Segregationist peace
Recently, French president Nicholas Sarkozy made an interesting statement at the Munich security conference that gives a clue just what Europe's more naive crowd must actually want (Hat tip: No Pasaran):
Europe's got to make a choice: either they want peace or they want to lead to what could and will destroy it.
Does Europe want peace or does it want to be left in peace? I’d like you to think about this. Do you want peace or do you want to be left in peace? It isn’t the same policy, it isn’t the same strategy, and the consequences aren’t the same. If you want peace, you have to give yourselves the means to exist as an economic, financial, political and military power. You want to be left in peace? If so, you have to curl up very small, stay in your corner, cover your eyes, block your ears, and not talk too loudly, and for a time you will be left in peace. Until the moment when it’s discovered that you haven’t got the means to defend yourself. But at that point, it will be too late.The answer he got there seems to be the latter: they'd rather be left in peace than actually have it. But I think I can translate here what this actually means: what Europe wants is a form of peace where the enemy simply won't attack them while living separately from one another. That enemy being Islam, of course, and probably even the reemerging communist Russia. Hate to say, but that's pretty irresponsible thinking, and just shows how they're too lazy to try and make a difference by demanding that Islamofascists abandon the mindsets that are causing all the problems in the first place.
Europe's got to make a choice: either they want peace or they want to lead to what could and will destroy it.
