How come politicians can just say diplomacy to ignore potential threats and empirical evidence? I do not like wars any more than the next rational person, but just saying talking to countries that threaten us will work because you are going to do it more than anyone previously does not solve the problem. I wish either side of this sort of issue would historically address what works. I am not going to take the time right now to look at who says what, what the real threat is, what has happened in the past, and what this leads us to do now, but I think it would be interesting.
Next time someone says they are going to use diplomacy to deal with Iran, North Korea, et cetera I am going to ask when has such diplomacy worked? I would even accept an answer in a situation that was in better circumstances. I think we can see from Iraq that our liberating power has erroded and war probably is not the best choice. If we would have asked for empirical evidence before this, would we still have attacked?
It is the 21st Centruy, can we not think of something new? The rest of the world is sure throwing us for a loop, especially the parts that do not like us. I suggest we step up to the challenge not by saying the Iraq War was stupid and Bush is the devil, but by finding truly genuine and creative solutions to new problems.
I do not think humanity is pro-war, but is it possibly anti-peace?
Share ThisRelated posts:
spencerb






Leave a reply