Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Appeasement: Right or Wrong?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DinoDoc
    replied
    Originally posted by David Floyd
    We can't just assume that Congress means a declaration of war unless they say it is one
    Why not? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck why isn't it reasonable to call it a duck? Seriously, if you really want to talk about illegal war the Gulf War isn't the one to point to.

    and was ultimately the stronger power telling the weaker power what to do. I don't consider it to be legit, in those circumstances.
    That's usually how wars end. I fail to see how that can be considered an illegitimate to conduct them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sava
    replied
    Bush *might* be the antichrist born on this earth to bring about the apocalypse.
    *might*?????

    Leave a comment:


  • Boris Godunov
    replied
    Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
    Boris, like many people you can't seem to recognize the obvious differences in the strategic situations of North Korea, Pakistan, and Iraq.
    North Korea shouldn't have been allowed to gain nukes, but luckily it is countered by a nuclear China and Japan, which can go nuclear whenever it wants to. The world would be better off if Pakistan didn't have nukes, but it is countered by a nuclear India. Notice how you need nuclear weapons to contain a nuclear power?

    Now look at Iraq. What regional power is there that can counter a nuclear Iraq? Israel is one, but do we really want Israel and Iraq in a nuclear standoff? Iran is another possibility if we allow them to build nukes, but do we really want Iran and Iraq in a nuclear standoff? The only safe choice is for the US to continue to maintain a large force in the Middle East to contain a nuclear Iraq. That is a great idea, since we all know how much the Islamic fundies like a continuing US military presence in Saudi Arabia...

    If Iraq goes nuclear, the chances of the whole region destabalizing is very high. Nuclear arms races are never good, particularly when the adversaries hate each other as much as Israel, Iran, and Iraq do.
    This is silly. First, of all the countries I don't want to see in a nuclear standoff, Pakistan and India top my list. Remember how close to the brink of a nuclear war they got a year ago? And considering Musharaff has far closer ties with terrorist organizations than Hussein has ever been proven to have, I'd say his threat is greater in the long run.

    Hussein's obtaining of nuclear weapons would be of relative insignificance. Israel would certainly have a far greater capacity for dealing out nuclear damage than he ever will. And Saddam has never, ever shown an inclination to be suicidal. He likes keeping power. He's not stupid, and certainly would know that using even the smallest of nuclear devices, or even threatening to use them to blackmail his neighbors, would make him instant dogmeat. Don't forget that the U.S. has the capabilities to deliver nukes to Iraq, he doesn't even remotely have the capability to do the same for us.

    However, the fact is that we have no evidence Saddam has nukes or is even that close to obtaining them. As has been said many times before, the possibility that he *might* do something is not just cause to go to war. Putin *might* turn out to be another Stalin and start invading Eastern European countries. Bush *might* be the antichrist born on this earth to bring about the apocalypse. Engaging in war on a *might* is a stupid philosophy and is morally unjust.

    Leave a comment:


  • Felch
    replied
    Originally posted by GePap
    History offers us NO LESSONS whatsoever
    The study of the humanities is meant to make us better, wiser people, not to give us an FAQ for diplomacy.

    The Maginot line has no specific lesson. However, by understanding why people built it, and why it was eventually irrelevant, we can glean lessons about human nature. Knowledge of human nature is more useful in more situations than knowledge of military tactics anyways.

    And in some cases history does offer lessons. In the first world war the general staffs would have done well by examining recent history, and realizing that frontal assaults against machine guns and barbed wire are senseless wastes of human life. But that's not really what you're talking about, so it's not really relevant.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sava
    replied
    In general, I believe that getting Saddam out of power is a good thing. As is instituting forms of Democracy in any nation that is oppressed by a brutal dictator. But I feel that the US's own domestic problems are more important than Iraq. I also feel that the Republicans' motives behind wanting Saddam gone aren't based on human rights' issues, they are based on oil, and imperialistic tendencies.

    THey have the right idea, just the wrong motives, and the worst timing.

    Fix what's wrong with America, then worry about the rest of the world. Saddam is contained. Taking him out and destabilizing the region will be worse than leaving him in. If you really want to improve the situation in Iraq for the people, drop the sanctions.

    Leave a comment:


  • GePap
    replied
    what's with the david lovefest loinburger and Stefu?

    You can always threadjack the thing with itelligence, if you feel that is not present. Good god, if stupidity can threadjack so many things, why can't intelligence do it as well?

    ps: DF has a strict set of belief, but having read his arguments, he at least he is able to create consistent and rational undepinnings for them, which is far more than I have seen from many others.

    Leave a comment:


  • GePap
    replied
    History offers us NO LESSONS whatsoever, so to conduct our current actions and judge the possible effectiveness of diplomacy based on 'the lessons of history' is simplistic and childish.

    What is the lesson of the Maginot line?
    Many would state that the lesson is that you can't hide behind walls (ie. be aggressive against 'evil', no 'appeasement'). The French let their aggressive spirit whittle away sitting in bunkers and gave the momentum to the Germans. Sitting in their bukers, they refused to attack Germany in '39 when western germany was vulnerable, and thus sealed their fate by 1940.

    We could very easily also state that the lesson is that the wall was not long enough: The project was not carried out with full urgency: there were areas with a very weak wall, specially the area around Sedan and the ardenned forest, the site of the german breakthrough and the beginning of the deadly left hook. Had the French had strong fortifications in the area, the German breakthorhg would have failed or been slowed enough to bring back the French and British forces racing into Belgium back towards France. after all, german fortifications along their border with france prevented a french attack...

    which version is right? Neither. you can draw 'any' lesson from history you want, for you not only have the facts to deal with, but you also get to create lots of possible scenerios, things that 'could have been', to argue why the lesson you chose (always conviniently backing your ideological point of view) to learn is the correct one. Iraq in 2002 under Saddam Hussein is not Nazi Germany under Hitler in 1939. Different place, time, actors, tools, audience, so forth.

    Wether we 'appease' saddam or not must be a rational consideration based on our aims and security concerns, not one made after 'learning from history'.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sava
    replied
    Originally posted by DinoDoc
    Sava: No one cares about your obsessive need to rant about any and all references to God, religion, Christianity, etc. So piss off.
    OOhhhh, someones got sand in their vagina...

    As long as Christian/Islamic fundies keep our world ****ed up, I will continue to rant.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stefu
    replied
    It's threads like this that make me remember that old Floyd classic, "We should invade China with nuclear weapons NOW!" (The title might be bit off, but you get the idea.)

    If Floyd suddenly became a socialist and started to be as inflexible and extreme in his new ideology as he's now, and as he was when he still was a conservative, I wouldn't blink an eye.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheStinger
    replied
    Originally posted by Ned
    Appeasement obviously grew out of British military weakness and her politician's sickness of war. For centuries, the Brits were fond of throwing their weight around; but I doubt whether Britain and France together could have beaten Germany in 1936. But to enforce Versailles meant that one had to threaten war. A threat of war often leads to actual war, which actually happened in 1939.

    Thus the problem of appeasement lay farther in the past - to the end of WWI, Versailles and to British and French underinvestment in their military from that point until 1939. At the end of WWI, they rearranged the map of Europe to Germany's and Austria's detriment, and created a number of new states from the old empires that could not defend themselves. Once they did that, both countries went into a period of military decline. This created a power vaccuum that Hitler soon exploited.

    When Hitler came to power in Germany, Britain should have then forged an alliance with the United States and the USSR and begain to heavily rearm. But, instead, it waited while the Nazi menace grew. Buy the time of Munich, it was already too late.

    Chamberlain had a choice then. Threaten war, or accept the fact that England and France could not win a war with Germany and take what scraps Hitler offered him. He chose the latter and said we had "peace in our time."

    Chamberlain's most serious mistake was to reject Roosevelt's offer to hold a conference to revisit Versailles after Munich. What arrogance.

    But I agree. From 1936 on, the Brits and French could no longer handle Germany by themselves. Appeasement was the only acceptable policy and should have been continued - not by the piecemeal surrender employed by Chamberlain, but by the European conference suggested by Roosevelt.

    One has to remember that no matter how just the cause, starting a war is not justified unless once is certain of winning it. England may have had a just cause (but even this is arguable) but no longer had the power to win a war with Germany. Thus appeasement was the result of weakness.
    It could not be forseen in 1939 that Germany would walk over the UK and France in amonth, it was reasonble to assume that combined France and the UK could take on Germany.

    As to your alliance with the US and the USSR, the US would have laughed at the idea of opposing Hitler and the USSR were considered as bad as germany.

    Heaping all the blame on Chamberlin is like saying Clinton is responsible for Sept11

    Leave a comment:


  • DinoDoc
    replied
    Sava: No one cares about your obsessive need to rant about any and all references to God, religion, Christianity, etc. So piss off.

    Leave a comment:


  • loinburger
    replied
    Originally posted by DinoDoc
    I hate when I get to the interesting threads late.
    As do I, but this ain't one of them. As soon as Floyd starts justifying his arguments with natural rights, I head for the door, because all is lost from that point on.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sava
    replied
    Originally posted by David Floyd
    Fine, then - as a Christian, I believe that morality ultimately comes from God.
    Sorry to go off topic, but I just had a comment about this.

    If God said murder was okay, would you do it?

    Morality doesn't come from God. Morals are logical conclusions of the "treat others how you would like to be treated" variety; although a bit more complicated. One doesn't need God to be moral, and many people with God, aren't moral.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heresson
    replied
    France and Britiain did not have to declare war on Germany once it invaded Poland, anymore than they had to declare war when the germans occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia in march '39
    They had.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sava
    replied
    Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
    It's amazing the lengths some people will go to in order to defend a murderous dictator...
    I'm not defending Bush, what are you talking about?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X