This is basically the great international debate. The Yanks, Brits, Auzzies and a few countries give Diplomacy a chance, but then revert to action when nothing good comes from talks. A great deal of the world wants to take Diplomacy to the max.

So where do we draw the line? When do we change from Diplomacy to action? Today, I see that talks with North Korea and Iran are on the verge of falling apart. Both there diplomatic efforts have been going on for a good while. Europe took over talks with Iran when the US said enough is enough. It did little good but buy Iran time. Action itself can drive countries to the negotiating table. The B-52 finally got the North Vietnam Government to agree to the US pull out. My firm belief is that Lybia would have never gave up WMD's of Iraq had not occurred. During Desert Storm, Saddam ignored all international pressure to pull out of Kuwait. Also, Diplomacy can be bad. Look at how Europe made agreement after agreement with Hitler to keep him "contained." That worked out well.

That is my rambling for the day!!!

Doody

WARNING: Debating whether or not Iraq should have happened will not be tolerated. Also, there are a lot of instances of diplomacy besides Iraq. Be a bit creative and use them.

Look at the old gang wars that happend in the history of the US.


Men fought over greed, petty insults, and racism more than anything else. Political diplomacy is that which is used by people with a seemingly civilized nature to discuss differences of opinions and to try to reach an agreeable compromise. If neither side can see their way to doing the proper thing then it is inevitable, however small or large the scale, that a war will ensue.

Diplomacy is only a first step in creating ties with a foreign Government/Country. That's why we open Embassies in each other's Countries, to let Ambassadors handle squabbles between countries. When you are forced to close your Embassy because of violence directed at your people, then diplomacy is on the verge of failure. The Japanese Ambassadors tried to give the USA a warning by presenting President Roosevelt with a declaration of war. Pearl Harbor was bombed before they even received the telegram. That is using diplomacy against you as a weakness. Diplomacy is not a one way street, both parties have to agree to at least try to reason with other. North Korea has even told China, their one time ally to buzz off on Nuclear talks.

IF there is a breach of International Law and the the other people will not reverse their action that has caused this problem then there should be a response to this. If WE just allow them to ignore these international laws then we are going back to a time that caused WW2 when Hitler knew he could what he liked and every one was to frighten to any thing about it.

War is the continuation of state policy by other means.

- Carl Von Clauswitz, On War

That's what it boils down to. When a nation cannot continue its policies by the usual means then war is inevitable. So at what point does that happen? When it has become clear at least in the leadership's eyes that nothing else will suffice. All nations should think well on that. If you put a country in a corner then don't be surprised if the balloon goes up. So I will close that thought with another warrior's quote.

We must find an end to war, or war will surely find an end to us.

- General of the Army Douglas MacArthur

The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in a moral crisis maintain their neutrality (Dante Alighieri, Florentine poet and soldier)

A moral crisis demands peaceful action immediately especially from those who have the power to right a wrong or correct an injustice. When peaceful means are exhausted then forceful action is needed. This principle applies to domestic, local, state, federal and international authorities[/b]

When do you Switch from Diplomacy to Action?

Once diplomacy stops working?!

Originally Posted by Padre

The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in a moral crisis maintain their neutrality (Dante Alighieri, Florentine poet and soldier)

Doesn't Italy have the smartest poets of all?

Originally Posted by Italian Guy

Doesn't Italy have the smartest poets of all?

That I disagree. Because you should know about Iranian poets too

Like Sadi, Hafez, Ferdowsi and contemporary poets like Shamlou and Saleis

Originally Posted by Italian Guy

Doesn't Italy have the smartest poets of all?

Originally Posted by Phoenix

That I disagree. Because you should know about Iranian poets too

Like Sadi, Hafez, Ferdowsi and contemporary poets like Shamlou and Saleis

Rarely should you take me all too seriously, remember.