[quote=surveyor]For a person who seems to value pragmatism, that’s a rather unsophisticated view, isn’t it?[/quote]
Well, it was a rhetorical one. I guess I forgot my /snark tag.
Perhaps we should define “appeasement” first. Some people on this board seem to argue that anything other than invasion is appeasement. My question to those people is: What is the middle ground — these supposed “other options?” I’ve asked this a couple times in this thread and the answers have all been vague platitudes such as “appeasement doesn’t work” and “there are other options.” So what are they?
To me it’s a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” type of situation. If we don’t invade we’re appeasing, and if we do invade we are opening up a gigantic can of worms. Personally, I’d rather let the old man have his cognac than have to deal with that can of worms. Call that appeasement if you want.
Apparently there exists some middle ground between appeasement and invasion. Care to explain what that is and what it would look like? I’d reckon it probably looks a lot like what we have happening right now.
