Quote:
| No seriously....wasn't trying to be disengenous...just was curious...not siding with the French would have alienated a key element and buffer zone in conjunction with West Germany in the new Cold War that developed... |
i completely disagree with that.. prime example - nato.. we supported france in vietnam, yet they opposed nato's creation. so, your statement about alienating france doesn't seem to hold water. central and western europe very worried about stalinist imperialism, and they would have supported us regardless of france's opinion. as it was, democracy after democracy was toppled by the soviets.. also, france had a long-standing beef with germany.. they wouldn't have backed out of west germany simply because of a lack of committment to their francocong plantations.
diplomacy is not perfect.. and neither is war. by saying that diplomacy fails more often than not, and that we should stop "pussyfooting" around and cut to the chase, you negate the possibility that war can be averted. using examples like the cuban missile crisis - your approach would've greatly increased the chances of a nuclear war.
another example... india and pakistan's recent standoff.. now, both sides had exchanged artillery fire across the border, but such acts are typical between these two foes.. it was not truly a war - no infantry stormed across the border, no aircraft entered their enemy's airspace, etc... powell went and talked to the leaders of both countries and through diplomacy, tensions were cooled and war was averted.
the thing about diplomacy is that its successes aren't the big flashy things that catch your eye compared to wars. to make an analogy using the cia - you never hear about the cia's successes, you always hear about its failures.. you could use a similar argument with regard to diplomacy.
diplomacy must ALWAYS be stressed, so that war only happens when it is absolutely necessary.