Appeasement?
So, I was just wondering... Is it appeasement to let Russia get away with this aggressive action? I mean, just a few months ago, many conservatives, McCainiacs and Bush dead-enders were operating with a radically expansive definition of 'appeasement' such that even talking to Iran or Korea was--somehow--appeasement. That inconvenient definition has, apparently, recently been dropped, of course. But...what do you call letting Russia get away with beating up on its recalcitrantly independent neighbors? Not that I'm advocating any particular course of action...I'm just asking what you call it. Wonder whether we'll now be asked to accept a radically narrow definition of 'appeasement'...
So, I was just wondering... Is it appeasement to let Russia get away with this aggressive action? I mean, just a few months ago, many conservatives, McCainiacs and Bush dead-enders were operating with a radically expansive definition of 'appeasement' such that even talking to Iran or Korea was--somehow--appeasement. That inconvenient definition has, apparently, recently been dropped, of course. But...what do you call letting Russia get away with beating up on its recalcitrantly independent neighbors? Not that I'm advocating any particular course of action...I'm just asking what you call it. Wonder whether we'll now be asked to accept a radically narrow definition of 'appeasement'...
posted by Winston Smith at
6:26 PM
2 Comments:
No no, see, "appeasement" is defined as "negotiating with terrorists". Negotiating with Iran, you see, is negotiating with known terrorists. Therefore, it is appeasement. Letting Russia invade Georgia, however, is not negotiating with terrorists. Therefore, letting Russia invade Georgia is not appeasement.
I thought you were good at this stuff.
I'm so ashamed...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home