Pacifism and appeasement have repeatedly failed to deter aggression. However, that has not prevented the White House from employing those bankrupt concepts in response to the threats from ISIS and other radical groups.
The pacifist practice of ignoring the former Soviet Union’s actions, from its original alliance with Nazi Germany, its occupation of Eastern Europe, the oppression of its own citizenry and its nuclear threats was both immoral and useless in ending the Cold War. By the Late 1970’s, that policy error was dramatically evident. But the majority of voters in both the Democrat and Republican Parties did not subscribe to that concept. John F. Kennedy nobly stated during his brief Administration in the 1960’s that “America would pay any price, bear any burden in the defense of freedom.” Fortunately for the U.S., President Reagan had no qualms about standing up to tyranny. He rebuilt America’s armed forces and made it clear that Washington would actively oppose Moscow, and those actions were instrumental in bringing about about the end of the U.S.S.R.
Pacifists, led by the White House, engage in a senseless policy of appeasement with Islamic extremism. This time, however, they wholly dominate the leadership of the Democrat Party as well as academia. Their supporters in the mass media have perfected a stranglehold on much of the news. In fact, Mr. Obama has engaged in efforts, through the FCC, internet regulation, and the like, to limit any opposition to those views. The academic left attempts to do the same on campuses across the nation. Traditional left wing views, including anti-Semitism, (remember that Hitler was a “National Socialist”) the diversion of defense spending to welfare programs (a great way to buy votes) and selective amnesia about the lessons of history (especially in school textbooks) contrive to repeat the same mistakes (that allowed fascism to rise in the 1930’s and prolonged the Cold War) in dealing with Islamic extremists.
A series of historical falsehoods have been employed to explain away the fanatic hatred and actions of ISIS, al Qaeda and others, excuses which President Obama has continuously and wrongly given credence to.
The best player is one who has the best efficacy, while also considering other factors, such as time of onset, order cialis duration of action, window of opportunity and how side-effects affect them individually. Most of the components are price for levitra highly active against erectile dysfunction and effective in increasing blood circulation towards the sex organs. ED is a buy generic cialis larger curse than premature or quick ejaculation. This ensures a cialis no prescription complete satisfaction to the users. For the record: it was Islam that began the battle with the West, not vice-versa. The first Crusade was in 1096, but Islamic invasions in Europe took place long before that. Spain was invaded by Islamic forces in 711. In 732, Islamic forces advanced as far as Tours in France before being stopped. These conquests are not relegated to the distant past. In 1683, Islamic forces besieged Vienna. But do not hesitate to cite ancient history: the historic imperialism of Middle Eastern nations (even pre-dating Islam itself) towards Western civilization dates at least as far back as the 5th Century B.C., when Persians sought to conquer Greece. Nor is the violence of the Jihads limited to the west. Moslems with less militant beliefs have been greatly brutalized by the extremists. Buddhists, Israelis, adherents to African faiths and Hindus have been assaulted, as well.
In can be reasonably argued that the refusal to forcibly confront the Islamic extremist threat is even more irrational than the similar leftist (and isolationists in both parties) responses to Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Those two entities posed direct threats of imminent but future war, which in the case of Germany did result in the Second World War. Attacks by Jihadis have already begun. The assaults on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the Boston Marathon, the Beirut barracks, the U.S.S. Cole, the Benghazi facility, Fort Hood, the London subway, the synagogue in Rome, and most recently Paris, as well as others far too numerous to mention in one article, are all evidence of a determined, active, skillful and ongoing total war. The rise of ISIS to nation-state status, thanks to the pacifism of the Obama Administration and its disastrous mistake in prematurely withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq (an error that may be repeated in Afghanistan) compounds the danger.
The Jihadis themselves have not been reticent or modest about the ambitious extent of their violent intentions. Their acts of carnage and demolition, whether in murdering large numbers of innocents, destroying historical and world heritage sites in the Middle East and elsewhere, and enslaving women as sexual rewards for their troops all point to a complete dedication to gaining a total victory that not just dominates but completely eliminates all other beliefs and forms of government.
It is simply irrational to assume that anything other than a militarily forceful response to this threat is viable. Mr. Obama’s ongoing refusal, echoed by Democrat presidential contenders and their supporters in the media and academia, to even utter the phrase “Islamic extremist” is not just a policy disagreement with the majority of Americans. It is a rejection of reality itself.