Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

In diplomacy its the words you use that count.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • In diplomacy its the words you use that count.

    "Shut up you little man,you traitor,you monkey,don't you know you are talking to an Iraqi?"Iraqi envoy Izzat Ibrahim to Kuwaiti foreign minister Sheik Sabah al Ahmed Al Jabbar during summit for the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

    It looks like this guy skipped the class on how to be nice to people to win their support in how to win friends and influence people 101

  • #2
    Re: In diplomacy its the words you use that count.

    Originally posted by John Paul
    "Shut up you little man,you traitor,you monkey,don't you know you are talking to an Iraqi?"Iraqi envoy Izzat Ibrahim to Kuwaiti foreign minister Sheik Sabah al Ahmed Al Jabbar during summit for the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

    It looks like this guy skipped the class on how to be nice to people to win their support in how to win friends and influence people 101
    Does Izzat Ibrahim belong to a scenario design group?
    “To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed…” -1984 about the Big Lie

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Re: In diplomacy its the words you use that count.

      Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti


      Does Izzat Ibrahim belong to a scenario design group?
      Well i'm sure given the current situation all you'd have to do is insert name A and B into that statement and it would sum up some of the arguments very nicely

      Comment


      • #4
        At the diplomacy table rash statements, personal insults, and angry responses signals frustration, fear, intimidation, and ignorance.
        "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

        Comment


        • #5
          A traitor to what?

          Hello,

          "...a traitor...."

          To what? Obviously this Kuwaiti diplomat pledges no allegiance to the nation of Iraq, therefore, he can't be a traitor other than being an Arab.

          "....you monkey...."

          Thankfully, I don't believe in evolution, so, we can't be a bunch of monkeys!

          "...don't you know you're talking to an Iraqi?"

          Well, don't this Iraqi envoy know he's talking to a Kuwaiti with a big and powerful ally, the United States with a powerful army and state of art military technologies? Don't this Iraqi envoy know he's supporting an oppressive dictator with all his heart and mind?

          Yeah, I think Saddam needs to take a real class on diplomacy 101. Looks like Bush has passed the test, after all, haha!

          Dan
          Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

          "Aim small, miss small."

          Comment


          • #6
            Bush is about dumb a politician as those we criticize. He speaks before thinking, and is easily intimidated. The man has screwed up so bad, I doubt he'll survive politically if he doesn't invade. Bush allowed the European nations to goat him into a UN circus where they could seize the initiatve. France and Germany are not winning popular support because their right. They are winning because they are consistent. Bush acts as though he's unsure of himself. There were numerous opportunities for Bush to obtain the kind of support needed to depose Saddam, but he simply ignored them because he was too busy watching the protest on CNN.

            A true leader doesn't worry about popularity. Bush needs to take a step back, start reading between the lines, play the game as dirty as European governments are, and prove his position is right. How can expect anyone to support him when he isn't certain about the direction he wants to go.
            "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

            Comment


            • #7
              I saw the exchange on TV between the Iraqi representative and the Kuwaiti one. I don't understand Arabic but obviously it wasn't pretty at all.

              Not the kind of behavior you would expect from diplomats. A farce. I almost believed I was about to watch an old WWF show

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Deltapooh
                Bush is about dumb a politician as those we criticize. He speaks before thinking, and is easily intimidated. The man has screwed up so bad, I doubt he'll survive politically if he doesn't invade. Bush allowed the European nations to goat him into a UN circus where they could seize the initiatve. France and Germany are not winning popular support because their right. They are winning because they are consistent. Bush acts as though he's unsure of himself. There were numerous opportunities for Bush to obtain the kind of support needed to depose Saddam, but he simply ignored them because he was too busy watching the protest on CNN.

                I have to disagree...Bush has not gotten support from the European nations because they would never support war in Iraq under ANY conditions. I don't see how its Bush's fault that these nations are all liberal and anti-us. They have been for years, but since the cold war is over we don't have any shared security interests with Europe. It's a new world out there. The 21st century is leading to new alliances. It will be the battle of the resented nations (United States, Israel, Colombia, India) vs. the battle of the resentful nations(European Union, Russia, Africa, and much of the arab league).

                Bush secured a tortuous U.N. Resolution which was passed unanimously. They won the Congressional vote easily. I'm unaware of any obvious military failings. If the impasse is because of the irredentist opposition of Germans to war under any conditions, then it's not Bush's fault. If it's because of a French desire to stymie American power, then it's hard to see what Bush could have done to stop this. If the French refuse to enforce a resolution they signed, why is that a sign of incompetence on the part of the Bush administration? My own view is that the diplomatic mess we're in is a function of world reality - and would be the same whatever administration was in charge. The Clinton administration avoided such a crisis because they avoided serious action to solve the problem.
                "Speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own Michael Moore, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens

                Comment


                • #9
                  Europe was about as prepared to go to war in 1990, as they are today today.

                  Bush foolishly assumed support was forthcoming and pursued such a policy. He compounded the issue by making it clear he was prepared to go it alone. So why should French and German officials go against popular opinion if their support or lack of it is irrelevant to the unfolding events?

                  Bush behaves like a man who expects support to be forthcoming, and is amazed when that doesn't happen. Bush Sr did things like send envoys to Iraq to give the impression he was doing everything he could to avoid war. Few people realized that those officials never offered Iraq a compromise. At the last meeting, Baker began the negotiations by handing Tariq Azziz a letter from Bush warning Iraq not use WMDs or risk retaliatory action. Then Baker emerged from the meeting to say it was Iraq who was the failure.

                  Bush should have anticipated European opposition and moved to gain support if that was so important. Behind closed doors, you will likely find a bunch of governments supporting Bush. However, he began his campaign by rendering them irrelevant.

                  Support is not given, it's taken.
                  "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Deltapooh
                    Europe was about as prepared to go to war in 1990, as they are today today.
                    This is ridiculous. In 1990 Saddam invaded Kuwait so the mandate was much clearer. Europe has also become a lot more liberal and anti-American since 1990 due to globalization and the perceived dominance of American culture not to mention our support for Israel. I would also argue that getting these huge coalitions is a mistake. It prevents anything bold from being done and dragging these nations kicking and screaming into wars is one of the reasons the U.S. is resented.

                    Bush foolishly assumed support was forthcoming and pursued such a policy. He compounded the issue by making it clear he was prepared to go it alone. So why should French and German officials go against popular opinion if their support or lack of it is irrelevant to the unfolding events?
                    I don't believe Bush assumed support was forthcoming. That's the whole reason we said we'd go it alone. I don't want these nations going against their public opinion because it only causes more resentment towards us as they make it seem like we "made them go along with us. I didn't support us going to the U.N. but this was done for Tony Blair's sake. If Great Britain didn't support us we would not have gone to the U.N.

                    Bush behaves like a man who expects support to be forthcoming, and is amazed when that doesn't happen. Bush Sr did things like send envoys to Iraq to give the impression he was doing everything he could to avoid war. Few people realized that those officials never offered Iraq a compromise. At the last meeting, Baker began the negotiations by handing Tariq Azziz a letter from Bush warning Iraq not use WMDs or risk retaliatory action. Then Baker emerged from the meeting to say it was Iraq who was the failure.

                    Bush sr. (who was the worst president since Jimmy Carter) and Jim Bakker's precious coalition is the reason we still have the problems we have. They failed to take the initiative and go to Baghdad and remove Saddam which is one of the things that led to increased anti-americanism as time went on since the U.S. and Britain were the only ones willing to hang around and enforce the terms of surrender agreements. Thus the accusations began that we were starving babies with the sanctions and bombing hospitals and the French, the Russians and others started trying to peel away the restrictions we had in place to enforce the truce.
                    Bush sr. was a wimp just like everybody said he was. One could argue that the coalition we would have had if we would have gone all the way to Baghdad in 1991 would have shrunk significantly had we made the decision to do so.


                    Bush should have anticipated European opposition and moved to gain support if that was so important. Behind closed doors, you will likely find a bunch of governments supporting Bush. However, he began his campaign by rendering them irrelevant.
                    Support is not given, it's taken. [/B]

                    The Europeans would have NEVER supported war in Iraq. They didn't even support enforcing the terms of surrender when they didn't even include war. The fact that we said we would go it alone if necessary did not make the Europeans irrelevant. He was simply preparing the U.S. since he knew there would be no support for such actions in Europe and that ultimately we would be going alone. You're going to have to get used to the new world reality that Europe is not our ally with the exception of a few countries (Great Britain, Spain, Portugal and a the former Warsaw Pact nations). However as the governments in the future continue to more accurately reflect the views of the majority of their citizens, even these nations will likely veer away. The cold war is over, so the idea that former allies will follow us on every military adventure where they're interest is not served is absurd.
                    Would the Americans support sending troops to the Ivory Coast to help France? Would the Americans support sending troops to Chechnya to to help Russia? Almost certainly not, because its not our war. Just like they believe Iraq is not their war because they have no intention of enforcing the terms of surrender of the gulf war.

                    The U.S. carried the brunt of the burden in the Gulf War and its aftermath so Saddam and the U.S. are sworn enemies while the rest of the coalition faded away and could care less about enforcing the truce. I don't want the U.S. to go out and get support unless it is true moral support, not just some token support that they will claim we bullied them into. The current situation is healthy because it allows us to lay our cards on the table and recognize our differences which will only continue to widen in the future. It's a new day.
                    "Speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own Michael Moore, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      This is ridiculous. In 1990 Saddam invaded Kuwait so the mandate was much clearer.
                      I strongly disagree. Most countries, including our own was not willing to go to war in August of 1990. Most of Bush's advisors, excluding NSA Brent Scrowcroft, presents options for "living with" Iraq's expansion in the Middle East. The only thing anyone agreed on was the defense of Saudi Arabia.

                      It was only after Bush met with British PM Margaret Thatcher did he openly discuss forcing Saddam out of Kuwait. Bushed built on the ideal that defending Saudi Arabia could only be achieved long-term through the ejection of Saddam from Kuwait.

                      I don't believe Bush assumed support was forthcoming. That's the whole reason we said we'd go it alone. I don't want these nations going against their public opinion because it only causes more resentment towards us as they make it seem like we "made them go along with us. I didn't support us going to the U.N. but this was done for Tony Blair's sake. If Great Britain didn't support us we would not have gone to the U.N.
                      I came to a similar conclusion a while back. I thought we should give Blair a fighting chance because he stands to loose the most.

                      However, Bush did believe support was forthcoming. Otherwise, he would have anticipated the traps France and Germany have created.

                      Bush sr. (who was the worst president since Jimmy Carter) and Jim Bakker's precious coalition is the reason we still have the problems we have. They failed to take the initiative and go to Baghdad and remove Saddam which is one of the things that led to increased anti-americanism as time went on since the U.S. and Britain were the only ones willing to hang around and enforce the terms of surrender agreements. Thus the accusations began that we were starving babies with the sanctions and bombing hospitals and the French, the Russians and others started trying to peel away the restrictions we had in place to enforce the truce.
                      Bush sr. was a wimp just like everybody said he was. One could argue that the coalition we would have had if we would have gone all the way to Baghdad in 1991 would have shrunk significantly had we made the decision to do so.
                      Again, if you review interviews of the Bush Administration, you will find very few, again excluding Scrowcroft, that had any desire to march on Baghdad. While you contend Bush was a wimp, but he fought an internal and external war to obtain and maintain a fragile coalition. France came to within inches of walking away.

                      I do agree with your views about the end of the Cold War and how it shaped our alliances. I wrote a very very long post on the issue a while back. However, most observers from within the UN point to support behind closed doors that evaporates in the light. The administration hints to this.

                      It would be a serious mistake for the US to simply ignore Europe, which appears to be the growing policy. Europe has been liberal-minded since WWI, and "anti-American" since it became clear the US would pursue it's new Asian doctrine without the strong emphasis obtaining and maintaining European support. Bush should not have announced his intent to invade Iraq so early, particularly after his Axis of Evil Speech.

                      Support could have been achieved had Bush cut off options by committing allies to one process which is used to create another.
                      That's how you shape foriegn policy. Even if it fails, it makes your opponent's argument weaker.

                      You might be right that Europe would never support war with Iraq, but Bush made the process alot more painful that it should have been by not allowing our allies to lead us around from one committee to the next. Bush is not hitting back. That's the problem. The support is there, but he's allowing France and Germany to have the time of their lives with us. We lost the public battle because Bush appears to have no clear plan.

                      Now with only weeks left to war, Bush is actually going to give those same governments another opportunity to beat us with their diplomatic stick in the world arena. He needs to take steps now to cut this off. No more phone talks. The game behind closed doors should be just as dirty as it is outside. At the very least, we can redeem some of the respect lost.

                      If you're looking for geniune support, it will be a long and fruitless journey. People don't support because it's the right thing to do. They do so because it's in their interest. No matter how you cut it, Bush has fought a horrible diplomatic battle which began when he entered office.
                      "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Deltapooh


                        I strongly disagree. Most countries, including our own was not willing to go to war in August of 1990. Most of Bush's advisors, excluding NSA Brent Scrowcroft, presents options for "living with" Iraq's expansion in the Middle East. The only thing anyone agreed on was the defense of Saudi Arabia.

                        It was only after Bush met with British PM Margaret Thatcher did he openly discuss forcing Saddam out of Kuwait. Bushed built on the ideal that defending Saudi Arabia could only be achieved long-term through the ejection of Saddam from Kuwait.
                        But a coalition to expel Iraq from Kuwait in 1990 was much easier to put together and "sell" to the various constituencies represented. Iraq had committed a naked aggression against a neighbour.
                        Bush Sr didn't have near as much trouble as selling a war to Europe as Bush Jr does because of that naked aggression on Iraq's part.
                        Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          That's true. In retrospect, Bush Jr. has a tougher job. Yet, I'm still confident he could have achieved more with a more definitive plan. When you look at the way he carried out all this, you get the feeling he either didn't anticipate this kind of resistence, or lacks the skill to make it come out his way.

                          Bush is not a diplomat. That was one of the problems we accepted by electing him. While I believe he is a better choice than Gore, his lack of experience in the international arena is costing him. Bush Sr. had been around the block more than a few times, and knew what went on behind closed doors. Bush Jr doesn't. The more experienced, though equally foolish European allies are leading him around and forcing him to modify his plans.

                          As one analysts said, it's time for Bush to just lay it on the line. The allies must understand they will not be able to negotiate their way out of this. Either they join the Coalition now, and at least have a say in what's going to happen or join later as weaker contributors to the Iraqi nation building operation. He is allowing room for debate on the obvious.

                          There is no way around it for Europe. They are in this thing until end. None can afford to simply ignore Iraq or any problems created by regime change. UN support or not, each will contribute because of their longstanding policy of ensuring stability in the Middle East at all cost.

                          That is what I mean by boxing them in. Germany and France don't give a hoot about the Iraqis. They just don't want be caught up in the whirlwind they fear is coming. Each government is doing all it can to avoid the inevitable.

                          The question asked should no longer be if war is justified. The question to the European allies should "be where do you want to be when the smoke clears?" Sure, in the media they're gonna blab off about human rights and crap, but at the end of the day, Europe will want to be on the decision-making side of Middle East foriegn policy, not the side line.
                          "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Deltapooh
                            A true leader doesn't worry about popularity.
                            Especially if they need not worry about elections every two years. Leaders in democracies, on the other hand, do need to worry about popularity.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              There is one main reason that explains why the U.S. are now quite isolated internationally and why the immense support they were enjoying after 9/11 has evaporated: the Bush administration tried to get a blank check from the U.N. by which the Security Council would fully endorse U.S. foreign policy towards Iraq, basically trying to get the U.N. blessing for a military conflict with Iraq for Spring 2003. And this strategy has now backfired.

                              Of course, in retrospect, it seems clear that the Bush administration never really believed in a renewed inspection process to disarm Iraq. I think it is safe to say that Rumsfeld, Cheney and possibly Rice were opposed to new inspections and were ready to tackle the Iraqi problem without the UN. But at some point Powell (with the help of Great Britain who has always been very keen on going through the UN) probably got persuasive enough to convince the Bush team of the great advantages that international legitimacy could bring to the U.S. strategy. So the White House decided to go through the U.N., but the ultimate objective has always been a military confrontation with Iraq that would lead to the demise of Hussein's regime, the occupation of Iraq, and the start of a New Order in Middle East. I don't think anybody can pretend in retrospect that the Bush team just wanted an inspection process to get rid of WMDs and leave it at that.

                              At first, when Resolution 1441 passed in November, everybody seems to agree that finally Washington has decided to give the inspection process a try, and that if it worked, a peaceful disarmement would occur. Some were skeptical and pointed out that at times Bush has referred to "regime change" as also an objective, but most people downplayed that part of the U.S. policy. The official line was that the U.S. wanted an Iraq free of WMDs, period. However, as weeks passed by, a lot of clues pointed out that the U.S. did not care that much about the success of the inspection process. The continuous massive military buildup in Kuwait revealed the ultimate objective of the U.S. This buildup wasn't only to apply diplomatic pressure on Iraq...

                              When the European powers and most of the rest of the world realized somewhere in December 2002-January 2003 that whatever could be achieved throughs inspection would never be enough for the U.S., then the opposition to the U.S. became quite virulent. The main diplomatical powers do not like to get flouted and used like this. The White House should has realized that their course of action would lead to such a reaction as soon as the rest of the Security Council members would realize the game the U.S. was playing with them.

                              The U.S. should have never gone to the Security Council if they never believed in means other than war to solve the Iraqi problem. What's the point of getting a resolution on inspections approved if in reality you are convinced at 100% that war can only be the solution? We are now in a position where Washington is systematically trying to discredit the inspection process so as to remove any doubts about the necessity of war. On the other hand, France, Germany and Russia are frantically trying to prop up the inspectors. It's getting pathetic.

                              Because the U.S. did successfully assemble a U.N. coalition in 1991, the Bush administration believed they could do the same again. But last time, the world was reacting against a blatant act of agression against Kuwait. The U.N. HAD to do something about it, there was no way denying it. This time, there is no such casus belli, only suspicions that we could eventually have problems with Iraq in a few years. The case for war against Iraq is obviously too weak here, you need a rock-hard case with rock-hard proofs in order for it to be accepted by so many different players at the Security Council.

                              If Washington would have skipped the Security Council and decided instead to privately discuss with the Allies the U.S. intentions and plans, the situation could have been vastly different, and getting the support of the main European powers (including France and Germany) might have been easier. Or at least, they might have been convinced in keeping a low profile instead of leading an all-out charge against U.S. policy.
                              Last edited by Tzar; 07 Mar 03, 15:52.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X