Appeasers?

I wouldn't say Democrats have a monopoly on this. A lot of ill-feeling towards America in the 80s was needlessly generated by the Reagan administration's perceived tendency to turn a blind eye to PIRA fund raising in the USA.

Yes, I do think that. Ladyluna said it very well and there is not much I can add to that. When you see the democrats and Obama calling for talks with terrorist nations and leaders with no preconditions and no calls to end their terrorists ways, then there is really no other way to look at the modern democrats than appeasers. Those terrorist nations do not want to get along with us... they want to DESTROY us! The democrats are rightly considered to be weak and naive when it comes to foreign policy, and their socialist agenda is plainly apparent with all of the social programs they want along with the massive tax increases necessary to finance these programs. The democrats are completely clueless when it comes to dealing with terrorists.

I don't think democrats have intentionally been appeasing terrorists, but the practical matter of the situation is that they have. For example, President Clinton did not have the instigator of the USS Cole & African embassy bombings pursued with the necessary vigor. This was an unintentional appeasement. During what pursuit there was of this individual at least one opportunity to kill him was passed on and another to arrest him. This too, was probably not meant as appeasement, but it was. The result? Osama Bin Laden remained free to intigation also, 9-11.

Hello Clrumfelt, In order to answer this question, I believe it necessary to clarify that today's Democrat Party is heavily populated by Marxists and Humanists. Whereas yesteryear's Democratic Party was heavily populated by Conservative-Americans. So, as I see it, the answer to your question is that Democrats are not necessarily appeasers, though Marxists and Humanists most definitely are. The Marxist activists of the 1940s - 1970s have slowly infused themselves into the Democrat Party, to the point where they have now almost fully taken it over, in much the same way that they have infused themselves into academia. The ideology of Marxism and Humanism is that 'warm and fuzzy' understanding is all that is required to bring savages into the fold. Granted, the ideology is woefully simplistic. As well, it is riddled with child-like trust, and is also infused with tremendous arrogance. Specifically, only 'they' are smart enough, compassionate enough, 'right' enough to convince the terror-minded savages that strapping bombs on to their children and the mentally handicapped is 'very bad'. Moreover, the people who have already told the terrorists how 'very bad' it is -- didn't tell them in a smart enough, compassionate enough, or 'right' enough way. Only 'they' can convince the blood-thirsty of the error of their ways, by demonstrating that 'they' are no threat to the savages. Their underlying belief is that terrorists are only 'acting out' because they feel threatened, misunderstood, and that no one 'cares' about them. Those poor terrorists simply haven't had enough group hugs with 'the enlightened'. Though, Marxists still need bodies to cast the necessary votes to keep themselves in power. So, they court large numbers of folks who have been deliberately 'kept down' by an inadequate educational system (which they rule over with the heavy fist). Those undereducated folks tend to be on the economically disadvantaged side, because they have not gotten a solid education, so they are unable to financially support the Marxists. In order to obtain the support they need to perpetuate their power base they must seek funding from those who have disposable income, i.e. college educated Marxists who support the need to control both the growth and the education level of the masses. In exchange for that financial support, they promise jobs with tenure and union protections to safeguard their benefactors. They access their future Marxist leaders from the ranks of those benefactors, who are fully indoctrinated into the Marxist fold, and who also have few or no children of their own giving them more disposable income (remembering that Marxists support population control measures, and consider the masses their surrogate children), then they effort themselves to keep the rest of the masses poorly educated, and convinced that only 'they' will take care of the masses from cradle to grave. To be certain that the breeders don't rise up against them, they manage the breeding habits of the poor and undereducated. They do so by generously making available their devised population control measures of birth control and abortion. This way, the Marxists can protect their positions of power. Then they deify their early visionaries like Margaret Sanger. It's a terribly manipulative, well-established cycle; fueled and perpetuated by Marxist elitists. To lay the blame at the feet of anyone who still holds an allegiance to the Democrat Party would be distinctly unfair. My parents and grandparents were proud, conservative Democrats. Not one of them would ever consider appeasing terrorists. They would no more recognize today's Democratic Party than those of us still alive today, who have abandoned the now Marxist-Dem Party. To be sure, my father, who was one of the lucky ones to come home from WWII, would never have supported the appeasement tactics of today's Marxist-Dem Party. Any more than he would support the 'cut & run' policies that the Marxist-Dem party has been touting since we entered Iraq. He lived through the horrors of war, yet still understood that there are genuinely evil people on this planet, who want nothing more than to subjegate and/or destroy those who would refuse to elevate them to a position of dominance. He, like many of his generation, recognized that fighting thugs and bullies is an ugly necessity in the preservation of freedom. What's more, he wouldn't take kindly to be considered an appeaser. Though, if he were still alive today, it's inconceivable that he would still have any allegiance to the Marxist-Dem Party. I'm quite sure that he would have told the party where to go, as soon as the party membership supported the first ever attempt to take any reference to God out of our Pledge of Allegiance!