posted
Actually, most of the demands that were met were granted specifically in response to non-violence. The impetus to do so was generated for many previously neutral (or apathetic) Americans by the violence used in response to the non-violence. It's a gross misrepresentation to say that the civil rights act, the voting rights act, and the implementation of Brown came about because of violence.
Who was more successful at achieving their specific agenda - Martin Luther King or Malcom X? Did the reforms made after the riots have near the effect of those peacefully obtained?
Dagonee Edit: And I stand by my earlier definition of apeasement, which means this example wouldn't apply anyway.
posted
Xap, your definition of appeasement would mean that I appease my car everytime I get gas. If I didn't it would stop working for me.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I just joined this forum, after discovering OSC's spot-on opinion articles recently. I am a Major in the USMC, flying helicopters in Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. After reviewing the theme of this discussion, I can only state one thing that has become very lucid to myself and my Marines out here in the War on Terror: You cannot reason, negotiate treaties with, or appease to any of these knucklehead's demands.
The Taliban, and Al-Qaeda which has joined their cause on this side of the planet, are in this for very selfish purposes. This is essentially, to put it simply, a "war of attrition". The hard-liners, which are becoming fewer and fewer by the day, will eventually go away. This may take awhile, and in today’s immediate gratification society, that is going to be a hard pill to swallow. But swallow it we must! The majority of the "fence-sitters" will, in my opinion, eventually realize the futility of their "cause" and rejoin the human race as peaceful supporters of freedom.
If you could see what I witness everyday here, the beautiful people of this country finally realizing a semblance of order after centuries of strife and cultural oppression, I think the nay Sayers would understand and appreciate the monumental crusade (I'm sure I'll get dinged for THAT non-PC word) that we have undertaken to turn the tide of insanity that a handful of Muslim fanatics have ignited.
If we would have dealt appropriately with these threats during the last White House administration, I truly think we wouldn't have had such a feedbag for the liberal press to thrive on.
I'm essentially an Independent politically, but as I see it, we are moving in a direction that is best not only for America, but the rest of our planet's citizens as well.
quote:Xap, your definition of appeasement would mean that I appease my car everytime I get gas. If I didn't it would stop working for me.
What definition should we use? I was going by that definition because it is the one being used by those who say allowing the terrorists to gain any benefit from this war would be "appeasement."
If we are going by Dagonee's definition, giving Al Qaeda what it wants would not be appeasement, unless you believe its wrong to decrease our presence in the region and be more neutral towards Israel (which I, as you might have guessed, do not.) According to Dag, it is only appeasement if we knowingly do something wrong to pacify the terrorists - which I would not support and I don't think anyone has proposed.
quote:You cannot reason, negotiate treaties with, or appease to any of these knucklehead's demands.
What proof of this is there? It's easy to SAY the enemy is a bunch of madmen who don't listen to reason. But if we all always accepted that advice, wars would only end when one enemy or the other was completely destroyed.
posted
Tom, if it weren't Israel, it wouldn't be home anymore so than Germany, France, Poland, Russia, or any other country. It would just be place where Jews happened to live. Furthermore, Israel has historically been the home of the Jews. That's why every year on Passover we say, "Next year in Jerusalem." Remember, the Jews never voluntarily left Israel, we were expelled by the Romans.
posted
Xap, I would propose that the action Al Quaeda wants us to take with respect to Israel would be immoral. Certainly their intentions toward Israel are immoral.
posted
I don't think neutrality towards Israel and Palestine would be immoral. The Palestinians have as much claim to rule that land as the Israelis do, don't they?
quote:What proof of this is there? It's easy to SAY the enemy is a bunch of madmen who don't listen to reason. But if we all always accepted that advice, wars would only end when one enemy or the other was completely destroyed.
Xap, Proof? How much do you need? Suicide bombers, beheadings, killing innocent civilians? This war WILL go on until either side is tits up. Seeing what I'm seeing daily, we're going to prevail, and they know it. Don't know what the press is talking about recently with the "Taliban/Al-Qaeda resurgence". All I can tell you is that we are running out of targets. Like I said, I believe this is a war of attrition, and until the fanatics have been permanently taken out of the equation, it's going to continue. Appeasement was left at the door of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a rural field in Pennsylvania.
quote:Strigidae-- do you pronounce your screen name with a soft g or a hard g?
ScottR, Hard G. Still musing why this would be important...
Posts: 2 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Proof? How much do you need? Suicide bombers, beheadings, killing innocent civilians?
How does any of that prove "you cannot reason, negotiate treaties with, or appease to any of these knucklehead's demands"? All it proves is that they are willing to use violence to an extreme.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The people of Afghanistan did negetotiate with the Taliban and with Al Queda.
The result was a country in despair, with stonings and 50% of thier population living in enclosed solitude, only able to speak with their family, with widows going starving and with no hope.
There is also the Chaos factor. Whom do we negotiate with? Any agreement made with one terrorist cell may not be agreeable to the next. So do we give up Isreal to accomidate some of the terrorists? What do we do about the rest? How do we hold them responsible for keeping up thier end of the deal?
The problem would not be appeasing "The Terrorists". The problem is appeasing leader A by backing him, then having leader B bomb, murder, and kill because we are backing the wrong one.
Will the Sunni terrorists allow a Shi'ite backed terror group to come to power in Iraq? Will the Iraqi Baath'sts let a Saudi born Al Qeada leader take control?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
