Funny... I thought it was the muslim's who liked bombing people. Besides, there may be "things" that you don't like about America... but, take it from one of the more "well traveled" Americans, there's no fascination with bombing. There is, however, a strong desire to protect anything that is percieved as a national interest... bombing, if neccisary, to do so. ~String
so why is diplomacy of so little emphasis in American political history? i.e. why is "talking" to the "enemy" considered a sign of weakness rather than strength? why is national interest always served by killing/bombing/sanctions which result in widespread death/oppression in other countries?
Diplomacy doesn't work, Sam, ....UNLESS... one side or the other has something to hold over the heads of the other. In which case, can you really call it "diplomacy"?? And, since you're so knowledgeable, tell a few instances in history, all of human history, where diplomacy, without the threat of violence and war, has worked. Sam, we tried that with the North Vietnamese ...and while we were talking, they were building up their military supplies and getting ready to fight again. It happened over and over and over again. But, still, Tell me, Sam, what wars or such have been averted in past history by diplomacy? Just a few examples might be nice to discuss. And remember, diplomacy is where one side does NOT hold the threat of violence over the other. Baron Max
Thats the good part about diplomacy, its all the wars that did not happen. And since America is the only country that still believes they should invade countries to make a point, its obvious that they have no idea what diplomacy is.
Want to reconsider that last statement? It's outright fabricated nonsense in an attempt to make a very, very weak point. Shall I provide you with a recent list or would you simply rather admit your error and move along?
Give some examples, Sam. that's ...shit or get off the pot!! Diplomacy doesn't work and you know damned well it don't ...history has proven it time and time again. And yet people, stupid people, continue to suggest that we try it again. How many times must something fail before we recognize that it doesn't work? Baron Max
Well, by the same token, Sam, why don't you provide us a list of nations that resolved disputes and situations with diplomacy, where they did not use violence or the threat of violence? Baron Max
The most recent example was the return of British sailors from Iran. An interesting article on the clumsy efforts of the US to convince the world of its benign aims (haha) http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3795
Huh? There was no diplomacy involved at all!! The Iranians released the prisoners of their own accord .....probably because they knew that if they fucked up, or hurt those sailors, all hell was going to break loose on their heads!!!! See? The threat of violence worked again. Baron Max
Hmm any link to back up your claim? Another article on the process of American imperialism http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0015-7228(199822)111<36:TPO(FA>2.0.CO;2-6
Americans have always had a perchant and an aptitude for long range warfare. From the days of the early minutemen, they have always stressed "one shot one kill". These days it translates to long range warfare. The U.S service man is put out of actual danger whenever possible. When they killed uday and kusay(sp?) they were having a tough time(they were fighting to the death). In the end the american commander decided "fuck it" and launched 2 towII missles. 6 Million dollar solution to a 50 cent problem. So...that's how you get America - in the pocket book and upclose and personal. Victor Charlie learned this and would perposely wound a G.I rather than kill him, it cost America more money. They do not like their war close, in Samurai terms, they carry only the DaiKatana with no Wagasashi for close work(ok well there is the Marines - need more Marines). When the Brits pull out of Iraq, the U.S serviceman is in a dire situation. I really do not envy them at all(and I used to).
Because diplomacy doesn't work. Look at the UN as a prime example of failed diplomacy after failed diplomacy. And yet you keep advocating it as if it works! Why? Baron Max
For starters, the US has the most powerful military in the world. A byproduct of that is there will always be people who see us as bullies whenever we get into a conflict. And we've taken many different approaches to foreign policy as a nation. I think that we've learned some hard lessons from those alternative approaches, too. We've used closed-door policies before, but what happened then? In one instance where we refused to get militarily involved, Pearl Harbor happened. In another, England was bombed to hell, and Nazi Germany grew much larger than they should have. We're still a young nation, remember. There is much to learn. And in the case of everything in the Middle East...well...that's a tough one. We rely on their oil, of course, and due to the region's unstable nature, we have to be there in some fashion to protect our interest--oil. And because Israel looked like the closest thing to our own nation in the region, we immediately supported them...we were actually the first nation to officially recognize Israel, doing so literally minutes after. That decision, and the subsequent friendship between us, is very unpopular among the Arab world. So, the combination of us needing to protect our oil interests, and buddying up with Israel (and having Saudi Arabia pretty much trying to buy us), we're inherently on the bad side of most of the region. And you see how well diplomacy works over there, even amongst themselves... So the reason we are always involved in conflicts over there is because they themselves are always involved in conflicts. Until our reliance on their oil ends, we will always have a need to be there, and to use our muscle to enforce our will. And it's not exactly wrong that we are doing so. But if you look at the rogue nations like North Korea...we're not bombing them, are we? No. And even the Saudis, who support their share of terrorist groups, and Pakistan, who has nuclear weaponry, aren't getting bombed, are they? No. We are going after the nations actually pose threats to the region (Well, pose threats to Israel), like Afghanistan, and Iran. I won't get into the Iraq mess, other than my guess that it is going to be used as a base for a future war with Iran. Even then, I can't really defend it. But I think that's why it appears that we're always at war, and always shooting first, and asking questions later. But historically, we've been more willing to talk, and less willing to fight. The Cold War is a pretty damn good example of that, isn't it?
What?!?! Stop trying to evade the question. I called your hand on this stupid statement: "And since America is the only country that still believes they should invade countries to make a point..." Do you still claim that to be true or not?:bugeye:
Sam, here's one striking example that torpedoes your inane thread-starter and agrees with Baron's point about force: The Cold War between the US and the USSR. Neither side, "bombed" each other and there was a heck of a lot of negotiation between the two, negotiations that only worked because both sides feared the military might of the other... More recently, the US, more particularly the Bush Administration, negotiated for the return of US servicemen from a downed airplane in China and successfully convinced Libya to give up its nuclear ambitions. It also brought Pakistan out of the shadows of the world community it the days after 9/11, and in doing so, ensured a "rogue state" with nuclear weapons was more engaged with other nations. Should I go on? Or are you willing to see the foolishness of this thread?
