NationStates Jolt Archive

I am curiouse . With all the wars and conflicts and general disagreement going on in the world , why does anyone think that diplomacy is the answer or that it will work ?
I look back through history and see very few if any situations where " diplomacy " has had a good outcome . It has usually been diplomacy with the threat of war that has produced a favorable outcome .
My question is simply this , If history shows us that diplomacy alone in the face of a determined opponent has never been succesfull why do some still cling to the idea that it can and will be now ?
" A covenant without a sword is just words " What makes anyone think simply talking and making bargains will work , without the threat of a strong an unyeilding response ?

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h278/NazcaVisitor/7558.jpg

Diplomacy only has a chance of working if both governments are diplomatic.

This is because diplomacy doesnt force people to agree with you.War,or threat of war,does.No point in using diplomacy when you can blow people up,and terrorise them into agreeing with you!

It's like what makes the news: The plane crash or the thousands that land safely?

Diplomacy works far more than it fails, but when it fails it makes the history books. There are thousands if not tens of thousands of treaties negotiated without war.

Damn. I was hoping this would be about the board game... :(

Diplomacy is an effective tool, but like any other, it needs to be properly utilised, and it isnt the right tool for every task. Further like any tool it works best when employed as part of a well maintained tool-kit.

The problem is use the wrong tool for the wrong job, and/or at the wrong point in the proceedings, and you can stuff things up so that the task is more difficult or even impossible to accomplish with any tools available. Take Iraq for instance. The employment of the war-tool in that particular situation has greatly decreased effectiveness of all the US's tools including diplomacy. Diplomatic power based on 'goodwill' has been greatly reduced, as has diplomatic power based on 'fear of power', however there are other situations in which not deploying the war-tool soon enough will make the task more difficult and renders other tools (such as diplomacy) less or even uneffective.

It's looks good on Jesse Jackson's political resume'

I am curiouse . With all the wars and conflicts and general disagreement going on in the world , why does anyone think that diplomacy is the answer or that it will work ?
I look back through history and see very few if any situations where " diplomacy " has had a good outcome . It has usually been diplomacy with the threat of war that has produced a favorable outcome .
My question is simply this , If history shows us that diplomacy alone in the face of a determined opponent has never been succesfull why do some still cling to the idea that it can and will be now ?
" A covenant without a sword is just words "What makes anyone think simply talking and making bargains will work , without the threat of a strong an unyeilding response ?QUOTE]

If you ever meet John Hume ( cos ya see him everyday I'm sure). Ask him what he thinks of Diplomacy and his answer will be everything. I tend to agree. In the end no matter how long a war is waged or how many people are killed it is diplomacy that always comes through in the end.

[QUOTE]What makes anyone think simply talking and making bargains will work , without the threat of a strong an unyeilding response ?
Economic dependence, Economic dependence, Economic dependence and er Economic dependence. It leads to stability, furthers understanding and reduces the likelihood of war.

let me ask you something..who is more dependent on oil than the west ?

So how is " diplomacy' going to work...unless the west either " surrenders" or kicks ass ?

Diplomacy only has a chance of working if both governments are diplomatic.
America vs Iran
America vs North Korea
America vs ...

Germany vs France in 1870.:p

Many people when they try diplomacy aren't that serious about it or expect unreasonable concessions from the other party. Because of this, talking out the issue often fails.

Diplomacy works when either the nations involved have mutual interests that can be used to negotiate, the nations can negotiate over separate interests that balance each other out, or one side is more powerful than the other.

let me ask you something..who is more dependent on oil than the west ?

So how is " diplomacy' going to work...unless the west either " surrenders" or kicks ass ?

We surrendered long ago good thing nations with oil are also dependant on us

And diplomacy has a habit of stopping suffering (and may not actually need one side to be stronger so long as there are third parties involved looking to keep peace)

Diplomacy works far more than war does. War tends to generate more war. Diplomacy generates more diplomacy. Diplomacy is at work in all opportunities in which there's a risk of war. Diplomacy is why Canada isn't at war with the US right now over some islands that are disputed territories, and didn't get into one over the timber issue. It's why Japan and Russia aren't at war right now over the Kurile Islands. It's how the US managed to gather idiots to do its bidding in Iraq. It's how many conflicts in Africa, the Balkans and other places ended and end. It's always happening, and always working. It's the reason that your country is not at war with everyone else in the world right now, and the reason for the main cities of it being cities as opposed to molten glass (there are several world powers with nuclear capabilities). It's done after wars, when treaties that determine terms are negotiated considering that in most wars no side is totally annihilated, and total annihilation is costly even for the stronger side. It is, in short, the reason why the world is neither a dystopia nor a dead planet. And it will always prevent one state from gaining power through sheer military strenght in the world, and prevent wars from destroying the world. And, God willing, it will always be successful at it, lest the world becomes a dystopia or a dead planet.

That is what diplomacy is good for. But of course, neocons will always dislike it, and will never EVER acknowledge any of its many successes, since it prevents their dream of making the world into the dystopia they wish to make it.

let me ask you something..who is more dependent on oil than the west ?

We're not dependent on it, we use it because it is economical to do so. Once alternatives become better than oil, they will take over from it; that's going to happen beyond a doubt within the next 20 years.