Posted on 06/20/2002 6:59:24 AM PDT by RikaStrom
In order that we might all raise the level of discourse and expand our language abilities, here is the daily post of “word for the day”. Rules: Everyone must leave a post using the “word of the day”; in a sentence. The sentence must, in some way, relate to the news of the day. The Review threads are linked for your edification. ;-) Practice makes perfect.....post on....
diffident \DIFF-i-duhnt; DIFF-i-dent\, adjective:
diffendently; adjective
1. Showing modest reserve; as, "she was diffident when offering a comment on the professor's lecture"
2. Lacking self-confidence; as, "stood in the doorway diffident and abashed"
3. Lacking or marked by a lack of self-confidence; shy and timid
4. Reserved in manner
5. Wanting confidence in others; distrustful. [Archaic]
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin diffident-, diffidens, present participle of diffidere to distrust, from dis- + fidere to trust. Date: 15th century
Here is my example with WFTD.
"We will not put American men and women under the reach of the International Criminal Court while serving in a United Nations peacekeeping operation," said U.S. representative Richard Williamson.
A U.S. official said if American personnel were not protected there would "no longer be U.S. peacekeepers." (snip)
The Bush administration and many members of the U.S. Congress oppose the court as a threat to national sovereignty. They also fear U.S. officials and soldiers could be subject to political prosecutions, which Europeans say is unlikely. (snip)
"U.N. peacekeeping missions usually have such immunity in bilateral agreements but Washington wants to make it air tight. The document says soldiers or civilians would have immunity from prosecution when they go to other countries for cases arising out of a U.N.-backed operation. (snip)
Calling the U.S. stance an "ideological jihad," Richard Dicker of Human Rights Watch said the "text is an effort to hold U.S. participation in peacekeeping missions hostage to unwarranted U.S. fears. It puts the United States on the wrong side of the most important human rights institution created in the past 50 years."
I think that the UN/ICC/EU organizations should take a decidedly diffident (4) attitude with the US. Their continued reliance on the Unite States could severely hamper them, should we ever get completely smart and break ties with those un(august) bodies.
President Bush is trying to ensure that our men and women in the military aren’t summarily destroyed by someone with a grudge in the ICC. Unlike the impeached President, the current one actually cares about our people in uniform and is highly diffident (5) of a foreign entities reach extending to our soldiers.
Personally I hope that we are removed from these global organizations and that the administration does not allow the PC BS from the “Human Rights Watch” interfere with sound judgement. We are not going to go in and pull someone’s assets from the fire and then turn around and be convicted in that mockery of justice, the ICC.
Where are we going and what are we doing in this handbasket?
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
hmmmmm what?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.