Summation of Thoughts (was: Some random observations and ponderings)

perlmunger

Obviously some folks will disagree with this completely but here is was I am taking away from this conversation ( "Some random observations and ponderings", below). I think that President Bush's shortcoming as far as diplomacy is concerned is clear and most people would agree that it is indeed a shortcoming. I am just seeing that there are two fronts of diplomacy here. The one is from the US to Iraq via the UN. The other is from the US to the UN itself (bear with me, I'll elaborate). For the past 12 years Saddam Hussein has thumbed his nose at the world by just ignoring the UN resolutions brought about by the outcome of the gulf conflict. The diplomatic method has been extended this long. He no longer has any excuses. It may have helped had the Clinton administration been more focused on it. I can't really speak to that because I have no clue what they did and didn't due during Clinton's terms in office. When President Bush took over, he began to pursue this effort and, rightly so I think, saw the need to address the problem. He believed that the time for diplomacy with Saddam had worn out. I would agree with that. Here is where President Bush went wrong. He used the same rhetoric with our allies that he was using with our enemies to a negative outcome. It seems that had Bush approached the UN with greater tact and diplomacy, and humility for that matter(willing to defer to the UN), he may have had a different outcome. I think he has come across as just being arrogant and making statments that make us all (Americans) look look like big bullies. I don't think that, that was his intention, but it will have consequences. Anyhow, in summary, there are two fronts of diplomacy that President Bush should have taken. The first was with Iraq. However, the time for diplomacy with Iraq came to a close because of their repeated defiance. 12 Years is long enough. But the time for diplomacy with our friends in other countries was forgotten. We should have treated them with much greater respect and listened closer and been willing to submit to that authority. Not doing so could have dire consequences. I just hope that the leaders of these other countries will be the "bigger man" and be willing to forgive. I hope that our President realizes the error before the harm is irreversible. We need these allies. I think if the UN said wait, we should have waited. I support the effort itself, just not the means by which it has come to fruition. If you think I'm out of whack, feel free to let me have it. These are just a f

brianwelsch

First, I believe Clinton was in negotiations through the UN during his term. He held off from invading because the UN would not agree. This isn't 100% true, because we did attack for a 4 day period in '98 after the inspectors left. Bush didn't press the issue until after 9/11. He saw it as an opportunity for the US to further their agenda in Iraq. Bush did use diplomacy. He agreed with a new resolution (1441), which was the wish of the UNSC. He agreed to wait for inspectors to inspect. He was under the impression that when the UNSC unanimously signed 1441 and agreed to "serious consequences" if Iraq did not comply, that that was exactly what the signers meant. He saw no real progress being made, and grew impatient. I think this is viewed as a shortcoming by some, but not me. To any reasonable individual I think it was plain that Saddam had no intention of complying with this resolution. Meanwhile, other than "let the inspectors continue" other UNSC members came up with no other suggestions for actions against Iraq. So the question becomes how long do you do nothing. Everyone already agreed he was in material breach. Where's the "serious consequences" they all agreed to? That how I saw it all anyway. BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

perlmunger

Dang it! Now I have to re-think it again. I agree with you, but I have a hard time disagreeing with the counter point as well. Shessh! Is it safe to say that Bush did the best he could with what he had to work with? I'm glad I don't have his job. Not sure I would be too patient with the French, but then again I'm not the President. It's too late to ponder this any more tonight. I'm going to bed. ;-) -Matt ------------------------------------------ The 3 great virtues of a programmer: Laziness, Impatience, and Hubris. --Larry Wall

Paul Watson

Just a quicky but I think GWB is fully aware of what he has said and the consequences of it. Namely that in black and white the US no longer cares what other countries think, that it will do what it wants, when it wants and how it wants. As Stan keeps saying GWBs job is to protect Americans, and if that means trampling a few of us (rest of world) then so be it. So diplomatically GWB was saying what he meant, I don't think for a second that we misunderstood him. I do agree that the rest of us are pathetic for not sticking to our guns with that 1441 resolution. I don't like war nor do I think it is an answer, but I do think that since we all wrote down to take serious action if 1441 was not met that we should then stand by our words and do so. I do doubt though wether GWB would have changed his POA if the inspectors had come back with favourable, favourable for Sadman, news.

Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa

Macbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.

Jason Henderson

Paul Watson wrote: the US no longer cares what other countries think Isn't this true of France as well? In fact, its true for every country. They are all looking out for #1 and that's the biggest flaw with the UN.

Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

articles profile

Paul Watson

Jason Henderson wrote: Isn't this true of France as well? In fact, its true for every country Oh yeah, sorry, my mistake. There are plenty of other countries just invading other countries totally against what the rest of the world thinks. Yeah, plenty... (and don't tell me "oh but 90% of countries are with the US on invading Iraq" because that is bullshit. The only reason they support the US is for money favours. If South Africa was wanting to invade Iraq for the same reasons as the US everybody would laugh and tell us to sod off.) Come off it. Everyone knows the US is doing what it wants and there is nothing we can say to stop them. France, Germany even the UK would not do this (the UK is only doing it to be pally with the US as well. They would not go it alone.)

Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa

Macbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.

Chris Losinger

Jason Henderson wrote: They are all looking out for #1 and that's the biggest flaw with the UN. but isn't this also the "biggest flaw" with the US Congress, any local school board, city council, or any situation where two or more people get together to discuss anything at all? for it to be otherwise would require an altruism that simply can't be shown to exist. -c

Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

Chris Losinger

perlmunger wrote: Now I have to re-think it again. I agree with you, but I have a hard time disagreeing with the counter point as well. don't lose any sleep over it. :) there are usually multiple equally-valid ways to look at any set of facts. -c

Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

Jason Henderson

Maybe you need to look a little more closely Paul or at least open your eyes. I think we're saying the same things. The reason the Security Council is useless is because every country is looking out for themselves. Whether its for money, security, or to be "pally" with the US, it doesn't matter. Until we have a body that does work for the good of the entire world, the UN will be relegated to charity work.

Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

articles profile

Jason Henderson

Its a paradox. We elect them to legislate for the common good, yet we also want them to vote for things in their own self-interest. I think in situations like school boards, or city councils, people can discuss things and come up with ways to improve the entire community. Everyone on the committee in these situations have an interest in the community. If you look at Congress, most members could care less what happens in someone else's district. I think the larger your bureaucracy gets, the more self-interest creeps in.

Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

articles profile

Chris Losinger

a few weeks ago, a US diplomat (Kiesling) resigned his poistion because he felt he couldn't sell what GWB was making - other countries weren't buying. here's a nice little interview with him: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/19/_kiesling/index.html[^] and here's a sampling of international newspapers: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/19/world_on_war1/index.html[^] -c

Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

brianwelsch

Governments, like people, are naturally self-interested, and act accordingly. My interest does not lie in working together with you unless of course you have something I want. However, if after the dust settles, you're going to continue our current relationship (give or take) anyway, then why should I be bothered with compromise. So you'll like me? Sucks, but that people for you. BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

perlmunger

At the risk of offending some by using Christian scripture, I am going to go out on a limb here. (Attn: Skeptics. This is no attempt to convert you to anything. It just seemed aprapo to the topic at hand). The Apostle Paul wrote a letter to the Phillipians. This is what he said in chapter 2: "1If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. 3Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others." If you adapt this to the situation at hand, it makes a lot of sense. It'll never happen, but I think it's the answer. Here's my adaptation: "If you have any encouragement from being united with other nations, if any comfort from its security, if any fellowship with one another, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others." I just happen to think that that last part about doing nothing out of selfish ambition and considering others beter would have gone a long way. Sorry for the sermon, but you've got to love the message. ;-) -Matt ------------------------------------------ The 3 great virtues of a programmer: Laziness, Impatience, and Hubris. --Larry Wall

Jason Henderson

The message is good, but the world will not heed it. John 1:10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. Here is an interesting passage. It may not fit exactly, but I think of George Bush and America when I read it. John 15:19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

articles profile