The Churchill of Our Time

This Rick Santorum quote is already making the rounds, but I think it's being misinterpreted.

"If we are not successful here and things don't go right in the election, there's a good chance that the course of our country could change," he said. "We are in the equivalent of the late 1930s, and this election will decide whether we are going to continue to appease or whether we will stand and fight while we have a chance to win without devastating consequences."

Santorum's less interested in invoking Godwin than in bashing the Bush administration. The issue is whether "we" will "continue to appease" the forces of Mordor. And "we" is the current leadership of the United States; wimpy bureaucrats who refuse to commit to liberating Iran. Santorum sees himself as a lonely voice warning against the coming domination of Islamic fascists; anyone who backs off the most militaristic approaches to dealing with them are following in Chamberlain's dandy footsteps.

Comments

[Aresen]

I said it before and I'll say it again the next time you post that photo.

It looks like he's being rogered with a fence post.

And enjoying it.

[PintofStout]

Damn it! I used the same photo on my blog. Funny.

[joe]

From wikipedia:

"Appeasement is a policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles."

Would somebody of the Santorum persuasion (heh) explain to me what conditions Iran is seeking to impose on us? Or who is suggesting we should accept conditions the Iranians attempt to impose on us? Or in what manner they are an aggressor?

[JustSayin']

Those of Santorum's persuaion would probably say something like the following.

what conditions Iran is seeking to impose on us?

Regardless of how safe the world is now, if Iran gets the bomb, the world will be less safe. Iran is seeking to impose upon us the condition of a more risky world.

who is suggesting we should accept conditions the Iranians attempt to impose on us?

those that accept that Iran is should be able to pursue nuclear weapons without consequence are accepting the condition of a more risky world that Iran is attempting to impose on us.

AND

in what manner they are an aggressor?

They do not have nuclear capabilities now. To gain those capabilities they have to take action. Action that leads to a more risky work is considered aggressive.

[madpad]

The Churchill of Our Time...

We should be so lucky. Churchill slept till noon, was drunk by supper and in addition to writing all his own speeches, knew how to deliver them.

[Postmodern Sleaze]

The occupation of Iraq has gone so swimmingly well, and been of such great benefit to this country, that we simply must invade a country three times it's size!

Is there something I'm missing here? No, really?

[highnumber]

We should be so lucky. Churchill slept till noon, was drunk by supper and in addition to writing all his own speeches, knew how to deliver them.

You are lucky. I am here. I am capable of fulfulling a majority of the requirements, and I will work on my speeches.

[joe]

Postmodern Sleaze,

That's unfair. The comtemplated action against Iran wouldn't look anything like the invasion of Iraq.

It would be more like a much, much larger version of the war Israel launched against Hezbollah.

huzzah!

[APL]

I'll say it again. Cover his eyes with a helmet, and he looks JUST LIKE Sauron's messenger from the end of the third movie.

[Pro Libertate]

I'm starting to realize that international relations really is like parenting. Sure, we could kick Iran's ass in a week or two. But you have to stay and stand over them to get them to clean their room. Oh, yeah, they'll tell you it's done if you don't do that, but they'll be lying. And, even if you stay in the room, you'll end up having to clean it yourself, because they'll do it all wrong.

[Isaac Bartram]

Pro Libertate wins the prize for today's best post.

LOL!!!

[Postmodern Sleaze]

Still, I've gotta admit that I'm getting so fed up with radical Islamicists that the John Derbyshire approach to conflict resolution (Bomb them all to hell and let Allah sort it out) is starting to look more and more tempting. I'll need to fake a conversion and go on a hajj to Mecca before we turn it into a radioactive crater, 'cause you know it's coming...

[Lamar]

Pro Libertate is right, and perhaps should have added that sometimes daddy comes home drunk and beats the kids. When he sobers up and admits he didn't find any reefer in the kid's room, he doesn't admit he was wrong. He smacks them again and says "that'll learn ya, ya shits." Then he wonders why Mom is cold and distant, and unbeknownst to him, sleeping with more women than men nowadays.....ahhh, I don't know where this is going.

[Isaac Bartram]

Lamar

Funny stuff.

I might have declared the winner too soon. But then I'm not the official judge, am I?

[Pro Libertate]

Lamar is correct if you understand that his analogy applies to domestic relations. Subtle distinction. Sometimes Daddy seizes all the kid's toys when he finds illicit pornography under the boy's bed.

To all of you, I say gedoogbeleid.

[Lamar]

Winston or Ward?

[Jim Walsh]

The message from the Santorums of the world seems to be this: "How dare those Moo-slims try to impose their faith on society...THAT'S OUR JOB!"

[Chad]

Joe, what restrictions did Hitler put on Britain and France (before he attacked them).

Doing nothing in the face of evil is precisely what appeasement is. The "restrictions" in the oh-so-holy wikipedia do not need be restrictions directly on you. They can take the form of "let us beat the crap out of your friends and we will leave you alone". This repeats, of course, until you have no friends.

Santorum is a moron, but he isn't always wrong by default. Islamic fundamentalism is not facism, and they differ in many ways. However, they also have many similarities, and in some ways, Islamic fundamentalism is far, far worse. At least the facists treated women with comparitive respect and got the damned trains to run on time. I can't think of ANYTHING positive to credit to the Islamists.

[joe]

Chad,

"Joe, what restrictions did Hitler put on Britain and France (before he attacked them)."

Do you mean "conditions?" He demanded that they void their collective security agreements with the Czechs, or he would start a war that would draw them in.

'They can take the form of "let us beat the crap out of your friends and we will leave you alone".'

When Tehran starts demanding that we allow them to bomb Israel, you'll have a valid analogy. The only thing they are demanding of us is...um...that we not bomb them.

That's the condition: a country which has not aggressed against us, or any of our allies, in demanding that we not aggress against them. The fact that you really, really, REALLY don't like them does not transform our lack of military aggression against them into appeasement.

[joshua corning]

Or who is suggesting we should accept conditions the Iranians attempt to impose on us? Or in what manner they are an aggressor?

Hezbula?

[joshua corning]

That's the condition: a country which has not aggressed against us, or any of our allies, in demanding that we not aggress against them.

Israel isn't one of our allies?

[Sandy]

They're demanding that we ban alcohol, gambling, aborition, and women's rights. Santorum is acquiescing in all of these things.

Therefore, Rick Santorum is a defeat and retreat Democrat in the face of Middle Eastern terror.

[thoreau]

I think Sandy is actually the one who wins the thread.

[joe]

joshua,

Hezbollah is on the State Department's list of terror groups. We freeze their assets, arrest people for having connections to them, send Irael weaponry to fight them, and engage in actions against them as we see fit.

I'm still not seeing the appeasement part, either towards Iran or their ally, Hezbollah.

[Isaac Bartram]

To all of you, I say gedoogbeleid.

Easy for you to say!