SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: i-node who wrote (384549)5/16/2008 12:33:06 PM
From: bentway  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576610
 
The guy was a motormouth idiot who obviously didn't know what appeasement WAS. Neither do you.

en.wikipedia.org

"literally: calming, reconciling, acquiring peace by way of concessions or gifts "



To: i-node who wrote (384549)5/16/2008 8:02:40 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1576610
 
The video is funny, but really, it was a bit unfair. While handing over Czechoslovakia was stupid, and was obviously a result of the idiotic policy of appeasement, the entire concept of appeasing an aggressor was the problem. Thus, the poor interviewee, who clearly didn't know the "gotcha" answer to the question Matthews was looking for, did have it right to some extent.

Chamberlain had, of course, been at odds with Churchill's view for some time by this time, and Munich was just the next step in the process.


You are only slightly more informed than the idiot Kevin James. And therein lies the problem. If you really understood the environment that led to the Munich Pact, you would understand why Chamberlain did what he did. You still might not agree but at least your opinion would be an informed one.

Bush's point was dead-on in making the reference. I believe what Matthews was trying to do was to distinguish the Chamberlain policy of appeasement from the Democrats' desire to appease terrorists -- and Matthews thought that pointing out the extreme of Chamberlain's actions at Munich would do just that.

See.....there you go. You don't even know the difference between appeasement and negotiating. That is exactly why you guys need to step aside.

However, there is not really a conceptual difference. Chamberlain gives away Czechoslovakia, Carter attempts to negotiate some other bargain with Hamas, Obama says he will sit down with Ahmedeninajad with no preconditions.

It isn't as though sitting down with with these crazies is going to get them to say, "Oh, we were wrong about pushing Israel into the sea" or "Sorry, our mistake, Israel isn't a rotting corpse" or "Sorry we supplied weapons to kill Americans in Iraq".

The act of appeasement occurred when Chamberlain pursued a policy that led to Munich. Not the Munich fiasco itself. In this regard, the interviewee, had it right.


"Led to Munich"? What the hell does that mean?

To be fair, Matthews' incessant shouting "What did Chamberlain do?" would probably be disconcerting for anyone, and it suggests that Chamberlain only made one mistake. If you have to pick a single mistake of Chamberlain's, it was his pursuit of a policy of appeasement -- one which led to Munich, not necessarily the Munich deal itself. The guy was basically ambushed by Matthews -- typical, unfortunately, when Matthews doesn't like the interviewee's position.

Poor baby.......I think I might cry........NOT!

The idiot James did not know what happened back then....period. He's like so many of you.....simply spouting rhetoric that's been fed to him without understanding its implication.