user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : Diplomacy that is not appeasement is best
There are many forms of diplomacy. Some are better than others. I will outline appeasement as being a risky form of diplomacy. Offering bribes (that is benefits and rewards) to an opponent in return for little more than promises seems to encourage the rogue behaviour of the one in question.
What is needed therefore, is less diplomacy that orbits around bribery. A different form of diplomacy is specifcally better- not one of pure bribes and appeasement. On the other hand diplomacy made up of only blackmail is flawed also. Giving an opponent a reward for provocative behaviour in exchange for a promise to halt to such rogue actions does little to punish bad behaviour. On the other hand, a diplomacy of pure blackmail does little to reward good behaviour. What is therefore needed is a diplomacy that follows a middle path- a dual promise should be on the table- 1) Good behaviour will lead to rewards: constructive engagement such as economic ties, trade, assistance in development, and perhaps aid, and so on and 2) Bad behaviour can and will be punished: reduction of economic ties, trade, and so on.
Offering rewards in response to rogue behaviour is not a sound policy.
The biggest problem with leftists is that if one opposes their specific form of diplomacy, they automatically assume you want war. They act as if there is only 'only this form of diplocay OR war', which is of course a nonsensical dichotomy. There are many forms of diplomacy, and just because one opposes their form of diplomacy (often appeasement), it does not always mean that one is pushing for war, or that there are not other alternative forms of diplomacy.
It is NOT a case of Appeasement or War. There is a constructive form of diplomacy that can avoid both- one based on conditional engagment.
What's your definition of "Neocon?" If you're grouping the majority of conservatives, you're wrong.
I was addressing Cranky.
Bostonian:
Neocons are to conservatism what Evangelical Fundamentalists are to Christianity.
Soc:
I would suggest that it's the neocons who are spinning it to make the case that diplomacy IS appeasement. And that it's neocons who are making the argument that it is a black-and-white issue, that there is diplomacy (i.e. appeasement) or war, with nothing in between.
I would turn your statement on its head and say: "The biggest problem with neocons is that if one opposes military action, they automatically assume you want appeasement.
I agree with you that there are many flavors to diplomacy and constructive engagement.
Voted : Diplomacy that is not appeasement is best
Well cranky if by neocons you mean Bushites who think the answer to to any problem is to drop a bomb on it then I agree.However real conservatives and most Americans believe that war is a last resort option but an option that should always be considered.Moreover real conservatives believe in diplomacy they just don't believe in the sycophantic appeasement you liberals pass off as diplomacy.Look what Clinton has gotten the world into with his "diplomacy", if he would have only deneigned the Koreans that reactor we would not be in this mess.
"Sycophantic appeasement you liberals pass off as diplomacy?" Is that what Bush and his neocon pals have been using for the last six years?
And I'm having a hard time with the assumption that the only way a nation can get nuclear weapons is by having gotten a reactor from Bill Clinton. In what year did Iran, Pakistan, and India get theirs from Clinton?
"It is NOT a case of Appeasement or War."
- I agree. Oy, how lamentably predictable to see these things split into black-or-white categories.
cranky that is obsurd you know that the Korean situation is different from the Pakistani and Indian situation.Clinton directly aided the Korean's nuclear program,without his help they would have been years behind and probably not threatening us today.He can you dismiss such a huge foreign policy mistake?
Voted : Diplomacy that is not appeasement is best
Just about any kind of attempt to avoid war is preferable, including diplomacy. War is what happens when diplomacy fails or when someone goes off 'half-cocked'. Some of the simplest problems between peoples of different nations have turned into bloodbaths, simply because no one wants to bend. This will never change. I have a saying, "Old men make wars: young men fight and die in them."
Corrupt:
My point was that North Korea didn't need the reactor that was in the US/NK deal of the 90's. If they wanted nuclear weapons, they would get nuclear weapons, regardless. NK certainly had enough help from Pakistan.
And six years of the Bush "macho man" approach has come to nothing.
cranky- Although the reactors did not 'give' the North Koreans nuclear weapons- it certainly helped make it even easier for them. A policy of doing absolutely nothing even would have been better than a policy of assisting them on this issue.
... and yes Pakistan is a frienemy.
Voted : No, diplomacy is the better way
Real diplomacy is almost always a preferrable first response.
^Yeah but what constitutes real diplomacy Cathexis, giving the baby in N.K what he wants until he calms down and stops his fit?For me real diplomacy is rallying the world against the Koreans and sanctioning them into submission.
|
|
