeasement itself:

 

FROM WEBSTER'S:

 

ap·pease·ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pzmnt)

n.

 

An act of appeasing.

The condition of being appeased.

The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.

 

Al Qaeda made clear to the Spanish that they disliked the Spanish Government due to their involvement in the Iraq War. In response, the Spanish made the concession of electing the Soclialists in order to make peace with Al Qaeda. That is the definition of "appeasement." See Webster's above if you are still confused.

 

>The fact is that a number of European countries, especially

>France, which the Right in this country has mocked as

>"cheese-eating surrender monkeys" because they wouldn't join

>Bush's war, . . . .

 

Actually, I believe that term refers to the French behavior in World War II when, surrounded by countries which valiantly resisted the Nazis, they stuck their white flags -- along with their assholes -- up in the air for Hitler.

 

Quite similar to the way many of the Spanish just did for bin Laden.

 

>The 9/11 attacks were planned by Muslim

>exiles in Europe, and without the active cooperation of the

>governments there we don't have a prayer of stopping more such

>activities or even finding out about them. Isn't that clear?

 

I'm no fan of Europe, but even I wouldn't go so far as to accuse them, as you seem to, of being willing to harbor and abet Muslim terrorists or blocking our efforts to apprehend them unless we capitulate to their demands and construct our foreign policy in order to please them.

 

As Machievelli said, it's better to be feared than loved, and other countries don't act in our interests because they like us, but rather, because they perceive it in their interests to do so. Just ask Libya.

 

The Europeans are afraid of their own shadow. I can hardly envision them harboring Muslim terrorists in order to express their opposition to our foreign policy.

 

It is, however, striking how your world-view seems to be: "we better do everything that Group X wants (Europeans, Al Qaeda, whomever) - and we better not do anything to make them mad - otherwise they won't like us and will do mean things to us." Check out the Webster's definition above if you want to know how best to describe that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...