Appeasement Never Works

How did you know this was about Barack Obama?

Actually it isn't...really. It's about appeasement in general, whether it be with appeasing bad behavior from your child, criminals, or belligerent countries..

From yesterday's "James Dobson Family Minute"...

Psychologists Dr. James Dobson and Dr. Bill Maier illustrate how pacifying aggressive behavior only reinforces it!

Click here to listen.

From OnePlace.com

Obama: Jimmy Carter Reborn

Time magazine came out with a piece yesterday from Ramesh Ponnuru entitled "In Carter's Shadow."

Ponnuru points out the similarities between that Barack Obama and John McCain have with the presidency of Jimmy Carter, arguably the worst presidency in American history.

While I don't really disagree with any of Ponnuru's descriptions of the McCain/Carter similarities, I think Obama's resemblance to Jimmy Carter is much more direct and and much more striking:

Of the two likely nominees this year, Obama is closest to Carter in background and policy leanings. The parallels between his campaign so far and the one Carter ran in 1976 are striking. Like Carter, Obama had little national experience when he started to run. Neither was given much chance of winning the nomination. Instead of running on a detailed platform, Carter told crowds that what Washington needed was "a government as good as its people"—just as Obama promises "change we can believe in." Carter's message sold well after Richard Nixon's disgrace, and press accounts from the time suggest that people found the born-again Carter to be charismatic. That parallel is a promising one for Obama.

But his Carterish echoes come with two potential dangers. The first is that running as the embodiment of hope can lend itself to a certain self-righteousness—what critics have already started to call elitism. The second danger is that the public will come to see Obama as naive about America's enemies abroad, as it eventually concluded Carter was. Ever since Obama said he was willing to negotiate with those enemies directly and "without precondition," Republicans have been trying to tag him as the son of the Georgia governor.

Many liberals have long put George W. Bush's presidency right down there with Adolf Hitler and Satan (only they don't believe in the latter guy). But either they are too young to remember the Carter years, or have very selective memories.

Carter's socialist policies and gross incompetence led to a sad state of affairs domestically and America becoming a laughing stock around the world. Remember the high unemployment, the double-digit inflation, the interest rates over 20%, the high gas prices, Carter's impotence as a bunch of Iranian radicals took our embassy staff hostage for more than a year, gave up the Panama Canal, left several South American countries to the communist dogs, smooched with the Soviets, and displayed more impotence when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan?

I was still a kid during this time, but I recall it was a pretty sad time to be an American (something that should never be). It was Ronald Reagan's reversal of this state of affairs that made me realize that I was a Republican, despite having come from a family of registered Democrats.

My greatest fear for the near future of America is that if Obama does get elected, we'll have a Carter redux both at home and abroad. And in many ways, the world is a more dangerous place now than it was when Carter was in the White House.

John Bolton on Appeasement

Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton slammed Barack Obama for his policies of appeasement.

What is an Appeaser, and is Obama One?

President Bush's statement last week before the Israeli Knesset warning of the dangers of appeasement highlighted the foreign policy naivete of Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama...without even mentioning him.

Though Obama has already said that as president he would "sit down" and apparently have tea with the world's largest backer of terrorism (Iran, in case you missed it), he and his fellow Democrats were quick to protest that Obama was not, in fact, an appeaser...even though Obama was not named in the speech and the White House says Obama was not in the mind of President Bush when he made the speech.

But what is appeasement? Every administration has diplomats, don't they? Can you have diplomacy without appeasement? Jed Babbin believes so, and I wholeheartedly agree with him.

Is Obama an appeaser? Of course. But why? What is an appeaser? An appeaser may be a diplomat, but all diplomats are not appeasers.

Diplomats buy and sell; appeasers just give things away. And that difference is something Barack Obama has yet to learn.

An appeaser is someone who is willing to compromise his nation’s interests without obtaining an equal or greater concession from the adversary. History’s most famous appeaser, Neville Chamberlain, gave the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in 1938 and received nothing in return. Having been appeased -- and thus given time to further build his military might -- Hitler attacked a year later, conquering Poland and igniting the largest and most murderous war in history.

In Churchill’s more literary definition, an appeaser is someone who feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

If I might risk adding to Babbin's excellent summation, appeasers engage in diplomacy simply for the sake of maintaining the illusion of peace. Good diplomacy, however, aims to preserve national interest and security...and walks away (Reykjavik) from the table when no reasonable and verifiable concessions can be obtained from the enemy.

Video: Bush Speech on Appeasement to Israeli Knesset

In a speech to Israel's Knesset, President Bush said Thursday, 'some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals.' Democrat Barack Obama has interpreted the remark as a slam against him. (May 15)

Cindy Sheehan Retires

According to CNS News, Cindy Sheehan, the peace mom, is throwing in the towel.

Cindy Sheehan says she is resigning as the "face" of the American anti-war movement.

In a letter posted on a liberal website Monday, Sheehan complained about the smears and hatred directed at her by liberals since she renounced her ties to the Democratic Party.

As I knew was the case, when Dems couldn't get the same mileage out of her they once did, they had no use for her. The Left does that with blacks and every other minority or special interest group; once they have no use for you, you're no longer welcome at the table.

"Being called an 'attention whore' and being told 'good riddance' are some of the more milder rebukes [sic]," Sheehan wrote in a long letter posted on the DailyKos blog.

She said she has reluctantly concluded that "I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party."

Sheehan also noted that while conservatives "slandered and libeled" her as a "tool of the Democratic Party," liberals did the same thing -- "when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I help the Republican Party."

I disagree with her when she says her son died for nothing (he died to protect his country, and to extend a shot at freedom to the Iraqi people), but I do agree with her in one thing she said, though for a different reason:

"Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months

Far too many people know everything about this circus-like "American Idol" show that I refuse to watch, just like they know everything about this sports event or that musical group over there, but know absolutely nothing about the greater world around them, or its history.

There's nothing wrong with these things in and of themselves, but when our priorities are pleasure-pursuits over things that really matter, it's disgusting and sad.

It's said that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. Also, those who are armed with a vote and the ear of lawmakers, yet do not pay attention to the world around them, are a danger to their fellow Americans and a threat to liberty.

I wish Cindy Sheehan well, but I'm glad she's decided to leave the public stage. She's done far more harm than good. I hope she can find peace, and someday be reconciled to the knowledge that her son did indeed die a noble death.

Great Britain Not So Great Anymore

Dennis Prager's column is, as usual, too true:

Whether the British sailors and marines should have put up more resistance – i.e., any resistance – to the unprovoked Iranian military attack is something for military and other experts to decide. Whether the captured sailors and marines offered more information and more cooperation – and more smiles – than was necessary to the leader of their kidnappers, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will also be determined in ongoing investigations. Whether the British government engaged in appeasement of Iran or ineffective diplomacy will also have to be judged.

What does seem clear, however, is that the British government did not confront the Iranians in any way reminiscent of a great country, let alone of Britain's great past. If we judge the British government's reaction alone – without any reference to the behavior of the British sailors and marines – Iran was the feared power, not Great Britain, which acted like the supplicant.

And the part Americans need to heed?

But a word of caution: If Great Britain can cease to be great in so short a time span, any country can. All you need is an elite that no longer believes in their country, that manipulates history texts to make students feel good about themselves, that prefers multiculturalism to its own culture, and that has abandoned its religious underpinnings. Sound familiar, America?

Still Pretending?

The title of Joseph Farah's column today is "Iran: No more playing pretend":

The West chose the latter course of action. It decided to play pretend.

Now some of those same officials are 'shocked' to learn that Iran, under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, has captured 15 British seamen in Iraqi waters, refusing to release them and abusing them in ways similar to the way those American hostages were abused in 1979 and 1980.

This is the way appeasement works.

It seems to make it easier to deal with problems immediately, but it compounds problems and makes them more difficult to resolve later.

Did we expect the tiger to change its stripes?

Did we expect to discourage future hostage-taking by pretending someone involved was not really involved?

Did we expect to prevent a repeat of history by, in effect, pardoning the previous offense?

Did we expect, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had somehow reformed, become more responsible, renounced his past even while denying it?

It's hard for me to understand the impotence with which the West is dealing with this incident.

It's all too familiar to those of us who watched Jimmy Carter's Rose Garden strategy. For those of you too young to remember, the president said he would not leave the White House Rose Garden until the hostages were released. That, as I'm sure you can imagine, left the Ayatollah Khomeini and his young protégé Ahmadinejad quaking in their boots.

It wasn't until Ronald Reagan was sworn into office – the very day, in fact – that the Iranians finally released the hostages.

If Farah is saying that Iran is no longer pretending to be a civilized nation, I concur. But if Farah is saying we're no longer playing pretend, I think I disagree. Just yesterday I heard several quotes about how Britain--and even many in the US--still can't bring themselves to call the British sailors "hostages." Some among us are still denying reality.

But perhaps Farah is saying we need to stop playing pretend, then he's 100% correct!

Editorial: Europe - Thy Name is Cowardice

The op/ed below was emailed to me by my e-friend Paul Scates who shares his fantastic writing with the readers of Dakota Voice.

Paul said he checked Snopes for its veracity. I also checked and found it referenced in the Derby Reporter, which says it was written by a German citizen and published in Germany's largest daily paper, Die Welt.

EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE

(Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives, as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe, where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European Appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic Fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany?

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring European "Peace in our time".

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness. Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for Anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.

His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against Democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.

On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.

While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive".

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement?

Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

Hans Blix: Friend of Evil

Looks like the nuclear-bent, terrorist-supporting tryants of Iran have a new buddy: former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix.

From YNetNews:

Former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said Monday the United States, Europe and the UN Security Council are "humiliating" Iran by demanding that it suspend uranium enrichment before any negotiations and then dictating its rewards.

It must be comforting to know that appeasement is still alive and well in the world today. Comforting to oppressive, belligerent regimes, that is.

Iran Close to Nukeville

Can you say, "Duh!"

From the Financial Times:

Iran will be able to develop enough weapons-grade material for a nuclear bomb and there is little that can be done to prevent it, an internal European Union document has concluded.

In an admission of the international community’s failure to hold back Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the document – compiled by the staff of Javier Solana, EU foreign policy chief – says the atomic programme has been delayed only by technical limitations rather than diplomatic pressure. “Attempts to engage the Iranian administration in a negotiating process have not so far succeeded,” it states."

There's one thing that can prevent it. Hint: it's that thing liberals say has never accomplished anything (despite the Revolutionary War, World War II, etc.) If you haven't guessed it yet: war.

We and/or the Israelis can bomb them back into the stone age that's commensurate with their disposition and then we won't have to worry about them getting nukes.

The EU admission above is just the latest illustration that when you try diplomacy with tyrants and barbarians, you're wasting your time and strengthening them. It's called appeasement, and you can find it listed under "Neville Chamberlain" prior to World War II.