War or Diplomacy? (1 Viewer)

[nogoodname]

Does war solve problems or is diplomacy a better way to solve problems in this new day and age.

I believe diplomacy is the only way to solve problems and we should only use war as a last resort?

 

[Billo_Really]

You will never get positive outputs when you use negative inputs.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

War is an extension of diplomacy.

 

[akyron]

Does war solve problems or is diplomacy a better way to solve problems in this new day and age.

I believe diplomacy is the only way to solve problems and we should only use war as a last resort?

Diplomacy only works if there are conseqences worth worrying about.

 

[Kandahar]

Does war solve problems or is diplomacy a better way to solve problems in this new day and age.

I believe diplomacy is the only way to solve problems and we should only use war as a last resort?

That is an extreme oversimplification. Some situations call for diplomacy, such as dealing with the USSR, or dealing with North Korea, or dealing with Saddam's Iraq. Other situations call for war, such as dealing with Nazi Germany, or dealing with al-Qaeda, or dealing with Ahmadinejad's Iran.

There is no standard approach that works in all situations. But I can tell you one approach that almost never works: Halfassed diplomacy combined with halfassed war. A key rule of poker also applies to international politics: Don't overcommit yourself to a hand unless you're willing to go all-in.

 

[jfuh]

You're over simplifying. Different instances call for different solutions. ie, Japan attacks Pearl Harbor are we going to engage in diplomacy? Nope, we nuke thier a$$.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You're over simplifying. Different instances call for different solutions. ie, Japan attacks Pearl Harbor are we going to engage in diplomacy? Nope, we nuke thier a$$.

Enh, we lose 12,000 soldiers in the battle of Okinawa along with 100,000 Japanese and we do a cost benefit analysis for estimated casualties for an invasion of mainland Japan and if the President has enough balls THEN we nuke their a$$.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

War is an extension of diplomacy.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I'm going to go take a shower now.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I'm going to go take a shower now.

Well clean yourself up and enjoy the fact that realists who believe in the Democratic Peace Theory are now in power rather than realists who don't give a **** who's in power so long as they trade with us. Machiavellians . . . they're good but it just doesn't work in todays modern climate of disenfranchised Islamic youth with access to IED directions on the net.

 

[ProudAmerican]

as has already been stated, diplomacy only works if there are serious concequences for not complying.

some of us think that more than a decade of diplomacy along with more than a dozen U.N. resolutions justified military action in Iraq since they never complied.

others think that diplomacy should have been open ended indefinately along with allowing an indefinate number of useless resolutions.

 

[Stinger]

Diplomacy only works if there are conseqences worth worrying about.

People seem to forget that the last act of "diplomacy" with Saddam was the return of the inspectors for the last, this is it, no more chances round of inspections. They also forget that it took 400,000 soldiers and 3 Carrier Fleets to force him to allow that to happen and STILL he would not comply.

So he we followed through on the consequences. Had we not, then our ability to set forth such consequences against other tyrants and threats would have no longer existed.

 

[cherokee]

You can only talk soo much then its time to open a can of "whoopass"

I've heard others say "war is never a solution" I have to disagree with that.
It can be a solution, a permanent solution........

 

[Goobieman]

Does war solve problems or is diplomacy a better way to solve problems in this new day and age.

I believe diplomacy is the only way to solve problems and we should only use war as a last resort?

As the Iron Chancellor once said:
War is diplomacy by other means.

There are some issues that can only be settled by war. Period.

 

[AlbqOwl]

As the Iron Chancellor once said:
War is diplomacy by other means.

There are some issues that can only be settled by war. Period.

The United States was actively engaged in diplomatic relationships with Germany while Hitler was exterminating millions of Jews.

Diplomats from Japan were in Washington meeting with the administration while the Japanese fleet was bearing down on Pearl Harbor.

Diplomacy works only when both parties believe in diplomacy versus war as a means of settling issues and differences.

 

[Goobieman]

Diplomacy works only when both parties believe in diplomacy versus war as a means of settling issues and differences.

Indeed.

Munich, 1938 was diplomacy. Look where that led to.

 

[Iriemon]

Indeed.

Munich, 1938 was diplomacy. Look where that led to.

So was '56, '62, '68, and '80. Look where that led to.

 

[Kandahar]

Well clean yourself up and enjoy the fact that realists who believe in the Democratic Peace Theory

Anyone who believes in any theory of international relations - other than realpolitik - is no realist in my book. Especially one as silly as Democratic Peace Theory which has brought such disastrous results to the Middle East.

are now in power rather than realists who don't give a **** who's in power so long as they trade with us.

Capitalism and free trade do a lot more to prevent wars than holding an election.

Machiavellians . . . they're good but it just doesn't work in todays modern climate of disenfranchised Islamic youth with access to IED directions on the net.

It works just fine. America should focus on maximizing American power, not on things that it simply cannot do, such as nation-building.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Kandahar writes

Capitalism and free trade do a lot more to prevent wars than holding an election

Amen and amen. You don't attack countries where you have financial holdings or that provide you with an essential market for goods and services. If some numbnuts of the world could just see that capitalism and free trade (and human rights) are the world's best hopes for peace, prosperity, and opporutnity for all people everywhere, we might have a better chance for that idea to catch on.

 

[Donkey1499]

I picked "war only". With this kind of enemy that we are facing here today there is NO diplomacy. As in our Founding Fathers couldn't achieve diplomacy with Britain in the beginning of the American Revolution. As in with Adolf Hitler, there was NO diplomacy. You cannot reason or talk with people whose task is our annihilation. They mean to destroy us or convert us. And giving them "carrots" is not the way to stop them. Bombs and bullets is the way to stop them.

The best comparison I can think of at this time is from a clip of The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Now if you've seen the movie, then you'll know what scene I'm talking about; if not, then rent it. Now, remeber when Aragorn gets on the horse and rides to Helm's Deep after he fell off the cliff? Aragorn saw the Uruk-hai Army (about 2,000 strong) and high-tailed it to Helm's Deep. He told King Theoden what he saw, "There are 2,000 strong at least".
"2,000? Impossible, there is no such army of that size." said King Theoden.
Then Aragorn says, "It's an Army bred for a single purpose; to destroy the world of men..."

[Some text may be off, but I hope you get the idea]

This same scenario is happening now, as it did with Hitler against Europe/Russia/Africa, and as it is now with Islamo-Fascists. And I can't believe that there are people out there who are too blind or too stupid (or both) to see what's really happening. The Islamo-Fascists want to destroy us; because either we're jewish, christian, or just plain ol' non-muslims. And I also can't believe that there are people out there who just want to sit by and do nothing; cuz diplomacy with Islamo-Fascists is like sitting there and doing nothing.

Y'all can keep drawing lines in the sand, but the Islamo-Fascists will just keep coming until they get to your front door. And once they cross the threshold who will stand up for you? Who will you call for to protect your lazy ***? OR will you stand up and fight for your freedom?

Freedom... that word has a hollow ring these days. It doesn't mean anything as long as people allow evil-doers to take whatever they please; which includes human life. You argue over phone taps and pat downs at sporting events and yell that your "freedoms" are at stake. Would you rather get rid of those minor security measures and allow yourself to make a decision: Join Islam or die? The "Pro-Choice" Left and the "Anti-War" Cowards would rather give up their most important freedoms, I guess.

Freedom isn't free; sounds contradictory, doesn't it? But it's not free. You have to fight for it. The same as our Founding Fathers fought for it. The same as France fought for it's freedom in the French Revolution. The same as our nation fought Britain again in 1812. Blood had to be shed once more in WWI and WW II to regain the freedoms of millions of Europeans. Why haven't you people learned life's greatest lesson???

 

[Stinger]

So was '56, '62, '68, and '80. Look where that led to.

So what would be the diplomatic settlement with Al qaeda? What would have been the diplomatic settlement with Saddam?

 

[Kandahar]

What would have been the diplomatic settlement with Saddam?

The status quo was perfectly fine.

 

[AlbqOwl]

The status quo was perfectly fine.

No, from a humanitarian standpoint, the status quo was not perfectly fine. By some estimates of Amnesty International and other sources, the 12 years of UN sanctions imposed on Iraq had already caused or contributed to the deaths of some 50,000 innocent Iraqis via malnutrition and lack of medical care. Many of those 50,000 were children. The humanitarian aid allowed through the oil for food program was going to the heirarchy and was not getting to the people. And, according to the Duelfer Report and other sources, lifting the sanctions would have resulted in renewal of all WMD programs.

It is illustrative that the definition of peace is not the absence of war. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law here, the absence of war was certainly not peace for the millions of Jews who were being gassed or otherwise murdered in Nazi Germany, nor in any other countries where systematic genocide is occurring.

As immoral and unconsionable and horrible and unjust as war always is, there are worse alternatives.

 

[Stinger]

The status quo was perfectly fine.

The status quo was 400,000 of our troops on his border standing ready to go and 3 Carrier fleets JUST to get the inspectors back and Blix telling the UN Saddam was STILL no cooperating. How long were we going to keep those troops in Saudi Arabi and Kuwait and thos Carrier Fleets there?
The status quo was Russia, China and Germany working to get the sanctions lifted, which they were already violating.

The status quo was Saddam and Bin Laden furthering their contacts in secret.

The status quo was Saddam's secret police working in their labs to make better sarin and ricin gas and ways to use it in terrorist acts.

So what exactly do you mean by the status quo was perfectly fine, it was falling apart.

 

[Kandahar]

No, from a humanitarian standpoint, the status quo was not perfectly fine.

True, but I thought this thread was about America's international relations, not human rights. We can use our diplomatic capital to promote human rights, but fighting a war in Iraq has sapped so much of that capital that we don't have any left to promote human rights elsewhere.

If human rights are going to be the cornerstone of our foreign policy, fine...but then let's worry about them everywhere, not just in random countries and pretend that our actions there exist in a vacuum.

Besides, is the current situation in Iraq an improvement in terms of human rights?

As immoral and unconsionable and horrible and unjust as war always is, there are worse alternatives.

My opposition to the war in Iraq has less to do with it being immoral/ unconscionable/ horrible/ unjust (although it is), and more to do with the fact that it's severely damaged America's ability to deal with more serious threats to our national security and destabilized the entire region.

 

[Kandahar]

The status quo was 400,000 of our troops on his border standing ready to go and 3 Carrier fleets JUST to get the inspectors back and Blix telling the UN Saddam was STILL no cooperating. How long were we going to keep those troops in Saudi Arabi and Kuwait and thos Carrier Fleets there?

So maybe we wouldn't have inspectors in Iraq. That's hardly a war-worthy offense.

The status quo was Russia, China and Germany working to get the sanctions lifted, which they were already violating.

Good. Sanctions are almost always counterproductive, and they only further strengthen the dictator while impoverishing the civilians.

The status quo was Saddam and Bin Laden furthering their contacts in secret.

Total bullshit, and you know it. The two distrusted and despised each other. While Saddam Hussein may or may not have been rational enough to find common ground against a common enemy (and he probably was not), there is simply no way that an extremist like Osama Bin Laden would ever compromise with anyone about anything.

The status quo was Saddam's secret police working in their labs to make better sarin and ricin gas and ways to use it in terrorist acts.

Define "terrorist acts." Because there were no organizations in Baathist Iraq that I would consider terrorists, aside from the government itself.

So what exactly do you mean by the status quo was perfectly fine, it was falling apart.

So I guess now that we've patched everything up, all is well. :roll: