Congress gave Bush authority to bomb Iran today?

[Hedgehog]

Show me times in History that diplomacy ALONE, has been the deterent of conflict.

Fall of the Iron curtain in 89.

Czech Republic and Slovakia splitting up, no conflict, no threats. Just diplomacy.

EU.

[OzmO]

Sounds like you and MM are saying the same thing:  diplomacy without the very real threat of military force often isn't enough. 

Yeah,  so is decker.   

We three are really saying the same thing.   Imagine.

Military threat, especially now a days is a given.

[Decker]

no no simpleton, diplomacy ALONE...you think the U-2, F-16 flights on/over the 38th parallel plus the 50,000+ troops in South Korea didn't play a role in keeping NK quiet?

You too OzmO, I'm talking diplomacy alone. We always show force (whether you realize it or not) when faced with crisis.

What sort of a vacuum do you  live in?

I'm just wondering b/c the questions you raise are like those of a child.  Do I have to remind you that your incessant oversimplification of issues does nothing but illustrate your ham-handed grasp of the topic discussed?

Diplomacy alone as the deterrent of a conflict?  The Cuban Missile Crisis.  Or does the fact that weapons existed in the US and SU remove that example?  Do you see how foolish your contention is?

Let me explain to you what diplomacy means:  The art of negotiation.  What is negotiation?  Bargaining.  What are weapons?  Tools of destruction.  How does that fit into diplomacy?  It's another tool for bargaining one's position.

Negotiation is how the world does business and politics, i.e., diplomacy.  Yes, we always show force...we can't help it, we own weapons and have an army.  You can't divorce one from the other...except in your world re 'diplomacy'.
 

[militarymuscle69]

What sort of a vacuum do you  live in?

I'm just wondering b/c the questions you raise are like those of a child.  Do I have to remind you that your incessant oversimplification of issues does nothing but illustrate your ham-handed grasp of the topic discussed?

Diplomacy alone as the deterrent of a conflict?  The Cuban Missile Crisis.  Or does the fact that weapons existed in the US and SU remove that example?  Do you see how foolish your contention is?

Let me explain to you what diplomacy means:  The art of negotiation.  What is negotiation?  Bargaining.  What are weapons?  Tools of destruction.  How does that fit into diplomacy?  It's another tool for bargaining one's position.

Negotiation is how the world does business and politics, i.e., diplomacy.  Yes, we always show force...we can't help it, we own weapons and have an army.  You can't divorce one from the other...except in your world re 'diplomacy'.
 

your overcomplicating of things in an attempt to sound smart is the problem here son.

In the event an invasion of Cuba became necessary, TAC deployed F-84, F-100, F-105, RB-66, and
KB-50 aircraft to numerous bases in Florida. Meanwhile, SAC prepared for general war by dispersing
nuclear-capable B-47 aircraft to approximately 40 airfields in the United States and keeping numerous B-52
heavy bombers in the air ready to strike.Meanwhile, President Kennedy and his advisors on the national security team debated the most
effective course of action. Many on the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) favored invasion, but President Kennedy
took the somewhat less drastic step of imposing a naval blockade of the island, which was designed to
prevent any more materiel from reaching Cuba. Still technically an act of war, the blockade nevertheless had
the advantage of not turning the cold war into a hot one.

the cuban missle crisis was from from pure negotiation. You think Kennedy wasn't sitting at the table telling Castro we would bomb the fuck out of him? crazy ass, nieve

[Decker]

your overcomplicating of things in an attempt to sound smart is the problem here son.

In the event an invasion of Cuba became necessary, TAC deployed F-84, F-100, F-105, RB-66, and
KB-50 aircraft to numerous bases in Florida. Meanwhile, SAC prepared for general war by dispersing
nuclear-capable B-47 aircraft to approximately 40 airfields in the United States and keeping numerous B-52
heavy bombers in the air ready to strike.Meanwhile, President Kennedy and his advisors on the national security team debated the most
effective course of action. Many on the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) favored invasion, but President Kennedy
took the somewhat less drastic step of imposing a naval blockade of the island, which was designed to
prevent any more materiel from reaching Cuba. Still technically an act of war, the blockade nevertheless had
the advantage of not turning the cold war into a hot one.

the cuban missle crisis was from from pure negotiation. You think Kennedy wasn't sitting at the table telling Castro we would bomb the fuck out of him? crazy ass, nieve

What is your preoccupation with me and “trying to sound smart...”   I've seen accusations like yours before...in a movie:

Otto West: Look, you obviously don't know anything about intelligence work, lady. It's an X-K-Red-27 technique.
Wendy: My father was in the Secret Service, Mr. Manfredjinsinjin, and I know perfectly well that you don't keep the general public informed when you are "debriefing KGB defectors in a safe house."

Otto: Well, would you like to know what you'd be without us, the good ol' U.S. of A. to protect you? I'll tell you. The smallest fucking province in the Russian Empire, that's what. So don't call me stupid, lady. Just thank me.

(See, this sort of discussion has already happened in A Fish Called Wanda)

Otto: Don't call me stupid!
Wanda: To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've known sheep who could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs, but you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it.


Otto: You know your problem? You don't like winners.
Archie: Winners?
Otto: Yeah. Winners.
Archie: Winners, like North Vietnam?
Otto: Shut up. We didn't lose Vietnam. It was a tie.

_______________________________________________________________________
But seriously....How many any casualties resulted from the Cuban Missile Crisis?  None?  I would say that Diplomacy did carry the day.  Sometimes bargaining turns into a pissing contest.  I believe you even reference “Kennedy wasn't sitting at the table telling Castro we would bomb the fuck out of him?”  That’s negotiation.  That's Diplomacy.  Read about the diplomatic relations btn the US and the SU and the peaceful conclusion to the affair.

Speaking of pissing contests, when are you going to abandon your absurd notion of PURE DIPLOMACY.  What does that mean?  I guess you didn’t read my last post where I explain what ‘diplomacy’ means.

Thank you for the history lesson and making my point that diplomacy works.

[militarymuscle69]

simply talking to Castro wouldn't have done shit if those bombers weren't pre positioned.....

pure diplomacy would have been them talking without bombers over Kennedy's shoulder

[24KT]

Diplomacy seems to have done wonders between both North Korea  & South Korea these past few days.

[Dos Equis]

Don't forget the DMZ.  We have had troops on the North/South Korean border for decades.  Locked and loaded I believe.   

[24KT]

Don't forget the DMZ.  We have had troops on the North/South Korean border for decades.  Locked and loaded I believe.   

"Locked & Loaded" is a far cry from "Shooting & Bombing".

[Dos Equis]

"Locked & Loaded" is a far cry from "Shooting & Bombing".

The point is diplomacy is easier with the threat of military force.  The fact we keep a division on the border near the DMZ helps make North Korea a little more willing to listen.  When you are dealing with countries like North Korea, talks without the threat of "shooting and bombing" have no teeth.   

[24KT]

The point is diplomacy is easier with the threat of military force. 

I understand that point, ...however I do not think it applies in the case of the USA & Iran.

How does this make diplomacy easier when Bush refuses to talk to the leaders of Iran?

In this case, the USA's ability to exercise military force has hurt the cause of diplomacy.

talks without the threat of "shooting and bombing" have no teeth.   

Talks without the threat of "shooting and bombing" are called negotiations.
Talks WITH the threat of "shooting & bombing" are called intimidation & coercion.

[Dos Equis]

I understand that point, ...however I do not think it applies in the case of the USA & Iran.

How does this make diplomacy easier when Bush refuses to talk to the leaders of Iran?

In this case, the USA's ability to exercise military force has hurt the cause of diplomacy.


Talks without the threat of "shooting and bombing" are called negotiations.
Talks WITH the threat of "shooting & bombing" are called intimidation & coercion.

Sure it applies to Iran.  If Iran doesn't sincerely believe we will drop a bomb or two, they will not listen to a word we say. 

Reminds me of our invasion of Haiti to restore Aristide.  Colin Powell was negotiating with the military coup leader, while our planes were in the air.  He quickly agreed to safe passage out of the country. 

We don't need threats to negotiate with countries like Australia and Mexico.  We need threats when we "negotiate" with countries like Iran and North Korea.   

[24KT]

Sure it applies to Iran.  If Iran doesn't sincerely believe we will drop a bomb or two, they will not listen to a word we say. 

Your leader refuses to even come to the table to talk to Iran. 
Iran is willing to talk, Bush isn't.

[240 is Back]

Sure it applies to Iran.  If Iran doesn't sincerely believe we will drop a bomb or two, they will not listen to a word we say. 

We have not said a word to Iran in almost 25 years.

You're almost dangerously misinformed here, BB.

I'm embarassed for you.  The US refuses to talk to Iran.  No negotiations.  Are you making this up as you go, or is there a magic 8 ball driving your decision making process?

[24KT]

We have not said a word to Iran in almost 25 years.

You're almost dangerously misinformed here, BB.

I'm embarassed for you.  The US refuses to talk to Iran.  No negotiations.  Are you making this up as you go, or is there a magic 8 ball driving your decision making process?

Almost?!!! Surely you jest!

[Dos Equis]

We have not said a word to Iran in almost 25 years.

You're almost dangerously misinformed here, BB.

I'm embarassed for you.  The US refuses to talk to Iran.  No negotiations.  Are you making this up as you go, or is there a magic 8 ball driving your decision making process?

What the heck are you talking about?  Who said we were in active talks with Iran?  This is a theoretical discussion son.     Look that word up. 

[Dos Equis]

Almost?!!! Surely you jest!

Don't you have snake oil you should be selling right about now? 

[24KT]

Don't you have snake oil you should be selling right about now? 

Attempting to lower the standards on this board again by diverting the issue again are you?

Rather than attacking others with diversionary tactics, why don't you back up your assinine statements?

[Dos Equis]

Attempting to lower the standards on this board again by diverting the issue again are you?

Rather than attacking others with diversionary tactics, why don't you back up your assinine statements?

   

[Decker]

We have not said a word to Iran in almost 25 years.

You're almost dangerously misinformed here, BB.

I'm embarassed for you.  The US refuses to talk to Iran.  No negotiations.  Are you making this up as you go, or is there a magic 8 ball driving your decision making process?

I think the last time our executive branch spoke in earnest with the Iranian government was when Reagan/Bush sold weapons to Iran to use the proceeds to fund wars in Nicaragua.

The Iran/Contra Affair.  Trading with our enemy, subverting the constitutional process, and funding death squads....all in a day's work.

[rockyfortune]

i wish he'd get on with the bombing already...either you do it, or you don't..don't dick around---i need gas to be a 1.12 a gallon again...

[rockyfortune]

where's your evidence that saudi arabia has reached peak oil?  some say they are, some say they aren't? do you have firsthand knowledge of this or are you taking al gore's word for it?

[G o a t b o y]

We just have to make sure that MAD is sustained

MAD only works if all parties are reasonably rational.  For those with a strong desire to meet Allah and claim their 72 virgins, the doctrine is useless.

[240 is Back]

Saudi Arabia has reached peak oil, Iraq & Iran are too instable thanks to Bush, NIgeria has it's own challenges,
...and Bush messed up relations with Venezuela. That leaves US & Canadian oil deposits.

In order to get at North American deposits, you need to pay the oil workers a decent liveable wage.

Nah, you just need to truck in 250,000 or so mexican laborers. 

Hey, the north american union would be pretty good for getting all our own oil out of those freezing regions.  You want american citizenship?  work in alaska for ten years.

[Decker]

MAD only works if all parties are reasonably rational.  For those with a strong desire to meet Allah and claim their 72 virgins, the doctrine is useless.

I can't think of one world leader at the moment that would forgo survival to take attack the US.  Even the 'crazy' Saddam Hussein wouldn't have done that.