J
Johnd
Audioholic Samurai
Perhaps I am not well-read.You have an incorrect reading of my statement, of international politics, and of history.
JFK was elected because, among other great attributes, he was a tremendous diplomat and internationally respected negotiator. (By the way, his father, Joseph, was in the U.S. Diplomatic Service.) My point clearly is that diplomacy is not the 'end-all' or ultimate focus of international relationships...nor is your either/or answer of "total domination". Think about the Cold War as an example. It was military, economic, and diplomatic detente. No domination. No diplomacy. Detente. And it kept the world peace for 4 decades.
When I speak of war, I mean actual physical combat. The cold war (nor the Cuban blockade) never spent blood or fired shots. So the analogies are not on point. In the case of WWII, Vietnam, or Iraq, dominance must be achieved, or diplomacy ought to to resorted to. Regardless, I enjoy the interaction with you.