Four hours, and no walkout! It's wonderful news. Crocker is eminently qualified for his job- more effective than Khalilzad, and a world of difference from Bremer, who should never have been appointed for such a critical ambassadorship. I expect Kazemi Qomi was instructed to leave at the slightest hint of being pushed around or insulted. That he did not reinforces Crocker's credibility as a true and effective diplomat, something the USA desperately needs at the front-end of our interfaces with the world. Functional diplomacy has been sorely lacking throughout the Bush 43 Administration. Cynics will say nothing substantive has come of this landmark meeting. Yet this is the beginning of dialogue that could save countless lives and fortunes, by diverting us from a foolish trajectory towards a disastrous war with Iran. Bravo, and deepest thanks to Crocker and Qomi.
Diplomacy has never solved any impending conflicts in all of human history. Diplomacy works ONLY when one party holds the threat of violence over the other. When in human history has true diplomacy ever worked? And if it hasn't worked, why do so many people consider it such a workable method? Baron Max
For once, you might have a point, but Diplomatic efforts are often kept under wraps or understated, Peace is undervalued.
Kept under wraps? When, how, where? There hasn't been enough peace on Earth for anyone to know! The human race has been at war since they first stood upright on the African plains. And in that regard, peace is OVERvalued, not undervalued. Baron Max
As long as there are shortsighted people like you, there will never be peace. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
well, there is a huge US naval force right off Iran's coast (not to mention US land troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, both are bordering countries) so to a certain extent there is an implied threat to use force. on the other hand, it's good to have the 2 sides talking. when the plan of talks was announced i thought it was a bad idea, but i have changed my mind. Churchill said "it's better to jaw-jaw than to war-war", and i tend to agree. maybe some productive outcome will happen from this... who knows. i'm not counting on too much of that, but it won't hurt. but an important outcome from this will be to undermine that psycho President of theirs. by talking to the US directly this will strengthen the dovish forces in Iran.
Are none of you diplomacy advocates going to give me a list of examples where diplomacy has worked in history? Or are do y'all just like to bet on things with such horrendous odds? ...like betting on the dead horse at the starting gate? ...LOL! Baron Max
"diplomacy" and "worked" are 2 broad terms. there are plenty of examples where diplomacy did work. and there are plenty of examples when bombing a country did not work. e.g. Iraq. EDIT: i mean, removing Saddam worked... but the current situation is a hard one and sending more troops into Iraq may not necessarily solve the Iraqi problem im just using Iraq as an example
Canada and the US. Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, internally. Mexico and the US. Cuba and the US. China and Taiwan, so far. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Japan, and Russia since WWII. Lots of places since WWII, actually.
Would you care to name some specifics, or are you just going to name a bunch of countries? Name them. I know of no diplomatic efforts that have averted any, ANY, upcoming conflict in the world ....OTHER than the "diplomacy" backed up by the might of armed forces. I'd really be interested if y'all would just name a few where you think diplomacy has ever worked to avert a war or major conflict ...I know of none in all of history. Baron Max
Canada and the US. did fight a short war as part of the War of 1812. And it took this war to establish the border were it was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812 The War of 1812 (in Britain, the American War of 1812, to distinguish from the war with Napoleon) was fought between the United States of America, on one side, and on the other side the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and its colonies, especially Upper Canada (Ontario), Lower Canada (Quebec), Nova Scotia, and Bermuda. When the war had finished, 1,600 British and 2,260 American troops had died.[1] The war was fought from 1812 to 1815 and involved both land and naval engagements. Results of the War of 1812 The Treaty of Ghent established the status quo ante bellum; that is, there were no territorial changes made by either side.
Switzerland? Their neutrality is backed by a magnificent military, Diplomacy re-enforced by Military Might. Switzerland has also backed Diplomacy of others in its past with a Excellent Mercenary Army.
US. Cuba, read ; 14 Days in October: The Cuban Missile Crisis, and tell me that we weren't ready to use military force to solve the problem, we had already installed a military blockade around Cuba and were ready to invade given any provocation, Kennedy had a Full House and Nikita Khrushchev had a busted Flush, and Nikita Baby folded, and took his missiles home.
US. China and Taiwan, this to is a balance that is enforced by a war, Nationalist-Communist Civil War Part of the Cold War Soldiers of the victorious People's Liberation Army entered Beijing in June 1949. Date April 1927 — May 1950; war declared over by the ROC in 1991; [1] no legal document has been signed to end the war Location China Result Republic of China relocates to Taiwan, while the Communist People's Republic of China is established Combatants Nationalist Party of China Communist Party of China Commanders Chiang Kai-shek Mao Zedong Strength 4,300,000 (July 1946) 3,650,000 (June 1948) 1,490,000 (June 1949) 1,200,000 (July 1946) 2,800,000 (June 1948) 4,000,000 (June 1949) Chinese Civil War Major engagements in bold Encirclement Campaigns (First - Second - Third - Fourth - Fifth) - Long March (Luding Bridge) - Intermission (Wannan) - Shangdang Campaign - Longhai Campaign - Dingtao Campaign - Zhengtai Campaign - Liaoshen Campaign (Changchun - Jinzhou) - Huaihai Campaign - Pingjin Campaign - Island campaigns (Quemoy - Denbu - Nanri - Dongshan - Yijiangshan - Dong-Yin) The Chinese Civil War (Traditional Chinese: 國共内戰; Simplified Chinese: 国共内战; pinyin: guógòng neìzhàn; literally "Nationalist-Communist Civil War"), which lasted from April 1927 to May 1950, was a civil war in China between the Kuomintang (KMT or Nationalist Party) and the Chinese
So let's see if we can follow the assumptions here: if there has been a war anywhere in the past 150 years, diplomacy has not averted any other wars before or since, nor has diplomacy shortened any wars or reduced their severity. If there was threat of war, but negotiations intervened, the threat of war gets the credit for averting the war rather than the negotiations. The worse the threat of war, the less credit diplomacy is due. If there is military threat in the background, all negotiations are sideshow and that threat is assumed to be controlling the entire situation. I can see that given those assumptions diplomacy might appear fairly useless, since it would only operate in the complete absence of military threat either present or historical for several generations, and such circumstances are not common in areas of confllict. If those assumptions can be somehow set aside, because they are ridiculous or for some other reason, then diplomacy's role in - for example - maintaining nearly 200 years of peace along what has become (after much diplomatic wrangling, and a serious disarmament treaty) the world's longest undefended border, might receive credit where credit is due. And the several other examples as well.
You're failing to cite those examples, Ice, or to show the wonders of "diplomacy". It should be obvious to you, as well as to others, that diplomacy is nothing, is totally ineffectual, without the might of a military backing it up. I.e., "If you don't negotiate properly, we'll beat the fuck outta' you!" Diplomacy at it's finest, huh? ...LOL! Baron Max
I've listed several. I've mentioned Canada and the US - more than 150 years of peace, including a disarmament treaty, on one of the world's longest borders, with incalculable benefits from the lack of military threat necessary to maintain it - three times now. Was it the might of the Canadian military backing it up, all these years and all these dozens of deals and treaties, that made US/Canadian diplomacy effectual ? How did it happen that disarmament, which greatly reduced the military force available to back up the diplomacy, did not reduce the effectiveness of that diplomacy? You apparently think that any military threat which may or may not be involved or have been involved at any time in the past 150 years is actually accomplishing the diplomacy. That's stupid. Threats don't cut deals. Diplomats cut deals. Military threats are just one factor, in diplomacy - and usually, a factor better minimized. Military conquest is worth very little, without political negotiation to establish its nature and consequences. Read Machiavelli, or read about Genghis Khan. Military threat is worth even less - it is almost totally worthless, even of negative worth, except in its influence on diplomacy. Example ? Somalia. Everything that can be accomplished with a gun only has been accomplished in Mogadishu. There you see military force without diplomacy, and negotiation by military threat alone. Impressed ?
Ice, you're obviously in a tight corner if the only example of diplomacy to end a conflict is that between Canada and the USA! ...LOL! C'mon, you're the proponent of diplomacy, ...and if you advocate it so strongly then you must have evidence that it's worked many times before in the past. Yet the only example you can give is ...canada and the USA?? ...LOL! Pitiful, really and truly pitiful. Baron Max
