![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , "Dan Luke"
writes: This election will encourage the terrorists like nothing else has. Unfortunately, the spin in the Muslim world will be that Al Qaeda frightened the Spanish people into replacing their government. Score one for the bad guys. -- And Italy, Britain and Australia will no doubt pay a heavy price for the cowardice of the Spanish. Churchill, speaking of appeasement, said it was 'feeding the crocodile in hopes it would eat you last.' Don -- Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS PP-ASEL Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Wdtabor" wrote in message
... In article , "Dan Luke" writes: This election will encourage the terrorists like nothing else has. Unfortunately, the spin in the Muslim world will be that Al Qaeda frightened the Spanish people into replacing their government. Score one for the bad guys. -- And Italy, Britain and Australia will no doubt pay a heavy price for the cowardice of the Spanish. Churchill, speaking of appeasement, said it was 'feeding the crocodile in hopes it would eat you last.' Although this is dangerously close to invoking Godwin's Law: It's particularly sickening to hear the American right (WD, I'm not addressing you personally yet) pompously adopting the mantle of Churchill. It's your political forbears who were the master appeasers, right up to Pearl Harbor and (as far as Europe is concerned) beyond. It took well over two years before you committed troops despite the begging from your cloest allies. And the mid-century American right wing positively adored Mussolini. So, from a European perspective, pious crap about appeasement doesn't sit well coming from the US - let's admit it; the jaw/war choice is sensitive to specific points in time, to each side's attempt at self-justification, and can only be judged later from a historical perspective. Now, by "right" I meant the traditional middle-American conservative. WD, what would the Libertarian viewpoint have been between Munich and Pearl Harbor? What about after PH? -- David Brooks |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "David Brooks" wrote in message ... It's your political forbears who were the master appeasers, right up to Pearl Harbor and (as far as Europe is concerned) beyond. It took well over two years before you committed troops despite the begging from your cloest allies. It wasn't our fight. Besides, why were you folks caught with your pants down in the first place? And the mid-century American right wing positively adored Mussolini. So did the left...and they loved Hitler and Stalin as well. They all loved dictators as being such classy guys. And why did England adopt so many policies from Hitler and Mussolini after the war? So, from a European perspective, pious crap about appeasement doesn't sit well coming from the US - let's admit it; the jaw/war choice is sensitive to specific points in time, to each side's attempt at self-justification, and can only be judged later from a historical perspective. And maybe some people learn from the experiences of others. So you can shove YOUR pompous crap up your back side. Now, by "right" I meant the traditional middle-American conservative. Meaning what? WD, what would the Libertarian viewpoint have been between Munich and Pearl Harbor? What about after PH? The libertarian viewpoint would have been my remark above; "It's not our fight". |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:41:52 -0800, "David Brooks"
wrote: American right (WD, I'm not addressing you personally yet) pompously adopting the mantle of Churchill. It's your political forbears who were the master appeasers, Yes, that's an interesting phenom. The Republicans have become the Churchills of today, looking outward to the world, while the Democrats have become the America Firsters. The two parties have revolved around the circle, 180 degrees each. all the best -- Dan Ford email: (requires authentication) see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The two parties have revolved around the circle, 180 degrees each.
This happens in politics, all the time. And it's not limited to just the two parties. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , "David Brooks"
writes: Now, by "right" I meant the traditional middle-American conservative. WD, what would the Libertarian viewpoint have been between Munich and Pearl Harbor? What about after PH? There wasn't an LP then, but I expect it would be divided, just as it is now about Iraq. Libertarians do not believe in the initiation of force for politcal ends, but we have no problem with taking a war to the enemy's back yard once it has begun. The current division in the LP is one of world view rather than of principle. Some see terrorism as isolated incidents that must be addressed individually. LP members with this world view generally supported the invasion of Afghanistan but see little justification for Iraq. Libertarian Hawks, like myself, see a larger world war, against Islamofascism, encompassing the whole of the middle east, and much of Africa, Asia and Europe. We look at the movement of Islamofascism as the enemy, and not just individual governments. Under that view, Iraq is a legitimate strategic target. Iraq did not topple the WTC, but Normandy didn't bomb Pearl Harbor either. In WW2 we went where it was militarily expedient to fight fascism and we will fight Islamofascism the same way now. Taking Iraq first minimzes the number of Moslems we will have to kill to win this war. But Libertarians are every bit as opposed to losing a war once we're in it as we arew to unnecessarily getting into one in the first place. We would have been quite content to let the marketplace decide whether capitalism and the rule of law would prevail over feudalism and theocracy, but they chose to use force and we will burn them to the ground if that's what it takes. -- Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS PP-ASEL Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Wdtabor" wrote in message ... In article , "David Brooks" writes: Now, by "right" I meant the traditional middle-American conservative. WD, what would the Libertarian viewpoint have been between Munich and Pearl Harbor? What about after PH? There wasn't an LP then, but I expect it would be divided, just as it is now about Iraq. Libertarians do not believe in the initiation of force for politcal ends, but we have no problem with taking a war to the enemy's back yard once it has begun. The current division in the LP is one of world view rather than of principle. Some see terrorism as isolated incidents that must be addressed individually. LP members with this world view generally supported the invasion of Afghanistan but see little justification for Iraq. Libertarian Hawks, like myself, see a larger world war, against Islamofascism, encompassing the whole of the middle east, and much of Africa, Asia and Europe. We look at the movement of Islamofascism as the enemy, and not just individual governments. Under that view, Iraq is a legitimate strategic target. Iraq did not topple the WTC, but Normandy didn't bomb Pearl Harbor either. In WW2 we went where it was militarily expedient to fight fascism and we will fight Islamofascism the same way now. Taking Iraq first minimzes the number of Moslems we will have to kill to win this war. But Libertarians are every bit as opposed to losing a war once we're in it as we arew to unnecessarily getting into one in the first place. We would have been quite content to let the marketplace decide whether capitalism and the rule of law would prevail over feudalism and theocracy, but they chose to use force and we will burn them to the ground if that's what it takes. American libertarians make Hitler and his Nazis look like a soft touch. Says a lot for the American right. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks - I concede your post is well argued and nuanced.
-- David Brooks "Wdtabor" wrote in message ... Libertarians do not believe in the initiation of force for politcal ends, but we have no problem with taking a war to the enemy's back yard once it has begun. The current division in the LP is one of world view rather than of principle. ....snip...go see the parent for all of it |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Wdtabor" wrote:
We look at the movement of Islamofascism as the enemy, and not just individual governments. Under that view, Iraq is a legitimate strategic target. Iraq did not topple the WTC, but ...Taking Iraq first minimzes the number of Moslems we will have to kill to win this war. I find this argument illogical. Before the war, Saddam had radical Islamists, "Islamofascists," to use your word, under tighter control than in any other predominantly Muslim country - hell, he was exterminating them. Now, the lid is off: we have handed the the radicals a golden opportunity. They are already taking full advantage of it by organizing and proselytizing masses of followers, something unthinkable before the invasion. All this was foreseeable. The invasion was folly; our enemies have been much enriched by it. -- Dan C172RG at BFM (remove pants to reply by email) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|