« about the crack and smack and whack that hits the street | Main | celebration »

the price of appeasement

the price of appeasement

Document warns of New York, D.C. attacks.

A statement attributed to al-Qaeda threatened more attacks in New York and Washington unless America stops supporting Israel and converts to Islam, an Arab TV reporter who received the unsigned document said.

Yosri Fouda, correspondent for the satellite station Al-Jazeera, told The Associated Press on Saturday that he received the six-page document Wednesday. That was a day after the TV station broadcast an audiotape purportedly made by Osama bin Laden.

Some quotes pulled from the statement, which hasn't been made available in its entirety yet:

Stop your support for Israel against the Palestinians, for Russians against the Chechens and leave us alone, or expect us in Washington and New York.

Do not force us to ship you in coffins.

You are placing Muslims under siege in Iraq where children die every day. Oh how weird that you don't care for 1.5 million Iraqi children who died under siege. But when 3,000 of your compatriots died, the whole world was shaken .

[Fouda] added the statement demanded U.S. troops leave the Arabian Peninsula, and justified the killings of American civilians because they pay taxes that finance military operations.

So, all you placard-wearing cowards at Indymedia and Michael Moore, Babs, the Berekely Brigade...how is this appeasement thing working out for you? You still think it's a good idea? You ready to convert to Islam?

This is what appeasement leads to. It gives terrorists reason to think that they can make demands on us. For every anti-war protester marching in the streets; for every idealist school teacher that heads over to Iraq to offer hugs and flowers; for every celebrity who thinks we should put down our weapons and just try to talk it out, they laugh at us. They laugh and they plot and they think we must be the most spineless, cowardly world power ever.

Appeasement gives power to your enemy. If you give a screaming child in the supermarket a toy just to shut him up, he will only turn his temper up a notch much faster the next time, knowing you will cave in and reward him for his obnoxious behavior.

Does it make me a monster for being willing to wipe out some innocent people in pursuit of our enemies - enemies who have the power to bring us down one city at a time? If there was ever a time to be selfish, this is it. I'm sorry, but I would much rather protect the life and future of my own children by taking out our enemies than trying once again to bargain with them in order to spare the lives of others.

Is this what it comes down to? Whose children do you want to protect? Why would you choose the children of a foreign, enemy country than your own? Are you that willing to sacrifice your own children in the name of peace?

They are coming for us. I do not take these threats lightly because they have already came for us once before, with success. We already know what al-Qaeda is capable of. Iraq has ten times the power and force of al-Qaeda. Why wait? Why wait until another building crumbles? Why wait until our children are dying of smallpox or our cities are burning? What is so wrong in wanting to prevent another September 11 or something worse than that?

By mentioning Iraq in the statements, al-Qaeda has aligned the two enemies. They are one and the same and should be treated as such. There is a war on terror going on, and a war should not include attempts at appeasement.

When the Golden Gate Bridge is thrown into the water, when Disneyland and Hollywood are nothing but ashes, the leftist will be lined up to blame the U.S. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation as far as the lefties are concerned.

I no longer care about what becomes of the victims of war on foreign soil. Excuse me while I practice a little surivival of the fittest and care more about my own children, my own neighbors and fellow Americans than I care about people living among those who want us dead.

Appeasement will not be done in my name. War will. And I hope we don't stop until every last terrorist is dead and buried.

Are you lefties ready to convert to Islam? Are you ready to hail Saddam and bin Laden as your leaders? Are you ready to become one of them?

I'm not.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference the price of appeasement:

» Appease This from dcthornton.blog
In response to this article, Michele Catalano explains why appeasement isn't the answer. [Read More]

Comments

Cannot say anything more than "Amen".

You do what I see lots of other people doing who think the same easy way you do. You are helping to increase the panic. Sure, one should be worried about the threats. But have you ever written one word about your gouvernment ignoring these threats and not informing the people again and again? To me it seems whole of the USA is traumatizised because the first time in their life they were hit with terror. Then you're huddling up between Saddam and Bin Laden. It becomes not more true when you (and your president) repeat it again and again! Fact is: There is no proven connection between Bin Laden and Saddam. Bin Laden might be a islamist, but he is one thing first: A Terrorist. Whatever religion he'd have, he would use it for his terror. The proven support from the americans for Bin Laden is there, but there is not the slightest hint that there was any contact between Bin Laden and Saddam. So frm what do you want to protect your children from? Terror? So do I! War? Then don't start it! The whole Iraq thing does have a total different angel you're completely missing outt (oil, power-balancee, a pissed off father, religious ambitions...). So don't try to paint it as black and white you seem to see it.
(Sorry, english is not my first language, but I hope I was to understand, and please - safe any irony on me, it's wasted, cause I don't get the undertones).

Michele, I try not to get into war talk too much because I have seen what it does to other bloggers (namely you) and I get enough shit just talking about the Jehovah's that have taken it upon themselves to label me the antichrist.
I have mixed feelings about these wars that we are in. On the one hand, I think it's right that we are going after Bin Laden because he attacked us but I don't think it's ok for us to go after Iraq because we "have a feeling" that he has weapons of mass destruction. Sure, Saddam is a jerk, he pays people to let their kids become human bombs but is he doing that to us? Is he sending them here? Do we have proof that he is? Maybe I don't watch enough news. I don't have cable so 24-7 access to CNN war coverage is not an option. I miss all the great speeches by war reporters on why we should blow his ass off the map.
I think that my main reason for not wanting to attack Iraq again is because what if he does have those weapons and we don't find them when the UN searches for them and then we decide that we are going to attack him anyway and he blows us off the map. There has got to be some other way to resolve these issues. There just has to be. I don't care how many other countries kill each other on a daily basis. I don't care if they want to strap bombs onto each other and walk into a crowded mall. But I do care that if we, the United states, keep sticking our noses in other countries problems, how long before they start sending those weapons after us? I have seen the real world map and we are not as big as we make ourselves out to be in geography books, we are actually pretty damn puny and yet here we are, throwing our weight around like we are the kings of the world.
Does any of this make sense? Maybe it doesn't. But I am one of those people who just want to live in peace and raise my kids without having to teach them what a bomb shelter is. I'd like to see them grow up and graduate and go to college and get married and have kids of their own. I want peace and I don't think the answer to getting that peace is by blowing other people up.

September 11 was not the first time we were hit with terror. The World Trade Center had been bombed before. The U.S.S. Cole was terror. We may have not been hit as hard on our own soil by terror attempts, but striking at Americans in foreign country counts as terrorism on the U.S. to me.

I don't care about proven connections between Saddam and bin Laden. I no longer care about connecting the dots. They are both evil, vile men who want nothing more than to destroy democracy, freedom and the U.S. They should be treated in the same manner.

Don't start war? It's already been started. Too late.

I'm not even going to get into the oil issues.

I support your sentiment 100%, Michele, but I've gotta duck for cover when you swing a brush that broad. As you know, I am all for taking out Saddam and al-Qaeda by military means
(and I wouldn't have a problem if we gave Arafat his walking papers while we were in the neighborhood). But I also place myself firmly on the left-hand side of the political scale, and from the looks of the money grubbing cretins running the show right now, I am a long ways from switching sides. If it wasn't for the lefties, we would still be living with rivers so polluted that they were actually flammable. We'd have schools and restaurants with White and Negro sections instead of smoking and non-smoking. And God knows what kind of highways, parks, hospitals and public schools we'd have if the greedheads were in charge for long.
So, please cut us left-wingers a little slack, if you will. There are plenty of kooks on both sides, so folks like you and me need to work that much harder to make sure things stay on a nice, even keel. Like me or not, we need each other.

Sorry for taking up so much of your comment space, girl. I still think you are the coolest thing in the blogosphere!

Michele....

From Senator James A. Reed, Jan. 30, 1929.

"Such, sir, is the proposition confrunting us. It is one of practical common sense. We are not given the choice as to whether or not we want to live in a world enjoying heavenly peace. Such a world does not presently exist. We are living on this cold, hard earth as it is. Men have not been saints in the past, and will not be transformed into saints by the resolutions of committees or the treaties of diplomats..."

"He is the most derelict of men who does not provided for his own household, and for the defense of his home and native land.."

Jim

Having to live in Jim McDermott land, I can say from where I sit, the lefties probably would welcome Saddam as a leader. To them, anyone would be better than GWB. The things I see when the protesters are walking around here would lead me to believe he is a comlete saint (if I were a complete idiot). In their twisted world perspective we are only attacking him because he will not be one of our lackeys, oh yeah and we want his oil. They are so blinded by their hatred of Bush that they will completly ignore any and all signs of danger, just so long as they can protest. And if Berkley were the next target, they would, of course, see to it that a protest the next day included comments about how it was the war-mongering government's fault, if they didn't just outright accuse GWB of having their city attacked and making it look like a terrorist act. I would just like to know when they will take their hatred for the Christain Fundamentalists and apply it to the Islamic Fundamentalists. Both groups have twisted one of the worlds great religions each, but they never want to be sensitive or understanding the Christians. They just wish to make them to stop breathing, which I think we are about to do shortly to Saddam & Co. And yes, I would approve of it to be done in my name.

Having to live in Jim McDermott land, I can say from where I sit, the lefties probably would welcome Saddam as a leader. To them, anyone would be better than GWB. The things I see when the protesters are walking around here would lead me to believe he is a comlete saint (if I were a complete idiot). In their twisted world perspective we are only attacking him because he will not be one of our lackeys, oh yeah and we want his oil. They are so blinded by their hatred of Bush that they will completly ignore any and all signs of danger, just so long as they can protest. And if Berkley were the next target, they would, of course, see to it that a protest the next day included comments about how it was the war-mongering government's fault, if they didn't just outright accuse GWB of having their city attacked and making it look like a terrorist act. I would just like to know when they will take their hatred for the Christain Fundamentalists and apply it to the Islamic Fundamentalists. Both groups have twisted one of the worlds great religions each, but they never want to be sensitive or understanding the Christians. They just wish to make them to stop breathing, which I think we are about to do shortly to Saddam & Co. And yes, I would approve of it to be done in my name.

To be frank, my anger against Iraq has not reached the utter boiling point that it has against the Palestinians. But that doesn't mean those sons of bitches deserve to breathe for another second longer, if they've done to their own people what we've all heard. The nukes are just the icing on the cake, as far as I'm concerned. Saddam lost all right to breathe when he released a gas on (I believe a couple million?) his own citizens that caused their SKIN to DISSOLVE. Yeah. That sumbitch has developed unmanned vehicles for the sole purpose of spreading chemicals like that one as far and wide as he can. If that isn't enough to want his ass in a coffin, imagine your spouse, your children, your whole family sitting at home in Washington or New York when a bomb releasing these chemicals goes off....planted by al-Qaeda with Saddam's blessing. For those of you who still don't want to face reality and claim the two aren't working together, consider the very statement from al-Qaeda this article refers to. They themselves refer to Iraq! In their usual less-than-intelligent way, they've provided the very proof you claim doesn't exist. It's time to stop the incessant multilateralist whining, ladies and gentlemen. It's time to stop begging for more proof as London authorities stop a cyanide gas attempt in the London Underground and authorities in Yemen halt a planned hotel bombing because the hotel housed Americans. You want more proof? You HAVE it already. The question is not, 'Is this happening?' The question, ladies and gentlemen, is 'What are you going to do about it?'

Yay!

A statement attributed to al-Qaeda threatened more attacks in New York and Washington unless America stops supporting Israel and converts to Islam...

Uh, yeah, we'll get right on that, Mohammed. We're gonna be in your neighborhood real soon, so you wait right there and we'll come by with a message about our conversion.

I was all set to roll over to the demands of peace-loving Muslim extremists. Give 'em whatever they want, roll over, play dead, end profiling, extend all U.S. civil rights and protections but then they have to go and insist that the U.S. "...converts to Islam" or we will still be under terrorist threat. Get real, AliBaba. Oh, Moni, America is capitalized.

>>>>>This is what appeasement leads to. It gives terrorists reason to think that they can make demands on us.

Huh? I'm in this anti-war thing, I'm glad it looks so powerful to you from the outside. But we haven't won a thing. It's you pro-war guys who are in the driver's seat. Whatever happens, go ahead and fantasize about who you want to be dead, but don't try laying the blame on us.

Michele.........My Michele, I never find a reason to post as you say IT ALL EXACTLY as I would. And to all the above... DO A FUCKING BETTER JOB, assholes.

We'll just blame you fools if you're stupid enough to get in our way when the train's coming.

Sure, go ahead and lie down in front of the tracks. It'll stop. Really.

On the other hand...Michele, you have said what we all have been thinking and more.

Moni (11/17/02 9:00 AM):
"what do you want to protect your children from? … War? Then don't start it!"

Sorry, too late, we didn’t start it. They did. What do the Traditional Arabs (secular and Islamist) think when we don’t make an effective military response to their military/terror attacks? We don’t have to guess, they tell us--contempt for weakness. Read the afterward to Mark Bowden’s "Black Hawk Down" or any of dozens of other pieces, as this is not clear to you.

"you're completely missing out [on angles like] oil, power-balance, a pissed off father, religious ambitions…So don't try to paint it as black and white…"

Some of these angles have something to them, but most don’t. Example, oil: why have the Oilmen been the one writing the "accommodate Saddam" op-ed pieces? Appeasing Iraq is the surest path to higher oil company profits. The fun of Conspiracies is that they don’t have to make sense, but that’s why so many are dismissed by wise people. It would help if you thought more critically.

Moni, you’re no doubt a nice person, but I won’t be relying on your help if ever my family’s in mortal danger. The time to give consideration to the psychopath’s point of view is when they’re locked in the asylum, or dead, not when they have the knife to a loved one’s throat.

Eric M (11/17/02, 5:10 PM):
"I'm in this anti-war thing…It's you pro-war guys who are in the driver's seat. Whatever happens…don't try laying the blame on us."

Beautifully said, and as a "pro war"(gag) person, I agree. The "anti-war" position is wholly reactive, whatever happens, you can say, "It wasn’t my fault!" If they blow the Golden Gate Bridge into the Bay, yep, you didn’t do it. But that’s where appeasement will bring us. Been there, done that. It’s awful for those of us urging war to realize that we are helping to cause battles--battles that will lead to the deaths of American soldiers, and Iraqi’s, civilian and military.

But Eric--our enemies started this war, for reasons of their own. If fighting back is the least-bad choice open to us, then we must make that choice. As adults--as US citizens--as caring humans. If you have a better idea, time is short, let’s hear it. So far, the silence of the "anti-war" movement on this point is beyond deafening, it’s reprehensible. And please, no "war lite" inspections-with-teeth. Threatening war means being willing to commit war (you’ve joined us), or it means nothing at all.

Yawn. Tiresome bullshit.

every time i read what comes out of the "peace at any price" movement, it reinforces my conviction that the way our country and our allies are confronting this situation is the right way. the list of reasons given by the "up with saddam down with bush" crowd not to confront iraq is in my opinion not only morally obtuse but facile and ignorant of reality.

no one wants a war, not least the family and friends of those who would go into harms' way. HOWEVER, while these organization espouse a policy of doing nothing substantive to confront iraq and other regimes whose sole reason to exist is to destroy the freedoms and liberties which we in the west take for granted, there are an equal if not greater number of americans who are unwilling to wait until half a dozen NFL cities explode on a busy playoff weekend before we act to preserve our security.

wherever you go to shout divisive and unhelpful slogans, or wherever you go to shout obscentities about president bush, we will be there as well. we will confront you...not with violence but with equal energy and passion. we will not allow you to say that those who support the president and support proactively safeguarding our nation are in any way warmongers, or that we do not want peace. we DO want peace, fervently and passionately as you do, as everyone does. BUT, we are unwilling to achieve it throught the means you suggest, as doing so would in my opinion make the situation unfathomably worse for our country and our future.

nowhere in your language is any indication that saddam alone is the reason iraq is suffering, not the US. nowhere in your pleas for UN debate is an acknowldgement that saddam has broken every UN stricture he himself agreed to, or any realization that after ignoring prior UN sanctions, that he is highly unlikely to suddenly come to his senses. nowhere in your language is there any realization that there is currently a global war taking place between the forces of freedom and liberty (however imperfectly they may be applied and i grant without reservation that america is not perfect by a longshot)and a pernicious brand of fascism that would happily destroy every american city if given the chance.

why is it that groups such as yours are more than happy to impute to the president the worst of motives, but you enoble saddam? this is a rhetorical question of course.

what i say to you i say with a recognition of and respect for your groups right to speak out. ironically, this is the key difference between our way of life and theirs: we value debate and interchange of ideas, whereas our enemies fundamentally disbelieve in freedom of speech thought association and worship. but i qualify this statement by saying while i support and will defend in the streets, your right to be heard, i fundamentally and wholeheartedly deprecate everything you say.

to wit, and i use all caps here not as a means of shouting at you, but to distinguish my words from yours:

1. War with Iraq won't make us safer.
A unilateral attack by the United States will inflame anti-U.S. sentiment and may stimulate more attacks by extremists.
SHOULD AN ATTACK OCCUR, IT WILL NOT BE "UNILATERAL", AS YOU SUGGEST, BUT WITH THE COOPERATION AND SUPPORT FROM MANY COUNTRIES WHO RECOGNIZE AS APPARENTLY YOUR GROUP DOES NOT THAT EVIL DOES EXIST AND RIGHT NOW ALL IT WANTS TO DO IS WIPE AMERICA FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH

2. There is no imminent threat.
There is no hard evidence that Iraq has nuclear weapons. Iraq has little means to deliver chemical and biological weapons to threaten countries in the Middle East, let alone the U.S.
THIS STATEMENT IS HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE AND MANY EXPERTS WOULD VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE. 5 YEARS AGO IRAQ WAS VERY CLOSE TO BUILDING AT LEAST ONE NUKE, AND SINCE SADDAM THREW THE UN INSPECTORS OUT OF HIS COUNTRY, HIS PROGRAM HAS ACCELERATED. DO WE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL MIAMI, PITTSBURGH CHICAGO OR WASHINGTON DISAPPEAR BEFORE YOU RECOGNIZE THE THREAT?

3. A preemptive attack violates the U.N. charter.
The U.N. Charter forbids member countries from attacking another country except in self defense. If the U.S. puts itself above international law it will further encourage other nations to do the same.
ONCE AGAIN I OBJECT TO YOUR MISLEADING USE OF THE PHRASE "PREEMPTIVE". SADDAM IS CURRENTLY AND HAS BEEN FOR SOME YEARS, IN MATERIAL BREACH OF UN SANCTIONS HE AGREED TO AS A CONDITION OF THE GULF WAR ENDING, WHICH BY THE WAY HE STARTED BY INVADING KUWAIT AND LATER COMMITTING THE GREATEST ENVIRO CRIME IN HISTORY BY SETTING THE OIL FIELDS ALIGHT. ASK YOURSELF HOW THINGS MIGHT HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT IF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, LED BY THE UK,US AND FRANCE, SAY, HAD ACTED PREMEPTIVELY AGAINST HITLER IN 1937?

4. Our allies don't support us in this war.
U.S. allies in the Middle East oppose a U.S. attack on Iraq. Our European allies have urged the U.S. to work through the U.N. An invasion of Iraq would isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world and shatter the principles of international cooperation and mutual defense that are key to U.S. and global security.
THIS IS STARTING TO SOUND LIKE A BROKEN RECORD. THE FACT THAT WE HAVE ALLIES IN THIS FIGHT NOT NAMED FRANCE OR BELGIUM DOES NOT MEAN WE LACK INT'L SUPPORT. IN MY OPINION, WHEN AND IF THE RUBBER HITS THE ROAD, WE WILL HAVE OUR ALLIES STRONGLY BEHIND US. AND I DONT KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT MY ONLY "ALLY" IN THE MIDDLE EAST THESE DAYS IS ISRAEL, AND LAST TIME I CHECKED THEY WERE ALSO THE ONLY DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

5. Thousands of innocent people may die.
Pentagon estimates say that an invasion of Iraq could lead to the deaths of 10,000 innocent civilians.
ASK YOURSELF HOW MANY IRAQIS HAVE DIED BECAUSE SADDAM TOOK THE UN MONEY EARMARKED FOR FOOD AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND USED IT TO BUILD PALACES FROM ONE END OF THE COUNTRY TO ANOTHER. ASK YOURSELF HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN WANTONLY ASSASSINATED OR EXECUTED BY SADDAM FOR DARING TO EXCERCISE THOSE RIGHTS WHICH WE TAKE FOR GRANTED. ASK YOURSELF WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED TO MILLIONS OF PEOPLE IN KUWAIT AND SAUDI ARABIA IF SADDAM HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO "ACHIEVE PEACE" IN 1990. ASK YOURSELF HOW MANY TENS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WILL DIE IN MWD ATTAX IF WE DO NOT CONFRONT THE THREAT FACING US.

6. Young American men and women will fight and die.
U.S. military action and possible occupation is likely to produce far more casualties than the previous Gulf War or the war in Afghanistan. Many combatants will suffer physical and psychological repercussions for years after the war ends.
OBVIOUSLY IT IS THE GOAL AND INTENT OF THE ALLIES TO MINIMIZE CASUALTIES WHEREVER POSSIBLE. HOWEVER, THE IDEA THAT WE CANNOT ACT BECAUSE SOME OF OUR FORCES MAY NOT COME HOME IS NOT ONE THAT IS DEFENSIBLE.

7. Funding for education, environment and health care is already being cut in order to pay for the "war on terror."
Estimates put the cost of a war with Iraq at $60-$100 billion with ongoing billions for occupation and rebuilding Iraq.
ANOTHER FACILE AND UNHELPFUL ARGUMENT IN MY OPINION. IF YOU ASK ME WHETHER I WOULD PAY LESS TO THE NEA OR MORE TO THE TAXMAN SO AS TO AVOID HAVING A NUKE FLOAT INTO NY HARBOR I SAY YES. THIS IS NOT AN EITHER/OR PROPOSITION, AND WHEN YOU MAKE IT SUCH, IT TELLS ME YOU ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH SCORING POLITICAL HITS ON THE PRESIDENT AND LESS CONCERNED WITH REAL LIFE ISSUES OF PEACE AND WAR. PEACE AND SECURITY COME AT A PRICE, AS DOES ANYTHING OF VALUE.

8. Things may not be better after a war.
We have no guarantee that a new regime in Iraq will make life any better for the Iraqi people or be any friendlier to the U.S. than the current one. The Taliban were once our allies in Afghanistan. Will the new regime in Iraq become our enemy after a few years?
THIS IS WRONG ON SO MANY LEVELS THAT I AM NOT SURE WHERE TO BEGIN. HOW CAN THINGS GET ANY WORSE? FREEDOM DOES NOT EXIST IN THE MIDDLE EAST, EXCEPT IN ISRAEL. THERE IS NO FREE PRESS, THERE IS NO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, THERE SURELY IS NO FREEDOM TO PRACTICE RELIGION ACCORDING TO ONE'S OWN CONSCIENCE. THERE IS NO FREEDOM FOR WOMEN. THERE IS NO FREEDOM TO DISSENT. SHALL I GO ON? ARE WE TO BELIEVE THAT REMOVING SADDAM AND HIS REGIME AND REPLACING IT WITH A UN MANDATED REPRESENTATIVE GOV'T COULD BE ANY WORSE THAN WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW? PLEASE CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY THAT IN FACT THINGS COULD GET MUCH BETTER, AND HOW A RELATIVELY STABLE IRAQ WITH A NASCENT REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY WOULD AFFECT THE ANTI-FREEDOM MULLAHS IN IRAN AND SAUDIA ARABIA. PLEASE.

9. There are other options.
The U.S. can work through the U.N. using mechanisms such as the resumption of weapons inspections, negotiation, mediation, regional arrangements, and other peaceful means.
DO YOU MEAN THE UN THAT SADDAM HAS LED BY THE NOSE FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS ON INPSECTIONS? OR DO YOU MEAN THE UN THAT PROVIDED BILLIONS IN RELIEF AID TO IRAQ ONLY TO SEE SADDAM POCKET IT? OR THE UN THAT REFUSED TO STEP IN TO STEM GENOCIDE IN THE BALKANS? AFRICA? I WOULD ASK YOU WITH THE GREATEST RESPECT TO DO SOME OF THAT FORWARD THINKING ABOUT THE FUTURE YOU SEEM SO READY TO DO: WHAT IF, AFTER WE GO THE UN ROUTE WHOLE HOG, AND LO AND BEHOLD SADDAM SAYS "NO YOU CANT GO TO THAT PALACE, OR TO THAT LAB, OR TO THAT FACILITY?" WHAT IS TO BE DONE THEN? WHAT IS TO BE MEDIATED THEN? OR NEGOTIATED? PLEASE TELL US HOW EXACTLY YOU WOULD RESPOND TO THIS SITUATION. PART OF THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR SIDE OF THE EQUATION, IN MY OPINION, IS THAT NOWHERE DO YOU EVER SAY WHAT IS TO BE DONE IN THE EVENT THAT SADDAM YET AGAIN ABUSES THE UNITED NATIONS. NOWHERE DO YOU EVER SAY THAT THERE ARE IN FACT PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DESTROY THIS COUNTRY AND THEY MUST BE CONFRONTED IN SOME WAY. YOU WOULD HAVE MORE CONVERTS IF YOU WERE HONEST ABOUT WHAT SHOULD BE DONE, BUT SOMEHOW NO ONE ON YOUR SIDE OF THE DEBATE EVER MANAGES TO SAY. THIS CREATES SUSPICION THAT WHILE YOU PAY LIP SERVICE TO A DESIRE FOR PEACE YOU DISCOUNT THE NEED FOR SECURITY. REMEMBER THE OLD SAYING THAT YOU CANNOT HAVE RIGHTS WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY? WELL MY FRIENDS YOU CANNOT HAVE PEACE WITHOUT SECURITY.

10. The American people have deep misgivings about this war.
Many people know deep down that this war makes no sense. They are starting to speak up and make themselves heard. You can add your voice to activities in your community.
AS I HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY AND PERHAPS TO EXCESS, THERE ARE AN EQUAL IF NOT GREATER NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE 100% FROM WHAT YOU ESPOUSE AND WHAT YOU SUGGEST WE SHOULD DO...OR NOT DO, AS IT TURNS OUT. WE ARE NOT BLOODTHIRSTY OIL MERCHANTS AS MANY OF YOU WOULD HAVE PEOPLE BELIEVE. WE BELIEVE IN OUR POSITION JUST AS PASSIONATELY AS YOU BELIEVE IN YOURS. AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, WE WILL CONFRONT YOU AND YOURS WHEREVER YOU ARE FOUND. AGAIN, NOT WITH VIOLENCE OR HATEFUL LANGUAGE WHICH PEOPLE ON YOUR SIDE ARE USING, BUT WITH REALISM AND RESOLUTION: REALISM ABOUT THE TRUE NATURE OF THE THREAT, AND RESOLUTION FOR THE STRUGGLE WHICH LAY AHEAD.

so there you have it: my opinion, which should it be expressed in the iraq you so fervently seek to preserve, would probably get me killed. i hope to see you soon on the streets of my hometown, so we can have a lively debate. we all share the same desire for peace. where we differ fundamentally and for all time, is in how to achieve it. and please make no mistake about it, whats in play here is nothing less than the future of freedom upon the earth, and so again i say wherever you are, we will be found also. wherever you make your voice heard, ours will be heard as well, and we will let history judge who was right and who was wrong.

Whoever it was who responded to me, I just don't see where the appeasement is. Maybe what I want is appeasement, but it just hasn't happened, so you can't blame Al Qaeda's note on me. I'm working from the title of this post, which really isn't very well thought-out. I'm not interested in arguing the war with you.

Eric M (11/17/02, 5:36 PM):

>I just don't see where the appeasement is.

"A statement attributed to al-Qaeda threatened more attacks in New York and Washington unless America stops supporting Israel and converts to Islam..."

"appeasement--The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace." (Dictionary.com)

Seems straightforward, Al Qaeda is inviting the West to appease them. In his way, Saddam Hussein has been doing the same thing for the past 10+ years, successfully until recently.

>so you can't blame Al Qaeda's note on me.

Gee willikers, I know you didn't write it. Re-read my comment, I was saying something different--and agreeing with what you'd said! Seriously, it is awful to be working for violence, even though I think this war will ultimately mean less killing and misery.

>I'm not interested in arguing the war with you.

Um, OK.

Appeasement is a bad thing? I thought Jimmy Carter just won the nobel prize for it.
"There is a sense around the world that the United States has become too arrogant, too dominant, too self-centered, and too proud of its wealth".
The only solution to that problem is to give it all away :)

"But I am one of those people who just want to live in peace and raise my kids without having to teach them what a bomb shelter is."

I think, perhaps, for once I won't open my big ugly mouth and respond. I think John Stuart Mill says it far better than I could ever hope to:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Alright Mr AMac, here is what I was responding to from the original post:

"how is this appeasement thing working out for you? You still think it's a good idea? You ready to convert to Islam?
This is what appeasement leads to. For every anti-war protester marching in the streets... they laugh at us. They laugh and they plot and they think we must be the most spineless, cowardly world power ever."

you wrote:
>>>Seems straightforward, Al Qaeda is inviting the West to appease them.

No, Ms. Small Victory is saying the appeasement already happened. That's why the note came. "This [note] is what appeasement [that someone did in the past] leads to [in the present]." If she thinks that any of our gov't policy since Sept 11 has been driven by the anti-war movement, she simply has another thing coming.

Really Bush has pretty much got all the wars he wanted. It's more plausible for me to come after you war-folk and say you reap what you sow. Not that I'm saying that. I do wonder, though, whether the pro-war side feels its grip slipping. It sure doesn't look that way from where I stand, but you would know better than I. The truth is Ms. Small Victory just wanted to say mean things about anti-war, and so just tacked her idea onto an unrelated news item.

Wow, that's pretty amazing stuff there, Mr.....umm..oh, don't know your name because like most of your ilk, you don't leave a name or email address. I'm just sitting here in amazement that you were able to read my mind as I wrote that post!!

The truth is Ms. Small Victory just wanted to say mean things about anti-war, and so just tacked her idea onto an unrelated news item.

How the fuck could you say you know what I wanted to do? You have no clue. You're like the asshole baseball announcers who say "right now the pitcher is thinking to himself..."

You're clueless, Mr. No Name. You wouldn't know truth if it hit you on your ass..or your head. Not much difference there.

James P. Maybe that quote that you placed up there fits. I am not miserable though. Maybe better, stronger people should handle all that stuff for me. I like to live this day, 1 day at a time and have fun with my kids and read stories and play games and tickle them. Go ahead and take care of that war over there for me. This is why I dont discuss politics much. I live in a happy place with my kids and just go day by day.

>>>How the fuck could you say you know what I wanted to do?

Sure it's speculation. I explained why your comment didn't make any sense, but the gusto you put into condemning the war appeasers makes it look like that was the part you really wanted to write.

Look I'm giving you an out for writing something that doesn't make sense. You wanted to take some political shot. That's legal. Why are you complaining? The alternative is that you're just plain dumb.

Eric M (10:13 PM, 10:57 PM):

I understand that you don't agree with what Michele originally wrote, and you also disagree with my earlier comments. But I can't figure what exactly you think is wrong.

Perhaps your belief is that Michele's saying that lots of folks in the anti-war movements are lazy thinkers, self-indulgent, and quite unconcerned about appeasing our mortal enemies. That's my take on her post, FWIW, and on the reality of the situation too.

If you don't see "appeasement" in those actions, maybe you don't follow the news too closely? Candidely, maybe you just think this is the best of all possible worlds?

>If she thinks that any of our gov't policy since Sept 11 has been driven by the anti-war movement...

I kinda doubt it (thank God, says this Clinton then Gore voter). Want to ask?

>Really Bush has pretty much got all the wars he wanted...

Er, not like he's my best pal or anything, but isn't that just a cheap shot? If you meant something else, then what?

>The truth is Ms. Small Victory just wanted to say mean things about anti-war...

Um, whatever. OK.

>>>>If you don't see "appeasement" in those actions, maybe you don't follow the news too closely? [ital mine]

One more time. Al Qaeda isn't still out there because of the anti-war movement. The anti-war movement isn't in any sort of control. Therefore the anti-war movement cannot appease anybody.

Again, you guys are in charge, your policies are being enacted, your plans are being put into ACTION. You might have believed at one time that taking over Afghanistan would cause potential terrorists around the world to see the Error of their Ways. Maybe that was your plan. Well Al Qaeda is still around sending nasty notes, Osama is still around making tapes and saying mean things about us, people are still getting killed, and you expect us to accept that these things are happening because some minority part of political life in America is against war with Iraq? You're saying this is my fault? Your side is currently driving carriers, planes and tanks all over the Middle East, and you're saying somebody holding a sign on the mall is conducting more powerful political action?

I am getting SO tired of our government sitting around having tea parties with the U.N. while terrorists continue to make one threat after another. I think that EVERY TIME someone makes a statement threatening the U.S. we ought to bomb someone...bomb one of their mosques and make them believe that Mecca could be next.

Eric M (11/19 12:47 PM):

>Al Qaeda isn't still out there because of the anti-war movement.

Good, we agree.

>The anti-war movement isn't in any sort of control. Therefore the anti-war movement cannot appease anybody.

I suspect you're being deliberately obtuse. The people who signed and paid for the famous "Not in Our Name" ads knew they weren't 'in control' of US gov't policy ... so, for that reason, I must'nt call it "appeasement"? Have you retroactively convinced Herr Hitler that he had no right to be cheered by that Oxford Student Union debate ("Resolved, under no circumstances will we fight for King and Country")?

>You might have believed...taking over Afghanistan would cause potential terrorists around the world to see the Error of their Ways.

Huh? Who? Which planet?

>You're saying this is my fault? ... somebody holding a sign on the mall is conducting more powerful political action?

You and I aren't 'controlling' gov't policy, we're just citizens. Why does that turn smug and naive protests into Noble Acts?

If you feel strongly enough to hold a sign on the mall, as a grown-up you are under a moral obligation to think_through the consequences of what you are advocating. The problem with the "peace" movement is that its desired policies lead to outcomes that are Bad For The Children--American and Arab both.

Why do people arguing the 'anti-war' position spend so much effort evading this simple point? Example--look back at your posts on this thread.

You've forgotten--"we" were with "you" until 14 months ago. By this sort of casual indifference to likely outcomes, you lost us.

Lynne (9:19 AM):

>EVERY TIME someone makes a statement threatening the U.S. we ought to bomb someone ... one of their mosques...

Really? Which Air Force bombardier would you like to give these nightmares to? Which Muslim parents should weep?

Please consider: as a grown-up, you are under a moral obligation to think through the consequences of what you are advocating.

AMac, this is PC leftist crap. Did I create some sort of hostile environment to war by protesting? It doesn't change the fact that Bush is pro-war, and Bush is the president. When I get to be president, and I command America to convert to Islam, and Al Qaeda ratchets up their note-sending, then you can come after me for appeasing.

Eric M (12:57 PM):

Sorry, I see you're mad, beyond that you lost me. I'd have to imagine what I think you're saying to respond, and I'd probably get it wrong.

2 points.

1. If something I do has the effect of appeasing a powerful and evil person (e.g. OBL or S.H.), that's a big negative. Other, very positive effects of my action might outweigh that negative. You presumably see such positive effects arising from the 'anti-war' movement. I don't.

2. I've tried to consider the questions you've raised, and give my thinking on them. You may not like my answers, but they're genuine. In turn, I've asked you some serious questions. You've responded with straw men ("You're saying [terrorism] is my fault?") and witty lines ("this is PC leftist crap"). If this is our best, let's ... try again some other day?

I just don't think you understand what you're accusing me of. And I really responded to the original post, not you, because you're wandering around in some other argument.
1. Osama writes his note.
2. Michelle said anti-war makes Osama write his note.
2. I say Osama can't be responding to anti-war because pro-war and pro-war government is much bigger than anti-war.
4. You say anti-war expressions help Osama. But help Osama what? write his note? get attention for his note? what? How does appeasement in America help Osama write his note?

You're trying to devolve the note into some more general feeling against America, and connect that to anti-war's opposition to American policy. I can see why you would try that, because otherwise Michelle's original post doesn't make sense. She made a baseless accusation of anti-Americanism and responsibility for future attacks and laid the blame on me. That I will not accept. Does my anger bother you? Do you even read the posts on this site? Why should I take the high-road when somebody accuses me of treason.

heck, i'm still stuck on: Your side is currently driving carriers, planes and tanks all over the Middle East

i'm trying to visualize this amphibious carrier that i've somehow failed to read any reports about....and wishing coca-cola couldn't come out your nose when you laugh...

Eric M:

>I just don't think you understand what you're accusing me of.

Sure I do.
Condoning appeasement.

>And I really responded to the original post, not you...

Fair enough the first time (11/17 5:10 PM), but if you just wanted me to shaddup, what about those others (5:36, 10:13, 12:47. 12:57)?

>...because you're wandering around in some other argument.

Oy, so this my thanks for seriously considering your points?

>1. Osama writes his note.

We agree again!

>2. Michelle said anti-war makes Osama write his note.

Oh-oh. She did? Truly? Where?

>2. I say Osama can't be responding to anti-war because pro-war and pro-war government is much bigger than anti-war.

Your logic is, er, interesting. But let's agree that OBL hates us all in a big-tent kind of way, pro-war and anti-war together? Oops, that was Michele's point!

>4. You say anti-war expressions help Osama.

Right!

>But help Osama what?...

Why Eric M, you silly man. Help him ... advance his jihad against the infidels and modern Muslims! Confirm his belief that the West is a paper tiger, ready to collapse after one more Al Quaeda martyrdom operation!

>How does appeasement in America help Osama write his note?

Good question, I never thought about it--I don't even read Arabic. What's your opinion?

>You're trying to devolve the note ...

I wouldn't attempt any such thing in public, thank you very much.

>[Michele] made a baseless accusation of anti-Americanism and responsibility for future attacks and laid the blame on me.

How about an instant replay:

"So, all you placard-wearing cowards...how is this appeasement thing working out for you?...This is what appeasement leads to. It gives terrorists reason to think that they can make demands on us. For every anti-war protester marching in the streets; for every idealist school teacher that heads over to Iraq to offer hugs and flowers; for every celebrity who thinks we should put down our weapons and just try to talk it out, they laugh at us. They laugh and they plot and they think we must be the most spineless, cowardly world power ever."

Now as you can tell, I'm ever so much politer than that grrrl, and my first sentence would have been different. But hey, if you bristle at J'accuse!, you might as well get the charges right. I say she's talking about cowardice and appeasement and, safe to say, naiveite.

As far as responsibility for future attacks, if you're not co-conspiritors, and the anti-war movement isn't, then you're not. With me so far? Here's the hard part: some of us think that trips to Baghdad and "Not In Our Name" demonstrations and witting lies about Afghan civilian casualties DO indirectly aid and abet OBL's and S.H.'s agendas. Why? Hint--they subscribe to CNN too! As Bernard Lewis and Mark Bowden and Ralph Peters and, now, Michele, have pointed out, the bad guys are further convinced that we must be a spineless, cowardly world 'power'.

>Does my anger bother you?

Okay by me.

>Do you even read the posts on this site?

Heck, I'd never even heard of the cunnilinguis fairy before coming (oops) here.

>Why should I take the high-road when somebody accuses me of treason.

Good question. Post again when you've thought about it. Ask for some hints if you're stuck.