12: Nice attempt to distract, but the brute fact is that it worked here quite nicely, wheras the US approach ("we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence") would have resulted in fifteen dead men and a big war. Which is great if, like Bush, you want that sort of outcome - but rather counterproductive if you're sane.
(And as for Darfur, while I think there's a strong moral case for intervention, the brute fact is that it would be logistically impossible, ineffective, and likely counterproductive. Quiet diplomacy is about all we can do. The armchair warriors who wank over their pinups of tanks and planes and dead civilians need to learn that military force is not a magic wand which can make the world's problems (or at least those they pretend to pay attention to for rhetorical advantage) disappear with no cost and no consequences).
Or quiet diplomacy *backed up* by posturing and bluster, wins the day.
Still a good outcome. I particularly like the way the Iranian president simultaneously announced the release of the British and a medal for the guy who captured them. I think he has a few more clues than people give him credit for.
Kiwi_Donkey writes: "I particularly like the way the Iranian president simultaneously announced the release of the British and a medal for the guy who captured them. I think he has a few more clues than people give him credit for."
British diplomats were told to listen to the president's speech through to the end when some announcement would be made, so I hardly think it was "spontaneous". One suspects that the president has also been fighting an internal battle with opposing political forces, e.g. Rafsamjani (sp?), and therefore may have had his hand forced. Best to maintain a healthy dose of cyncism toward any national leader, whatever their ilk. Blair, Bush and the Iranian prez are all numpties of the first order.
Wasn't it a swap for the Iranian diplomat that the Americans kidnapped - as suggested here plus possibly a deal to release the diplomats grabbed in Kurdistan soon?
Incidentally, I think NZ should think strongly about whether it should be putting our forces into conflicts where one of the main protagonists (the US) has effectively abrogated the Geneva Conventions. By doing this, they have removed the usual prisoner of war protections that we'd normally expect - and this doesn't just apply to US troops, but seems to have spilt over to allies.
That'll upset them over at DPF. They were practically polishing the nukes with their own saliva.
ReplyDeleteAh yes. This quiet diplomacy you speak of is doing wonders in Dafur.
ReplyDelete12: Nice attempt to distract, but the brute fact is that it worked here quite nicely, wheras the US approach ("we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence") would have resulted in fifteen dead men and a big war. Which is great if, like Bush, you want that sort of outcome - but rather counterproductive if you're sane.
ReplyDelete(And as for Darfur, while I think there's a strong moral case for intervention, the brute fact is that it would be logistically impossible, ineffective, and likely counterproductive. Quiet diplomacy is about all we can do. The armchair warriors who wank over their pinups of tanks and planes and dead civilians need to learn that military force is not a magic wand which can make the world's problems (or at least those they pretend to pay attention to for rhetorical advantage) disappear with no cost and no consequences).
Or quiet diplomacy *backed up* by posturing and bluster, wins the day.
ReplyDeleteStill a good outcome. I particularly like the way the Iranian president simultaneously announced the release of the British and a medal for the guy who captured them. I think he has a few more clues than people give him credit for.
Kiwi_Donkey writes: "I particularly like the way the Iranian president simultaneously announced the release of the British and a medal for the guy who captured them. I think he has a few more clues than people give him credit for."
ReplyDeleteBritish diplomats were told to listen to the president's speech through to the end when some announcement would be made, so I hardly think it was "spontaneous". One suspects that the president has also been fighting an internal battle with opposing political forces, e.g. Rafsamjani (sp?), and therefore may have had his hand forced. Best to maintain a healthy dose of cyncism toward any national leader, whatever their ilk. Blair, Bush and the Iranian prez are all numpties of the first order.
Wasn't it a swap for the Iranian diplomat that the Americans kidnapped - as suggested here plus possibly a deal to release the diplomats grabbed in Kurdistan soon?
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, I think NZ should think strongly about whether it should be putting our forces into conflicts where one of the main protagonists (the US) has effectively abrogated the Geneva Conventions. By doing this, they have removed the usual prisoner of war protections that we'd normally expect - and this doesn't just apply to US troops, but seems to have spilt over to allies.
apparently we are not an american 'ally' anyway we are just a 'close friend' and a buddy of afganistain.
ReplyDeleteGNZ