How libs want to fight dictatorships

[Coyote]

What's next for the appeasers - send iran their bras?

That would certainly provoke an interesting reaction in Iran...you might have an idea there.....


The rightwing love their pet dictators...Pinnochet....the varied psuedo-democratic dicators of the former soviet block who torture detainees for us....it's politically useful to have a pet dictator

 

[Pidgey]

I am going to burn a cross in your yard Boobs...or better yet a blow up doll with big boobs....

Be sure and send the panties to Myanmar first...

Pidgey

 

[Libsmasher]

That would certainly provoke an interesting reaction in Iran...you might have an idea there.....


The rightwing love their pet dictators...Pinnochet....the varied psuedo-democratic dicators of the former soviet block who torture detainees for us....it's politically useful to have a pet dictator

That is of course nonsense - Pinochet was installed because it was either that or a new soviet satellite in south america, with probably more to come. The libs on the other hand, love dictators because they're dictators - some will have read about Jimmy Carter's love affair with the nicaraguan marxists, how he installed marxist Robert mugabe, how clinton installed marxist Aristide, and how any number of libs have made the pilgrimage down to Havana to kiss the balls of Castro

 

[GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus]

http://pantiesforpeace.ca/

Check this out - a bunch of feminists want to fight ... instead, use the non-violent appeaser method!
HEEE HEEEEEEEE

Could you please explain the appeasement part. If you consider non-violence to be appeasement you must view ghandi and mlk as appeasers, no.


odd



I had to go and look it up as for a brief moment you had me questioning reality.

Appeasement, literally: calming, reconciling, acquiring peace by way of concessions or gifts (the verb 'to pay' also goes back to the Latin 'pax' = peace). Most commonly, appeasement is used for the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Usually it means giving in to demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war.

-wikipedia

 

[Libsmasher]

Could you please explain the appeasement part. If you consider non-violence to be appeasement you must view ghandi and mlk as appeasers, no.

Ghandi and MLK's tactics work only when confronting the societies which have a core of decency - in those cases the UK and US respectively. How do you suppose either would have fared against, say, the wermacht or the khmer rouge?

Except in those rare cases, non-violence is equivalent to appeasement.

 

[GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus]

Ghandi and MLK's tactics work only when confronting the societies which have a core of decency - in those cases the UK and US respectively.

agreed

How do you suppose either would have fared against, say, the wermacht or the khmer rouge?

badly, but we are not taliking about them are we.

Except in those rare cases, non-violence is equivalent to appeasement.

opinion is never a good substitute for fact.

Appeasement, literally: calming, reconciling, acquiring peace by way of concessions or gifts (the verb 'to pay' also goes back to the Latin 'pax' = peace). Most commonly, appeasement is used for the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Usually it means giving in to demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war.

 

[Libsmasher]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
How do you suppose either would have fared against, say, the wermacht or the khmer rouge?

badly, but we are not taliking about them are we.

We are talking about the Burmese junta.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Except in those rare cases, non-violence is equivalent to appeasement.

opinion is never a good substitute for fact.

Quote:
Appeasement, literally: calming, reconciling, acquiring peace by way of concessions or gifts (the verb 'to pay' also goes back to the Latin 'pax' = peace). Most commonly, appeasement is used for the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Usually it means giving in to demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war.

Nonviolence in the face of a ruthless dictatorship, even one whose activities are only within its borders, always carries with it implicit appeasement - the world de facto concedes to the junta their right to kill/imprison/torture their citizens, and the junta constrains their action to the citizens. Otherwise, the world would do what I recommend, launch a military expedition into Burma, in which case the junta would presumably fight back.

 

[GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus]

We are talking about the Burmese junta.

really
I wonder how I missed that.

Nonviolence in the face of a ruthless dictatorship, even one whose activities are only within its borders, always carries with it implicit appeasement -

so we just went from appeasement to implicit appeasement, which with I assume you see no distinctions.

maybe you are confused on the meaning of appeasement or we are talking different languages. can we agree on this first...

Appeasement, literally: calming, reconciling, acquiring peace by way of concessions or gifts (the verb 'to pay' also goes back to the Latin 'pax' = peace). Most commonly, appeasement is used for the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Usually it means giving in to demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war.

...and then move onto what you mean by stating yet again opinion as fact as in...

the world de facto concedes to the junta their right to kill/imprison/torture their citizens, and the junta constrains their action to the citizens.

Otherwise, the world would do what I recommend, launch a military expedition into Burma, in which case the junta would presumably fight back.

the world is not a giant one-dimensional board game like, risk. europe was incapable or unwilling to tackle the yugoslavia thing in their own backyard. africa is, well africa. nato and the un are always being belittled by conservatives so we now they are useless, right
so what world are you talking about

 

[Libsmasher]

really
I wonder how I missed that.

Save your sarcasm for replies where it might be amusing.

so we just went from appeasement to implicit appeasement, which with I assume you see no distinctions.

Appeasement comprehends implicit appeasement and explicit appeasement - no?

the world is not a giant one-dimensional board game like, risk. europe was incapable or unwilling to tackle the yugoslavia thing in their own backyard. africa is, well africa. nato and the un are always being belittled by conservatives so we now they are useless, right
so what world are you talking about

Good points, but I was thinking maybe ground troops from asian democracies, indigenous resistance armed by the US, and US aircover/logistics/surveillance? Or maybe that isn't good enough, and we just let a handful of punks kill, murder, and torture? I guess so - that's the smart, realistic approach - right?

 

[GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus]

Save your sarcasm for replies where it might be amusing.

hahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahaha

Appeasement comprehends implicit appeasement and explicit appeasement - no?

there my friend you run into distinctions with a difference.

Good points, but I was thinking maybe ground troops from asian democracies, indigenous resistance armed by the US, and US aircover/logistics/surveillance? Or maybe that isn't good enough, and we just let a handful of punks kill, murder, and torture? I guess so - that's the smart, realistic approach - right?

thank you for sharing



.






.



.



.
your sarcasm


good night

 

[Libsmasher]

thank you for sharing

That use of "sharing" makes my skin crawl - please speak english.

 

[GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus]

That use of "sharing" makes my skin crawl - please speak english.

you can hear me?

 

[Dr.Who]

Ghandi and MLK's tactics work only when confronting the societies which have a core of decency - in those cases the UK and US respectively. How do you suppose either would have fared against, say, the wermacht or the khmer rouge?

Except in those rare cases, non-violence is equivalent to appeasement.

While you are absolutely right about the correct time to use the non-violence of Ghandi (he said himself that it only worked with entities that were decent) I would also have to agree with the other guy that non-violent protest like sending panties is not appeasement. It is stupid and inneffective but nothing was given away, i.e. there were no concesssions or gifts.

That being said it is still true that libs like appeasement. It just is not true that they prefer it everytime.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

While you are absolutely right about the correct time to use the non-violence of Ghandi (he said himself that it only worked with entities that were decent) I would also have to agree with the other guy that non-violent protest like sending panties is not appeasement. It is stupid and inneffective but nothing was given away, i.e. there were no concesssions or gifts.

That being said it is still true that libs like appeasement. It just is not true that they prefer it everytime.

it also helps to have a non peacful counterpart to put some fear in them and make them want to deal with the one who is not going to bring out arms. MLK may not do nearly as well if not for X on the other side pushing as well.