"[Bush's] inarticulateness has become .. a national securitythreat for theUS"

johnhall johnhall@isomedia.com
Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:06:24 -0800


And of course much of the raving below wasn't a diplomatic failure.

Obsoleted UNSC    : good thing.
Possibly UN itself: mostly good.
"notion might doesn't make right": not applicable.
                  "insane policy": not at all.
"other nations develop the same doctrine": ignores context.
"decide US WMD represents a potential future threat to ... all other
nations": no effect.

--------------------------------

The Germans will come around -- after the next election if nothing else.

France will see the limb they crawled out on sawed off.

The US will just have to deal with other negative consequences to French
intransigence.

> From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com] On Behalf Of
> Gregory Alan Bolcer

> 
> The point being, I can think of far worse
> diplomatic failures that have had no lasting
> consequence.  I stand by my original comment
> that it's too soon to draw conclusions which is
> what I think you are saying below too (although
> speculating much more about the long term
> consequences).
> 
> Greg
> 
> Jeff Bone wrote:
> 
> > "One little diplomatic mis-step" may have undermined the entire
notion
> > of diplomatic / generally non-coercive / international
consensus-driven
> > relations between the nations of the world.  We've simultaneously
> > obsoleted the UNSC, possibly the UN itself, the notion that might
does
> > not make right, and indeed put in place a totally insane policy of
> > pre-emption of potential future threats through military action.
> >
> > What happens if that "one little diplomatic mis-step" causes other
> > nations to adopt that same doctrine, and they decide - perhaps with
> > more international consensus than we've got now - that the U.S. WMD
> > capabilities represent a potential future threat to any / many / all
> > other nations?
> >