Do you believe that most human disagreements are best settled through dialog or military action?

Question

Has the art & science of diplomacy and meaningful dialogue become lost in recent years?

Answer 1

Diplomacy should be exhausted before military action is ever taken against another country. I think the art/science of diplomacy was alive and well until George Bush took office. He's been thumbing his nose at other countries since he chose to completely disregard the UN before the war began, and he has taken that attitude throughout his whole Presidency, with not only the UN but other countries in general. He has taken place in some diplomatic talks, but when it comes to actually listening and taking other country's plights or suggestions/desires into consideration he just doesn't bother. I am hopeful we will experience a return to civil dialogue with other countries after he is finally gone in 2 years. GW is the primary reason other countries have come to despise us at the level they do now. I think if a President is elected in 2008 that is intelligent enough to understand the value of diplomacy we might have a chance to regain their respect and support.

Answer 2

Of course they are best settled through dialogue. Dialogue doesn't always work though, and it is often important that dialogue be backed up by the credible threat of force.

Iraq is a good example, both the current conflict and the 1991 conflict. In 1991 the world community called on Iraq to pull out of Kuwait, but Saddam Hussein certainly didn't listen, and military action was necessary to back up the dialogue.

The currently conflict is really a continuation of that one. The 1991 war was ended and Saddam was left in power because he agreed to fully disarm of his WMD programs. He never did, and never fully cooperated with UN weapons inspecstors. The UN security council passed 14 separate resolutions calling on Saddam to cooperate and disarm. He ignored all of them. A military force was assembled on his border and he was asked once again, to fully cooperate with weapons inspectors. Again, he did not cooperate, so the military action ensued.

Another situation is with regards to Islamic Extremists who want to destroy the west and convert the entire world to Islamic law, and will use any means necessary to achieve that goal. I don't think there is any amount of dialogue that will settle the dispute with them. That is a case where military action is the only plausible solution. That accompanied with the spread of freedom, which may need to be supported by military action.

Answer 3

i assume while a terrorist assaults your us of a sitting around and asking please dont do this back isn't an selection. Russia and China have been very efficient for fairly a while. If we've been given in a conflict with China, it may be the top of the international. there heavily isn't peace as long as there is religions that conflict with one yet another. faith has led to wars for thousands of years and not something is going to alter that. gas isn't much low priced right here in the states the two. The growing to be fees are making nutrition greater high priced right here besides. Its a stable difficulty our us of a produces huge ammounts of nutrition or we'd be in worry. As for what something of the international thinks human beings, i actually dont care. maximum techniques in technologies, and technological information come from right here and the international follows us. Microsoft, and the information superhighway are my 2 examples i visit apply. The record is alot longer than that.

Answer 4

Yes, diplomacy and meaningful dialogue become lost in recent years. Even in the art of war craft, the worst move is military action (SunTse).

Answer 5

You can't have meaningful dialog with a group of people who only want us dead. There has to be meaningful dialog on both sides for that to work. Recent years? Diplomacy and meaningful dialog has been a part of the equation throughout history. It's when it breaks down that the wars come about. I can see you are a typical liberal, trying to sound intelligent with no facts again. Can't be done sport.

Answer 6

Dialog is best - but it just doesn't work that way - certainly not according to history. Dialog seems only to settle very minor disagreements, or disagreements between peoples with drastically varying resources (David and Goliath).

Answer 7

Dialog only means something if both sides engage in the debate. If only one side wants to talk and the other refuses to listen, then other options have to be explored.

Answer 8

It certainly has, but that does not mean that we cannot bring it back. What a lot of people need to realize is that war should be a last resort, not the first thing you do to solve a little disagreement.

Answer 9

It is a sad fact that ever disagreement in history has been solved with violence but thats just the way the world works people can't disagree with you when thier dead.

Answer 10

Lost in recent years? WTF? Haven't you read any history at all?

You'll be hard pressed to find many good examples anywhere around the world through any time period where there was diplomacy and meaningful dialogue.