Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
You are not in the UN but your position suggests that Bolton was ineffective. That represents a position on behalf of those in the UN. Since they may use diplomacy to get what they want from someone they disagree with they may very well say they don't like his style when they really dislike his position. Your disagreement with Bolton is based on "style" rather than "position". I think you have fallen in the "diplomacy" trap set by those in the UN who disagree with the US on substance. I agree I should not have used the term "buddies", I was wrong - I apologize.
|
This is a common conservative debating tactic. Undermine the liberal's position by claiming that if they don't agree with A then they must support B.
Diplomacy traps, lol. So do you suppose Condeleeza Rice would be more effective if she swaggered around relaying disdain and unproductive jabs at the world's diplomats and fellow statesmen/women? Bullshit. Just because Bolton's manner gratified his fellow UN deconstructionists it doesn't mean he has been effective.
Quote:
|
Hello! Isn't that what I said.
|
I am referring to the decades of civil strife that have occurred
all over the African continent that apparently weren't compelling or politically expedient enough to catch America's attention before. And don't think it is hasn't occurred to me that the primary reason America has taken this pointed interest in Darfur at this time just may be because the perpetrators of the violence this time are
Muslim.
Quote:
|
I base my endorsement on his performance. Your basis is on "style".
|
What performance. What has he accomplished? And I have said next to nothing about his "style." Quite to the contrary, what I have expressed opposition to is the
substance of his views.
Quote:
|
I think the US should do more to end genocide. We should have done more in Rawanda and more in Darfur. I am not clear on your view. Obviously the UN is not doing enough, but you don't want to call them on it? How do you negotiate with people who won't call genocide, genocide?
|
This again is trying to trap me in a spurious argument that I am either for John Bolton or for genocide. Does this really work with anyone?
Quote:
|
I am not Beta zoid. I will assume you are being honest.
|
I try to be honest at all times. Yes, after years of reading about horrendous activities that have occurred on the African continent, it galls me that you want to now purport that John Bolton has been robbed of the opportunity to sledgehammer his way to peace in the Sudan. But when I put it that way, I find it kind of funny.
Quote:
|
Being a Beta zoid must be nice. Can you tell me how I really feel about my mother?
|
I don't follow next generation bullshit.
Quote:
|
I am not a diplomat nor a great communicator. If I have not explained why Bolton's personality, style or whatever is not the problem, I will not be able to. Dafur simply illustrates the point that while some debate Bolton's style real people die. When real people are dying being "harsh", being "over-the-top", being "critical", being "outspoken", being an "a$$", is not a problem in my book.
|
lol, you have not explained why Bolton's personality is not the problem. And yet you have also not explained how his personality will solve the problem. Or even how it will contribute to the solving of the problem.
Real people have been dying as such on the African continent all of your life. Portray it any way you must, but if you want to sell John Bolton and, by accretion, the Bush Administration as a whole as entities set forth upon the world to relieve the suffering of the people of Darfur then you've got your work cut out for you. 'Cause I'm not buying.