On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 22:29:14 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On 8 Mar 2005 09:27:51 -0800, wrote:


NOYB wrote:

That would have been a good time to bomb downtown Beirut. Once
again,
ill-conceived diplomacy will cost American lives down the road.

Boy, that's broad minded........

Are you, like Chirac, rooting for Hezbolah also?

Actually Chirac is on our side with the Lebanon/Syria issue. I just can't
figure out why yet.


Maybe I'm getting Hizbollah and Hammas confused.
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

NOYB wrote:
I don't believe in paying incentives to countries to keep them from pursuing
WMD.

But do you genuinely believe that Clinton paid the North Koreans to not
announce their development of nukes?


... You obviously see nothing wrong with it...

Actually, that depends on how it's done. Money (specifically in dollars)
that is either loaned or granted to other countries comes back to us in
the form of profitable trade with that country... which gives us an
economic lever to use on them, since no countries have as big an economy
as ours.

But I noticed you don't hesitate to attribute to me statements and
attitudes that I have never expressed. Nice going, especially when you
dodge questions and backpedal on previous statements.

As for your statement that this form of diplomacy doesn't work... wrong.
It *has* worked, and worked wuite well. Ever heard of the Marshall Plan?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
NOYB wrote:
I don't believe in paying incentives to countries to keep them from
pursuing WMD.

But do you genuinely believe that Clinton paid the North Koreans to not
announce their development of nukes?


... You obviously see nothing wrong with it...

Actually, that depends on how it's done. Money (specifically in dollars)
that is either loaned or granted to other countries comes back to us in
the form of profitable trade with that country... which gives us an
economic lever to use on them, since no countries have as big an economy
as ours.

But I noticed you don't hesitate to attribute to me statements and
attitudes that I have never expressed. Nice going, especially when you
dodge questions and backpedal on previous statements.

As for your statement that this form of diplomacy doesn't work... wrong.
It *has* worked, and worked wuite well. Ever heard of the Marshall Plan?

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

Bert Robbins wrote:
Diplomacy only works when there is a threat of military coercion.


Wrong.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Bert Robbins wrote:
Diplomacy only works when there is a threat of military coercion.

Wrong.


Really? How am I wrong.

If I don't do what you want me to do even after you talk my ear off what are
you going to do? Well, if my military is stronger than your military you
pose no threat to me.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
NOYB wrote:
I don't believe in paying incentives to countries to keep them from
pursuing WMD.

But do you genuinely believe that Clinton paid the North Koreans to not
announce their development of nukes?

No, I think he believed that he bought some time with the bribe ...and
figured the next administration could deal with the mess once he left
office.




... You obviously see nothing wrong with it...

Actually, that depends on how it's done. Money (specifically in dollars)
that is either loaned or granted to other countries comes back to us in
the form of profitable trade with that country... which gives us an
economic lever to use on them, since no countries have as big an economy
as ours.

But I noticed you don't hesitate to attribute to me statements and
attitudes that I have never expressed. Nice going, especially when you
dodge questions and backpedal on previous statements.

As for your statement that this form of diplomacy doesn't work... wrong.
It *has* worked, and worked wuite well. Ever heard of the Marshall Plan?


Ummmmm. The Marshall Plan was implemented *after* the ass-kicking. It's
never worked as a method of appeasement.

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
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.

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

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.

"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?

"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.

When nations are involved it is called biding your time.

Are all the issues between Egypt and Israel settled? Nope. But the parties
talk, and they are not shooting at each other.

Wasn't the Islamic Brotherhood started in Egypt?

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


Wrong.


Bert Robbins wrote:
Really? How am I wrong.


Diplomacy works when both parties have something to gain by agreeing.

If I don't do what you want me to do even after you talk my ear off what are
you going to do? Well, if my military is stronger than your military you
pose no threat to me.


I guess we signed NAFTA because we were afraid Mexico & Canada were
going to invade us?

Forcing other people against their will is not "diplomacy," it's
"coercion." Maybe when the Bush Administration learns a slightly bigger
vocabulary, they'll understand the difference.

DSK

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

Wrong.


NOYB wrote:
No, he's right.

No, he's wrong.

Just because you two are simple minded and cannot understand anything
more complex than bashing people over the head when they don't do what
you want, does not make this the only way to succeed in the world.


... 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.

Because Bush's handlers told told him to kiss the Chinese butts, if
necessary, and the Chinese had more to gain from keeping the plane & crew.

This is a good example of the failure to apply your caveman brute-force
principle when it would have helped the U.S. but it doesn't mean that
this is all there is to "Diplomacy."

... China continues to violate international trade laws,
continues to arm rogue nations, and continues to expand its military and
threaten Taiwan.


And Bush continues to kiss their butts. I expect that if mainland China
decides to invade Taiwan, the 7th Fleet will be ordered to escort them &
make sure they don't get lost or run out of fuel.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Diplomacy only works when there is a threat of military coercion.


Wrong.


Bert Robbins wrote:
Really? How am I wrong.


Diplomacy works when both parties have something to gain by agreeing.

Correct, I and my country will be better of by not having my country invaded
by a superior military force if I acceed to the other country's desires.

If I don't do what you want me to do even after you talk my ear off what
are you going to do? Well, if my military is stronger than your military
you pose no threat to me.

I guess we signed NAFTA because we were afraid Mexico & Canada were going
to invade us?

We signed NAFTA because Bill C wanted to look like he was actually doing
something in office. NAFTA quickly opened the borders to move manufacturing
jobs to Mexico.

Forcing other people against their will is not "diplomacy," it's
"coercion."

Why yes, they are one and the same.

Maybe when the Bush Administration learns a slightly bigger vocabulary,
they'll understand the difference.

There is no difference between diplomacy and coersion. Once you understand
that you will also understand that nations are islands unto themselves and
that their survival depends on doing what is in the nations best interests
when dealing with other nations.

Bert Robbins wrote:
There is no difference between diplomacy and coersion.

Yes there is.

... Once you understand
that you will also understand that nations are islands unto themselves and
that their survival depends on doing what is in the nations best interests
when dealing with other nations.


So you're saying we should just nuke every other country on Earth, since
we can't trust them and can't coerce them?

Once you understand the difference between diplomacy & coercion, you may
be ready to consider acting like an adult, including voting for one.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Diplomacy only works when there is a threat of military coercion.

Wrong.


NOYB wrote:
No, he's right.

No, he's wrong.

Just because you two are simple minded and cannot understand anything more
complex than bashing people over the head when they don't do what you
want, does not make this the only way to succeed in the world

... 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.

Because Bush's handlers told told him to kiss the Chinese butts, if
necessary, and the Chinese had more to gain from keeping the plane & crew.

This is a good example of the failure to apply your caveman brute-force
principle when it would have helped the U.S. but it doesn't mean that this
is all there is to "Diplomacy."

... China continues to violate international trade laws, continues to
arm rogue nations, and continues to expand its military and threaten
Taiwan.


And Bush continues to kiss their butts. I expect that if mainland China
decides to invade Taiwan, the 7th Fleet will be ordered to escort them &
make sure they don't get lost or run out of fuel.

We are in another cold war now and it is with the Chinese directly and India
indirectly. Both China and India are purchasing oil at an increasing rate
which is driving up the price of that oil. Regardless of what you think oil
drives our economy in more ways than you realize.

... China continues to violate international trade laws, continues to
arm rogue nations, and continues to expand its military and threaten
Taiwan.


And Bush continues to kiss their butts. I expect that if mainland China
decides to invade Taiwan, the 7th Fleet will be ordered to escort them &
make sure they don't get lost or run out of fuel.


Bert Robbins wrote:
We are in another cold war now and it is with the Chinese directly and India
indirectly.

Which is why the Bush Administration is kissing up to them both, and
making sure that they get the lion's share of outsourced U.S. jobs?

... Both China and India are purchasing oil at an increasing rate
which is driving up the price of that oil.

So is scarcity.

... Regardless of what you think oil
drives our economy in more ways than you realize.


???
When did I ever post anything saying that oil is not important to our
economy? Get a clue.

DSK

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 06:58:37 -0500, DSK wrote:

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

Wrong.


NOYB wrote:
No, he's right.

No, he's wrong.

Just because you two are simple minded and cannot understand anything
more complex than bashing people over the head when they don't do what
you want, does not make this the only way to succeed in the world.


... 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.

Because Bush's handlers told told him to kiss the Chinese butts, if
necessary, and the Chinese had more to gain from keeping the plane & crew.

This is a good example of the failure to apply your caveman brute-force
principle when it would have helped the U.S. but it doesn't mean that
this is all there is to "Diplomacy."

... China continues to violate international trade laws,
continues to arm rogue nations, and continues to expand its military and
threaten Taiwan.


And Bush continues to kiss their butts. I expect that if mainland China
decides to invade Taiwan, the 7th Fleet will be ordered to escort them &
make sure they don't get lost or run out of fuel.

DSK

You've just gotta go with the personal insult crap, don't you doug?


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

And Bush continues to kiss their butts. I expect that if mainland China
decides to invade Taiwan, the 7th Fleet will be ordered to escort them &
make sure they don't get lost or run out of fuel.

DSK


John H wrote:
You've just gotta go with the personal insult crap, don't you doug?


Just exactly where have I insulted anybody here?

Typical neo-con BS... claim you were insulted so as to justify your own
poor manners...

DSK

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 14:08:57 -0500, DSK wrote:

And Bush continues to kiss their butts. I expect that if mainland China
decides to invade Taiwan, the 7th Fleet will be ordered to escort them &
make sure they don't get lost or run out of fuel.

DSK


John H wrote:
You've just gotta go with the personal insult crap, don't you doug?


Just exactly where have I insulted anybody here?

Typical neo-con BS... claim you were insulted so as to justify your own
poor manners...

DSK

Go back to the parts you snipped:

Just because you two are simple minded and cannot understand anything
more complex than bashing people over the head when they don't do what
you want, does not make this the only way to succeed in the world.


Does that ring a bell?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
Go back to the parts you snipped:


Just because you two are simple minded and cannot understand anything
more complex than bashing people over the head when they don't do what
you want, does not make this the only way to succeed in the world.



Does that ring a bell?

It's the truth.

Perhaps it would be simpler to ignore such raging stupidity, since
there's no possiblity of reducing it.

DSK

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 15:41:45 -0500, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
Go back to the parts you snipped:


Just because you two are simple minded and cannot understand anything
more complex than bashing people over the head when they don't do what
you want, does not make this the only way to succeed in the world.



Does that ring a bell?

It's the truth.

Perhaps it would be simpler to ignore such raging stupidity, since
there's no possiblity of reducing it.

DSK

Try it. It's easy.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Bert Robbins wrote:
There is no difference between diplomacy and coersion.

Yes there is.

You haven't done a good job of contrasting between diplomacy and coersion
so, I can only conclude that they are still one and the same.

... Once you understand that you will also understand that nations are
islands unto themselves and that their survival depends on doing what is
in the nations best interests when dealing with other nations.


So you're saying we should just nuke every other country on Earth, since
we can't trust them and can't coerce them?

No, I didn't say we should nuke anyone. We should continue to threaten
countries with our nuke capability.

Once you understand the difference between diplomacy & coercion, you may
be ready to consider acting like an adult, including voting for one.

I did vote for an adult. I didn't vote for John Kerry because he is a child
who has done well marrying rich women and hasn't been able to amass a
fortune on his own. Haven't you noticed that Mrs. Heinz Kerry has dropped
the Kerry. I guess old John will have to start begging for his allowance
again.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
... China continues to violate international trade laws, continues to
arm rogue nations, and continues to expand its military and threaten
Taiwan.


And Bush continues to kiss their butts. I expect that if mainland China
decides to invade Taiwan, the 7th Fleet will be ordered to escort them &
make sure they don't get lost or run out of fuel.


Bert Robbins wrote:
We are in another cold war now and it is with the Chinese directly and
India indirectly.

Which is why the Bush Administration is kissing up to them both, and
making sure that they get the lion's share of outsourced U.S. jobs?

... Both China and India are purchasing oil at an increasing rate which
is driving up the price of that oil.

So is scarcity.

I heard that they are going to vote to crack open ANWR.


... Regardless of what you think oil drives our economy in more ways than
you realize.


???
When did I ever post anything saying that oil is not important to our
economy? Get a clue.

I have a clue. In fact I have several and I could give you one if you would
like?

Bert Robbins wrote:
You haven't done a good job of contrasting between diplomacy and coersion
so, I can only conclude that they are still one and the same.

Get a dictionary.

DSK