Rumsfeld teaching us how to anger allies.

[Fishie]

After teaching us how to piss of oponents and fencesitters good old Donald is back teaching us how to piss of allies.

Regardles of what you think with regards to the upcoming war, im pretty sure you will agree that the following is just stupid.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2838593.stm

US ready to fight 'without UK'


British troops are nearly ready for action
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has sparked diplomatic confusion by suggesting that America would be prepared to take military action against Iraq without Britain.

[MPSmith]

After teaching us how to piss of oponents and fencesitters good old Donald is back teaching us how to piss of allies.

Regardles of what you think with regards to the upcoming war, im pretty sure you will agree that the following is just stupid.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2838593.stm

US ready to fight 'without UK'


British troops are nearly ready for action
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has sparked diplomatic confusion by suggesting that America would be prepared to take military action against Iraq without Britain.

He didn't say anythig stupid. "US ready to fight 'without UK'" is not a quote from Rumsfeld, just a provocative headline to sell newspapers. Here's what he actually said according to the article:

Mr Rumsfeld told reporters: "What will ultimately be decided is unclear as to their [UK's] role and I think until we know what the resolution is, we won't know what their role will be."

Asked if he meant the US would go to war without its "closest ally", he added: "That is an issue that the president will be addressing in the days ahead, one would assume."

So:

1. Obviously no one knows what the UK's role will be until they commit to a course of action.
2. Also, Rumsfeld cannot speak for the President, that's not his job.

Mike

[Janak Parekh]

I'm no fan of Rumsfeld, but I'll just update the thread: Rumsfeld backtracks on his previous comments (http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=2364251).

If you really want to agree on something stupid, how about Freedom Fries (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/11/politics/main543555.shtml)? :roll:

--janak

[Duncan]

This would be the Donald Rumsfeld who (in a past life) helped to sell Saddam Hussein the weapons of mass destruction we now want him to get rid of (not that we've found any to speak of...).

Nothing this man says or does surprises me! I may disagree with the coming war (and my opinion of Blair is not high at the moment) - but Rumsfeld should show a little respect to the guy who has been running his arse off trying to get United Nations support for action in Iraq...

Not to mention the troops on the ground. I don't want the war to happen - but the soldiers, who don't get the freedom to have an opinion on this, should expect better of their leaders than this thoroughly demoralising stance!

[MPSmith]

I'm no fan of Rumsfeld, but I'll just update the thread: Rumsfeld backtracks on his previous comments (http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=2364251).

Thanks for posting that. IMO, this is a case of the press creating news, nothing more. Folks, it's never been totally clear that the UK will be involved in this operation. PM Blair has an uphill battle to fight within his own government and they haven't been able to commit fully. It's reasonable for Rumsfeld (if whom I'm a HUGE fan) to have this discussion.

Rumsfeld should show a little respect to the guy who has been running his arse off trying to get United Nations support for action in Iraq...

In what way did he show disrespect to Blair? Read what he said, not the newspaper headlines. Please direct me to the quote where Rumsfeld "disrespects" Blair.

Not to mention the troops on the ground. I don't want the war to happen - but the soldiers, who don't get the freedom to have an opinion on this, should expect better of their leaders than this thoroughly demoralising stance!

First, no one wants war. Second, you are incorrect that soldiers don't get to have an opinion on this; they can have whatever opinion they want. Why do you think that? And what demoralising stance are you talking about? The U.S. have certainly not abandoned Blair.

[Janak Parekh]

It's reasonable for Rumsfeld (if whom I'm a HUGE fan) to have this discussion.
That's debatable. If one wants to be a superpower, I strongly prefer the Roosevelt-era US doctrine of "speaking softly and carrying a big stick". Rumsfeld is certainly not from that school, though. Would it hurt to wait a little before introducing such ideas?

I don't dispute that the media is causing some of the trouble, but this Administration is also walking into the media's hands. Say what you want about Bill Clinton, but just like Ronald Reagan, he was a master communicator, and that tactic is just as valuable in international diplomacy as being able to consistently implement a foreign policy.

--janak

[bdeli]

That's debatable. If one wants to be a superpower, I strongly prefer the Roosevelt-era US doctrine of "speaking softly and carrying a big stick".

So which country is the only threat to the world?

Answer in your post Janak!

[MPSmith]

Understand that Roosevelt was not exposed to today's press. Rumsfeld gets asked the same questions again and again and criticized when he does not cooperate. Eventually and inevitably the press will keep at it until they get some kind of response they can parse into dissention between the US and UK. It's absolute silliness IMO. Teddy Roosevelt would be ashamed about today's press and likely would have had a use for that stick! :wink:

[Janak Parekh]

Understand that Roosevelt was not exposed to today's press. Rumsfeld gets asked the same questions again and again and criticized when he does not cooperate. Eventually and inevitably the press will keep at it until they get some kind of response they can parse into dissention between the US and UK. It's absolute silliness IMO.
That was my point of being a "master" communicator. There have been presidents who have been able to say things and keep everyone happy.

Or, how about Calvin Coolidge (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/cc30.html)? He was the master of saying nothing. Even the modern press wouldn't have been able to hold a candle to him. You've heard the story of how a woman sat next to him at dinner and asked him "I bet I could make you say more than two words all night?" He replied, "You lose". I'd love to see him whip the press today. :D

So which country is the only threat to the world?
Every country's a threat. Except maybe Monaco. ;)

--janak

[bdeli]

rekh
So which country is the only threat to the world?
Every country's a threat. Except maybe Monaco. ;)

--janak

That is the US policy problem Janak - i strongly beleive that the US are shooting themselves in the foot - and someday, sometime soon, it will backfire hard on US.

I once beleived that democracy ruled in US, but now am sorry to say that I think otherwise.

[MPSmith]

There have been presidents who have been able to say things and keep everyone happy.

That's not the President's job; it's to protect and defend the constitution of the U.S. Perhaps some of our past president's were a little confused about their role and wanted to "keep everyone happy".

[Janak Parekh]

That is the US policy problem Janak - i strongly beleive that the US are shooting themselves in the foot - and someday, sometime soon, it will backfire hard on US.
Well, all I can hope is that it doesn't backfire in New York, and that things work out. I can't hope for much else right now...

I once beleived that democracy ruled in US, but now am sorry to say that I think otherwise.
Nah, this country has never been democratic. It's a representative republic. Very, very different. :)

That's not the President's job; it's to protect and defend the constitution of the U.S. Perhaps some of our past president's were a little confused about their role and wanted to "keep everyone happy".
It doesn't hurt, though. If your head of state is polarizing, there are repercussions. I know you're not a fan of the way international diplomacy works right now, but that is the way the world is, and we do have to live in it. In that regard, Mr. Powell deserves a lot of kudos.

--janak

[MPSmith]

I know you're not a fan of the way international diplomacy works right now, but that is the way the world is, and we do have to live in it.

I don't know why you say that. I'm not a fan of everyone's opinion on the subject, but please tell me who defines the way "international diplomacy works right now"?

IMO, 12 years of struggling against Iraq's defiance is more than enough. Diplomacy (real diplomacy) is an important part of international relations, but not if both parties don't approach it honestly and openly. Everyone in the world knows that Iraq is stalling for time. It is impossible to find a diplomatic solution if Iraq isn't serious about it.

And if you're talking my opinion of the antiquated U. S. diplomat system (that has nothing to do with international relations) I think we need to stop giving away appointments as favors to rich people. The current system of diplomats is a joke. Our government knows it and doesn't even use it for serious issues. My prior comments do not mean I'm against good diplomacy. On the contrary, we need to throw out the diplomat system altogether. It's based on the premise that its a "three day mule ride" to get to a country, so we better post a diplomat there. What a joke. The post of diplomat NEEDS reforms and updating.

[Janak Parekh]

I don't know why you say that. I'm not a fan of everyone's opinion on the subject, but please tell me who defines the way "international diplomacy works right now"?
I'm referring to the Iraq situation. I do know your viewpoint, and I don't disagree with it entirely. I do disagree with the administration's approach, and a lot of other "diplomats" do. But it's not worth arguing; we've all made our points before.

No insult intended. :)

--janak

[MPSmith]

No insult meant here either. :)

[Pony99CA]

After teaching us how to piss of oponents and fencesitters good old Donald is back teaching us how to piss of allies.

Regardles of what you think with regards to the upcoming war, im pretty sure you will agree that the following is just stupid.

What I think is stupid are people who don't live in the U.S. posting crap about us -- on a Pocket PC site, no less. Your mileage may vary, of course. :lol:

Why not emigrate over here and actually vote? Oh, yeah, because things are so perfect in Belgium that you have nothing to worry about there, so why move. :roll:

Steve (all aboard the Hall of Flame & Shame express)

[Fishie]

After teaching us how to piss of oponents and fencesitters good old Donald is back teaching us how to piss of allies.

Regardles of what you think with regards to the upcoming war, im pretty sure you will agree that the following is just stupid.

What I think is stupid are people who don't live in the U.S. posting crap about us -- on a Pocket PC site, no less. Your mileage may vary, of course. :lol:

Why not emigrate over here and actually vote? Oh, yeah, because things are so perfect in Belgium that you have nothing to worry about there, so why move. :roll:

Steve (all aboard the Hall of Flame & Shame express)

OK some people aparently think this was not a stupid thing to do by Rumsfeld so il clarify it a lil.
Blair has a hard enough time drumming up support back in the UK as is, Rumsfeld´s comments made Blairs job all that much harder.
For them it seems like all the effort they put in supporting the upcoming war are not important becouse hey Rumsfeld said they would go at it alone.
Such statements at such a volatile point in the UK give amunition to the oposition becouse why should the UK give support where none is needed?

Regardles of what some perceive as ulterior press motives what Rumsfeld did was stupid and harmfull to the US staunchest ally.
Its not the first time either that he pissed of an ally.
Im just surprised that with the UK he did it this quick.
After all it took him nearly 2 decades to piss of Saddam, then again he shaked his hand and called him a great friend and ally of the US while Saddam was gasing Kurds to the left and Irani´s to the right.
Rumsfeld stood by his friend for quite a long time.
Not so this time.

[MPSmith]

What gives you the idea that the UK is ticked off? Even Blair won't commit to troops without UN support; because he can't!!!!

The only "ulterior motive" the press have is to get ANY story ANY way they can.

If an ally can't bear the truth be spoken, they are obviously not an ally. Give the UK a little credit for seeing through a press-manufactured story. Their pretty smart cookies!

[hollis_f]

What gives you the idea that the UK is ticked off? Even Blair won't commit to troops without UN support; because he can't!!!!!Dunno what gives you that impression. Tony Blur has already said he'll tag along to provide target practise - resolution or not.

[Steven Cedrone]

Political discussions can get ugly! :roll:

That being said, please keep it civil...

Steven Cedrone
Community Moderator

[Pat Logsdon]

MPSmith - just one point to make - the BBC is not a newspaper, and the headlines you read there are probably not written to "sensationalize" a topic like the vast majority of the American media. The BBC gets all of its funding from the UK government. You'll notice that their site has no ads, and they're also known the world over for being one of the most objective news agencies in the world. Not trying to pick a fight here - just making a comment. :)

Also, I'm very curious why everyone is so worried about Iraq. Has everyone forgotten about North Korea?

I find it extremely interesting that the Bush administration is being so belligerently unilateralist about Iraq (who say that they do not have nuclear weapons, a point that is pretty much verified by everyone), but when it comes to North Korea, who have said flat out that they HAVE nuclear weapons, including a few missiles that could hit California AND THEY'RE MAKING MORE, why is the Bush administration talking out of the other side of it's face and pushing "regional multilateralism", saying that CHINA et al should take care of the problem?

Excuse me? I don't see North Korea threatening China - why should they fix the problem? So Bush can focus on winning the war that his Daddy and all of his Daddy's people (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell) didn't finish properly?

Seems fairly obvious to me that you go after the guy that has the weapons and the capability to actually hurt you in a big way. Iraq has NO capability to hit us, and I just don't buy that they're in bed with Al Qaeda - Iraq is almost totally secular, and bin Laden is a religious fanatic. They have totally incompatible world views, and if bin Laden was actually operating in Iraq, Hussein would try to crush him because he'd be a threat to his power.

At the very least, the Bush administration's policy on North Korea is stupid and extremely hypocritical.

And just to stay on topic ( :D ), here's a bit of fun Rumsfeld trivia:

"Henry Kissinger once told Republican insiders that of all the despots he'd had to deal with, none was more ruthless than Donald Rumsfeld." - Time Magazine

[bdeli]

I find it extremely interesting that the Bush administration is being so belligerently unilateralist about Iraq (who say that they do not have nuclear weapons, a point that is pretty much verified by everyone), but when it comes to North Korea, who have said flat out that they HAVE nuclear weapons, including a few missiles that could hit California AND THEY'RE MAKING MORE, why is the Bush administration talking out of the other side of it's face and pushing "regional multilateralism", saying that CHINA et al should take care of the problem?


The US have no 'interests' in North Korea - that is why it is being sidelined for other countries like China/Japan to take care of the matter.

[Fishie]

What gives you the idea that the UK is ticked off? Even Blair won't commit to troops without UN support; because he can't!!!!

The only "ulterior motive" the press have is to get ANY story ANY way they can.

If an ally can't bear the truth be spoken, they are obviously not an ally. Give the UK a little credit for seeing through a press-manufactured story. Their pretty smart cookies!

Dude how uninformed can you get?
Blair has constantly insisted he will commit UK troops regardles of a UN sanction and will do so even if there is NO UN mandate whatsoever.

Basically he has aligned himself with whatever Bush decides, thats why they call him Bush his b**ch and depict him as a dog running beside Bush in cartoons.

Edited by moderator 3/13/2003 00:33 est.

[MPSmith]

Dude how uninformed can you get?
Blair has constantly insisted he will commit UK troops regardles of a UN sanction and will do so even if there is NO UN mandate whatsoever.

Please read the news. Blair has never said that before today (one day after my post). Up to that time, he has maintained that he won't be able to commit troops on his own. He'll need the support of his government. Today, he said for the first time that they already have the legal authority.

The PM of the UK is no one's "b****". That's incredibly offensive to say about an honorable man and the leader of one of the most freedom-loving countries in the world.

[MPSmith]

MPSmith - just one point to make - the BBC is not a newspaper, and the headlines you read there are probably not written to "sensationalize" a topic like the vast majority of the American media. The BBC gets all of its funding from the UK government. You'll notice that their site has no ads, and they're also known the world over for being one of the most objective news agencies in the world. Not trying to pick a fight here - just making a comment. :)

I think the BBC is still interested in increasing readership, so provocative headlines tend to be used.

As for sensationalizing, I think that portions of the British tabloid press might just have the world market cornered on that. :wink: Certainly the US has its tabloids, but to say the vast majority of US press are sensationalists is beyond silly.

This thread has gotten a little out of hand. :roll:
I'm think I'm gonna jump off this train and get back to PPC stuff! :wink:

[Fishie]

Dude how uninformed can you get?
Blair has constantly insisted he will commit UK troops regardles of a UN sanction and will do so even if there is NO UN mandate whatsoever.

Please read the news. Blair has never said that before today (one day after my post). Up to that time, he has maintained that he won't be able to commit troops on his own. He'll need the support of his government. Today, he said for the first time that they already have the legal authority.

The PM of the UK is no one's "b****". That's incredibly offensive to say about an honorable man and the leader of one of the most freedom-loving countries in the world.

This was on TV over here just a bit over a month ago, BBC transcript and intresting read if you havent seen it(it was shown on BBC World in the US):http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/2732979.stm
Its a transcript of a chat between jeremy Paxman(every politicians nightmare) and a studio audience.

This is from The guardian, monday february third:He also reiterated that a second UN resolution "should" be passed, and that he would seek "maximum support" for one. But again did not rule out military action without one.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,888231,00.html

CNN january 13th:he is prepared to support President Bush in going for military action against Iraq without U.N. backing.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/01/13/blair.iraq/

Just do a google for Blair Iraq UN and you will get thousands of pages from all the big news sites where you can read up on Blairs stance and youre ignorance with regards to the subject.

Blair has ALWAYS maintained he would back a war even without UN approval, the last few weeks however he tried his best to get more countries on the UN to support the war becouse of public opposition and opposition even within his own party.
Especialy in light of the way Blair has been playing lapdog for the US the Rumsfeld quotes were very harming for his cause and regardles on youre stance towards the upcoming war it was an incredibly retarded thing to do by Rumsfeld.

Oh and read the transcript from the BBC chat(first link I provided) its verry lengthy but informative and at one point Paxman brushes on the lapdog thing and says, so when people call you a poodle...

[Pat Logsdon]

As for sensationalizing, I think that portions of the British tabloid press might just have the world market cornered on that. :wink: Certainly the US has its tabloids, but to say the vast majority of US press are sensationalists is beyond silly.
I totally agree - the British tabloids certainly have the market cornered on "sensationalism" - they make Jerry Springer look like a pansy!

But I still think it's fair to say that the BBC has the reputation of the highest journalistic integrity - the only thing close to it in the US is CNN, and it pales in comparison, in my opinion.

I also agree that this thread is a bit off-topic. Time to check the Axim forum... :D

[MPSmith]

Time to check the Axim forum... :D

I'll meet you there!!!

[MPSmith]

This was on TV over here just a bit over a month ago, BBC transcript and intresting read if you havent seen it(it was shown on BBC World in the US):http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/2732979.stm
Its a transcript of a chat between jeremy Paxman(every politicians nightmare) and a studio audience.

This is from The guardian, monday february third:He also reiterated that a second UN resolution "should" be passed, and that he would seek "maximum support" for one. But again did not rule out military action without one.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,888231,00.html

CNN january 13th:he is prepared to support President Bush in going for military action against Iraq without U.N. backing.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/01/13/blair.iraq/

Just do a google for Blair Iraq UN and you will get thousands of pages from all the big news sites where you can read up on Blairs stance and youre ignorance with regards to the subject.

Blair has ALWAYS maintained he would back a war even without UN approval, the last few weeks however he tried his best to get more countries on the UN to support the war becouse of public opposition and opposition even within his own party.
Especialy in light of the way Blair has been playing lapdog for the US the Rumsfeld quotes were very harming for his cause and regardles on youre stance towards the upcoming war it was an incredibly retarded thing to do by Rumsfeld.

Oh and read the transcript from the BBC chat(first link I provided) its verry lengthy but informative and at one point Paxman brushes on the lapdog thing and says, so when people call you a poodle...

Not once in ANY of these articles does Blair say he would commit troops. I maintain he never said he would commit troops. Supporting military action and "not ruling out" military action is not what I'm talking about. I said he never committed any troops. That's it.

I just wanted to clarify that once and for all.

[Steven Cedrone]

I think the rule should be: Off-Topic can be about anything, provided it is not about politics... :roll:

Have we had enough? There are plenty of sites you can go to and argue about this. Let's not do it here...

Thread locked...

Steven Cedrone
Community Moderator