New Civilization News: Appeasement...Uhh, I Mean Peace Now    
 Appeasement...Uhh, I Mean Peace Now11 comments
23 Jan 2005 @ 21:08, by Bruce Kodish

David Horowitz writes:
"A little noted fact about virtually all liberal criticisms of the Bush policy in Iraq is that they have a common theme. That theme is appeasement. Appeasement in the first instance of the outlaw regime of Saddam Hussein, and in the second of the jihad that terrorist armies in the Middle East are waging against us."

"Appeasement in the first instance of the outlaw regime of Saddam Hussein, and in the second of the jihad that terrorist armies in the Middle East are waging against us."

Liberal criticism of Bush's foreign policy

[< Back] [New Civilization News]



23 Jan 2005 @ 21:19 by bkodish : My agreement with Horowitz here...
does not mean that I think that the Bush Administration has always adequately responded to the threats of Islamist terrorists and terrorist-supporting organizations and regimes. In my opinion, it hasn't.  

23 Jan 2005 @ 21:37 by jmarc : poll questions often ask
"Do you think President Bush is running the war in Iraq correctly?", or some derivitive of that question. When the results come back over 50 percent affirming this question, it always seems to be taken as fact that people are against the war, but in my opinion, quite a number of them feel he isn't being tough enough, as these numbers tend to drop when he does take some visibly tough action... I just read his "Al Franken is a racist" article at the same site. I wonder how Mr. Franken will respond?  

23 Jan 2005 @ 21:45 by bkodish : The Bush Administration...
is not at all free of the appeasement mind-set. In this regard Hugh Fitzgerald writes about what may be the Bush Administrations greatest intelligence failure...
here {Link:}  

24 Jan 2005 @ 16:11 by craiglang : Some Definitions?
What is appeasment - especially in your eyes?
And what is it that you propose?
Are you advocating something in particular here?
(I know, I've asked you this before...)  

24 Jan 2005 @ 18:34 by bkodish : I am using the term
in the standard dictionary sense, "making concessions to enemies in order to gain peace."

If it's not clear what I'm advocating read Horowitz's article which I linked to (if you already read it, maybe you can read it again). In this case, I am in basic agreement with him.

If you still don't feel clear about what I'm advocating, I guess you'll have to read more of my blog posts and try to figure it out.  

24 Jan 2005 @ 21:25 by jstarrs : If you're hung up on a...
..liberal/conservative ticket that dictates where you're coming from, it's a paradigm that'll narrow your vision.
Especially with Horowitz - extreme left turned extreme right.  

24 Jan 2005 @ 22:37 by craiglang : Horowitz etc...
Wow, how amazing! the Horowitz article has not changed between readings... :-)

I see alot from Horowitz about how he believes the initial attack on Iraq was justified, an argument which seems flawed at best. However, that still doesn't say anything about military objectives, exit strategies, or other aspects of the conduct of the war. If removing Sadaam was the objective, then many other things could have been done to remove him, short of all-out invasion.

While I think the action in Iraq is a travesty, I do agree that the US actions in Afghanistan were probably justified. That was directly where Al Qaeda was based, and the outcome has (apparently) been quite positive. However, the invasion of Iraq looks more like a land grab for oil fields then an action against terrorism. It is a conventional military "solution" to a non-conventional threat.

As for what you are advocating, what you advocate in some of your other posts is clear. What I question is what you advocate within this post.

You appear to suggest that in some way, it is wrong to criticize Bush on Iraq, as this somehow makes one an "appeaser of terrorists". So I ask what your view of the constructive alternatives are. What do you advocate? What do you propose?  

24 Jan 2005 @ 22:53 by bkodish : I am proposing the mistakeness of
the position you hold regarding the war in Iraq. You are, of course, free to disagree.  

24 Jan 2005 @ 22:56 by craiglang : Hmmm... :-)
So do you maintain then, that this war is somehow good?
Is this goodness unconditional? Or do you think that some different course would be better under some given circumstance?  

24 Jan 2005 @ 23:03 by bkodish : As Peirce pointed out,
" order to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with what you already incline to think."

In that sense, your pointing out what may be mistaken in a view that I hold may have some constructive use for me, whether or not I end up agreeing with you in whole or in part

I believe that also applies to you.

As for whether I unconditionally support the way in which the Bush administration has conducted the war, I thought I made it clear in first comment in this thread that I do not.  

24 Jan 2005 @ 23:04 by craiglang : And to you
fair enough - I will certainly not convince you of anything such as that the war was launched by deception, etc. As you say, the comment about desire to learn, like any sword cuts both ways.
Nuff Sed... 8^)  

Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

Other entries in
27 May 2010 @ 13:49: Memorial Day, 2010, A National Disgrace
28 Dec 2008 @ 06:42: Endless Israeli Atrocity
28 Nov 2008 @ 07:39: Myth of Thanksgiving
8 Nov 2008 @ 15:46: War Hurts Families
9 Apr 2008 @ 15:44: An Introduction To Social Pathology Of Police And Federal Agents
3 Apr 2008 @ 18:10: Few Care To Listen, *Until They Discover That...
12 Nov 2007 @ 11:23: Re: happy veteran's day & Pakistan?

[< Back] [New Civilization News] [PermaLink]?