NationStates Jolt Archive

I hear this all the time. People, mainly conservatives, draw comparisons between the calls to leave iraq and often the middle east, and appeasement. But something clicked in my mind recently.

What exactly was appeasement? An attempt to give in to countries doing bad things, in hopes to prevent a bigger problem, right? Well, what about pakistan? A nation who does little to nothing about terrorism, where corrupt government officials hinder western operations, or even help terrorists evade our reach. Its quite possible that pakistani officials told Al-queda that a missile strike was coming, before the tomahawk strikes in late 1998.

Yet we support pakistan. Its seem as an ally in a fairly hostile region, and so we support it for geopolitical reasons, despite its support of terrorists, which outways its completely ineffectual fighting of it. I agree this isn't a completely accurate comparison, but this "war" on terror isn't exactly comparable to a regular war, either.

Same thing with saudi arabia. All of the 9/11 hijackers were saudi's. Many terrorists come out of saudi arabia, and the saudi government really doesn't do much against them. But they give us political support in the region, so we support them.

The left can be accused of appeasement in some terms, but is that much different than supporting those who support your enemies?

Appeasment is all an attempt to avoid a war. It doesn't work because the people being appeased will just take more. In that cense, I don't see how the Western World appeases Pakistan. Just because a government doesn't activly fight terrorism doesn't mean that they support it.

Appeasement in and of itself isn't a bad thing; cultures throughout history have paid tribute or conceded territory to superior nations in order to have peace, and in many cases it worked quite well. The goal of appeasement, however, is to buy yourself time until you can defend against the aggressor and stop them from taking more from you; for example, if the US were to use its appeasement of Saudi Arabia to become independent of their oil production, we would be using appeasement to our advantage.

I hear this all the time. People, mainly conservatives, draw comparisons between the calls to leave iraq and often the middle east, and appeasement. But something clicked in my mind recently.

What exactly was appeasement? An attempt to give in to countries doing bad things, in hopes to prevent a bigger problem, right? Well, what about pakistan? A nation who does little to nothing about terrorism, where corrupt government officials hinder western operations, or even help terrorists evade our reach. Its quite possible that pakistani officials told Al-queda that a missile strike was coming, before the tomahawk strikes in late 1998.

Yet we support pakistan. Its seem as an ally in a fairly hostile region, and so we support it for geopolitical reasons, despite its support of terrorists, which outways its completely ineffectual fighting of it. I agree this isn't a completely accurate comparison, but this "war" on terror isn't exactly comparable to a regular war, either.

Same thing with saudi arabia. All of the 9/11 hijackers were saudi's. Many terrorists come out of saudi arabia, and the saudi government really doesn't do much against them. But they give us political support in the region, so we support them.

The left can be accused of appeasement in some terms, but is that much different than supporting those who support your enemies?

Musharraf and Musharraf loyalists are American allies, but not all of the government is Musharraf loyalists. Many, espescially those in the security services, are quite hostile to the US and Musharraf, and only abide Musharraf because he cannot control them.

Musharraf and Musharraf loyalists are American allies, but not all of the government is Musharraf loyalists. Many, espescially those in the security services, are quite hostile to the US and Musharraf, and only abide Musharraf because he cannot control them.

This is kinda what I mean though. Pakistan supports us in a geopolitical sense, with Musharraf being allied to us. However, we are supporting a nation that is helping our enemies, the terrorists. Maybe not musharraf himself, but many of his lackies. It just feels so wrong to be allied to a nation providing support to our biggest enemies right now. Appeasement wasn't the best word, but I hope my sentiment is understood.

This is kinda what I mean though. Pakistan supports us in a geopolitical sense, with Musharraf being allied to us. However, we are supporting a nation that is helping our enemies, the terrorists. Maybe not musharraf himself, but many of his lackies. It just feels so wrong to be allied to a nation providing support to our biggest enemies right now. Appeasement wasn't the best word, but I hope my sentiment is understood.

It's absolutely understood. But, the tragedy is that the current situation is far better than one that could evolve if we ceased to support Musharraf. The Pakistani nuclear arsenal is why we give him aid and consider him an ally, for if those weapons were to fall into more aggressive, less realistic hands...many innocent people could die. None of it feels right.

I fucking hate nukes. So many of the bad and tragic decisions of the last sixty years are because of those damn things.

It's absolutely understood. But, the tragedy is that the current situation is far better than one that could evolve if we ceased to support Musharraf. The Pakistani nuclear arsenal is why we give him aid and consider him an ally, for if those weapons were to fall into more aggressive, less realistic hands...many innocent people could die. None of it feels right.

I fucking hate nukes. So many of the bad and tragic decisions of the last sixty years are because of those damn things.

Does that not make it appeasement then? Supporting pakistan to prevent nuclear proliferation that could eventually end up hurting us?

Regardless, I almost wish india would pre-emptively take out pakistan. As much as I hate the concept, it seems like a nuclear trade-off will occur sooner or later. I'd much rather have india standing than both in rubble.

Musharraf is not an ally in any sense of the word. The day he announced the alliance with US, he made a televised speech to Pak referring the treaty of Hudaibiya. Look up what the treaty means and you will know.

Well, there's the actual word appeasement, which is what has been discussed in this thread already, and which I think misses the point.

When politicians today whip out the word appeasement, what they really mean is "pussy." That's what they're calling their opponents--pussies--and they're trying to raise the specter of Neville Chamberlain and "peace in our time" in the face of Naziism. It's the worst kind of bullshit arguing, on a par with claiming that criticism of the policies of the Israeli state is anti-Semitism.

What's more important is that in every case, when it's pulled out, it's factually and historically inaccurate, because the only nations in the last 60 years that have had the kind of standing economically and militarily that Nazi Germany had in the late 30s have been the US and the Soviet Union, and no one was really trying to appease anyone there--unless you call the Cold War one big dual appeasement dance.

The Allies tried appeasement on Germany in the 30s because they were the biggest, baddest motherfuckers on the block and there was precious little they could do to stop them, and I suspect on some level, they knew that. And the early days of the war seemed to bear that out.

But today, when politicians talk about appeasing terrorists, and acting as though they're of the same level of threat as Hitler was in 1938, well, that's ludicrous, nukes or not. I suspect that most politicians who use that argument know it's crap, too, but I may be overestimating their intelligence levels--not too difficult.

Well, there's the actual word appeasement, which is what has been discussed in this thread already, and which I think misses the point.

When politicians today whip out the word appeasement, what they really mean is "pussy." That's what they're calling their opponents--pussies--and they're trying to raise the specter of Neville Chamberlain and "peace in our time" in the face of Naziism. It's the worst kind of bullshit arguing, on a par with claiming that criticism of the policies of the Israeli state is anti-Semitism.

What's more important is that in every case, when it's pulled out, it's factually and historically inaccurate, because the only nations in the last 60 years that have had the kind of standing economically and militarily that Nazi Germany had in the late 30s have been the US and the Soviet Union, and no one was really trying to appease anyone there--unless you call the Cold War one big dual appeasement dance.

The Allies tried appeasement on Germany in the 30s because they were the biggest, baddest motherfuckers on the block and there was precious little they could do to stop them, and I suspect on some level, they knew that. And the early days of the war seemed to bear that out.

But today, when politicians talk about appeasing terrorists, and acting as though they're of the same level of threat as Hitler was in 1938, well, that's ludicrous, nukes or not. I suspect that most politicians who use that argument know it's crap, too, but I may be overestimating their intelligence levels--not too difficult.

oddly enough..i do agree with your assessment..go figure.

oddly enough..i do agree with your assessment..go figure.

And I agree with a good chunk of yours on the other thread--except that I think that we've shot our good will over in Iraq so badly that we can't be seen as an honest broker anymore, at least not with this admnistration. I'm starting to think that the violence will actually lessen if we get out of there, because then it'll just be them on each other, and some power will emerge as the dominant force.

Don't act so surprised--I'm partisan, but I'm reasonable. My pissed-offed-ness comes from the lies and incompetence of the people in charge and the open dishonesty of too many who support them.

It's absolutely understood. But, the tragedy is that the current situation is far better than one that could evolve if we ceased to support Musharraf. The Pakistani nuclear arsenal is why we give him aid and consider him an ally

No wonder why NK and Iran are looking to build nukes.


, for if those weapons were to fall into more aggressive, less realistic hands...many innocent people could die. None of it feels right.

Innocent people still die due to US support to Musharraf (and Pak army - which inturn support the terror network against India and Afghanistan).

For us it does not matter if a bearded jihadi is in power or a whisky-drinking Armani suited Musharraf. Our and Afghan civilians still die in the hands of Pakistani jihadis.

You simply cannot justify the current US policy with Pakistan. Is it unjustifiable. Apply Bush's "either you are with us or against us" from an Indian point of view.

Meh, the most you can ever ask for in foreign relations is that the Central Executive stays allied to you, you have very little power over the general population of the nation. So when Musharrif says he will assist in the War on Terror, that's all we can ask for, because we can't blame him for Pakistani citizens outside of his grasp assisting al-Qaeda or the Taleban.

I hear this all the time. People, mainly conservatives, draw comparisons between the calls to leave iraq and often the middle east, and appeasement. But something clicked in my mind recently.

What exactly was appeasement? An attempt to give in to countries doing bad things, in hopes to prevent a bigger problem, right? Well, what about pakistan? A nation who does little to nothing about terrorism, where corrupt government officials hinder western operations, or even help terrorists evade our reach. Its quite possible that pakistani officials told Al-queda that a missile strike was coming, before the tomahawk strikes in late 1998...

Pakistan actually does a lot of work to hinder terrorism, and has aided the US and the UK in the hunt for terrorist leaders. There is a power in Pakistan that supports terror, but it is not the most prominent power, and it does not set policy. It often overrides policy, but that is the type of internal struggle that will either be won by the good-guys, or will lead to big problems, but later.

Appeasement in and of itself isn't a bad thing; cultures throughout history have paid tribute or conceded territory to superior nations in order to have peace, and in many cases it worked quite well. The goal of appeasement, however, is to buy yourself time until you can defend against the aggressor and stop them from taking more from you; for example, if the US were to use its appeasement of Saudi Arabia to become independent of their oil production, we would be using appeasement to our advantage.

Apeasement in and of itself *is* a bad thing. I challenge you to show me an example of where it worked indefinitly. I will admit there are times in History where the nation/power recieving tribute was itself conquered before they could turn on their tribute-payers, but that only seemed to work beccause it wasn't an indefinite time-scale. (I'm thinking of the Tribes of Israel, Asyria, and Babylonia, I can't remember the years, but BCE).

More recently, the only REAL example of tribute working, was the Catholic Church's control over Europe. There were monetary and social demands that the Church made that were back up with a threat of invasion, that actually appeased the church, but taht has more to do with a very specific socio-economic structure, and the specific religion of the church.

Jews and Christians used to pay higher taxes in Muslim controlled lands, and I'll admit that worked for a while, but again, in the long run, it only led to renewed war, AND that was taxation individually, not tribute from a nation. A subtle difference, but a very important one.

Well, there's the actual word appeasement, which is what has been discussed in this thread already, and which I think misses the point.

When politicians today whip out the word appeasement, what they really mean is "pussy." That's what they're calling their opponents--pussies--and they're trying to raise the specter of Neville Chamberlain and "peace in our time" in the face of Naziism. It's the worst kind of bullshit arguing, on a par with claiming that criticism of the policies of the Israeli state is anti-Semitism.

What's more important is that in every case, when it's pulled out, it's factually and historically inaccurate, because the only nations in the last 60 years that have had the kind of standing economically and militarily that Nazi Germany had in the late 30s have been the US and the Soviet Union, and no one was really trying to appease anyone there--unless you call the Cold War one big dual appeasement dance.

The Allies tried appeasement on Germany in the 30s because they were the biggest, baddest motherfuckers on the block and there was precious little they could do to stop them, and I suspect on some level, they knew that. And the early days of the war seemed to bear that out.

But today, when politicians talk about appeasing terrorists, and acting as though they're of the same level of threat as Hitler was in 1938, well, that's ludicrous, nukes or not. I suspect that most politicians who use that argument know it's crap, too, but I may be overestimating their intelligence levels--not too difficult.

First of all, NO, Germany was not the biggest baddest motherfucker on the block when apeasemenmt began. They became so BECAUSE of appeasement.

Second, the way appeasement is used today by politicians is not a misuse of the term appeasement. Appeasement is not only tribute to a greater power, it is also the failure to act against something one objects to in order to prevent hostilities; or, according to some dictionaries (dictionary.com, for example) satisfying in order to passify.

Also, frankly, in any case where the moral imperative is strong, appeasing the evil is in fact just plain being a pussy. The current war in Iraq is a great moral imperative. There are others that are being ignored, but that doesn't make this one a bad idea, it just means we are not doing enough.

What I find most poigniant is that the classic appeasers in WWII were the conservatives. It seems that the worst thing a conservative can say about a liberal is "you have the values that we pretend to have."


But the term appeasment is misapplied here. Appeasers called to allow Germany to take what it wanted it the hope that it would get "enough," and stop. Liberals aren't saying "let them blow up buildings. Once they blow up enough buildings they'll get tired and stop."

On Iraq, appeasment would be to say "let him hide stuff and when he's hidden enough, we'll look at the stuff he leaves out for us." Liberals didn't say that. We said, and so did Bush, if he cooperates we shouldn't invade. Then Hussein cooperated, and we invaded anyway, all the while Bush saying that he never cooperated, even after being asked "now that Saddam has given in to all your demands what are you going to do?" and his response was "it's just a ploy, and we're not going to fall for it."

So the Neocon corruption of the english (in republican hands 'english' no longer deserves a capital letter) language now includes defining appeaser "one who takes everything that they want and leaves all of one's opponent's demands unmet, gains their complete cooperation, and then doesn't attack because they already got everything they wanted."

By that definition a WWII appeaser would have gotten Hitler to dismantle his military, withdraw from Austira, Chekoslovakia, and then pay the forgiven WWI debt.

Apeasement in and of itself *is* a bad thing. I challenge you to show me an example of where it worked indefinitly. I will admit there are times in History where the nation/power recieving tribute was itself conquered before they could turn on their tribute-payers, but that only seemed to work beccause it wasn't an indefinite time-scale. (I'm thinking of the Tribes of Israel, Asyria, and Babylonia, I can't remember the years, but BCE)..

That's the problem. If you're going to appease someone, you use the bought time to arm yourself and prepare for the inevitable; indefinite appeasement simply doesn't work. The goal of appeasement isn't to buy peace; rather, it should be used to buy time in order to prepare for war.

What I find most poigniant is that the classic appeasers in WWII were the conservatives. It seems that the worst thing a conservative can say about a liberal is "you have the values that we pretend to have."

I think if liberals had been in power back then they would have favoured appeasement as well. During the 1930s pro-war was a very, very unpopular position to have. After the horrors of WWI nobody wanted to step back into that arena.

That's the problem. If you're going to appease someone, you use the bought time to arm yourself and prepare for the inevitable; indefinite appeasement simply doesn't work. The goal of appeasement isn't to buy peace; rather, it should be used to buy time in order to prepare for war.

But there was nothing to appease Saddam for. We had him completly under our control. He was in no position to rebuild his WMD programs. Clinton's efforts were working. Bush's have not.

I think if liberals had been in power back then they would have favoured appeasement as well. During the 1930s pro-war was a very, very unpopular position to have. After the horrors of WWI nobody wanted to step back into that arena.

Why do you think that? It was the liberals in society that were supporting intervention. The artists and writers. People with a broader prespective saw that Hitler needed to be stopped. If the liberals in society wanted to enter WWII, what makes you think that liberals would not have "if in power."

Apeasement in and of itself *is* a bad thing. I challenge you to show me an example of where it worked indefinitly. I will admit there are times in History where the nation/power recieving tribute was itself conquered before they could turn on their tribute-payers, but that only seemed to work beccause it wasn't an indefinite time-scale. (I'm thinking of the Tribes of Israel, Asyria, and Babylonia, I can't remember the years, but BCE).

Vietnam and Korea appeasing China. For centuries they paid tribute to the Chinese emperor and were otherwise left alone. It wasn't until the French showed up in Vietnam and the Japanese invaded Korea that they came under the power of invaders. And that's only because China wasn't strong enough to protect them.

Why do you think that? It was the liberals in society that were supporting intervention. The artists and writers. People with a broader prespective saw that Hitler needed to be stopped. If the liberals in society wanted to enter WWII, what makes you think that liberals would not have "if in power."

The liberals in the society yes. But the liberals in parliament? not so much...

The liberals in the society yes. But the liberals in parliament? not so much...

I assumed we were talking about Rumsfeld's "appeaser" comment and thus American conservatives and liberals.

I assumed we were talking about Rumsfeld's "appeaser" comment and thus American conservatives and liberals.

both would have supported appeasement, the #1 goal of a politician is to get elected and re-elected, the vast majority of the people in america were against war in any form and tried to avoid it, As much as possible...

The liberals in the society yes. But the liberals in parliament? not so much...

We have a parliament?

Appeasement in and of itself isn't a bad thing; cultures throughout history have paid tribute or conceded territory to superior nations in order to have peace, and in many cases it worked quite well. The goal of appeasement, however, is to buy yourself time until you can defend against the aggressor and stop them from taking more from you; for example, if the US were to use its appeasement of Saudi Arabia to become independent of their oil production, we would be using appeasement to our advantage.

For the most part, appeasement is seen by most, I think, to be a pejorative term. I have really only heard it used in relation to various European nations in the 1940's that had granted concessions to Hitler in the hopes that he would not invade their country (not that it helped much). Kind of like complimenting the bully who has his hands on your throat what such nice strong hands he has.

Here's hoping that we develop an alternative source of energy so that we don't have to "appease" the Saudis. Worked for Brazil........

But there was nothing to appease Saddam for. We had him completly under our control. He was in no position to rebuild his WMD programs. Clinton's efforts were working. Bush's have not.

Welcome to Revisionist History 101. Glad you could attend.

For the most part, appeasement is seen by most, I think, to be a pejorative term. I have really only heard it used in relation to various European nations in the 1940's that had granted concessions to Hitler in the hopes that he would not invade their country (not that it helped much). Kind of like complimenting the bully who has his hands on your throat what such nice strong hands he has.

It usually is used pejoratively because many things not seen as appeasement are usually not included in the term; tribute and other offerings have been used for millenia to delay war and to buy time for an outmatched civilization to resist invaders. Sometimes, it works very well and actually weakens the superior nation, but that is pretty unlikely.

However, you always have to remember that appeasement will lead to eventual conflict. The only way it doesn't is if the other side destroys itself; unfortunately, that isn't very likely in most cases.

Here's hoping that we develop an alternative source of energy so that we don't have to "appease" the Saudis. Worked for Brazil........

By 2020, we will not need any Saudi oil....in fact, we might not need any oil from OPEC by then; currently, the US imports about 1.2 million bpd from Saudi Arabia or 5% of our total demand. We could eliminate that now with a 20% bump in fuel economy using current technology; they honestly don't have that much influence over us and they know it. That's why they are terrified by the nutty statements of nations like Iran and Venezuela, or the spikes in oil prices over the past few years; the same prices that produce a fortune for them are also seeding the end of their influence.

The kinds of technologies in the pipeline over the next 10-15 years are enough to solve our dependence on their oil, and come with the added benefits of being cleaner, cheaper, and more abundant than oil. We've got a very good two decades ahead of us...free from dependence on Saudi Arabia, clean technology and clean energy slashing pollution, and millions of high-tech, high-paying jobs from the renewable energy and green technology booms.

What I find most poigniant is that the classic appeasers in WWII were the conservatives. It seems that the worst thing a conservative can say about a liberal is "you have the values that we pretend to have."


But the term appeasment is misapplied here. Appeasers called to allow Germany to take what it wanted it the hope that it would get "enough," and stop. Liberals aren't saying "let them blow up buildings. Once they blow up enough buildings they'll get tired and stop."

On Iraq, appeasment would be to say "let him hide stuff and when he's hidden enough, we'll look at the stuff he leaves out for us." Liberals didn't say that. We said, and so did Bush, if he cooperates we shouldn't invade. Then Hussein cooperated, and we invaded anyway, all the while Bush saying that he never cooperated, even after being asked "now that Saddam has given in to all your demands what are you going to do?" and his response was "it's just a ploy, and we're not going to fall for it."

So the Neocon corruption of the english (in republican hands 'english' no longer deserves a capital letter) language now includes defining appeaser "one who takes everything that they want and leaves all of one's opponent's demands unmet, gains their complete cooperation, and then doesn't attack because they already got everything they wanted."

By that definition a WWII appeaser would have gotten Hitler to dismantle his military, withdraw from Austira, Chekoslovakia, and then pay the forgiven WWI debt.

I'm glad I'm not the first to call you a revisionist. You are rewriting history with that post, but I was hesitent to say so.

Sadam's "compliance" was limited at best. It had been the same kind of compliance he used to stave off problems for almost a decade. "you can come in, but you can't, and you can go over there, but not today, and don't look out that window for a half hour."

What I am confused about is why there has been no investigation into the truck convoys that left Iraq as the US was banging the war drum slowly.

ALSO, there is a big difference between an American Republican and a Conservative. Hell, a republican of the 30s would not recognise a republican of the 60s, who would not recognise a republican of the new millenium. ... and by the way, there is NO SUCH THING AS A NEOCON - that word either means a Regan Republican, or it means Jew. Either way, it enetered the vernacular as a hateful term, and it remains so. Some conservatives have embrased it in order to weaken it's hateful meaning, but it is STILL inacurate and hateful.

That's the problem. If you're going to appease someone, you use the bought time to arm yourself and prepare for the inevitable; indefinite appeasement simply doesn't work. The goal of appeasement isn't to buy peace; rather, it should be used to buy time in order to prepare for war.

That could be a strategy, in some cases, but that is not the definition of appeasement.

Why do you think that? It was the liberals in society that were supporting intervention. The artists and writers. People with a broader prespective saw that Hitler needed to be stopped. If the liberals in society wanted to enter WWII, what makes you think that liberals would not have "if in power."

Simply not true. Perhaps there were some, or even many, but there were few American groups that consistently, as a group, supported America getting involved in a european war. Almost none of them were for the reasons of saving people, but because they weren't convinced Hitler would stop at the Atlantic.

Dr. Seuss was all for going to was against Hitler and against the Japanese threat... but I really can't see where he fit politically. His cartoons at the time were sometimes left and sometimes right, but always against "America First."

Vietnam and Korea appeasing China. For centuries they paid tribute to the Chinese emperor and were otherwise left alone. It wasn't until the French showed up in Vietnam and the Japanese invaded Korea that they came under the power of invaders. And that's only because China wasn't strong enough to protect them.

China, much like the Church in Mideval Europe, wanted only influence and money. They each had both. MEANWHILE, China of the time was not the morally deplorable power it became later, and was not in the habit of slaughtering people - as both Hitler's Germany and Sadam's Iraq were wont to do... regularly, continuously, and gleefully.

We have a parliament?

Some of us do... hell, I have several. Multiple Citizenships can be fun.

Welcome to Revisionist History 101. Glad you could attend.

Thank you SO MUCH for saying that first... I might have chickened out...

I think if liberals had been in power back then they would have favoured appeasement as well. During the 1930s pro-war was a very, very unpopular position to have. After the horrors of WWI nobody wanted to step back into that arena.

FDR wasn't a liberal?:confused: ?

Thank you SO MUCH for saying that first... I might have chickened out...What--you think it takes balls to be wrong? New Domici didn't revise shit. He gave an accurate retelling of the events leading up to the Iraq War.

And what the hell is that bit about there being no such thing as a neocon? Bub, you need to read up on the group--they call themselves that. Bill Kristol is one of the founders of the movement, for crying out loud, and he's used the term himself, on tv, more than once.

Appeasement in and of itself isn't a bad thing; cultures throughout history have paid tribute or conceded territory to superior nations in order to have peace, and in many cases it worked quite well. The goal of appeasement, however, is to buy yourself time until you can defend against the aggressor and stop them from taking more from you; for example, if the US were to use its appeasement of Saudi Arabia to become independent of their oil production, we would be using appeasement to our advantage.

appeasement is giving in to the bully in the schoolyard....so you can live to fight another day...privately hoping he picks on someone tomorrow...sad but true.
gloss it over as being altruistic or magnaminous...but the bitter truth is...bully's are bully's,and one may wiggle away...today...but everyone pays for being a pussy.
one can say(from exsperiance)that they hate confrontation...or if he messed with me tomorrow...all day long...fact is...mostly you cant negotiate with a bully...you can buy time..

i have been bullied,and bullied,so i know both sides...most people that are bullied will beg to find common ground(nothing wrong with that)but some stand up...
and people hate that...as much as they hate bullies.

it's called self hate.

i know people that hate people for standing up for themselves...they dont hate the bully...they hate the person that stands up cause they wish they could.

First of all, NO, Germany was not the biggest baddest motherfucker on the block when apeasemenmt began. They became so BECAUSE of appeasement.

Second, the way appeasement is used today by politicians is not a misuse of the term appeasement. Appeasement is not only tribute to a greater power, it is also the failure to act against something one objects to in order to prevent hostilities; or, according to some dictionaries (dictionary.com, for example) satisfying in order to passify.

Also, frankly, in any case where the moral imperative is strong, appeasing the evil is in fact just plain being a pussy. The current war in Iraq is a great moral imperative. There are others that are being ignored, but that doesn't make this one a bad idea, it just means we are not doing enough.

Yeah, I knew I should have looked back to see if you'd said anything else stupid before I replied to your other comment. You did. Try reading a little actual history sometime, instead of listening to whatever little voices in your head tell you the story is. Germany was the #2 economy in the world in 1938, and had the biggest military. No one in Europe could hold a candle to them in either category, and the early stages of WWII proved that, because they beat everyone's asses single-handedly. It was only when they overextended that they became vulnerable.

Dr. Seuss was all for going to was against Hitler and against the Japanese threat... but I really can't see where he fit politically. His cartoons at the time were sometimes left and sometimes right, but always against "America First." What are you saying here that he was against or for the war?

And I agree with a good chunk of yours on the other thread--except that I think that we've shot our good will over in Iraq so badly that we can't be seen as an honest broker anymore, at least not with this admnistration. I'm starting to think that the violence will actually lessen if we get out of there, because then it'll just be them on each other, and some power will emerge as the dominant force.

Don't act so surprised--I'm partisan, but I'm reasonable. My pissed-offed-ness comes from the lies and incompetence of the people in charge and the open dishonesty of too many who support them.

i dont blindly follow...and i actually read your responces with great interest..not to mention..i have changed opinions because of them...does that now make me a lefty?

i know you disagree...but to leave iraq now would send the region(imho) into chaos...chaos that we started.
i was against the war...period...but to leave now would to invoke a civil war with repercussions that are out of my grasp to predict.

i will always value your opinions..so please take me to task.

your right,and i also think we have lost alot of goodwill and the moral high ground thru the action s of heir bush...but we will fundamentally disagrree on certain things.
i have always sought out your take on things..as i learn from differing perspectives..for that i thank you....disregard drunkin posts please...lol

i dont blindly follow...and i actually read your responces with great interest..not to mention..i have changed opinions because of them...does that now make me a lefty?

your right,and i also think we have lost alot of goodwill and the moral high ground thru the action s of heir bush...but we will fundamentally disagrree on certain things.
i have always sought out your take on things..as i learn from differing perspectives..for that i thank you....disregard drunkin posts please...lol

I think it just means you're open-minded and willing to listen to other arguments. If that makes you a lefty, I won't object. ;)

Yeah, I knew I should have looked back to see if you'd said anything else stupid before I replied to your other comment. You did. Try reading a little actual history sometime, instead of listening to whatever little voices in your head tell you the story is. Germany was the #2 economy in the world in 1938, and had the biggest military. No one in Europe could hold a candle to them in either category, and the early stages of WWII proved that, because they beat everyone's asses single-handedly. It was only when they overextended that they became vulnerable.

Nobody could hold a candle?

Funny, the French had a better army(trained, equipped, manned), most likely a better navy, and a slightly inferior airforce(recently recovering from problems in the mid 30's). It was doctrine that lost the battle of france, not a weaker military, especially for being on the defense. Had De Gualle been higher up in command, and been able to effectively organize the French Tanks into multiple ACR's, its quite possible that the germans would have been halted from their blitzkrieg, and that the very quickly growing Armee De L'Air could have at least stalemated in the air. British involvement would slowly push back into germany.

I think it just means you're open-minded and willing to listen to other arguments. If that makes you a lefty, I won't object. ;)
your too kind..

but do you honestly..and i am serious..think that a unilateral withdrawl would be in the best interest of iraq?
i am all for that(as my son is soon to be sent to the killing fields)
but..and this may piss you off..i think that we fucked up there country(no worse then saddam)and we have a responsability to help them...and know..not at the loss of my child.
but we gotta do right by them and fuck bush and his get rich lackeys...but my kid is going there.
i am beyond confused...we owe the iraqi's our support and backing,as we fucked up their country....but as a selfish dad...i dont want my kid killed..it is hard to explain i suppose.
i am proud of my kid..he truly thinks he is going to help..i think he is cannon fodder..but again,we broke it..we buy it.

your opinion is valued

your too kind..

but do you honestly..and i am serious..think that a unilateral withdrawl would be in the best interest of iraq?
i am all for that(as my son is soon to be sent to the killing fields)
but..and this may piss you off..i think that we fucked up there country(no worse then saddam)and we have a responsability to help them...and know..not at the loss of my child.
but we gotta do right by them and fuck bush and his get rich lackeys...but my kid is going there.
i am beyond confused...we owe the iraqi's our support and backing,as we fucked up their country....but as a selfish dad...i dont want my kid killed..it is hard to explain i suppose.
i am proud of my kid..he truly thinks he is going to help..i think he is cannon fodder..but again,we broke it..we buy it.

your opinion is valued

Lets put it this way.

Hypothetical situation, in the future. China is a big superpower, and the US is suddenly much weaker(as in, only a regional player). China invades the US, and defeats the military, and occupies. There is a large insurgency.

Would you want the chinese to stay and fix their mess, even though whatever they do seems to either kill more civilians than anything? Unless its public works, which just end up getting destroyed?

Or would you want the chinese to leave, to give you a chance at self determination, and letting you rebuild yourselves?

your too kind..

but do you honestly..and i am serious..think that a unilateral withdrawl would be in the best interest of iraq?
i am all for that(as my son is soon to be sent to the killing fields)
but..and this may piss you off..i think that we fucked up there country(no worse then saddam)and we have a responsability to help them...and know..not at the loss of my child.
but we gotta do right by them and fuck bush and his get rich lackeys...but my kid is going there.
i am beyond confused...we owe the iraqi's our support and backing,as we fucked up their country....but as a selfish dad...i dont want my kid killed..it is hard to explain i suppose.
i am proud of my kid..he truly thinks he is going to help..i think he is cannon fodder..but again,we broke it..we buy it.

your opinion is valued
I think we ought to have pulled out a year ago. I've thought for at least that long that civil war was inevitable, and that the sooner we get out of the way, the sooner they can settle their own differences, and if that means we wind up with a three state solution or a single state solution, whatever happens happens. At this point, the killing is going to happen regardless. About the best thing we could do, I believe, is redeploy to the borders and make sure nobody else gets involved. Make sure Turkey doesn't go into Kurdistan, that Iran and Syria and the Saudis don't come in either. Let them get it straightened out themselves and we back out. It'll be ugly, but it's ugly now and we haven't come close to making it better, and this administration refuses to take any action that might make them look as though they didn't know what the fuck they were doing when they started this escapade.

We broke it, we buy it is a good slogan, but slogans don't fight wars. Soldiers do, and they die in them too, and this slogan--and this president--ain't worth dying for.

P.S. And thank you for the compliment. It's rare that someone tells me I'm too kind around here. I don't generally deserve it, I imagine.

And I agree with a good chunk of yours on the other thread--except that I think that we've shot our good will over in Iraq so badly that we can't be seen as an honest broker anymore, at least not with this admnistration. I'm starting to think that the violence will actually lessen if we get out of there, because then it'll just be them on each other, and some power will emerge as the dominant force.

Don't act so surprised--I'm partisan, but I'm reasonable. My pissed-offed-ness comes from the lies and incompetence of the people in charge and the open dishonesty of too many who support them.

i must apologise...but it seems that your willing to write off the people over there..i may be wrong and mis interpeting your point.
but to let them fall into civil war...however good for us seems wrong to me.

but then again...anything to save my son from seeing the horror i have seen is good for me.

oh...disregard my one post...my girl just left me so i was pissed...kinda like over there..lol

i must apologise...but it seems that your willing to write off the people over there..i may be wrong and mis interpeting your point.
but to let them fall into civil war...however good for us seems wrong to me.

but then again...anything to save my son from seeing the horror i have seen is good for me.

oh...disregard my one post...my girl just left me so i was pissed...kinda like over there..lol

I don't think I'm writing them off. What I'm saying is that the US presence is actually making the problem worse. Right now, there's lots of sectarian violence, and the violence directed at US troops usually catches a lot of Iraqis in the crossfire. If we're not there, however, then there's not a common enemy and the Iraqis will no longer have a scapegoat. They'd have to come to grips with the fact that they'd be only fighting each other, and deal with all the terrible implications that comes with.

The historical analog is Vietnam. Our leadership apparently didn't realize it at the time, but the north Vietnamese looked at that war as a war for independence and an civil war against the south. We'd have had to have killed every last one of them to have won, and I think that's about where we are now with Iraq. For us to "win," we'd have to wipe out the country and resettle it ourselves, and we won't do that--a fact I'm proud of, by the way. But I think we do more harm than good by staying at this point--both to the Iraqis and ourselves.

I don't think I'm writing them off. What I'm saying is that the US presence is actually making the problem worse. Right now, there's lots of sectarian violence, and the violence directed at US troops usually catches a lot of Iraqis in the crossfire. If we're not there, however, then there's not a common enemy and the Iraqis will no longer have a scapegoat. They'd have to come to grips with the fact that they'd be only fighting each other, and deal with all the terrible implications that comes with.

The historical analog is Vietnam. Our leadership apparently didn't realize it at the time, but the north Vietnamese looked at that war as a war for independence and an civil war against the south. We'd have had to have killed every last one of them to have won, and I think that's about where we are now with Iraq. For us to "win," we'd have to wipe out the country and resettle it ourselves, and we won't do that--a fact I'm proud of, by the way. But I think we do more harm than good by staying at this point--both to the Iraqis and ourselves.

ok...i will re read your post again,as i may miss your point that i am missing.

i am supposedly a neo con(which i am not)

ok...say we leave,the kids and the innocents have died for nothing..the militias take over..that is a no brainer..ok...so then,let iran dictate the actions of the gulf(as a free market guy) so be it..bush and his cronies should love it..cept it dont make them rich...but the iranians/iraqis/saudis truly controlling their oil wealth is truly free market...lol..tell that to a oil speculator or a bushovite....free market is the be all and end all..as long as we control it...but i digress...
my kid died over their to secure our collective future(oil)and as they seem to drag out now..the terr's will have the oil wealth....then what..my kid died for nothing.
sounds shitty...but it is about money and oil..the necons will say it will fund the terrs,i will say it will fund the scumbag rich rockefellers of the world.
both sides are right..i dont want osama with the oil wealth,nor do i want bush with it.

we are in a bit of a pickle here..damned if we do...you know the rest..i just dont want my kid to die so cheney can die with 300 milliobn instead of 299million...nor do i want osama...i 'll kill your kid...bin laden to have it either.

i wish i could just say ..go to your corners(bush and osama) and run out of the room with their gold...toss it too the masses and be done...but it dont work that way..
i should not have drank that last rum and coke..sorry.

Yeah, I knew I should have looked back to see if you'd said anything else stupid before I replied to your other comment. You did. Try reading a little actual history sometime, instead of listening to whatever little voices in your head tell you the story is. Germany was the #2 economy in the world in 1938, and had the biggest military. No one in Europe could hold a candle to them in either category, and the early stages of WWII proved that, because they beat everyone's asses single-handedly. It was only when they overextended that they became vulnerable.

Appeasement, when discussing WWII, began WELL before 1938. The German economy was in shambles in 1930, because of the requierments put on them after WWI. Their army was also demolished, and rules were put on them to prevent their building it back up. APPEASEMENT, in this context, refers FIRST to the world powers allowing Germany to stop paying WWI reparations, and then to build up a military, and to build military installations in the Rheinland, and a host of other things, all of which predated 1938, and the annexation of Austria, and the conquering of Poland.

If the goal of appeasement is to prevent violence (as it fails to do except in exceptional circumstances) then appeasement had failed by then.

One of us needs to study WWII history some more, the other is me.

What--you think it takes balls to be wrong? New Domici didn't revise shit. He gave an accurate retelling of the events leading up to the Iraq War.

And what the hell is that bit about there being no such thing as a neocon? Bub, you need to read up on the group--they call themselves that. Bill Kristol is one of the founders of the movement, for crying out loud, and he's used the term himself, on tv, more than once.

If you finish reading, I address conservatives who call themselves that. It's a shame it was so readily accepted by them, as it began as a means of not saying 'Jew' in the news. Yes, it's meaning changed, and it is becoming something else now, but that doesn't mean it means anything. What is the difference between a neocon and a regan conservative today? They adopted neocon because it was easier the Regan Conservative.

As to your first point, no, he didn't... read more before you post.

BTW - is there some reason you keep going with the name calling. You sound like a 12 year old... or are you?

What are you saying here that he was against or for the war?

He was very much for going to war. I really shouldn't have brought it up because from reading his work through the periode I don't know if he was left or right, I really just find his work from the time fascinating.

Welcome to Revisionist History 101. Glad you could attend.

I've watched enough FOX news that by now I'm ready to begin my graduate studies.

I'm planning to write my thesis on how Reagan was transformed from a blundering, corrupt, trader of weapons and smuggler of drugs with state enemies, and all-around traitor into the man who single-handedly destroyed communism.

Either that or how the conservatives successufly accuse liberals of being exactly what they themselves are. Like how Bush, the draft dodger, accused Kerry, the war hero, of being the one who is weak on national defense. Or how that idiot freshman representative accused John Murtha of being a coward.

But then again, the conservatives have gone far beyond baisic revisionist history and now practice actual revisionist current events.

I'm glad I'm not the first to call you a revisionist. You are rewriting history with that post, but I was hesitent to say so.

Sadam's "compliance" was limited at best. It had been the same kind of compliance he used to stave off problems for almost a decade. "you can come in, but you can't, and you can go over there, but not today, and don't look out that window for a half hour."

What I am confused about is why there has been no investigation into the truck convoys that left Iraq as the US was banging the war drum slowly.

There's nothing revisionist about what I said. And I'm glad that I'm not the first to correct you on that point. Correcting the revisionist current events of the conservatives at some point down the road is not revisionist history. It's actual historiography. e.g. Colon Powell with his cartoons. Artist renderings of "mobile labs." Never existed. Made up. Like all the other conservative justifications for war in Iraq. Saddam did stall and delay because he hoped to get something out of our interference. As the leader of a sovereign nation that is to be expected. Before we invaded we had his full cooperation and chose to do nothing with it.

ALSO, there is a big difference between an American Republican and a Conservative. Hell, a republican of the 30s would not recognise a republican of the 60s, who would not recognise a republican of the new millenium. ... and by the way, there is NO SUCH THING AS A NEOCON - that word either means a Regan Republican, or it means Jew. Either way, it enetered the vernacular as a hateful term, and it remains so. Some conservatives have embrased it in order to weaken it's hateful meaning, but it is STILL inacurate and hateful.

The term may seem hateful, but that's only because it so accuratly describes a certain kind of Republican. It's rather like how Bill O'Reilly thinks that Mediamatters.org is a hate group. Because nothing makes Bill O'Reilly look worse than quoting him for exactly. A neo-conservative is not a way of saying "jew." That is race-baiting slander by those neocons who realize how dangerous it would be if their aims became public knowledge. Such as the Grover Norquist quote "I don't want to abolish government, I just want to shrink it to the size that I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the tub." A neocon is a conservative who wants to reduce spending on social programs and raise it on corporate welfare and warfare while cutting taxes, not to save public money, but to nearly bankrupt the government taking away its power to regulate the rich and powerful. It sounds hateful to say it because the neocons are such a hateful bunch.

That could be a strategy, in some cases, but that is not the definition of appeasement.

No. Appeasement is giving people what they want, even though you don't want to, in the hopes that they'll leave you alone. That's what Saddam was doing with Bush. And just like Chaimberlain trying to appease Hitler, it didn't work.

Simply not true. Perhaps there were some, or even many, but there were few American groups that consistently, as a group, supported America getting involved in a european war. Almost none of them were for the reasons of saving people, but because they weren't convinced Hitler would stop at the Atlantic.

Dr. Seuss was all for going to was against Hitler and against the Japanese threat... but I really can't see where he fit politically. His cartoons at the time were sometimes left and sometimes right, but always against "America First."

Well, there were all the comicbook writers, who even predicted that America would enter WWII after an invasion from Japan. But there was that other powerless little liberal FDR. You might have heard of him. I think he was the head of some political club in Washington or something.

Thank you SO MUCH for saying that first... I might have chickened out...

In true conservative fashion. A willingness to do what's write (not lie) is considered cowardice.

If you finish reading, I address conservatives who call themselves that. It's a shame it was so readily accepted by them, as it began as a means of not saying 'Jew' in the news. Yes, it's meaning changed, and it is becoming something else now, but that doesn't mean it means anything. What is the difference between a neocon and a regan conservative today? They adopted neocon because it was easier the Regan Conservative.

As to your first point, no, he didn't... read more before you post.

BTW - is there some reason you keep going with the name calling. You sound like a 12 year old... or are you?
Reagan conservative =/= neoconservative. You really ought to get out more. And neoconservative really =/= jew. Let me let you in on something--not all neoconservatives are Jewish, and not all Jews are neoconservatives. But there are some neoconservatives who happen to be Jewish. That group, when they found their ideas under attack, attempted to deflect criticism by arguing that criticism of them was simply anti-semitism. And you fell for it, chump that you are.