We do not need to ever fight, because there's nukes which will destroy the world, and any fight where nukes are not worth using is a fight you can deplomacy your way through as well.
Never. Even in partnerships of only two people working by themselves, someone will be the one with more power to some extent. The bigger our societies are, the more easy they are to corrupt since there's so much distance between individuals personally and so much darkness for people to hide their doings in. The best anyone can do is minimize it.
Actually no. (Simplified explanation) The Japanese were doing things like selling super cheap in the US while having ridiculous prices in their own country in order to drive competition from the US out of business and once the US caught on it set tarifs and such. I was actually just reading about this so pardon me if I'm a little off.
Yeah, that line of thinking went out with the Korean war. Nuclear capable nations get involved in conventional/limited wars all the time, diplomacy hasn't been able to stop that.
Check out the bubble they had in Japan. The central bank inflated asset prices by pumping money into the economy (window guidance). The central bank forced the Japanese banks to issue more loans, and since there was not enough of a need for loans in the business sector, they flooded the real-estate sector. This created an inflation of money in circulacion and the inflation of asset prices.
www.chicagotribune.com
This phenomenon makes small businesses difficult to maintain, even medium-sized businesses. It's in essence the death-throes of the middle class.
I think that this hyper-inflation is hidden inside the rising cost of goods through the erosion of purchasing power (and the debasement of currency). I am probably misusing technical terms here.
True, though I was also thinking of the Falklands, one nuclear power and one non-nuclear nation fighting a limited war on neither's mainland. Diplomacy didn't avoid that one.
Yeah and so what I'm saying is that that's a failure of diplomacy and it could be done better. If the nuclear power was fearing extermination they would have ended it by making it clear they were about to nuke them.
Potentially he was deemed to have theoretically done the right thing, but it exploded Japan's financial system in ways that his peers deemed could not reasonably have been foreseen. Or perhaps he was deemed to have faced a crisis and done what was necessary, extraordinarily painful though it was - the Japanese banking system had just happened to have reached that sort of state. I just don't know.
Diplomacy works where everyone is willing to use diplomacy. In terms of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and plenty of what Russia's been up to, diplomacy is self-evidently not enough. Secondly, some of the USA's power and influence in diplomacy exists because it carries the implicit threat of military action (e.g. Taiwan's ongoing independence and South Korea's national securit probably rest squarely on the USA's will to militarily assist them.) There is a solid rationale to "peace through strength", but that strength also includes the will to use it.
This massacre would be caused by the US's actions, deceiving allies through a false promise and baiting them into conflict. How is that "their own mess"? It's a mess of the US's creation. It exists as a result of the US's statements and promises.
You've made several assumptions and speculations about them, yes.
It's "warmongering" to withdraw from conflict after informing one's allies, as opposed to deceiving them into conflict. Truly, words have lost all meaning.
I don't think it's a show of strength to be mired in a conflict that lasts 19 years. If anything it's a show of weakness that it takes you this long to root out cave shepards in a third world country.
It is not our problem that the Kurds and Turks have been in conflict for forever. What we did wrong is get into a mess which required us allying with Kurds when they have all this baggage to them. It's like a toxic relationship, the faster you end it the better.
But it's the US's problem if their actions directly lead to a slaughter.
...Which isn't what anybody is advocating. I'm literally talking about informing our allies of withdrawal in order to avoid bloodshed. No further war necessary: still withdrawing, just without the fucking lies and death.
