Rumsfeld: Don't appease terrorists

GulfNews/LAT ^ | Sept. 5. 2006 | Donald Rumsfeld

[FairOpinion]

We are again engaged in conflicts that are testing whether we believe that the defence of liberty is worth the cost. And again, there are those who disagree with the mission, who question whether it is worth the sacrifice. This is to be expected in a time of war.

The enemy we face today is different from the enemies we have faced in the past, but its goal is similar: to impose its fanatical ideology of hatred on the rest of the world.

In speaking to our veterans, I suggested several questions to guide us during this struggle against violent extremists:

- With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that vicious extremists can somehow be appeased?

[FairOpinion]

At Gulf News you can read the article, written by Rumsfled, without signing in at LAT.

It makes some of the same points he made in his speech at the 88th Annual American Legion National Convention a week ago.

Rumsfeld's speech

We need to consider the following questions, I would submit:

With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?

Can folks really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?

Can we afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply law enforcement problems, like robbing a bank or stealing a car; rather than threats of a fundamentally different nature requiring fundamentally different approaches?

And can we really afford to return to the destructive view that America, not the enemy, but America, is the source of the world's troubles?

These are central questions of our time, and we must face them honestly.

And that is important in any long struggle or long war, where any kind of moral or intellectual

Our enemies know this well. They frequently invoke the names of Beirut or Somalia -- places they see as examples of American retreat and American weakness. And as we've seen -- even this month -- in Lebanon, they design attacks and manipulate the media to try to demoralize public opinion. They doctor photographs of casualties. They use civilians as human shields. And then they try to provoke an outcry when civilians are killed in their midst, which of course was their intent.

[Pukin Dog]

Ooh, looks like the Dems scared him, huh?

[Mo1]

In an effort to avoid repeating the carnage of the First World War, much of the western world tried to appease the growing threats in Europe and Asia in the years before the Second World War. Those who warned against the rise of Nazism, fascism and communism were often ridiculed and ignored

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Rumsfeld should be the Republican candidate for '08...

[oolatec]

Don't appease terrorists? Well, that's exactly what we are doing. The latest example was letting that thug Khatami into our country.

[rawcatslyentist]

>"They frequently invoke the names of Beirut or Somalia -- places they see as examples of American retreat and American weakness."

And now a word from the DNCs sponsor...

[FairOpinion]

LOL! Good cartoon.

And unfortunately true.

[lmr]

You might like this:

The Religion Of Pieces

5 Minute Video

Warning: Graphic Content

[EGPWS]

The enemy we face today is different from the enemies we have faced in the past, but its goal is similar: to impose its fanatical ideology of hatred on the rest of the world.

Democrats are the chameleon we face in respect to this concern.

[FairOpinion]

Relevant article:

Who are the appeasers?

http://www.kxmc.com/getARticle.asp?ArticleId=40964

Democrats do, in fact, favor appeasing the terrorists. Their calls for withdrawal from Iraq are examples of that desire to appease.

Murtha and company think that we can appease the Islamic extremists by minimizing our presence in the middle east. They're wrong, because the Islamofascists will be attacking us regardless of whether or not we're at war in the middle east. Given that reality, does it not make sense that we should fight to change the conditions in the middle east that cause terrorism in addition to working to thwart the plots of terror groups that already exist? Sounds like a reasonable two-pronged approach to me.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

I think he just sneers and laughs at the Dems,,, kind of like a rottweiler

[Enchante]

Rumsfeld states eloquently what seems to me is obvious common sense - yet it put the leading Demagogues in DC in such a lather that they are petitioning President Bush to replace Rumsfeld, etc. To the Soros-puppets such as Pelosi, Reid, Dean, Shroomer, Murtha, and their fellow members of the Socialist International it is outrageous that the USA has a Secretary of Defense who is not a Carter-Clinton-Soros type of appeasenik fool........ and they are deeply insulted that Rumsfeld continues to stand up for rational beliefs - he doesn't mention them, yet they go into raging lunacy because they know in their hearts that they are weasels and appeasers.

[baa39]

Rumsfeld should be king! If only he had been allowed a free reign with his ideas and suggestions in this administration and previous ones....I venture to say we would have won this war by now.

[devolve]

[Grampa Dave]

[potlatch]

Good post, as always!