If any of you still feel that this war on terror is a mistake, here is an opinion from an unexpected source. It's fascinating that this should come out of Europe. Mathias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in DIE WELT, Germany's largest daily paper, against the timid reaction of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat. This is a must-read by all Americans. History may well certify its correctness. EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE (Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG) A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true. Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives, as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements. Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe, where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities. Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us. Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European Appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians. Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for -Food program. And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic Fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany ? I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain 's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring European "Peace in our time". What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction. It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness. Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for Anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against Democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed. In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China. On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass. For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe , Bush realizes what is at stake literally everything. While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive". These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house. Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice.
|
by
Matthew Emmett Townsend
Member since:
August 4, 2006 EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE
August 21, 2006 04:16 PM EDT
(Updated: August 21, 2006 04:23 PM EDT)
views: 38
|
rating: 7/10
(4 votes)
|
comments: 19
My Father, Ret Col. Amos R Townsend USAF sent this onto me. I felt it extreamly pertanent to our lives at this time. --- GERMAN EDITORIAL!!!!
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
|
|
More by Matthew Emmett Townsend |
||||
About Gather |
Engagement Marketing |
Make New Friends |
Gather Points |
Advertise on Gather |
Gather Press |
Privacy |
Terms of Service |
Community Guidelines
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Version 16836, "Oz"; Copyright © 2009 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.


Comments: 19
I'm still waiting for someone who applauds and cheers the endless murders of innocent lives to provide demonstrable proof that this policy is doing anything to diminish the threat of global terrorism.
I also support the War on Terror.
Then please define it, and point me to a single piece of demonstrable evidence that what we've done over the past 5 years has in any way diminished the threat of global terrorism.
Are the seaports secure?
Are the borders secure?
Are the chemical plants secure?
Are the nuclear plants secure?
Are the rail lines secure?
Are the trucking lines secure?
Is our critical infrastructure secure?
Is our national treasury secure?
Are our freedoms, protections, and rights secure?
How many terrorists have we convicted and sentenced to date?
Please, feel free to answer any and/or all of these questions. I'd love to join you in your support of a fictitious "war," but I simply have seen no evidence at this point that we are engaged in one.
I like that phrase "what is at stake literally everything" I don't like that it is true. But it is. What I fail to understand is why those of you who say they are against the War and Bush fail to understand this War is not a choice. We have no choice... Europeans are not keeping up in population enough to replace themselves... But the Muslims are... thus with every passing year the Muslim influence grows, and the western influence fades... it wouldn't be the end of the world if the Muslims were a peaceful group of people, (true most are but not enough brave enough to control those who are not) the Islamic fascists are fast becoming the ruling force even if they are fewer then the others... because they are actively recruiting the children and so even peaceful families are losing there children to suicide bombing when they are seduced away with promises of riches for there family and 72 Virgins in Heaven.
"what is at stake literally everything" is true, because if we allow a world view of hate all non-muslins to dominate the worlds governments eventually the Nuclear war we fear will happen, not because we start it but because we did not choose to prevent it NOW!.
I love people, and life, I love my wife and my children, and my neighbors and I love my ability to speak freely and to stand up for something... and all that will be lost if we do nothing... all that needs to happen to have the world flushed down the toilet is for good men and women to do nothing...
I will not do nothing...
What will you do?
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976779686
Sandy he may have said that for the War in Iraq but I was talking the Global War on Terrorism... that he mentioned 10 or more years if I remember correctly.
We won the war in less then 6 weeks, keeping the peace always takes longer. But were getting there, and even the Iraq's want us to stay longer ... see article link above.
Nobody is saying that we should do nothing. Nobody's saying let's lay down and let the terrorists have their way with us. They're saying let's get the TERRORISTS! as opposed to someone who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.
Bin Laden attacked us, therefore we should punish Saddam Hussein. Whoever says that our president isn't an idiot is fooling themselves... well maybe, I'm fooling MYself because we Americans let him get away with it.
granted it s a mess but I feel we are doing the best that has been done thus far... even th3e best war plans must change when contact with the enomy comences becouse then situation changes...
But I am Glad Glen your not one pof those asking us to just go home and all will be well....
#1) We won the "War" agenst a defined enemy the Troops of the Former Iraq Army and Saddam.
#2) We are still there trying to train the new democrocys' Army and Police and help strenthen its govermental order.
#3) The Iraq government wants us to stay while we do that, and most poll's of Iraq people say that also.
#4) It is not easy, neither was Germany after we won, and it wasn't easy after we beat Japan... Doing whats right doesn't happen in the 1/2 sitcom senario...
#5) None of this will end in 1/2 hour, it takes work, sacrifice including my families, even some of our lives, but it is worth it just as it was worth it for my Forfather to fight for American freedom in Lexington Mass. during the revolutionary war.
If you listened to NPR or watched PBS (especially "Charlie Rose") at all at the time you would have heard the coverage about how going into Iraq was going to screw us, especially when we were going to find that Iran would probably turn out to be more of a threat.
This information was very much available to the Bush Administration at the time and now our military is overextended and low on morale because all the things that the Bush Administration was warned about are coming true.
Bin Laden actually DID kill a lot of people, and Bush isn't out there trying to stop you from having sex. Bin Laden is not some mysterious figure that we're all just supposed to hate: he showed us why we should on september 11. Well, even before that with the USS Cole and the first WTC attacks, but you get the idea. Maybe not Bin Laden personally, but he does pretty much represent the Muslim fanatical movement. He's to Muslims what Michael Moore is to idiots: he represents them, and people respond to a leader.
And if we went to Iraq for oil, why didn't we go after Iran, when they have MORE oil and pose a legitimate threat to the US? The oil argument doesn't make sense, so I'll throw that one out there right now.
Saddam wasn't at the root of their cause against Israel?
WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html
oh and if you think that's just fox being right-wing, check out CBS, the one that makes up anti-bush stories:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml
ALQ never hated Saddam very much. In fact, Iraqi Intelligence had meetings with ALQ" http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
Old news, pal. Iraq DID have ties with terrorism, and was good to go after for such a reason, even if they didn't have WMDs, of which we've found 500 so far, but oh, those don't count because they could be from the gulf war. I take it you've never read the Deulfer Report.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/
Hussein believed that "WMD helped save the regime multiple times." Regardless of whether he had them or not, he had plans to make them, had made them in the past, had USED them in the past, and once UN sanctions had ended, planned to start up again.
But oh yay here's the fun part buddy: OIL-FOR-FOOD. That's how he figured his sanctions would end, after which he would restart the program, and with his ties to Al-Qaeda and Islamic terror, yeah, I could see how Bush would think that hey, maybe he's planning something against us.
lol
Nice job.