Patterico's Pontifications

12/4/2006

Bolton Resigns

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:55 am



John Bolton has resigned. Allah says:

Not a surprise, really.

Bad things happen when you lose your majority.

Yes they do.

67 Responses to “Bolton Resigns”

  1. Yeah, Bolton was a great diplomat. I can’t for the life of me figure out why people thought him unfit to represent the US within the UN.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  2. John Bolton Resigns As Ambassador To The United Nations…

       John Bolton’s resignation as Ambassdor representing The U.S. to The United Nations  has been accepted by the Bush Administration.From Yahoo:Unable to win Senate confirmation, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton will step down when his …

    Stuck On Stupid (18427a)

  3. Such a pity. One of the few gents in government to see the UN for what it is.

    OHNOES (5884ae)

  4. John Bolton Resignation Accepted by President Bush…

    This is totally unexceptable……Un-freakin believable!!Breaking Now!!Lord Help Us….
    Bush Accepts U.N. Ambassador Bolton’s Resignation When Recess Appointment Expires via Fox News. WASHINGTON President Bush has accepted the resign ……

    Assorted Babble by Suzie (59ce3a)

  5. At last! The UN may now return to the unobstructed fulfillment its most important duties — covering up for despots, pimping out refugee girls, and passing resolutions condemning Israel.

    PCachu (e072b7)

  6. ‘Course, worse things happen when you relied on recess appointments because you never really had the majority to begin with.

    Xrlq (f52b4f)

  7. […] Posted by: Brian in: Government, Congress, United Nations at 8:31 am Permalink | trackback (right click and save) |  One Response to “BoltonResigns” […]

    Iowa Voice » » Bolton Resigns (075f33)

  8. I was going to write “that’s what happens when you sacrifice ‘good enough’ because it’s not perfect” but after reading Xrlq’s comment I remembered that in the case of Bolton we did not even have a “good enough”.

    nk (57e995)

  9. Boloney, Xlrq. There was, and perhaps still is, a majority of Senators who would confirm John Bolton’s position at the UN. It’s a nasty minority, including the justly diselected Senator Lincoln Chaffee, that played dog-in-the-manger and prevented a floor vote on Bolton’s confirmation.

    Short-term, the dogs own the manger. Long-term, they caused themselves much worse trouble. The crocodile can swallow Bolton, but it will be eager for multiple doggies at its next meal.

    Insufficiently Sensitive (01397c)

  10. In other news, Iran wants to return to negotiations on its nuclear enrichment program, (something its not willing to negotiate on). And yeah, its a big bummer Bolton keeps getting stuck in fillabusters. The UN is a failed organization. All they do is sit around and discuss things all day, yet never act when an emergency happens.

    G (722480)

  11. The UN is a failed organization. All they do is sit around and discuss things all day, yet never act when an emergency happens.


    Actually, G, you could say the same about the Senate.

    DRJ (a41dd4)

  12. Well, technically I could say the same about us commentors on this blog. 😉

    G (722480)

  13. Considering how effective our military strategy has been thus far, one would think that the US would stop rattling the damn saber and sit down to talk with countries like Iran and Syria.

    The leaders of these countries are rational individuals, as are the leaders of our country. There is nothing taboo about having talks with other sovereign nations. Talking is how adults get things done. *Negotiation* is how adults get things done, and negotiation means some concessions.

    When was the last time one of you married folks argued with your spouse about which movie to rent, negotiated, and were accused of “appeasement” by the clerk?

    Leviticus (43095b)

  14. Levi, you misunderstand: you negotiate when things are negotiable. When things aren’t negotiable, you’re much better served by someone clear-headed enough to recognize that, rather than with a milquetoast who thinks he can persist and somehow be nice enough to sway the thugs.

    Showing weakness does not get you good agreements; it just shows a willingness to surrender pre-emptively.

    Dana (3e4784)

  15. Leviticus,
    With regards to the current situation with Iran’s nuclear program. They’ve stated from the beginning there is nothing they will change on. That they cannot be stopped from enriching uranium. They only have wanted to talk about it to stall for whatever reason (building up their program). No matter how many traces of HEU we find at various locations, no matter how many UN inspectors get removed from Iran. Regardless, I think they want to stall now (or I guess thats “talk” to you) is because Ahmenijade (I know, i spelled it wrong, but he’s not worth my time to look it up in the 3 seconds it’d take) is gaining popularity from Iranians due to his defiance of the U.S., forget the fact that he’s doing a horrible job being President, that he hasn’t done what he campaigned to do, or the fact the senate hates him.

    Anyway, cute, but don’t fucking even dare compare renting a movie to the need to stop mass genocide in Rwanda. (you know, the things the UN was meant to prevent/stop…ect…)

    G (722480)

  16. Leviticus, in the case of Iran, even your description of them as rational is questionable. Iran’s pres is a Holocaust denier, did you know. Have you ever read more than short excerpts of his speeches, he’s a nutcase. He’s crackers like David Koresh (Branch Davidians; Waco, Texas; remember them). Only he’s going to be playing with nuclear weapons, eventually.

    Negotiation is only rational when both sides can trust the other to keep agreements, and are not in a zero sum situation. Neither condition is meet here. Their national interests and ours are mutually exclusive. And Islam teaches that it’s fine to lie to infidels.

    What do you imagine that Iran or Syria will concede, and actually do?

    larry (feb78b)

  17. Larry, actually, a huge chunk of Iran does not believe the holocaust has happened. (begin sarcasm) Oh, of course Iran and Syria will adhere to the will of the world, after all, North Korea did, only after that tool of a pres, Mr. Bush, did they begin enriching uranium for nuclear bombs, cause remember no nuclear weapons program was in effect in North Korea while Clinton was president! (end sarcasm)

    G (722480)

  18. couldn’t bush have picked somebody moderate enough to get senate confirmation? is there a new style of diplomacy emerging where ambassadors are selected based on their public record of criticizing and demeaning the nation/entity to which they will be talking? “i’m here from the great white father in washington to tell you you’re all a bunch of schmucks. what do you have to say to that?”

    assistant devil's advocate (c34f7d)

  19. I’m sure Bolton has enough votes for confirmation, if there were ever a time to vote.

    G (722480)

  20. So it’s not sensible to waste time negotiating, fine. bolton was still ineffectual. Even our own government circumvented his office on diplomatic matters.

    Also, diplomacy itself has *some* value, even if not specifically with regard to Iran. Bolton refused to acknowledge this. the main benefit of his apopintment was that it got him out of Washington.

    biwah (2dcf66)

  21. I’m sure Bolton has enough votes for confirmation

    Granted it’s all hypothetical – but I doubt it.

    biwah (2dcf66)

  22. “Granted it’s all hypothetical – but I doubt it.”

    It sure as hell would be nice to find out. Wish the democrats had your confidence.

    G (722480)

  23. Diplomacy is nothing without something backing it. But yes, diplomacy is a great and ideal solution.

    G (722480)

  24. G:

    IMO, in the modern world, direct talks with unfriendly countries makes sense. It speeds the process and reduces the showmanship/gamesmanship. It does NOT trade away our “stick”. It does not aggrandize the U.N. (quite the opposite – practically speaking it pushes the U.N. into taking a position or, alternatively, irrelevance).

    It is a B.S. macho isolationist position that underlies Bolton’s contemptuous attitude toward actual diplomacy (as oppose to fruitless cock-swinging). Keep in mind that I agree with his power-centric model for international governance (he who has the power makes the rules) but thinks he has miscalculated within his own formula, due (apparently) to deep-seated emotional/ideological beliefs. These beliefs of his render him useless in any diplomatic context, and the administration knows it.

    And just because he resigned because of the possibility of a filibuster (or something) doesn’t mean the Dems used extraordinary measures to axe him. He was an interim appointment and the Republicans would suffer the most from a full confirmation hearing. The public does not want to hear any more of his “go it alone” bluster.

    biwah (2dcf66)

  25. I was uninformed about the mechanics – I guess the confirmation is dead in committee, so filibuster is irrelevant. That’s hardly a novel use of the rules, but whatever – he would never be confirmed in a vote. If the Dems were spoiling for a fight – and I’m glad they’re not – they would let it go to hearings.

    biwah (2dcf66)

  26. Again, i’d love to see them vote on it.

    G (722480)

  27. Well, I’m waiting with bated breath to see what steriling Champion the Dems would posit for us.
    I have to admit though, it was a lot of fun watching Bolton deflate the Gasbags-by-the-river.

    paul from fl (001f65)

  28. biwah:

    You should really read the history of the process. Even the Dhimmi Dems said he had the votes.

    davod (5fdaa2)

  29. Could someone offer up one of John Bolton’s actual victories?

    Either when he was our U.N. representative or when he was in charge of stopping North Korea and Iran from getting nuclear weapons…

    Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa)

  30. Even the Dhimmi Dems said he had the votes.

    Really? It doesn’t seem settled at all, although after looking into it I’ll back off from saying he would “never” be confirmed.

    As I said, I do think that hearings would have a net negative effect on his supporters though.

    biwah (2dcf66)

  31. “…don’t fucking even dare compare renting a movie to the need to stop mass genocide in Rwanda. (you know, the things the UN was meant to prevent/stop…ect…)”

    -G

    Go [expletive deleted by management — honestly, this is juvenile — Patterico] yourself, G. If the US were the morally superior master race that you and your cohorts tout it as, WE would’ve done something in Rwanda, and Somalia, and Darfur. We obviously didn’t let the UN stop us from getting into the fucking sinkhole we’re in now; why would we have let them stop us from protecting innocent lives? That’s what we care about, after all…

    We haven’t sat down with Iran or Syria. We haven’t even made the attempt to behave like mature individuals. WHY? Why don’t we make a move to clear up some of the misconceptions Iranians and Syrians have about the US? And even if this fails, at least the world won’t be able to say that we didn’t try.

    “Showing weakness does not get you good agreements”

    -Dana

    I can’t for the life of me see how negotiation = weakness, Dana.

    Leviticus (e87aad)

  32. To whomever above suggested that Iran’s president was irrational because of his public holocaust denial, you need to look up the term ‘playing to the base’.

    Iran’s every action in the nuclear issue has been a rational response to America’s current military and diplomatic weakness.

    People who mistake public displays of belligerance for actual irrationality must wonder how Kim Jong Il ever lasted as long as he has or how Rush Limbaugh/Michael Moore have not only stayed on the airwaves but proven insatiably popular.

    B (e8227e)

  33. The leaders of these countries are rational individuals,

    That’s the best joke I’ve seen today. Thanks for the laugh!

    BTW, Iran’s president has AGAIN called for the annihilation of Israel. You think that’s rational?

    sharon (dfeb10)

  34. Do the people who call for the us to launch yet another unprovoked war against Iran consider themselves rational?

    Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa)

  35. At last! The UN may now return to the unobstructed fulfillment its most important duties — covering up for despots, pimping out refugee girls, and passing resolutions condemning Israel.

    Comment by PCachu

    Along with accepting bribes, covering up their own crimes, not being able to deliver humanitarian aid without as many limos as delivery trucks, and not allowing the military forces loaned to them to fight.

    A total waste.

    htom (412a17)

  36. NC

    Do the people who call for the us to launch yet another unprovoked war against Iran consider themselves rational?

    and our prior unprovoked war against Iran was … when? And who are these people?

    Darleen (03346c)

  37. I meant Iraq, Darleen.

    But I suppose you could call the Iranian civilian airliner the U.S. gunned down a “war.”

    How about Joshua Muravchik, who recently called on the U.S. to bomb Iran just recently in the dreaded L.A. Times?

    Still waiting for someone to cite a John Bolton success…

    Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa)

  38. “Considering how effective our military strategy has been thus far, one would think that the US would stop rattling the damn saber and sit down to talk with countries like Iran and Syria.”

    I suppose you know that we talk to Syria all the time and even talk to Iran through third parties after that little discommodiousness in 1979. When do you suppose was the last time a country siezed another country’s embassy AND diplomats and held them for years ?

    What they want is another Munich scene with Bush playing the part of Chamberlain. It is all about symbolism.

    “The leaders of these countries are rational individuals, as are the leaders of our country. ”

    Achmadineajad had streets widened in Tehran so that the Hidden Imam, when he comes back from “occultation” will not have to squeeze through narrow streets. You folks who ridicule Bush because he is a Christian don’t know a religious nut when you see one.

    Actually, Iran is mostly hostile to the mullahs but they have 250,000 wild eyed supporters who do a nice imitation of the brownshirts of the Nazi 1930s. Thousands of university students have disappeared in crackdowns on bloggers and other opponents of the regime. The religious police go to apartment building roofs to tear down satellite dishes.

    Bolton might even get some support for president in the Republican Party in 2008. A lot depends on what the Democrats do but if they turn out as feckless as Carter was, and it looks that way, he may have a political future if he wants it. Chris Dodd and the other Democrats who torpedoed his nomination want an ambassador FROM the UN, not TO the UN.

    Mike K (6d4fc3)

  39. Here’s just a few of the things which John Bolton has accomplished in recent months;

    Bolton, in conjunction with French U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, led the Security Council to approve a unanimous resolution to end last summer’s Hezbollah war on Israel. While America should have encouraged Israel to erase Hezbollah once and for all, Bolton successfully executed his orders to stop the combat and authorize U.N. peacekeepers.

    Bolton assembled an international coalition that blocked the bid of Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s Marxist strongman, to join the Security Council. This anti-authoritarian alliance survived 47 ballots. An eventual compromise helped moderate, pro-American Panama fill that spot.

    Bolton arranged the Security Council’s first deliberations on Burma’s human-rights abuses. “The time has come for the suffering of the Burmese people to end and for democratic change to begin,” Bolton said after the September 29 discussion.

    Bolton properly belittled the new Human Rights Council, a forum where Cuba and Zimbabwe lecture civilized nations on how to treat their citizens. He compared this unit’s creation to “putting lipstick on a caterpillar and calling it a butterfly.”

    Bolton invited actor George Clooney and Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel to brief the Security Council last September on Arab mass-murder of non-Arabs in Darfur, Sudan. “Every day we delay only adds to the suffering of the Sudanese people and extends the genocide,” Bolton said. He engineered the Security Council’s approval of 22,500 U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur. Bolton continues to pressure Sudan’s government to accept these personnel atop the 7,000 African Union soldiers already on site.

    Bolton persuaded the Security Council to pass a resolution denouncing Iran’s uranium enrichment program and demanding that Tehran halt its atomic hanky-panky.

    Bolton, with the help of China’s and Japan’s ambassadors, negotiated unanimously adopted Security Council resolutions condemning North Korea’s July 4 missile test and penalizing its Columbus Day A-bomb blast.

    Desert Rat (ee9fe2)

  40. Possibly the funniest, assumedly unintentional, comment ever:

    Still waiting for someone to cite a John Bolton success…

    Comment by Neville Chamberlain — 12/4/2006 @ 4:28 pm

    Someone styling himself Neville Chamberlain, talking about failed diplomacy! 🙂

    Dana (e7aa47)

  41. So, Bolton managed to get some U.N. resolutions passed?

    Did North Korea and Iran actually stop building nukes?

    Did Hezbollah disarm?

    Are innocents still being slaughtered in Darfur?

    I’m a fan of the U.N., but I don’t see why Bolton being there matters one bit. He seems to have backed the kind of toothless U.N. resolutions that sound good to his supporters but don’t actually accomplish anything.

    Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa)

  42. […] Michelle Malkin The American Pundit Katie Favazza Outside The Beltway | OTB Wade’s Inn Patterico’s Pontifications » Bolton Resigns “7.62mm Justice” » Bolton Resigns Assorted Babble by Suzie Texas Rainmaker » I Want a Refund Stop The ACLU Stuck On Stupid Blogs of War » U.N. Ambassador John Bolton to Resign Sister Toldjah » John Bolton resigns Church and State Macsmind – Conservative Commentary and Common Sense Suitably Flip Environmental Republican Y.A.C.R.W.B – Yet Another Conservative, Right Wing Blog » Bolton Resigns! Revealing The ACLU – Standing Up Against the Greatest Overt Attack in American History » Bolton Resigns! FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog » John Bolton Watch: Bolton Resigns as United Nations Ambassador Mary Katharine Ham dcthornton.com » Damn, Damn, Damn […]

    Right Voices » Blog Archive » Alert: John Bolten Resigns (1466f5)

  43. In regards to Iran:

    Whenever people talk about Iran the conversation always turns to how crazy Mr. Ahmadinejad is and how he hates Jews and denies the Holocaust, etc. It should be remembered that Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran, which is the Supreme Leader. It should also be remembered that Iran has the largest population of Jews in the Middle East outside Israel. Mr. Ahmadinejad is anti-Zionist, not anti-semitic. There is a difference.

    I think we should also remember that Iran is one of the most liberal countries in the Middle East – far more progressive than our good buds the Saudis. Before we talk about regime change in Iran, we should remember that their president was democratically elected – isn’t our goal to spread democracy?

    I think it should also be mentioned that there is no evidence that Iran provides support for terrorism other than its financial support for Hezbollah, and it should be said that support is only a small portion of Hezbollah’s operating budget (about $200 million out of $2 billion). They do not direct Hezbollah; they just try and influence their actions to best suit Iran, much like we do to the Saudis.

    As far as their nuclear program, it seems most likely that the Iranians actually do have only the intention of only producing electricity with their nuclear program. In any case, they are at least ten years from a bomb by anyone’s guess, and furthermore, bombing them would have no effect other than to REALLY piss them off. Iran’s nuclear architecture is dispersed enough that any bombing campaign would be unlikely to acheive its goal of wiping out Iran’s nuclear capability. A ground war is out of the question, as Iran’s 20 million man army would likely defeat the US without a draft, which is politically out of the question.

    I am not trying to apologize for Iran, the country has problems, no doubt; especially in its human rights record (we are hardly one to criticize, but that’s another story). I am merely trying to bust through some of the consistent boneheaded rhetoric that has been pouring out of Washington lately. Iran is no threat to us.

    Russell (96c1d0)

  44. Were you expecting Bolton to act *gasp* unilaterally?!

    sharon (dfeb10)

  45. Neville Chamberlain inadvertently brings up the most important question one can ask about the U.N., and that is, how does diplomacy/resolutions stop countries from proliferating nuclear weapons ?

    The answer is, they generally do not, and that’s the whole point; the U.N. is all cocktail party, no enforcement.

    This is why so many people believe the U.N. is worthless.

    Of course, if Neville Chamberlain would prefer, we could unilaterally send in the military to ‘enforce’ the suspension of Iranian uranium enrichment.

    Desert Rat (ee9fe2)

  46. I doubt the U.S. military could muster the troops to invade Andorra these days, much less Iran.

    The U.N. is most effective at keeping poor people alive and giving warring parties (Israel and Hezbollah, for example) a face saving way to stop fighting.

    It is much less effective when it tries to force countries to change its ways.

    Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa)

  47. The U.N. is most effective at keeping poor people alive and giving warring parties (Israel and Hezbollah, for example) a face saving way to stop fighting.

    But only after the Hezzie missile attacks provoke Israel into attacking, allowing Hezbollah to recover and… ignore the cease fire…

    Very, VERY effective.

    I am, however, glad that you agree that UN style diplomacy cannot make countries change their ways. Since Iran is dead set on nukes, there is no way for the UN to stop that.

    OHNOES (5884ae)

  48. To whomever above suggested that Iran’s president was irrational because of his public holocaust denial, you need to look up the term ‘playing to the base’.

    Oh, what a world in which you must live to imply that Iran can be expected to negotiate in good faith the issue of ceasing their nuclear program, much less imply that the nuclear program doesn’t play to the base.

    OHNOES (5884ae)

  49. Well, why wouldn’t Iran negotiate?

    Robert McNamara said that you must empathize with your enemy. This doesn’t mean sympathize with them, this means understand them and their motivations. Look at things from the Iranians point of view. The lesson they learned from Iraq and from our tepid response to N. Korea is that nukes are the only way to stave off the United States. Look at Iraq – they didn’t have shit, and we still invaded them. If they are actually going for nukes, then they might as well from their point of view, because they’ll just as likely be invaded anyway.

    From the Iranians’ point of view, the US has just been cruelly manipulating them for years. They remember the Shah, unlike most Americans, and they remember that we gave him asylum when he was sick. They remember that we shot down their airliner with a pittance recompense and no apology. They remember that we gave support to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. If we could just stop our bullshit macho posturing that serves no purpose other than to inflame nationalist sympathies in Iran and slow the natural drift toward reform that has been happening since the revolution.

    I think if the United States would shut up for a while, and some other mediators could be brought to the table, Iran might negotiate. Why not? They don’t want to be invaded any more than we do.

    Russell (96c1d0)

  50. “Really, their every action is a justified reaction to cowboy US pushing around the world’s Muslim countries. If we just stopped pushing them around, cruelly, they’d become free, peaceful nations, with no enemies to fear, just like us, only less imperialistic. All that ‘Death to Israel’ stuff? Pure politics. Playing to the base. All hot air and no substance. Only preaching to the tiniest of minorities to maintain support.”

    Ah, to be you, Russell. To be you.

    OHNOES (5884ae)

  51. Should America attack Iran because it might be a threat to Israel, OHNOES?

    I think Iraq will be a bigger threat to Israel in a few years than Iran ever will be.

    If America should be concerned about Israel’s security, maybe the best thing for us to do is just leave Iran alone.

    Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa)

  52. Care to actually make an argument, ohnoes? I’m not saying Iran is without fault. If we want to avoid another international catastrophe like Iraq, we must understand the people on the other side.

    I’m not saying everything Iran does is justified. Of course Iran’s government does some crazy shit. But come on. Did we actually conscientiously screw with them because we hate Muslims? No. Did we do some absolutely outrageous things to them? Of course. To say otherwise is ridiculous.

    All I’m saying is this macho “oh, we’ll just take them out” is a) impossible, and b) only serves to empower the extremist, anti-reform side of Iran.

    Russell (96c1d0)

  53. I should think, given the rhetoric coming out of Iran, and taking a serious look at Iran’s history of sponsoring terrorist groups hostile to Israel, the simple threat of an Iran with nuclear weapons is enough to, at the very least, justify a first strike by Israel.

    An American invasion of Iran would not occur purely for Israel’s benefit.

    OHNOES (5884ae)

  54. Nobody worth their salt WANTS to “just take them out.” But, Iran has shown itself to, time and time again, do what Iran wants to do, in the face of diplomatic efforts to the contrary (Often using such diplomatic efforts to further their own agenda in bad faith). What else is there to understand? That a written apology from the United States to the nation that took the our embassy hostage for over a year would turn them into team players.

    The simple facts of the case are that it is in US interests, be it stability, safety of Israel, or the safety of the US, to avoid seeing a nuclear-armed Iran. Yet we are unable to provide any incentive to make Iran see things our way. What option is left to us?

    OHNOES (5884ae)

  55. Er… “That a written apology from the United States to the nation that took the our embassy hostage for over a year would turn them into team players.” should read with a question mark at the end.

    “That a written apology from the United States to the nation that took the our embassy hostage for over a year would turn them into team players?”

    OHNOES (5884ae)

  56. I’m not saying that a written apology is what needs to happen. Iran wouldn’t believe it anyway.

    I’m saying we need some perspective and to realize a few key facts.

    Iran’s nuclear program cannot be destroyed by force. It is too dispersed to be destroyed by bombs, and a ground war would end in defeat for the United States. Period. This means that the only possible way to make this nuclear program peaceful is through international mediation.

    I’m saying that it isn’t ridiculous to believe that Iran would negotiate honestly with the IAEA if we would simply give it a little diplomatic leeway. Everyone keeps quoting Ahmadinejad, but remember he isn’t Iran. He isn’t even the most powerful single person there. The Iranians have proven somewhat willing to negotiate in the past, as recently as 2004, but no, we don’t talk to them.

    You speak about the hostage crisis, but again, we have to empathize, meaning understand. I’m not saying it was right of the Iranians to take our embassy hostage, I think it was a terrible thing to do. But why did they do it? It’s because we gave shelter to the Shah, and it was Carter that did it. That’s why they let them go the second Carter left office.

    We have to get away from this petty moralistic approach that says, well, you did bad and now we don’t talk to you because you’re bad – this axis of evil horseshit. The truth is that Iran isn’t innocent, but neither is the US. We’ve screwed up in mind-bogglingly terrible ways too. We have to just figure out the option that has the most likely chance of success and go with that. Because I’m telling you, force is a non-starter here. If we could stop fanning the nationalistic flames for two seconds, we might get something done.

    Russell (96c1d0)

  57. “The leaders of these countries are rational individuals”

    -Moi

    “That’s the best joke I’ve seen today. Thanks for the laugh!

    BTW, Iran’s president has AGAIN called for the annihilation of Israel. You think that’s rational?”

    -sharon

    And our president has called for the elimination of (Arab) terrorists. Iran calls for the elimination of our ally, we call for the elimination of theirs, and yet *they* are irrational barbarians.

    Maybe if we SIT DOWN and negotiate with the Eastasian Iranian government, we can convince their leadership to stop calling for the destruction of Israel (which is obviously destabilizing). Diplomacy can work here, and it beats the hell out of war or nothing.

    “When do you suppose was the last time a country siezed another country’s embassy AND diplomats and held them for years ?”

    -Mike K

    …And returned all of them alive and well? A lot of Latin American countries we supported in the ’80s would’ve taken the much easier route of killing everyone in that embassy, but the Iranians WEREN’T BARBARIANS; they wanted to send a message, not slaughter innocents.

    Leviticus (7494e0)

  58. Empathize with the US for a change. We’ve seen Iran lie through its teeth repeatedly to the IAEA and the world. Heck, I think anybody with two brain cells to rub together would laugh every time they claim to seek “peaceful, nuclear power.” Where is THEIR diplomatic avenue to bring us to the table?

    Simply “figuring out the right avenue of success” sounds to me like “hoping REALLY hard that you can warm their hearts with the sheer power of how much you CARE.” I’m sorry, but if your response is “Keep trying diplomacy until you find that magic button,” you’re not exactly cut out for foreign policy.

    Leviticus, surely you’re joking when you equivocate support for terrorist groups and support for Israel, while implying that Iran doesn’t want innocents killed.

    OHNOES (f59ef5)

  59. Er, equate. Not equivocate.

    OHNOES (f59ef5)

  60. Iraq does have China and Russia on their side, OHNOES.

    Don’t forget, when it comes to Asia, America is just a carpetbagger.

    Nobody who actualy lives there expects America to be there much longer.

    Our smart opponents are just trying to run out the clock…

    Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa)

  61. Err Iran has China and Russia on there side…more coffee.

    Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa)

  62. “their” side…MUCH more coffee, haha.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  63. “Leviticus, surely you’re joking when you equivocate support for terrorist groups and support for Israel, while implying that Iran doesn’t want innocents killed.”

    -OHNOES

    Um, no, I’m not joking. I’m equating their support for their allies with our support for ours. Is that so unreasonable from a purely realist perspective (from which many of you hail)?

    Leviticus (43095b)

  64. Desert Rat: thank you for comment #41. I did not know that there were deliberations going on about Burma. It’s about **** time.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  65. Um, no, I’m not joking. I’m equating their support for their allies with our support for ours.

    And the problem with moral equivalency arguments is …

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1019 secs.