PDA

View Full Version : The Price of Appeasement



thedrifter
04-06-07, 09:40 AM
The Price of Appeasement
by Oliver North
Posted: 04/06/2007

SAN DIEGO -- "Where is the outrage?" Those are the words of one of five former U.S. hostages I have spoken with since March 23, when 15 British sailors were taken hostage by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Another previous victim of the mullah's malice inquired, "Doesn't anyone realize that the Iranians will continue to seize Westerners until they have to pay a price for doing so?" And a third American, held captive in Tehran by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his colleagues back in 1979-80, asked: "Why, after all these years, hasn't anyone stopped them?"

The answer, in a word: oil.

No Western leader -- not Tony Blair, not George Bush, certainly none of the leaders of "Old Europe" and surely no one at the United Nations -- dares risk the wrath of the ayatollahs and the possibility that Iran might shut off 20 percent of the world's oil. Just the chance that the most recent hostage crisis might worsen pushed the price of oil
over $66 per barrel -- a 7 percent rise -- in less than a week.

Here in California, where we have been shooting interviews for an upcoming episode of "War Stories" for FOX News Channel, the headlines read: "Crisis Fuels Oil-Supply Fears" and gasoline prices hit $4 per gallon before the potential calamity was resolved. "Experts" -- there are always experts -- said that if the situation had escalated, the price of crude could have soared to "$100 per barrel, plunging the world into a depression."

If ayatollahs laugh, the tin-horned theo-despots ruling Tehran must be chortling in their beards. For nearly two weeks, the Islamic radicals running the world's pre-imminent terrorist state once again had leaders of the civilized world cowering and cutting backroom deals. But the clerics are confident there will be no consequences, all because of oil.

Other than terrorism, Iran has no ability to project power -- yet. Its air force is hardly worthy of the name. The United States has the capacity, in the words of one senior retired military officer, now a Pentagon consultant, "to eliminate the entire Iranian Navy in less than an hour." But Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's hollow threat, "If the Americans make a wrong move toward Iran, the shipment of energy will definitely face danger," is taken seriously in capitals around the globe, because the United States set the gold standard for how to appease terrorists during the first Iranian hostage crisis.

On Jan. 19, 1981, the day before he left office, Jimmy Carter accepted the conditions of the so-called Algiers Accord -- a secretly negotiated agreement between the Iranian regime and the U.S. government that gave Tehran everything they asked for in exchange for the release of 52 Americans who had been seized 444 days before. Later that day, while White House stewards and ushers prepared the Executive Mansion for Ronald Reagan, Carter was a very busy man -- signing no less than 10 executive orders implementing the onerous provisions of the Algiers pact. Among them: E.O. 12283, prohibiting anyone subject to U.S. law from ever bringing a claim against the Iranians for sacking our embassy or taking hostages. It was total capitulation. And it taught the Iranians a lesson about appeasement they have never forgotten.

Though they do not share it, the ayatollahs in Tehran understand the value Westerners place on human life. They grasp the power of images in our media, and the willingness of a pliant press to show our citizens in peril. And they know that we will do almost anything to save our countrymen. Been there, done that.

Equally important, the Islamic radicals running Iran have just reaffirmed that by threatening the world economy by hazarding the supply of oil, they can be lawless with impunity. They use their own oil -- about 2.5 billion barrels a day -- to fuel their apocalyptic nuclear weapons program, with certainty that no one will act against them because Western governments are afraid of energy supply disruptions.

Speculation as to why the Iranians precipitated this most recent seizure is meaningless. Tehran's penchant for prisoners has nothing to do with the Shatt al-Arab being a "disputed waterway," or "hostage swaps" or even fomenting a split between the United States and the United Kingdom. The Iranians take hostages because they get their way by doing so.

Now that the most recent hostage incident is over, there are the usual calls for action against the brutal, corrupt Islamic radicals ruling in Tehran. Though concerted covert support for regime opponents ought to be at the top of the list, Western leaders will settle for more negotiations -- ignoring the need to back up diplomacy with the credible threat of force.

The Iranians have learned much from our inaction and appeasement. But they shouldn't be the only ones to learn something from this most recent "hostage event."

Between 1942 and 1945 the United States launched the Manhattan Project to build a bomb that would end World War II. At the time, it was the largest, most expensive scientific and engineering project ever undertaken, costing about $2 billion -- roughly $20 billion in today's dollars. To stop hostage taking as an instrument of Iranian state policy requires freeing the world from bondage to oil. A Manhattan Project to develop an alternative energy source would make appeasing radical Islamic hostage holders unnecessary.

Ellie

MOUNTAINWILLIAM
04-08-07, 07:54 PM
An apt observation from times past.

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: --
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: --

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!"

Rudyard Kipling

10thzodiac
04-08-07, 08:12 PM
In the mean time no matter how distasteful it is, OPEC has to sell their oil and we have to buy it. The market will decide the price, not the seller or buyer.

I don't see a long term problem, markets are efficient.

It is their oil and it is no good to them unless we buy it, right ?

semperfi170
04-08-07, 10:53 PM
It is their oil and it is no good to them unless we buy it, right ?

Yeah, it is their oil! As long as this country is dependent on it, we will continue to buy it. Instead of all the pork barrel projects, those dumb-a**es
in Congress should be putting our tax dollars to use for full development and delivery of alternative fuels.:mad:

In the meantime, till we are energy self-sufficient,appeasment will be the modus operandi. :( It is just a shame we can't tell all those countries over there, eat oil & sand because we don't need it.:banana:

killerinstinct
04-09-07, 03:27 PM
well i guess that puts the reason we went to war in iraq to rest.. If we wanted oil i guess we picked the wrong place..

10thzodiac
04-09-07, 07:24 PM
well i guess that puts the reason we went to war in iraq to rest.. If we wanted oil i guess we picked the wrong place..

[Snippet]

War is a Racket http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm

"It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." ~ USMC Major General Smedley D. Butler