j. peter scoblic on why talking to other countries is not the same as appeasement of those countries.
i've long been puzzled by the bushies line that "talking = surrendering". it's ahistorical; there are plenty of times we all are familiar with that adversaries have talked without having one completely capitulate to the other. by the talking = surrendering formula, ronald reagan surrendered to the soviet union in the 1980s. i suspect the proponents of the line aren't willing to accept that.
but more importantly, the line is contradicted by our basic daily interactions. we all regularly talk to people who disagree with us about something. are we all surrendering to each other every day? can't we all think of a million examples of disagreements that stay unresolved even after the parties have spoken words to each other? by that logic, doesn't that mean that my trolls surrender to me each and every time they leave a comment here?
in other words, the talking = surrender idea isn't just wrong, it's extremely obvious that it's wrong. and yet, it's one of those lines that just gets mindlessly repeated ad infinitum as if it's some kind of slam dunk comeback. i simply don't get it.
