Appeasers and Bullies

Discussion in 'Politics' started by carpro, May 23, 2008.

  1. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13251

    Appeasers and Bullies
    By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
    Published 5/22/2008 12:08:25 AM

    WASHINGTON -- Poor Neville Chamberlain. The long deceased British prime minister -- remembered through the decades for his policy of appeasement and for the war with Hitler that it hastened -- now suffers yet another disgrace. The mere mention of "appeasement" apparently sets off paranoid tantrums amongst members of the political class.

    SNIP

    One thing that all these Democrats have in common is a colossal moral superiority. As we have seen before, they repeatedly presume to set the terms of political debate. They rule over the appropriateness of words and strategies, telling us what the Republicans can and cannot say. Now they have ruled the word "appeasement" to be "reckless," "outrageous," and bereft of "dignity." The term has been applied to opponents of a forceful foreign policy for two generations during which forceful foreign policy kept America secure. Alas, in this election the Democrats have ruled the word appeasement out of bounds.

    To Obama the term is redolent of that "divisiveness" that he abhors. He has crossed the length and breadth of the land lecturing against divisiveness. So how can we end this offensive divisiveness? Well, obviously by agreeing with him and his wife. His wife is also on the campaign trail, and when Republicans react unfavorably to her complaints about America he tells them to "lay off my wife." What kind of a person tells us what we can and cannot say and whom we must be in agreement with? To my mind it is a bully, and now we are going to have months of watching Senator Obama attempt to bully Senator John McCain...
     
  2. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,361
    Likes Received:
    790
    They dont actually set anything. They do whine excessively though.
     
  3. NiteShift

    NiteShift
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why it's almost as if someone had called them unpatriotic!
     
  4. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    To accuse the Democrats of being appeasers is a strawman. First of all, I know of none who have called to appease the enemy. Secondly, many Republicans are also against the war in Iraq. Most Americans seem to agree that invading Afghanistan was the correct action when the Taliban aided and abetted the plotters of the September 11 attacks on America. To invade Iraq was a diversion and an unprovoked policy of this government, who used the attacks on the U.S. as an excuse to go after Saddam Hussein (who had no part in 9/11), on what I believe was a personal Bush family vendetta. It was telling when George Walker Bush said, "This is the guy who tried to kill my dad."

    Appeasers? No. It is not appeasement of our enemy to chase them into their lair, nor is it appeasement to be against sending brave American service personnel into an elective invasion of a sovereign nation that did not attack us.
     
  5. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,361
    Likes Received:
    790
    Back to the topic.:laugh:


    That is the first time I have seen the name of the topic used without actually talking about the topic.
     
  6. NiteShift

    NiteShift
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    The only appeaser that Bush mentioned in his speech was Senator William Edgar Borah, a Republican, who said "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided."

    This is what Dems are having a tantrum about.
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why did Saddam try to kill Bush 41? Was it because he was 43's dad? Or because he was the leader of America? Obviously the latter, right? And isn't an attack on the leader an attack on the country itself? Furthermore, have we forgotten about the daily shootings at planes in the no-fly zone?

    We can debate the necessity of the Iraq War. We can't debate that Hussein was a declared enemy of the US who desired to see damage caused to the US.
     
  8. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    :laugh: They don't think so.
     

Share This Page

Loading...