Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Look--that we vetoed something speaks to exactly the arrogance and jingoism I'm talking about. There's no interest on Bolton's part to build consensus, to come up with solutions that people can agree on. In his world, there are allies and enemies, and you cozy up with the former, and bomb the everliving shit out of the latter, and that's just absolutely how it is. I'd like to have somebody representing us on the international stage who has some flexibility in their view of the world. A rigid view is death.
|
You summed up here a very important point about our current implementation of foreign policy and the Bush administration's attitude towards conflict and dispute resolution. Fortunately for us all, we will now see some maneuvering away from these stringent and punitive measures that disregard the value and input of the rest of the planet in favor of diplomatic and incentive based negotiations. Can John Bolton "go with the flow" and prove himself able to engage and compromise as well as he bullies? That remains to be seen but I, for one, am willing to give him the chance. If not? He will need to be reined in or he will have to go. Where WE need to be stubborn and uncompromising is in our resolve to nurture the multilateral alliances we had before the war and to leave behind the ridiculous posturing and "bulldozer" attitude we have had not only toward our enemies, but toward our traditonal
allies, as well. And I agree with you, rb, this is
a life or death matter. As convinced as the war patriots are that with enough threats and bombing they will effectively squelch the threat of Islamic radicalism, they couldn't be more wrong. This is a new sort of conflict, and if we continue on that course we might as well roll out the red carpet for Osama and invite him to set up HQ in the Lincoln bedroom.