Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
You don't have to imagine how, you are interacting with someone who does characterize our cowboy action in Iraq as precedent for positives and that Bush diplomacy works. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask.
How do you define diplomacy? Again, are you an individual who would never under any circumstance use preemptive force?
We have not seen how this is going to play out. You may be correct, but in the end you may end up being wrong.
|
I dont have any questions about the Iraq precedent. The facts speak for themselves - an Iran with more influence and power in the region, thousands of civilian deaths and chaos in Iraq, and more terrorists and anti-Americanism worldwide.
As it applies to this discussion, I would define diplomacy as`negotiating with our enemies or perceived enemies to convince them of the value of of acting in a manner that best serves both our interests. One component of those negotiations is the ability to convince the opposition of the relative strength and weaknesses of both parties and the consequences if those strengths and weaknesses are forced into play.
Diplomacy is NOT public bullying and bellicose saber rattling with demands that the enemy "do want we want first..then we can talk". Diplomacy is also NOT impugning the motives of your friends as Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld did with "old Europe" when many of our long-standing allies refused to support our aggressive invasion of a sovereign nation.
Its odd that you say our efforts in Iraq have not fully played out at the same time you credit Bush for a successful diplomatic approach to NK which also has not fully played out. The difference is that "Bush diplomacy" in Iraq costs 3,500+ american lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives that cant be restored if in the wild chance that the effort succeeds in the long term.
I agree with Will that Bush is a diplomatic nightmare by any standard.