Is Obama an Appeaser?
So the GOP is ramping up their attack machine and one word I’ve been hearing a lot is appeasement. Everyone is all up in arms because Obama wants to meet with Iran and Syria. Usually it comes from buffoons like this guy:
You have to love people who are so adamant about issues that they don’t really have any clue about. Most people don’t get appeasement, because most people try to pigeonhole the term into today’s standards. What they don’t get is that when Chamberlain went to Munich he went there in a position of weakness. The west was still reeling from World War I economically and militarily. Germany was already more powerful militarily than the West. While it is generally considered that giving away half of Czechoslovakia was his big mistake, it was one of the main issues that Churchill used to become PM, there is an argument that it was the right choice. Many historians will say that Chamberlain was right to have done what he did, in order to, give England enough time to ramp up their industrial military complex.
So how does this fit into today’s argument about appeasement. Very simply today America doesn’t have to meet with anyone from any country from a position of weakness. We always have other options, whether that is political, diplomatic, or military options. Invariably we will be meeting on our terms and in a position of strength. If we have someone who understands this then we will never have to capitulate completely on an issue. Instead we can meet with leaders of other nations from a position of strength ie. Ronald Regan during the Cold War with the U.S.S.R. Now watch this video and the next time the GOP starts throwing around appeasement you can just laugh it off.
No related posts.