On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:16:43 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



flipper wrote:

John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Don Bowey wrote:

Some of us (the leftist weenie contingent by your definition) care about the
character of the people we choose to call, and treat as, friend. The
government of Turkey, by officially denying it's citizens free speech, shows
a serious lack of character, dangerously similar to other government leaders
that the US and other governments have castigated.

The USA has a long history of supporting tyrants.

---
You seem to be casting yourselves as lily-white, while ignoring the
fact that appeasing Hitler during WW2 was supporting tyranny.

Who was appeasing Hitler DURING WW2 ?

---
You were.

You were kissing his ass with: "Go ahead and do anything you want to
to anyone else, but as long as you leave us alone we won't **** with
you.

I'm afraid you may have missed his typical leftie 'word game'. See,
rather than deal with the obvious meaning and substance of what you
said he's quibbling with "during" since it can be argued the appeasing
was 'before'.

If 'before' was what was meant then why not say so ?

And it's quite clear that 'appeasement' is totally misunderstood anyway.

---
Don't be absurd.

From:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/appease

3. To pacify or attempt to pacify (an enemy) by granting
concessions, often at the expense of principle.
---

I'd like to
know what you suppose Britain could have actually done of any significance over
Czechoslavakia for example.

---
The point wasn't that Britain could have done anything, it was that
Britain tried to make a deal with Hitler to allow Britain to remain
English and untouched by the ravages of war while not interfering
with Hitler's making the rest of Europe German by the use of force.
---

Compare with Darfur today for example.

---
I couldn't find anything about appeasement, but from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict


"The Mahdist state collapsed under the onslaught of the British
force led by Herbert Kitchener, who established an Anglo-Egyptian
co-dominium to rule Sudan. The British allowed Darfur de jure
autonomy until 1916 when they invaded and incorporated the region
into Sudan.[20] Within Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, the bulk of resources
were devoted toward Khartoum and Blue Nile Province, leaving the
rest of the country relatively undeveloped."

Sure seems to lend credence to the proposition that no matter where
you go, violence isn't far behind.

And to what end? Just to fill your coffers.


--
JF