No sane person would call that appeasment. Have your heard of cause and effect? Let's change the analogy since you are having problem with this one. Say it's not a human neighborhood, but an animal one. Will you venture there if there is a danger of a grizzly attacking you?
However, if LE doesn't work in a bad neighborhood because they may get hurt, that would be appeasement of a major kind with serious present and future consequences -- freedom.
I don't share your vision of America being a world policeman. Especially when you have a choice of backing one thug over the other one.
No sane person would call that appeasment. Have your heard of cause and effect? Let's change the analogy since you are having problem with this one.
Webster: Appeasement -- "Concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles".
I guess at this point I could start throwing insults like you do and call you a cornered lunatic, or I can let the above argument and anology stand on it's own.
However, if LE doesn't work in a bad neighborhood because they may get hurt, that would be appeasement of a major kind with serious present and future consequences -- freedom.
I don't share your vision of America being a world policeman. Especially when you have a choice of backing one thug over the other one.
Good LE only enforces the laws against thugery for reasons of public safety. Good foreign policy only fights for our short term and long term interests of safety -- that we may have a reasonable expectation to live in freedom today and in the future.
BTW, I don't shy away from statist cold war catch phrases such as "world policeman" that are thrown at reasonable ideas.