[Nando Aqui]

Arguments For War vs. Diplomacy

There are those who argue that war is never necessary, that it is immoral, and that diplomacy, if given sufficient time, will resolve any issue peacefully.

Let’s think about this.
(1) If war is never the answer, and diplomacy can always work, what would have, or could have happened in the past if war had not been waged?

* For example, if there had not been a War of Independence, wouldn’t the country we now know as the United States of America, still be part of England?

* And, if there wouldn’t have been a Civil War, would we still have slavery?

* And, if there wouldn’t have been a Second World War, isn’t it likely that Nazi Germany would still rule Europe and parts of Asia and Africa; that Jews would have been exterminated; that Japan would rule over Hawaii and other countries; and that the fate of United States would not be as we know it today?

(2) Some may go as far as to admit that perhaps war is necessary in some extreme cases, but that we just can’t be hasty about it. Fine, good point; and when is it necessary to go to war, and who decides that?

* Do we decide to go to war after the country with which we are concerned has developed the weapons that we feared in the first place?

* Or perhaps we decide to go to war long after the country involved has lied and violated all accords and treaties numerous times? How many times?

* What would have happened if the Allies had failed to wage war and defeat Hitler when they did? How much stronger would Hitler have become? Don’t forget, Nazi Germany was very close to having the atomic bomb. What would have happened if Nazi Germany, instead of the United States, had developed the atomic bomb first? Don’t you think that Hitler would have used it indiscriminately against any of his enemies? Actually, if Britain's Chamberlain hadn't hesitated and had acted sooner, Hitler's atrocities could have been diminished.

* And what would have happened if the Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961 had been supported as had been promised, and Castro had been removed from power? I guess we will never know, but we would have not had to deal with the doctrines that Castro has spread through Latin American and Africa, or the suffering that he brought to Cuba[1]. Instead, we would have had another country as our ally, and not an enemy that had us at the brink of nuclear war in October 1962, about a year after the Bay of Pigs failure.

Of course war is a horrible thing. Our own kids [2] are in harms way. But the consequences of not going to war, as would be the case with Iraq if Hussein is not removed from power, are even more horrible.

I trust those now in command to make the proper decision, and I most definitely trust our President more than I trust the leaders of other nations. Don’t you?

Alex

[1] I was part of the undergound in Havana fighting Castro's regime during the Bay of Pigs invasion, but Castro's G2 'secret police' caught up with me and I ended up in prision. I was 15 years old at the time.

[2] I have two sons in the military; one already in harms way again, in the Persian Gulf.

[Hkmp5sd]

Nazi Germany was very close to having the atomic bomb.

The Nazi's were not even close to developing a nuclear weapon at the end of the war.




I think war is a necessary part of a nations foreign policy. Diplomacy and all the negotiations in the world will not accomplish anything unless there is the implied threat of force backing them up. A good example is France. No one takes them seriously because they either surrender or in the case of terrorists, bribe them.

Look at how the UN has dealed with the current problem. They did some major whining about what to do and disagreeing with what Bush wants to do. When they realized that Bush was going to do it on his on if they didn't do anything, they approved everything he has asked for so far.

Without a powerful military and the willingness to use that military, Saddam would be doing anything he desires. The only thing holding him in check now is the fear of going to war with the United States. He does not fear the UN, Saudi Arabia, Israel or any other nation.

I hope he wakes up one morning soon with a .30 cal hole in his head. If that does not happen and the military does have to invade, I fully support them in their actions. At this point in time, I think it is needed.

[Gewehr98]

Nazi Germany wasn't even close to having a usable nuclear device, even before the Allies boogered up their heavy water supply.


War, unfortunately, gets decidedly more lethal to larger and larger populations as history progresses. The progress in killing efficiency is downright staggering as one researches war through recorded history.

Which means mankind, as a whole, must be particularly careful in this day and age when resorting to warfare as an alternative to diplomatic means.

Do I think a surgical strike on a North Korean nuclear fuel reprocessing facility is a sound bit of diplomacy? Nope, not when they've so much as promised WW-III and all the horrors that envisions. Remember, they've got nothing to lose in that little peninsula. Do you think they really care about what the U.N. has to say? Nuclear brinkmanship is not a trifling matter.

[4v50 Gary]

1) It happens, even if you don't want it.

2) Makes for better night time reading.

[ReadyontheRight]

"Suppose they gave a war and nobody came? Why then, the war would come to you!" -Bertolt Brecht- (A Marxist, yes, but also a staunch advocate of debate and free thinking).

[Hkmp5sd]

An interesting aspect of Cuba in the Kennedy years. At first, the Kennedy administration decided to use force instead of diplomacy to get rid of Castro. During the Bay of Pigs the US basically chickened out and left the Cubans hanging.

Then during the Cuban Missile Crisis they were all set to invade Cuba with US troops and came very close to doing so. What they didn't know at the time was that the USSR already had functional tactical nukes in Cuba and the senior officers there were authorized to use them to repel an invasion. In that situation, reverting to military force to resolve that particular problem would have had catastrophic results. So in this case, using diplomacy over force was the correct answer.

Diplomacy and War go hand-in-hand and one can only hope our leaders know when to use one or the other.

[Bruce H]

The longer you try diplomacy with a worthless human being the more apt the end result will be bad. If a dictator needs killing, he or she needs killing now just as much as next week. The real difference between Iraq and North Korea is one has everything to lose and nothing to really gain. North Korea has everything to gain and not much to lose. One is far more dangerous and it isn't Iraq.

[Mike Irwin]

The Nazis were YEARS away from having an atomic bomb. Werner Heisenberg had spent years pursuing a path that was a technical dead end, and still hadn't realized it when the war ended.

Would the US still be part of Great Britain? Probably not. Independence would have come in some form sooner or later.

Would slavery still be with us? Well, if we were still part of Great Britain, no, it wouldn't have been. If the Revolution had been fought and won, it's likely slavery would have eventually died out of its own accord.

Would Nazi Germany still rule Europe? I doubt it. I'd pin my bets on the Soviets even without US intervention.

In any event, sometimes war is necessary. Yes.

As for Cuba, what would have happened had, intially, the United States supported Castro, as he wanted, against Fugelencio Batista instead of turning against him? The United States created the Castro that we know and love today.

[Blackhawk]

Nando, those aren't facts. They're hypothetical and rhetorical questions. Good questions, but they're not facts.

Historians can account for about 50 years when there wasn't a war going on someplace, and if they had better records, I'm sure those blanks could be filled in.

It's a fair statement, based on the record, than humans find war a useful if not an attractive means to an end.

[Nando Aqui]

Mike,

I partly agree with you that we don't know what some of the outcomes might have been had there not been the wars that eventually settled the issues; they are difficult to imagine, and would be conjecture and guesses anyway.

Have you thought about how long Hitler could have been left alone? Was Chamberlain correct? How long should Saddam be allowed to continue with his regime? Until he becomes another North Korea?

I do respectfully disagree with you on the Castro issue.

I saw him rise to power. I saw how my older brothers and cousins (college age) fought with him initially to overthrow Fulgencio Batista, and how he, Castro, betrayed everything they fought for. And then, they were imprisioned for 10 years and for 20 years. Castro did this on his own.

I saw Castro get rid of anyone who didn't follow his and Guevara's ideas. I heard his speeches on why elections were not necessary. I saw him bring everyone to the lowest common denominator possible for the sake of equality. I saw what they taught in primary school to kids whose parents no longer had a choice of what the kids learned or where they went to school. I saw him turn brother against brother, and father against son.

His true colors started becoming apparent just days and weeks after January 1, 1959. Then he turned to Russia. Che would have never had it any other way; he had been a communist for many years, and he influenced Castro, who had been on that road for a long time as well.

Unfortunately, Castro was going to be the way he ended up being from the get go; he just fooled a lot of people.

Mike, I will not write anymore about this issue as it is too emotional for me, but I sincerely appreciate your interest.

Alex

[Mike Irwin]

I didn't say Castro was a saint, Nando, but I do think that by propping up the Batista regime, and the corrupt leaders that came before him, the US does deserve the lion's share of the blame in what happened in Cuba early on. Your brothers' experiences aren't, unfortunately, unique. Revolutions virtually always eat their own.

"Have you thought about how long Hitler could be left alone?"

Well, that's exactly what France and Britain were trying to do in their appeasement strategies. Hitler's the one who decided to up the ante by invading Poland.

As for Chamberlain, no, in hindsight he absolutely was not right. But both he and the French were operating under an almost paralyzing fear of another general European War. Certainly an understandable feeling. A strong militaristic response to Hitler over Czechoslovakia could have made Hitler think twice about his territorial aims.

[Khornet]

Don't be a schnook!
It'sa not how you feel, it's how you look!

Couldn't resist....half-Tico, Khornet

[DeltaElite]

Diplomacy must be backed by the threat of force.
No better diplomat than a bayonet at their throat. :D