On Appeasement and Diplomacy
Kim du Toit gives what I consider an excellent assessment of historical options when dealing with a rogue leader or nation.
Kim nails this one. We do not have to come up with new options. There are hundreds of examples of what to do and not to do. Why do our field grade officers go to the War College? As I understand it they study a LOT of history. One of my favorite business books is the Art of War by Sun Tzu. His strategies for war apply to everday life (even though he lived centuries before Christ).
I think this "new idea" notion comes from the hubris which we have that we are "better educated", "more worldly", la di dah... Most of this hubris walks around in liberal suits (or birkenstocks). Thank God these "holier than thou" secular idiots are not in power. (holier than thou ... secular, cool eh?).
For people who, for the most part, have never held or fired a gun (other than that .22 in camp .. and then they dirtied their panties) these libtards always seem to have the answer to world conflict resolution, be it appeasement, pandering to insufferable dictators (see Jimmy Carter), giving Nobel Peace Prizes to terrorists (bye Yassir, have a good dirt nap), or generally caving to anyone who says "boo". When military force is pulled off our side of the table, our enemies will put it on their side. Study history and tell me that is not true.
"Study history, see which approaches worked, and which ones failed. Eg. when faced with a dictator, is it better to
appease and capitulate, like Chamberlain with Hitler, or
crush him like a bug, Wellington with Napoleon, or
set up a situation with free and fair elections to allow the people to depose the asswipe peaceably, like Reagan with the Sandinistas
I don't have a PhD in World History, but it seems as though the second and third options have the best chances for success, all things considered. The Iraqis of 2005 seem to agree with me, which further bolsters the argument.
I don't need to think of 'new ideas' all I need to do is look at the past.
When people are intent on using only 'new ideas', they end up using a whole lot of old, and bad ideas which have generally failed (eg. Jimmy Carter using the appeasement approach with NorKDic Kim Long Dong, or whatever he called himself). "
Kim nails this one. We do not have to come up with new options. There are hundreds of examples of what to do and not to do. Why do our field grade officers go to the War College? As I understand it they study a LOT of history. One of my favorite business books is the Art of War by Sun Tzu. His strategies for war apply to everday life (even though he lived centuries before Christ).
I think this "new idea" notion comes from the hubris which we have that we are "better educated", "more worldly", la di dah... Most of this hubris walks around in liberal suits (or birkenstocks). Thank God these "holier than thou" secular idiots are not in power. (holier than thou ... secular, cool eh?).
For people who, for the most part, have never held or fired a gun (other than that .22 in camp .. and then they dirtied their panties) these libtards always seem to have the answer to world conflict resolution, be it appeasement, pandering to insufferable dictators (see Jimmy Carter), giving Nobel Peace Prizes to terrorists (bye Yassir, have a good dirt nap), or generally caving to anyone who says "boo". When military force is pulled off our side of the table, our enemies will put it on their side. Study history and tell me that is not true.
posted by Mongo at 4:50:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home