What are these other countries that disagree with our policy. please name them. It appears also from what you said that the couple dozen or so countries that do support us just don't...uh...count I guess. Just out of curiosity I would like to know how many countries you think should agree w/ us before it get's Bam's seal of approval.
WMD's might start to matter
- Thread starter DKSuddeth
- Start date
What are these other countries that disagree with our policy. please name them. It appears also from what you said that the couple dozen or so countries that do support us just don't...uh...count I guess. Just out of curiosity I would like to know how many countries you think should agree w/ us before it get's Bam's seal of approval.
B
bamthin
Guest
Bern, I was referring to K's laissez faire attitude towards nations that she perceives might not like the US. The goal of diplomacy is to work those issues out and arrive at a better understanding of what the issues are. After that, try and arrive at an amicable relationship.
In not bending over backwards to do that, it shows arrogance and a mean spirit. It is indicative of the Bush diplomatic policy and K is supportive of it in my opinion.
-Bam
Isaac Brock
Active Member
- Sep 28, 2003
- 1,104
- 44
- 36
In that case it's "bending over forwards"
Sorry i couldn't resist. Actually on an unrelated sidenote that has no political angle at all, in Canada once a representative for our foreign minister of a PM i can't remember (I think it was St. Louis) once was asked what was it like to conduct diplomacy with our neighbour to the south, the aid said. The aid said, "Well often it's a lot like being new guy in prison, you just bend over and pretend to like it".
Isaac Brock
Active Member
- Sep 28, 2003
- 1,104
- 44
- 36
Don't worry, it was just a joke, I meant absolutely nothing by it.
How much would you sacrafice to get people to like you, Bam. My guess is not much and in reality you shouldn't. Why would you sacrafice your principles especially, if you think they are moral and just, just to get someone to like you.
In many cases that is what it would take for us to get along w/ everybody. Just for kicks, let's try and do things your way. We have a disagreement with a country, we work it out through negotiations. Now I think you would agree that our negotiations w/ said country will invariably affect other countries. What happens if they don't like the result of our negotiations? This is a very real possibility and probably has happened before.
International diplomacy is not nearly as simple as you make it sound and there is no way that every country is going to be happy with our policies toward another.
B
bamthin
Guest
Bern,
I finally found the editorial I read last year which sums up my feelings pretty well on the matter. This is just opinion, but it is very compellling. I agree with this and I expect much more from our leader.
An editorial
March 18, 2003
President Bush has failed to convince the world of the need for a war with Iraq. The president's dramatic defeat in the court of international public and official opinion was acknowledged Monday, when the administration abandoned its doomed effort to win a go-ahead from the United Nations Security Council for warmaking.
As Jean-Marc de La Sabliere, the French ambassador to the United Nations, explained it Monday, Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair abandoned their attempt to get a new U.N. resolution when they "realized that the majority in the council is against and oppose a resolution authorizing the use of force."
Despite months of cajoling, conniving and, when all else failed, behind-the-scenes offers of economic aid and political consideration, the Bush administration could not convince the majority of Security Council members that there was sufficient factual, legal or moral justification for war at this time. In fact, it can be argued that the administration's actions solidified opposition to war. To wit:
* The president and his aides built their case for war on a "foundation" of discredited data, including reports of supposed Iraqi "threats" that turned out to have been misread, falsified or, in the case of a key British document, reliant upon out-of-date information culled from the Internet.
* The president and his aides repeatedly attempted to establish a connection between Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaida terrorist network, yet they never succeeded in doing so. The unrelenting focus on finding such a linkage undermined the administration's broader argument for war. It became clear to the international community that if there was the slightest shred of evidence, the administration would have produced it. And they were never able to do so.
* The president rejected diplomacy, failing to maintain personal contact with leaders of countries that questioned his stance - especially French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. Neither the president nor Secretary of State Colin Powell engaged in the sort of international travel and one-on-one communication that former President George Bush and former Secretary of State James Baker used to build coalition support for the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Nothing that the president said in Monday night's televised address to the nation, and the world, changed the fact that George W. Bush has entered the international arena and stumbled. Badly. His ultimatum to Iraq's Saddam - leave the country or face the "serious consequences" mentioned in U.N. Resolution 1441 - made war seem inevitable.
If war comes, however, it will not be the war that any thoughtful American president could have wanted. Rather, it will be a misguided mission pursued by a troublingly small "coalition of the willing" - with most coalition "partners" there against the will of the people in their countries.
A wiser president might have refused to go ahead without having convinced more of the world. Then again, a wiser president would not have pursued this path in the first place.
After all, the point of diplomacy is not to wage an unrelenting campaign for an unpopular result. The point of diplomacy is to propose action, open a dialogue about the plan and then to refine and improve the approach until the theoretical becomes the possible. It is about winning the faith of others.
George W. Bush leads the world's remaining superpower. That position places great responsibilities on his shoulders. The greatest of these is to engage seriously and sincerely in the diplomatic process that allows for the collective wisdom of many nations to inform the actions of the United States.
President Bush has failed to meet that responsibility. He has let his country down. He has let his world down.
Published: 7:09 AM 3/18/03
-Bam
PS: I bolded the last part.
I finally found the editorial I read last year which sums up my feelings pretty well on the matter. This is just opinion, but it is very compellling. I agree with this and I expect much more from our leader.
An editorial
March 18, 2003
President Bush has failed to convince the world of the need for a war with Iraq. The president's dramatic defeat in the court of international public and official opinion was acknowledged Monday, when the administration abandoned its doomed effort to win a go-ahead from the United Nations Security Council for warmaking.
As Jean-Marc de La Sabliere, the French ambassador to the United Nations, explained it Monday, Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair abandoned their attempt to get a new U.N. resolution when they "realized that the majority in the council is against and oppose a resolution authorizing the use of force."
Despite months of cajoling, conniving and, when all else failed, behind-the-scenes offers of economic aid and political consideration, the Bush administration could not convince the majority of Security Council members that there was sufficient factual, legal or moral justification for war at this time. In fact, it can be argued that the administration's actions solidified opposition to war. To wit:
* The president and his aides built their case for war on a "foundation" of discredited data, including reports of supposed Iraqi "threats" that turned out to have been misread, falsified or, in the case of a key British document, reliant upon out-of-date information culled from the Internet.
* The president and his aides repeatedly attempted to establish a connection between Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaida terrorist network, yet they never succeeded in doing so. The unrelenting focus on finding such a linkage undermined the administration's broader argument for war. It became clear to the international community that if there was the slightest shred of evidence, the administration would have produced it. And they were never able to do so.
* The president rejected diplomacy, failing to maintain personal contact with leaders of countries that questioned his stance - especially French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. Neither the president nor Secretary of State Colin Powell engaged in the sort of international travel and one-on-one communication that former President George Bush and former Secretary of State James Baker used to build coalition support for the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Nothing that the president said in Monday night's televised address to the nation, and the world, changed the fact that George W. Bush has entered the international arena and stumbled. Badly. His ultimatum to Iraq's Saddam - leave the country or face the "serious consequences" mentioned in U.N. Resolution 1441 - made war seem inevitable.
If war comes, however, it will not be the war that any thoughtful American president could have wanted. Rather, it will be a misguided mission pursued by a troublingly small "coalition of the willing" - with most coalition "partners" there against the will of the people in their countries.
A wiser president might have refused to go ahead without having convinced more of the world. Then again, a wiser president would not have pursued this path in the first place.
After all, the point of diplomacy is not to wage an unrelenting campaign for an unpopular result. The point of diplomacy is to propose action, open a dialogue about the plan and then to refine and improve the approach until the theoretical becomes the possible. It is about winning the faith of others.
George W. Bush leads the world's remaining superpower. That position places great responsibilities on his shoulders. The greatest of these is to engage seriously and sincerely in the diplomatic process that allows for the collective wisdom of many nations to inform the actions of the United States.
President Bush has failed to meet that responsibility. He has let his country down. He has let his world down.
Published: 7:09 AM 3/18/03
-Bam
PS: I bolded the last part.
Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,830
- 1,790
Bam,
Where is the editorial from and by whom? For some reason these things never bother you.
BTW, the editorial is great as a source arguing for letting others decide our policies, yet the majority of Americans disagree with that point of view. What about them?
Where is the editorial from and by whom? For some reason these things never bother you.
BTW, the editorial is great as a source arguing for letting others decide our policies, yet the majority of Americans disagree with that point of view. What about them?
Moi
Active Member
Bam,
First of all in claiming that we should be "bending over backwards" for diplomacy you are clearly missing the point of diplomacy itself. Diplomacy means negotiation - it doesn't mean bowing to the will of every tom dick and harry. In order for diplomacy to work, both sides have to give and take. We acceded to the will of other nations and the UN in 1993 when we let Iraq surrender under certain conditions. Where did it get us? Right on back where we started which is under the thumb of a violent dictator.
Additionally, in reference to all those countries who don't agree with what we've done in Iraq they have a choice to make. If they are going to forget what over 200 years of friendship and support we have given over this instance, it is they who are short-sided and mean spirited. No wonder there is such a high divorce rate in this country if everyone thinks that you just leave your friends over a disagreement after 200 and some odd years, two world wars and countless areas in which we've stepped in with financial and other support.
It is they who need to look at the global world and grow up.
First of all in claiming that we should be "bending over backwards" for diplomacy you are clearly missing the point of diplomacy itself. Diplomacy means negotiation - it doesn't mean bowing to the will of every tom dick and harry. In order for diplomacy to work, both sides have to give and take. We acceded to the will of other nations and the UN in 1993 when we let Iraq surrender under certain conditions. Where did it get us? Right on back where we started which is under the thumb of a violent dictator.
Additionally, in reference to all those countries who don't agree with what we've done in Iraq they have a choice to make. If they are going to forget what over 200 years of friendship and support we have given over this instance, it is they who are short-sided and mean spirited. No wonder there is such a high divorce rate in this country if everyone thinks that you just leave your friends over a disagreement after 200 and some odd years, two world wars and countless areas in which we've stepped in with financial and other support.
It is they who need to look at the global world and grow up.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Joe Biden's State Department was maintaining "dossiers" on dozens of Americans being monitored for "disinformation"
- Started by marvin martian
- Replies: 3
-
-
-
Look closely at the photo and tell us what you believe- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 10
Latest Discussions
-
Too Early to Judge, I guess. But police Shoot Woman in her Own Backyard- Latest: Captain Caveman
-
