Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I dont have any questions about the Iraq precedent. The facts speak for themselves - an Iran with more influence and power in the region, thousands of civilian deaths and chaos in Iraq, and more terrorists and anti-Americanism worldwide.
|
It is interesting that you easily accept that people in far away places can see our actions in Iraq and decide to act, in some cases taking up arms against us. But on the other hand you can not accept that the NK leader can see our actions in Iraq and decide to act, possibly taking a position that the potential costs of nuclear development are greater than the benefits. I suppose that one fits a political agenda and the other does not.
Quote:
|
As it applies to this discussion, I would define diplomacy as`negotiating with our enemies or perceived enemies to convince them of the value of of acting in a manner that best serves both our interests. One component of those negotiations is the ability to convince the opposition of the relative strength and weaknesses of both parties and the consequences if those strengths and weaknesses are forced into play.
|
You refer to consequences, in your view of diplomacy what would you consider to be consequences? If those consequences are employed and results in the settlement of differences are employing those consequences a part of your definition of diplomacy?
In my view, the threat of force is a consequence and in many cases is the only reason differences are resolved.
Quote:
|
Diplomacy is NOT public bullying and bellicose saber rattling with demands that the enemy "do want we want first..then we can talk". Diplomacy is also NOT impugning the motives of your friends as Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld did with "old Europe" when many of our long-standing allies refused to support our aggressive invasion of a sovereign nation.
|
Says who? I agree there are stages, and I normally would not start with bullying, etc., but those options would remain available and used if needed. For example if we needed an ally like Saudia Arabia for some military strategic purpose, I would start nicely, but in the end I would demand their cooperation if they put me in that position. Wouldn't you, if you had to.
Quote:
|
Its odd that you say our efforts in Iraq have not fully played out at the same time you credit Bush for a successful diplomatic approach to NK which also has not fully played out. The difference is that "Bush diplomacy" in Iraq costs 3,500+ american lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives that cant be restored if in the wild chance that the effort succeeds in the long term.
|
In my first post on this subject I said the news was "developing". I do give Bush the credit for the progress. I have also given Bush blame for some of the failures in Iraq.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
ace: here's what i see as the problem here. you haven't demonstrated a causal link between what i guess is now called the bush squad"s "cowboy diplomacy" and actions from north korea. you assert them, but you haven't SHOWN anything.
|
I agree. My views on this are speculation at best. It is possible their is no causal link. Without access to the mind of NK's leader, I will never know and will never be able to prove the point.