"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

NOYB wrote:

"DSK" wrote in message
et...


Bert Robbins wrote:


Diplomacy only works when there is a threat of military coercion.

Wrong.


No, he's right. The one example you cited (Marshall Plan) was
implemented *after* military action. Name an instance of international
tension that ended positively as the result of a bribe and *without* the
threat of military action. The closest example that I can find is the
downing of the Navy plane by China just 4 years ago. However, we gained
virtually nothing with our appeasement. China continues to violate
international trade laws, continues to arm rogue nations, and continues
to expand its military and threaten Taiwan.







Jimmy Carter and the leaders of Egypt and Israel came to terms without
the threat of military action.


And where did things stand just a few short years later? No *lasting*
result is accomplished through appeasement.




Where do things stand?

Egypt and Israel are still at peace with each other. And it wasn't
appeasement that brought about the peace, it was negotiation and
concession, and that is the way mature adults play the game.


Regardless, you've just provided another example of concessions made *after*
conflict. I've been trying to be clear on this, but I guess you're missing
the point.

Where has appeasement (without a preceding period of military conflict)
ever resulted in a lasting peace?