Europe -- Thy Name Is Cowardice

[Stylerod]

This is a bit old but I know it's never been discussed here. I pretty much feel you can replace the word Europe in much of this with Liberals since he is discussing a liberal Europe.

Europe -- Thy Name Is Cowardice
By Matthias Dopfner
David's Medeinkritik | January 7, 2005

[This article was originally posted in German in DIE WELT.de and was translated from German by Hartmut Lau.]

A few days ago Henryk M. 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 agreements. Appeasement stabilized communism in the Soviet Union and East Germany in that part of Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities. Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo and we Europeans debated and debated until the Americans came in and did 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 300,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, to issue bad grades to George Bush. A particularly grotesque form of appeasement is reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere by suggesting that we should really have a Muslim holiday in Germany.

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 and directed against our free, open Western societies. It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than the great military conflicts of the last century -- a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by tolerance and accommodation but only spurred on by such gestures, which will be mistaken for signs of weakness.

Two recent American presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. Reagan ended the Cold War and Bush, supported only by the social democrat Blair acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic fight 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 the intolerant, as world champions in 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.

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 everything is at stake.

While the alleged capitalistic robber barons in American know their priorities, we timidly defend our social welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive. We'd rather discuss the 35-hour workweek or our dental health plan coverage. Or listen to TV pastors preach about "reaching out to murderers." These days, Europe reminds me of an elderly aunt who hides her last pieces of jewelry with shaking hands when she notices a robber has broken into a neighbor's house. Europe, thy name is cowardice.

"All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke.

[JaJae]

Good read. I agree with most of his points.

[Thorgrim]

I don't see the connection with american liberals

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I don't see the connection with american liberals

You wouldn't.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

You wouldn't.

What does that mean?

[Donkey®]

So when talking about the middle east, the appeasement from Europe was towards the arabs? That's funny...the whole "Establishment of Israel" thing seems like a big fat slice of appeasement to me?

[motivez]

You can't force Democracy at the barrel of a gun.
You can't force Democracy on people who do not want it.

You can't claim to be promoting Democracy if you cut all ties with Democratically elected governments you dislike, or if you threaten leaders Democratically elected by their citizenry.

A change will have to come from within the population itself. If it's not there, you can't force it.

[PetriW]

Iraq would have gone so much better than it has if more of Europe was there? I doubt it.

The European Union could be said to be one of the largest peace efforts ever. War here is unthinkable to most people because the social and economic ties have grown too much. Why does the EU spend enormous sums of money on the expansion east? To promote democracy and stability.

The USA and Britan have a history of solving their problems with violence. A lot of people seem to think that a bad idea in Europe, maybe such nations as Germany has grown war tired and require a much better reason than fake evidence of WMD to go to war. Wake up and smell the flowers, you've made Iraq worse than it was before. Your tactics did not work there, yet you go around saying, omg europe is not helping us bringing stability.

Maybe the majority here believe there's a better way?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by PetriW

Maybe the majority here believe there's a better way?

The article explains that, including during WWII. It's not that doesn't realize the majority of people believe inaction and appeasement isn't the majority view in Europe, he just doesn't agree with it and points out why it fails.

"All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke.

He's trying to point out that Saddam was evil and at least the US and England were willing to try something. The rest of Europe would have waited until it was too late like they usually do. He disagrees with that position. He never said Iraq was going well. He just said it's better to try, then to have a world policy of appeasement when it comes to these types of brutal dictators who defy the world.

[avsp]

I'm sick of reading this kind of crap.

Firstly, IMO, its very difficult to talk about 'Europe', ..., I even think its flawed to talk about 'America', ..., but just for the sake of argument etc

Europe isnt appeasing the jihadist tendancy, ..., its just that theres a recognition that its not a simple matter of opposing them militarily, not least coz who/what/where to you aim at?, ..., the enemy will OBVIOUSLY adopt tactics that aid his cause by discrediting the 'west', (expose his true face). For the west has much greater weapons tech & boasts of the accuracy pf its weapons etc

The belief that jihadism is beatable thru the use of military force is clearly false & has been clear for decades (Isreal)

The aim has to be to isolate the appeal of jihadism within the muslim world by promoting wealth, employment & democracy

How exactly this is to be achieved isnt clear & is intensly problematic.

The fact that those who favour the use of military-force-first approach to bringing democracy, employment & wealth STILL BELIEVE DESPITE THE EVIDENCE that it works speaks volumes.

Admittedly it may be the case that resolute long-term use of force may eventually achieve the ends, but the stupid fuckers behind the plan (Hi there Donald you f*cking plank) have failed to carry the population behind them & destroyed their own credibility (& that of the presidency, the west, democracy & the US military) means that, seemingly, currently your very probably going to pull out prematurely. Thus long term military pressure isnt going to be applied & worse the credibility of the west will be totally destroyed.

Its almost as if theres a deliberate attempt to ensure WWIII starts by executing a ambitious plan of destabiliastion & then pulling out just a the last moment

Either way its clear that the US populace in general doesnt understand whats being attempted & whats at stake.

Meanwhile in Europe much the populace is indeed motivated by cowardice, (or common sense?) but there is a recognition that this must not be allowed to become appeasement.

There is a very great distaste for idealogues in Europe, its hard for us to influence the jihadists but we feel that the American embracement of PNAC is similarly dangerous

Its a question of minimax & maximin strageies as well.

Those who seem certain are suspect in my opinion, be they PNAC or jihadists.

Either way 'trolling' it up as the article does serves no f*cking purpose at all except for generating 'action' at places like this, ..., which mightnt be a bad thing I suppose

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by avsp

Europe isnt appeasing the jihadist tendancy, ..., its just that theres a recognition that its not a simple matter of opposing them militarily, not least coz who/what/where to you aim at?, ..., the enemy will OBVIOUSLY adopt tactics that aid his cause by discrediting the 'west', (expose his true face). For the west has much greater weapons tech & boasts of the accuracy pf its weapons etc

This mentality sprung only after years of the US being in Iraq. Before then the vast majority of Europe supported the invasion. It wasn't until France vetoed and the US said "who cares" and went in anyway did Europe get upset by us going in. And it had nothing to do with PNAC or anything else in your post. It was because the US was doing something without UN consent. Then the hatred for America started.

Before this, most of Europe supported us. Their intelligence said the same thing ours did, in fact we used much of their intelligence when making the decision. Europe only backed down when France changed their vote. Now in hindsight people (including US Democrats) are using current events to justify their decision made long before these views were popularized by current media and liberal politicians.

Two years ago the popular debate was "Who does America think it is. We don't have the right. Leave Iraq alone. Give Saddam more time."

Now it's "We've said all along.... <insert catchy current debate here>"

[PetriW]

Good post avsp, saves me having to explain myself!!!

[PetriW]

Spain, Britain, Poland and few other eastern members of the EU is not "most of Europe". Before the invasion the popular support over here wasn't all that great. Heck, it wasn't popular in Britan either I think? Maybe you have opinion polls to prove me wrong but I distinctly remember a lot of people over here believing Mr. Blix rather than Mr. Bush.

The common opinion was and still is that the USA went into Iraq for the oil. And that France opposed it because they already had an oil deal.

[6SpeedTA95]

Petri you're from sweden?

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Europe may be cowardly, but America under Bush has become recklessly ballsy. I don't know which is worse.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Europe may be cowardly, but America under Bush has become recklessly ballsy. I don't know which is worse.

Nations knowing they can do whatever they want with no worry about anyone hassling them and being affraid to "get involved" would be worse.

[PetriW]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Petri you're from sweden?

Don't hold that against me, there's a lot here I don't agree with.
But then it seems I disagree with a lot of usa stuff too!

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by PetriW

Don't hold that against me, there's a lot here I don't agree with.
But then it seems I disagree with a lot of usa stuff too!

I wont hold it against you a good friend of mine was from sweden