Military Force vs Diplomacy

I've read over various aspects of history and it appears that naked force has solved more issues then diplomacy has since man stood upright. If this is indeed correct...aren't we merely delaying the inevitable use of force to resolve an issue when we resort to diplomacy?

[Starboy]

Originally posted by ACause, I've read over various aspects of history and it appears that naked force has solved more issues then diplomacy has since man stood upright. If this is indeed correct...aren't we merely delaying the inevitable use of force to resolve an issue when we resort to diplomacy?

What issues has naked force solved?

Starboy

You name it...it's been resolved by force...the Revolutionary War,...Great Britain was never going to release the colonies thru diplomacy.....it took years of War to do that....Slavery..diplomacy failed to rid us of it..it took the Civil War...WW1....Wilson thought he could use diplomacy but it failed as the Japanese walked out after their initial wars of conquest....WW2...Chamberlain thought he could use diplomacy to hold back Hitler...etc.etc...history is resplendent with actions that were only resolved thru the use of force. So I ask...is diplomacy at best a stopgap measure for situations where force will be used at some point?

[Starboy]

Okay, let us say for the sake of argument that all those examples that you list were purely resolved by force. For the sake of fairness can you name some disagreements that were resolved without force?

Starboy

[Gorgo]

Actually, a lot of people think the Revolution was slowed down because of the violence.

War usually only kills people. It doesn't really solve anything.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by ACause, You name it...it's been resolved by force...the Revolutionary War,...Great Britain was never going to release the colonies thru diplomacy.....it took years of War to do that....Slavery..diplomacy failed to rid us of it..it took the Civil War...WW1....Wilson thought he could use diplomacy but it failed as the Japanese walked out after their initial wars of conquest....WW2...Chamberlain thought he could use diplomacy to hold back Hitler...etc.etc...history is resplendent with actions that were only resolved thru the use of force. So I ask...is diplomacy at best a stopgap measure for situations where force will be used at some point?

Exactly. Why did the white man ever use diplomacy with the pesky redskins? He should have honestly and forthrightly killed every Indian man, woman and child, or enslaved them so that the continent could be free for the expansion of the real owners, white Americans... (Irony)

Actually, that is what the Spanish did and it resulted in two things: A great deal of wealth for the Spanish crown and the overlord class, and a long-standing issue of corruption and injustice in Spanish America. Not to mention the misery of the stepped-on Indians, but who cares? The issues were resolved by force.

[Starboy]

That is a good point Patrick. The victor may see resolution but unless the opponent is completely eliminated all one has is the seeds for a later war. WWI did not resolve the issues. It just created WWII. And WWII didn't resolve the issues it just created the cold war. And now that people have decided to stop fighting and negotiate with each other they are about to achieve through diplomacy that which has never been accomplished through war, a united Europe. The hope of diplomacy is that both sides can come out winners whereas in war there are at best winners and losers and usually both sides are losers. Many a nation has waited for two rivals to spend themselves on war and then just move in and conquer them both.

Starboy

[bishop]

one could argue that force "succeeded" because the power that be chose not to resort to diplomacy to solve their problems. i.e. there was always an aggressor.

if you apply that logic to iraq - we were the aggressor.

vietnam could have been averted through diplomacy..

further, the past record of diplomacy's inadequacies DO NOT mean that we should abandon diplomacy and always seek military solutions. as some wise man say:

war is a failure of diplomacy. and,

war may sometimes be a necessary evil. but no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children.


when you opt to live in a world where you've given up on diplomacy and view war as the only answer, you live in a world devoid of hope.

But someone once said that War is the natural state of man, that Peace is the illusion of the span of time that man has between wars.

And Starboy..I wouldn't exactly say the unification of Europe is a done deal....England is fighting the EU tooth and nail on virtually every subject...and the EU itself is not a governing body, merely trade and currency I believe correct?....

Patrick...as far as the white man/Indian scenario....war had it's purpose...without forcing conflict with the tribes then America's Manifest Destiny would never have been realized...War enabled the Cherokee to become one of the 5 major players as far as the Southeast/East Coast network of tribes.....Whenever we tried diplomacy with the US we ended up screwed....and when we went to the Supreme Court to address wrongs....yes...the Supreme Court ruled for us in Cherokee Nation vs. State of Georgia....but President Jackson's response to the Supreme Court was this "They have made their ruling, now let them enforce it"...and went ahead with the Removal anyway.

And off the top of my head I can't name one major issue resolve thru Diplomacy?

Bishop I'm intrigued, how could Vietnam been averted thru diplomacy?...They tried that in 54 when the North and South Vietnam's were created...it lead to the creation of the VietCong and internal rebellion with the Diem regime.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by ACause, But someone once said that War is the natural state of man, that Peace is the illusion of the span of time that man has between wars.

So are you saying that we are doomed to this or that it is the preferred condition?

And Starboy..I wouldn't exactly say the unification of Europe is a done deal....England is fighting the EU tooth and nail on virtually every subject...and the EU itself is not a governing body, merely trade and currency I believe correct?....

I agree, it is far from done, but it takes the breath away just how much has been accomplished by diplomacy. Especially when you consider the millennia of wars that attempted to accomplish what appears to be happening through diplomacy.

And off the top of my head I can't name one major issue resolve thru Diplomacy?

What about Ronald Regan and Gorbachev and the end of the cold war? Was that resolved by a decisive military battle?

Starboy

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PatrickHenry,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-ACause, You name it...it's been resolved by force...the Revolutionary War,...Great Britain was never going to release the colonies thru diplomacy.....it took years of War to do that....Slavery..diplomacy failed to rid us of it..it took the Civil War...WW1....Wilson thought he could use diplomacy but it failed as the Japanese walked out after their initial wars of conquest....WW2...Chamberlain thought he could use diplomacy  to hold back Hitler...etc.etc...history is resplendent with actions that were only resolved thru the use of force.  So I ask...is diplomacy at best a stopgap measure for situations where force will be used at some point?

Exactly. Why did the white man ever use diplomacy with the pesky redskins? He should have honestly and forthrightly killed every Indian man, woman and child, or enslaved them so that the continent could be free for the expansion of the real owners, white Americans... (Irony)

Actually, that is what the Spanish did and it resulted in two things: A great deal of wealth for the Spanish crown and the overlord class, and a long-standing issue of corruption and injustice in Spanish America. Not to mention the misery of the stepped-on Indians, but who cares? The issues were resolved by force.[/b][/quote]

Well, Anoald is trying to work out a new treaty to make Indians pay taxes for their gambling operations - so far he did not send in the National Guard. But it is true that many conflicts ended up as wars and the winner was in charge of making whatever treaty followed. I guess that is also the philosophy of terrorism. To force an agreement. I think Ben Franklin worked out a peaceful agreement with france, money talks.

Do not recall any war with Canada over where to draw the borader lines.

But the fact remains that no one has much faith in the concept "give peace a chance". The U.N. was set up with that hope in mind but the warlord nations wanted to keep up the sale of weapons because much of their economy was based on that industry.

We had a revolution demanding that our government give peace a chance, they would not listen, and so now they are still stuck with war after war, and I must say we deserve our fate because that rejection.

If no one really tires it then it cannot come to pass. As long as people in their agressive leadership roles believe that peace is being girly, we will not know peace. Peace can only enter when all hatred is gone.

But hey, why not give peace a chance? For a change? It might be just what the doctor ordered.

Technosoul.

[bishop]

acause... when you single out one comment and ignore the rest of the post, containing the real points, you seem a little disingenuous...

anyways, since you want to debate vietnam.. we could have chosen not to side up with the french, and instead sought to continue diplomacy with both factions. problems for us began when we chose to pick a side.


an example of diplomacy that was successful - kennedy and the cuban missile crisis. nobody died. no shot was fired. nuclear was was averted. pretty big success right there.

there are also lesser known successes, particularly with regard to the aversion of nuclear war. during clinton's presidency, we had a stand-off with russia - a scienctific balloon from a scandinavian country tipped off russia's early warning system. they began to fill their nukes with fuel (which, if you know something about nuclear policy - that is a VERY big deal)... our diplomats were quick to act and nuclear war was once again averted.

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...

You're right..diplomacy did end that particular crisis..unfortunately over 15 conflicts between the proxy countries that fought the Cold War were initiated.

Starboy...I'm saying that we are locked into a cycle yes..as to whether it is the preferred condition...life is constantly changing circumstances all fighting for supremacy...nature iteself wars with itself....Modern man is not to far removed from that Stone-age hunter/gatherer...a thin veneer covers it..

Diplomacy has cause some momentous changes, but on the whole....it has been the use of Force which changed the most situations...look at the Cold War....we basically broke the USSR monetarily by continually upping the arms race.

[bishop]

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.

I can agree to an extent to your last...it is my opinion it is a hope rarely achieved and underwrit by the all-to quickly application of Force...I have no problem with Diplomacy being used..I just don't see the empirical evidence to assert it has more influence then Force....but I'll conced the point to you, you argued well.

[bishop]

thanks...

i think when you look into why diplomacy fails, the reasons tend to be fairly evident on a case-by-case basis. more often than not, "leaders" tend to be egotistical maniacs more interested in personal power than that of their country. the personalities of different leaders plays a huge role.

to use jimmy carter for example.. here was a guy who probably would've only resorted to war if it was brought upon us.. but, he reached a very important diplomatic peace agreement in the camp david accords. although the situation with israel is mired in turmoil, imagine what things would be like had that not have happened.

[Technosoul]

I do not agree we broke the USSR by upping the arms race (up to what ... HARRP?),

Here is the historical truth.

A Native American fellow who's last name just happens to be Wolf came up with this idea called the "harmonic convergence" and here is how it was planned. When all the planets were lined up they would hold a day when people around the globe would meditiate, pray, or think about world peace and oneness with nature. At the same time. This it was believed would influence world events. Some New Agers liked the idea and contacted many groups and soon the project came to the light of day and millions of people all around the earth took part in the ritual, John Denver led one group that went to Moscow and they talked Gorbie into allowing people in his country to "think or meditate" about world peace. As Gorbie later said he was impressed by two things - frist off he really liked that Beatles song "give peace a chance" and liked John Lennon's securlar philosophies. But also they talked to him about how useless a all out nuclear war would be, with nuclear winter and all it would be self-destructive for everyone on the planet and no one would really win because we all would be dead. He saw the logic behind that science and comprehended that nuclear arms had become obsolete because they could not use them anyway do to the suicidal nature of such a war.

He got excited by the harmonic convergence idea and allowed to to be shown on their national TV (all day coverage). And many in the old USSR took part in that famous event (not so famous here because our news put it on the back page).

It was right after and because of that event that Gorbie made up his mind to end the cold war and concentrate on internal problems facing his country. And the German wall came toppling down.

Nothing Reagan did or said had much to do with that choice that Gorbie made, what would be the point of "star wars" if it is totally foolish to have a nuclear war?

So now you know.

None the less the Republican like to take credit because they just happened to be in the White House at that time. And of course Gorbie was soon booted out by the "hawks" so we never got to witness how much better history would have turned out if Gorbie was left in power. The only hero in all that was Gorbie who had the guts to "just say no" to the arms race.

Technosoul.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by ACause, Diplomacy has cause some momentous changes, but on the whole....it has been the use of Force which changed the most situations...look at the Cold War....we basically broke the USSR monetarily by continually upping the arms race.

You appear to be trying to widen your concept of war. Is an economic war a war? And if it is war then isn't popular music war? Yes we are competitive, but isn't deplomacy just a recognition that we are competitive and that we do get into disagreements but that physical violence is not always the preferred way to settle the matter?

Starboy