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?