War Critics Compared to Hitler Appeasers

Discussion in 'Politics' started by carpro, Aug 30, 2006.

  1. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,945
    Likes Received:
    296
    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/08/30/rumsfeld_calls_war_a_historic_challenge/

    Rumsfeld calls war a historic challenge

    He likens critics to Hitler appeasers
    By Julian E. Barnes, Los Angeles Times | August 30, 2006

    SALT LAKE CITY -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld compared critics of the Bush administration to those who sought to appease Nazis before World War II, warning yesterday that the United States faces ``a new type of fascism."

    Rumsfeld, speaking before the American Legion convention, delivered some of his most explicit and extended attacks yet on the administration's critics, provoking criticism from furious Democrats who accused him of ``campaigning on fear."

    By comparing US foreign policy with World War II and the Cold War, Rumsfeld sought to portray skeptics of the Bush's foreign policy as being on the wrong side of history. Rumsfeld again ridiculed American officials who, before World War II, wished to negotiate with Adolf Hitler.

    ``I recount that history because, once again, we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism," Rumsfeld said. ``But some seem not to have learned history's lessons. . . . Can we truly afford to believe that, somehow or some way, vicious extremists could be appeased?"

    His use of the word ``appease" was notable, tying administration critics to the failed efforts of the pre-Churchill British government to mollify Hitler.
     
  2. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    mmm ... is he really trying to say that protecting the world from terrorists is a righteous war?

    ;)
     
  3. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is he really trying to say that being in Iraq is protecting the world from terrorists?
     
  4. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Certainly, those who are in the Isolationist camp of the Constitution Party are exactly the same as the Hitler appeasers like Charles Lindbergh and the America First Party of WW2. Interestingly, I believe most of those were Republicans back then. The Democrats used to be the ones who were neo-cons who believed in spreading freedom as part of our national security policy. If he is referring to the Democrats, I think a better comparison would have been to the traitors of Vietnam. They are worse than appeasers, they are fighting the propaganda war for the enemy just as Jane Fonda and John Kerry did in Vietnam.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  5. Pete

    Pete
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2002
    Messages:
    4,345
    Likes Received:
    0
  6. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, "appease" and "Neville" have been thrown at the anti-invaders since before we attacked Iraq in a pre-emptive strike.

    His comparision is disingenuous in that Hilter was appeased even after he invaded Poland and Czechoslovakia, while Saddam was slapped down hard, defeated, sanctioned and contained after he invaded Kuwait. The use of "appease" is totally bogus and inflammatory.
     
  7. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,945
    Likes Received:
    296
    ``The struggle we are in is too important -- the consequences too severe -- to have the luxury of returning to the `blame America first' mentality," Rumsfeld told the American Legion.

    Rummy missed on this one.

    Appeasers like Kennedy and Pelosi and anyy number of other liberals who describe themselves as "pacifists", have never left the"blame America first" mentality in the first place.
     
  8. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    What, he missed a chance to slander?

    Have Kennedy and Pelosi ever described themselves as "pacifists" or are you refering obliquely to someone else?

    They both voted to allow Bush to pursue this invasion and they still support the ongoing war in Afghanistan, so I don't see that they are appeasers, pacifists or of "blame America first" mentality. Of course, truth doesn't seem to enter into this type of overblown rhetoric.
     
  9. ACADEMIC

    ACADEMIC
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rummy desperately needs a straight jacket.
     
  10. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,264
    Likes Received:
    4
    Could we use it to describe the land-for-peace deal that Israel somehow fell for ?
     
  11. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Certainly not in the same way...isn't the Palestinian to Israeli infitada-related death rate something like 100 to 1?
     
  12. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,264
    Likes Received:
    4
    Yes. But have the PAs stopped anything after being appeased ?

    (the body count is irrelavent, to me. All the PAs have to do is stop tunnelling, killing teenagers at pizza parlours, etc.....there would be peace tomorrow. They certainly have had enough time & foreign aid money to get on their feet, it's time to stop the Jew-killing)
     
  13. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    I won't go as far as Brother Curtis,

    IMHO

    But, if the muslim terrorists would stop killing Jews, the IDF would stop killing muslims. And that would be 98% or more of all the killings . . .

    I cannot say that Jewish extremists would not ever kill any muslims after that - but, they have been a much smaller part of the problem than the muslim extremists.

    IMHO

     
  14. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are absolutely correct - order him hundreds of thousands and have him put everyone in one that opposes stopping the terrorists and their supporters.

    I think you would have the thought police after you - but think what you have done for your country!

    :thumbs:
     
  15. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,945
    Likes Received:
    296
    I apologize.

    Sometimes it's easy to confuse the defeatists like Kennedy and Pelosi with appeasers.

    Appeasement is the usual result of defeatism, as well as pacificism, and I sometimes have a tendency to lump them together.

    Once they have done all they can to be sure we are "defeated", then their appeasement will begin. They won't have any other choice.
     
  16. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    So Rummy and Bush have quit telling us that things are going better, and are now just questioning the loyalty and patriotism of the people who have pointed out that things are getting worse.

    This is why retired military men are increasingly calling for Rumsfeld's firing. Neither he nor Bush can get their arms around this fiasco, and unless someone does something, we will lose more and more good troops and more and more billions of dollars.
     
  17. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Galatian

    I do not remember anyone other than that creepy Canadian reporter that stood up against America after 9-11. And there were only a few that stood against going into Iraq.

    Honestly?

    I think Saddam dupped us. Did he do it on purpose? I do not know.

    But, as a military man - you know that we had few other choices then. And you know we have few other choices now.

    We are kinda darned if we do and darned if we don't . . .
     
  18. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    As far as I can tell they don't consider themselves appeased, having been ousted from the houses and lands of their fathers, grandfathers and greatgrandfathers - going back a thousand years or more.

    Yep, it's all so simple. How much foreign aid money have they had compared to what Israel has had? Don't we give close to 2 billion a year to Israel (linkie) ?

    As I understand it, things had been quiet with very few killings (of Jews) until Sharon triggered the second infitada.
     
  19. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,264
    Likes Received:
    4
    Well, once again, we differ in opinion. From what I understand, the PAs destroyed the greenhouses left for them. And I saw Jews being ripped from their homes, not PAs. And just yesterday, they found another tunnel.

    You can't appease someone who wants you dead, above all else. I thought Clinton's legacy should be his last attempt at peace, where Arafat walked out. I don't believe radical Islam wants peace, ever.

    And Sharon triggering it is another opinion. I seem to remember violence way before he came around. You may be a little older than me. Who was PM in '72 ?
     
  20. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Carpro, how are you defining "appeasement"?

    Well, I'll be darned! I just looked up "appease" to make sure it meant what I thought it did, but it doesn't until the third meaning. The first definition simply means "to bring to a state of peace or quiet", the second means "to cause to subside or calm".

    It's not until the third that it becomes a pejorative, "to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles." (Source: Merriam-Webster)

    So, if you take into consideration the first two, primary definitions, there is truth to the charge that pacifists want peace. But when you tack on "at the sacrifice of principles" it is no longer truthful.
     

Share This Page

Loading...