The Red Line: Part Deux

#76
#76
PKT_VOL said:
You have taken the economic and military options off the table. What the hell is left beside giving someone straight up cash money?

Diplomacy only works when you either have something to offer or something to be afraid of. Without such, you are just politely asking them to do something.

I would normally agree. However, genocide is different. I imagine you think we should have sat on our hands during the Holocaust.
Click to expand...

All we did was clear Hitler out of the way for Stalin's genocide. Intervening doesn't seem to improve things, IMO.

Give them cash money? Is that such a bad solution? Would be a lot cheaper than intervention. We probably give Syria aide. Why not just give every country aide that the leader can steal funds from, and if they step out of line we threaten to cut off the aide. This would be a much cheaper policy. I'm not necessarily endorsing it. I'm just using your example and demonstrating that it's a better policy than the status quo.

The crux of my long term solution is that they all become westernized with open communication. Oppression of this scale can only exist where there is asymmetrical information.
 
#78
#78
n_huffhines said:
All we did was clear Hitler out of the way for Stalin's genocide. Intervening doesn't seem to improve things, IMO.
Click to expand...

So the answer would be, no. Very sad.

n_huffhines said:
Give them cash money? Is that such a bad solution? Would be a lot cheaper than intervention. We probably give Syria aide. Why not just give every country aide that the leader can steal funds from, and if they step out of line we threaten to cut off the aide. This would be a much cheaper policy. I'm not necessarily endorsing it. I'm just using your example and demonstrating that it's a better policy than the status quo.
Click to expand...

So your entire foreign policy is to offer money then threaten to take it away? Basically, Egypt strategy applied all over the world.

n_huffhines said:
The crux of my long term solution is that they all become westernized with open communication. Oppression of this scale can only exist where there is asymmetrical information.
Click to expand...

Assuming people have access to such communication. Doesn't solve crises.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#81
#81
PKT_VOL said:
So the answer would be, no. Very sad.

So your entire foreign policy is to offer money then threaten to take it away? Basically, Egypt strategy applied all over the world.

Assuming people have access to such communication. Doesn't solve crises.
Click to expand...

So big Stalin fan, huh?

Makes me think you didn't read my post.

Free trade will make everyone in their country wealthier. Inevitably communication channels will open up.

You aren't offering any solutions. You haven't even necessarily endorsed the status quo. What would you do?
 
#82
#82
lawgator1 said:
To summarize the thread:

If Obama takes no action he's a bum.

If Obama takes action he's a bum.
Click to expand...

Basically you are concerned because in this thread there is disagreement about our potential course of action. I would say that is a healthy thing.
 
#83
#83
n_huffhines said:
So big Stalin fan, huh?
Click to expand...

Where do you get this?

n_huffhines said:
Makes me think you didn't read my post.

Free trade will make everyone in their country wealthier. Inevitably communication channels will open up.
Click to expand...

I did read your post. We can initiate free trade on our end but that doesn't mean that there will be free trade on their end or communication.

n_huffhines said:
You aren't offering any solutions. You haven't even necessarily endorsed the status quo. What would you do?
Click to expand...

I think anytime you are at the diplomacy table, all options should be on the table. I tend to take an isolationist view. However, I believe we have a moral obligation to stop genocide when we can reasonably do so.
 
#84
#84
n_huffhines said:
All we did was clear Hitler out of the way for Stalin's genocide. Intervening doesn't seem to improve things, IMO.

Give them cash money? Is that such a bad solution? Would be a lot cheaper than intervention. We probably give Syria aide. Why not just give every country aide that the leader can steal funds from, and if they step out of line we threaten to cut off the aide. This would be a much cheaper policy. I'm not necessarily endorsing it. I'm just using your example and demonstrating that it's a better policy than the status quo.

The crux of my long term solution is that they all become westernized with open communication. Oppression of this scale can only exist where there is asymmetrical information.
Click to expand...

Had the Dems (Harry S. Truman) stepped aside and let Patton do what he wanted to do, the Russians would not be a problem today. Imagine a country the size of northern Europe and the former USSR being run like Germany is today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#88
#88
What was the point of stopping Hitler if it just meant Stalin could easily take over half of Europe and commit genocide?

We don't care if they initiate free trade on their end. If they want to place tariffs on our goods or even ban certain goods, they are welcome to. We're still better off freely trading with them, even if they "protect" on their end.

These countries are despotic because they're not totally ready for freedom. We take out one ruler, and the people get oppressed by the next guy. They need exposure to the outside world. That's the quickest way to spurn a cultural revolution there. It's musical chairs, again, and again with our foreign policy since WWI. It's not sustainable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#89
#89
n_huffhines said:
What was the point of stopping Hitler if it just meant Stalin could easily take over half of Europe and commit genocide?

We don't care if they initiate free trade on their end. If they want to place tariffs on our goods or even ban certain goods, they are welcome to. We're still better off freely trading with them, even if they "protect" on their end.

These countries are despotic because they're not totally ready for freedom. We take out one ruler, and the people get oppressed by the next guy. They need exposure to the outside world. That's the quickest way to spurn a cultural revolution there. It's musical chairs, again, and again with our foreign policy since WWI. It's not sustainable.
Click to expand...

?
 
#90
#90
n_huffhines said:
What was the point of stopping Hitler if it just meant Stalin could easily take over half of Europe and commit genocide?
Click to expand...

So your answer is no.

n_huffhines said:
We don't care if they initiate free trade on their end. If they want to place tariffs on our goods or even ban certain goods, they are welcome to. We're still better off freely trading with them, even if they "protect" on their end.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

n_huffhines said:
These countries are despotic because they're not totally ready for freedom. We take out one ruler, and the people get oppressed by the next guy. They need exposure to the outside world. That's the quickest way to spurn a cultural revolution there. It's musical chairs, again, and again with our foreign policy since WWI. It's not sustainable.
Click to expand...

Ah. The transition between a tribal society to an open society as Popper would say (reading Popper at the moment).
 
#91
#91
n_huffhines said:
What was the point of stopping Hitler if it just meant Stalin could easily take over half of Europe and commit genocide?

We don't care if they initiate free trade on their end. If they want to place tariffs on our goods or even ban certain goods, they are welcome to. We're still better off freely trading with them, even if they "protect" on their end.

These countries are despotic because they're not totally ready for freedom. We take out one ruler, and the people get oppressed by the next guy. They need exposure to the outside world. That's the quickest way to spurn a cultural revolution there. It's musical chairs, again, and again with our foreign policy since WWI. It's not sustainable.
Click to expand...

The USA had a isolationist foreign policy pre WW1..I'd love to revert back to that in most foreign affair matters. I am still for helping a country in need after a disaster or something (Haiti for example, even though Haiti is a dump).
 
#92
#92
lawgator1 said:
To summarize the thread:

If Obama takes no action he's a bum.

If Obama takes action he's a bum.
Click to expand...

No! This hard core conservative says no action.

I see more of the bleeding hearts wanting to take action than conservatives. This is none of our concern if they want to use chemical weapons on each other so be it. It's less they can use in us.
 
#93
#93
n_huffhines said:
What was the point of stopping Hitler if it just meant Stalin could easily take over half of Europe and commit genocide?

We don't care if they initiate free trade on their end. If they want to place tariffs on our goods or even ban certain goods, they are welcome to. We're still better off freely trading with them, even if they "protect" on their end.

These countries are despotic because they're not totally ready for freedom. We take out one ruler, and the people get oppressed by the next guy. They need exposure to the outside world. That's the quickest way to spurn a cultural revolution there. It's musical chairs, again, and again with our foreign policy since WWI. It's not sustainable.
Click to expand...

Should have let Patton do what he wanted. Invade Russia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#98
#98
LOL, this is exactly why we need to stay out:

1175704_10152212906874816_247375853_n.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#100
#100
I'm the type that would rather be corrected than continue being wrong. No worries. I still appreciate the time LG corrected me for writing "wreckless". I've probably avoided the same mistake half a dozen times, since. I think he was trying to be a d-bag about it, but it was helpful nonetheless, LOL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top