Appeasement, A Little History. - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 49 (permalink) Old 05-17-2008, 07:08 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Appeasement, A Little History.

Since the Yapping Heads of Talk Radio have been yammering on about Appeasement without a clue to its meaning for the past little bit, it seemed timely that this would show up.

It ties in nicely with the other thread regarding Kevin James' little mugging by Chris Matthews the other day. But really, don't you think that Chris was really pointing out that it was Bushie that didn't have a clue to what he was talking about and just used Kevin James as the puppet?



Negotiating isn't appeasement
Bush, McCain and other conservatives are on the wrong side of history when they dismiss Obama's foreign policy.
By J. Peter Scoblic
May 17, 2008
In a speech to the Israeli parliament Thursday, President Bush took a swipe at Barack Obama for his willingness to negotiate with evil regimes.

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

But if there is anything that has been discredited by history, it is the argument that every enemy is Hitler, that negotiations constitute appeasement, and that talking will automatically lead to a slaughter of Holocaust-like proportions. It is an argument that conservatives made throughout the Cold War, and, if the charge seemed overblown at the time, it seems positively ludicrous with the clarity of hindsight.

The modern conservative movement was founded in no small part on the idea that presidents Truman and Eisenhower were "appeasing" the Soviets. The logic went something like this: Because communism was evil, the United States should seek to destroy it, not coexist with it; the bipartisan policy of containment, which sought to prevent the further spread of communism, was a moral and strategic folly because it implied long-term coexistence with Moscow. Conservative foreign policy guru James Burnham wrote entire books claiming that containment -- which, after the Cold War, would be credited with defeating the Soviet Union -- constituted "appeasement."

Instead, conservatives agitated for the rollback of communism, and they opposed all negotiations with the Soviets. When Eisenhower welcomed Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev to the United States in 1959, William F. Buckley Jr., the right's leader, complained that the act of "diplomatic sentimentality" signaled the "death rattle of the West."

Conservatives even applied this critique to one of the most dangerous moments in human history: the Cuban missile crisis, during which the United States and the Soviet Union nearly came to nuclear blows over Moscow's deployment of missiles 90 miles off the American coast. When President Kennedy successfully negotiated a peaceful conclusion to the crisis, conservative icon Barry Goldwater protested that he had appeased the Soviets by promising not to invade Cuba if they backed down.

The Soviets withdrew their missiles in what was widely seen as a humiliation to Khrushchev, but Goldwater believed that Kennedy's diplomacy gave "the communists one of their greatest victories in their race for world power that they have enjoyed to date." To Goldwater, it was far preferable to risk nuclear war with the Soviets than to give up our right to roll back Fidel Castro.

Indeed, conservatives considered virtually any attempt to bring the arms race under control as a surrender to communism. When the SALT I agreement capping nuclear arsenals came to Capitol Hill, conservative Rep. John Ashbrook (whose presidential candidacy Buckley supported in 1972) said that "the total history of man indicates we can place very little reliance on treaties or written documents. This is especially true when the agreements are with nations or powers which have aggressive plans. Hitler had plans. Chamberlain's Munich served only to deaden the free world to reality. The communists have plans. SALT will merely cause us to lower our guard, possibly fatally."

A few years later, Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, the elected face of the burgeoning neoconservative movement, charged President Carter with "appeasement in its purest form" for negotiating SALT II, which set equal limits on the number of U.S. and Soviet nuclear missiles and bombers.

Ronald Reagan, whose election in 1980 was seen as the culmination of the conservative movement, dubbed SALT II "appeasement" as well, but the trope would come back to bite him. Although Reagan pleased the right enormously during his first three years in office with his military expansion, his call for rollback and his advocacy of missile defenses, conservatives reacted with horror once he began serious negotiations with the Soviets. When he and Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1987, which for the first time eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons, Buckley's National Review dubbed it "suicide." The Conservative Caucus took out a full-page newspaper ad saying "Appeasement is as unwise in 1988 as in 1938." It paired photos of Reagan and Gorbachev with photos of Neville Chamberlain and Hitler.

Containment, negotiation, nuclear stability -- each of these things helped protect the United States and end the Cold War. And yet, at the time, conservatives thought each was synonymous with appeasement.

The Bush administration has been little different, refusing for years to talk to North Korea or Iran about their nuclear programs because it wanted to defeat evil, not talk to it. The result was that Pyongyang tested a nuclear weapon and Iran's uranium program continued unfettered. (By contrast, when the administration negotiated with Libya -- an act that its chief arms controller, John Bolton, had previously derided as, yes, "appeasement" -- it succeeded in eliminating Tripoli's nuclear program.)

Alas, John McCain accused President Clinton of "appeasement" for engaging North Korea, instead calling for "rogue state rollback," and now he dismisses the idea of negotiations with Iran. Given conservatism's historical record, Obama's inclination to negotiate seems only sensible. When will conservatives learn that it is 2008, not 1938?

J. Peter Scoblic, executive editor of the New Republic, is the author of "U.S. vs. Them: How a Half Century of Conservatism Has Undermined America's Security."

Negotiating isn't appeasement - Los Angeles Times

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 49 (permalink) Old 05-17-2008, 07:36 PM
Cruise Control
 
Zeitgeist's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: '87 300TD/'90 300D/'94 Quattro/'89 Vanagon TDI/'01 EV Weekender VR6
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 51,730
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1428 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Hmmm, interesting that the piece appeared in the NR, which has been a bit jingoistic in recent years, and even supported the illegal attack, invasion and occupation of the formerly sovereign nation of Iraq...though they've since admitted their mistake
Zeitgeist is offline  
post #3 of 49 (permalink) Old 05-17-2008, 07:49 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeitgeist View Post
Hmmm, interesting that the piece appeared in the NR, which has been a bit jingoistic in recent years, and even supported the illegal attack, invasion and occupation of the formerly sovereign nation of Iraq...though they've since admitted their mistake
They are an interesting magazine. They truly do tend to define the new liberal [or neoliberal as J would say] which is more fiscally conservative and pragmatic than some of the 30 year old stereotypes that folks on the right still think are nominal.

They do glean opinion from different viewpoints which keeps a good balance. I like that in the mag.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #4 of 49 (permalink) Old 05-17-2008, 07:51 PM
~BANNED~
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2002 clk320
Location: Lancaster, Kentucky
Posts: 8,498
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
Since the Yapping Heads of Talk Radio have been yammering on about Appeasement without a clue to its meaning for the past little bit, it seemed timely that this would show up.

It ties in nicely with the other thread regarding Kevin James' little mugging by Chris Matthews the other day. But really, don't you think that Chris was really pointing out that it was Bushie that didn't have a clue to what he was talking about and just used Kevin James as the puppet?



Negotiating isn't appeasement
Bush, McCain and other conservatives are on the wrong side of history when they dismiss Obama's foreign policy.
By J. Peter Scoblic
May 17, 2008
In a speech to the Israeli parliament Thursday, President Bush took a swipe at Barack Obama for his willingness to negotiate with evil regimes.

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

But if there is anything that has been discredited by history, it is the argument that every enemy is Hitler, that negotiations constitute appeasement, and that talking will automatically lead to a slaughter of Holocaust-like proportions. It is an argument that conservatives made throughout the Cold War, and, if the charge seemed overblown at the time, it seems positively ludicrous with the clarity of hindsight.

The modern conservative movement was founded in no small part on the idea that presidents Truman and Eisenhower were "appeasing" the Soviets. The logic went something like this: Because communism was evil, the United States should seek to destroy it, not coexist with it; the bipartisan policy of containment, which sought to prevent the further spread of communism, was a moral and strategic folly because it implied long-term coexistence with Moscow. Conservative foreign policy guru James Burnham wrote entire books claiming that containment -- which, after the Cold War, would be credited with defeating the Soviet Union -- constituted "appeasement."

Instead, conservatives agitated for the rollback of communism, and they opposed all negotiations with the Soviets. When Eisenhower welcomed Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev to the United States in 1959, William F. Buckley Jr., the right's leader, complained that the act of "diplomatic sentimentality" signaled the "death rattle of the West."

Conservatives even applied this critique to one of the most dangerous moments in human history: the Cuban missile crisis, during which the United States and the Soviet Union nearly came to nuclear blows over Moscow's deployment of missiles 90 miles off the American coast. When President Kennedy successfully negotiated a peaceful conclusion to the crisis, conservative icon Barry Goldwater protested that he had appeased the Soviets by promising not to invade Cuba if they backed down.

The Soviets withdrew their missiles in what was widely seen as a humiliation to Khrushchev, but Goldwater believed that Kennedy's diplomacy gave "the communists one of their greatest victories in their race for world power that they have enjoyed to date." To Goldwater, it was far preferable to risk nuclear war with the Soviets than to give up our right to roll back Fidel Castro.

Indeed, conservatives considered virtually any attempt to bring the arms race under control as a surrender to communism. When the SALT I agreement capping nuclear arsenals came to Capitol Hill, conservative Rep. John Ashbrook (whose presidential candidacy Buckley supported in 1972) said that "the total history of man indicates we can place very little reliance on treaties or written documents. This is especially true when the agreements are with nations or powers which have aggressive plans. Hitler had plans. Chamberlain's Munich served only to deaden the free world to reality. The communists have plans. SALT will merely cause us to lower our guard, possibly fatally."

A few years later, Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, the elected face of the burgeoning neoconservative movement, charged President Carter with "appeasement in its purest form" for negotiating SALT II, which set equal limits on the number of U.S. and Soviet nuclear missiles and bombers.

Ronald Reagan, whose election in 1980 was seen as the culmination of the conservative movement, dubbed SALT II "appeasement" as well, but the trope would come back to bite him. Although Reagan pleased the right enormously during his first three years in office with his military expansion, his call for rollback and his advocacy of missile defenses, conservatives reacted with horror once he began serious negotiations with the Soviets. When he and Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1987, which for the first time eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons, Buckley's National Review dubbed it "suicide." The Conservative Caucus took out a full-page newspaper ad saying "Appeasement is as unwise in 1988 as in 1938." It paired photos of Reagan and Gorbachev with photos of Neville Chamberlain and Hitler.

Containment, negotiation, nuclear stability -- each of these things helped protect the United States and end the Cold War. And yet, at the time, conservatives thought each was synonymous with appeasement.

The Bush administration has been little different, refusing for years to talk to North Korea or Iran about their nuclear programs because it wanted to defeat evil, not talk to it. The result was that Pyongyang tested a nuclear weapon and Iran's uranium program continued unfettered. (By contrast, when the administration negotiated with Libya -- an act that its chief arms controller, John Bolton, had previously derided as, yes, "appeasement" -- it succeeded in eliminating Tripoli's nuclear program.)

Alas, John McCain accused President Clinton of "appeasement" for engaging North Korea, instead calling for "rogue state rollback," and now he dismisses the idea of negotiations with Iran. Given conservatism's historical record, Obama's inclination to negotiate seems only sensible. When will conservatives learn that it is 2008, not 1938?

J. Peter Scoblic, executive editor of the New Republic, is the author of "U.S. vs. Them: How a Half Century of Conservatism Has Undermined America's Security."

Negotiating isn't appeasement - Los Angeles Times
Negotiating ? good people don't negotiate with maggots.
the clk man is offline  
post #5 of 49 (permalink) Old 05-17-2008, 08:17 PM
Will Moderate For Cigars
 
cmitch's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2005
Vehicle: 2002 ML320, 2005 S430 4MATIC, 2010 F150 Crew Cab
Location: City on the TN River
Posts: 10,691
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 204 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Negotiating with LEGITIMATE governments, regardless of our views of them, has a place. Negotiations with TERRORISTS and governments that openly sanction terrorism is a whole new story. Why would anyone with an ounce of sense, willingly lend legitimacy to a terrorist government or organization by negotiating with them? Negotiation with terrorists encourages more terrorism because those who wish to have a seat at the negotiating table will carry out acts of violence to get there. Negotiations with legitimate countries encourages future relationships of a positive nature. You can never hope for future relationships of a positive nature with terrorists. See the difference?

2005 S430 4Matic 'Morton' W220.183 722.671 Rest in Peace

Bells and whistles are thorns and thistles.
cmitch is offline  
post #6 of 49 (permalink) Old 05-17-2008, 08:25 PM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
99CLKcab's Avatar
 
Date registered: Mar 2006
Vehicle: 1965 Peel Trident, 1972 chevy vega
Location: Knob Lick, Kentucky
Posts: 459
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to 99CLKcab
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmitch View Post
Negotiating with LEGITIMATE governments, regardless of our views of them, has a place. Negotiations with TERRORISTS and governments that openly sanction terrorism is a whole new story. Why would anyone with an ounce of sense, willingly lend legitimacy to a terrorist government or organization by negotiating with them? Negotiation with terrorists encourages more terrorism because those who wish to have a seat at the negotiating table will carry out acts of violence to get there. Negotiations with legitimate countries encourages future relationships of a positive nature. You can never hope for future relationships of a positive nature with terrorists. See the difference?
VVV
Attached Images
 

Yosey Drinks TAB? And likes it?
99CLKcab is offline  
post #7 of 49 (permalink) Old 05-17-2008, 08:28 PM
Will Moderate For Cigars
 
cmitch's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2005
Vehicle: 2002 ML320, 2005 S430 4MATIC, 2010 F150 Crew Cab
Location: City on the TN River
Posts: 10,691
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 204 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99CLKcab View Post
VVV
Running Windows on your Mac, again, Bitch?

2005 S430 4Matic 'Morton' W220.183 722.671 Rest in Peace

Bells and whistles are thorns and thistles.
cmitch is offline  
post #8 of 49 (permalink) Old 05-17-2008, 08:30 PM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
99CLKcab's Avatar
 
Date registered: Mar 2006
Vehicle: 1965 Peel Trident, 1972 chevy vega
Location: Knob Lick, Kentucky
Posts: 459
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to 99CLKcab
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmitch View Post
Running Windows on your Mac, again, Bitch?
thats the window that popped up when I tried to install windows, that was mac taking...

Yosey Drinks TAB? And likes it?
99CLKcab is offline  
post #9 of 49 (permalink) Old 05-17-2008, 08:40 PM
worst mod in BW history
 
ThrillKill's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2005
Vehicle: ML CLK Iridescent Hyundai Accent lol,GoPed Freightshaker & Volvo semi's, c'mawn?
Location: Chicago
Posts: 27,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Please, just let these barbarians kill themselves. It's apparent that everybody hates us despite our trillion dollar humanitarian efforts. I realize that it's important to keep peace at all costs but who are we to decide? Let Kuwait, whose ass we pulled from the fire decide the fate of the world. Better yet, Germany. I'm sure they're on the right track now.
I,for one am sick of these ingrate oil monkeys.
I say we pull back from every diplomatic effort and concentrate on bolstering our economy and if anyone gets hinky, drop a big fucking bomb on their ass. Time to assert.

ThrillKill is offline  
post #10 of 49 (permalink) Old 05-17-2008, 08:45 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmitch View Post
Negotiating with LEGITIMATE governments, regardless of our views of them, has a place. Negotiations with TERRORISTS and governments that openly sanction terrorism is a whole new story. Why would anyone with an ounce of sense, willingly lend legitimacy to a terrorist government or organization by negotiating with them? Negotiation with terrorists encourages more terrorism because those who wish to have a seat at the negotiating table will carry out acts of violence to get there. Negotiations with legitimate countries encourages future relationships of a positive nature. You can never hope for future relationships of a positive nature with terrorists. See the difference?
So who should we not 'negotiate' with and was it wrong to 'negotiate' with the USSR 40 - 50 years ago? The problem with your position is in the definition and misuse (not your's, but in general) of the word 'terrorist', for one thing. Hamas is a legitimate government, Al Qaeda is not, Iran is a legitimate ME player, Hezbollah is not. Who do you talk to, who do you not? Do you back our policy toward Cuba, how about China (starkly opposing policies resulting from identical issues).

BTW, nobody gains anything from being told in no uncertain terms that if they do such and such, we will bomb them back to the stone age. The Bush administration is not interested in negotiation, because negotiation isn't as profitable as invasion. I'm not sure there's really any more to it.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Eclass history albozEclass W210 E-Class 1 06-21-2007 02:37 AM
    More on AMG History one.bofh General AMG 2 05-14-2007 10:47 PM
    History of AMG discipline General Mercedes-Benz 2 08-15-2006 05:41 AM
    Will there be an end to history? kerry edwards Off-Topic 0 03-12-2005 03:25 PM
    Taped a Mercedes SL history show on History Channel... Guest (MBNZ) R/C107 SL/SLC Class 0 03-31-2002 06:27 AM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome