Is inaction to a growing threat right?Was it right with Hitler?Is it right with the Islamist movement?

Question

The liberal world chose diplomacy to deal with Hitler.The Liberal world chooses diplomacy to deal with the Islamists,even after attacks in nearly every country in the world.

Answer 1

If self-loath is your object, then sure. Some of the rest of us (me included), find moral superiority in the west - in the US in particular. I'm not cool with submission; I want the west to act - with all-out brutality - against these threats.

Answer 2

First, dipolomacy is not inaction. Sitting a child down and explaining to them that an oven is hot and will burn them is not inaction on the part of a parent. We do not kill our children who touch hot stoves. Then, if they don't listen to us, and hopefully the parent is right there when the child reaches for the stove, they would slap the child's hand, enough to sting, but without enough damage as touching the stove would have done. This, again, is not inaction, and again, we do not kill the child for not listening to us the first time we explained about the stove. Then, if the child reaches for the hot stove yet again (they almost always do) we let them be burned, just a little bit, so they can fully understand why we've explained about stoves and slapped their hands. In this way, we teach two lessons, one, stoves are hot and will burn you, two, and the more important lesson is, listen to what I tell you, and the first time, if you don't, I will will hurt you a little bit, but not as much as the danger you are nearing, and the second time, I will let the danger harm you, but not too much, because we are loving parents, but must allow the child to fully understand that their choices can be harmful.

Still, we do not kill the child.

It is only when diplomacy fails that violent action should be taken. If the child continues to do harm to himself, or when the child waits until the parent is not looking, and brings their younger sibling to the stove, and tells his sister to touch it, should something drastic be done. This is because the child knows that the stove is hot and will hurt and do damage and WILLINGLY WANTS THAT DAMAGE DONE. Diplomacy by the parent has failed, and has caused either knowingly and increasing damage to the child, or an innocent to be harmed. Now is the time for violent action, but we still don't kill the child. We put the child in an institution, away from their younger siblings, that can better understand why the child wants to willfully harm another, ie., a hospital or mental facility.

Governments should act in the same way as a parent. If a leader begins to do something harmful to or for his people, we warn them of their actions. Then, we apply tarriffs and bans, we take away the money and toys we give them. Then, if they still don't listen, we patiently watch, and let them get a little harmed (civil war). Violence should only be resorted to when a leader does lasting harm to his people, or to a people he does not govern. This must be done in such a way that the people he governs over are not harmed, or else why do it, you are just substituting a hot stove for a pot of boiling water.

Answer 3

Let's examine this premise - looking at Islamic terrorist organizations, are the liberals talking about diplomacy with Osama bin Laden? Did we negotiate with the Taliban? No.

Where is diplomacy being talked about? Iraq. Why? Because what's going on in Iraq has little to nothing to do with anti-American terrorists, and everything to do with factions in a civil war. Any terrorism there is related to our status as occupiers, and that will end when we leave.

As far as dealing with terrorists, what history has shown us is that when we sit down and try to find out what the actual issues are, then instead of an escalating cycle of violence and retaliation, we work towards solutions.

The escalation of violence in Northern Ireland didn't end when one faction or the other was stomped out, it was ended through diplomacy and making them partners and participants with a vested interest in seeing the political process work.

As more players have political skin in the game in the Middle East, eventually there will be a ratching down of the violence, and there has been. Now instead of the whole PLO attacking Israel, smaller and smaller factions within are, similar to what initially happened with factions within the IRA.

Hezbollah is a major player in the Lebanon not because of how many they've killed, but because they have a reputation for providing health care and education in areas where the government could not. As their stakes grow as political participants, they will have more to lose through violence, and will be less eager to go down that road.

Looking again at the appeasement of Hitler vs. today - Hitler was appeased after he:

Invented a fasle pretext to invade smaller and weaker nations.

Pre-emptively claimed "defense" and invaded and occupied those countries.

Now, have the terrorists invaded and occupied any countries?

Is there anyone who has invaded and occupied sovereign nations under trumped up pretexts?

Perhaps you should be a little more careful before throwing around Hitler comparisons, and make sure they fit your intended target better than they fit us.

There is no comparison between Hitler and the terrorists. Different M.O., different structure, different methods, different everything.

The only use of the analogy is to inflate the status of a convenient boogyman. I seem to remember Saddam and his military juggernaut being compared to Hitler in the past. Cry "wolf" too often, and eventually there might be someone with similar means and ambitions, but everyone will turn a deaf ear because of the tired, overwrought history of that comparison.

Answer 4

We (the conservatives) all know that diplomacy doesnt work with our enemies. The only thing they understand is force. Sorry to say, but the people of the US are becoming more like France and Canada every day. It doesnt make any difference to the extemist who they kill. If you are Jewish, or Christian talking to them dont keep them from wanting to kill you.

Answer 5

The only possible success in diplomatic talks in relation to Islamic terrorists is to get the Arab nations to engage in the battle against terrorists. Through diplomatic talks we need to get moderate Muslims to join the fight against radical Muslims. Only then will the tide turn in our favor.

Answer 6

They don't care as long as they can continue in their fantasy land. It will be their fault when one day they are snapped out of that fantasy land!