h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I very much agree with this, except I would say that this world as made in the image of Bush and Company isn't very funny. That it makes no sense there's no denying as well.

Finally, this "business" if practiced by what the establishment might refer to as the "wrong people" would be accounted a criminal enterprise. But as we know, it's who you know, not what you do that determines such appellations. Connections deflect the contempt we should all feel for such enterprises and the entrepreneurs that sponsor them.

Subcom

I did read the whole article and it came over as a typical piece of diplomatic double speak.

Glaspie is a diplomat, not a politician and as such was attempting to maintain cordial relations with Iraq. If the she had come outright and told Saddam Hussain that the US disagreed with them over Kuwait and would defend Kuwait with troops that would have sounded to much like a threat. You don’t maintain cordial relationships by making threats. Diplomats don’t do threats, that’s the preserve of politicians. If Glaspie told Saddam Hussain that he could do what he liked in regard to Kuwait, that would have been a green light to Saddam Hussain.

What the statement means is that although the US supported Iraq against Iran, that will not be the case regarding Kuwait. I am sure Saddam Hussain knew that and new exactly what he was doing when he invaded Kuwait. He just underestimated the depth of opposition he got, especially from his Arab neighbours.

In diplomacy, there is no such thing as a negative statement. They are all either positive or neutral and neutral ones often have a negative connotations. The classic diplomatic statement is “talks where constructive” which really means “We couldn’t agree on a dam thing”.

Stuart

Check this link:

http://www.sfgate.com/comics/fiore/

My God, Stuart. Do you really believe what you wrote?

Excuse me, but you can call it diplomatic doublespeak if you like, but to me it's lying and how you can be okay with that eludes me.

I don't care if everybody does it. That's a child's argument. And people might have misunderstandings or misinterpretation when they tell the truth, but they'll always and invariably have such problems when they lie.

If this whole sordid mess started a decade ago with a diplomatic lie or worse with a diplomatic baiting intended to provide a pretext for a needless war in order to distract people from the elder Bush's domestic failings with a war, we're about to be screwed twice in a row by the Bush clan. Does that make your glib apologetics seem just a little bit trivial, not to mention cynically negligent?

What's more, it's total nonsense to even suggest that Hussein should have known anything that wasn't explicitly stated. Otherwise, if the United States intended to protect Kuwait, that should have been made abundantly clear if for no other reason than to keep the peace... buh!!!

Under the circumstances then, your characterization of the elder Bush administration's handling of the affair describes a base and tragic intrigue for which losing to Clinton hardly provides a just desert. That you would now use it to justify similar intrigues is despicable. And I'm sorry to have to say that but somebody needs to.

Maybe if you'll blow the sophistry out of your head like snot, you'll be able to smell the stink instead of trying to call it perfume.

I just find it disgusting that in a 6 1/2 hr parliamentary debate on the war, Tonay Blair stayed for 1/2 an hour just to listen to Jack Straw's speech...

>>My God, Stuart. Do you really believe what you wrote?<<

Yes, I do.

>>Excuse me, but you can call it diplomatic doublespeak if you like, but to me it's lying and how you can be okay with that eludes me.<<

My dictionary defines diplomacy as management of international relations, tact. Threatening people, for whatever reason, is not tactful is it. As I said, different words mean different things to different people. As the document was a diplomatic one, it was read and interpreted as such. You fail to appreciate what diplomacy is and interpreted it literally. Interpreting diplomatic language literally isn’t going to get you anywhere except in a mess.

Like the last sentence regarding constructive discussions. Would you call that lying?

This kind of language has been in use for thousands of years. It is understood by everyone, except by those who do not wish to understand it in order to further their own agenda.

>>Otherwise, if the United States intended to protect Kuwait, that should have been made abundantly clear if for no other reason than to keep the peace.<<

and since when did issuing threats keep the peace?

>>Maybe if you'll blow the sophistry out of your head like snot, you'll be able to smell the stink instead of trying to call it perfume.<<

It was sophistry that prompted the observation in the first place in that Glaspie was alleged to have told Saddam Hussain that the US would not defend Kuwait. She did not, she made a neutral statement. If you think that diplomats should be absolutely honest at all times then you do not understand diplomacy. Such an approach would ensure conflict right from the beginning.

Stuart

To put things in context, that is normal. Prime Ministers usually have better things to do than sit on their backsides for 6 1/2 hours. They have Civil Servants and PPSs to do that for them.

When was the last time you saw any Prime Minister sit through a protracted debate on any subject.

Stuart

Yeah, but it's hard to get US bases out of your country. Cuba tried getting the Americans out of Guantanomo Bay after Castro overthrew Batista. The US responding by forcibly leasing the 100 sq km plus for only US$3000 per year! Don't you wish we could rent 100 sq km for US$3000 (or about UK£2000) per year? Oh well, I guess we don't control the most powerful military in the world.

No Stuart, they have civil servants etc. so that they can sit and listen to what the people (or as close to what the people are in our so called democracy) say. That is what the PM should do, he is meant to be representing us but he won't even listen to what we say.....
BCNU - Crescent

The US also sponsers "terrorism" (whatever that really means). As William Blum says in his books, there are anti-Castro operatives based in Florida who go over to Cuba and kill civilians, assassinate people, drop pesticide on fields, and God knows what else.

And, of course, the West supported the mujhadeen in their murderous, indiscriminate attacks, first against Afghanistan's Soviet-backed government (comparitively one of the best they ever had) AND then used them to repel the Soviet invasion they provoked by teaching them to "interrogate" (torture) Russian soldiers. I guess they didn't think at the time that there was a possibility that these anti-US Islamic extremists may start using the tactics we taught them against us.

*Yeah, but it's hard to get US bases out of your country. Cuba tried getting the Americans out of Guantanomo Bay after Castro overthrew Batista. The US responding by forcibly leasing the 100 sq km plus for only US$3000 per year! Don't you wish we could rent 100 sq km for US$3000 (or about UK£2000) per year? Oh well, I guess we don't control the most powerful military in the world. *



A treaty signed in 1903 and renewed in 1934, leases the Guantanamo Bay site to the US for $4,085 a year. The treaty requires the consent of both governments to revoke or change it.

Well, Stuart, if the United States wanted to convey the impression of neutrality under the circumstances, you've still got to wonder why they didn't remain neutral. That's why your characterization of diplomatic language is self-serving baloney among other things. Plausible deniability was a term invented by Nixon and Company who undoubtedly subscribed to your interpretation of diplomatic language and pretty much summarizes what you've implied so far.

So, since when is lying diplomatic especially when we're discussing going to war? Issuing threats is exactly what people do when they want to avoid needless conflict. If they've acquired a reputation as liars, then I have no doubt such threats might not serve that purpose however.

Finally, I think it's sophistry that you've been doing for at least two posts in trying to justify this nonsense. I really don't think your mother brought you up to believe such total crap. Whether or not it's been done for thousands of years is hardly the point. People have been murdering each other for thousands of years. That doesn't make it right or prudent or even especially clever. In fact it's pretty stupid when you think about.

*The US also sponsers "terrorism" (whatever that really means). As William Blum says in his books, there are anti-Castro operatives based in Florida who go over to Cuba and kill civilians, assassinate people, drop pesticide on fields, and God knows what else.*


William Blum ? The same William Blum who worked for the US state department and upon leaving went on to become a writer. Who published the Names and addresses of over 200 CIA employees ?
One of Noam Chomsky's favorite Writers William Blum ?

Can not get anyone more Impartial than him.

"A treaty signed in 1903 and renewed in 1934, leases the Guantanamo Bay site to the US for $4,085 a year. The treaty requires the consent of both governments to revoke or change it."


The treaty signed at the end of the Spanish-American war and renewed by Ramon Grau after he defaulted on a US loan?

so what's the point starbirth. nothing you've said makes what Blum disclosed untrue.

or is it that you really think that an acceptable method in debate is to wink knowingly, imply riduicule and so, lo and behold, invalidate any statement?

I have found that in international relations history, then issuing threats is not the nly way to maintain the peace, indeed the closest we have ever got to nuclear was over the issuing and counter issuing of threats during the Cuban Missile crisis. In fact the matter was only resolved through the diplomacy you seem to deplore analiese, in which both sides were allowed to comeout with their face intact.

In my opinion, the only way to differentiate between war and terrorism that makes sense is that terrorism is an attack on a civillian target, whereas war should be an attack on a military target.

In reality, this boundary becomes blurred and the only real difference is who declares it.

Also in response to whether the UN action in the Korean war had Russian backing, it did not and they would have opposed it if they could. Not only were the North Koreans apparantly encouraged in their attack by the USSR, but the USSR apparantly also supplied military equipment and even pilots, so in the infamous 'Mig Alley' there were Russian pilots fighting American pilots, about as close to outright war as the two sides of the cold war got.

The Russians were boycotting the UN at the time because it was the Royalist Chinese (who controlled some little island somewhere) rather than Mao & Co. (who controlled China) that were sitting on the Security Council.

for those of you who didn't see it (with thanks to Fiore):

let's seeee what those pinko dissenters are really saying, eh?

this flaky peacenick thinks UN inspectors need to be given more time to complete their job...

Who? General Schwarzcopf

this lefty crackpot actually thinks an attack will increase chances of terror...

Who? Tenet

this wacko is so opposed to sanctions he actually did business in Iraq while sanctions were in effect...

Who? Cheney

this unpatriotic nut thinks containment is an option...

Who? Zinni

this flower child hippie thinks an attack will make Iraq more vulnerable to fundamentalist thinking...

Who? Clark

this pinko liberal thinks it will jeapordize the global fight against terror if we keep rushing to the attack...

Who? Scowcroft

That's very interesting, Napnod. Do you suppose that it would have been resolved more efficiently, when those Russian ships were enroute to Cuba, if the United States had said to the Russians, "Oh, we don't care if you bring those missiles to Cuba," and then just started bombing them when they docked in Havana?

"The Russians were boycotting the UN at the time because it was the Royalist Chinese (who controlled some
little island somewhere) rather than Mao & Co. (who controlled China) that were sitting on the Security
Council."

Actually, it was the Nationalist Chinese and the little island was Taiwan (which is actually fairly large).

Your post made me think of something I've wondered about for a while: With the breakup of the Soviet Union, how come the seat on the Security Council and the Veto, etc. went to Russia as opposed to Georgia, or the Ukraine, or Kasakstan, or Uzbekistan, etc.? Or why didn't it just fade away? Does anyone know? Is the seat actually held by the Federation of Independant Republics? Is that the same as the "Russian Federation"? Does anyone know?