69 million page views

the game played in between.

Reader comment on item: Appease Iran?

Submitted by trans-parere (Canada), Sep 25, 2008 at 16:05

From my own reading I would like to suggest that the intellectuals who put forward these analyses after the fact move freely between what is compromise and what is appeasement. These are not mutually inclusive concepts that are interchangeable. We use 'compromise' to get what we want materially or politically with out putting too great a strain on the other or ourselves. There is no loser in compromise for both get or receive what is agreed upon to mutual benefit.

Those who would use appeasement are in fear. Whether that be material or political. Paying extortion economically or politically is a single side transfer. Nothing is coming back to the payer of extortion but a promise that as long as they continue to pay nothing will happen. Nothing has happened but, the fear of something happening is what encourages one to pay up. Winston Churchill was right. Though I would say that in defence of the appeasers perspective; that had Chamberlain used his "policy of appeasement" to arm and fortify his nation, more the good.

However, Chamberlain came home and smokescreened his own people from what he could not have failed to see in Hitler and his new Germany. He failed to use his time and energy in the best nature for his country at that time. And that is the error of appeasement. Thinking that giving into extortion of any kind on any level brings about peace. Pakistan may have to learn this lesson the hard way too. As I doubt the Taleban or al-Qeada will stop their steady movement on the pakistani seat of government. Certainly not with the J.U.I holding the door open for them.

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to the game played in between. by trans-parere

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2022 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)