Appeasement Update: Syria and Cuba

by Sal on February 12, 2009

in Israel,Politics,Tyranny,War on Terror

The new era of Capitulation and Appeasement is in full force.  The Obama administration plans to lift all sanctions against Syria as part of it’s unraveling of the War on Terror.  Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism.  They aided Al Quaida in Iraq against our armed forces, are building a nuclear reactor, and have aided Hezbollah in Lebanon in attacks against Israel.  Yet now, in this new day of Capitulation and Appeasement, we are making friends with the Syrians by lifting the only (weak) leverage that we have without any preconditions.  This olive branch to Syria is not in the best interests of the United States.

In other news, a bill going through the Congress would lift all travel restrictions between the U.S. and Cuba, prevent a President from making any similar restrictions, all without any concessions from Cuba.

Capitulating to and Appeasing terrorists, dictators, and thugs only makes us as a nation look weak.  The leaders of Cuba and Syria, as well as Iran and North Korea, do not value peace as we do.  When two nations have completely different objectives (peace at any cost vs. domination and power), it is impossible to come to any meaningful peace settlement.  Peace through strength is the only valid foreign policy doctrine in a world populated by terrorists, dictators and thugs. The Obama administration does not understand this, and is in for a rude awakening.

{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }

rightonoz February 12, 2009 at 7:10 pm

I am unable to understand the decision on Syria, if anything I would have tightened the screws.

Cuba, that’s another matter.

The US is the only country trying to strangle Cuba. So it’s a dictatorship, the US has no problems with dictators has supported and enabled quite a number over the years. The problem here is a dictator that at one stage actively tried to forment revolutions, as all the communists did in the 60′s-80′s, but has become nothing much more than a loudmouth with no involvment these days.

I know it’s been politically expedient to have him as a bad guy for the Republican party to win votes in Miami, but polls consistently show that even the Cuban population in Miami are now wanting a more open approach.

I am concerned about your statement on domination. The aspect of US policy that generates more radicals than any other is the attempt to dominate the world. Sorry guys, but the US is just another country. So you’ve got the mightiest forces, you can’t force the world to your way, trying to do so gives radicals the excuses they look for.

I lived in New Zealand way back when they said to America, your warships are welcome, but just don’t send any with nuclear weapons. The US response was if you don’t let us we will kick you out of the ANZUS alliance, to which the Kiwi’s quite rightly told the US to get screwed. Now that gov’t was a bunch of left wing loonies, but as the elected gov’t of the country they had the right to stand up for their policies and refuse to be bullied.

The US response turned the vast majority of the poulation against the US which took years to reverse. For years in NZ Yanks were scum (they actually started calling Americans Wanks). And this was how the US gov’t of the time treated one of their best allies in Vietnam.

I don’t support all of Obama’s international policies by a long way, but do believe his more moderate approach is likely to earn results more than GWB’s. I know Iraq is a bit of a success story, but the latest reports suggest Iran is 2-3 months from a nuclear (nuculear in GWB speak)weapon. Now that is a total failure of his policy on Iran.


Sal February 12, 2009 at 8:19 pm

I am not sure you took my statement of domination and power as I meant it. The U.S. does not attempt to “dominate” the world, but we do look out for our interests. The domination I am referring to comes from the dictators and thugs in the world, such as in Iran and Syria. Both regemes have designs to physically dominate their neighbors, and they do not value peace, as we do. We value peace but must realize that we are living in a world that does not value peace, that many people in that region of the world (and others) value domination rather than peace.

Bush’s approach with Iran was more moderated than his approach with Iraq. After the talks with the European nations broke down, he tried to engage in forceful diplomacy with Iran. It obviously, as you point out, didn’t work.

Asking seriously Oz, can any amount of concessions be made to Iran that will not embolden them yet achieve the security and peace we all desire? Exactly what concessions do you think we can gain from Iran, and what concessions do you think we should offer?

I believe that Ahmadinejad has the temperament and designs of an Adolf Hitler, and if we don’t watch it, we’ll be looking at 1938 all over again.


rightonoz February 13, 2009 at 8:28 pm

Hi Sal,

I am not for a moment suggesting we should make concessions to Iran, other than to sit down with them and let them know if they want to respect other countries and work with us we would likewise respect them and not attempt to overthrow them etc.

HOWEVER in the same talks they should be made to understand CLEARLY that the US will not under ANY circumstances allow them to become nuclear armed.

In a previous post I mentione ‘the carry a big stock’ quote. I do believe in that. Engage and give the opportunity to be a member of the wider community, but cross the line by as much as an inch(and they must be made to understand exactly where that line is) and in blunt Oz speak – “WE’LL KICK THE CRAP OUT OF YOU!”


Lenin February 13, 2009 at 9:14 pm

What a bunch of fascist mierda!


Ryan February 15, 2009 at 9:24 am

I see the new Lenin is about as intellectual as the old one.


Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: