3/18 Just curious. The person who claimed the US would be backing off the
war noise over the next several weeks and how you "told us so!!!!":
do you still believe your earlier statements? I'm the one who said
about a week ago that this coming weekend would be the start.
\_ When the bombs drop, I'll admit I was wrong. I wasn't trying
to troll either.
\_ is your point simply that behaving irrationally, or bluffing,
are effective means of diplomacy?
\_ Whoever said it was effective? Anyways, I still think the
U.S. won't do anything until it gets support from Russia,
France, and China. I wouldn't be surprised if the troops
sit there for a month waiting for Iraq to surrender
(which it won't).
\_ You are living in the past. Many people fail to
understand Bush. He is not a complex man, what you see
is what you get. Unlike Clinton, he means what he says.
\_ at least I had a job when Clinton was in office.
\_ As an intern?
\_ I miss the intern days. The WH was so much more
fun when we took government seriously and we
smoked out and nailed all the interns and stroke
of the pen, law of the land... sigh. Oh for the
dotcom days when we all had bubble jobs based on
VC money with no business plans.
\_ What I see is a moron. Is that what I get? He could
have gotten much more support for the war, and made it
much easier for American troops and tax payers if he
and his underlings just learn some basic diplomatic
skills.
\_ Could he have? France has been obstructing US
efforts to control Iraq the whole time.
\_ So you figure he could've gotten the votes in from
France/Russia/China how exactly? Do you understand
how diplomacy works? To get their vote in a useless
body (the UN), we'd have to buy them off with
something that has real value. You're so smart, how
about I give you my vote at the next CSUA meeting and
in exchange you give me 50 bucks. That sounds good
to me and you'd show good diplomacy. I'd not veto
your resolution to oppose the war or something.
\_ I am not referring to getting votes, but
generating bad vibes all over. Even in terms
of getting votes, if the Bush administration has
done it smarter instead of like a gung-ho cowboy,
he may very well have gotten enough votes to
force a French veto rather than having to
withdraw the resolution. Even magazines like the
Economist which openly supported the war thought
Bush and his underlings screwed up the diplomacy
big time.
\_ Ok, I'll buy that. Yes, there are some bad
vibes. Maybe it could've been better, maybe
not. Either way I believe the French were hell
bound to veto anything that would had a trigger
clause in it. I believe that because they said
so so many times. The WH reaction to that was
too flustered but in the end most countries
either already liked/hated us and will continue
to do so as before. The long term effect on
how much any other country likes/hates us is
about zero because this isn't a play ground.
\_ we got UN support in Afghanistan, and in
Iraq last time, so the assertion that
France was going to veto stuff just because
they "don't like us" is not only absurd, it's
contradicted by history. -tom |
http://csua.com/feed/