Skip to comments.Bush, and His Use of "Appeasement" ("Hitler's demands were not unreasonable"-Barf Alert)
Posted on 05/16/2008 4:44:50 PM PDT by mojito
Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset, here, that to negotiate with terrorists and radicals is appeasement. The Democrats took it as a slap at Barack Obama. What bothers me is the continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938.
The narrative we're given about Munich is entirely in hindsight. We know what kind of man Hitler was, and that he started World War II in Europe. From the view of 1938, what Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable, according to the prevailing idea of the nation-state. His claim was that the German-speaking areas of Europe--and ones that thought of themselves as German --be under German authority. He had just annexed Austria, which was German-speaking, without bloodshed. There were two more small pieces of Germanic territory: the free city of Danzig and the Sudetenland, a border area of what is now the Czech Republic.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
Cat’s out of the bag.
I hope people e-mail this to everybody. We need to create a hell storm about this.
There has not been a major terror attack on our soil since 911, because of Bush and taking the fight to the enemy on their turf.
...and in the process, Iran, who is the chief sponsor of terror, is surrounded by our forces now, who are ready to attack should we need to.
Obama would have the world still living with Saddam Hussein, and an inabaility for us to respond to either him or Iran, and with terrorists having sanctuary states...and he calls that world safer.
I pray the American people will have the wisdom to see the difference.
It was once part of Mexico
Spanish is spoken by a significant part of the population.
And many still think of themselves as Mexicans, not Americans.
Looks like Obama's a hit dog. At least the Democrats are saying so.
America doesn’t appease its enemies.
America doesn’t talk with its enemies.
America exterminates its enemies.
Dumber than a bag of hammers
Hey, Bruce tell us how those Oslo Accords turned out.
It was to men of honor and integrity. Check Winston S. Churchill's speeches and notes.
You are supposed to learn from history, but liberals just rewrite history instead.
And he misses the point entirely, which is that negotiating with bullies and aggressive military dictators is a futile and counterproductive process, and that people who do so under the cover of sanctimony and a bloated sense of self-importance deserve the epithet "appeaser." If the shoe fits, Mr. Obama should strap it on.
Even though Hitler wanted to exterminate all of the Jews, his willingness to exterminate only 50% was actually quite reasonable.
Vietnam - Need I say more?
WW1 - We set up the Germans the Lusitania was carrying munitions
WW2 - We caused it by imposing unfair WW1 peace terms on the Germans at Versailles.
Revolutionary War - We were the "terrorsists" because we fought behind trees.
Spanish American War - imperialsit conquest.
Mexican American War - ditto.
Korean War - See Vietnam.
Gulf War/Iraq - Oil.
Bosnia - Oh that one was OK, if they are unwilling to criticize Clinton.
So you see, we have been wrong in every single war.
Most leftists would agree.
It is to laugh that Obama’s ego has gotten to the point that he thinks this is about him.
“Burp” Hussain Obama apparently hasn’t realized yet that Bush isn’t running in this election.
Of course, he also hasn’t realized that he will be toast about a week after the candidates are selected by their convention and the truth about Obama and his REAL political agenda is revealed.
I’m fine with “giving back” California to Mexico and deporting all illegals there regardless of nationality.
Utter crap! If this were even REMOTELY true Chamberlain wouldn't have gotten the sack. When Hitler realized he was dealing with self deluding cowards he began his march and never looked back. PLENTY of people at the time knew and said what Hitler was but self deluders don't hear anything they don't want to hear. Just as self deluders don't see History as it is but rather as it serves themselves to see it. Which is why, barring the arrival of some as yet unknown cavalry, it doesn't matter which of The Three Clowns is elected-We're headed into Armageddon, plain and simple.
It ain't 1938 any more.
Actually, according to this guy "logic" Palestine would be like the the Sudetenland and Achmadenajhad would be Hitler
.......So by his own train of thought, Obama Appeasing Achmadenajhad on Palestine would result in a World War.....did even understand what he wrote....you have to wonder.
Wow. An apologist for Hitler in defense of Hussein. The gift that keeps on giving!
Two things would certainly have happened and a third was a fair possibility:
1) Hitler would have had a free hand to murder millions of Jews, etc. without interference. It seems Mr. Ramsey figures this would have been “reasonable.”.
2) The Nazis would have perfected jet aircraft that would have swept the skies of anything America (and certainly Russia) could send up to challenge them.
3) The Nazis had a shot at producing a working atomic bomb.
All these things Hitler would have had time to accomplish or at least attempt in the years of “peace” resulting from giving in to his megalomaniac demands. WWII would have still happened, the start date would have only been delayed and the Nazis would have been even harder to stop.
And Mr. Ramsey (Obama surrogate) thinks that would have been reasonable.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Bruce Ramsey is an editorial writer for the Seattle Times.
That, in itself, tells you why the ST is so far to the left.
They should be ashamed to have him on the staff. However, there is an opening at “Dur Sturmer.” Seems Joseph Goebbels isn’t available right now.
The article just proves how flawed this thinking is. If the peaceniks think that Hitler was “reasonable” until 1939, then any present or future madman will be considered “reasonable” as well. The peaceniks have no standard with which to estimate a threat. All they have is the vain hope that the next Hitler will be “reasonable.” They think it is unreasonable to even try to conisder whether a threat is real — just ignore the evidence and hope for the best.
It would take a Democrat to be able to justify national leaders meeting to carve a piece out of a nation not present.
I wonder if Bruce fantasizes about shooting the von Trapp family or just hanging them?