Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Definition of "appeasement" for Kevin James and George W. Bush: to yield or concede to the

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
EffieBlack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 08:17 PM
Original message
Definition of "appeasement" for Kevin James and George W. Bush: to yield or concede to the
belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=appeasement
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Boz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. Like Prescott Bush's apeasment of the Nazis
Edited on Thu May-15-08 08:25 PM by Boz
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

At the expense of justice yes, at the expense of principles, the family would have to have them first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Nah, Prescott wasn't a Neville Chamberlain style appeaser
Edited on Thu May-15-08 08:32 PM by lapfog_1
he was an out and out collaborator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Prescott Bush was NOT an appeaser.
He was a collaborator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
3. And the opposite of appeasement is...
...continuing a futile effort that's bad for everyone, just because your chosen enemy hates it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HooptieWagon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
5. Chamberlain had little choice...
England wasn't prepared to take on Germany, and the US wasn't going to step in at that time. In fact, were it not for Pearl Harbor the US may not have entered WW2... antiwar sentiment was pretty strong. England was dealing with aftermath of the depression and still recovering from WW1. Germany had been in war production for several years. So, rather than appeasing, Chamberlain was playing what limited cards he had and hoping for the best. "Appeasing" is a soundbite that plays well to the ignorant RW crowd though....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC