evilgenius wrote:Just think about Neville Chamberlain, and then think about Trump. Trump is that kind of historically stupid person in charge. He may come with a whole lot more conservative rhetoric, sometimes even imitating Nixon, but that's all it is.
I think Newfie is missing the bigger picture.
Neville Chamberlain proved that, beyond a certain point, pacificism can cause more harm than good. However, as was the case with Chamberlain, in the short-run, appeasement seems to be the better path forward. You can only weigh the pros and cons after the fact and even then it's up for debate, like the unending debate as to whether it was the right idea to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Trump is not actually a pacifist as much as he avoids what he sees as any immediate threats. He is NOT good at looking further down the chess-board, and frankly, a lot of people engaging in political debates like these aren't either.
Even GW Bush thought on some level he was avoiding Neville Chamberlain-ing himself in going into Iraq. It was a mistake, but you never really know how history would unfold differently. Maybe Saddam wasn't as much of a threat had he been left in power, but INDIRECTLY by him being in power it would have led to some OTHER domino effect that turned out to be far worse than what we got. That is the responsibility of being a head of state of a major power, to weigh all of the possible causes and effect.
It's like the song Freewill by Rush.
If you decide not to decide you still have made a choice. Doing nothing (as in the case of Trump) still has a ripple-effect. It's still too early to know what that will be, so in the short-run it makes him look like he's history's biggest pacifist and worthy of sainthood, which is exactly the sort of praise and worship that Neville Chamberlain enjoyed for a short while.