Here is a quote from Sen. McCain, from the first debate.
"What Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand that if without precondition you sit down across the table from someone who has called Israel a "stinking
corpse," and wants to destroy that country and wipe it off the map, you legitimize those comments."
Why, precisely? This is sort of like saying that if I know my boss Fred is a racist I should refuse to work for my employer until they fire Fred, because if I work for them and thus end up interacting with Fred, I'm legitimizing his racism. Don't get me wrong, clearly there's a point where you stop talking. But I'd think that point is after talking has proven to be ineffective, not, you know, a complete refusal right from the outset.
Let's Godwin's law this shit right here and now and use the classic Hitler example. Everybody likes to trot out Hitler, ooo this one guy wanted to have talks with him and Winston said piss off, and they did war on Hitler and that's what won WWII! Yeah, here's my thing. Clearly wanting to do *only* diplomatic talks was stupid. But I fail to see why you couldn't have had a shot at diplomacy while at the same time preparing for war if it becomes necessary. And when I say preparing for war, I don't mean oh well we've sort of started looking at it but it'll take us another half a year. I mean prepare so that if it's clear the diplomacy has gone south and the guy's just batshit crazy, ala Hitler, you're ready to strike immediately, if that's what's necessary.
But I guess that wouldn't work, because simply communicating with Hitler would've meant that England approved of every crazy and sick idea he ever had, whether they knew about it or not. Besides, it'd make 'em look like pussies. Clearly as Americans we are not pussies. So you know, I guess talking with people, even people you violently disagree with, is just stupid and all. Of course, I don't know how you'll ever change their minds if you don't talk with them, but maybe that's just me. Maybe Mccain knows that there's a secret mind control ray in the bowels of the Pentagon or something. Or hey, here's an idea, maybe we could try some more fucked up PsyOps that don't really work! Woo! Just as long as we don't talk to them. Because talking to == I approve of everything you've ever said! Whatever.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Neville Chamberlain was widely criticized for his policy of appeasement. It was understandable that he, like many Europeans, would have prefered to avoid the resumption of hostilities given the horrors of WWI. But, given Hitler's global ambitions, diplomacy was an obvious non-starter.
Negotiation/discussion/diplomacy only has a chance if all parties come to the table with a geniune interest in solving the problem before them. If even one party intends to put on a false front of cooperation, then the entire effort is undermined from within.
In short, you can't make people negotiate with you no matter how badly you think they should.
Also, there is a common assumption that the individuals a person associates with is indicative of their interests, values, and character. Guilt by association. Also known as birds of a feather flock together. It can be very difficult to convince others you do not share a reprehensible belief if it appears you willingly spend time with someone of dubious character.
Truly. Actually appeasement was a silly, if understandable policy. And it may be the case that some situations admit of no negotiation whatsoever. I suppose my thought on it runs something like this.
Suppose your sister takes things from your room without asking. You've heard her say several times that since you're a family and all, she should be perfectly free to borrow your stuff. Trying no negotiation whatsoever seems like the equivalent of walking up to her and punching her in the face for no reason which she can discern.
It's not so much that I assume that negotiation can solve everything, clearly it can't. The assumption is rather more like, we should try everything else, within reason, before war. Now obviously in a case like Hitler, where he has global conquest on his mind, we can be fairly certain that nothing less would have satisfied him. This is not to mention his thoughts on Jews which are also complete negotiation and diplomatic non-starters.
So rather than saying negotation can solve all, my thought is more that if we don't talk with these people at all, or at least know of their ideas and such via other communicaitons, we have no real justification for going to war. Obviously this is a general theory. It's foolish for instance if you have good reason to think your diplomats wil lbe beheaded on sight to send diplomats. As you've mentioned there are other reasons, and I'm sure we could add many more. So I'm not of the complete pacifist school. Sometimes you have to go to war. I also think talking should be kept to a minimum, e.g. if it's clear your interlocutor is crazed, quit talking. But I also think we should try, again within reason, all avenues to work things out before war or other violence is brought into play.
P.S.
Whenever they come out with the new version of my screen reader, I hope it reads these comments correctly again so I can go back and proofread them and fix my spelling mistakes!
Post a Comment