« “I DIDN’T REALIZE JESUS HAD SUCH GREAT ABS,” | Main | DASCHLE IN BUSH AD FEATURES 'HUG' »

August 30, 2004

Comments

Jake

In his book “Midway”, Mitsuo Fuchida (leader of the Pearl Harbor attack) said that in 1941 the US Navy was half the size of the Japanese Navy.

He also stated that if US Navy were anywhere near the size of the Japanese Navy, Japan would have never attacked the US.

So because of the Pacifism of the Democrats in the 30’s millions died in the War against Japan.

jolie560

The self-centered and naive will propose appeasing the bully as long as they themselves do not feel threstened.

"It happened to someone else, not me, I'm safe".

Appeasement is the fertilizer that helps bullies and tyrants grow stronger.

posted by jolie560

dawn53

To: AdrianSpidle

Appropriate thread for the Rudyard Kipling poem, Dane-Geld


IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,

To call upon a neighbour and to say:—

“We invaded you last night—we are quite prepared to fight,

Unless you pay us cash to go away.”

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,

And the people who ask it explain

That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld

And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,

To puff and look important and to say:—

“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.

We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,

For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,

You will find it better policy to says:—

“We never pay any one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost,
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,

And the nation that plays it is lost!”

posted by dawn53

Marc Brazeau

Vote for a Man, Not a Puppet
How An Ultra-Conservative Journalist Assesses W

by Charley Reese
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese74.html



Americans should realize that if they vote for President Bush's re-election, they are really voting for the architects of war – Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of that cabal of neoconservative ideologues and their corporate backers.

I have sadly come to the conclusion that President Bush is merely a frontman, an empty suit, who is manipulated by the people in his administration. Bush has the most dangerously simplistic view of the world of any president in my memory.

It's no wonder the president avoids press conferences like the plague. Take away his cue cards and he can barely talk. Americans should be embarrassed that an Arab king (Abdullah of Jordan) spoke more fluently and articulately in English than our own president at their joint press conference recently.

John Kerry is at least an educated man, well-read, who knows how to think and who knows that the world is a great deal more complex than Bush's comic-book world of American heroes and foreign evildoers. It's unfortunate that in our poorly educated country, Kerry's very intelligence and refusal to adopt simplistic slogans might doom his presidential election efforts.

But Thomas Jefferson said it well, as he did so often, when he observed that people who expect to be ignorant and free expect what never was and never will be.

People who think of themselves as conservatives will really display their stupidity, as I did in the last election, by voting for Bush. Bush is as far from being a conservative as you can get. Well, he fooled me once, but he won't fool me twice.

It is not at all conservative to balloon government spending, to vastly increase the power of government, to show contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, or to tell people that foreign outsourcing of American jobs is good for them, that giant fiscal and trade deficits don't matter, and that people should not know what their government is doing. Bush is the most prone-to-classify, the most secretive president in the 20th century. His administration leans dangerously toward the authoritarian.

It's no wonder that the Justice Department has convicted a few Arab Americans of supporting terrorism. What would you do if you found yourself arrested and a federal prosecutor whispers in your ear that either you can plea-bargain this or the president will designate you an enemy combatant and you'll be held incommunicado for the duration?

This election really is important, not only for domestic reasons, but because Bush's foreign policy has been a dangerous disaster. He's almost restarted the Cold War with Russia and the nuclear arms race. America is not only hated in the Middle East, but it has few friends anywhere in the world thanks to the arrogance and ineptness of the Bush administration. Don't forget, a scientific poll of Europeans found us, Israel, North Korea and Iran as the greatest threats to world peace.

I will swallow a lot of petty policy differences with Kerry to get a man in the White House with brains enough not to blow up the world and us with it. Go to Kerry's Web site and read some of the magazine profiles on him. You'll find that there is a great deal more to Kerry than the GOP attack dogs would have you believe.

Besides, it would be fun to have a president who plays hockey, windsurfs, ride motorcycles, plays the guitar, writes poetry and speaks French. It would be good to have a man in the White House who has killed people face to face. Killing people has a sobering effect on a man and dispels all illusions about war.

May 17, 2004

Charley Reese [ send him mail ] has been a journalist for 49 years, reporting on everything from sports to politics. From 1969–71, he worked as a campaign staffer for gubernatorial, senatorial and congressional races in several states. He was an editor, assistant to the publisher, and columnist for the Orlando Sentinel from 1971 to 2001. He now writes a syndicated column which is carried on LewRockwell.com. Reese served two years active duty in the U.S. Army as a tank gunner. Write to Charley Reese at P.O. Box 2446, Orlando, FL 32802.

© 2004 by King Features Syndicate, Inc.

Marc Brazeau

It was the LEFT in this country that first opposed Hitler and the rise of Fascism in this country. While conservatives admired Hitler, committed leftists went on their own and risked their lives to Spain to fight Franco when their country wouldn't.

In the Fifties having been "prematurely" anti-Fascist in the 30's would land you under conservative Senator Joe McCarthy's withering eye and likely under investigation and often blacklisted from making a living.


Germany and Japan were very powerful countries that ACTUALLY posed risks to the World.

Iraq was a country that at the height of it's power invade Kuwait and then promptly got it's ass kicked. That was followed by 12 years of sanctions, bombing, large parts of the country under Western no fly zone control and an aggressive inspections program and relentless surveillance. How anyone thought that they could emerge from that as MORE of a threat than back when the best they could do was invade defenseless Kuwait and get stomped was beyond me. I can only look to the continuing popularity of James Bond movies for an inkling.

Al Qaeda = active and dynamic threat
Saddam Hussein = washed up has been

Why was that so hard to understand?

Why is it still so hard to understand?

Jake - We were in The frickin' Great Depression in the 30's. FDR would have had to inherit a great navy from your boy H. Hoover, which he apparently didn't. As we had never fought a sea war up to that point, builing up our Navy while people were throwing themselves to death on Wall Street and out of work all over the country would have been impossible. Pacifism had nothing to do with it.

Marc Brazeau

Adrian,

If you are going to keep calling John Kerry a "pacifist" I have to keep asking this question:

Kerry voted FOR Afghanistan , Iraq , Kosovo and Somalia

He fought in Vietnam and killed people despite misgivings about the war.

If that's your definition of a pacificist, what's your definition of a hawk? I would assume that only a VIKING BERSERKER in the thoes of a hallucigen induced frenzy would fit your definition.

Adrian Spidle

"...Al Qaeda = active and dynamic threat
Saddam Hussein = washed up has been

Why was that so hard to understand?

Why is it still so hard to understand?...

Posted by: Marc Brazeau"

YOU SAYING IT'S SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO. IRAQI MONEY DIRECTLY FUNDED TERRORISM AND IRAQI WMDs WOULD BE EXTREMELY DANGEROUS IN TERRORIST HANDS.

WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

kanuckistani

You obviously know NOTHING about pacifism, and just slightly more about history. Pacifism is not about appeasement, it is about non-violent resistance. It is about not using military force as the first option in any dispute, as opposed to the current American Foreign Policy wisdom in which military intervention is the only option ever used.

Peace

MrTattieHeid

Nice motto..."Nazis don't kill people! Pacifists kill people!"

smirkysmirk


While much can be said in favor of your Hitler/Stalin analogy vis-a-vis current events, I believe that you have erred in assigning the roles to the proper parties. Bush clearly poses a greater threat to world peace than Sadam Hussein ever did. Am I saying that Sadam was a good guy? No. What I'm saying (and what Colin Powell and Condaleezsa Rice said just months before the invasion of Iraq) is that not only was Sadam not a threat to the US, he was not a threat to anyone including those in the immediate region of Iraq. To compare Sadam to Hitler and Stalin is therefore ludicrous and trivializes the suffering of the tens of millions who died at their hands.

Given sufficient power, perhaps Sadam would have been as bad, but he was in no way CAPABLE of imposing his power in this way. Shall we go around and kill everyone who merely dreams of becoming another Hitler or Stalin regardless of their means to do so?

Bush's imperialistic dream of establishing a permanent foothold in the middle east and fighting further conflicts under the false rubric of prosecuting the war on terror, however, brings to mind Hitler's spurious justification for attacking Poland, and clearly castes himself and NOT those he attacks in the role of a tryant.

On the other hand, the appeasers are not the antiwar protesters, but those supporting US imperialism under Bush. If elected to a second term Bush will kill more innocent people than all terrorism combined would over the same period of time, creating more hatred and anti-US sentiment, and giving those who wish to harm the US a stronger desire and greater justification in their own minds for doing so. What we need is strong leadership tempered by a foreign policy seeking equitable multilateral solutions to the problems of the world through diplomancy, not leadership ala Bush guided by sheer brute force and contempt for anything that falls outside the narrow limit of his myopic world vision.

The comments to this entry are closed.

BlogAds