Europe - Thy Name is Cowardice

[bfp]

Europe – Thy Name is Cowardice

Commentary by Mathias Döpfner, Germany

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.

[Hey Bubu]

Go Joe!!!

[zerojunkie]

Read this somewhere else before, can't remember where though.

[PsyKoCid]

Mathias Döpfner is well known in the European media for being a bitter prick who likes to kiss American asses. While his views have some truth, and we Europeans are well aware of Europe’s bad choices and politics, America is in no way the “example” to follow, unless Europe wants to become another land of huge corruptions, political lies, hypocrisy, environmental disrespect, human decadence (i.e. working and eating junk food and looking like deformed pigs), inefficient privacy protection for citizens (the US is the only country in the world with the highest rate of identity theft), social security bankruptcy, disastrous medicare system, and the list goes on.

If Europe has to change from its current malfunctioning system, and it will change – it’s just a matter of time - this should be based on new ideas that will improve the current system, not on something that will put Europe backwards. There are plenty of radical reform proposals on many vital issues coming from various European political parties and associations. It just takes time before everybody and all EU members can compromise on some common grounds.

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.

Too long? Based on what? Döpfner timetable concept to enter into war? Lol… I think he needs to review some good old European history books.

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.

Lol… as if America and many other parts of the world (ie South America, middle east, China, etc.) have improved that much in suppressing “inhumanity”. Give me a break.

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.

Lol…. Maybe the US should have left Europe dealing with its own dirty laundry, instead of playing the world police and then whine about it.

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.

Again, Döpfner is being very one-sided as usual – there are plenty of Europeans that were in support of any solution that would stop Saddam’s killings, including supporting the war proposed by the US. Just because the EU media as well as the US media found the anti-war protesters to be more “eye-catching” doesn’t mean the EU as a whole was against the war in Iraq. The sentiments over the war were split much the same way they were and are in the US.

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.

Hmm….. not as much “materialistic” as America is, though.

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.

We’re past “risks”…. at this point looks more like we’re at full-on bankruptcy.

[edcrunk]

Originally Posted by bfp

Europe – Thy Name is Cowardice

Commentary by Mathias Döpfner, Germany

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.

Europe, thy name is cowardice.

thank you for having some balls and posting this.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by edcrunk

thank you for having some balls and posting this.

Yes, it takes real courage to post a right-wing smear of Europe in a mostly right-wing political messageboard in America. What a hero.

Bashing Europe has become fashionable because it takes attention away from our own bad policies. I could easily counter each point in this thing in an article titled "America - The Name is Stupid" in which I could present example after example of how chest-thumping over appeasement got us into trouble.

[molecule]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Yes, it takes real courage to post a right-wing smear of Europe in a mostly right-wing political messageboard in America. What a hero.

Bashing Europe has become fashionable because it takes attention away from our own bad policies. I could easily counter each point in this thing in an article titled "America - The Name is Stupid" in which I could present example after example of how chest-thumping over appeasement got us into trouble.

you think this boards mostly right wing Ryan? just curious, I find the comment interesting.

[Bill Spillz]

I love people who support war and violence, criticize those who don't, but would never in a thousand years pull up their own bootstraps and die for a nationalistic cause.

They crack me up.

And if you, BFP, edcrunk, or any other right-wing nut-jobs on here claim that you are not one of these people, put your money where your mouth is. March right on down to the recruiters office and sign up for this war for which you so strongly advocate. C'mon. Drop your cocks and grap your socks if you think this is so necessary. We the dance music community will even have a going-away-rave-party for you.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by molecule

you think this boards mostly right wing Ryan? just curious, I find the comment interesting.

Maybe not "right-wing," but definitely conservative-leaning in this forum. Look at the top posters in here - Xian, you, bfp, zerojunkie, Trey Brister, Bastard, etc. Anyway, the idea that posting a Europe-bashing piece in here somehow requires courage, or "balls" as the case may be, is rather ridiculous considering the number of people in here who resent Europe as much as the writer of this piece does.

[molecule]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Maybe not "right-wing," but definitely conservative-leaning in this forum. Look at the top posters in here - Xian, you, bfp, zerojunkie, Trey Brister, Bastard, etc. Anyway, the idea that posting a Europe-bashing piece in here somehow requires courage, or "balls" as the case may be, is rather ridiculous considering the number of people in here who resent Europe as much as the writer of this piece does.

thats cool. the forum seems pretty evenly mixed to me, and I dig that about it. I personally don't resent Europe by any means, but Ive been across the pond enough to know how their papers read toward the US. And I agree with you that it doesn't take any balls to post an article on the internet, just boredom.

[Xodiac]

Just curious, but is there anybody out there besides me who thinks that it was a wrong decision to go to war in the first place, but now that we're there, we'd damn better well stay and finish what we started, because if we are able to successfully democratize Iraq, it will be good for the US?

It seems like everybody is either on the right saying "It was great we went to war! Iraq was SO about to Nuke us! Crusade, ho!" Or on theleft: "We need to give peace a chance! War is never the answer, bring our boys home!"

[Satchel]

I mostly agree, although I'm not sure where I would put the breaking point. The damage as far as our international embarrassment and terrorist recruitment has been done, so we might as well try to get to the benefits of this. Now it just comes down to how many lives and how much money is that worth, and I have no answer to that.

[Satchel]

and oh yeah bfp is a real American hero for posting this

[molecule]

Originally Posted by Xodiac

Just curious, but is there anybody out there besides me who thinks that it was a wrong decision to go to war in the first place, but now that we're there, we'd damn better well stay and finish what we started, because if we are able to successfully democratize Iraq, it will be good for the US?

It seems like everybody is either on the right saying "It was great we went to war! Iraq was SO about to Nuke us! Crusade, ho!" Or on theleft: "We need to give peace a chance! War is never the answer, bring our boys home!"

my feelings seem fairly inline with yours, except I kind of saw the start of the war as an inevitable brought on by years of failed UN action, and corruption, coupled by what Reps, Dems, Euros, Russia, and everyone else thought Saddam had in his posession. At best, Saddam was really effective at hidding his WMDs, or at worst, we called him on his bluff. Eitherway, I think who ever was in the whitehouse at the time would have done pretty much the same thing. We followed through with what the UN told Saddam would happen, eventhough the UN backed out because of corruption.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Xodiac

Just curious, but is there anybody out there besides me who thinks that it was a wrong decision to go to war in the first place, but now that we're there, we'd damn better well stay and finish what we started, because if we are able to successfully democratize Iraq, it will be good for the US?

It seems like everybody is either on the right saying "It was great we went to war! Iraq was SO about to Nuke us! Crusade, ho!" Or on theleft: "We need to give peace a chance! War is never the answer, bring our boys home!"

Of course. It's also our duty to not allow the conservative warhawks to weasel their way out of this one by blaming the "appeasers" who did not support them, by demonizing those who had enough sense to see what was coming, and by diverting the debate to rhetoric about "Iraqi freedom" and other such nonsense. The message that they cannot be trusted and that they were wrong in every decision they made needs to be repeated, because they are going to spin it ten ways from Tuesday if we let them get away with it. And next time they see a chance to beat their chests and drum up patriotic fervor to start some needless military conflict, they'll get away with it again if it's not drilled into the heads of the public that these people are incapable of setting good foreign policy.