But they've done everything the terrorists wanted! Surely that earns them the right to be unmolested??

Tbox, you forgot the headscarves. The French can't even get appeasment right.

OMG, you're right! The French tried to protect their cultural identity! Clearly the only cultural identity worth protecting is Islam.

SEE!!! Appeasement works!! Appeasement works!!

Kumbai ya My Lord. Kumbai Ya. Somebody told me My Lord. To appease the Islamics.

Kumbai Ya My Lord. Kumbai Ya. What's that explosion My Lord? Should I ignore it My Lord? Kumbai ya.

My apologies. Above was absolutely uncalled for.. Sorry.

But in all 'seriousness' America needs to come to Frances aid and try to help them out. Yes, that means helping out a country that hates our guts.

But like Jesus Christ says. 'Love your enemies.' I think if President Bush can assist France's Intelligence and Security in some respects.... That will go along way in unifying the world against terrorism. It may not change France's perception of Terrorism. But it may at least prevent violence.

Help France?

Why?

Europeans are adults. If they choose appeasement, so be it. They can enjoy the results.

After all that is exactly what they say about us, and our more proactive position on fighting terrorism. Don't expect them to lift a finger for us now. Especially with Iran and its nukes. Thus, let Europe find its own way through this mess.

It won't be pretty, but it is their choice.

Don't forget: these are our critically important allies, without whose approval we ought not go to the bathroom, at least according to our esteeemed nominee for President. Birds of a feather . . .

As for the Axis of Appeasement, apparently the crocodile did not decide to eat them last. Who would have thought that would happen? After all, it worked so well in the '30's.

Jeff, the first post was the better one. The second one may be true
but I sure as hell won't argue for it. A point of French responsibility, I believe.

Sigh! As I have said before on other posts, we probably have a 50 year (or more) multi-generational stuggle ahead of us!

The enlightenment of the Western world (even with the Drug culture and immorality) still gives the human spirit (and all humans) time to grow and expand.

In the end, Freedom and mental growth will triumph over a dead-end 7th century Satanic evil. It is already beginning in country after country as shown by riots in Iran and Syria. Unfortunately, a lot more people will be victims (like the Spanish) until we EXTERMINATE (by education or otherwise) all Wahhabis.

Appeasement. Right. Like, say, the United States withdrawing its troops from Saudi Arabia, one of the chief demands of Osama Bin Laden.

After the bombings in Madrid, how can anyone claim that keeping troops in Iraq has truly made us (and by us, I mean the West) safer from terrorist attacks? Particularly when our own President has said on numerous occasions that he doesn't believe there is an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. I still don't get it, but I know I am not in agreement with most people that read this site.

Nevertheless, I have a question for people here. The Global War on Terror is a war with only one true metric for success: the number of major (let's say 50+ deaths) terrorist attacks in our homeland. No other statistics matter. Counting all the dead Taliban or Al-Qaeda doesn't mean a thing if we continue to suffer major terrorist attacks. So if there are more significant terror attacks on US soil, will you still consider our President's conduct of the war on terror a success? If so, how many attacks will it take until you change your mind? 2? 3? 5? 10? Or think about it this way -- how many Americans deaths can we live with before deciding that we need a new/different policy (whether from Bush or somebody else)?

Zander,

That has got to be the most simple-minded analysis on this issue in a long time. The number of attacks is only one of many metrics for measuring our success in dealing with terrorism, and nobody, including our president, ever said this would be either an easy or short-term endeavor. Withdrawing our troops from Saudi Arabia is actually one sign of success, as the only reason they were there in the first place was to protect the Saudi oil fields from an Iraqi invasion. If you think that we ought to keep them there against the wishes of the host country in order to avoid the appearance of appeasing UBL, you should say so, rather than implying that the US did so ought of fear, which is not realistic.

Maybe instead of building these insipid straw-man arguments, you could propose a different policy in some detail that you think would be better, and explain to all of us HOW it would be better. Perhaps if you give it a try, Sen. Kerry will be inspired to do likewise and we can have an actual debate rather than the squealing bitch-fest the Democrats have been holding for the last six months.

Zander, by your "one true metric of success", the war on terror is thus far an unqualified success. Thank you for pointing that out.

Zander: Too many holes in your thinking...

-----------------------
"Appeasement. Right. Like, say..."

--> We are withdrawing because we don't need to be there anymore because we don't need to protect Saudi anymore.

-----------------------
"how can anyone claim that keeping troops in Iraq has truly made us (and by us, I mean the West) safer from terrorist attacks?"

--> You can prove or disprove either way. No one knows how many attacks would have occured if we had not invaded. This "safer" stuff is irrational and cannot be proved either way. BTW, life is not safe and never will be.

-----------------------
"he doesn’t believe there is an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection"

--> Read BOTH PAGES of this link:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
Also, if there is no connection, why then did Al Qaeda smack Spain for participating there? For attacking Iraq? Nope, Spain did not participate in that. For occupying an Islamic country? Nope, Iraq was run by Baathists.

-----------------------
"The Global War on Terror is a war with only one true metric for success: the number of major (let’s say 50+ deaths) terrorist attacks in our homeland."

-->> And how many have been averted by 1) taking Iraq from Saddam, 2) by clobbering Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, 3) by counter intelligence in the USA? You see, you do not have the answers, only guesses and assumptions.

---------------
"So if there are more significant terror attacks on US soil, will you still consider our President’s conduct of the war on terror a success?"

-->> I will. Why? Because I presume that the above is, in fact, helping. All that has been done has been in the direction of establishing order and breaking up their operations, funds and sources of supply of weapons materials.

-------
"If so, how many attacks will it take until you change your mind?"

-->> There is no number. In my opinion, what ever number occurs, I first blame the ones doing it. Second I presume that number is less than would have occured otherwise. Could that number be zero? Probably. All we have to do is surrender our Western way of life, don beard and Hijabs and say their magic words three times. I'll die first. It is my choice.

Max you do not put out a fire by throwing petrol at it.
The crass invasion of Iraq is to all account delivering thousands of weak minds to the cause of Al Qaeda.

You can kill 50+ a day more will appear. To create hatred of the US is the best way to spread terrorism.

Look at Israel, what are they achieving? Nothing but a never ending cycle of violence and destruction.

The rambo method only works in Hollywood.

AWAKE

ASLEEP:

"The crass invasion of Iraq is to all account delivering thousands of weak minds to the cause of Al Qaeda"

Unfortunately for you, the Iraqi's like our "invasion" (see the the Iraqi polls coming out). It's all the other asshats that are jihading all over. In my opinion, it is ONLY the opinion of the IRAQIs that counts in Iraq.

"Look at Israel, what are they achieving? Nothing but a never ending cycle of violence and destruction."

We do not operate like Israel. Look at Afghanistan and Iraq. We wipe slates clean. The only way to defeat your enemy is to exterminate them, anything else only protracts the conflict.

Oh, one more...

"you do not put out a fire by throwing petrol at it."

You miss the concept of fighting fire with fire, eh? You know the best way to stop a forest fire? Ya, light a fire.

(mumbles about why I bother with these guys).

The statement,"How can anyone say that by having troops in Iraq has made us safer from terriost attaks" can be easily answered. It can be answered with another question.
"Has there been one single attack on American soil since our troops took the fight to the terroists on their soil"?
And don't think for a single moment that OBL, SH, and AQ had not made an unholy pact to seek the same.
They all realized differences have to be put aside in order to successfuly accomplish the least of their agenda. Spain handed them the hughest victory since 9/11. The focus on France at this time is because of the recent laws prohibiting various dress.
It is a slap in the face and it denigrates their very culture.

Eugene,
Your argument is really weak as it can be reversed easily.
Spain has been attacked because of its involvment in Iraq. On the other hand Germany and France have not, therefore not fuelling hatred is the best way to fight terrorism.
So if you want cheap argument anyone can play that silly game.
My advice: develop an honest argument. Scoring cheap points does not better the debate.

AWAKE

Max,
The Iraqis like our invasion. Yep that is why 561 soldiers have been killed so far. Five only last weekend.
One BBC poll in the middle of an occupation, it is laughable.

I am sure that if the Germans had had the great idea of polling the French during their occupation of France the majority of them would have said we love Hitler and the Gestapo.

Get real, that poll serves as a cheap propaganda tool.

Of course you are going to tell you new masters what they want to hear.
As for "it is only the opinion of the Iraqi people that counts in Iraq", did you ask them the permission to bomb them before killing thousands of their civilians.

And by the way, any chance of a democratic election soon? They would love to choose their leaders. Lets bet they would not be the same ones we chose for them.
It would probably look more like an Islamic state by now.

AWAKE

AWAKE

So, the Iraqis are too afraid to tell us what they truly feel in an anyonomous poll, but are brave enough to protest in the streets before Al Jezeria cameras? As usual Awake you are long on hyperbol and short on sense.

If the Iraqi's truly wanted the U.S. gone the would be killing our armed forces for free, not waiting for AL Q to dish out a million dollars or whatever the going rate is per attack. Nor would the Iranian and Syran governments be sending in their own agents to fill in for the dying terrorists.

But none of that matters for you does it Awake. We hoi poli are too unsophistocated to understand the struggle against the bourgois establishment, and thus need to be led by those who have true understanding of mankinds struggle, and of course your one of the few enlightened who can do so. You and Stalin.

Looks like the US, at least 44% of it, are ready for appeasement - Kerry is listening and courting those that oppose current foreign policy and boasting about it.

Jeez, the left hates Bush so much they are completely blinded by that and don't see the danger. France's experience should be a wake up call.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: