Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xepherys
Disagreed. Or at least partly...
Hate on principal is different than hate via "pathology" as describe above, or rather complete ideal. That would've been like trying to find a diplomatic friendship between 1940's United States and Nazi Germany.
|
Friendship is not necessary for diplomacy to work. The U.S. did retain diplomatic contacts with Germany up until the declaration of war, even long after we were actively assisting the British. Even during the war, certain contacts remained. The goal was not friendship, but the achievement of specific objectives.
Quote:
|
Not only is it unlikely, it really would not have been beneficial to either party. Maybe that's the core... diplomacy must be mutually beneficial. Relations between Western countries and Middle Eastern countries are hardly ever mutually beneficial, at least in the grand scheme of things. There may be short-term benefits like cheap oil for arms (Iran Contra anybody?) but those benefits are not lasting, and often create larger problems in the end.
|
Diplomatic arrangements are never permanent, nor can one expect them to be. Diplomacy is about getting other nations to do what you want them to do without military force. Mutual benefit is nice to make it happen, but not necessary. Of course it all depends on how you quantify 'benefit'.
Quote:
|
Yes, the US is a war nation, as are most middle eastern countries. The difference is that we don't just go to war for shits and giggles like they do. It's really a lot like impoversihed African countries with warlords and such. Replace poor people with people bred into hatred, and replace warlords with sheik, kings and other royalty, and you'll see it's not much different.
|
What the heck is a 'war nation'? One with a history full of war? Okay, but what's the point as that can describe a lot of countries and doesn't really mean anything. War is an omnipresent fact in a nation-state system with no heirarchy of authority.
This sentiment of yours indicates why you may have little hope in diplomacy. You appear to not be able to comprehend the position of the people of Iran or their leaders, and you are projecting a similar lack of comprehension on them, assuming they are closed to any diplomatic potential. I say this not to flame you, trust me, but comments such as thinking they make war just for shits and giggles indicates a distinct lack of understanding of the motivations and views of the people of the region. I have yet to see a war in my studies that was fought for 'shits and giggles'.
I highlight this not to denegrate you or your views, but to demonstrate a sentiment which you reflected which I feel is very much at the heart of why we continue to see the proliferation of military conflict, and that is this sense that war when prosecuted by 'us' is good and just and in a 'just cause', made necessary by our responsibility to justice, good, mercy, and all other virtues of the world, while war when prosecuted by 'them' is bad and evil, and the result of pathology, insanity, cruelty, greed, and all other vices of the world. This is only made possible by a fundamental lack of comprehension of the supposed 'enemy' and their beliefs, situation, and needs. This sentiment is of course feasted upon by those who wish to prosecute war to garner support.
Josh