Talk:Gunboat diplomacy

It seems slightly ironic that the actual prototype event of American gunboat diplomacy -- Perry's Black Ships making demands upon Japan -- is not listed as an example. Just sayin'. --216.145.71.100 (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Should this really be called "Gunboat Diplomacy" at all?

I was always under the impression that "Gunboat Diplomacy" involves the implicit threat of military action, but not necessarily any military action itself (this would come after the "diplomacy" breaks down). The quintessential example of Commodore Perry opening trade with Japan, for instance - Perry did not launch an all-out assault on Japan; he simply let it be known that the United States COULD pull off such an attack if they wanted to. The definition and examples in this article seem to me to be better described as proxy wars, covert actions/military support with self-serving motives, and just regular old war. War is almost always an attempt to get other people to do with you want, so by the loose definition set forth in this Wiki, just about any war can be called "Gunboat Diplomacy".

I think much more apt modern examples of Gunboat Diplomacy include current US conversations with North Korea and Pakistan, as well as the (pre-Libyan insurrection) negotiations with Ghadafi, wherein he suddenly became quite cooperative after seeing what happened to Iraq. The lead-up to the invasion of Iraq could also potentially fall into this category, though some would argue that W. Bush was determined to invade no matter what Saddam Hussein did. ^{— Unsigned, by: 76.254.4.194 / talk / contribs}

This page couldn't be more wrong on its misuse of the term; "maintain hegemony"? as can be seen from the citation on the origin of the term, the Germans had no hegemony, nor even business or governmental interests in Morocco where they sent a gunboat to challenge French hegemony. nobs^{Would you like anchovies on your sub-prime mortgage?} 22:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

"Unfortunately failed to displace Castro"

Looking back on this, what would that have really done? Because it's known that although Castro is a dictator (was), that he was a response to an arguably worse American installed and backed one (Batista), should history have gone differently and the Americans got their way in the invasion, who is to say that like so many interventionist shitshows they've done, the result is even worse than if they had done nothing at all? A lot of this reads very apologetically of the US' perspective on multiple areas and absolutely sucks. Despite being a page on what is arguably one of the biggest reasons for anti-Americanism. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

wars not gunboat diplomacy

i removed alot of examples because they are not gunboat diplomacy they were actual wars and military interventions. gunboat diplomacy is more sabre rattling. its failed - all diplomacy has failed - if it results in a war. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)