Subject:
|
Re: I'm just going to take a back seat.... Re: You Can Lead A Horse To Water....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Mar 2003 20:20:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
770 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Are you honestly trying to say that diplomacy is universally and always
> > > > > unsuccessful in all cases everywhere on the planet? That nothing has ever
> > > > > been accomplished by diplomacy? You may wish to modify your statement or at
> > > > > least limit its sweeping nature.
> > > >
> > > > Okay, I was thinking in terms of *major* global conflicts, such as war. More
> > > > specifically, I'm looking for examples of diplomacy effectively dealing with an
> > > > aggressor (nation or entity).
> > > >
> > > > JOHN
> > >
> > > Cuban Missle Crisis. Defused through diplomacy.
> >
> > Huh??
> >
> > Defused through us blockading Cuba and threatening to go to war if the
> > missiles weren't removed, then refusing to blink.
>
> But we did blink, if not quite as hard and fast. That's the whole point.
> Both sides had escalated the confrontation to the point that neither saw a
> way out, but continuing it was too horrifying for words. Only through
> diplomacy was the situation defused - historians usually credit Kruschev as
> getting the better of the deal. The value of more direct communication (for
> diplomacy) was so obvious, that the Moscow-Washington hot-line was installed
> as a direct result of the confrontation.
Big stick diplomacy is not the same as "diplomacy". Without strength,
diplomacy is impotent, as Larry pointed out. One cannot negotiate from a
position of weakness. That is why having a strong America is so good for the
world-- because of the threat of massive force, and because we are the most
benevolent "super" power to have ever existed. Our only "imperialist" intent
is to export the concept of freedom to the world.
>
> >
> > Oh, and while we're on that topic, I am reminded of how the French acted
> > then... they said "If you have evidence, that's good enough for us, we don't
> > have to actually see it, we take you at your word".
>
> See what happens when there's a really big army that would be invading
> France via Germany in the mix?
>
> >
> > But then Bush is no Kennedy.
Neither is Dan Quayle, or so I've heard;-)
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
