What would appeasers do about Iran?

There are those who think that because the terrorists were 'men with box-cutters' there was no way they were 'going to rebuild an Islamic empire nor would Osama bin Laden's militants in their Afghan caves bring about their vision of the Arab world'. And thus since those terrorists were not affiliated with any one country, we should not have gone to war against them.

Because we did go to war against them, we have (according to those people) 'produced wars the United States is losing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and soon, it may be, in Iran and even Syria' . . . 'due in part to the amateur geo-politicians of the neoconservative New American Century initiative, and their Washington allies'. Ahhh, don't get your panties all in a bunch.

I want to know what those people would have done in response to 9/11? What action would they have taken? Would they have done nothing? Would they have lobbed a missile at an aspirin factory and been satisfied with that? They would have been appeasers, enablers if you will. By NOT reacting forcefully the terrorists would have been emboldened.

Last week Tony Blankley reminded us of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld statement 'that those who don't take the radical Islamist terrorist threat as seriously as the Bush administration does suffer from a "moral and intellectual confusion," and compared them to the British appeasers of Hitler before WWII.' Mr. Blankley proceeds to give us a history of appeasement from 1930s in England forward.

Appeasers today, according to Mr. Blankley, believe 'the reason bin Laden is attacking us is because of our foreign policy of supporting Israel and authoritarian Muslim governments such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. They argue we should reverse those policies and thereby take ourselves out of the terrorist line of fire.' His reply to them, and I agree with him completely, is:

But for President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair, Australian Prime Minister Howard and (considerably lower on the food chain) me and millions of others, we are convinced that no amount of appeasement of the terrorists' desires will make us safer.

As I wrote in my book last year ("The West's Last Chance"), just as Hitler's Nazis, the radical Islamists are irreconcilable and unlimited in their goals. And, they are expanding their reach into the broad grass roots of Islam throughout the world (including in Europe and the United States).

A maximum effort to extirpate the malignancy is the only and best defense for our way of life. source

This brings us to Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, and other countries in the region. There is great unrest mostly because of Iran's desire to go nuclear and Iran's holocaust-denying, armagheddon-desiring President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. American President George W. Bush has made his thoughts very clear on a nuclear Iran:

"The world's free nations will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon," he said flatly. He prefaced those words by saying that efforts were being made to find a diplomatic solution to the problem. Nonetheless, Bush has now said in the strongest sentence he has yet spoken on the matter that Iran will not go nuclear. He is unconditional about it.

source

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attended the G-15 meeting and the meeting of the non-alligned nations, meeting with Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez while in Cuba this past week. He is visiting Chavez in Venezuela and then to New York to attend the 61st annual session of the United Nations General Assembly from September 19-27 where he will deliver an address.

Ahmadinejad was greeted at Caracas International Airport by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The two leaders are expected to sign as many as 25 bilateral accords, including a pact to give Iran's national oil company the right to certify oil reserves in Venezuela's heavy-oil belt as a prelude to developing them. source

Remember while in Cuba, Chavez promised his military support to Ahmadinejad 'when' the United States attacks Iran. smooch! Kissing up to Ahmadinejad, maybe hoping for a little nuclear sugar on the side?

In separate statements Saudi Arabia and Jordan spoke about Muslim on Muslim violence. Their comments sound more like wishful thinking that based on any sound information. Or maybe a threat issued to the region, 'Jordanian King Abdullah II separately said that anyone who sought "to sow discord between Sunnis and Shiites" was a "traitor to his religion and his nation."'

The Saudi and Jordanian rulers, in separate remarks, have ruled out the possibility of a sectarian war in the region between Sunnis and Shiites and stressed the need to revive Middle East peace talks. "The Arab region will not witness wars between Muslims for any reason, whether sectarian or non-sectarian. No sect will dominate the other. Contrary to what some analyses say, this is totally ruled out," Saudi King Abdullah told the Kuwaiti Al-Siyassah daily on Saturday. source

Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt are in favor of a unity government in Palestine and are trying to get some form of peace process working again. They also do NOT want Iran to go nuclear. Analysts say that if attacked, 'Iran would retaliate against US interests in the region, specifically Saudi Arabia's oil installations and Saudi Arabia believes a US attack on Iran would damage the region's economy and exacerbate tensions over terrorism and the sectarian violence in Iraq'.

In a carefully crafted speech, Bush laid out the parallels between the extremists of al Qaeda - Sunni Muslims - and the Shia extremists led by Iran. While they both use fiery rhetoric that may be easy to dismiss in certain quarters as an Islamic cultural affect, they are also uncommonly specific about their strategies and goals to achieve their aims. . . .

The president pointed out: "History teaches that underestimating the words of evil and ambitious men is a terrible mistake." Then, almost immediately, he jumped from bin Laden to Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"Iran's leaders," he said, "have also declared their absolute hostility to America. Last October, Iran's president declared in a speech that some people ask - in his words - 'whether a world without the United States and Zionism can be achieved. I say that this goal is achievable.' Less than three months ago, Iran's president declared to America and other Western powers: 'Open your eyes and see the fate of Pharaoh. If you do not abandon the path of falsehood, your doomed destiny will be annihilation.' " --John Podhoretz

Does President Bush sound like an appeaser? Doe he think that giving in to Iran will make us safer? What would 'those people' suggest we do about Iran? What would they suggest we sacrifice to take ourselves out of the line of terrorist fire? And do they really think anything we did to appease would really make us safer in the long run?

Israel's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said on Sunday that the world may have as little as "a few months" to avoid a nuclear Iran and called for sanctions.

The terrorists have given us their demands, convert or die. How do you appease yourself out of that one? Hmmm?
____________________________________________________
Linked with bRight&Early
123Beta

Comments

[Debbie]

Exotic dancers, now that's a thought. What about some guys included for us girls' entertainment??? heh

I thought those comments by the two kings was pretty funny. Wishful thinking for sure.

[Rastaman]

I like that. The two kings have ruled out sectarian war. What did they do, wave magic wands?

I guess the 100 and more dead bodies popping up in Iraq every day are suicides? All the sectarian dead in India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran are actually just neighborhood feuds? These two Kings of the Orient are, as the childs song goes, Happily smoking their loaded cigars. Me, I'm just waiting for the BANG!

The best part of this psychotic Islamic jihad manic-depressive brainwarp is that they are killing a hell of a lot more of themselves than they are of us, and they wouldn't be killing ANY of us if we would get the hell out of the way and just let them go at it without interfering.
We're trying to wipe out the Taliban in Afghanistan and in the meantime the government we're protecting from them is growing more opium to pollute the West with than ever before. What a great ally, huh? There's no helping or saving these people. The best thing to do with the Middle East is wipe it clean of life and start over, and the only people capable of such an act are the ones who should be wiped out. How's that for a contradiction?

Rastaman
www.islamanazi.com

[massachusetts republican]

This is simple. Either we kil them or they kill us. All other talk is meaningless.

[shlemazl]

The correct response is to win "hearts and minds". The best way to achieve this is by removing the troops and sending our "exotic dancers" to Islamic countries to replace them.