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 22:51:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
719 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > 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".
Of course it is. The implied threat of force in disputes of this nature is
part of the diplomacy. It is not a simplistic, "Do as ah sez or I'll hurt
youz real bad," - unless you are incompetent, that is, or simply bent on war
("Violence is the last resort of the incompetent," so I suppose that
wouldn't get you off the hook). Nor is pure military power the only way to
have a position of strength. Both sides had a big enough stick that it was
wiser for all involved to find a compromise.
> Without strength,
> diplomacy is impotent, as Larry pointed out. One cannot negotiate from a
> position of weakness.
Moral strength, diplomatic strength, military strength, positional strength,
logistical strength, strength of determination, strength of knowledge,
strength of wisdom, monetary strnegth, industrial strength, etc. There are
lots of "strengths".
> 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.
It took us quite some time to free the Philipines, and then we ended up
supporting scumbags because we still wanted to use it as a military station.
You are fooling yourself if you think the only "imperialist" agenda we have
is exporting our concept of "freedom". Overall, we have been better than
most, but that hardly means we have been perfect. A strong America is good,
an out-of-control America is not. Are we out of control? We'll have to
wait and see, but our moral and diplomatic strength is slipping away. Is it
worth the expenditure for the return?
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
