We've all seen just how ineffective appeasement was in the 1930s up through the present. All too often, we hear "enlightened" Europeans lecture us cowboy Americans on how to run foreign policy. They talk down to us as if we were large but somewhat ignorant children. Frankly, I'm sick of their condensation given their track record for incompetence in these matters. On what basis do they justify their arrogance?

Looking at the history of the 20th century, we can see how "enlightened" European foreign policy escalated the assassination of a minor figure into a war that killed millions. We then saw how their "enlightened" leadership crafted the Treaty of Versailles, crippling Germany and giving rise to extremism in the form of the Nazi Party. We can also see how "enlightened" Europe worked out a peaceful solution to Nazi aggression in the 1930s - by giving in to one demand after another in exchange for worthless pieces of paper. The culmination of their "enlightened" policies happened in 1938 when Chamberlain gave away a peaceful country that didn't even belong to him. That plan worked for all of a year, didn't it? The end result of "enlightened" European policies was a war that killed about 100 million people. Sorry, but I'm not willing to be that "enlightened."

How on Earth can anyone believe that it's possible to just sit down and discuss our differences with someone who just killed several thousand of our people? What could we possibly say to get them to agree not to do it again? How could we possibly believe their promise? Tom's statements about trying to appease Hitler are dead on the money. There is no appeasing someone who is bent on your destruction unless you're willing to help him accomplish his goal. Sorry, no sale. Those responsible for these attacks will have to pay for their crime. There will be no "enlightened" talks about differences after this one. After all, we've also seen just how peaceful the Middle East has been following the talks between Israel and the Palestinians, haven't we?