Appeasment

[moderateamericain]

I don't really know which thread this really belongs in, but these are my views on appeasement as a political tool in regards to aggressive or hostile states.

The failure of Appeasement

A look at the history

Appeasement as a political tool has failed as a way to stave off conflict in the 20th century. In the following I will illustrate several examples to back up this simple claim.

To begin with, we will look at the events leading up to World War One. Germany since 1870 had been becoming increasingly aggressive with Western Europe. The six week Prussian war was a one sided Victory in which Germany received no repercussions for their actions. No sanctions were imposed for the take on the lands in Alsace Loraine. Now this in itself is not indicative of failures of Appeasement but it sets the tone for future events which if handled aggressively and quickly by the allied powers would have possibly averted World war one. Fast forward to 1905; Germany sails its fleet into the Mediterranean sea in order to capture Tunisia. At this point, Germany is forced to back down because of threat from the British fleet. No sanctions or strong action is taken by France or Russia. Again, in 1908 the Germans do the same thing, again the world does nothing but send warnings. These events, plus the obviously engineered invasion of Bosnia and the blatant disregard for the agreement between Austria-Hungry and Russia over the possession of large chunks of the Balkans in exchange for a deep sea port, which the Austrians never let them have and the Russians did little over; gave the axis powers the will and confidence that it needed for the invasion of Belgium and then France.

Jump ahead to 1938. The now famous Munich agreement Czechoslovakia; without the representation of its people was essentially willed over to Germany, first the Sudentenland was occupied and then the whole country. Because of weak willed leadership and American Isolationism Hitler was basically given a free reign to do as he wished with Eastern Europe. Winston Churchill said it best when he was quoted as saying

“We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat...you will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may be measured by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi régime. We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude...we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road...we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies: "Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting". And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”

This is often held up as the classic piece of the failure of appeasement.

Now let’s take a look at modern times. North Korea is an appeasement disaster waiting to happen. We signed an agreement with North Korea giving them millions of dollars in food oil and two Nuclear power plants, in exchange for No Nuclear missiles being created. North Korea is now a nuclear nation. For years, we have been threatened into sending thousands of dollars in aid to one of the most repressive regimes in the world and are one goal of a Nuclear North Korea has failed. Iran is another example, at this juncture we cannot wage an effective war against Iran, and they know it, we have threatened them with sanctions and strong words, all have fallen on deaf ears. Israel has attempted to cede land back to Palestinians. Even after signing peace agreements, it has found itself under attack by those who wish to see it erased. If ever there was an example of why appeasement will not work it’s the Israel conflict. Some people argue that the Cuban missile crisis was solved by Appeasement but if you look at what happened JFK deployed ships of war to the region to effectively block off Cuba. I consider this to be more deterrence of nuclear holocaust then Appeasement, because the Russians only got us to move Nuclear weapons out of Turkey (not like we couldn’t have hit them from the USA).

If we continue on this course of appeasement, the future of are children will not be fighting on some distant battlefield in a desert country, it will be in our own backyards. Appeasement does not work on aggressors.

[August1991]

I don't really know which thread this really belongs in, but these are my views on appeasement as a political tool in regards to aggressive or hostile states.

Carrot or stick?

That possibly works for an individual.

The American government is dealing with countries, not individuals. Carrots and sticks don't work on "countries".

I may be wrong but I think America should be very harsh (Reagan-style) with offensive foreign governmemts. At the same time, I think America and ordinary Americans should talk to ordinary foreigners.

America should encourage ordinary foreigners to oppose their dictators. Help these people to be free, like Americans are free. America should not depose dictators - it should support foreigners to depose dictators.

Americans are a free people and they forget this too often. The freedom of America is the freedom to choose. How many women in the world have the freedom to choose their husband?

In 1776, this was the essence of America and 200 hundred years later, it is the same. Americans should be proud.

[Black Dog]

happen. We signed an agreement with North Korea giving them millions of dollars in food oil and two Nuclear power plants, in exchange for No Nuclear missiles being created. North Korea is now a nuclear nation. For years, we have been threatened into sending thousands of dollars in aid to one of the most repressive regimes in the world and are one goal of a Nuclear North Korea has failed.

Uh. No. The Agreed Framework that the Clinton administration was working fairly well at restraining the DPRK's nuclear ambitions. The Bush administration's hardline approach in 2002 was what ultimately led to the North Koreans developing a bomb. The recent deal is basically a rehash of the old Agreed Framework, which would indicate appeasement can work.

Iran is another example, at this juncture we cannot wage an effective war against Iran, and they know it, we have threatened them with sanctions and strong words, all have fallen on deaf ears.

I'm curious: how is this case a failure of appeasement? By your own admission, they aren't attempting to appease Iran.

Anyway, your problem is you don't understand the term appeasement. Due to its association with Munich, it's become a perjorative term, but the reality is, its neutral. Appeasement is simply another word for the give and take that is an essential part of diplomacy. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. To reject it entirely is foolish and also raises the question: if you are ruling out negotiations, what do you have left in your toolbox?

[Canadian Blue]

If we continue on this course of appeasement, the future of are children will not be fighting on some distant battlefield in a desert country, it will be in our own backyards. Appeasement does not work on aggressors.

Didn't Wilson make the case that American's had to fight in World War 1 in order to "fight the war to end all wars".

It's a flawed concept, and war has rarely solved any problem. If anything war has only created more wars because the leaders lacked the will to use proper diplomacy and tact when dealing with despots and crisis. As for liberty, it's not our duty to spread liberty around the world, we sure as hell can promote it, and also give refuge to those seeking it, but liberty and freedom rarely comes from the barrel of a gun.

To begin with, we will look at the events leading up to World War One. Germany since 1870 had been becoming increasingly aggressive with Western Europe. The six week Prussian war was a one sided Victory in which Germany received no repercussions for their actions. No sanctions were imposed for the take on the lands in Alsace Loraine. Now this in itself is not indicative of failures of Appeasement but it sets the tone for future events which if handled aggressively and quickly by the allied powers would have possibly averted World war one. Fast forward to 1905; Germany sails its fleet into the Mediterranean sea in order to capture Tunisia. At this point, Germany is forced to back down because of threat from the British fleet. No sanctions or strong action is taken by France or Russia. Again, in 1908 the Germans do the same thing, again the world does nothing but send warnings. These events, plus the obviously engineered invasion of Bosnia and the blatant disregard for the agreement between Austria-Hungry and Russia over the possession of large chunks of the Balkans in exchange for a deep sea port, which the Austrians never let them have and the Russians did little over; gave the axis powers the will and confidence that it needed for the invasion of Belgium and then France.

World War 1 was just a clusterf$#k waiting to happen. It was by far one of the most pointless wars we have seen in the 20th century, and did not a thing to bring about peace. We saw the affect that the Allies had on Germany when they attempted to strongarm that nation, and the result was Nazi Germany.

As well if you read history, even American history, you'll find a current of non-violence running underneath it supporting the causes of freedom, liberty, and democracy. In fact it is my belief that non-violence probably would have been a better alternative to the Revolutionary War.

In conclusion, I fail to see how war has solved anything, it has in fact solved nothing, except in deciding who will live by the end of it.

[bush_cheney2004]

In 1776, this was the essence of America and 200 hundred years later, it is the same. Americans should be proud.

We are....praise God and pass the ammunition.

[moderateamericain]

If we continue on this course of appeasement, the future of are children will not be fighting on some distant battlefield in a desert country, it will be in our own backyards. Appeasement does not work on aggressors.

Didn't Wilson make the case that American's had to fight in World War 1 in order to "fight the war to end all wars".

It's a flawed concept, and war has rarely solved any problem. If anything war has only created more wars because the leaders lacked the will to use proper diplomacy and tact when dealing with despots and crisis. As for liberty, it's not our duty to spread liberty around the world, we sure as hell can promote it, and also give refuge to those seeking it, but liberty and freedom rarely comes from the barrel of a gun.

To begin with, we will look at the events leading up to World War One. Germany since 1870 had been becoming increasingly aggressive with Western Europe. The six week Prussian war was a one sided Victory in which Germany received no repercussions for their actions. No sanctions were imposed for the take on the lands in Alsace Loraine. Now this in itself is not indicative of failures of Appeasement but it sets the tone for future events which if handled aggressively and quickly by the allied powers would have possibly averted World war one. Fast forward to 1905; Germany sails its fleet into the Mediterranean sea in order to capture Tunisia. At this point, Germany is forced to back down because of threat from the British fleet. No sanctions or strong action is taken by France or Russia. Again, in 1908 the Germans do the same thing, again the world does nothing but send warnings. These events, plus the obviously engineered invasion of Bosnia and the blatant disregard for the agreement between Austria-Hungry and Russia over the possession of large chunks of the Balkans in exchange for a deep sea port, which the Austrians never let them have and the Russians did little over; gave the axis powers the will and confidence that it needed for the invasion of Belgium and then France.

World War 1 was just a clusterf$#k waiting to happen. It was by far one of the most pointless wars we have seen in the 20th century, and did not a thing to bring about peace. We saw the affect that the Allies had on Germany when they attempted to strongarm that nation, and the result was Nazi Germany.

As well if you read history, even American history, you'll find a current of non-violence running underneath it supporting the causes of freedom, liberty, and democracy. In fact it is my belief that non-violence probably would have been a better alternative to the Revolutionary War.

In conclusion, I fail to see how war has solved anything, it has in fact solved nothing, except in deciding who will live by the end of it.

Inaction has caused more harm then action by far. Had we enforced the Treaty of Versailles when the Germans FIRST began to build up World war 2 would have been far less deadly. If we Bombed Iranian and N Korean attempts at Nuclear production before they can/did complete it they would have realized we weren't kidding when we said we don't want them to have it. (i don't mean nuke them, conventionally bombing) Instead we have toe tipped around these psycho dictators and we have put ourselves in worse danger then ever before. So yes I'm advocating Military Action against Iran, however in a limited way. Take out those Nuclear Facilities and do it now.

[Canadian Blue]

Had we perhaps decided not to punish Germany so harshy we probably would have not ended up with a Nazi Germany. When the treaty was enforced what ended up happening was German's were getting increasingly ticked off, and what was the result, the German's started to support more radical and extreme groups.

How about this, instead saying let's shoot a few bomb's into a country, why not use diplomacy instead.

[bush_cheney2004]

Had we perhaps decided not to punish Germany so harshy we probably would have not ended up with a Nazi Germany. When the treaty was enforced what ended up happening was German's were getting increasingly ticked off, and what was the result, the German's started to support more radical and extreme groups.

How about this, instead saying let's shoot a few bomb's into a country, why not use diplomacy instead.

Didn't Chamberlain try that?

[moderateamericain]

Had we perhaps decided not to punish Germany so harshy we probably would have not ended up with a Nazi Germany. When the treaty was enforced what ended up happening was German's were getting increasingly ticked off, and what was the result, the German's started to support more radical and extreme groups.

How about this, instead saying let's shoot a few bomb's into a country, why not use diplomacy instead.

Because i will not live under fear of Islam extremist anywhere. I'd rather die fighting them. No amount of talk ever stopped a bullet.

[Canadian Blue]

Didn't Chamberlain try that?

No, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Lester Pearson.

I don't live in fear of islamic extremists, personally if we want to learn how to diffuse islamic extremism, we should wonder why these people find extremist groups attractive in the first place.

[moderateamericain]

Didn't Chamberlain try that?

No, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Lester Pearson.

I don't live in fear of Islamic extremists, personally if we want to learn how to diffuse Islamic extremism, we should wonder why these people find extremist groups attractive in the first place.

I don't know, because they live in a religious society that deters learning, understanding, and oppresses the hell out of their people? Or is it because since there old enough to stand they are indoctrinated with the thought that martyrdom will get them into heaven? Have you ever seen Islamic Cartoons? They glorify suicide bombers. There culture is one of Oppression, heavy handed fear tactics, and no respect for anything outside there culture.

[bush_cheney2004]

Didn't Chamberlain try that?

No, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Lester Pearson.

Nelson Mandela? Before he used "diplomacy" he used bombs on trains and railway infrastructure. Didn't PM Pearson authorize the nuclear warheads on Canadian soil (Bomarc) that Diefenbaker resisted?

[Mad_Michael]

The failure of Appeasement

A look at the history

Appeasement as a political tool has failed as a way to stave off conflict in the 20th century. In the following I will illustrate several examples to back up this simple claim.

I dispute your examples of 'appeasement', and/or your black/white interpretation of various historical events of the 19th and 20th century.

I'll try to be brief.

To begin with, we will look at the events leading up to World War One. Germany since 1870 had been becoming increasingly aggressive with Western Europe.

Prussia fought and defeated France in 1870, not Germany. Germany did not exist as a unified State until it was created as such, in 1871.

The mere existence of Germany as a unified state, post 1871, could be (and was) interpreted as 'defacto' aggression by France, Great Britain, Imperial Austria and Czarist Russia. Germany was held to be aggressive by definition of existing. The German states were supposed to stay independent and weak and divided so they could be dominated by the Great Powers. Germany was an upstart that rocked the boat by merely existing.

I might add that in the last quarter of the 19th century, post 1871 creation of Germany, the German military was less used in action than that of France, Britain, Austria and Russia. So how exactly was Germany "becoming increasingly aggressive with Western Europe"???

I should also like to add that you didn't bother to mention what aggressive games France was up to in North Africa during this same period, or what Great Britain was playing with down in Southern Africa, Egypt, India, etc., or what feeble Imperial Austria was up to the Balkans, or that the neurotic and generally incompetent Russian Czars were fanatically sensitive to any act of Europe being 'aggressive' to Russia. Nor did you mention that all of the four Great Powers in question had made war on German soil many times prior to the 1870 year marker you chose to draw as 'the beginning'.

The six week Prussian war was a one sided Victory in which Germany received no repercussions for their actions. No sanctions were imposed for the take on the lands in Alsace Loraine.

Sanctions? Who could impose sanctions in 1870?

And Prussia merely took back from France what most Germans consider to be rightfully German. It was Louis XIV's pride and joy of his reign that he added this piece to France in the first place, what he felt was lost to France when Charlemagne's empire was split three ways in the 9th century.

If we have any nationalist Germans or nationalist French here, they can argue this piece of turf for hours. It certainly is not 'clear-cut' example of anything.

Now this in itself is not indicative of failures of Appeasement but it sets the tone for future events which if handled aggressively and quickly by the allied powers would have possibly averted World war one.

This is totally hindsight. Events that triggered WW1 do not support your interpretation.

Fast forward to 1905; Germany sails its fleet into the Mediterranean sea in order to capture Tunisia. At this point, Germany is forced to back down because of threat from the British fleet. No sanctions or strong action is taken by France or Russia. Again, in 1908 the Germans do the same thing, again the world does nothing but send warnings. These events, plus the obviously engineered invasion of Bosnia and the blatant disregard for the agreement between Austria-Hungry and Russia over the possession of large chunks of the Balkans in exchange for a deep sea port, which the Austrians never let them have and the Russians did little over; gave the axis powers the will and confidence that it needed for the invasion of Belgium and then France.

All except the last statement (which is heresay) is standard late 19th century affairs. No outrageously aggressive act by any of the Great Powers received any kind of substantial 'international rebuke' in the way of warnings or sanctions or even symbolic wrist-slapping. They were all guilty of the most outrageous acts of international rapine and colonialism (this period also includes the US playing gunboat diplomacy with their own Spanish War).

That is to say, in the late 19th and early 20th century, there was no such thing as 'international law' or any 'international body' that could convey such a thing. There was no mechanism to invoke sanctions or warnings or symbolic wrist-slapping.

Indeed, to try to engage anything of the sort would open one State to 'tit-for-tat' from the other State who would then publicise what the accuser nation was actually up to in their own affairs (that would look equally nefarious and aggressive) spoiling the whole game. That old adage about 'those who live in glass houses ought not to throw rocks' was very pertinent at this time of cut-throat Great Power rivalry around the planet.

Jump ahead to 1938. The now famous Munich agreement Czechoslovakia; without the representation of its people was essentially willed over to Germany, first the Sudentenland was occupied and then the whole country. Because of weak willed leadership and American Isolationism Hitler was basically given a free reign to do as he wished with Eastern Europe.

I knew we would come to this one!

Fact is, Hitler had the invasion of the USSR on his mind since day one. That was the whole reason for his being. He was obsessed with it entirely throughout his career. Everything is just a stepping stone to that ultimate goal of the conquest of USSR (which he believed was run by the Jews).

In this respect, Czecho was just the first confrontation that anyone reacted to. Hitler's first 'bold move' was re-taking the Saar. Given everything we know about Hitler, there is absolutely no reason to believe that any reaction from anyone would have changed his ultimate plan. If France and Britain reacted to Hitler's aggression in the Saar, he would have fought then. If the Brits and the French drew a line in the sand over Czecho, Hitler would have gone to war right then and there. If the Brits and the French didn't he'd move on to Poland. If no one reacted, he'd just move on to France/Belgium, then the Balkans and the, finally, ultimately, USSR. Nothing anything anyone could have done at any point in the cycle would have changed anything.

Indeed, lets just say that instead of Chamberlain's 'peace in our time', Chamberlain came home from Munich in 1938 and declared war on Germany over the issue. Hitler would have just invaded and taken over Czecho in some 15 days or something silly like that and then what? Nothing. The world would still be deciding what to do about it until Germany invaded Poland a year later. And still, the world would be standing by, doing nothing.

So how did this policy of 'appeasement' fail here exactly?

In my mind, the policy worked perfectly well. Hitler's interest in the Sudaten German portion of Czecho was quite reasonable - the place was definitely German. What if the policy worked and that was all Hitler really wanted? If all Hitler really wanted was to re-unite the Sudatenland to Germany, then France and Britain going to war over the matter seems quite silly and frivolous.

But because Hitler signed the deal and 'promised' - then turned around and ignored it and did exactly what he wanted and take all of Czecho, that proved immediately right there that Hitler was a dangerous tyrant.

Thus, because of the Chamberlain deal, the truth about Hitler became known very clearly.

Ergo, the 'appeasement' policy generally worked - it didn't give away anything that wasn't already gone, it cost nothing, there was NOTHING anyone could do about it anyways, and best of all, it showed up Hitler for exactly the tyrannical monster that he really was.

The opposite policy, applied in the same circumstances would have resulted in exactly the same outcome. Hitler would have taken over Czecho and there wasn't a darn thing anyone, anywhere was able or willing to do anything about it.

Winston Churchill said it best when he was quoted as saying

“We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat...you will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may be measured by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi régime.

We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude...we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road...we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies: "Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting". And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”

Churchill was entirely correct, but 'appeasement' had nothing to do with it.

Yes, Hitler was a monster and was going to try and take over the world. Saying 'no' firmly the first time he tried to take a little piece wouldn't have made one whit of difference - at best, it would only have started the war sooner rather than later.

Given that delaying the war was in the interests of the allies and against the interests of Hitler (who had started mobilizing his military long before the others, and thus was at an advanced point in weapons development cycles), the appeasement policy of Chamberlain's had the beneficial effect of increasing the likelihood of ultimately defeating Hitler by delaying the war for another year.

Now let’s take a look at modern times. North Korea is an appeasement disaster waiting to happen. We signed an agreement with North Korea giving them millions of dollars in food oil and two Nuclear power plants, in exchange for No Nuclear missiles being created. North Korea is now a nuclear nation.

Um... aren't you missing a few steps here? Like the ones that provide the counter-evidence to your theory?

The deal signed by Clinton had the effect of locking down the plutonium rods under seal and inspection.

Subsequently, both the USA and N.Korea violated the various terms of the agreement. But the plutonium stayed sealed.

Fast forward now to President Bush's infamous "Axis of Evil" speech, naming N.Korea as a direct threat to the USA. It is generally understood that the seals were popped on the rods that night and the nuke program went into high gear.

Thus, the 'appeasement' strategy that President Clinton applied to N.Korea was generally successful. N.Korea did not go nuclear on his watch.

The N.Koreans very specifically interpreted President Bush's belligerent rhetoric (on the eve of the US invasion of Iraq) as a direct threat to themselves. They responded to this threat by going nuclear.

So, the N.Korean 'case' suggests that it is President Bush's aggressive rhetoric that was the 'trigger' for N.Korea going nuclear. Once again, a policy of rational 'appeasement' did function reasonably well. It didn't solve the problem, but it didn't make it worse. President Bush's rejection of that policy definitely made the situation worse - N.Korea went nuclear on his watch.

Iran is another example, at this juncture we cannot wage an effective war against Iran, and they know it, we have threatened them with sanctions and strong words, all have fallen on deaf ears.

Iran has been vastly empowered by the insanity of the US invasion of Iraq. And Iran is to be blamed for this? USA screws up big time and inadvertently empowers Iran and now USA is annoyed at Iran for being empowered?

Iran doesn't care about US sanctions or threats. USA has already done so much damage to Iran (from an Iranian point of view) that nothing the US says or does can be believed - or disbelieved. The intimate involvement of the USA upholding the Shah and his secret police is a memory Iran will never, ever forget. Iran also will not forget that the USA supplied aid, chemical weapons and military support to Saddam and Iraq in a war of aggression against Iran, that ended barely twenty years ago.

And the USA refuses to even met directly with Iran, but this is supposed to be evidence of the failure of appeasement? Rather looks more like a failure of US belligerence again (like N.Korea).

Israel has attempted to cede land back to Palestinians. Even after signing peace agreements, it has found itself under attack by those who wish to see it erased. If ever there was an example of why appeasement will not work it’s the Israel conflict.

Good gosh, this post is getting silly.

Israel? Have you looked at a map of the West Bank recently?

In case you are unclear on the issue, giving back land that you directly took away at the point of a gun does not constitute 'appeasement'.

Some people argue that the Cuban missile crisis was solved by Appeasement but if you look at what happened JFK deployed ships of war to the region to effectively block off Cuba. I consider this to be more deterrence of nuclear holocaust then Appeasement, because the Russians only got us to move Nuclear weapons out of Turkey (not like we couldn’t have hit them from the USA).

I won't comment upon this one as the events of this issue are rather controversial. Suffice it to say that I wouldn't offer it as evidence of either a failure or a success of any appeasement. It is a good example of the dangers of belligerence and aggression though.

If we continue on this course of appeasement, the future of are children will not be fighting on some distant battlefield in a desert country, it will be in our own backyards.

Given the US track record in Vietnam, Iraq, N.Korea and Iran, of that, I have no doubt. But it won't be for any failure of 'appeasement', you can be sure of that.

Appeasement does not work on aggressors.

True. But it does work with non-aggressors and as such, it is a very useful tool in discerning the difference. Making an aggressive error with a non-aggressor state would be very ugly and unjust. Once a policy of appeasment has failed, aggression is self evident.

However, before the policy is tried, one doesn't really know if the other party is in fact, aggressive, or not. In many cases, one's own country might be trying very hard to foster a war (or a threat of war) in order to satisfy a large constituency of military-defence contractors itching for actual 'live-action' testing and a market for more sales. As such, one needs to try out a few non-bloody policies (such as appeasement) in order for the 'truth' of the situation to become apparent (truth can be so shy sometimes).

If the policy fails then the warmongers can have the war that they want so bad. But if the war isn't just, you just going to get a big problem on your hands - like Vietnam or Iraq. Unjust wars have a way of rotting from the inside outwards.

[Canadian Blue]

Nelson Mandela? Before he used "diplomacy" he used bombs on trains and railway infrastructure. Didn't PM Pearson authorize the nuclear warheads on Canadian soil (Bomarc) that Diefenbaker resisted?

Yes, and Mandela saw the complete futile use of violence as a means to bring about freedom.

I don't know, because they live in a religious society that deters learning, understanding, and oppresses the hell out of their people? Or is it because since there old enough to stand they are indoctrinated with the thought that martyrdom will get them into heaven? Have you ever seen Islamic Cartoons? They glorify suicide bombers. There culture is one of Oppression, heavy handed fear tactics, and no respect for anything outside there culture.

Politician's has obviously used religion's as a mean's to bring about an objective. However, my question is why do you think people find extremist groups so attractive?

I highly doubt that all of the middle east hates America because of freedom, or Laguna Beach [TV show] for that matter as some claim.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, and Mandela saw the complete futile use of violence as a means to bring about freedom.

Ummmm...does that mean that Pearson realized the same goal with thermonuclear bombs? How ironic!

[moderateamericain]

Nelson Mandela? Before he used "diplomacy" he used bombs on trains and railway infrastructure. Didn't PM Pearson authorize the nuclear warheads on Canadian soil (Bomarc) that Diefenbaker resisted?

Yes, and Mandela saw the complete futile use of violence as a means to bring about freedom.

I don't know, because they live in a religious society that deters learning, understanding, and oppresses the hell out of their people? Or is it because since there old enough to stand they are indoctrinated with the thought that martyrdom will get them into heaven? Have you ever seen Islamic Cartoons? They glorify suicide bombers. There culture is one of Oppression, heavy handed fear tactics, and no respect for anything outside there culture.

Politician's has obviously used religion's as a mean's to bring about an objective. However, my question is why do you think people find extremist groups so attractive?

I highly doubt that all of the middle east hates America because of freedom, or Laguna Beach [TV show] for that matter as some claim.

Because there is no alternative obviously.

[stignasty]

Nelson Mandela? Before he used "diplomacy" he used bombs on trains and railway infrastructure. Didn't PM Pearson authorize the nuclear warheads on Canadian soil (Bomarc) that Diefenbaker resisted?

Diefenbaker resisted because he was the leader of the opposition. It's one thing to note that the Leader of the Opposition criticized something being done by the government. It's a totally different thing to say that he wouldn't have kept the missiles if he were ever elected as PM. The Liberals removed the same, and declared Canada a nuke free zone in '71. File Under: Straw man

[bush_cheney2004]

Diefenbaker resisted because he was the leader of the opposition. It's one thing to note that the Leader of the Opposition criticized something being done by the government. It's a totally different thing to say that he wouldn't have kept the missiles if he were ever elected as PM. The Liberals removed the same, and declared Canada a nuke free zone in '71. File Under: Straw man

Nonsense.....Canada had nukes until at least 1984 (Genie AIR-2).....being very coy to claim that they were on American bases in Canada. I know this from personal experience. Nice try anyway.....

[Peter F]

Nonsense.....Canada had nukes until at least 1984 (Genie AIR-2).....being very coy to claim that they were on American bases in Canada. I know this from personal experience. Nice try anyway.....

true, the RCAF had nukes for air defense purposes, certainly not talked about for fear of the horrendous political brouha that woud've probably resulted if they did talk about it....but then thats neither here nor there in the point trying to be made: Appeasement has its uses along with sabre-rattling. The fact that a nation may/does have nukes doesnot obviate the use of appeasement as diplomatic tool as MadMike has pointed out.

I do agree that Canada is definately a two-faced nation when it comes to foriegn policy or even internal policy.

[PolyNewbie]

Israel? Have you looked at a map of the West Bank recently?

In case you are unclear on the issue, giving back land that you directly took away at the point of a gun does not constitute 'appeasement'.

The Israel - Palestine conflict has to be considered one of the great war crimes. I work hard to expose 911 because of this and other things. Its the soft underbelly of the beast.

[Black Dog]

Inaction has caused more harm then action by far. Had we enforced the Treaty of Versailles when the Germans FIRST began to build up World war 2 would have been far less deadly.

Again, you're wrong. I've trotted this Churchill quote out before and will continue to do so whenever people like you misrepresent what the term appeasement means:

Appeasement in itself may be good or bad according to the circumstances. Appeasement from weakness and fear is alike futile and fatal. Appeasement from strength is magnanimous and noble, and might be the surest and only path to world peace.-W.S.Churchill 1950

In World War 2 we faced what was and remains one of the greatest threats ever assembled. As such, Hitler's Germany was simply unappeaseable and undeterrable. However, that uniqueness undermines your own thesis. Remedies that were tried against Hitler may have been unsuccessful, but it doesn't follow that the remedies themselves were inherently flawed: again, Hitler was unique. plus, it's easy to look back with hindsight and say what should have been done; the reality of the time was far more complex.

If we Bombed Iranian and N Korean attempts at Nuclear production before they can/did complete it they would have realized we weren't kidding when we said we don't want them to have it. (i don't mean nuke them, conventionally bombing)

In both cases, military action would probably have done more harm than good. If North Krea and Iran are unstable and irrational (which is part of what makes them such grave threats in your view, right?) then why would you expect them to act rationally and in precisely the way you want them to react? In all probability, military action in these cases would beget a military response. In North Korea's case, that would probably mean retaliation against South Korea and U.S. forces there; in Iran, it would put U.S. forces in neighbouring Iraq at risk. And in both cases, bombing the facilities is not likely to produce the desired result. Even if one was lucky enough to destroy the program or damage it, there's nothing preventing them from re-starting it.

Instead we have toe tipped around these psycho dictators and we have put ourselves in worse danger then ever before.

Again, you ignore the actual historical record. For instance, the Bush administration took a hardline stance on North Korea in 2002 ("Axis of Evil" and all that), claiming they were attempting a uranium enrichment program (an assessment based, it turns out, on weak intelligence). This in turn led to North KLorea developing a plutonium-based weapons program, and to their asseencion to nuclear status. Sure, that's a simplification (though no worse than yours) but it shows that the U.S. policy viz North Korea has been anything but soft.

So yes I'm advocating Military Action against Iran, however in a limited way. Take out those Nuclear Facilities and do it now

And if you try military action, but that fails to produce the desired result (either by cowing Iran into compliance or actually destroying their nuke program): what then? What are your contingencies and how would you address the potential consequenses?

Because i will not live under fear of Islam extremist anywhere. I'd rather die fighting them.No amount of talk ever stopped a bullet.

...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself: nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.-FDR 1933

First, the chances of you dying fighting Islamic extermism is microscopic. So your boasts are pretty empty. Second, by focusing on a few unconnected examples of diplomatic failure, you ignore diplomacies far lengthier record of success.

[Canadian Blue]

Because there is no alternative obviously.

You still failed to answer why you think the Middle East is pissed off at the United States, or the west. What do you think is the cause of this hostility?

Please don't answer with the "they hate freedom" answer. It won't cut it, and from what history has shown the west has been complacent is supporting regimes who were anti-democratic.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

Again, you're wrong. I've trotted this Churchill quote out before and will continue to do so whenever people like you misrepresent what the term appeasement means:

QUOTE

Appeasement in itself may be good or bad according to the circumstances. Appeasement from weakness and fear is alike futile and fatal. Appeasement from strength is magnanimous and noble, and might be the surest and only path to world peace.-W.S.Churchill 1950

In some ways, the Munich agreement had changed the term 'appeasement' to one meaning 'something for nothing', or 'something for dropping a threat'. In this regard, it was more like giving a robber your wallet rather than fighting for it. Don't forget another quote of Churchill's after the Munich agreement..."England had been given a choice between war and shame. She has chosen shame, and will get war".

[Guthrie]

how is that a change in the term, 'appeasement?'

why is the middle east pissed at the US? well, the Muslims are pissed off because of the US policy of blind support for Israel --- and the invasions, use of chemical warfare, torture, rape, pederasty and murder at Abu Ghraib et al ---- it seems to me, they've taken physical, political and emotional insult sufficient to piss off a gay pope

[Black Dog]

In some ways, the Munich agreement had changed the term 'appeasement' to one meaning 'something for nothing', or 'something for dropping a threat'.

how is that a change in the term, 'appeasement?'

Appeasement, as fleabag rightly points out, has become synonymous with selling out or capitulating. That's not accurate. The idea behind appeasement is to give someone something in exchange for something from them. Whethe rthat works or not depends a lot on the particular context. But saying "appeasement doesn't work becuase it failed in a particular instance where the actual details and context were completely different from the situation were discussing now" is just plain silly.

Incidentally, I wonder how moderateamerican feels about the continuation of the policy of appeasement towards North Korea by the Bush administration.