The End of Appeasement ** (long but excellent read)

The Weekly Standard ^ | 02/10/2003 | Max Boot

[yonif]

It talks about our record in the middle east and that now we have a defining task to make it right.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Good article!

Bush Doctrine Unfolds :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below:
	click here >>>	Bush Doctrine Unfold	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

[Chi-townChief]

bflr

[livius]

Yet the record shows precious little bullying--indeed not enough...

Indeed! This is an excellent article, full of juicy detailed analysis. Definitely worth reading, and I certainly hope Bush and Co. have read it, or things similiar to it - and taken it to heart. We do indeed have an opportunity to make a major change that will affect the future of the entire world. But we've got to be strong.

[CyberAnt]

This really brings to light what I have been thinking for quite some time.

In spiritual circles, whenever you run up against such an onslaught of opposition - you are usually doing something right!

I believe this parallels with the natural too. There has been such an onslaught on Bush to try to keep him from acting against our enemies.

I have been wondering why - and a cartoon today said it for me. If Bush is able to do what I believe he WILL DO!, then x42's history of appeasement will be on the world stage; with the obvious outcome - APPEASEMENT DOESN'T WORK!!

[jigsaw]

A most interesting article!
Many thanks for posting this.
And many thanks to the Robinsons for this incredible website that allows for the dissemination and discussion of such articles. You are todays carriers of Paul Revere's lamp. Bless you all!

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

Great Article!!! Thank you.

[UncleSamUSA]

Yes, this is an excellent article detailing the US's history of involvement in the Middle East region. In no case did we show the resolve and the political and military will that was necessary to do the job and do it right.

I hope and pray that President Bush will create a new beginning both for the Middle East and for America's status in the world; do not listen to the voices of weakness and appeasement. They only prolong the problem. Be strong and act strong.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

What a lot of history!

Thanks for posting this!

[First_Salute]

Our record reflects a misunderstanding of who opposes whom in the Middle East, because the opponents are defined by socialists.

Stalin always worked the crowds to inflame animosity between Arab and Jew; but the bigger picture since his arrival has always been the socialists' agit-prop to upset the West, specifically, the Western Allies.

The British socialists and the French socialists are due much more credit than mentioned above. Their manipulations are part of the history of Soviet "outreach" designed to make our lives more difficult --- in particular, designed to make the flow of oil westward, more difficult.

The Eisenhower Administration was saddled with the entrenched F.D.R. socialists who were all too happy to assist the Russians into space and going nuclear, not to mention supporting whatever Mid-East crises de jour.

Such Beltway Socialists and the like of France and Great Britain all had much to do about Israel's struggles, not to mention all Mid-Eastern Jews' struggles (there were significant populations, for example, in Iran, then).

Because of our Western Christian values, the West has been vulnerable to the socialists' pointing of the spotlights upon the religious strife, instead of the actual divisiveness which is the tool of world-wide socialists.

While President Eisenhower was trying to work out the apparent strife between Arab and Israeli, he was saddled with the ever-present foe: socialism, within and without.

Well, a lot of people who had voted for F.D.R. simply did not have any stomach for coming face to face with their virtual support of world socialism that was actually their enemy. Many Americans did not want to know then, and they do not want to know now.

Moreover, in the current international state of affairs, many Americans, both Repbulican and Democrat, do not want to face up to the ever-present terrorist support by world-socialism --- especially the many supporters found at home, now.

While much is made of "taking on Saddam," much is avoided by not addressing our more serious enemy: the fascist nationalizing socialism which we politely refer to here, as "political correctness."

[Free the USA]

Lets add one more.
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[snopercod]

Many Americans did not want to know then, and they do not want to know now.

A watershed statement.

As our forefathers knew, democracy is not the answer. Democracy is where six cannibals vote to eat the other four. Democracy is the modern PC word for socialism.

The answer is a simple logical chain:

1. Man's nature requires individual freedom in order for him to survive. Freedom to think. Freedom to make choices [ethics], and Freedom to Act upon his judgement.
2. In order for man to form societies, rules of conduct must be adopted.
3. Some people could care less about the rule of law and would violate your right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness for whatever they happen to want at the immediate moment. In a civilized socitey, these people are called criminals (or cynically speaking, politicians).
4. Governments are instituted among men to protect individuals from those who would violate their rights.

Democracy is not the answer to statism. It's the same thing.

[Boxsford]

Thanks for posting. I've printed it out for my middle school aged son to read and learn.

[First_Salute]

One man, one vote, and that is the sum total of your right to participate "freely" in all communist states and communistic states of mind, wherein also, the ruling class is the rule of all law.

[boris]

"There has been such an onslaught on Bush to try to keep him from acting against our enemies."

He has had since 9/11/2001 to do so. What has he done? Conquered Afghanistan.

IMHO the Admin has been stunned into inaction by fear of bad press. They should have got it on in less than a month after 9/11. The "onslaught" consists of persons who have conveniently forgotten our reason for acting--the WTC, which IMHO justifies just about any bellicose action we care to take. Better sooner than later, and we've done waited till later.

--Boris

[CyberAnt]

You must be kidding ...??

What do you think Bush had to go to war with ...??

x42 cut the budget and thousands of military people left because they couldn't stand x42, and they didn't want to die for him.

Besides that ... Bush had to wait for the dems to sign a declaration for him to use force ... followed by the dems demanding Bush go to the UN ... followed by the dems continuing to stab him in the back over every move - no matter what he did.

If you think it's possible to go to war in 1 month, you have never been in the military. Get real!!

[Gritty]

A good read.

[StriperSniper]

Bump for later.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Bump to read later.

[snopercod]

Le tat, se moi.