Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (153394)	12/5/2004 5:37:07 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

> Diplomacy took a great deal of time in the thirties. At every stage people said, 'it's cheaper than war'. That was false. The diplomacy of the thirties had a extraordinarily high cost. < Appeasement of Hitler was very wrong, no argument from me. Meanwhile, the US didn't declare war on Germany until after Perl Harbour and until after Germany declared war on it. While British and allied forces were in it from the start, they could have used a helping hand instead of massive debt being built up through purchase of US arms. > War in 1934 wouldn't have cost 1% of what war in 1939 turned out to cost, which was damn near the destruction of Europe. < Well its unclear if war would have been waged if the US had different policies at the time. It was sticking by its neutrality concept and made that very public - Hitler knew he was not going to face US troops any time soon. The cost of diplomacy depends on what the diplomacy achieves at the end of the day. The current EU/IAEA diplomacy is going to achieve a nuclear armed Iran, and that is likely to be quite expensive. Diplomacy caused Gaddafi to disarm, not Iraq. Meanwhile Pakistan and India are armed, Iran may be, Israel is, Korea probably is -- lack of diplomacy in these regions is what is causing issues, not lack of war.