About Me

Name: Mantic
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Chamberlain-ism

It is truly apalling that our current political leaders cannot learn from history.  They want so much to be loved in the world.  They want so much to be part of the European Socialist Establishment that they ignore the realities around them.

In their political power-based hubris, they feel that they are so overpoweringly smart and savvy that they can sit down with anyone and come to an agreement.  What happens after that?  The "sophisticates" will bend over and agree to anything to show the world that they can work with anybody... that they can always achieve a common ground and a meeting of the minds. 

Well with that double metaphor, the reality is bull crap.  Ahmedinejad is laughing behind their backs.  He smiles and nods to the Western leaders, while publically giving the finger to the West in very public displays.  Abbas is more than willing to accept Ohmert's money.  If the truth be known, it is highly likely that Hamas is too.  Why?  Because they know that anything they say to the enemy is just words.  It is the deed that is important.  "Give back the Israeli soldier kidnapped in Gaza?  Off the table, but give us the money and we will think about it."  Ohmert gives them the money and they know their forty-year-old confidence game is still working.

Talk to Assad in Syria?  "What a nice guy!", returning Democrats are likely saying.  "We can deal with him."  What about the reports that Syria is turning into an Iranian puppet state?  That is regrettable information that must be ignored in order for the Dems to look like world statesmen to the Europeans.

Our president is not immune to such power delusions.  He has the Islamofascist threat correct.  Yet he ignores the soon-to-be-reintroduced threat of an emerging Soviet Union.  Putin's eyes are dark and evil.  But with Bush's case of Chamberlain-ism, he can look Putin in the eye and see his soul.  Earth to Bush:  Putin has no soul.  It is yours in the reflection of empty orbs.

It is an unfortunate characteristic of the human race to ignore such threats.  Part of that is what makes us human.  Part of that is what causes massacre after massacre.  No society is immune to double dealing.   There was double dealing on both sides of the white Europeans and the aboriginal Americans.  Neither was particular noble in dealing with the other.  Both had their own versions of moral superiority that, in their own minds, superceded any honest agreement. 

In the Middle East, we are confronted by really, really wanting to get along.  In our present Western culture, there are enough players on the international stage, that playing by the rules is generally in the state's best interest, economically.  However, in places where ideology trumps economics, these rules are suspended and we end up with the massacres referred to above.  In that, the West is a feckless player on the world stage.  It needs to come to grips with dealing with state's that are above making decisions in the best interest of the citizens, but in the best interest of themselves and/or their ideology.  The vast cleptocracies of sub-Sahara Africa are immune to much good.  Bribery will only line the pockets of the elite, as well as most of any aid sent to assist the languishing populations.  The radical Islamists are immune to any economic affects as they are more interesting in the world-wide establishment of Islam, sharia etc. etc.  Kim Jong Il has his own issues, but he is, basically, another cleptocrat.

And what do we do?  We want to talk.  We talk about threatening with economic sanctions, when these people play us for fools and end up with concessions.  They will eventually present us with a piece of paper that we can wave around to show the European Sophisticats that we can be just as idiotic and unrealistic as they are.  The latest "sanctions" on Iran are, again, met with the same dismissal because the Iranian mullahs know the value of a piece of paper... a couple of pennies and that's all.

We can wave around our little piece of paper, just like Neville Chamberlain did when he returned from Munich, satisfied that we have done all we can...  just before the Great Islamic War begins in earnest.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Religious Freedom or Tolerance?

In this holiday season, there have been instances reported of citizens anxiously prosecutiing Freedom From Religion.  Freedom From Religion means one never has to be confronted with tenets of someone of another faith.  Christmas trees?  Insulting to Muslims and Jews.  Menorah?  Insulting to Christians and Muslims.  Praying in public to Mecca?  Maybe we'll pass on that one.  Muslims can do anything anywhere and be excused for bad behavior.

The ACLU agressively prosecutes in favor of Freedom From Religion.  What they don't understand is that this country was FOUNDED on RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE.  This a quite a different thing from Freedom From Religion or Freedom of Religion.  Religious tolerance is the keyword.  It indicates that religions are TOLERATED.  That means we accept the practice of other's religions.  We have no right to have the government or any other institution keep us insulated from the practice of religion of others. 

The Christian symbols that exist in many of the U.S. holidays are an expression of the majority religion in the country.  That doesn't mean others can sue to have those symbols suppressed.  That is NOT religious tolerance.  Tolerance implies an acceptance of an agreement to differ without recourse.  That is what all of this Christmas tree and Christmas singing issues are about.  Christmas trees in an airport?  We should be able to walk through and toerate their presence.  Seeing a muslim pray to Mecca in an appropriate place?  We should be able to glance at that and not be offended.  Accepting a holiday trade by a Jew in a company so they can celebrate their religious holidays rather than Christian ones, can be easily accomodated.  

Tolerance is what made the U.S. the great and unique nation it is today.  It is certainly what separates the freedoms here and the freedoms in Europe and virtually everywhere else.  Tolerance should be the FIRST factor in evaluating religious behavior rather than offense to a minority.  Freedom of expression embodied in Freedom of Speech has been forgotten by the Liberal Left. 

The entire premise of political correctness ignores the principle of Tolerance and Good Will that has guided our nation throughout much of its history.

May we move more towards Tolerance next year and let all of us celebrate the Christmas holidays without fear of legal action and reprisal.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Opposite of Victory

In the politically correct world we live in, the word "victory" has a negative connotation.  It is wrong to excel.  It is wrong to demonstrate that you are better than someone else.  It is wrong to seek victory.  It is wrong to win. 

So if winning isn't appropriate what is?  The opposite of victory is defeat.  Defeat is not a politically incorrect word.  However, the enlightened of our nation have defined some gray nether-world where there is no victory, there is no defeat, there is just accommodation.  There is the unresolved state of "we agree to differ". 

Now just exactly does agreeing to differ accomplish?  Nothing.  The agreement to differ lasts until someone comes along, or someone changes their mind and does not agree to differ.  When that happens, the situation polarizes and there exists the distinct possibility of victory and defeat.  One of the parties can force a withdrawal of the other party from a point of view, from a playground apparatus, from a region of a country, from the entire country.

Agreeing to differ is a state that requires both parties to... agree.   When one party does not agree, this gray area only exists in the mind of the agreeing party and is a figment of his/her imagination.

This takes us to the Iraq Study Group.  Their entire premise is that this gray area can be established.  In fact the central tenet of the Realism school of foreigh policy of which James Baker is a high priest, is based on the willingness of countries to reach the state of agreeing to differ.

With parties who do not honor agreements, commitments or basic rules of law, such as North Korea, Iran and Syria, there is absolutely no chance of reaching this state of accommodation.  None.  The seeking after such an agreement with these people is feckless, reckless and endangers the West.

An example of this is the relentless pressure on Israel.  That country has done much to accommodate Palestinians in order to peacefully coexist.  The Oslo accords, the Camp David agreement, one can go on and on with examples of attempts at reaching the liberal nirvana of agreeing to differ.  Yet the Palestinians have never agreed to differ.  They have relentlessly pursued the destruction of Israel.  It is black and white... victor or defeat.  Until the world really understands that, there will be no resolution in the Israeli-Palestinian issue.  It will always be war at some level until one party or the other accepts defeat.  A stalemate is not an agreement to differ.  It means that the two warring parties are deadlocked into a balance of forces.  A ceasefire is only a cessation of hostilities used to lick wounds or seek accommodation.  A treaty after a stalemate is an agreement to differ.  A treaty is only good as long as both parties agree to differ. 

In Iraq, seeking an agreement to differ is always a less bloody way.  However, the Mahdi Army (Shiites) will not accommodate ex-Baathists and elements of Al Qaeda (Sunni).  It is a tribal and religious emnity that will continue on until they can agree to differ.  If that doesn't happen, the goal is victory, the penalty is defeat.  Yet, here we are hamstringing our military, the Iraqi government is hamstringing the military, the internals of the military is hamstringing our military.  Political correctness is seeking a state of agreement to differ.  The facts on the ground indicate it is a situation of victory or defeat.

Pulling out of Iraq, leaving the situation unresolved is a defeat for the United States, regardless of what James Baker and his ilk try to tell us.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »