[lit-ideas] Re: The Mr. Nice Guy Strategy

Just wondering, what do you mean by threatening imminent destruction?  That's 
what the Cuban missile crisis was all about.  I can't think of an example of 
one country threatening imminent destruction of another where it worked.  I'm 
sure there are examples, but I can't think of one.  We threatened imminent 
*economic* destruction of England in 1956 over the Suez Canal (as mentioned 
before), but threatening physical destruction usually gets the other side to 
dig in.  We destroyed or messed up a lot of countries, but we did it 
surreptitiously.  Overtly we threatened Iran for example, and where did it get 
us?  Japan in WWII?  They were pretty defeated anyway, and WWII cost the 
British their empire.  WWII only brought an end to its own conflict.  It didn't 
bring peace, unless you think what's going on in the Middle East is peaceful.  
Violence doesn't usually beget peace.  Except in Hamlet.  
 
As far as the fall of the SU, we're not the only ones who take credit for it. 
 OBL takes credit for it too (as he threatened to bleed us dry through our 
military).  Actually, Naomi Klein writes that the Chicago School when they were 
rampaging through the SU with their 'reforms' basically shredded what was left 
of Soviet economy.  The SU was way overstretched, bankrupt, and utterly 
corrupt and probably would have at least reorganized with no outside 
intervention.  They couldn't go on the way they were going.  I wonder if anyone 
thinks we were responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire.  History's waste 
basket is overflowing with dead empires that died with no help from us.  
 
Ironically, the Chicago School is now hard at work making a quick billion or 
two or many off the U.S. government.  Ron Paul has been talking about how our 
union stays together only because the states get something from the federal 
government.  As soon as the states start giving more tax money than they're 
getting in benefits he thinks there may be a movement toward secession and 
break up.  He doesn't see it as a bad thing either, since we were born out of 
seceding from England.  Kind of hard to believe, but he sees it blipping on the 
radar screen.  
 
Andy
 


--- On Thu, 7/23/09, Simon Ward <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


From: Simon Ward <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Mr. Nice Guy Strategy
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thursday, July 23, 2009, 10:35 PM


Eric: "See, that didn't hurt. You agreed"

Irony? Woosh! Straight over the head.

The problem I have, the ever lasting problem, is the consequence of draconian 
resolve; it doesn't provide any reward for good behaviour beyond a notion of 
survival and after that a good proportion will want revenge for draconian 
action. In contrast, Mr Nice is in a position to offer a good time to anyone 
who behaves.

Discussion point: Did Reagan succeed with Gorbachov because he threatened 
imminent destruction or because he talked. Did that simple fact - talking - do 
the stuff?

Simon 
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: