Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
afx114
ParticipantFoundatinbleau declares bankruptcy.
So now Vegas has an almost-completed 68-floor 3,812-room hotel sitting and rotting on the north end of the strip. I guess this is good news for City Center?
ParticipantFoundatinbleau declares bankruptcy.
So now Vegas has an almost-completed 68-floor 3,812-room hotel sitting and rotting on the north end of the strip. I guess this is good news for City Center?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Participant[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?
Participant[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?
Participant[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?
Participant[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?
Participant[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?
Participant[quote=dbapig]”Pyongyang has the ability to start a new Korean War, but not to survive one.”[/quote]
Yes, so what are our options then? Continue to “appease?” Start a war to kick him out? Covert operations? Exploding cigars? Sounds like we’re content to let the old man play with his toys and let him bask in his own little ego in his own little world for a little while longer until he expires. What then?
The other option? A lengthy, bloody war resulting in tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dead? Maybe a million? Is this the option that the anti-“appeasement” crowd would prefer?
At what point does pragmatism become appeasement, or vice versa?
Participant[quote=dbapig]”Pyongyang has the ability to start a new Korean War, but not to survive one.”[/quote]
Yes, so what are our options then? Continue to “appease?” Start a war to kick him out? Covert operations? Exploding cigars? Sounds like we’re content to let the old man play with his toys and let him bask in his own little ego in his own little world for a little while longer until he expires. What then?
The other option? A lengthy, bloody war resulting in tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dead? Maybe a million? Is this the option that the anti-“appeasement” crowd would prefer?
At what point does pragmatism become appeasement, or vice versa?
-
AuthorPosts
