Terrorists claim victory in Spain

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Arrian
Appeasement tends to make more sense when you're weak. A weak nation (let's say Muscovy) can appease a powerful one (the Mongols) until such time as the balance of power shifts.

Appeasement doesn't make much sense when your opponent is comparable to you, or weaker than you.

-Arrian

I came to that same general conclusion aswell. Then I thought its not a question of relative strength, I think its more a question of who is on the ascendency. If a small or comparable nation is causing you trouble but will self-destruct by its actions then don't necessarilly confront it. Letting it self-destruct, stagnate or otherwise become no more of a problem may be a better idea. Of course what you shouldn't do is ignore it, but inaction doesn't necessarily mean you aren't aware of the problem..

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I suppose Prodi favors soft form of antiterrorism, i.e. not all out wars ("force"). And what is left after that is winning the battle of the minds: to prune the terrorists' idelogical and hence popular support. That's something you don't do at gunpoint; that's something you can only worsen at gunpoint.

These are words without substance. Can you put some flesh on these bare bones to understand what Europe would actually DO, other than erect "walls" around the "city."

[GePap]

You must have a MPD to have written the last two paragraphs.

Do you think you are the only one who can use "anyone reasonable" to try to define the oppostion as "unreasonable".



Again SpenciePoo- never do I claim to be unbiased- clearly my post about "reasonableness" was biased-I even admit to be biased. What then is the problem in comprehension?

[Arrian]

I came to that same general conclusion aswell. But then I thought its not a question of relative strength, I think its more a question of who is on the ascendency. If a small nation is causing you trouble but will self-destruct by its actions then don't confront it, letting it self-destruct, stagnate or otherwise become no more of a problem may be a good idea.

That would be containment, or possibly simply ignoring them, not appeasement.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
You have never been one to believe in the UN, so who has the right to make that definiton?

Oh, I believe in the UN. I just don't believe it has the ability to do what many of its backers believe it can: push states into cooperating with each other and end the anarchic state system we currently live in. I fail to see what that has to do with the post though.

I'm glad we've finally gotten past the rather juvenile "YOU"RE TALKING ABOUT THE NAZIS" claptrap.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Arrian


That would be containment, or possibly simply ignoring them, not appeasement.

-Arrian

Not necessarily. I don't want to get into an argument about Nazi appeasement, but you could argue that appeasing the Nazi's bought Britain time to prepare for a war.

You could likewise argue that letting nations get away with something, or actively giving them 'protection' money is a good way to deal with the problem. What is the US doing in N.Korea? Using a carrot rather than stick is every bit as appeasement isn't it?

[Ned]

Originally posted by BeBro


Then I would say Prodi hasn't sworn off force totally, but as ultimate means to end the terror. I would understand his statement so that force is an instrument to fight it back, but not to root it out, since its more and more an ideology, even "mass movement" as this CNN article cites US experts:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/15/alqaeda.splinter/index.html

I certainly here noone in Europe saying that we all should be nice to AQ. The problem is what means are most promising, and under certain conditions military means are just not useful.

BeBro, was a not you in another thread that suggested that the way end terrorism in the future was to bring good governments to the Islamic world, governments dedicated to democracy, to human rights and to economic progress. Governments that would give its people hope for the future. Only in such an environment will the the messages of the apostles of hate fall on deaf ears. But so long as the world of Islam is held in tight constraint by dictators and fundamentalists clerics who deny rights to all, and especially to women, the drumbeat of hatred hate of the West, the so-called Crusader states, will continue indefinitely.

If you accept this as been fundamentally correct, your opposition making Iraq and Afghanistan democratic is incomprehensible.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Oh, I believe in the UN. I just don't believe it has the ability to do what many of its backers believe it can: push states into cooperating with each other and end the anarchic state system we currently live in. I fail to see what that has to do with the post though.

If no state has the legitimacy to define another as "aggressor", then how can you decide what is an is NOT "appeasement", becuase your defintion is based upon being able to label one side "aggressor".

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
Not necessarily. I don't want to get into an argument about Nazi appeasement, but you could argue that appeasing the Nazi's bought Britain time to prepare for a war.

That was the view of British policymakers at Munich because they believed the balance of power to the UK and France over time. In fact it shifted against them after Munich. They probably would have been beter off going to war over the Sudetenland rather than Poland.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That was the view of British policymakers at Munich because they believed the balance of power to the UK and France over time. In fact it shifted against them after Munich. They probably would have been beter off going to war over the Sudetenland rather than Poland.

Probably true, but they could have been right and of course hindsight is 20:20.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap

What a short memory you have. You said you could not understand how voters could have changed thier votes due to the attack- I agreed with you, I said you could not understand due to your position on the Iraq war

What a short memory you have. I'll re post my answer for you

"Its not a question of opposing viewpoints wrt support vs no support of the war. If the spanish voters who switched did so because of distrust of the government (the straw that broke the camels back etc). That I can understand. "

(in my first post I said this whole debate is just another proxy debate for the Iraq war).

Yes I saw your pronouncement. Do you have a point?

And is this a false assumption? If AQ won;t attack Spain anymore, then it is the correct assumption to make. If AQ will keep attacking Spain anyway, then it is the wrong assumption-

I didnt say it was.

BUT that says nothing about whether keeping troops in Iraq in any ways lower the chances of further inveitbale AQ attacks vs Spain now does it?

Again you circle back to the UN argument. It aint gonna happen (and for good cause).

[Dauphin]

And DD, any opinion of NK? Is it appeasement?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
the US (because we all know it's not really a coalition) is violating UN resolutions by using depleted uranium... oh wait, but we attacked Iraq because they were violating UN resolutions...

hypocrisy

Address my post, please. We are operating under a UN mandate today, AFAIK.

The mandate calls on the Coalition Authority to manage Iraq until a government takes power. That will occur on June 30, after which the UN mandate ends.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
If no state has the legitimacy to define another as "aggressor", then how can you decide what is an is NOT "appeasement", becuase your defintion is based upon being able to label one side "aggressor".

If this is going to to be sidetracked into a semantic discussion, can we just agree to disagree because those annoy me to no end? However if we will eventually get back to the more interesting aspects of the discussion, would you mind telling me what would speed that process up?

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If the U.S. tosses out Bush (and hopefully sends him to prison where he and his belong), would you acuse us of appeasing the terrorists?

Che, it depends on Kerry's position on Iraq and the status of the polls just prior to the election.