• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Has the US lost faith in the entire diplomatic process?

F

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Hi,

I was just wondering what people think. Do you think that the US administration has not only lost faith in the UN process - but the diplomatic process as a whole? Is it worth trying to find a negotiated settlement to disputes with unfriendly countries - or is it just a waste of time in the lead up to an armed conflict?

What are your thoughts?

Andy
 
they are still using the diplomatic process to come to a peaceful solution so no, i don't think they've lost faith in it completely.
 
i read a story in the local news paper that said the air war had already started. we've droped more bombs in the last 3 months than in the last 3 years combined. only reason we are at the UN is to try and get some money before we go to war. once we get the troops positioned we will be on our way. bank it.
 
Originally posted by: MacBaine
What are you talking about? We've been negotiating for 10 years...
Click to expand...

As of recently (ie not the last 10 years) I get the feeling that the US has lost faith in international diplomacy, when dealing with unfriendly/hostile nations that is.

I'm talking about now and the future.

Andy
 
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Hi,

I was just wondering what people think. Do you think that the US administration has not only lost faith in the UN process - but the diplomatic process as a whole? Is it worth trying to find a negotiated settlement to disputes with unfriendly countries - or is it just a waste of time in the lead up to an armed conflict?

What are your thoughts?

Andy
Click to expand...

I think they are fed up with the UN process mainly...which has been an ongoing problem the last decade. The UN is one large inert body that refuses to move even in the face of genocide.

I don't know what unfriendly countries you are talking about but we have been dealing with countries like NK, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc for decades.
 
I don't know what unfriendly countries you are talking about but we have been dealing with countries like NK, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc for decades.
Click to expand...

I was mainly thinking of "the axis of evil"

Before anyone says it - I don't just mean diplomacy between the US and other "axis" - I mean also via 3rd parties (who may have their own influence that could be bought to bear - ie China and NK).

Andy
 
Originally posted by: abaez
They're only losing faith because nobody else is doing what we want them to do.
Click to expand...

And that is the problem. Diplomacy is not mainly "I talk, and you do what I tell you"

Look at Rumsfeld and how he managed to further fuel anti-american sentiment in Europe. BTW, in a recent interview Rumsfeld stated that he did not know what all the fuss was about. He said he meant "old NATO" and not "old Europe". Just a slip of the lip it seems. Well this administration lives for such moments. Inflammatory statements plays well for some of the home crowd, but not all and at a cost of not being able to have a useful dialogue with those who were once our allies, nevermind those that truly did not like
 
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: abaez
They're only losing faith because nobody else is doing what we want them to do.
Click to expand...

And that is the problem. Diplomacy is not mainly "I talk, and you do what I tell you"

Look at Rumsfeld and how he managed to further fuel anti-american sentiment in Europe. BTW, in a recent interview Rumsfeld stated that he did not know what all the fuss was about. He said he meant "old NATO" and not "old Europe". Just a slip of the lip it seems. Well this administration lives for such moments. Inflammatory statements plays well for some of the home crowd, but not all and at a cost of not being able to have a useful dialogue with those who were once our allies, nevermind those that truly did not like
Click to expand...

When you have .5% of the world's population and half the global military spending, diplomacy is optional.
 
When you have .5% of the world's population and half the global military spending, diplomacy is optional.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately (for everyone else outside the US) I think you've hit the nail on the head with that.

Andy
 
Here's what I think:

Thanks to the UN and countries like France, the US is about to become an **official** empire. We avoided this a long time through the use of the UN, but now that our former allies have officially turned against us, we have no choice.

Reality: our military can defeat any country on the planet with the exception of maybe china (some countries can avoid defeat with nukes, but they could never beat us without ensuring their own destruction) and our conventional military is the most powerful the world has ever seen.

Soon we will no longer worry about what the French and UN think about what we do. The US has always been isolationist (for the most part) and that will not change much, but wherever we see threats to our country, we will take them out.

Welcome to the new world.
 
if the diplomacy is with a country with sane/reasonable leadership, then diplomacy is great

but if the other guy is a nutjob that wants to kill you and destroy you, then screw diplomacy and send in the marines!
 
I was mainly thinking of "the axis of evil"

Before anyone says it - I don't just mean diplomacy between the US and other "axis" - I mean also via 3rd parties (who may have their own influence that could be bought to bear - ie China and NK)."
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean. The U.S. is still negotiating over Iraq even though diplomacy has failed miserably for over a decade now, and it has said publicly that it is open to negotiations with NK (even though NK has a long history of clandestine treaty violations), so I really don't know where you get your impression from. It sort of sounds like you just made up your own mind about the administration and drew a conclusion based on that assumption, not on the actual evidence.

Personally I think the U.S. has wasted entirely *too* much time at the bargaining table. Iraq and NK have both violated one obligation after another. Why should the results of further diplomacy be any different? I'm not saying war is definitely the only option left in both cases, but more talking certainly seems pointless. (How does that quote go? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result...)

As for China's lack of involvement with NK, shouldn't you be addressing your concerns to China, not the U.S.? America has asked China to enter into multilateral talks on the matter, and they flat-out refused. Russia and NK have also resisted such negotiations. Indeed, the U.S. has asked plenty of third parties to help out, but for whatever reason they have mostly declined.
 
Originally posted by: Stark
Soon we will no longer worry about what the French and UN think about what we do. The US has always been isolationist (for the most part) and that will not change much, but wherever we see threats to our country, we will take them out.

Welcome to the new world.
Click to expand...

Stark takes out the hammer and nails it on the head

i told one of my neighbors that exact same thing last night

things are changing, our allies are changing and we will have to stand alone to defend our culture and freedom
 
Originally posted by: Stark
Here's what I think:

Thanks to the UN and countries like France, the US is about to become an **official** empire. We avoided this a long time through the use of the UN, but now that our former allies have officially turned against us, we have no choice.
Click to expand...

Mmmm, you could rewrite that as - thanks to the way in which Tony Blair managed to Bully the US administration (reluctantly) back to the UN - and the real entusiasm the President has shown for the UN right from the go - even before the troops started arriving - some members of the UNSC don't like not being bullied and as such the UN has been put into a precarious position. I don't see why "turned against us" necessarily means "doesn't agree with". That only follows if you feel there was some reason they must have gone with your way of thinking - rather than employed their own will.

Reality: our military can defeat any country on the planet with the exception of maybe china (some countries can avoid defeat with nukes, but they could never beat us without ensuring their own destruction) and our conventional military is the most powerful the world has ever seen.
Click to expand...

True. With power comes responsibility - and dare I say it - the reluctance to use it.

Soon we will no longer worry about what the French and UN think about what we do. The US has always been isolationist (for the most part) and that will not change much, but wherever we see threats to our country, we will take them out.
Click to expand...

Only now - with no USSR to keep the US constrained - the US can do what it likes - threat or not - because it doesn't care what others think (unless their military is big enough). Great - the thing is the US could care. If not then I see nothing but war, war and more war.

Welcome to the new world.
Click to expand...

I liked the old one better 😀

Andy

 
Originally posted by: FoBoT
if the diplomacy is with a country with sane/reasonable leadership, then diplomacy is great

but if the other guy is a nutjob that wants to kill you and destroy you, then screw diplomacy and send in the marines!
Click to expand...

You can use diplomacy to get a third party with influence (ie China) to intervene on your behalf with a hostile state (ie NK)

Andy
 
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Originally posted by: Stark
Soon we will no longer worry about what the French and UN think about what we do. The US has always been isolationist (for the most part) and that will not change much, but wherever we see threats to our country, we will take them out.

Welcome to the new world.
Click to expand...

Stark takes out the hammer and nails it on the head

i told one of my neighbors that exact same thing last night

things are changing, our allies are changing and we will have to stand alone to defend our culture and freedom
Click to expand...

Yes, thanks to the way in which you regard those who don't agree with you - sooner or later the US will ahve to act alone.

Andy
 
Originally posted by: SagaLore
What you see in the media and what really goes on behind closed doors is a huge contrast in timeframes.
Click to expand...

Where are you going with that? I don't see your point - sorry?

Andy
 
diplomacy has been given 12 year to work. it hasn't. what other courses of action do you suggest?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top