True… … We probably would.
Colombia you illiterate wretch. Not true at all.
Not likely.
You are limiting your understanding of appeasement to some 20th century scenario in which there is a central government that will turn hostile without appeasement.
That is the previous century’s paradigm of conquest and conflict. This century, the world wars are being fought differently. The hostility is not focused in a single centgov autocrat. It is a hostility and acts of conquest of cultures, as manifested in a people and the rules that define their behavior… whether codified in government policy or not. It’s not the old war. This war is being fought with an art that Sun Tzu would say is the supreme art of war… to subdue a nation without a fight.
Without getting into the psychology of the actors, one can recognize appeasement by the simple political kinematics. “Stop sending money and they will send more trouble”. You seem to need to identify who is meant by “they” in that sentence, as though it needs to be a name… a name that will embody hostility if the terms of appeasement are not met. I don’t require a name. In the case of the trouble represented by the caravans from Latin and South America, I see “they” as a composite nation and its people. And I don’t care what “they” are thinking. I only care what they do . And you say that if we don’t send money, they will send more hordes of people.
In this way, I see appeasement. And it’s not working.
No doubt, we will continue to disagree. You can choose to treat my use of the term as an illegitimate and contrived usage. But I’ve explained it here and see no reason to change how I view the situation.
You got me on the spelling, dang it!
I don’t think Colombia though would last five years without US aid and support, it’s just too valuable to the cartels and too prime a target for the communists.
What would be the result if we didn’t send them money. If they are struggling perhaps better leadership will have an opportunity to arise.
The more likely outcome is that they end up with leadership like found VZ or a return to constant revolution. In either case a mass exodus northward would result.
We can barely hold back 5,000 in a caravan rushing our border, multiply that by a hundred, a thousand or more and we’d be completely overwhelmed.
Bribery? Blackmail?
I’d much rather shore up our country than leave it to the corrupt politicians of other countries.
Honestly, if they fail, then so be it. Perhaps a better government and economic system will rise from the ashes.
I understand that. That our borders can be overwhelmed is no one’s fault but ours.
Our treasure should be redirected to ensuring that our borders cannot be overwhelmed rather than spending it on programs to assist illegals, refugees and asylum seekers.
Nobody said anything about either other than yourself.
Out tax dollars are not being used in such a manner, private funds are.
We could not spend enough money to stop such an invasion by hundreds of thousands or millions of legitimate asylees and refugees and we are treaty bound to accept them as well as bound by US law to do so.
What you propose is a pipe dream that denies reality.
As an alternate term to appeasement. Bribery/blackmail is what I feel we are giving into.
Perhaps it is a pipe dream that denies reality. I will definitely give you that as I am not as well versed on security and engineering as you and others on the board are.
I am not understanding what you mean by this? We spend billions in programs to help illegals, refugees and asylum seekers. I am not aware that these are private funds but rather programs funded by the government?
Once they reach our border and set foot on US soil we’re bound by law to provide for them under the equal protection clause and endless court rulings.
I thought you were referring to the foreign aid.
Very true. Once they set foot on US soil… 
I like how the caravan in Tijuana has been handled. Mexico is feeling the pain for once.
I’d like to see our border fortified enough so that can be the norm, not the exception.
I would too but no amount of fortification of the border would stop an exponentially greater flow of real, legitimate asylees and refugees fleeing persecution and revolution in Central and South America.
I’m not so sure on that TWR. Are you saying we lack the technology to keep asylees, refugees and illegals on Mexico’s side of the border until they can be processed?
And you would be wrong.
We lack the ability to prevent a flood of millions from making it to US soil. We are hamstrung by our own laws and politicians.
We can disagree, I don’t believe that I am.
You are. By a mile…