War Critics Compared to Hitler Appeasers

mmm ... is he really trying to say that protecting the world from terrorists is a righteous war?

 

Is he really trying to say that being in Iraq is protecting the world from terrorists?

 

Certainly, those who are in the Isolationist camp of the Constitution Party are exactly the same as the Hitler appeasers like Charles Lindbergh and the America First Party of WW2. Interestingly, I believe most of those were Republicans back then. The Democrats used to be the ones who were neo-cons who believed in spreading freedom as part of our national security policy. If he is referring to the Democrats, I think a better comparison would have been to the traitors of Vietnam. They are worse than appeasers, they are fighting the propaganda war for the enemy just as Jane Fonda and John Kerry did in Vietnam.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Both 'Dolf and Insane should have been taken out years before they eventually were, but really isn't that a bit rich coming from Rummy?

 

Yes, "appease" and "Neville" have been thrown at the anti-invaders since before we attacked Iraq in a pre-emptive strike.

His comparision is disingenuous in that Hilter was appeased even after he invaded Poland and Czechoslovakia, while Saddam was slapped down hard, defeated, sanctioned and contained after he invaded Kuwait. The use of "appease" is totally bogus and inflammatory.

 

What, he missed a chance to slander?

Have Kennedy and Pelosi ever described themselves as "pacifists" or are you refering obliquely to someone else?

They both voted to allow Bush to pursue this invasion and they still support the ongoing war in Afghanistan, so I don't see that they are appeasers, pacifists or of "blame America first" mentality. Of course, truth doesn't seem to enter into this type of overblown rhetoric.

 

Rummy desperately needs a straight jacket.

 

Could we use it to describe the land-for-peace deal that Israel somehow fell for ?

 

Certainly not in the same way...isn't the Palestinian to Israeli infitada-related death rate something like 100 to 1?

 

Yes. But have the PAs stopped anything after being appeased ?

(the body count is irrelavent, to me. All the PAs have to do is stop tunnelling, killing teenagers at pizza parlours, etc.....there would be peace tomorrow. They certainly have had enough time & foreign aid money to get on their feet, it's time to stop the Jew-killing)

 

I won't go as far as Brother Curtis,

IMHO

But, if the muslim terrorists would stop killing Jews, the IDF would stop killing muslims. And that would be 98% or more of all the killings . . .

I cannot say that Jewish extremists would not ever kill any muslims after that - but, they have been a much smaller part of the problem than the muslim extremists.

IMHO

 

You are absolutely correct - order him hundreds of thousands and have him put everyone in one that opposes stopping the terrorists and their supporters.

I think you would have the thought police after you - but think what you have done for your country!

:thumbs:

 

So Rummy and Bush have quit telling us that things are going better, and are now just questioning the loyalty and patriotism of the people who have pointed out that things are getting worse.

This is why retired military men are increasingly calling for Rumsfeld's firing. Neither he nor Bush can get their arms around this fiasco, and unless someone does something, we will lose more and more good troops and more and more billions of dollars.

 

Galatian

I do not remember anyone other than that creepy Canadian reporter that stood up against America after 9-11. And there were only a few that stood against going into Iraq.

Honestly?

I think Saddam dupped us. Did he do it on purpose? I do not know.

But, as a military man - you know that we had few other choices then. And you know we have few other choices now.

We are kinda darned if we do and darned if we don't . . .

 

As far as I can tell they don't consider themselves appeased, having been ousted from the houses and lands of their fathers, grandfathers and greatgrandfathers - going back a thousand years or more.

Yep, it's all so simple. How much foreign aid money have they had compared to what Israel has had? Don't we give close to 2 billion a year to Israel (linkie) ?

As I understand it, things had been quiet with very few killings (of Jews) until Sharon triggered the second infitada.

 

Well, once again, we differ in opinion. From what I understand, the PAs destroyed the greenhouses left for them. And I saw Jews being ripped from their homes, not PAs. And just yesterday, they found another tunnel.

You can't appease someone who wants you dead, above all else. I thought Clinton's legacy should be his last attempt at peace, where Arafat walked out. I don't believe radical Islam wants peace, ever.

And Sharon triggering it is another opinion. I seem to remember violence way before he came around. You may be a little older than me. Who was PM in '72 ?

 

Carpro, how are you defining "appeasement"?

Well, I'll be darned! I just looked up "appease" to make sure it meant what I thought it did, but it doesn't until the third meaning. The first definition simply means "to bring to a state of peace or quiet", the second means "to cause to subside or calm".

It's not until the third that it becomes a pejorative, "to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles." (Source: Merriam-Webster)

So, if you take into consideration the first two, primary definitions, there is truth to the charge that pacifists want peace. But when you tack on "at the sacrifice of principles" it is no longer truthful.