Officer of Engineers

I'll take that bet. Show me one Chinese policy that lasted that time frame without being bastardized left, right, and centred, unrecognizeable from the original conception.

__________________
Chimo

Bluesman

Ah. I didn't get that you were referring to the PRC. I thought we were talking about 'responsible' powers, ie, the Europeans. Obviously, my comment doesn't apply to the world's mischief-makers that care not one good goddam about regional security, and even work to undermine same.

Because we took a hands-off approach while the Europeans did their fruitless kibuki dance with the Iranioan regime, who, as could be predicted, played 'em like Stradivarii. And no, there hasn't been much 'influencing' done yet, but if we ever DO decide to exert some influence, you'll most likely see the results of what 'hard power' looks like on CNN breaking news.

WHO said anything about rewarding bad behavior? Well, I guess that was ME, because your suggestion that we thaw relations and make kissy-face while they're bad-mouthing us, threatening to burn down whole countries and generally making our lives miserable in Iraq seems like WEAKNESS. Actually, that's exactly what it is. So, until they move into something like a normal mode of existance in the community of nations, they can forget about dealing with the Americans in any way but kinetically. How do you suppose anything else would be perceived by THEM, internal opponents of their regime, their neighbors, our allies and most importantly - world-wide terror organizations? I already know thw answer, I think you do, too, but I also believe that you're never going to admit that you've mis-read the situation so grossly.

Since you like Latin terms, here's one: status quo ante. The situation as it currently stands is, the Iranians have no nukes, and we've not made any concessions. President Sword's policy is to have an Iran with no nukes, but to offer something to make sure it stays that way.

President Bluesman's policy is to offer nothing but Iranian heartache if they continue the pursuit of nukes, or their policy of burning Jews in their state, or continuing interference in Iraq.

Well, I like the way you talk, but I bet you mean something different than I mean when I say the same thing.



Late in the Twentieth Century, R.W. Chandler proved in theory that the United States did not have the intelligence or strike assets to mount a pre-emptive strike against WMD facilities. Read his "Tomorrow's War, Today's Decisions: Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Implications of Wmd-Adversaries for Future U.S. Military Strategy". I read it before Mr. Bush was elected; more people should have.

Early in the Twenty First Century, G.W. Bush proved in fact that the United States did not have the intelligence or strike assets to mount a pre-emptive strike against WMD facilities. You might study Operation Iraqi Freedom is you want some factual information.[/quote]

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

astralis

bluesman,

we've tried this tactic with both north korea and iran, and it is not bringing the results that we want. (we also did it for cuba too, and it didn't get us very far either: castro's still there, 40 years later.) the problem is, while we can extinguish their existence, they can also make life miserable for us. we need to find a policy that works, and clearly intimidation is not working in either of the two countries.

i've put this up to shek before, and several other IR theorists actually have thought about it. instead of threatening or isolating or sanctioning or even invading them, there is a growing idea that we can kill 'em through economics. keep sanctions on weapon materials, but past that, give the iranians all the trade they want. help build up their middle-class. a growing middle-class inevitably forces a government to allow it more political power and democratize; furthermore, middle-class people are VERY loath to lose their economic status- something that would happen if iran rocked the boat by exporting weapons material or doing their stupid jihad call against israel. this will thus force something like the strings that tied down gulliver. it will also have the side benefit of not embittering the iranian people towards us, as well as make us richer. thus we kill two birds with one stone.

besides, we've done this before. and with the world's most populous nation, to boot; look at chinese foreign policy before and after 1972 and you'll see what i mean by the binds of trade.

an interesting idea, at least

lwarmonger

What these nations (Iran and North Korea) are doing is blackmail, and the message we are sending when we cave to their demands is that other nations can cash in on developing nuclear weapons. Do you have kids, Astralis? If you do, then you should know that rewarding bad behavior is not a good method of discipline. Same principle applies to nation states.

Structural problems exist within these nations which tend to mitigate against the course of action you are recomending. We did that with Iran under the Shah... free trade, ect. and what happened? That dictatorship (an ally of ours) got replaced by another dictatatorship (an enemy). Because despite the wealth pouring into the country, most of these nations are simply not set up to accomidate a large middle class. This is especially true of oil producing nations.

LOL. This argument looks familiar... but it seems to me that China and the US are more likely to be enemies than allies in the future.

Bluesman

As lwarmonger just answered, I can't agree that making our adversaries structurally stronger and wealthier is a good idea. I do not agree that trade necessarily leads to liberalism or accomodationist tendencies in a rogue nation's leadership, nor a desire on the part of its people for democracy that is irresistable to the organs of state security.

Furthermore, when you state that when the Iranians continue to do whatever it is that we object to, internal pressure will moderate it, maybe even prevent it. Well, we dam' well better HOPE so, because if it doesn't, we've got to turn on a dime and go backwards to an old policy that the enemy's leadership thought we had abandoned, leading them to this dangerous miscalculation in the first place.

No. Gunboat diplomacy is the only way diplomacy with an enemy works, and for even THAT to work, you'd better have gunboats and the will to use 'em, or the enemy calls your bluff.

If your method worked, we wouldn't be discussing this issue; the Europeans would've already solved it.

Officer of Engineers

Think you remember wrong. The good will was fostered in a Cold War Coalition, not because of trade.

Leader

"Gunboat diplomacy is the only way diplomacy with an enemy works, and for even THAT to work, you'd better have gunboats and the will to use 'em, or the enemy calls your bluff."

The will is the important part. If we're going to threaten Iran with force, we need to be willing to use that force decisively. We need to be willing to accept the losses on our side and on the enemies civilian population that will be necessary to completely defeat our enemies in Iran. If we're not willing to pay that price, we should just shut up about it because every time we make a threat that’s not backed up or take some half measure we embolden our enemies with the belief that he can win.

__________________

astralis

lwarmonger,

but why view such a way as "rewarding" bad behavior? to put it another way, there is a reason why saddam banned satellite dishes, why the nazis didn't want to allow the BBC to come in, or why north korea refuses to allow south korean TV shows to be played. in other words, the leadership are afraid of empowering their own people. by opening up trade we are giving a potent weapon to the people of the various nations.

well, actually...we put that dictator into place. as the CIA has on its own website,
"It also transformed a turbulent constitutional monarchy into an absolutist kingship and induced a succession of unintended consequences at least as far ahead as the Islamic revolution of 1979".

http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no2/article10.html

so no, that example isn't quite what i envision. but taking it into account, the shah's iran was by all accounts a better place than the ayatollah's iran.

you might forget this now, but prior to '72 it wasn't even a question of "more likely" or not, china was flat out the enemy of the US and vice versa.

astralis

col yu,

certainly so, but it was american trade and american ideas that led to such good will among the chinese populace in the 1980s. in 1989 the students put up a statue, "the goddess of democracy". americans mistook it for an outright copy of the statue of liberty (which it was not), but it cannot be denied that the students whom made it clearly were influenced by the statue of liberty. such goodwill is not founded upon realist coalitions of convenience.

Officer of Engineers

I would argue more so because of the leadership than of the population. Tianamen Square is without a doubt the most serious damage the Chinese had received since the openning of China ... and yet, there was no march towards confrontation by anyone ... despite CCP propaganda about American desires to overthrow Beijing.

DXP did not need a foreign military distraction (ie, Taiwan) to stay in power.

astralis

how many wealthy nations do you know in the world today that has not made reforms towards liberalism? even china, with its enormous state security organ, has been forced to move towards liberalism politically and in civil society.

Officer of Engineers

A LIBERAL CHINA?!?!?! WAB's nightmare!!!!!

astralis

but then how does one explain why china has not relapsed into its former vehement anti-US policies after the collapse of the USSR?

astralis

ahahahha, such a sentiment is shared by quite a few circles other than the WAB

Officer of Engineers

You have to measure since the death of DXP. Diplomatically, the Chinese certainly have turned anti-US, opposing US moves in the UN (Kosovo, Iraq, and Sudan). The EP-3 Incident was certainly no handshaking affair.