- This topic has 450 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 15 years ago by
Allan from Fallbrook.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 9, 2009 at 9:15 AM #413305June 9, 2009 at 9:59 AM #412619
surveyor
Participant[quote=afx114][quote=sd_matt]I wonder how much of Obama believes in appeasement and how much of him believes that he really is slick enough to disarm NK with words.[/quote]
What would you have him do? Invade North Korea?
[/quote]For a person who seems to value pragmatism, that’s a rather unsophisticated view, isn’t it? There are other options rather than invading and going to war with North Korea.
All we’re saying is that appeasement is not the answer and will more likely make the problem worse. It’s better for the U.S. to use those other options before being painted into a corner where the only option is military (where the situation in Iran is leading to).
Feeding the alligator hoping he’ll eat you last is never going to work.
June 9, 2009 at 9:59 AM #412854Participant[quote=afx114][quote=sd_matt]I wonder how much of Obama believes in appeasement and how much of him believes that he really is slick enough to disarm NK with words.[/quote]
What would you have him do? Invade North Korea?
[/quote]For a person who seems to value pragmatism, that’s a rather unsophisticated view, isn’t it? There are other options rather than invading and going to war with North Korea.
All we’re saying is that appeasement is not the answer and will more likely make the problem worse. It’s better for the U.S. to use those other options before being painted into a corner where the only option is military (where the situation in Iran is leading to).
Feeding the alligator hoping he’ll eat you last is never going to work.
June 9, 2009 at 9:59 AM #413100Participant[quote=afx114][quote=sd_matt]I wonder how much of Obama believes in appeasement and how much of him believes that he really is slick enough to disarm NK with words.[/quote]
What would you have him do? Invade North Korea?
[/quote]For a person who seems to value pragmatism, that’s a rather unsophisticated view, isn’t it? There are other options rather than invading and going to war with North Korea.
All we’re saying is that appeasement is not the answer and will more likely make the problem worse. It’s better for the U.S. to use those other options before being painted into a corner where the only option is military (where the situation in Iran is leading to).
Feeding the alligator hoping he’ll eat you last is never going to work.
June 9, 2009 at 9:59 AM #413166Participant[quote=afx114][quote=sd_matt]I wonder how much of Obama believes in appeasement and how much of him believes that he really is slick enough to disarm NK with words.[/quote]
What would you have him do? Invade North Korea?
[/quote]For a person who seems to value pragmatism, that’s a rather unsophisticated view, isn’t it? There are other options rather than invading and going to war with North Korea.
All we’re saying is that appeasement is not the answer and will more likely make the problem worse. It’s better for the U.S. to use those other options before being painted into a corner where the only option is military (where the situation in Iran is leading to).
Feeding the alligator hoping he’ll eat you last is never going to work.
June 9, 2009 at 9:59 AM #413315Participant[quote=afx114][quote=sd_matt]I wonder how much of Obama believes in appeasement and how much of him believes that he really is slick enough to disarm NK with words.[/quote]
What would you have him do? Invade North Korea?
[/quote]For a person who seems to value pragmatism, that’s a rather unsophisticated view, isn’t it? There are other options rather than invading and going to war with North Korea.
All we’re saying is that appeasement is not the answer and will more likely make the problem worse. It’s better for the U.S. to use those other options before being painted into a corner where the only option is military (where the situation in Iran is leading to).
Feeding the alligator hoping he’ll eat you last is never going to work.
June 9, 2009 at 12:52 PM #412693afx114
Participant[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.
June 9, 2009 at 12:52 PM #412929Participant[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.
June 9, 2009 at 12:52 PM #413174Participant[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.
June 9, 2009 at 12:52 PM #413241Participant[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.
June 9, 2009 at 12:52 PM #413387Participant[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.
June 9, 2009 at 1:37 PM #412733Arraya
ParticipantAppeasement is for pussies. Real men preemptively strike…
June 9, 2009 at 1:37 PM #412969ParticipantAppeasement is for pussies. Real men preemptively strike…
June 9, 2009 at 1:37 PM #413214ParticipantAppeasement is for pussies. Real men preemptively strike…
June 9, 2009 at 1:37 PM #413280ParticipantAppeasement is for pussies. Real men preemptively strike…
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.