Quote:
Originally Posted by Screamfeeder  Well not ANY strategic option...
So which is it? Can POTAS consider ---EVERY OPTION--- or can POTUS consider ---EVERY OPTION BUT TALKS(APPEASEMENT)---?
Or are you just moving the goal posts around to suit your position and playing the usual word-salad verbal kung-fu game you are usually up to? |
LOL
Unconditional Appeasement was an "option", huh? Ooooh you sure got me, I accidentally swiped "Peace-in-our-time-Spinelessness" off the table as an option for an American president. Woe is me. What should I do?
There are lots differences between
CONTAINMENT/ACCOMODATION which is the policy of tacit appeasement that liberals have been aping for decades, and the confrontational
ENGAGEMENT doctrine of Goldwater, but they
both encourage diplomacy.
Goldwater's "Peace through Strength" gave us Nixon's detente with the Chinese, Reagan's detente with Poland, then Russia, and now Bush's detente with Libya (which sees the normalization of relations that not even Bubba saw) and North Korea.
The democrat policy of Containment has yielded the disastrous armistice in Korea, Vietnam, and the cankering sore of the Kennedy-Khruschev pact on Cuba.
Reagan articulated the heart of Goldwater's philosophy when he made the keynote speech at Goldwater's nomination:
