Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Diplomacy
| Diplomacy [message #72525] |
Sat, 16 September 2006 19:37  |
![John [1] is currently offline](/theme/PARIS_Forum_Template/images/offline.png "John [1] is currently offline")
John [1]
Messages: 2229
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Does the US have anyone that really excels in diplomacy? Henry Kissinger
always seemed to be amazing to me and I'm wondering who now days does effective
diplomacy.
Do you believe that countries like Iran, Syria and North Korea are beyond
diplomacy? I always look for diplomatic solutions but I think the US government
has totally stopped any real diplomacy. Yes, No ? Didn't we wait a good
week for Israel to blow up Pakestan last month until we Condi wandered over
to the UN and said "hey, you think it's time to reduce the kill rate to show
we care?".
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Diplomacy [message #72531 is a reply to message #72528] |
Sat, 16 September 2006 21:29  |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Why was Kissinger successful? He had an agenda.....get us out of VietNam.
Everyone agreed on this agenda....even the Russiand and therefore they were
willing to go the "detente" route. North Vietnam couldn't really pay them
for the billions they were expending to prop up that regime. As far as we
were concerned, there was never any real desire to stay there once Kissinger
took center stage. Cronkite declared victory for the Viet Cong at the end of
Tet (December 1968) and everyone went along with this so Kissinger had to
figure out how to go about getting out and getting our prisoners out.
As far as China goes, it was in China's interest to open up relations with
the west because their economy was tanking and they were scared as hell of
the Soviets.
These were the times we were extremely active in supporting Latin American
dictatorships and he was accused of being complicit in war crimes by a few
leftist journalists like Christopher Hitchens.
The thing is that international politics isn't pretty. Kissinger may have
gotten the Nobel Peace prize, but it was more the time in history than the
person, IMO. I mean, Arafat and Annan have gotten the Nobel Peach prize
which shows how bogus it really is these days.
Trying to be the passive good guy and pleasing the world gets us the
disastrous results of the Carter and Clinton administrations. Just a little
correct intelligence at the right time and we'd likely not be in such a mess
today. Too bad Clinton screwed the pooch on that one. When Kissinger was
Secretary of State, we had an intelligence service that could be depended
on. You can't conduct diplomacy without having a few hole cards.
DJ
"John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:450cbe96$1@linux...
>
> Ok, so diplomacy isn't working. But WHO are the diplomats and do they
have
> any skill like Kissinger?
>
> John
>
> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
> >Do you believe that countries like Iran, Syria and North Korea are beyond
> >> diplomacy?
> >
> >North Korea?......why not ask the Clintons? Iran?........no
problem......all
> >we have to do is abandon Israel and convert to Islam.
> >Syria????........I'd rather try to herd cats.
> >
> >
> >"John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:450cb4fb$1@linux...
> >>
> >> Does the US have anyone that really excels in diplomacy? Henry
Kissinger
> >> always seemed to be amazing to me and I'm wondering who now days does
> >effective
> >> diplomacy.
> >>
> >> Do you believe that countries like Iran, Syria and North Korea are
beyond
> >> diplomacy? I always look for diplomatic solutions but I think the US
> >government
> >> has totally stopped any real diplomacy. Yes, No ? Didn't we wait a
> good
> >> week for Israel to blow up Pakestan last month until we Condi wandered
> >over
> >> to the UN and said "hey, you think it's time to reduce the kill rate to
> >show
> >> we care?".
> >>
> >> John
> >
> >
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Diplomacy [message #72565 is a reply to message #72561] |
Sun, 17 September 2006 12:31 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
But you stated that there seemed to be far to many people who were ready to
push a button.....etc. I disagree.
I think we've got plenty of diplomats in this administration.. They have to
have something other than an ideological brick wall or a weasel to negotiate
with though. What good did *diplomacy* with the Koreans or Arafat. To
dispatch envoys to discuss international affiars and foriegn policy with
terrorists and Nazi maniacs like the Iranian prime minister legitimizes them
and their tactics.
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=54 26
Back around 1970 when I was studing political science, one of the the
required courses of study was international government and politics. This
book was part of the required curriculum:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/071030/071030673 3.HTM
It was of particular interest to me because I had a job lined up in the
Middle East with a company out of New Orleans named McDermott International
to work in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf. It was a great job.....stay 18
months and bring home an incredible amount of money tax free, but it was
considered dangerous duty over there, even then. The 1973 arab/israeli war
ended up blowing my whole plan out of the water because the company had to
reshuffle their experienced employees........but anyway........I read the
book and quite a few others dealing with the middle east with great
interest. Also I ha\d a frend who was an architecture student who was an
Iraqi American and we often talked about middle east affairs.......and still
do.
Anyway.......this part of the world has interested me for a long time so
fast forward to right after 911 but before the invasion of Iraq. I ran
across this article which pretty much is spot on IMO about the historical
situation as has existed for many years
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/101501_why.ht ml
....................and the most tragic part of it is the last paragraph
wherein the author states:
It sounds like a daunting challenge, but there are many good signs. Al Qaeda
is not more powerful than the combined force of many determined governments.
The world is indeed uniting around American leadership, and perhaps we will
see the emergence, for a while, of a new global community and consensus,
which could bring progress in many other areas of international life.
Perhaps most important, Islamic fundamentalism still does not speak to the
majority of the Muslim people. In Pakistan, fundamentalist parties have yet
to get more than 10 percent of the vote. In Iran, having experienced the
brutal puritanism of the mullahs, people are yearning for normalcy. In
Egypt, for all the repression, the fundamentalists are a potent force but so
far not dominant. If the West can help Islam enter modernity in dignity and
peace, it will have done more than achieved security. It will have changed
the world.
I have no reason not to believe (other than the rantings of the autohateBush
lunatic fringe community who want to politicize everything) that during this
period, had we possessed an intelligence service that could have warned the
administration about the duplicity of those in the global community who were
rearming Sadaam Hussein at the expense of the Iraqi people using the UN
Oil-For-Food program as their cover and the realities of the mountanous
stockpiles of munitions that have been converted to IED's and most likely
the destinations oin Syria and elsewhere where Sadaam was moving his WMD's
(I still think we haven't heard the last of this issue), we would have done
things differently. Instead we got a "legacy" intelligence service that was
horribly flawed. What we have discovered is that we had far more enemies
during the Clintin administration than anyone knew. Y
This is the intelligence service that bush inherited. You may or may not
think these sources credeible, but I think that historical reality has
proved them top be correct:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040414-124718-2114r.htm
http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment042903.as p
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-24-intel-sid e_x.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/535793/posts (this one is
especially disturbing)
Now what does this have to do with diplomacy? You have to have good
information in order to conduct diplomatic negotiations. Yeah, Rice could go
out there and negotiate with terrorists and the Korean lunatic. Clinton
tried it for 8 years. At some point you have to learn from mistakes of the
past.
"John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:450d60c8$1@linux...
>
> Just to be clear, my question is "Who are the diplomats of today".
>
> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
> >>There seem to be far too many people that just want to push a button and
> >>have the 'problem' go away regardless of collateral damage.
> >
> >.........and where exactly do you get this info? Seems to me that if your
> >assumption was right, North Korea wopuld be a parking lot right about
now.
> >We have developed $250,000.00 cannon shells that can be shot out of a
> >howitzer from 25 miles away and hit within 10' of a scumbag so that we
only
> >kill his human shields in the immediate vicinity. I'm finding it harder
> and
> >harder to justify spending this kind of money on people who haven't got
> the
> >common sense to take these people out themselves (and it's very
disturbing
> >to me that I feel this way......but I'm beginning to).
> >
> >
> >
> >"John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:450d3909$1@linux...
> >>
> >> Don't confuse seeking peace with not having resolve to kill and
obliterate
> >> dangerous groups of people. I was just always impressed with
Kissinger's
> >> dialog. He struck me as someone who really really wanted peace and
knew
> >> clearly the horrific consequences of not achieving it.
> >>
> >> There seem to be far too many people that just want to push a button
and
> >> have the 'problem' go away regardless of collateral damage.
> >>
> >> So, WHO today has this kind of diplomatic ability? I don't see anyone
> who
> >> clearly speaks in an effective measured, peace seeking role. I don't
know
> >> anyone who seems to have the cool head that I percieve Kissinger had.
> >Also,
> >> I'm not a history buff so I don't know everything about Kissinger but
> he
> >> always struck me as the ultimate diplomat.
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Diplomacy [message #72566 is a reply to message #72565] |
Sun, 17 September 2006 12:46 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Interesting Deej and insightful.
There are so many issues involved, but one of the main topics as it applies
to the current situation is has Bush's policies and actions increased or
decreased that islamic fundamentalist support? It seems to be growing like
wildfire whereas it used to be embers.
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:450da2d8@linux...
> But you stated that there seemed to be far to many people who were ready
> to
> push a button.....etc. I disagree.
>
> I think we've got plenty of diplomats in this administration.. They have
> to
> have something other than an ideological brick wall or a weasel to
> negotiate
> with though. What good did *diplomacy* with the Koreans or Arafat. To
> dispatch envoys to discuss international affiars and foriegn policy with
> terrorists and Nazi maniacs like the Iranian prime minister legitimizes
> them
> and their tactics.
> http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=54 26
>
> Back around 1970 when I was studing political science, one of the the
> required courses of study was international government and politics. This
> book was part of the required curriculum:
> http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/071030/071030673 3.HTM
>
> It was of particular interest to me because I had a job lined up in the
> Middle East with a company out of New Orleans named McDermott
> International
> to work in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf. It was a great job.....stay
> 18
> months and bring home an incredible amount of money tax free, but it was
> considered dangerous duty over there, even then. The 1973 arab/israeli war
> ended up blowing my whole plan out of the water because the company had to
> reshuffle their experienced employees........but anyway........I read the
> book and quite a few others dealing with the middle east with great
> interest. Also I ha\d a frend who was an architecture student who was an
> Iraqi American and we often talked about middle east affairs.......and
> still
> do.
>
> Anyway.......this part of the world has interested me for a long time so
> fast forward to right after 911 but before the invasion of Iraq. I ran
> across this article which pretty much is spot on IMO about the historical
> situation as has existed for many years
> http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/101501_why.ht ml
>
> ...................and the most tragic part of it is the last paragraph
> wherein the author states:
>
> It sounds like a daunting challenge, but there are many good signs. Al
> Qaeda
> is not more powerful than the combined force of many determined
> governments.
> The world is indeed uniting around American leadership, and perhaps we
> will
> see the emergence, for a while, of a new global community and consensus,
> which could bring progress in many other areas of international life.
> Perhaps most important, Islamic fundamentalism still does not speak to the
> majority of the Muslim people. In Pakistan, fundamentalist parties have
> yet
> to get more than 10 percent of the vote. In Iran, having experienced the
> brutal puritanism of the mullahs, people are yearning for normalcy. In
> Egypt, for all the repression, the fundamentalists are a potent force but
> so
> far not dominant. If the West can help Islam enter modernity in dignity
> and
> peace, it will have done more than achieved security. It will have changed
> the world.
>
> I have no reason not to believe (other than the rantings of the
> autohateBush
> lunatic fringe community who want to politicize everything) that during
> this
> period, had we possessed an intelligence service that could have warned
> the
> administration about the duplicity of those in the global community who
> were
> rearming Sadaam Hussein at the expense of the Iraqi people using the UN
> Oil-For-Food program as their cover and the realities of the mountanous
> stockpiles of munitions that have been converted to IED's and most likely
> the destinations oin Syria and elsewhere where Sadaam was moving his WMD's
> (I still think we haven't heard the last of this issue), we would have
> done
> things differently. Instead we got a "legacy" intelligence service that
> was
> horribly flawed. What we have discovered is that we had far more enemies
> during the Clintin administration than anyone knew. Y
>
> This is the intelligence service that bush inherited. You may or may not
> think these sources credeible, but I think that historical reality has
> proved them top be correct:
> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040414-124718-2114r.htm
> http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment042903.as p
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-24-intel-sid e_x.htm
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/535793/posts (this one is
> especially disturbing)
>
> Now what does this have to do with diplomacy? You have to have good
> information in order to conduct diplomatic negotiations. Yeah, Rice could
> go
> out there and negotiate with terrorists and the Korean lunatic. Clinton
> tried it for 8 years. At some point you have to learn from mistakes of the
> past.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:450d60c8$1@linux...
>>
>> Just to be clear, my question is "Who are the diplomats of today".
>>
>> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>> >>There seem to be far too many people that just want to push a button
>> >>and
>> >>have the 'problem' go away regardless of collateral damage.
>> >
>> >.........and where exactly do you get this info? Seems to me that if
>> >your
>> >assumption was right, North Korea wopuld be a parking lot right about
> now.
>> >We have developed $250,000.00 cannon shells that can be shot out of a
>> >howitzer from 25 miles away and hit within 10' of a scumbag so that we
> only
>> >kill his human shields in the immediate vicinity. I'm finding it harder
>> and
>> >harder to justify spending this kind of money on people who haven't got
>> the
>> >common sense to take these people out themselves (and it's very
> disturbing
>> >to me that I feel this way......but I'm beginning to).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >"John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:450d3909$1@linux...
>> >>
>> >> Don't confuse seeking peace with not having resolve to kill and
> obliterate
>> >> dangerous groups of people. I was just always impressed with
> Kissinger's
>> >> dialog. He struck me as someone who really really wanted peace and
> knew
>> >> clearly the horrific consequences of not achieving it.
>> >>
>> >> There seem to be far too many people that just want to push a button
> and
>> >> have the 'problem' go away regardless of collateral damage.
>> >>
>> >> So, WHO today has this kind of diplomatic ability? I don't see anyone
>> who
>> >> clearly speaks in an effective measured, peace seeking role. I don't
> know
>> >> anyone who seems to have the cool head that I percieve Kissinger had.
>> >Also,
>> >> I'm not a history buff so I don't know everything about Kissinger but
>> he
>> >> always struck me as the ultimate diplomat.
>> >>
>> >> John
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Diplomacy [message #72567 is a reply to message #72566] |
Sun, 17 September 2006 13:09 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Cron,
I think this has less to do with Bush and Iraq and more to do with finding a
time/place/excuse to wage this jihad. Iraq has provided all three, but I
think it would be happening elsewhere and if not now...............soon.
;o)
"justcron" <parisnews@hydrorecords.com> wrote in message
news:450da43b@linux...
> Interesting Deej and insightful.
>
> There are so many issues involved, but one of the main topics as it
applies
> to the current situation is has Bush's policies and actions increased or
> decreased that islamic fundamentalist support? It seems to be growing
like
> wildfire whereas it used to be embers.
>
> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
> news:450da2d8@linux...
> > But you stated that there seemed to be far to many people who were ready
> > to
> > push a button.....etc. I disagree.
> >
> > I think we've got plenty of diplomats in this administration.. They have
> > to
> > have something other than an ideological brick wall or a weasel to
> > negotiate
> > with though. What good did *diplomacy* with the Koreans or Arafat. To
> > dispatch envoys to discuss international affiars and foriegn policy with
> > terrorists and Nazi maniacs like the Iranian prime minister legitimizes
> > them
> > and their tactics.
> > http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=54 26
> >
> > Back around 1970 when I was studing political science, one of the the
> > required courses of study was international government and politics.
This
> > book was part of the required curriculum:
> > http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/071030/071030673 3.HTM
> >
> > It was of particular interest to me because I had a job lined up in the
> > Middle East with a company out of New Orleans named McDermott
> > International
> > to work in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf. It was a great
job.....stay
> > 18
> > months and bring home an incredible amount of money tax free, but it was
> > considered dangerous duty over there, even then. The 1973 arab/israeli
war
> > ended up blowing my whole plan out of the water because the company had
to
> > reshuffle their experienced employees........but anyway........I read
the
> > book and quite a few others dealing with the middle east with great
> > interest. Also I ha\d a frend who was an architecture student who was an
> > Iraqi American and we often talked about middle east affairs.......and
> > still
> > do.
> >
> > Anyway.......this part of the world has interested me for a long time so
> > fast forward to right after 911 but before the invasion of Iraq. I ran
> > across this article which pretty much is spot on IMO about the
historical
> > situation as has existed for many years
> > http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/101501_why.ht ml
> >
> > ...................and the most tragic part of it is the last paragraph
> > wherein the author states:
> >
> > It sounds like a daunting challenge, but there are many good signs. Al
> > Qaeda
> > is not more powerful than the combined force of many determined
> > governments.
> > The world is indeed uniting around American leadership, and perhaps we
> > will
> > see the emergence, for a while, of a new global community and consensus,
> > which could bring progress in many other areas of international life.
> > Perhaps most important, Islamic fundamentalism still does not speak to
the
> > majority of the Muslim people. In Pakistan, fundamentalist parties have
> > yet
> > to get more than 10 percent of the vote. In Iran, having experienced the
> > brutal puritanism of the mullahs, people are yearning for normalcy. In
> > Egypt, for all the repression, the fundamentalists are a potent force
but
> > so
> > far not dominant. If the West can help Islam enter modernity in dignity
> > and
> > peace, it will have done more than achieved security. It will have
changed
> > the world.
> >
> > I have no reason not to believe (other than the rantings of the
> > autohateBush
> > lunatic fringe community who want to politicize everything) that during
> > this
> > period, had we possessed an intelligence service that could have warned
> > the
> > administration about the duplicity of those in the global community who
> > were
> > rearming Sadaam Hussein at the expense of the Iraqi people using the UN
> > Oil-For-Food program as their cover and the realities of the mountanous
> > stockpiles of munitions that have been converted to IED's and most
likely
> > the destinations oin Syria and elsewhere where Sadaam was moving his
WMD's
> > (I still think we haven't heard the last of this issue), we would have
> > done
> > things differently. Instead we got a "legacy" intelligence service that
> > was
> > horribly flawed. What we have discovered is that we had far more enemies
> > during the Clintin administration than anyone knew. Y
> >
> > This is the intelligence service that bush inherited. You may or may not
> > think these sources credeible, but I think that historical reality has
> > proved them top be correct:
> > http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040414-124718-2114r.htm
> > http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment042903.as p
> > http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-24-intel-sid e_x.htm
> > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/535793/posts (this one is
> > especially disturbing)
> >
> > Now what does this have to do with diplomacy? You have to have good
> > information in order to conduct diplomatic negotiations. Yeah, Rice
could
> > go
> > out there and negotiate with terrorists and the Korean lunatic. Clinton
> > tried it for 8 years. At some point you have to learn from mistakes of
the
> > past.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:450d60c8$1@linux...
> >>
> >> Just to be clear, my question is "Who are the diplomats of today".
> >>
> >> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
> >> >>There seem to be far too many people that just want to push a button
> >> >>and
> >> >>have the 'problem' go away regardless of collateral damage.
> >> >
> >> >.........and where exactly do you get this info? Seems to me that if
> >> >your
> >> >assumption was right, North Korea wopuld be a parking lot right about
> > now.
> >> >We have developed $250,000.00 cannon shells that can be shot out of a
> >> >howitzer from 25 miles away and hit within 10' of a scumbag so that we
> > only
> >> >kill his human shields in the immediate vicinity. I'm finding it
harder
> >> and
> >> >harder to justify spending this kind of money on people who haven't
got
> >> the
> >> >common sense to take these people out themselves (and it's very
> > disturbing
> >> >to me that I feel this way......but I'm beginning to).
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:450d3909$1@linux...
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't confuse seeking peace with not having resolve to kill and
> > obliterate
> >> >> dangerous groups of people. I was just always impressed with
> > Kissinger's
> >> >> dialog. He struck me as someone who really really wanted peace and
> > knew
> >> >> clearly the horrific consequences of not achieving it.
> >> >>
> >> >> There seem to be far too many people that just want to push a button
> > and
> >> >> have the 'problem' go away regardless of collateral damage.
> >> >>
> >> >> So, WHO today has this kind of diplomatic ability? I don't see
anyone
> >> who
> >> >> clearly speaks in an effective measured, peace seeking role. I don't
> > know
> >> >> anyone who seems to have the cool head that I percieve Kissinger
had.
> >> >Also,
> >> >> I'm not a history buff so I don't know everything about Kissinger
but
> >> he
> >> >> always struck me as the ultimate diplomat.
> >> >>
> >> >> John
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Diplomacy [message #72568 is a reply to message #72567] |
Sun, 17 September 2006 13:22 |
John [1]
Messages: 2229
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
So who would you consider to be equal to or better than Kissinger in today's
world?
John
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>Cron,
>
>I think this has less to do with Bush and Iraq and more to do with finding
a
>time/place/excuse to wage this jihad. Iraq has provided all three, but I
>think it would be happening elsewhere and if not now...............soon.
>
>;o)
>
>
>"justcron" <parisnews@hydrorecords.com> wrote in message
>news:450da43b@linux...
>> Interesting Deej and insightful.
>>
>> There are so many issues involved, but one of the main topics as it
>applies
>> to the current situation is has Bush's policies and actions increased
or
>> decreased that islamic fundamentalist support? It seems to be growing
>like
>> wildfire whereas it used to be embers.
>>
>> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
>> news:450da2d8@linux...
>> > But you stated that there seemed to be far to many people who were ready
>> > to
>> > push a button.....etc. I disagree.
>> >
>> > I think we've got plenty of diplomats in this administration.. They
have
>> > to
>> > have something other than an ideological brick wall or a weasel to
>> > negotiate
>> > with though. What good did *diplomacy* with the Koreans or Arafat. To
>> > dispatch envoys to discuss international affiars and foriegn policy
with
>> > terrorists and Nazi maniacs like the Iranian prime minister legitimizes
>> > them
>> > and their tactics.
>> > http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=54 26
>> >
>> > Back around 1970 when I was studing political science, one of the the
>> > required courses of study was international government and politics.
>This
>> > book was part of the required curriculum:
>> > http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/071030/071030673 3.HTM
>> >
>> > It was of particular interest to me because I had a job lined up in
the
>> > Middle East with a company out of New Orleans named McDermott
>> > International
>> > to work in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf. It was a great
>job.....stay
>> > 18
>> > months and bring home an incredible amount of money tax free, but it
was
>> > considered dangerous duty over there, even then. The 1973 arab/israeli
>war
>> > ended up blowing my whole plan out of the water because the company
had
>to
>> > reshuffle their experienced employees........but anyway........I read
>the
>> > book and quite a few others dealing with the middle east with great
>> > interest. Also I ha\d a frend who was an architecture student who was
an
>> > Iraqi American and we often talked about middle east affairs.......and
>> > still
>> > do.
>> >
>> > Anyway.......this part of the world has interested me for a long time
so
>> > fast forward to right after 911 but before the invasion of Iraq. I ran
>> > across this article which pretty much is spot on IMO about the
>historical
>> > situation as has existed for many years
>> > http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/101501_why.ht ml
>> >
>> > ...................and the most tragic part of it is the last paragraph
>> > wherein the author states:
>> >
>> > It sounds like a daunting challenge, but there are many good signs.
Al
>> > Qaeda
>> > is not more powerful than the combined force of many determined
>> > governments.
>> > The world is indeed uniting around American leadership, and perhaps
we
>> > will
>> > see the emergence, for a while, of a new global community and consensus,
>> > which could bring progress in many other areas of international life.
>> > Perhaps most important, Islamic fundamentalism still does not speak
to
>the
>> > majority of the Muslim people. In Pakistan, fundamentalist parties have
>> > yet
>> > to get more than 10 percent of the vote. In Iran, having experienced
the
>> > brutal puritanism of the mullahs, people are yearning for normalcy.
In
>> > Egypt, for all the repression, the fundamentalists are a potent force
>but
>> > so
>> > far not dominant. If the West can help Islam enter modernity in dignity
>> > and
>> > peace, it will have done more than achieved security. It will have
>changed
>> > the world.
>> >
>> > I have no reason not to believe (other than the rantings of the
>> > autohateBush
>> > lunatic fringe community who want to politicize everything) that during
>> > this
>> > period, had we possessed an intelligence service that could have warned
>> > the
>> > administration about the duplicity of those in the global community
who
>> > were
>> > rearming Sadaam Hussein at the expense of the Iraqi people using the
UN
>> > Oil-For-Food program as their cover and the realities of the mountanous
>> > stockpiles of munitions that have been converted to IED's and most
>likely
>> > the destinations oin Syria and elsewhere where Sadaam was moving his
>WMD's
>> > (I still think we haven't heard the last of this issue), we would have
>> > done
>> > things differently. Instead we got a "legacy" intelligence service
that
>> > was
>> > horribly flawed. What we have discovered is that we had far more enemies
>> > during the Clintin administration than anyone knew. Y
>> >
>> > This is the intelligence service that bush inherited. You may or may
not
>> > think these sources credeible, but I think that historical reality has
>> > proved them top be correct:
>> > http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040414-124718-2114r.htm
>> > http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment042903.as p
>> > http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-24-intel-sid e_x.htm
>> > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/535793/posts (this one is
>> > especially disturbing)
>> >
>> > Now what does this have to do with diplomacy? You have to have good
>> > information in order to conduct diplomatic negotiations. Yeah, Rice
>could
>> > go
>> > out there and negotiate with terrorists and the Korean lunatic. Clinton
>> > tried it for 8 years. At some point you have to learn from mistakes
of
>the
>> > past.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:450d60c8$1@linux...
>> >>
>> >> Just to be clear, my question is "Who are the diplomats of today".
>> >>
>> >> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>> >> >>There seem to be far too many people that just want to push a button
>> >> >>and
>> >> >>have the 'problem' go away regardless of collateral damage.
>> >> >
>> >> >.........and where exactly do you get this info? Seems to me that
if
>> >> >your
>> >> >assumption was right, North Korea wopuld be a parking lot right about
>> > now.
>> >> >We have developed $250,000.00 cannon shells that can be shot out of
a
>> >> >howitzer from 25 miles away and hit within 10' of a scumbag so that
we
>> > only
>> >> >kill his human shields in the immediate vicinity. I'm finding it
>harder
>> >> and
>> >> >harder to justify spending this kind of money on people who haven't
>got
>> >> the
>> >> >common sense to take these people out themselves (and it's very
>> > disturbing
>> >> >to me that I feel this way......but I'm beginning to).
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:450d3909$1@linux...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Don't confuse seeking peace with not having resolve to kill and
>> > obliterate
>> >> >> dangerous groups of people. I was just always impressed with
>> > Kissinger's
>> >> >> dialog. He struck me as someone who really really wanted peace
and
>> > knew
>> >> >> clearly the horrific consequences of not achieving it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There seem to be far too many people that just want to push a button
>> > and
>> >> >> have the 'problem' go away regardless of collateral damage.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So, WHO today has this kind of diplomatic ability? I don't see
>anyone
>> >> who
>> >> >> clearly speaks in an effective measured, peace seeking role. I don't
>> > know
>> >> >> anyone who seems to have the cool head that I percieve Kissinger
>had.
>> >> >Also,
>> >> >> I'm not a history buff so I don't know everything about Kissinger
>but
>> >> he
>> >> >> always struck me as the ultimate diplomat.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> John
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Diplomacy [message #72570 is a reply to message #72568] |
Sun, 17 September 2006 14:14 |
John [1]
Messages: 2229
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I would love a web site or tv show that listed who our diplomats meet with
and what they report back and if any meetings with the "enemies" are public.
"John" <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>So who would you consider to be equal to or better than Kissinger in today's
>world?
>
>John
>
>"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>>Cron,
>>
>>I think this has less to do with Bush and Iraq and more to do with finding
>a
>>time/place/excuse to wage this jihad. Iraq has provided all three, but
I
>>think it would be happening elsewhere and if not now...............soon.
>>
>>;o)
>>
>>
>>"justcron" <parisnews@hydrorecords.com> wrote in message
>>news:450da43b@linux...
>>> Interesting Deej and insightful.
>>>
>>> There are so many issues involved, but one of the main topics as it
>>applies
>>> to the current situation is has Bush's policies and actions increased
>or
>>> decreased that islamic fundamentalist support? It seems to be growing
>>like
>>> wildfire whereas it used to be embers.
>>>
>>> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
>>> news:450da2d8@linux...
>>> > But you stated that there seemed to be far to many people who were
ready
>>> > to
>>> > push a button.....etc. I disagree.
>>> >
>>> > I think we've got plenty of diplomats in this administration.. They
>have
>>> > to
>>> > have something other than an ideological brick wall or a weasel to
>>> > negotiate
>>> > with though. What good did *diplomacy* with the Koreans or Arafat.
To
>>> > dispatch envoys to discuss international affiars and foriegn policy
>with
>>> > terrorists and Nazi maniacs like the Iranian prime minister legitimizes
>>> > them
>>> > and their tactics.
>>> > http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=54 26
>>> >
>>> > Back around 1970 when I was studing political science, one of the the
>>> > required courses of study was international government and politics.
>>This
>>> > book was part of the required curriculum:
>>> > http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/071030/071030673 3.HTM
>>> >
>>> > It was of particular interest to me because I had a job lined up in
>the
>>> > Middle East with a company out of New Orleans named McDermott
>>> > International
>>> > to work in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf. It was a great
>>job.....stay
>>> > 18
>>> > months and bring home an incredible amount of money tax free, but it
>was
>>> > considered dangerous duty over there, even then. The 1973 arab/israeli
>>war
>>> > ended up blowing my whole plan out of the water because the company
>had
>>to
>>> > reshuffle their experienced employees........but anyway........I read
>>the
>>> > book and quite a few others dealing with the middle east with great
>>> > interest. Also I ha\d a frend who was an architecture student who was
>an
>>> > Iraqi American and we often talked about middle east affairs.......and
>>> > still
>>> > do.
>>> >
>>> > Anyway.......this part of the world has interested me for a long time
>so
>>> > fast forward to right after 911 but before the invasion of Iraq. I
ran
>>> > across this article which pretty much is spot on IMO about the
>>historical
>>> > situation as has existed for many years
>>> > http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/101501_why.ht ml
>>> >
>>> > ...................and the most tragic part of it is the last paragraph
>>> > wherein the author states:
>>> >
>>> > It sounds like a daunting challenge, but there are many good signs.
>Al
>>> > Qaeda
>>> > is not more powerful than the combined force of many determined
>>> > governments.
>>> > The world is indeed uniting around American leadership, and perhaps
>we
>>> > will
>>> > see the emergence, for a while, of a new global community and consensus,
>>> > which could bring progress in many other areas of international life.
>>> > Perhaps most important, Islamic fundamentalism still does not speak
>to
>>the
>>> > majority of the Muslim people. In Pakistan, fundamentalist parties
have
>>> > yet
>>> > to get more than 10 percent of the vote. In Iran, having experienced
>the
>>> > brutal puritanism of the mullahs, people are yearning for normalcy.
>In
>>> > Egypt, for all the repression, the fundamentalists are a potent force
>>but
>>> > so
>>> > far not dominant. If the West can help Islam enter modernity in dignity
>>> > and
>>> > peace, it will have done more than achieved security. It will have
>>changed
>>> > the world.
>>> >
>>> > I have no reason not to believe (other than the rantings of the
>>> > autohateBush
>>> > lunatic fringe community who want to politicize everything) that during
>>> > this
>>> > period, had we possessed an intelligence service that could have warned
>>> > the
>>> > administration about the duplicity of those in the global community
>who
>>> > were
>>> > rearming Sadaam Hussein at the expense of the Iraqi people using the
>UN
>>> > Oil-For-Food program as their cover and the realities of the mountanous
>>> > stockpiles of munitions that have been converted to IED's and most
>>likely
>>> > the destinations oin Syria and elsewhere where Sadaam was moving his
>>WMD's
>>> > (I still think we haven't heard the last of this issue), we would have
>>> > done
>>> > things differently. Instead we got a "legacy" intelligence service
>that
>>> > was
>>> > horribly flawed. What we have discovered is that we had far more enemies
>>> > during the Clintin administration than anyone knew. Y
>>> >
>>> > This is the intelligence service that bush inherited. You may or may
>not
>>> > think these sources credeible, but I think that historical reality
has
>>> > proved them top be correct:
>>> > http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040414-124718-2114r.htm
>>> > http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment042903.as p
>>> > http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-24-intel-sid e_x.htm
>>> > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/535793/posts (this one is
>>> > especially disturbing)
>>> >
>>> > Now what does this have to do with diplomacy? You have to have good
>>> > information in order to conduct diplomatic negotiations. Yeah, Rice
>>could
>>> > go
>>> > out there and negotiate with terrorists and the Korean lunatic. Clinton
>>> > tried it for 8 years. At some point you have to learn from mistakes
>of
>>the
>>> > past.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > "John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:450d60c8$1@linux...
>>> >>
>>> >> Just to be clear, my question is "Who are the diplomats of today".
>>> >>
>>> >> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>>> >> >>There seem to be far too many people that just want to push a button
>>> >> >>and
>>> >> >>have the 'problem' go away regardless of collateral damage.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >.........and where exactly do you get this info? Seems to me that
>if
>>> >> >your
>>> >> >assumption was right, North Korea wopuld be a parking lot right about
>>> > now.
>>> >> >We have developed $250,000.00 cannon shells that can be shot out
of
>a
>>> >> >howitzer from 25 miles away and hit within 10' of a scumbag so that
>we
>>> > only
>>> >> >kill his human shields in the immediate vicinity. I'm finding it
>>harder
>>> >> and
>>> >> >harder to justify spending this kind of money on people who haven't
>>got
>>> >> the
>>> >> >common sense to take these people out themselves (and it's very
>>> > disturbing
>>> >> >to me that I feel this way......but I'm beginning to).
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >"John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:450d3909$1@linux...
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Don't confuse seeking peace with not having resolve to kill and
>>> > obliterate
>>> >> >> dangerous groups of people. I was just always impressed with
>>> > Kissinger's
>>> >> >> dialog. He struck me as someone who really really wanted peace
>and
>>> > knew
>>> >> >> clearly the horrific consequences of not achieving it.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> There seem to be far too many people that just want to push a button
>>> > and
>>> >> >> have the 'problem' go away regardless of collateral damage.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> So, WHO today has this kind of diplomatic ability? I don't see
>>anyone
>>> >> who
>>> >> >> clearly speaks in an effective measured, peace seeking role. I
don't
>>> > know
>>> >> >> anyone who seems to have the cool head that I percieve Kissinger
>>had.
>>> >> >Also,
>>> >> >> I'm not a history buff so I don't know everything about Kissinger
>>but
>>> >> he
>>> >> >> always struck me as the ultimate diplomat.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> John
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Diplomacy [message #72694 is a reply to message #72687] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 08:46 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"John" <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>Ok, so who do you consider to be a great diplomats period?
It depends on the definition of diplomacy, of course, so I'd say probably
the best diplomat we've had as a president in a while was Bush Sr. When you
compare the quality, quantity, and staying power of his coaltion in Gulf
I to the phony coalition of the bullied and bought for Gulf II it says a
lot. I'm no Bush Sr. fan at all, he was a warmongering bastard like every
president since at least McKinley, but he was shrewd and rational. I think
Colin Powell had a real chance until he got neo-conned. I think he had the
temperment and the fact he was non-white gave him a different sort of credibility
than, say, James Baker when he would talk to non-European countries. I think
Saudi ambassador prince Bandar was given enviable cards to play (best oil
fields in the world) but has managed them impressively considering his country
leads the world in beheadings and funding Islamists.
Historically, in the west, I'd say Metternich has to take the cake even though
he believed everything I despise. Austria by rights was a bit player on the
European stage but their chief diplomat remade most of Europe.
For the US, I'd say nobody has come close to Benjamin Franklin, with John
Adams as a second. Adams was able to convince both finance and political
bigshots to believe in a country that didn't exist, and to lend us lots of
money and a Navy. Franklin did much the same with the French, exquisitely
managing a relationship with Talleyrand, another stunningly nimblefooted
(or treacherous depending on your opinion) diplomat. And Franklin managed
this while being adored by the French and banging lots of hot French aristobabes
on the side. So that goes along ways with me.
Just my ideas off the top of my head. The US has been starved for true diplomats
and strategic thinkers for some time. That's part of the reason we're in
the mess we're in now.
TCB
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Diplomacy [message #72699 is a reply to message #72694] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 09:04 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Historically, in the west, I'd say Metternich has to take the cake even
though
he believed everything I despise. Austria by rights was a bit player on the
European stage but their chief diplomat remade most of Europe.
I agree that he was aboslutely brilliant.
>Just my ideas off the top of my head. The US has been starved for true
diplomats
and strategic thinkers for some time. That's part of the reason we're in
the mess we're in now. <
Well, IMHO, we are faced with what we've got now (and could be improved) or
with the return to the Talleyrands of the left and the wet finger in the
wind.
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:451010bb$1@linux...
>
> "John" <no@no.com> wrote:
> >
> >Ok, so who do you consider to be a great diplomats period?
>
> It depends on the definition of diplomacy, of course, so I'd say probably
> the best diplomat we've had as a president in a while was Bush Sr. When
you
> compare the quality, quantity, and staying power of his coaltion in Gulf
> I to the phony coalition of the bullied and bought for Gulf II it says a
> lot. I'm no Bush Sr. fan at all, he was a warmongering bastard like every
> president since at least McKinley, but he was shrewd and rational. I think
> Colin Powell had a real chance until he got neo-conned. I think he had the
> temperment and the fact he was non-white gave him a different sort of
credibility
> than, say, James Baker when he would talk to non-European countries. I
think
> Saudi ambassador prince Bandar was given enviable cards to play (best oil
> fields in the world) but has managed them impressively considering his
country
> leads the world in beheadings and funding Islamists.
>
> Historically, in the west, I'd say Metternich has to take the cake even
though
> he believed everything I despise. Austria by rights was a bit player on
the
> European stage but their chief diplomat remade most of Europe.
>
> For the US, I'd say nobody has come close to Benjamin Franklin, with John
> Adams as a second. Adams was able to convince both finance and political
> bigshots to believe in a country that didn't exist, and to lend us lots of
> money and a Navy. Franklin did much the same with the French, exquisitely
> managing a relationship with Talleyrand, another stunningly nimblefooted
> (or treacherous depending on your opinion) diplomat. And Franklin managed
> this while being adored by the French and banging lots of hot French
aristobabes
> on the side. So that goes along ways with me.
>
> Just my ideas off the top of my head. The US has been starved for true
diplomats
> and strategic thinkers for some time. That's part of the reason we're in
> the mess we're in now.
>
> TCB
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Diplomacy [message #72704 is a reply to message #72699] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 10:17 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ted Kennedy
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:45101602@linux...
> Historically, in the west, I'd say Metternich has to take the cake even
> though
> he believed everything I despise. Austria by rights was a bit player on
the
> European stage but their chief diplomat remade most of Europe.
>
> I agree that he was aboslutely brilliant.
>
> >Just my ideas off the top of my head. The US has been starved for true
> diplomats
> and strategic thinkers for some time. That's part of the reason we're in
> the mess we're in now. <
>
> Well, IMHO, we are faced with what we've got now (and could be improved)
or
> with the return to the Talleyrands of the left and the wet finger in the
> wind.
>
>
>
> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:451010bb$1@linux...
> >
> > "John" <no@no.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >Ok, so who do you consider to be a great diplomats period?
> >
> > It depends on the definition of diplomacy, of course, so I'd say
probably
> > the best diplomat we've had as a president in a while was Bush Sr. When
> you
> > compare the quality, quantity, and staying power of his coaltion in Gulf
> > I to the phony coalition of the bullied and bought for Gulf II it says a
> > lot. I'm no Bush Sr. fan at all, he was a warmongering bastard like
every
> > president since at least McKinley, but he was shrewd and rational. I
think
> > Colin Powell had a real chance until he got neo-conned. I think he had
the
> > temperment and the fact he was non-white gave him a different sort of
> credibility
> > than, say, James Baker when he would talk to non-European countries. I
> think
> > Saudi ambassador prince Bandar was given enviable cards to play (best
oil
> > fields in the world) but has managed them impressively considering his
> country
> > leads the world in beheadings and funding Islamists.
> >
> > Historically, in the west, I'd say Metternich has to take the cake even
> though
> > he believed everything I despise. Austria by rights was a bit player on
> the
> > European stage but their chief diplomat remade most of Europe.
> >
> > For the US, I'd say nobody has come close to Benjamin Franklin, with
John
> > Adams as a second. Adams was able to convince both finance and political
> > bigshots to believe in a country that didn't exist, and to lend us lots
of
> > money and a Navy. Franklin did much the same with the French,
exquisitely
> > managing a relationship with Talleyrand, another stunningly nimblefooted
> > (or treacherous depending on your opinion) diplomat. And Franklin
managed
> > this while being adored by the French and banging lots of hot French
> aristobabes
> > on the side. So that goes along ways with me.
> >
> > Just my ideas off the top of my head. The US has been starved for true
> diplomats
> > and strategic thinkers for some time. That's part of the reason we're in
> > the mess we're in now.
> >
> > TCB
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Diplomacy [message #72706 is a reply to message #72690] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 10:31 |
John [1]
Messages: 2229
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ok, fair enough. I'm just looking for some diplomacy success stories of recent.
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>OK John.....are you going to send a diplomat to talk to himself? I agree
>it's pathetic but in irder for diplomacy to happen, there has to be more
>than one diplomat. You want me to name a few......I can't. I think Bolton
>and Rice could do a great job if given someone rational to work with.
>
>
>"John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:450fcc57$1@linux...
>>
>> That's a pathetic answer. Yeah we don't need no stinking diplomats!
>Everyone
>> else is nuts, crazy and a lunatic. DJ, I thought you had better answers
>> than that.
>>
>> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>> >I think I answered yur question as much as I can by stat8ing that a
>diplomat
>> >cannot do anything unless there is willingness to participate in a
>> >meaningful and sincere dialog......so keeping in mind that a negotiator
>> must
>> >have credibility and those for whom he is negotiating must have some
sort
>> of
>> >track record of credibility, I ask you.......who do you think would be
a
>> >credible negotiator for Iran, North Korea, Syria?
>> >
>> >
>> >"John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:450f310e$1@linux...
>> >>
>> >> What? It's a simple question. Who is a real diplomat in today's
>world?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "justcron" <parisnews@hydrorecords.com> wrote:
>> >> >Dunno, but jump into your next point cuz he's had a lot to say lately.
>> >> >
>> >> >"John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:450f2399$1@linux...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Anyone, anyone? Beuller?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So who would you consider to be equal to or better than Kissinger
in
>> >> >> today's
>> >> >> world?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Diplomacy [message #72731 is a reply to message #72699] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 14:56 |
Martin Harrington
Messages: 560
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
So John,
Why don't you tell us who your pick would be...
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:45101602@linux...
> Historically, in the west, I'd say Metternich has to take the cake even
> though
> he believed everything I despise. Austria by rights was a bit player on
> the
> European stage but their chief diplomat remade most of Europe.
>
> I agree that he was aboslutely brilliant.
>
>>Just my ideas off the top of my head. The US has been starved for true
> diplomats
> and strategic thinkers for some time. That's part of the reason we're in
> the mess we're in now. <
>
> Well, IMHO, we are faced with what we've got now (and could be improved)
> or
> with the return to the Talleyrands of the left and the wet finger in the
> wind.
>
>
>
> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:451010bb$1@linux...
>>
>> "John" <no@no.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Ok, so who do you consider to be a great diplomats period?
>>
>> It depends on the definition of diplomacy, of course, so I'd say probably
>> the best diplomat we've had as a president in a while was Bush Sr. When
> you
>> compare the quality, quantity, and staying power of his coaltion in Gulf
>> I to the phony coalition of the bullied and bought for Gulf II it says a
>> lot. I'm no Bush Sr. fan at all, he was a warmongering bastard like every
>> president since at least McKinley, but he was shrewd and rational. I
>> think
>> Colin Powell had a real chance until he got neo-conned. I think he had
>> the
>> temperment and the fact he was non-white gave him a different sort of
> credibility
>> than, say, James Baker when he would talk to non-European countries. I
> think
>> Saudi ambassador prince Bandar was given enviable cards to play (best oil
>> fields in the world) but has managed them impressively considering his
> country
>> leads the world in beheadings and funding Islamists.
>>
>> Historically, in the west, I'd say Metternich has to take the cake even
> though
>> he believed everything I despise. Austria by rights was a bit player on
> the
>> European stage but their chief diplomat remade most of Europe.
>>
>> For the US, I'd say nobody has come close to Benjamin Franklin, with John
>> Adams as a second. Adams was able to convince both finance and political
>> bigshots to believe in a country that didn't exist, and to lend us lots
>> of
>> money and a Navy. Franklin did much the same with the French, exquisitely
>> managing a relationship with Talleyrand, another stunningly nimblefooted
>> (or treacherous depending on your opinion) diplomat. And Franklin managed
>> this while being adored by the French and banging lots of hot French
> aristobabes
>> on the side. So that goes along ways with me.
>>
>> Just my ideas off the top of my head. The US has been starved for true
> diplomats
>> and strategic thinkers for some time. That's part of the reason we're in
>> the mess we're in now.
>>
>> TCB
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Diplomacy [message #72734 is a reply to message #72731] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 15:09 |
John [1]
Messages: 2229
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Martin, I don't think I know enough to make a good pick. I'm just very interested
in the diplomacy side of things and I remember as a kid it seemed to be a
part of the news that I don't seem to see today. So I'm just wondering aloud
who is a real diplomat of today.
I like this story a lot:
There was once a very famous Aikido player in Japan who spent
his whole life studying Usheba's legendary art. Although he had
dedicated his whole existence to this beautiful art he had never
actually had occasion to test it in a real life situation against a
determined attacker, someone intent on hurting him. Being a
moralistic kind of person he realised that it would be very bad
karma to actually go out and pick a fight just to test his art so he
was forced to wait until a suitable occasion presented itself.
Naively, he longed for the day when he was attacked so that he
could prove to himself that Aikido was powerful outside of the
controlled walls of the dojo.
The more he trained, the more his obsession for validation grew
until one day, travelling home from work on a local commuter
train, a potential situation did present itself -an overtly drunk and
aggressive man boarded his train and almost immediately started
verbally abusing the other passengers.
'This is it,' the Aikido man thought to himself, 'this is my chance
to test my art.'
He sat waiting for the abusive passenger to reach him. It was
inevitable that he would: he was making his way down the
carriage abusing everyone in his path. The drunk got closer and
closer to the Aikido man, and the closer he got the louder and
more aggressive he became. Most of the other passengers
recoiled in fear of being attacked by the drunk. However, the
Aikido man couldn't wait for his turn, so that he could prove to
himself and everyone else, the effectiveness of his art. The drunk
got closer and louder. The Aikido man made ready for the
seemingly inevitable assault -he readied himself for a bloody
encounter.
As the drunk was almost upon him he prepared to demonstrate
his art in the ultimate arena, but before he could rise from his
seat the passenger in front of him stood up and engaged the
drunk jovially. 'Hey man, what's up with you? I bet you've
been drinking in the bar all day, haven't you? You look like a
man with problems. Here, come and sit down with me, there's
no need to be abusive. No one on this train wants to fight with
you.'
The Aikido man watched in awe as the passenger skillfully
talked the drunken man down from his rage. Within minutes
the drunk was pouring his heart out to the passenger about how
his life had taken a downward turn and how he had fallen on
hard times. It wasn't long before the drunk had tears streaming
down his face. The Aikido man, somewhat ashamed thought to
himself 'That's Aikido!'. He realised in that instant that the
passenger with a comforting arm around the sobbing drunk was
demonstrating Aikido, and all martial art, in it highest form.
"Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>So John,
>Why don't you tell us who your pick would be...
>--
>Martin Harrington
>www.lendanear-sound.com
>
>"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
>news:45101602@linux...
>> Historically, in the west, I'd say Metternich has to take the cake even
>> though
>> he believed everything I despise. Austria by rights was a bit player on
>> the
>> European stage but their chief diplomat remade most of Europe.
>>
>> I agree that he was aboslutely brilliant.
>>
>>>Just my ideas off the top of my head. The US has been starved for true
>> diplomats
>> and strategic thinkers for some time. That's part of the reason we're
in
>> the mess we're in now. <
>>
>> Well, IMHO, we are faced with what we've got now (and could be improved)
>> or
>> with the return to the Talleyrands of the left and the wet finger in the
>> wind.
>>
>>
>>
>> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:451010bb$1@linux...
>>>
>>> "John" <no@no.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >Ok, so who do you consider to be a great diplomats period?
>>>
>>> It depends on the definition of diplomacy, of course, so I'd say probably
>>> the best diplomat we've had as a president in a while was Bush Sr. When
>> you
>>> compare the quality, quantity, and staying power of his coaltion in Gulf
>>> I to the phony coalition of the bullied and bought for Gulf II it says
a
>>> lot. I'm no Bush Sr. fan at all, he was a warmongering bastard like every
>>> president since at least McKinley, but he was shrewd and rational. I
>>> think
>>> Colin Powell had a real chance until he got neo-conned. I think he had
>>> the
>>> temperment and the fact he was non-white gave him a different sort of
>> credibility
>>> than, say, James Baker when he would talk to non-European countries.
I
>> think
>>> Saudi ambassador prince Bandar was given enviable cards to play (best
oil
>>> fields in the world) but has managed them impressively considering his
>> country
>>> leads the world in beheadings and funding Islamists.
>>>
>>> Historically, in the west, I'd say Metternich has to take the cake even
>> though
>>> he believed everything I despise. Austria by rights was a bit player
on
>> the
>>> European stage but their chief diplomat remade most of Europe.
>>>
>>> For the US, I'd say nobody has come close to Benjamin Franklin, with
John
>>> Adams as a second. Adams was able to convince both finance and political
>>> bigshots to believe in a country that didn't exist, and to lend us lots
>>> of
>>> money and a Navy. Franklin did much the same with the French, exquisitely
>>> managing a relationship with Talleyrand, another stunningly nimblefooted
>>> (or treacherous depending on your opinion) diplomat. And Franklin managed
>>> this while being adored by the French and banging lots of hot French
>> aristobabes
>>> on the side. So that goes along ways with me.
>>>
>>> Just my ideas off the top of my head. The US has been starved for true
>> diplomats
>>> and strategic thinkers for some time. That's part of the reason we're
in
>>> the mess we're in now.
>>>
>>> TCB
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Oct 31 03:20:19 PDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02659 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
