As for the mullahs’ treatment of their own people, the president and his brain trust are tough-minded in the extreme. They just won’t permit it to wreck their scheme of coming to terms with the Islamic Republic. Even the slaughter following the fraudulent elections of June 12th is studiously ignored in favor of dialogue and deal making, and they spin appeasement into evidence of “putting pressure” on Tehran:
One conservative Iranian official put it this way to Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: “If Iran can’t make nice with a U.S. president named Barack Hussein Obama who’s preaching mutual respect and sending us greetings, it’s pretty clear the problem lies in Tehran, not Washington.”
Tom Donilon, the deputy national-security adviser, told me in Washington: “Engagement was pressure. There’s no doubt about it.”
Actually there’s a lot of doubt about it. For one thing, the Iranians do not see it that way. On July 27th, Kayhan (the newspaper that serves as Khamenei’s mouthpiece) proclaimed that America was “begging Iran for dialogue.” And Iranian leaders have bragged that the United States was now prepared to live with a nuclear Iran.
Which is exactly what you get when you appease a tyrant: he bites you again.
Or take Eliot Cohen in today’s Wall Street Journal. He insists that there is very little difference between Bush’s and Obama’s policies, but that the “execution” of policy is quite different:
Differences in the execution of policy, however, make all the difference. Take, for example, outreach to Iran:
The Bush administration mulled this, and even tried it, diplomats warily meeting Iranians in various venues. But when Mr. Obama said to the leaders of Iran and other despotisms, “We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist” he did not expect to find the Supreme Leader’s paws sticky with the blood of freshly slaughtered protestors. Remarkably, rather than adjust the policy, the administration almost immediately released five Iranian “diplomats”—in truth, members of the Revolutionary Guard Corps—that we held in Iraq…
But this policy will soon encounter the reality, a looming choice between war with Iran or acceptance of its status as a nuclear power. Is the administration prepared to act if diplomacy fails, as so often it does?
He chooses not to refer to Bush’s (actually Rice’s) all-out push for a bargain with Tehran, which they believed they had accomplished. That’s only to be expected, although there was plenty of fresh blood during the Bush years, and it wasn’t permitted to get in the way of the grand bargaining.
When Cohen talks about the “looming choice between war…or acceptance of its status as a nuclear power,” he gives the show away. Just like the others, Cohen ignores the Iranian war against us, and the evil visited upon the Iranian people, instead focusing his considerable analytical talents on the nuclear question.
But for all its dreadful significance, the Iranian nuclear project is a secondary issue, not the main act. If Iran had no nuclear program it would still be an evil regime that supports every major terrorist organization in the world (many of which are Iranian creations) and wages war against us. But our leaders studiously avoid all that, and become accomplices to evil.
The Iran appeasement is only one of many. We have just lifted some sanctions on Syria, which is the same thing as lifting sanctions on Iran (Syria will do most anything the mullahs want). And–you won’t have seen this anywhere in the press–we have just blocked all weapons sales to Georgia, which will be interpreted in Moscow as carte blanche for the Russians to do whatever they want down there. Meanwhile, we are doing whatever Chavez and Castro want in Honduras, in one of the most shameful betrayals of a democratic ally since the glory days of Jimmy Carter.
Anyone who has studied appeasement knows what lies ahead: more conflict, more fresh blood, and ultimately a bigger war against us. We can say to Obama what Churchill said to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.
Appeasement is a wish; it’s the ‘hope’ by optimists that things cannot possibly be so bad that force must be used, and it is the ‘hope’ by pessimists that, as bad as things are they will only get worse by using force.
Appeasement is not cowardice so much as it is complacency. The appeaser does not lack a sense of honor; the appeaser lacks rational judgment of the difference between Freud’s human dichotomy between the Life-force and the Death-wish: Believing falsely that the appeasement will result in “peace” and Life, the appeaser unintentionally gives support to ultimate Death and war.
Finally, the appeaser is the ultimate procrastinator. Forever putting off today until tomorrow, the appeaser guarantees that the eventual later confrontation will be far bloodier than an earlier opposition.
To the appeaser, time is a favorite old friend, an ally of doing nothing. To the freedomist, time is merely a measure of irresponsibility and complacency, and as the time grows, the deferred irresponsibility and complacency will only grow worse.
I will read your next book, but I cannot say I’m looking forward to it – I expect it will depress me further. The administration has such an intense need to make foreign policy go away so they carry on with their domestic agenda to turn America into a command economy. They’ll accept anything that doesn’t make CNN. They must be embarrassed into defending life and liberty when a young woman is slaughtered in the streets.
I fear for my kids. So many on the left have whined about the global footprint of America. Wait until they see what the world looks like without it. A nuclear state of nature.
Michael, as long as George Jonas’ piece, “Hitler’s dream come true” is willfully ignored by those whose paws are on the levers of power, the result can only be Robert Fulford’s piece, “A place that never changes”.
What would Angleton have to say about all this? Is your Ouija board working?
Simply because they don’t want to take the time… take a classic case of say global warming or obama being from kenyan…note how no one wants to really talk about obama and his kenyan issue. No one wants to believe it could really happen. So its better to just ignore it and hope it goes away.
It’s liberalism’s old Achilles heel, relativism. Evil does not exist, merely different perspectives. This means you can talk ‘evil’ into accepting another point of view. They do not realize there is nothing arbitrary in evil. Every inch you give it only feeds it and makes you an accomplice: the old Faustian story. The best way of making the mechanism visible is envisioning negotiations with Hitler about the holocaust: would half a million less make it any less evil? You cannot bargain or parley with evil and hope to come out morally in tact. That’s all apart from the victims thrown under the bus. The route of the Obama bus in the meantime is already well littered. We live in momentous times.
For the Europeans, and many leftists here, the reason to appease the Islamists at any rate is simple — they share with the Jihadis their desire to exterminate those Jews in the world that their hero Hitler missed the first time around.
Five years ago I started a new business with a partner who I had known through our sons baseball team. We had their son overnight or on vacation probably a hundred nights or so. I thought I knew them, but my partner was a liar, a serial business cheat.
It took me a long time to realize that he had lied the whole time with the intent to suck every last dollar out of me. I had never met someone who was evil, would lie to get their way but always acting like they were your friend.
I eventually threw him out but at great cost. I had to learn to watch only his actions because his words were never in sync with his actions. I call it paying tuition. When this administration began to run for President, I watched their actions, not their words. I can’t say I am surprised. They will tell you what you want to hear to get their way. then they will do what they want and tell you they are doing what they promised but it is all a lie. The American people are seeing this for themselves but it is still hard to believe our own administration would do this to a country they love, but then again, do they love it? I think not, they love only themselves which is why they are twisted. Waxman, Pelosi, Reid, Biden, Axlerod Emmanuel. do these people strike you as people that love their country?
It is very simple to understand why the Western democracies appease countries like Iran. They do so because fighting evil is HARD. The diplomats in Western countries are not stupid. They know the dangers they are facing and they understand the horrible people they are dealing with. But “negotiations” is another word for doing nothing, and the longer you can do nothing means the longer you can postpone a decision to actually do something. So the Europeans, and now our liberal Democratic president (who is basically a European socialist), is adopting the idea that if you keep talking to people, especially murderers and tyrants, the longer you can postpone the inevitable, which is to deal with these people with force. And before the nutroots on the left call me a warmonger or a “chicken hawk,” understand that standing up to evil doesn’t mean invading a country like Iran. Western democracies have a host of options (including military options) that can put lots of pressure on Iran without invading it. We can impose a naval blockade on the country or mine their harbors, actions that would probably destroy their fragile economy. We can use massive covert operations to destabilize the country (which wouldn’t be too hard considering how unstable it is right now) and we can use covert operations to sabotage their oil industry, which would also destroy their economy. The Europeans can also shut off all financial credit to Iran and freeze their assets in Europe, but the Europeans would actually have to have the backbone to do that. And there are many, many, other options that can be used to wreck a mullah’s day. But do we have the will to do this? Do we have the will to confront true evil and not just hope that, at some time, Israel will do the dirty work for us when the time for “negotiating” ends? I doubt it. But by then the evil will grow until Iran gets a nuclear device and then it will be too late. Is the West willing to pay that price for not confronting evil sooner?
Finally, the probing behind the endless feints, thrusts and parries of the US and international diplomatic community. Thank you, Mr. Ledeen
In addition to Mr. Ledeen’s analysis, I think another factor in the appeasment is the absolute reliance of the professional diplomats in their ability to talk, in the context of the deal so beloved by Dennis Ross. The diplomatic elites, probably of most western democracies and certainly the US are comprised of the “best and the brightest’ who rely on words, parsings of meanings , proposals, reviews of counter proposals, as substance. It is the enshrinement of process over end result; analagous to the the late Gordon Allport’s psychological concept of functional autonomy.They are comfortable with this as they excell at it as it offers the illusion of advancing a solution- in reality motion described as action, but most pleasing to the diplo professionals and the process of diplomacy or function becomes autonomous from any end result or goal.
Finally, the probing behind the endless feints, thrusts and parries of the US and international diplomatic community. Thank you, Mr. Ledeen
In addition to Mr. Ledeen’s analysis, I think another factor in the appeasment is the absolute reliance of the professional diplomats in their ability to talk, in the context of the deal so beloved by Dennis Ross. The diplomatic elites, probably of most western democracies and certainly the US are comprised of the “best and the brightest’ who rely on words, parsings of meanings , proposals, reviews of counter proposals, as substance. It is the enshrinement of process over end result; analagous to the the late Gordon Allport’s psychological concept of functional autonomy.They are comfortable with this as they excell at it as it offers the illusion of advancing a solution- in reality motion disguised as action, but most pleasing to the diplo professionals and the process of diplomacy or function becomes autonomous from any end result or goal.
Yeah, someone tell Obama to quit appeasing the Taliban & al-Qaeda and instead hit them where they live and operate from….oh, wait a second — never mind. I guess he can always preemptively invade the wrong country on made up/screwed up evidence as Bush did — that’ll certainly show our enemies we’re no fools.
Multitasking.
You can have appeasement and retaliation at the same time.
All you have to do is observe what the other country is really doing, not saying. You need good military intelligence for this. Once the facts deviate from appeasement, quick, decisive action is taken, diplomatically or militarily.
If you have a bad neighbor (noisy, sloppy, etc), you tell him nicely what you expect. If he breaks the agreement, you call the police, health department or whomever will take action. Shooting him in self-defense is the last resort.
The opposite of appeasement is preemptive measures and aggression. I don’t think you would start by shooting your neighbor or yelling insults.
This is a conflict as old as history. To war or not to war. “War is unacceptable and no reasonable solution to any political problem.” In the case of the U.S., unless approved by the Continental Congress, unless approved by Lincoln, unless approved by Wilson, unless approved by Roosevelt, unless approved by Truman, unless approved by Kennedy, etc., etc.
So far, for good or ill, we have mostly decided at some point to take military action in what we believed was a defense of ourselves and/or our allies, even in the face of strong homegrown opposition.
We have shown ourselves to be eventually ready to fight and finally to fight well. As Don Surber might put it (overall), “This is GOOD.”
Even Obama, in adopting so many of Bush’s security policies, which causes the libruls to bite the backs of their necks in fury and spite, seems to signal that he is not really a stone pacifist. Don’t tread on me. Get it?
Chamberlain, the man who gave “appeasment” a bad name, was, except for that major clanger, not an incompetent politician, and not a terrible leader. But he was accustomed to dealing with businessmen and other politicians, with whom reasonable deals could be made. He genuinely believed that the Munich agreement was such a deal. With the subsequent invasion of Poland he finally realized that Adolph wasn’t the least bit interested in deals. But by then it was far too late, and the situation was past salvaging.
What bothers me is that Team Obama has yet to show that it’s willing and able to deal honestly and competently with businessmen and other politicians. I’m afraid that we have Neville Chamberlain “Lite” running America’s foreign affairs. That implies that the situation now is really far more dire than it was in 1939.
I’ve been feeling that simple retaliation methods and standard tactics for dealing with rivals and enemies, or potential enemies, have become more and more like bandaid solutions in the modern world where everyone is interconnected to some extent, either economically or through Internet “villaging,” hence creating virtual neighbors regardless of actual distances. You then add all these artificial political structures that would never last in simpler ancient times, as well as these not so little cyber communities built around shared beliefs, no matter how wacky, and you end up having a pretty messy stage in human development.
For example the people who engage in jihad don’t exactly wake up in the morning thinking, “This is a great day to be evil and blow up the innocent!” — there is almost always a chain of events and a personal story behind all that in hindsight makes the final result inevitable — one thing, perhaps seemingly very innocent, inevitably leading to another thing a little bit less innocent until…well. And not all of the beliefs that drive a young jihadist are nonsensical — the West has plenty to feel guilty about in their historical dealings with the people and countries in and around the Middle East. If the bandaid solutions don’t work, and neither does aspirin and some Bactin, then perhaps a little bit more investigation is needed, including getting the full patient history, before a real and lasting solution is found.
Actually this whole “birther” thing can be looked at as an example of how even the silliest of mistaken beliefs can become a fervent, antagonistic and widespread form of jihad: if you have enough bitterness and antipathy in place, regardless if it’s logically & evidentially justifiable or not, it doesn’t exactly take a whole lot to give it focus and purpose. And reasoning quickly becomes ineffective and irrelevant. (There is some irony there, I suppose….)
BC;
You do make a good point about the birthing of terrorists. However, we must ask what is it about their societies that creates these people? A steady diet of vitriol from the media, from the school, from the mosques, that insists on the worthlessness of non-Muslims. Is it really so surprising that they act on what they’ve heard all their lives?
Just recently some Pakistani Christians were killed by Muslim rioters. Not all of it is related to Western misbehavior, but rather the beleif that the Other is inferior.
We should attack . . . Iran, Iraq again, North Korea, Venezuela, Syria, Mexico, Cuba, Russia, and just to be safe, Canada . . . all at once, all right now. That’ll teach ‘em. We’re America, damn it! We believe in self-determination!
There is one other, less obvious factor driving appeasement.
Winston Churchill famously repudiated his Nazi-appeasing predecessor thusly: “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
It seems to me that this observation, particularly that last bit about death being preferable to slavery, assumes a belief in a just God presiding over an afterlife. After all, even if you perish nobly in battle as Churchill described, at least you have heaven to look forward to.
But what if you don’t believe in any of that heaven-and-hell stuff, or an all-powerful Imaginary Friend In The Sky, to begin with? Then a heavenly reward doesn’t factor into your thought process at all, for as far as you are aware, your existence in this mortal coil is all you have. So, it is only rational for you to hold onto that existence for as long as you can, even if that means taking your chances with your new (or not so new, as the case may be) overlords.
So, B.C., what, exactly, do you think we ought to give the jihadists, which will finally make them happy, and get them to love us, and stop hating us? What do all us guilty Westerners have to do, to atone for our “sins” against them?
(Nice moral equivalency there, by the way, dragging in the birther thing, and trying to say it’s the same as armed jihad. Yah. Right.)
Tom Swift and his Atomic Appeasement Apparatus
Obama is the Anti-Politician; His perverse goals
and policies (F&D) are internally consistent.
My question: Does he think he can achieve his
goals, or does he think he is having his Last
Hurrah on the deck of the Titanic ?
One thing is clear; When the Hard Rain falls,
he, and his handlers, are going to find out
that they cannot walk on water.
I’m already against the next war.
#12 second paragraph
And there you have it, appeasement.
There must be a reason why they hate us and want to kill us. The diseased patient is sick because we made him sick, not because he chose to wallow in the filth that makes one sick. Did anyone ever think that the Jihadi is appeasing the prophet and god who demands the blood of the infidel? They are appeasing the leaders who claim to be appeasing the gods who requires blood running down the streets, soaking into the ground.
Ah, but we must hear them and we must assign them good cause for their blood lust. For the first time in the history of mankind the people who were attacked blame themselves. Yes that will do. A good excuse that requires our cooperation so the bloodletting can continue.
And than there is the fearless leader who went around the world and apologized for making the patient sick, and he assured them he would listen. Now what? Oh yes, the people of Iran spoke and what did the fearless leader do? Shhhh…don’t rock the boat. He listened and didn’t like what he heard. Better to reach out to the dictator than to the victims. That would require ‘real’ work, not state dinners and gift exchanges, speeches and clever catch phrases.
Hypocrites all. They want what most dictators want, the castle on top of the mountain looking over their kingdoms. That is why they appease. Like-minded people protecting their spaces.
Joshua, your closing paragraph in point 13, “..But what if you don’t believe in any of that heaven-and-hell stuff, or an all-powerful Imaginary Friend In The Sky, to begin with? Then a heavenly reward doesn’t factor into your thought process at all, for as far as you are aware, your existence in this mortal coil is all you have. So, it is only rational for you to hold onto that existence for as long as you can, even if that means taking your chances with your new (or not so new, as the case may be) overlords.”
shows the power of choice. Ultimately a person imprisons himself or herself. So, if they have no room for “the other”, well, I would not want to walk any distance in their
shoes.
‘Those who do not learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat it’ never was a more true word spoken and in Islam there is an enemy (THEY themselves constantly tell us they are our enemies but Moonbat Western Governments cant or rather dont want to hear it) which is in many ways far far worst than that extreme left wing organisation the National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party ever was. They dont fight out in the open but by deceit Taqqiya and lies and Saudi and Iranian funding of fifth column groups (Mosques) and Terrorist organisations all over the world and the ‘libtards’ thinking they are being oh so PC MC fall for it hook liner and sinker every time.
Appeasement is preemptive rationalization in the face of evil: “If I am nice to the crocodile, he won’t eat me, or at the very least he will eat the other guy (the belligerent one) first”.
When such a cynical view prevails, should we be surprised that the cynics win in the end? The only way to counter the cynics is to show courage, before they hold the levers of power and become so costly to fight, as was the case in world war two. It really is that simple, but the simple response is not the easy one. So, it’s a cultural matter, really: If the children see courage in adults, they will learn it. If they see cowardice, they will learn that, too.
Elections can be revealing: The American electorate chose the ultimate coward, the one who consistently voted “present” to avoid personal responsibility, and at the same time, the ultimate cynic, who would rather ignore the courageous Iranians and Hondurans demonstrating in the streets to keep their lines of communications opened with the tyrants, just in case they win!
In the mean time, hobble Israel, and let her inherit the stigma of belligerence if they stand up and do the right thing! Would we be having tea parties if we were not so offended by the cowardice and the cynicism of a president who has done so much damage to our economy and our national pride in just 6 months?
“not all of the beliefs that drive a young jihadist are nonsensical — the West has plenty to feel guilty about.”
Your arguments are well put, but I disagree. Pointing back to the sins of the past is most always the explanation given for the sins of the present and is always wrong. Watch a fighting couple on the verge of a divorce sometime to see what I mean.
To see why this is in this case I recommend watching the movie, “Frailty” from 2001. Wiki states it’s, “about a man who confesses to an FBI agent his family’s story of how his religious fanatic father’s visions lead to a series of murders to destroy supposed “demons.”
The pertinent dialog is:
Dad: Do you see what you made me do? You made me commit murder…
Fenton: I didn’t make you do anything. You did! You’re crazy!
Dad: I never committed murder before.
Fenton: I seen you murder lots of people.
Dad: Those weren’t people, son. They were demons.
Fenton: No they weren’t!
Dad: That man is dead, and it’s your fault. You killed him because you have no faith.
Whether one is totally crazy (You made me do it!) or just mostly crazy (Kill that demon the Great Satan!) – your still just crazy. Claiming one has acquired some sane right to vengeance would be more convincing if it wasn’t so obvious that the perpetrators of said violence plainly just want to turn back the clock to a point in time when they had the upper hand. This has become a matter of survival against a crazy and determined enemy and appeasing them in the name of justice is just plain suicidal. I have no intention of me and mine going to our deaths because “It” is my fault. And neither should you.
BC (12):
This comment shows a surprising ignorance of the jihadi background and way of thought. I would refer all concerned to JihadWatch.org.
The world is more complex than you seem to think, BC.
There are more reasons for such actions than simply revenge against a perceived ill treatement. No, these people do not wake up and say “This is a great day to be evil and blow up the innocent!”. They wake up and say: “my clan and way of life is threatened by an immoral and evil people; the only hope that I have to gain paradise is to sacrifice myself and kill as many of them as possible.” Their leaders, on the other hand, say that “the infidels are threatening our power and our way of life and are in insult to Allah. They must convert or die.”
The problem with appeasement is that occasionally the other guy isn’t a reasonable person. Appeasement didn’t work with Hitler because he was interested only in power and conquest. Chamberlain’s problem was that he couldn’t recognize this – even when Hitler said precisely what he was going to do in Mein Kampf.
Similarly, the jihadi’s have said precisely what they are going to do and how they are going to do it. As have the Iranians, the Chinese, and the North Koreans.
Forget Islam for a moment and take a closer look at the piracy near the coat of Somalia. Nothing illustrates the total collapse of the West than their unwillingness to confront sea robbery an put an end to it.
Until now we had a tendency put the blame on the Europeans for their craven fawning, obsequious behavior towards Islam and somehow bestowed the US with high praise for her assumed championship for freedom.
It was a mistaken premise as the Hussein O. election showed. The USA joined the rank of the genuflecting vassals of the Muslims by WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
=======================================================================
“Sir George Bernard Shaw in ‘The Genuine Islam,’ Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936.
“If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam.”
“I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him – the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity.”
“I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.”
It boils down to the issue of trust for Republicans because the “Always fair and impartial media” will destroy any Republican and any perceived Republican program because, it’s “Republican”. They undermine everything they can, in order to elevate those that they “support, protect and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic”, the Marxist Democrat party and international socialism.
If the people can be caused to distrust you, your support vanishes . Once your support is gone, you have no power and are constantly defensive and become unwilling to proceed as you might otherwise.
Meanwhile, the Marxists can count upon absolute support of all their programs and the suppression of negative information and even active preemptive attacks upon any perceived enemy or threat. The news media and entertainment media can effectively control the public mind because there is no other story presented. Add this to the fact that the Marxists believe that every win in any election, is a unanimous landslide, even if the win is only by one vote, as well as the knowledge that any law they pass will almost certainly remain unrepealed in latter years and you have the basis for unmitigated power and even terror.
We have learned this lesson before but seem ever doomed to repeat it and why? Because we have a media and entertainment media which are determined to bring it about, “by any means necessary”. Yes Virginia, being an open and honest Marxist isn’t possible yet but the good thing is, that all you have to do is lie about who you are and what you want, until you can finally wear that red beret proudly and maybe even have lunch with Fidel! Some day soon! Keep that Broach with the hammer and sickle polished up for the news reels of the future, so that then, there will be no doubt about who you are!
The Islamic tyrants who rule Iran are as evil as human beings can get: bloodsoaked totalitarians, completely without scruple, determined to hold onto absolute power over their subjects regardless of any consequence. What makes them singular is that they’ve persuaded so many others — possibly even themselves — that what they do is God’s will.
Given past Iranian president Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s public statement that Iran would cheerfully use a nuclear weapon on Israel even if it meant the obliteration of Iran, there’s no ground whatsoever for trusting them. With such a group of tyrants, there can be no meaningful negotiation; it can only be victory or death.
i think obama’s entire foreign policy revolves around the central proposition that it is better to appease RUSSIAN muscle-flexing in its various proxy states than to beat them back. for example, chavez is moscow’s largest weapons purchaser. nicaragua – the first country to recognize the sovereignty of the geogrian provinces conquered by russia last year – and venezuela are leading the attack against the Honduran government. russia builds iran’s nuclear facilities, provides it sophisticated air defense and ballistic missile technology, and trains its security forces; it also runs diplomatic interference for iran, and will soon be conducting joint naval exercises with it in the caspian sea (“counterterror” operations, of course). russia dredges and upgrades its Tartus naval base in Syria.
Meanwhile, Obama attacks Honduran gov’t, reduces pressures of all kinds against Cuba, conducts discussions with iran, shakes hands with chavez, ignores the other leninists in Equador and Bolivia, and hands russia an “overcharged” button while promising to reduce our strategic and conventional military capability.
Indeed – appeasemenet all the time, ultimately, of Russia. Russia, without whom none of these – to borrow a phrase – “sh-tty little countries” would be anything but virtual suicides. Indeed – why? I know Mr. Ledeen knows better, but it is hard to believe that it is because the people involved in the negotiations – Powers, Ross, Emmanuel, Clinton – do not recognize what anyone can recognize. Or are our people trying to tie their people in some sort of knots in the stratosphere of elite relationships that we proles know nothing about? Either way, it is sinister. I find it hard to believe that mere bumbling idealism causes this state of affairs.
Good point, Thomas.
Interesting, by the way, that Shaw idolized Mohammed–but then, that creepy, power-worshipping little man was always a big fan of dictators, and despots. He “Prophesied” about the faith of Mohammed; I wonder why he just didn’t announce his “reversion” to Islam.
“We can say to Obama what Churchill said to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.”
…as if we didn’t see that coming, but ‘we’ make up so few. You’ve spent a lifetime attempting to answer the question how can fascism be so easily appeased by educated masses? In it’s purest form, you’re witnessing the question being answered today.
I think maybe the problem with this topic is that the term “appeasement” is being assigned to things that not appeasement, but genuine attempts at real diplomacy, understanding what the complaints are, and trying to find common ground.
Think back at the times in your past when you each may have developed an uncomfortable or hostile relationship with a relative, schoolmate, roommate, friend of a friend, coworker, or even some random person standing or sitting near you at a game, club or bar that ended up boiling over into an ugly scene of insults, threats or maybe even violence. For most of you, that would also likely conjure up a lack of maturity by your younger self, and in hindsight you might think of better ways you could have handled the matter(s). How would you label this hindsight vision: you becoming an old, weak-willed fuddy-duddy desiring appeasement or you just realizing with maturity that there are usually two sides to every situation, that both sides can fervently believe he or she is completely in the right, and that belligerence, insults and threats usually just exasperate matters? Well?
B.C., relationships between individuals can’t be compared to relationships between nations, or between two competing ideologies, especially when one is determined to wipe out the other.
Tell me—what exactly should the Jews have done to get along with the Nazis? What were the two sides to this situation?
“I think maybe the problem with this topic is that the term ‘appeasement’ is being assigned to things that not appeasement, but genuine attempts at real diplomacy, understanding what the complaints are, and trying to find common ground.”
It may be Obama Admin’s genuine belief that they are engaging in meaningful diplomacy, but (1) we have understood what the complaints are since the Islamic Revolution, and (2) there is no common ground for genuine rapprochement.
You can endlessly repeat that “we haven’t tried diplomacy” and “it’s all a misunderstanding – and probably willful on our part,” but neither is true. Why? Not because I say so – because They say so. Despite all the Left’s talk about not understanding the other side, it’s bizarre to me that they don’t even recognize that there *is* another side, let alone understand it.
“the West has plenty to feel guilty about in their historical dealings with the people and countries in and around the Middle East”
Yes, as a Westerner I feel so horribly ashamed and guilty that we have transferred *trillions* of dollars to them for a mineral they couldn’t even get out of the ground without our technology, and they have nothing to show for it except limousines, concubines and brutal despotic regimes.
Most Leftist Democrats are really sub-bottoms; all they can do is be submissive to dictators. It’s fine in the bedroom, but for national security, it’s rather pathetic.
Obama does not want to get too close to the Iranian government, because his Secret Service might get confused when it is time to leave. They might bring home the wrong creature.
Why is it so hard to believe that Hussein hates America.
He and his mentors, his family, etc. have told you (Americans) that he does hate you and that you shouldn’t have suvs, heat, or much of anything even decent medical care.
Believe me, he hates you too.
who are the appeasers ?
I know that many businesses and infrastructures belong to Saudi, or to Iranians investors
that iranian money transits through London banks to american banks…
don’t look for any “manuals”, or causes ; tomorrow, if China decides it, the same dilemn will occur, should anyone carry on doing business with China ? no choice, they own the rules !
“We want to inject a degree of rationality into this relationship, reduce it to two nations with some differences and some common interests”
OK, fair enough, but I’d like to see the Obama Admin. articulate what exactly they see as the common interests. We have a fair idea of the differences.
I was supportive of Obama for extending an outstretched hand etc. I think you always have to try that. But successive US administrations have tried in one way or another to “engage” with the mullahs. I think of Madeline Albright’s apology to the Iranian regime during the Clinton Admin. Every time the olive branch is held out, it’s torched by the mullahs.
My question for the Obama Administration is this: “what is Plan B?”
“B.C., relationships between individuals can’t be compared to relationships between nations, … ”
Ya but BC has a point here in using psychological analysis. It is the single players of fourth generation warfare that are the problem of the future. Nations and their governments have their hands tied in many ways that the individual psychosis of Jihad doesn’t. Not that governments don’t play a role by using the psychos for their ends but ultimately it’s that guy with the suicide belt of botulism that we have to fear most.
That said, it is a mistake to get all postmodern on us with the idea that, “there are usually two sides to every situation”. While true does not mean that one is just a good as the other. Jihad is wrong, period. We have every right to use any means necessary to defeat it.
MICHAEL,
SOMETHING VERY LARGE IS ABOUT TO OCCUR.
ATROCITY PICTURES NEED TO BE PUBLISHED.
THE FOLKS IN THE IRANIAN GULOG APPRECIATE YOUR HELP.
HIP GETTING BETTER?
GOOD WINE HELPS.
REGARDS.
This page is home of all the people who just talk in SLOGANS and nothing more. From the health care to foreign policy, if things left to Republicans and conservatives NOTHING will be left of this country. Health care becomes DeathCare, and countries like Iranian regimes mushroom all around the world, no matter how many more “Axis of Evil” are named and U.S. Army is sent to flatten people, houses and basically everything.
After 8 years of Republicans, I truly can sleep better without fearing some emotionally disturbed people have taken over U.S. by reading and imagining ideal world according to them. Many of their ideas are good, exciting and excellent to listen while stuck in traffic. But making them into REAL, tangible and practical way of making lives better: NO WAY!
Democrats have lots of work to do and many correction needs to take place for 8 years of DISASTER that took place in U.S. Oh, yeh, everyone felt good about words, slogans and everyone becoming Fox news nonsense babbling.
If world is left to Republicans, and I mean the current Republicans and since Bush the baby boy, world gets closer and closer to end of time.
I write these with the hope to help those that wanting to help themselves, and I can’t do anything more than that. You need to take action to de-program yourself of so much nonsense. I envision you people will be drowning due to sinking of the world due to global warming, and STILL you people don’t know what the hell is happening!!
Sadly, a lot of it is explained in TS Eliot’s dictum that humans can’t stand too much reality. Like any problem that is intractable and seemingly insoluble, the temptation is to sideline it. Iran will soon have nukes. The awful prospect of the wicked, amoral grubs who rule Iran – that’s what they are – slipping a nuke to a terrorist organisation, which they will do if they think they can get away with it, is so intractable that these people have mentally sidelined it – they talk about “identifying common interests” and so on, while the shadows lengthen.
Don’t think that when Hezbollah or Al Qaeda get their hands on a fissionable quantity of weapons grade stuff, they’ll use it on Russia or China, whose brutality towards their own muslim populations is profound. No, it will be used on one of the western democracies, where muslims enjoy rights, freedoms, security and prosperity unparallelled anywhere else in the world.
That is why we have to face reality.
And BTW Thomas #32:
“Forget Islam for a moment and take a closer look at the piracy near the coat of Somalia. Nothing illustrates the total collapse of the West than their unwillingness to confront sea robbery an put an end to it.”
Spot on. That we have not simply obliterated these wretches speaks eloquently of a fatal loss of will and nerve. And it wouldn’t be hard!
Yesterday in Australia, a gang of Somalian immigrants was arrested in a long-runnig police operation and charged with offenses relating to planned terrorist attacks. It is alleged that they were trained and financed by Al-Shabaab, a Somalian group that is financed largely by – piracy.
Yes, we choose dishonor over war, and we will surely get war.
Taking your question literally, I like the logic of Calvocoressi and Wint in “Total War”. That logic is that WW2 was a large and complex conflict. To assign blame to any single cause or person is flawed.
WW2 was the joining of half a dozen regional conflicts into one. Diplomacy at work. Appeasement didn’t start the war. A lack of appeasement would NOT have prevented it.
The ONLY provable effect of appeasement was that it gave the German time to prepare. It also allowed then to choose the time and place for starting their part of the war.
If France had chosen to go to war when Germany took back the Rhineland, WW2 would have started in ’36 instead of ’39. Or at least the German part would have. Japan and Italy were waging war in ’36. It can be argued that the Germans would have been forced to surrender by ’39.
They had no real Army at that time. The Military machine that brought Europe to it’s knees was just a plan then.
Ever notice how used car salesman or those types are the first ones to fall for a get rich quick scheme? I know a few like that. One must believe bull to be deceived by bull. The left can’t recognize evil because the left is filled with evil themselves. All behaviors are fine with the left as long as the desirable end is achieved. Why? For one they believe there is no God. There are no morals, no good, no evil, just an ideology and an agenda. Get in their way and you’ll see the real nature of the beast. The same is true with Iran and any other thugocracy on our planet.
The bottom line here is that the president and his cronies will say they are talking and negotiating in hopes of this or that but what they are really doing is enabling our enemies to achieve their goals because they share the same ideology.
Dr. Ledeen is certainly right that appeasement is taking place in the we are appeasing people at war with us but he stopped short of the most damning indictment one can make about the current Iranian regime: these people organized and trained terrorist army to attack American forces in Iraq and killed or injured thousands of our soldiers. A very sizable number of the worst military maimings in Iraq were caused by IED explosive devices manufactured in Iran and exported to kill our soldiers.
Had Generalissimo Franco attacked American soldiers in France in 1944, Eisenhower was annihilated his regime. The butchers bill from Iran’s war on America has been very high and the regime is paid no price for their aggression.
To the contrary we appease them and we grovel to them even though it has long been clear that this file regime will never stop effective aggressions against us until it destroyed or forced to pay a price so high that they will never contemplate ever harming our interests again.
And for those who think that we on the right have only one solution, bombing, here’s a solution short of war that has a very good chance of working in might spare millions of lives from the inevitable nuclear holocaust if the ayatollahs get their bomb:
Announced the United States will seize the assets of any company doing business in Iran. In addition any executive, banker or insurance company that either insures any shipment into Iran will be extradited to the United States to stand trial for abetting terrorism. Finally, the United States should give Iran the deadline for peacefully negotiating away their nuclear weapons program or face an all out blockade of their ports.
Just as WWII could have been avoided had the allies confronted Hitler when he was still weak, we still have a chance to stop Iran before they threaten our allies with nuclear weapons. Failure by the democracies to be honest and face the threat now will result in many deathss in the future.
if, if, if…
in 1870, a war started because of Ems telegram
in 1914, because a foreign archiduc was assassinated
in 1939, because Germany felt strong enough to bully her neighbours
in 201*, because Germany will feel again strong enough to bully her neighbours !
the truth is that we should never had allowed that the 2 Germany reunified.
the German Habsburg empire, (and spanish threat) was already fought by our kings, Louis XIII, Louis XIV,whose policies were to divide the empire, through conquests, through alliances (even with “heretic” protestants), through marriages
Napoleon efforts focused on dismantling the austro-german hegemony
and now, we had appeasers, like Reagan, Mitterand… Gorbachev, that allowed Kohl to realise his dream !
see you in the next decade, or the decade after, we’ll face the same german spirit for EXPENSION
And BTW Thomas #32:
“Forget Islam for a moment and take a closer look at the piracy near the coat of Somalia. Nothing illustrates the total collapse of the West than their unwillingness to confront sea robbery an put an end to it.”
Spot on. That we have not simply obliterated these wretches speaks eloquently of a fatal loss of will and nerve. And it wouldn’t be hard!
Yesterday in Australia, a gang of Somalian immigrants was arrested in a long-runnig police operation and charged with offenses relating to planned terrorist attacks. It is alleged that they were trained and financed by Al-Shabaab, a Somalian group that is financed largely by – piracy.
Yes, we choose dishonor over war, and we will surely get war.
To BettyBlue: the emotional disagreements between large groups and nations are no more than scaled-up and more self-supporting versions of those between individuals. Think of consequences of just two people mouthing off at each other at, say a basketball game, with their friends trying to be peacekeepers, as opposed to the friends instead taking sides to join in on insulting and threatening the other group. It doesn’t that many involved to end up with a big news-at-11 brawl complete with multiple YouTube highlights. Scele it up further and you get a Bloods and Crips situation, some more and then maybe something like Irish Catholics and Protestants, and so on.
As far as Nazis and Jews go: obviously reasoning of any type falls apart when actions become wholly reptilian and devoid any sort of higher order conscience and morality. But one big fundamental difference between that Nazi era and now is that the Jews then were only a weak minority easily victimized and scapegoated by a much, much more powerful adversary, whereas that’s not so much the case these days: it’s not exactly a secret that every Islamic city, town and village, as well as Mecca, could be all turned into big, smoldering ashtrays if push *really* came to shove.
Jihad and terrorist tactics in general are the tools of the weak — those who don’t have air forces, organized armies, spy satellites, killer drones and the like.
And to Gary Rosen: those trillions amount to no more than bribes, and probably why the words “Saudi” and “corruption” seem to flow so well together. Another not quite secret is that the US is the defacto owner of the Middle East oil fields: if our supply from them is ever put at risk, there is standing policy, one which Nixon came very close to executing during the 70′s oil crisis, for us to just go in and seize the fields. And nobody is going to stop us, especially nowadays if we guarantee the status quo. Which makes the Arabs living in the oil field areas no more than serfs as far as their ownership of the land goes, rather well-paid serfs, but still serfs in that they only “own” the land just so long as they don’t get us angry. You combine this with stuff like the CIA’s bloody nonsense with the Shah of Iran, the cynical merchant-of-death double-dealing that went on during the Iran-Iraq war, and you end up with widespread and very strong feelings of helplessness and weakness that breeds the sort of anger and frustration that feeds a jihad mentality.
54. BC
@ BettyBlue
Nations as individuals
Right: You and Hannibal Lector
@ Gary rosen
just go in and seize the fields…
The oil fields are wired for demolition;
The loss of that much oil production,
for that long a time, is not tolerable.
helplessness + weakness = anger and frustration
(H+W)x(society+religion)=psychopathic sociopathy
Someone asked the founder of Wahabi Islam:
What is the message of your sect ?
He answered: Death, death and destruction.
“just go in and seize the fields…
The oil fields are wired for demolition;
The loss of that much oil production,
for that long a time, is not tolerable.”
Baloney! That is a bluff to use against those that know NOTHING about OIL, Oil fields and OIL production.
Since we are seizing the OIL fields in this scenario, the talent and equipment we need to get them repaired and back into production will be ready and on hand.
In ’91 it took months because none of the men and equipment was on hand;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwaiti_oil_fires
If everything is ready and a plan is made, it would take weeks instead of months. Plus having no land mines or bobby traps will help a lot.
I think it is a pretty stooooooooopid idea, but not because of some fairy tale about putting fires out.
I think it is stupid to fight over ANYTHING that you can buy. Fighting for OIL will just make it more expensive. Much more. ALL the OIL in Iraq isn’t worth what the USA spent on regime change in Iraq. When you consider that the USA has thousands of times the OIL supply of the KSA, then it becomes beyond stupid. Our OIL is in the form of Shale and Tar sands, but the technology exists to make it liquid. KSA reserves are measured in billions of barrels. Colorado alone has Trillions of barrels in the form of Shale OIL. Utah and Wyoming have almost as much. Canada is the largets importer of OIL to the USA. That OIL is all Tar Sands converted to liquid OIL.
Marie Claude, the French need to cut down all the trees lining their roads. If the Krauts have to march in the Sun, maybe they won’t come.
I don’t think the Russians have the military capability to invade Europe. Not that they need to. Just cut off the gas every winter and let the European freeze to death. Much more cost effective.
Islam doesn’t have a prayer ( JOKE intended) of defeating any other civilization thru military efforts. If they stop with the suicide bombers and just focus of immigration and conversion, in another generation, they will own Europe, maybe sooner. Fortunately, they are too Stooooooopid for that. Getting the bomb might be a good thing. Looking for the silver lining, Once they have a bomb or three, they will use them.
People over estimate the power of nuclear weapons. Hiroshima was occupied the day before the bomb, the day of the bomb and every day since the bomb. Granted, there were several less the day after.
Nuke New York and life will go on for most of those that survive the firestorm. The nation itself will be relatively unchanged. The Stock market will relocate, as will whats left of the media. A new UN will be built somewhere else. A new Madison ave will open up in another city. America will continue. Short a few million people, but all that will do is add a month or so to the time it takes to reach 400 million Americans. Islam won’t survive a nuclear exchange.
For what it’s worth, drilling a new hole thru a crater won’t be a big deal.
I have been given so many opportunities to meet this Devil, face to face as otherwise – sorry, but it looks like God must be in sick leave, vacation or on strike because I am still waiting to see him, as of today.
Yes indeed, the Devil always howls as loud as he can that he does not exist ; and let me add that he counts on everyone to believe him, because he has some sort of odd weakness of his own that makes him believe that he’s a good guy and that everyone around him believes he is.
To those who use to fight against the Devil face to face or are caught in a situation of a sort where they cannot do otherwise, my best recommendation from experience is : do and behave against him twice more as he does against you ; that’s the one thing he expects the least and dread the most.
John,
You ROCK!
The only “bloody nonsense” about our dealings with the Shah of Iran were that we didn’t support him—and we let the Ayatollah take his place instead. And things have been all been peachy keen in Iran ever since, with that bad ol’ Shah gone! /Sarc.
(The Ayatollah, and the mad mullahs, ended up killing even more people than the Shah ever did.)
I disagree. I think the disagreements between nations are much, much more than simply larger versions of tensions between individuals. (Oh, and M. Report, pointing out that dealing with nations could be different than dealing with individuals doesn’t make one Hannibal Lector, or even Snidely Whiplash, or Crabby Appleton. Nice try, but no kewpie doll.)
Again, using the example of Jews and Nazis, all the friendship, and good will, on one side, simply isn’t going to make any difference, when one side is set on the other’s destruction. Same thing with, for instance, the Japanese, in WWII. Many Japanese had visited the US, and had very friendly feelings towards it. They admired American culture, and technology. But when their government decided it was to Japan’s advantage to attack America—well, friendly feelings didn’t help much. Many Russians, in the cold war era, fervently admired American literature and culture—but the KGB continued spreading anti-US propaganda, and working against us.
As for the Saudi oil fields, and how we really own them, and how if we get angry we’ll do something mean to the Saudis. . .oh, please. If 9/11 didn’t make us mad at them (15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia; Bin Ladin is the scion of one their richest families) nothing is going to get us mad at them! A real despotic power would have taken over the oil fields decades ago—and wouldn’t pay the Saudis one thin dime.
There’s also the billions in foreign aid we give Egypt, and the Palestinians; the Moslems we saved in Kosovo, when neither Europe, nor their Moslem “brothers” could be bothered to help them, the starving Moslems we tried to feed in Somalia. . . you know, I think that should count for something.
Also, if you take the attitude that all Islamic resentment is because of the bad ol’ United States, how do you explain Mumbai? The Jihad in the Philippines, and Indonesia? what about the Uighers in China, or the Chechens in Russia?
As for terrorism being a weapon of the weak—well, it seems to be working. Look at the Mo-toons scandal. The threat of rioting Moslems, and terrorist attacks, was enough to keep many papers from even running the cartoons. There goes freedom of speech. Terrorists only seem weak to people like you. To their victims, and potential victims, they seem strong.
“Why did it take Pearl Harbor to bomb us into action?”
Gee, Mike, I hope your study of fascism was more thorough than your study of American history. You missed some mighty interesting chapters on the America Firsters, Lindbergh, US public opinion, etc. Back to the books!
“We can say to Obama what Churchill said to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.”
Or we can say to Obama what Churchill also said: “Better jaw, jaw than war, war.”
To BettyBlue: the CIA installed the Shah of Iran via a military coup, something they freely admit to now (as “regime change”). And it was just done just because we didn’t trust the left-leaning government of the rightful, duly elected prime minister Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq. It was typical, cold war, stomp all over the little country BS. If you were Iranian, wouldn’t you be just a little teeny bit annoyed by this sort of behavior? It’s very doubtful that the Mullahs killed more people that the Shah’s bloody secret police, the CIA-backed SAVAK, but there’s little doubt that if Mossadeq had been left alone, the Ayatollah’s would never have come into power and Iran would not have regressed into an Islamic republic and end up being such a headache later.
Acting like an abusive parent, as in first roughly slapping down a little country not doing what we want, and then giving it lots of money afterwards, is not going to engender much affection. And if you look up the history of countries like Somalia, you tend to find a lot of beat downs by Western nations that ended up destroying the political integrity of the state, much as it did Iran or worse. Make no mistake — they do have legitimate reasons to not be fond or trusting of us.
Islamists appear to see jihads mostly as resistance operations against not just the US, but countries like Russia as well –which also doesn’t have a very pretty history in the Islamic world — and has somewhat spread to general non-Islamic authorities.
As far as the Saudi oil fields go, I’m pretty sure they are not wired in any way to blow up — that would never be allowed by this country. Hussein was able to wire up the Kuwaiti oil rigs only because he had enough time to before having his troops booted out.
John “birther” Samford (birther ? how many kids
)
“the French need to cut down all the trees lining their roads. If the Krauts have to march in the Sun, maybe they won’t come”
you’re completly wrong, Germans love sunshine and Nature cultism (ie green party), don’t forget Goths had oak trees as divinity, but I expect you were trying to joke (uh, repeating an old refrain of your last decade legions)
Now, after 2 decades, we can assist to a re-nationalism in this country, their feeling to dominate EU policies, their uncontested ways to make alliance with Russsia, to trade with “rogue” states… so we better poor “kraut” in their beer if we want that peace last long in our aeras
“I don’t think the Russians have the military capability to invade Europe. Not that they need to. Just cut off the gas every winter and let the European freeze to death. Much more cost effective”
Hmmm, that doesn’t concern us, 83% of our electricity is producted by nuclear, “our” saharian gaz sites can supply us the rest.
Islam doesn’t have a prayer ( JOKE intended)–> finally
of defeating any other civilization thru military efforts. If they stop with the suicide bombers and just focus of immigration and conversion, in another generation, they will own Europe, maybe sooner”.
Hmmm, I read that multiculturalism help a lot to extend shariah laws in your anglo-saxon countries !
“Fortunately, they are too Stooooooopid for that. Getting the bomb might be a good thing. Looking for the silver lining, Once they have a bomb or three, they will use them.”
they will use t’em at each others first ! their different ethnies can’t agree on Koran interpretations
so we better poor “kraut –> pour
so we better poor “kraut” -–> pour
Seriously, B.C., if I were Iranian, I’d be far more annoyed at what happened to my country after the Shah left. Have you been paying any attention to what’s been going on over there lately?
(Not to mention the Iraq/Iran war, which killed millions on both sides. The Shah managed not to go to war, but the good old Ayatollah dragged his people right into it.)
All these countries: Russia, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Israel, China—and the Islamists can’t get along in any of them. I think this says more about Islam, and its followers, than it does about the countries themselves. Are we really supposed to believe that Islam is always the victim, and everybody else is wrong?
The problem with Persia/Iran is they wanted to reap the benefits of the oil that they contracted with the British, but none of the work or time, blood or sweat it took to extract the oil.
Suddenly when the oil began to flow they had reservations about sharing the wealth that came from the money, work, time, blood and sweat the British spent exploring for oil.
And those greedy Americans contributing the money, equipment, time, blood, and sweat into the exploration of oil in Saudi Arabia making a deal of fifty/fifty with the Saudis.
What do the Americans do with that oil? Why they build a society where it is possible for it’s citizens to achieve whatever they set their minds to.
What do the Saudis do with that oil money? Why they build a society that stifles, smothers, suppresses and strangles it’s citizens so that only the privileged few have a chance to make a better life for their families. Palaces as big as city streets and cars dipped in sterling silver, hate mixed with resentment, powerlessness, fear, all nourishment to the gods of Islam.
A better question might be; What if the speculators and investors had not found oil in the Middle East? What if they would have gone home empty handed? Well that would leave Islam, reason enough for the need to appease.
Poor OPEC. All that money the evil West spends on oil and gas and they are so angry, weak, and helpless they do not have the will or the way to make a better life for the people living there.
Excuses, Excuses.
And Khomein was far more murderous than the shah: http://www.iran-e-azad.org/english/maryam/speech.html
Ah, but Lynn, they can always blame the U.S., and Israel, for their rotten, dysfunctional societies, thereby staying in power.
And here’s an article about jihad in general: http://www.daneshjoo.org/article/publish/article_3221.shtml
As for Mossadegh, I know the Left loves him, because he was going to nationalize the oil industry, but he may not have been much of a political savior; at any rate, If I were Iranian, I be madder about what’s going on now, than what happened 50 years ago; http://www.iranian.com/Vassigh/2003/September/Politics/
When you’ve lived a comfortable life your whole life the worst thing in the world is the loss of comfort. That’s why the comfortable West appeases and appeases and appeases: please God, let them – the barbarians – be sated by this sacrifice a little while…and then the next…and then the next.
And now the barbarians are getting the bomb. . .
Lynn, in Islam, hard work is for Dhimmis, not the Moslem overlords. Of course Iran, and Saudi Arabia, wanted Britain and America to run their oil fields, while they reaped the benefits.
We need to drill for oil here in the US. And we need a Manhattan project to find a new source of energy.
I’m with you BettyBlue. When you find out the money you are spending for a product goes toward the feeding and clothing of those who despise you and wish you dead, it’s time to look elsewhere.
To BettyBlue: the issue really isn’t about who was the most murderous and destructive, the Shah or the Ayatollahs, but that the US had no business overthrowing a legitimately elected leader of an independent country just because it suited our cold war strategy at the time. Is doesn’t actually matter if Mossadeq was that great of a guy or not — in the greater picture, this sort of very cynical, insouciant, dopey, short term thinking seems to have caused nothing but major, major blowback problems for us down the road.
65. vivo:
59. homero:
“…have you ever said anything critical of the democrats ?”
Yes. But I rather say constructive things when possible. I don’t think I criticize, I set things straight.
that is way funny …I have not seen anything constructive from you. and never anything critical of the democrats.
A real tyranny would never permit elections in the first place–North Korea never does–nor would it allow demonstrations contesting the election results to spiral out of control…
An astonishingly naive statement, ignoring the fact that Iran at least pretends to be a Republic & pretends to have a Constitution and Parliament.
As such, Iran, must pretend to have elections, even though the outcome has already been pre-determined by The Supreme Dictator in Chief, who also pre-determines who can (and who cannot) stand for election to Majles, Parliament.
As for the mullahs’ treatment of their own people, the president and his brain trust are tough-minded in the extreme…
It was very depressing to see the pictures of those arrested (post sham election) in an Iranian courtroom. It reminded me of the abject horror of one of Saddam’s trials.
It’s All Appeasement, All the time. Why?
Because negotiation and policy tweaking is a game for think tankers whose (immediate & direct) personal risk is 0 as they pontificate from their Ivory Towers.
(I used to think that Dennis Ross was better than all that)
They couldn’t dare grasp the truth and simplicity of Churchill’s admonition. They might view it as simply mundane, beneath their intellectual prowess.
An appeaser feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
~Winston Churchill
I do believe that many of our blow back problems that occur in the region of Islamic influence is more do to with our very existence and the existence of Israel and the Jewish People more than anything else.
The money, the time, the speculation, the investment, the equipment, the technology, the blood, and the sweat that went into the exploration and discovery of oil in the Middle East means nothing when the West refuses to call for, or at the least support by turning the other way, wiping the Jewish People from the face of the earth.
Even the large portion of petrol-dollars that the United States sends overseas with every gallon of gas our citizens buy, means nothing unless it is used to promote, encourage, demand, and preach the destruction of Israel and chasing the Jewish People into the sea. If it is used for education, prosperity, opportunity, food, clothing, and shelter for it’s citizens, it is wasted. Islam demands payment in blood, specifically the blood of the Jews and Infidels.
I think that is the sad fact of dealing with the Islamic Jihad mind- set these many years. That is the blow back we have dealt with since the 7th century.
@ BettyBlue
Sorry, I thought that you, rather than BC
said that nations, like individuals, can
all get along, and replied that getting along
with nations analogous to Hannibal Lector
is not an option.
Will try to be more careful this time:
I am not an apologist for the Japanese,
and certainly not for the NAZIs, but
both outcomes were predictable, in the
same way that waving red meat in front
of a wolf is sure to get one bitten.
Lloyd George, Prime Minister of England,
after WWI, was urged to make the terms of
the Treaty of Versailles less stringent
toward the defeated Germans. He replied:
“What ! I have got them where the hair
is short, and I intend to squeeze until
the pips squeak.” The pipsqueak he got
was Adolph Schicklegruber.
The US did not like Imperial Japan’s
plans for expansion into S.E Asia,
(Dutch Oil fields ? ! deja vu x2),
and hindered them by denying them
access to critical raw materials
for their war machine; this is
Casus Belli: A just cause for
going to war.
Yamamoto got his attack plan for
Pearl Harbor from a book written
by a US military analyst.
US Navy Admiral Tarr won a war game
he was supposed to lose: Pearl Harbor
attack. He spent the rest of his career
sailing a desk.
If history is any guide, the Near East
situation will end badly, for the same
reasons as did the ones above.
It does not help my sympathy for the Iranian opposition one whit to discover that many of those proclaiming their opposition toward the Iranian regime are far more interested in fomenting civil war within the United States than in overthrowing the Iranian government.
This is the saddest part of the American history, save civil war, I guess
B.C., Mossadegh is gone; so is the Shah. They are both history, now. The mullahs, unfortunately, are still here, and they are treating their own people far more brutally than the U.S. ever did.
I really do not believe that Islam’s many problems in getting along with the world: in China, in the Philippines, in India, Kashmir, Nigeria, Indonesia—you name it, can all be ascribed to the actions of Americans. (And, really, if Mossadegh didn’t matter, why would his deposition still matter to Iranians now? If the mullahs, and Islamism, were really what they wanted, why are they revolting against the former, now?)
I’m with you, Lynn. I believe it has more to do with what America, and Israel, are—and the fact that Islam hasn’t progressed beyond the 7th Century.
Alexis, are you accusing those who support the Iranians of treason? How so? Got any links, or evidence, to back up this rather strange claim?
In the end, I think appeasement is seen as easier (in the minds of its supporters) than actually having to stand up to evil, which takes work.
Betty Blue:
Those Americans who support the overthrow of Iranian tyranny are acting patriotically. I am deeply suspicious about Iranians who claim to oppose the Iranian government and yet use overheated rhetoric concerning American domestic politics. Those Iranians who are truly interested in fostering American support for overthrowing the Iranian government would do well to appeal to both Republicans and Democrats; both liberals and conservatives believe in liberty and both liberals and conservatives should see a common cause in opposing tyranny.
I am deeply suspicious of those who loudly proclaim their opposition to the Iranian government while also using rhetoric as soothing as a blowtorch to describe American domestic political differences. We need to recognize that, despite serious disagreements on policy, patriots have a common interest in opposing the Iranian regime. We may be Republicans or Democrats at home, but we are Americans abroad. Certain Iranian “dissidents” clearly do not recognize that.
To Lynn: actually, historically speaking, Muslims up until the past century tended to be much more tolerant and respectful of Jews than Christians. The best/ugliest example of this was how the Jews fared in Spain before, during and after the long occupation by the Islamist Moors, who treated the the Jews far, FAR more benignly than when Christians were in charge. I have heard and read that Arab’s world real issue with Israel is that it was and still is seen as yet another artificial colony created by Western states, hence becoming an overly convenient focal point for all that rage built up from over a hundred years of mistreatment by the West. Whether or not you feel this is a stupid and unjustified attitude is besides the point of what they feel — that’s what they are going to act upon it.
I always thought that Israel’s best chances for long term peace and stability is to have it become, however grudgingly and reluctantly, the good, helpful neighbor — they have technical, industrial, and financial skills sorely lacking the neighboring countries, who are pretty much completely dependent on oil revenues and Western companies being nannies for them. Israel can easily survive the oil reserves petering out, but their stupidly hostile neighbors can’t, and it’s only a matter of time…. Even stubborn, thickheaded people blinded by decades of disinformation, misunderstandings, and rage can get reluctantly practical if you give them good damn reasons to.
Alexis is right
Didn’t the protesters sing “Allah ouakbar” too ?
I’m not talking of the few secular expats that are authentic theocraty opponants, lot of so called refugiees are part of the mullah troops and act for their scenario in different associations and lobbies : they aim to lift boycott off, they aim to influence our policies for not “attacking their countries, oh yes, they are such good guis too, much better than the villan Arabs, OK, very clever people !
But I don’t forget that Iran sponsored (and still do)most of the terrorism against the western world (with the Saudi)
Alexis, what Iranians are you talking about? The ones still in Iran, or expatriate ones, living here? In either event, I’m not aware of any of them using “overheated rhetoric”, or trying to foment civil war here (something I seriously doubt they’d find useful in their rebellion against the mullahs.) Again, do you have any links, or some sort of evidence for this? Which “dissidents” do you see doing this?
As for appealing to the Democrats, I think Obama’s made it clear he supports Ahmadenijad in this; most of his fellow Democrats appear to following suit. This is sad—and not good for Iranians, Americans, or anybody else.
B.C., Israel has been a good neighbor. Remember the Gaza greenhouses?
The Palestinians aren’t mollified. To them, I suspect, the only good Israeli neighbor is a dead one.
An article about the Gaza greenhouses: http://www.zionism-israel.com/ezine/gaza_green.htm
Actually, sounds like many palestinians consider Israel a good neighbor. Yet this hasn’t brought peace. http://www.danielpipes.org/5314/palestinians-who-prefer-israel
I’m afraid that any group that teaches its kids hate like this (and buys “Mein Kampf”) isn’t interested in peace, or neighborliness: http://fp.thebeers.f9.co.uk/indoctrination.htm
Betty Blue, and all the rest who use the term, “Palestinian”, I have this request: stop playing into the hands of those who are the current pace setters of man’s inhumanity to man. South Syrian Arabs are a more accurate, and older definition of who they are. Plus, it just goes to show that Mid East history did not start in 1948, and there were Jews living in that neck of the woods. Which counters the claim of Israel only being a modern colonial power.
Palestians, South Syrians, whatever; whoever they are, they aren’t interested in peace. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/08/this_is_peace_according_to_fat.html
(And, yes, there were Jews living there, before 1948.)
Alexis, what Iranians are you talking about?
Try reading the comments section here and you may soon find out.
By the way, just as not every Republican supported Bush, not every Democrat supports Obama. The Obama administration does not necessarily equate with “Democrat” or “liberal”; if anything, the Obama administration’s foreign policy seems to reflect a paleoconservative worldview rather than a traditionally liberal perspective.
Alexis, I’m not a mind reader. I can’t tell, either from nics or from comments, who’se Iranian and who isn’t, and I really don’t want to scroll back through nearly 100 posts, and guess.
Again, can you mention any specific post, maybe by number, instead of muttering darkly?
Also, a few commenters, on one blog, doesn’t necessarily prove the existence of an Iranian plot to create civil war in America. Once again—do you have any links, some references you can give us?
Myself, given its general appeasement tendencies, and cozying up to dictators, while alienating America’s allies, Obama’s administration seems to me just what I feared it would be—Leftist/Marxist, not “paleoconservative” (whatever that means, anyway.) And, of course, some Democrats don’t support Obama. That doesn’t necessarily mean they’re going to oppose any of his policies, even when they disagree with them, or even if they do, they’re going to do it wholeheartedly, or effectively. It’s one of those wait and see things.
If some posters here are, in your opinion, trying to foment civil war here, have you challenged them directly about this? I’m not aware of any such thing; honestly, I’ve been focusing more on the appeasement question (which was the subject of this thread, anyway.)
To BettyBlue: thickheaded is thickheaded — it takes time and patience, lots of it, to get through to people very fixed in beliefs and attitudes, however dopey. Sometimes you even have to wait out a change in generations.
And, sometimes, people die, before the generations change, as with the Jews and Nazis, the Chinese who died at the hands of the Japanese, in the Rape of Nanking, the victims of Islamic terrorism and all those who died under Communism.
Patience isn’t enough to save people from “dopey” ideas—certainly not from evil ideologies. Nor is it necessarily a given that said “dopey” ideas will ever be rejected, no matter how hard others try to get through to those who hold them. How many lives should we gamble? Millions? Tens of millions?
Thickheaded is thickheaded, indeed!
Patience, sadly, did nothing to save these three pastors; dear me, will the Islamists ever outgrow their “dopey” ideas? http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/027142.php
In many societies, it is more polite to talk elliptically (with intelligent people knowing the subtext) than to call someone out overtly and publicly. He who is so lazy that he cannot be bothered to read the context of what I have to say is also too lazy to post all day long.
I don’t know BettyBlue, but it’s been 14 centuries since the Islamists started their reign of terror and it doesn’t appear they are ready for change.
And even worse, it seems we are still more then ready to continue with appeasement. Oy vey.
I just read on Debka that Iran plans to declare the three Americans (It says that they are American Jews) arrested by Iran-Iraq border as spies. So here was my first question BEFORE I know these three were Jews: Why on earth, during this crazy time, these three Americans decide to go NOT to Iraq, but right on the damn border with Iran?! What made these people so cool and feeling like tourists to go to such place?
Now, after I just read this Debka news, my question is: Why the F…CK three American, and then in particular three JEWS decide to go to that F…g border place? How the F…k they decided that being Jewish and going to such a place is cool. Did they feel like going to pray by the Western wall? I’m totally flabbergasted!
At the time Iranian people are trying to fight this regime, such above actions are almost like Michael Jackson death that took so much coverage of Iranian protests.
Now we are set for long weeks of show back and fort between U.S., Iran, Israel, family crying, Israeli plans attack, Ahmadinejad keep laughing like monkeys and NOTHING REAL will take place about the fight on streets of Tehran. So we are set for another set of STUPID, AVOIDABLE shows that keep filling the airwaves. I don’t think these three are spies, but I do believe they are the most A. holes, brats and scums to do stupid thing at the wrong time.
To BettyBlue: well, so far the status quo of threats, fences, posturing, rocket launching, harsh reprisals, and so on that’s been going on for — how many decades now? — hasn’t exactly improved matters, has it? It’s well past time to think outside the tank.
As far as that jihadwatch link goes, I’ll raise you a couple of larger massacres:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/09/16/palestinians.anniversary.reut/
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/southasia/news/article_1489388.php
Murderous behavior is not exactly the exclusive domain of our Islamic enemies.
One element has been omitted from this insightful analysis, the connection between Russia and the smaller evil powers Ledeen discusses. As during the Cold War Russia remains the patron militarily and diplomatically of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua, Fatah and since the waning days of Yeltsin, Chavez’s Venezuela. Now add Hamas and Honduras to the list along with Bolivia. One country from the Cold war omitted from this list is Iraq. Bush tackled a gathering threat to avoid facing a stronger Sadaam after the sanctions regime would have ended. But the cost of the project freeing Iraq, due to the inherent nature of these things, as well as, administration blunders along the way to a version of success, reinforced the appeasement approach. This does not mean we had a choice: Sadaam harbored the first WTC bomber and the Achille Lauro terrorist, funded Palestinian terrorism, hosted Al Qeda in Baghdad in Feb/March 1998, supplied diplomatic passports to Bin Laden, sent his intell agent Shakir to the key AQ meeting in Malaysia in Jan 2000 and his intell agent, Al Ani to meet twice with Mohammed Atta. The uranium yellow cake the Coalition forces discovered and hid for years during the Iraq war before sending it to Canada would have eventually been used in a wider conflict along with the bio weapons Sadaam would have made from the materials he shipped to Syria and the scientific infrastructure he had in place. But by preventing these things and stopping Sadaam from supporting further possibly successful attacks against the US homeland Bush created a negative which can easily be dismissed by the appeasers as a fantasy at worst and a supposition at best. Had Chamberlain followed Churchill’s advice; had Britain moved with France against Hitler when he entered the Rhineland in 1936 the Nazis would have been destroyed but there would have been deaths in the fight and unanticipated diplomatic consequences that would have evoked criticism of the Churchillian approach as war mongering, overreacting etc. Yet had that success taken place no one would have been aware that 60 million lives world wide and the destruction of European Jewish civilization had been avoided. The inability to time travel is a deterrent to proper understanding and proper policy but it is the reality we all have to operate within. Thankfully, despite our current troubles, we have Michael’s insights and warnings to help guide us in the quest to contain the march of tyranny and eventually reverse it. The odds are long right now but we have no choice but to join him in the fight.
“The uranium yellow cake the Coalition forces discovered and hid for years during the Iraq war before sending it to Canada”
they coalition forces didn’t discorer it, it was known to be there since “Desert storm” operation, but at this time “Bush 1″ didn’t think it represented a real danger
Alireza:
Concerning the tourist/journalists found on the Iranian border, I actually agree with you for once. It is appalling just how foolish certain people can be. The Iranian border is simply not the best place to go on a picnic.
I think we give in to the demands of the Islamists because of fear. I think that Islam at this time feels under danger from free thought, and free choices for the people who live under Islamic Rule so they are pushing to spread their territory and hold on to what they have.
I think that they realize that if Islam is exposed, and it’s citizens have access to other ideas, they will demand freedom which will weaken their power over them.
I wish the world was not so afraid of Islam, but because of it’s history of brutality, I understand why. I think though that it is not as powerful as we fear and I agree with former President Bush that all people yearn for freedom and a voice in their destiny. Tyrants, despots, and dictators also live in fear of the people.
I don’t think that time and appeasement will do anything but continue the cycle. I think that we have to take a stand against this tyranny of Islam.
I also think we appease for fear of what will replace the tyranny that is in place. There is always a danger that what fills the void will be worse. There seems to always tyrants waiting in the wings for their opportunity.
He who is too lazy—or untruthful—to say what he means; to provide evidence, and make his case, and who insists on talking in riddles, and bristles when he’s challenged is too lazy—or dishonest—to take seriously.
(Being cleverly elliptical might work in some societies, but in America, we actually try to make ourselves understood.)
Lynn, sadly, appeasement often ends up giving tyrants more power than they had in the first place.
Apropos this article, I recommend that people read the American Thinker article by Jed Gladstein entitled: The Price of Denial is Death.
BettyBlue:
Yes, sadly true, and we end up having to confront the evil after centuries of appeasement. Sigh.
Dear Betty Blue:
In case you are interested, I was referring to partisan trash talking such as, “If world is left to Republicans, and I mean the current Republicans and since Bush the baby boy, world gets closer and closer to end of time.” If you can’t find that quote in the rest of this blog, then you are not only lazy but also stupid. As a rule, it is best to criticize the error and not the person making it, but I am temporarily breaking that rule because you insist upon my doing so.
I hope you realize that neither being an American citizen nor being culturally American is contingent upon acting like you. Unlike you, most Americans understand that making one’s self understood to others should not require the level of rude and crude directness that you apparently insist upon. Unlike you, most Americans prefer to use a degree of subtlety and tact higher than an apartheid era policeman clearing out a black township. Please do not equate being American with acting like an arrogant and imperious monster.
There are times when indirect comments are the most appropriate especially when dealing with Iranians and especially when seeking the overthrow of the Iranian government. Elliptical commentary is an ancient Persian tradition. Given that I am seeking the overthrow of the Iranian government and given that I am trying to make my case in a manner that can be appreciated in translation, I for one am willing to use elliptical language if it is more polite than being as direct as “Betty Blue”.
One aspect of the present Iranian regime that is annoying is precisely how direct and overt its rhetoric really is. Even Ayatollah Montazeri is embarrassingly direct in his denunciations of the regime. In contrast, traditional ayatollahs are capable of expressing themselves elliptically and indirectly; although everyone understands what they are talking about, they allow the target of their criticism to save face. Given that most Americans are capable of using language with artfulness and tact, I would hate to think that the rhetorical crudeness of the present Iranian regime could in any manner be attributed to its “Americanization”.
“in 1939, because Germany felt strong enough to bully her neighbours”
After signing a non-aggreesion pact with the USSR, givin the USSR a head start on its expansion into Europe.
85. Where to start!
You are an apologist by what you write.
The main issue with Germany after WWI is the military did not feel defeated.
“The US did not like Imperial Japan’s
plans for expansion into S.E Asia,
(Dutch Oil fields ? ! deja vu x2),
and hindered them by denying them
access to critical raw materials
for their war machine; this is
Casus Belli: A just cause for
going to war.”
What plan’s for expansion. The invasion into SE Asia started at approximately the same time as the attack on Pearl Harbor.
What Roosevelt did earilier was place an embargo on Japan for the aggression in China.
Did Yamamto really get his game plan from the US? and if so, so what.
Well, you were doing a good job on Iran, now it’s just drivel.
I mean jeez, how long did it take you to get a birther comment? Seven comments in? You’re really raising the debate level. It’s usually 4.
Why? Because, they do not have will-power enough to facing the enemy who murders them more than 29 year. The policy of appeasement or “the humiliating concessions”, traditionally, this kind of policy was/is regarded as a naive policy that gave the democracies the appearance of weakness and encouraged the Evil powers in their attempts to rebuild their power to grow stronger and stronger.
The policy of appeasement or the humiliating concessions is indeed pointless and useless.
This kind of policy had failed in 1939 and still failing. The policy of appeasement encourage the enemy to do anything he want, where it encouraged Hitler to think he could do anything he wanted. This failed humiliating policy it actually helped to cause World War II.
Generally! The policy of appeasement is a moral cowardice just increases the international quarrels and more of bloodshed, while the Wars always kept peace!
Unfortunately, today most of policymakers they are totally a colorblind, or rather they do not want to see the Evil farthest of their noses, in other words, THEY BECAME QUITE ACCOMPLICES TO EVIL!!!
Mr. President Obama, please remember that “NO compromise with Evil, NO compromise on the U.S. National Security and on the Israeli Security and NO compromise on people freedom!!!”
Jassem Othman, Syrian, Extremely loyal and faithful for the Benevolent Empire (USA).