Posted on 08/16/2004 8:25:14 AM PDT by quidnunc
As U.S. foreign policy has grown more assertive in the wake of the September 11 attacks, critics both at home and abroad have become ever more voluble in their objections. The more the United States defends itself, the more policy opponents argue against defense. Their alternatives boil down to variations on appeasement.
On the one hand, critics claimed that bold American action was foolhardy and fraught with danger. They expected the war in Afghanistan to become the “new Vietnam” (that metaphor has now been transferred to Iraq because Afghanistan — to the chagrin of some — did not turn into a debacle). For many members of the press, Afghanistan was a war that could not be won, and, by attacking the Taliban, Washington would only unleash the “Arab street” across the region, leading to the toppling of all the moderate regimes. Such predictions were as common as they were false. Nothing of the sort transpired.
On the other hand, the same critics of American foreign policy insist that the Bush administration exaggerated the foreign threat, be it from rogue states (such as Iraq under Saddam) or from non-state actors (such as Al Qaeda). Particularly in the European press, Saddam attracted countless apologists and was presented as a rational, if harsh, ruler. To the extent that he had undeniably threatened his neighbors — Iraq had after all invaded Kuwait not that long ago — such transgressions were blamed by a twisted logic on the United States and its diplomacy. …
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at hooverdigest.org ...
The same thought had just crossed my mind. You beat me to it, so may I second your reasoned opinion!
Exactly. Appeasement for anything suits RATs who want GW to fail. No matter how bad the outcome, RATs (at that point in power), would blame GW.
Exactly. Appeasement for anything suits RATs who want GW to fail. No matter how bad the outcome, RATs (at that point in power), would blame GW.
I think there should be a thread to discuss this subject (within reason). We are seeing our lives and families lives being destroyed without any support from the government required to protect us. (Or, has one been opened?)
What has happened to Sandy Berger? Our national security on the block! I held a high level clearence to be at a famous lakebed in NV. Do his actions nullify my agreement with the government. He knows better; the Bush administration knows better. Again, sad, sad, sad....
That's what always blows me away about the Europeans: they make excuses for a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein and then cry bloody murder and insist that Bush is Hitler.
Frickin' appeasenik morons.
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.