Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ArGee
The Mr. Nice Guy approach cost us 3,000 lives in one day.

The walking soft didn't do that, nor was the perceived lack of strength a major cause. Ultimately the only individuals responsible for those lives where the ones who took them.

The President is not a diplomat, isn't supposed to be a diplomat, and I don't want to waste time on a President who is.

Of course you don't, and neither does the great majority of the electorate, that was my point, and thats why he has to wave his dick around to the mob to show us he is bigger, but then has to play nice with foreign leaders. I don't think he should have to do either.

But in point of fact, the president has to be diplomatic if he wants to keep the people safe. The duty of a diplomat is not to be nice for the sake of it, there is a motive and a goal behind most diplomatic action. The reality is, strong-arming people works less often (unless you are prepared to pay with lives) and when it does the rewards are less permanent. This shouldn't even be a point of contention, any idiot knows humans don't respond well to threats. They may serenader now, but they'll brood. Better by far to eliminate them behinds the scenes without any fanfare at all. Strong arming them and threatening them may take a lot less time, but doesn't solve the fundamental problem. Any potential enemy who is smart (Saddam clearly wasn't) can just wait out a president, who is thrown into a chess game he didn't start and is expected to make one or two moves then give it up to some one else.

You are absolutely right that he needed to do things this way, because he has to do something, and given his limited amount of time it's either move the pawn on the one turn he has, or wait for the clock to run out. But he cannot set up the board in any meaningful way.

361 posted on 05/19/2005 3:22:33 PM PDT by Pelayo ("If there is hope... it lies in the quixotics." - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies ]


To: Pelayo
I don't think he should have to do either.

I'm beginning to think that's because you live in a different world from me. Where I live leadership is required.

Ultimately the only individuals responsible for those lives where the ones who took them.

If someone raped my daughter I would only blame the rapist. But there are things I can teach her to reduce her chances of being raped. I am a negligent parent if I don't teach her those things.

We could have done some things to lesson the likelihood of 9/11. Recognizing that there are monsters in the world who only respect the willingness to react violently is one of those things. Lobbing cruise missiles into empty tents was not.

I agree to disagree with you. Have a great weekend.

Shalom.

366 posted on 05/20/2005 5:56:45 AM PDT by ArGee (Why do we let the abnormal tell us what's normal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies ]

To: Pelayo
But in point of fact, the president has to be diplomatic if he wants to keep the people safe. The duty of a diplomat is not to be nice for the sake of it, there is a motive and a goal behind most diplomatic action. The reality is, strong-arming people works less often (unless you are prepared to pay with lives) and when it does the rewards are less permanent. This shouldn't even be a point of contention, any idiot knows humans don't respond well to threats.

Since when did diplomacy work with people willing to blow themselves up? And those who lead/support those people willing to blow themselves up?

405 posted on 05/21/2005 9:16:29 AM PDT by Paul_Denton (Get the U.N. out of the U.S. and U.S. out of the U.N.!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson