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.

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

"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
news
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

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

"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.

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.


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.