Skip to main content

Diplomacy and Peace

*This* war couldn’t have been won with diplomacy. Diplomacy isn’t peacemaking. Diplomacy is advancing your country’s interests. Our interests were not advanced.

Simply put.

Our interests were degraded and undercut during the 10 years of "diplomacy" with Saddam. Going backwards, even slowly, is not a win. Though we weren’t going backward slowly. By playing by the rules during Desert Storm, keeping to the immediate problem of pushing Saddam back but not going beyond that UN mandate, we failed our county’s interests. Following up with "diplomacy" did not even marginally advance our interests. It amazes me that no one seems to remember the hatred and accusations that the US got for it’s troubles during those years after playing nice and letting Saddam live. No one remembers, and it wasn’t that long ago. Oh how the world hated us! How many Iraqi deaths were laid at our feet, directly at the feet of the US, how many children there died in horrible agony because of America and her Satanic evil, while Saddam built palaces, his sons built rape rooms, and the UN took a slice of diverted food aid and called itself the moral authority, virtue defined.

And no one remembers.

No one remembers outrage about weapons grade chlorine. No one remembers the moral weight of all those dead babies.

Because sanctions, diplomacy, was *working*.

It’s like a religion.

Comments

Ymarsakar said…
As communication and information technologies develop, it seems our memories become shorter. Interesting side-effect.

Popular posts from this blog

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...

Some times some people.

 

What Cancel Culture is NOT

  Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott.  It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...