[QUOTE=Danimal16;3971315]
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPKESQ
“supporting negotiating at the highest levels = appeasement”
This is a fine example of what Joseph Goebbels called the big lie. When we negotiated with Libya recently was that appeasement?
No, because Libya felt threatened by Western Nation's overt decisions to destroy Libya if Libya continued along the same path they were on. Libya negotiated in light of recognizing that any overt act of force as they had done in the past would be met with at least British and American force. When the Germans and the French changed their Government, by the vote of their people thier positions in light of the reality of the need to be willing to fight against Islamofacism and expressing a willingness to employ it, that served as one of the final straws that broke Libya's political determination to continue on that path. The application of economic sanctions also hurt them. This combination shaped Libya's political will.
When we negotiated with N. Korea recently, was that appeasement?
No. Because anyone that has any knowledge of the reality of life in the North and the continuation of NK's policies was NK's eventual and enevidable demise. NK postered itself, but the threat of the use of overwhelming force by western nations, the lack of support from China and the fall of the Soviet Union, changed the NK's power position. Their ability to logistically support their military in a full blown war would have resulted in the same destruction that same military was subjected to in the early days of the Korean War. The NK's changed their ways due to the combined effects of economic sanctions and the overwhelming distruction due to western determination.
How about pre WWII with Japan?
I don't understand the analogy, but the Japanese were willing to go all the way even in the face of overwhelming Allied power. The dropping of the Atomic Bombs were the level of force needed to convince them otherwise.
With Germany?
Actually, I think the point has been well documented about that failure of a man Chamberlain.
How about Reagan with the Soviet Union?
Lets see, Reagan did not fear applying force against the Soviets. Were they dominated by the West, I would say yes and that resolve by the West is what eventually bleed them dry, not to mention their inability to compete at that time against the shear power of western economies. I would say Reagan understood the rules of the game and appeased no one.
Why are all these examples not appeasement?
Koch’s article was the blatant BS of the Israel right or wrong fanatics. I am all for supporting Israel, but I know they have not been right all the time. One sided political viewpoints are never correct. [/quote/]
War is hell. (Please pardon the mis-spellings it has been a bad day)
|
You have sadly missed several points. Although your lack of logically constructed replies may be the cause of your dilemma.
In all of my posted examples the common denominator was the willingness to hold and pursue negotiations. And please learn a little more history; I was entirely listing the negotiations that America initiated, so the reply concerning Chamberlain is, of course, nonsense.
As was your response to our pre WWII talks with Japan.
Bush's administration has negotiated with named terrorist groups several times. This is not a fault; it is one of the few worthwhile things they have done. So you missed the point that the pot is calling the kettle black.
And last, but not least, you have expressed the idea in your replies that military action is the only strength to negotiate from. You are clearly limited in your ability to understand human dynamics and unable to see that strength can be found in other options, without "giving away the store" ala Chamberlain (hint: try Nixon in China).
