Rumsfeld is a diplomatic genius - Page 5

BeBro · February 11, 2003, 08:17

The veto is stupid. I don´t argue if it is correct "technically" or not, the political message is what counts. And here I think it is completely wrong to risk the alliance in that way.

So we have now: splitted Europe (of course, thats not only our fault), damaged NATO - all over the Iraq issue, where Germany hasn´t the power/influence to decide anything in the end - or does someone think the war will not take place because of Schröder? Muwhawha...

Just stupid.

Oerdin · February 11, 2003, 08:33

It still boils down to Turkey was asking for defensive equipment to help defend its territory & citizens against a Scud attack and three states blocked help to Turkey just so they could spit on Washington. It really is useless to put the allaince at risk like this because Turkey will still get the equipement requested but now the allaince is weaker.

Main_Brain · February 11, 2003, 08:50

Its the Message that counts.

Oerdin · February 11, 2003, 09:07

They could have written a really nice note and saved the Turks some greef.

CerberusIV · February 11, 2003, 09:09

My respect for Dubya's political abilities is increasing exponentially. He stands of the brink of achieving what Soviet leaders over four decades could not - splitting the European NATO members and destabilising the alliance! Political brilliance!!

Willem · February 11, 2003, 12:04

Quote:

Originally posted by LaRusso

I know, I know. However, Dutch did make an effort and sent both of their planes

Well add to that Canada's three tanks and a tugboat, and we may just be able to come up with a respectable force. Hell, we'll even throw in a troop of boy scouts.

Willem · February 11, 2003, 12:11

Quote:

Originally posted by CerberusIV
My respect for Dubya's political abilities is increasing exponentially. He stands of the brink of achieving what Soviet leaders over four decades could not - splitting the European NATO members and destabilising the alliance! Political brilliance!!

Now what exactly does this have to do with Dubya's diplomacy? He's not the one that decided to leave a treaty member out in the cold. Obviously he's not the only idiot sticking his foot in his mouth, it seems you have a few diplomatic dolts on your side of the pond as well.

Drake Tungsten · February 11, 2003, 12:13

Quote:

Hell, we'll even throw in a troop of boy scouts.

I'll take Canadian Boy Scouts over French troops any day of the week...

BeBro · February 11, 2003, 12:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
It really is useless to put the allaince at risk like this because Turkey will still get the equipement requested but now the allaince is weaker.

Exactly what I meant. One could laugh about it, if the issue wasn´t so serious. Some positions of my government are totally absurd: they say they grant Turkey the help, but not now. Then they say we offer Patriot systems, but not with German soldiers - the Dutch will do the job instead.

Doesn´t look like a convincing concept to solve the crisis.

HershOstropoler · February 11, 2003, 12:35

"Now what exactly does this have to do with Dubya's diplomacy?"

If he wants support, he has to compromise on his "war under any circumstances" position. But he has made it clear that he doesn't need support (or expects to get it anyway, seems he's not sure on which one).

Willem · February 11, 2003, 13:11

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler

If he wants support, he has to compromise on his "war under any circumstances" position. But he has made it clear that he doesn't need support (or expects to get it anyway, seems he's not sure on which one).

Now where is the compromise in telling a treaty member that they're on their own and can't expect any help if the sh!t hits the fan? It takes two to tango in the diplomatic world, and your side has clearly shown by this action that it's capable of making ridiculous mistakes as well. Granted that Bush may have been more pushy than he's needed to be, but I don't see how jeapordizing a long standing treaty organization is going to help matters any. It's just adding more fuel to the fire IMO.

HershOstropoler · February 11, 2003, 13:15

Taking the piss into NATO is not a good idea (and I said that as someone who wishes NATO to be dissolved). But for that it also took two sides: The Bushies who want to instrumentalise NATO for their war, and the francogermans who want to instrumentalise NATO for delaying the war.

Willem · February 11, 2003, 13:26

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Taking the piss into NATO is not a good idea (and I said that as someone who wishes NATO to be dissolved). But for that it also took two sides: The Bushies who want to instrumentalise NATO for their war, and the francogermans who want to instrumentalise NATO for delaying the war.

And both sides are stumbling around in the dark trying to find a compromise for something that they all essentially agree upon, namely the disarming of Iraq. Yes Bush has made alot of mistakes, but you can't place the blame on his doorstep alone, especially in light of this current development.

PS I agree with you, NATO needs to be reformed. I personally would like to see my country pull out of the alliance, it would free up a lot of resources that we could put to better use in our peacekeeping duties.

HershOstropoler · February 11, 2003, 13:31

Well that's politicians. The even weirder thing is that it created a rift within the EU while there are very few differences in opinion on Iraq. Really, really stupid, even by political standards.

Maniac · February 11, 2003, 14:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
But he kept his mouth closed when the far more dangerous Italian government was formed! The FPÖ turned out to be a bit domesticable and the pilars of our democracy, press liberty and the separation of legislation, jurisdiction and executive branch wasn't threatened! And now look to Italy!

The most "center" party in the government with Berlusconi is at least as far to the right as the FPÖ... I hate the FPÖ myself, but it was damn obvious that Austria was judged with other standards than Italy.

I'm not sure at all, but I thought he called them fascists. Though I agree Berlusconi is far more dangerous and Michel reacted much softer. But then again, Michel is an economical right-winger like Berlusconi, so what can you can expect?

mindseye · February 13, 2003, 12:16

DanS wrote:

Quote:

The latest from Rumsfeld: "hesitation increases the likelihood of war"

This is entirely true. Hesitation takes the pressure off of Hussein and allows him the luxury of miscalculating that he can get through this with his WMD intact.

So you feel that ending the hesitation and moving towards war will reduce it's likelihood?

Man, when the military is out on a leash that long, the institutional momentum (both inside and outside of the military) to use it is going to be enormous. That's quite a risk, I'd say.

LaRusso · February 13, 2003, 19:21

there is absolutely no way stopping it now. it's like chekhov's rule - a rifle on the wall in the first act has to be used by the last act of the play

Wernazuma III · February 13, 2003, 19:31

Rumsfeld did it again!

This time he attacked Austria for delaying the transport of US troops from Germany to Italy. Austria denies the US the right to use its rail tracks for troop transport because it's a neutral state. Neutality is in our constitution damn it!
Bad enough that US warplanes fly illegally over our heads all the time and our government not complaining about it. But the fact that now WE're being attacked is simply ridiculous!!!!!!!

Great move, Rumsie, this makes many friends! Now, finally, all people here in Austria will recognize that America does not negotiate but only demands, demands, demands, threatens, threatens and threatens.

Sava · February 13, 2003, 19:33

Quote:

Now, finally, all people here in Austria will recognize that America does not negotiate but only demands, demands, demands, threatens, threatens and threatens.

They're just figuring this out now?

Traianvs · February 13, 2003, 19:33

Quote:

The patience of the world is nearing its end

Uhm, I believe Rumsfeld means: The patience of the US is nearing its end

Wernazuma III · February 13, 2003, 19:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava

They're just figuring this out now?

Sadly so, at least our political elites didn't raise their voices probably becasue they're scared to death that the CIA could find out about our biological weapon manufacture, the Styrian stinking cheese.

Ned · February 13, 2003, 20:03

W, How can Austria be part of the EU if EU is not neutral? Is there a clause in the EU constitution that permits member states to be neutral?

Ned · February 13, 2003, 20:05

Also, on the issue of the EU, how will this work from a foreign policy point of view when some of the member states are allies of the US, others neutral, and still others enemies.

Spiffor · February 13, 2003, 20:07

Who is an enemy of the US in the EU ?

KrazyHorse · February 13, 2003, 20:09

Allies: anybody who does exactly what the US says, when it says

Neutrals: anybody who takes some convincing

Enemies: anybody who kicks up a fight

KrazyHorse · February 13, 2003, 20:10

i.e. France, Russia, Germany, Austria, Greece, Belgium: enemies

UK: ally

Rest: neutral

Main_Brain · February 13, 2003, 20:11

Its not like EU is actually that united :P
We are more like a Federation and as long as no 'European' Stance has emitted every Member has its own Relations.
Also try to distince EU and Nato ;=)

Spiffor · February 13, 2003, 20:15

I thought an enemy was a country which used its weapons to destroy you... My English is worse than I thought

KrazyHorse · February 13, 2003, 20:18

You might want to give a dictionary to the US government.

Spiffor · February 13, 2003, 20:21

BTW, there is still no EUropean constitution. EU is held together by a bunch of treaties. A constitution is in the works, and the draft should be completed in June. You can see the current drafted articles here
The EU is by no means a military alliance, and the Common Foreign and Security Policy is the loosest of all EU's agreements.