BF2S Forums Appeasement or millions of dead people?

boy, that's a tough one. I'd say it depends on the "concessions" that you would make. If they're are less important than the lives of millions of people, and appeasement was guaranteed to work, then I'd say the millions of dead people are worse.

It all depends on who you are dealing with, and what you give up for what you get. Appeasement may work, under the right circumstances.

out of principality, however, appeasement is worse. But as we have learned, different people have different views on what exactly appeasement is.

consequently, null vote for me.

@serge: appeasement can only be considered within the context of a specific event or moment, not globally as you are doing.  Schuss is absolutely right in his post.

You can't boil it down to a choice between the two serge, it is way more complex than that ...

Was it wrong for Chamberlain to appease the nazis, in a historic perspective yes but at the time it might have seemed like a feeble attempt of diplomacy.
Edit: So null vote from me

Last edited by Varegg (2008-01-28 03:50:48)

sergeriver wrote:

superfly_cox wrote:

@serge: appeasement can only be considered within the context of a specific event or moment, not globally as you are doing.  Schuss is absolutely right in his post.

Not really.  The question is simple, if you don't appease millions will die, if you do nobody will.  Quite simple, isn't it?

not really. it depends on what you'd have to give up for those millions to be saved from annihilation.

Maybe you could present a specific example. Then we can judge better wether it's really worth to appease or not.

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Give me liberty or give me death.

unless you live in Iraq, of course. Then it's death both ways...

yeah, I know, cheap shot. sorry 'bout that.

But it's always easy for us to say that, sitting in our comfy armchairs, isn't it ?

B.Schuss wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

superfly_cox wrote:

@serge: appeasement can only be considered within the context of a specific event or moment, not globally as you are doing.  Schuss is absolutely right in his post.

Not really.  The question is simple, if you don't appease millions will die, if you do nobody will.  Quite simple, isn't it?

not really. it depends on what you'd have to give up for those millions to be saved from annihilation.

Maybe you could present a specific example. Then we can judge better wether it's really worth to appease or not.

No example here.  Two options: you appease nobody dies, you don't millions die.  Consequences: you imagine them.

B.Schuss wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Give me liberty or give me death.

unless you live in Iraq, of course. Then it's death both ways...

yeah, I know, cheap shot. sorry 'bout that.

But it's always easy for us to say that, sitting in our comfy armchairs, isn't it ?

true, plus my chair is super comfy

sergeriver wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Depends on what the consequences of appeasement are for you.

Nobody would die.

Appeasement could entail living unfree - perhaps with your own death being preferable to life - so again the decision would have to be circumstance related.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-28 04:02:05)

If the case goes that Appeasing would result in no deaths, like you said, than it's obvious to do that.

Of course, it's never been like that IRL.

Appeasing the Nazi's wouldn't have resulted in no deaths (they would've still commited genocide on various groups)

Appeasing Islamic terrorists wouldn't really work, but unlike the Nazis neither would fighting them. So you're generally stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to dealing with Muslims.

A- I would appease to that. If I didn't and had to fight, wouldn't I be called a terrorist because I was going against Islam?
B- Appease; we weren't going to use them anyway, they were there as a symbol (but then what would happen if we took that symbol away?)
C- Depends on the political climate and what other nations think; if we recognized a state's independence, would it result in many other countries going against us and costing millions of lives in the future?
D- Same as above.
E- Millions of dead people; not only is there the threat of continued terrorism if we release them, we'd be seen as a weak country that bows down to terrorists and gives in to their demands; plus, what would the public think of this? The gov't would lose a lot of support (or whatever it has left)
F- Fight to the death, seriously. I'd rather die fighting for freedom than live without it.


Looks like it's a tie for me... (but I voted millions of dead people when the topic was first created, probably because what came to mind were situations involving E and F)


However, in terms of answering "which is worse", it would seem "millions of dead people" would be, simply because that's a guaranteed result (at least according to this skewed thread) as opposed to something that doesn't have any clear consequences or results in mass death.

Last edited by mtb0minime (2008-01-28 04:19:55)

Varegg wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

A-You must call terrorism anti-Islamic activities.

No problem with that one, but it is a matter of definition not really appeasement.

According to some people's dictionary it could be.  I agree that isn't appeasement but PC.

Varegg wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Varegg wrote:

No problem with that one, but it is a matter of definition not really appeasement.

According to some people's dictionary it could be.  I agree that isn't appeasement but PC.

That's why we made as much as 31 pages or so in the other thread.

About that exact issue my opinion is that it appeases the general Muslim population telling them we diffrentiate between the religion and the radical elements, we don't appease radical Islam by calling it anti-Islamic activities.

Of course not, you are being respectful to the 99% moderate Muslims and making look the radical ones as opposed to the moderate.