English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2 answers

Compromise is frequently an act of appeasment instead of rushing headfirst into conflict. This is frequently done by democracies because conflicts tend to be costly when it comes to long term electability. Sometimes this tactic can be good as it buys time to evaluate the weaknesses of your adversaries and allows you to avoid a larger conflict by being able to apply pressure on your adversary in more powerful ways, like being able to attain more allies against their actions. Sometimes it is a poor decision to compromise and stall via appeasment, however, because it can allow your adversary to out maneuver the compromising party, much as Hitler did against Churchill as he gobbled up Austria and Czechoslovakia prior to his invasion of Poland. Historically it is argued that Czechoslovakia had a lot of armament in the areas that were conceded and in so doing elongated how long WWII should have been by allowing Hitler capture the area without any great loss of life. With the fall of Poland (a country still defended by cavalry and not modern like the Czechoslovakian army was) Britain finally made their move and the conflict ensued.

2007-06-17 12:29:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Conflict - Bill Clinton needed to be impeached

Compromise - Congress has to choose the lesser of two evils

Not Guilty - or - Albert Gore

Congress chose wisely

2007-06-09 20:01:53 · answer #2 · answered by tom4bucs 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers