Dear Right-Wingers, Republicans, and other assorted jingoists, It would be nice if you actually knew something about history before bringing it up. It really makes you folks look like fools. I do realize that most of you think intellectuals are evil people who don't attend church on Sunday and refuse to wear flag lapel pins. But most of us honestly try to understand an issue before we engage in a debate.
Now let's talk about appeasement. Your President Bush mentioned the word during a speech in Israel this week--which immediately led all of you conservative screamers to label Barack Obama an appeaser since the Illinois senator has said he would talk to Iran and other so-called "enemy" nations.
Let's be honest, you folks have no idea what the word actually means, and you don't understand one thing about the historical context. It's just a word you throw around because you think it is supposed to frighten liberals. Here is how Paul Kennedy defined it: "the policy of settling international quarrels by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, thereby avoiding the resort to an armed conflict which would be, expensive, bloody and possibly dangerous."
Avoiding armed conflict--now there is a novel concept. But in reality we all know the word gained negative connotations when our friend Neville Chamberlain (pictured above) continually met Hitler's demands during the lead up to World War II. When Chamberlain basically gave away Czechoslovakia to get "peace in our time" the policy of appeasement was forever tarnished. How many times have we heard about this infamous 1938 Munich agreement?
The Bush administration has learned what from Munich?
1. Don't give up anything to evil dictators for they will always want more.
2. Build up your military to such tremendous might that the evil dictators won't even dare ask for anything.
3. If the evil dictator even thinks about making demands, blow the fuck out him.
4. Then spend more and more money on the military so appeasement will never be an option just in case some sissy liberal does get elected.
5. Take all money out of social programs and spend it on big, hard, stiff penis weapons.
My Republican friends, we all know these lessons are a crock of pure shit. This twisted logic has been served up in order to gut social programs and to scare the hell out of the public so they will vote for your side. Yet Munich has become part of American diplomatic terminology. I had a girlfriend once that basically demanded better and more expensive gifts every week. I didn't know what to do. Then I thought of Munich--I can't appease this bitch lovely young lady, if I do she'll keep asking for more and more. And she'll be in Poland before I know it. That's kind of how you guys think isn't it?
But let me tell you what appeasement isn't--and I don't expect you to understand.
-it's NOT appeasement if we talk to another nations
-it's NOT appeasement if we talk to nations which we consider enemies
-it's NOT appeasement to attempt to live peacefully in the world with other nations
-it's NOT appeasement to cut our military budget (a lot)
-it's NOT appeasement to be part of a community of nations
-it's NOT appeasement to recognize the importance of the United Nations
-it's NOT appeasement to acknowledge other religions in the world
-it's NOT appeasement to criticize Israel
-it's NOT appeasement to talk with Hamas--or any other group for that matter
-it's NOT appeasement to dream of making this world a better place
-it's NOT appeasement to be opposed to war
Please try to understand your history before you level your swift-boat charges. President Obama will not be giving anything away when he talks to Iran and other enemies of the United States. Talking is simply the first step in making the world a better place. But you wouldn't understand that whole better place concept would you
3 comments:
DEW, Now that you have elected Obama President would you care to name a VP? Can I assume based on recent events that he shares your passion for domestic issues and will use the newly minted power of his office to rebuild our nations social infastructure? Could it be that his name is John Edwards?
CSP 2003
DEW, I heard something today which put to rest any doubt I had in your analysis of the outcome of the upcoming election.
I attended the commencement of a prominent local women's college and during part of a student address it was suggested that this year after many generations of women had worked to bring it about we may elect a women president. The reaction of this primarily feminist crowd was most illuminating. It was utter confusion as the mixed emotions of pride over the possibility of such a long over due accomplishment for the underprivledged gender and dissapointment in its champion led to a defening silence which was then followed by applause. If the election would have been held in that room your announcement would not have been premature. Though such an outcome would leave the majority of earlier graduates of this respected champion of the female gender in complete shock and disbelief.
Is it possible that the time when women voted based on gender solidarity [perhaps never but a figment of a man's imagination though an enduring myth still held by many] has come and gone. Are we evolving and growing more blind to gender and race? Let me make myself clear, we still have a long way to go in all respects. I am simply asking if what is happening in the case of Obama is that the best PERSON, male or female, black or white, may be elected?
CSP 2003
Yes, I will select Obama's running mate in the next few days. There is only one choice that will help him win in November. Stay tuned!
Post a Comment