We Are All Spaniards

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

"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

"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".

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

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"

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

"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.

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

"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)