52 Diplomats Condemn Middle East Policy

[hobbes]

I was unimpressed. I am not for Bush nor Blair, what is my motivation, what is my agenda?

Content, please tell me where you found some?

That was the point, had it contained "content", then it might have been worth printing.

I noticed you didn't address any content either, you simply attacked me.

Did I say their criticism was invalid? No, but you said I did. I challenged that they were the wise oracles of Delphi that we should assume they should be. I actually stated that I don't support Bush or Blair, so I would like to hear some alternative plans.

As for Chirac, the Arabs love him. He must know something about how to deal with them. Everytime I make a joke should I add a smilie for you?

Where have I been "desperate"? I need an illustration of this. You must show how I have been "desperate". Otherwise, you are just lying.

Maybe it was when I scraped the bottom of the barrel. Did you major in emotive language and cliches in college?


Have I attacked any individual or have I simply stated that nothing has changed in the Middle East for quite some time. I'm just unimpressed.

You have tackled no issues and your post was an attack on me, well done, I've landed you on my deck. Quit flopping so I can apply the marinade.

Oh BTW, the point of the post was to convince the reader that knowledgable people are going against Blair and there are 52 of them. Certainly Tony should listen.

The "Otherside of the coin", not addressed. That is where I stepped in.

You are right, I am playing the "Devils Advocate" here, as I think things need to be changed, but why these people think that making this public announcement, which contains only a bare minimum of constructive input will really help, is beyond me. They use their prior positions as some magical trump cards, I am doubting they are as divine as the article wants you to think.

As for dictating foreign policy, isn't that what they are trying to do with the letter?

Again, I like the comments that I am not honest. It is just a ruse. Are you baffled by people who tell the truth and have no agenda to lie for. Am I like someone from another world to you? Look at my signature, what does that mean to you?

[leftism]

Originally posted by hobbes+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Content, please tell me where you found some?

That was the point, had it contained "content", then it might have been worth printing.[/b]

As I suspected, you haven&#39;t read the letter. No one who had could say it was devoid of content regardless of their position on the subject matter. Another example of your "non-agenda"?

After all those wasted months, the international community has now been confronted with the announcement by Ariel Sharon and President Bush of new policies which are one-sided and illegal and which will cost yet more Israeli and Palestinian blood.

There is more worth discussing.. but I will not waste the energy.

Originally posted by hobbes+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Did I say their criticism was invalid?[/b]

Well.. I would have thought labelling the lot of them as sensationalist publicity seekers who "just wanted to make a media splash and get back in the news." would amount to saying their criticism is invalid. More duplicity... naturally

Originally posted by hobbes
Where have I been "desperate"? I need an illustration of this. You must show how I have been "desperate". Otherwise, you are just lying.

Can&#39;t you read? The bits I quoted were the bits where you showed your desperation by resorting to smear tactics and ludicrous nonsensical accusations. I will quote them a second time in large red fonts if that&#39;ll help.

Originally posted by hobbes
You have tackled no issues and your post was an attack on me

Indeed. One cannot hold a debate with a duplicitous individual. A real debate requires honesty and integrity which, given your response to the letter, are not qualities you possess.

I would dispute whether I "attacked" you. I just highlighted the fact that you continuously claim to have no agenda and to be a fair judge of evidence based on it&#39;s merits. Your "critique" of the letter proves, quite convincingly, that this isn&#39;t the case. A glaring inconsistency in your "position".

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@

The "Otherside of the coin", not addressed. That is where I stepped in.
[/quote]

More duplicity

"The other side of the coin" would involve tackling the issues raised and pointing out the flaws in their position. "The other side of the coin" does not involve knee jerk reactions where you try to rubbish the authors on ludicrous grounds and consistently ignore the issues. I think the technical term for that is "political opportunistic bullshit".

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
As for dictating foreign policy, isn&#39;t that what they are trying to do with the letter?[/quote]

Not if one actually bothers to do more than skim the letter then go on the warpath.

we feel the time has come to make our anxieties public, in the hope that they will be addressed in parliament and will lead to a fundamental reassessment.

I can&#39;t be bothered to get bogged down in this Vietnam style quagmire where you continue to refute the obvious. The facts speak for themselves.

1. You have not addressed the content of the letter, and contrary to your claim there is plenty.
2. You have instead embarked upon a smear campaign.
3. Having done this you&#39;re now trying to say this is how a reasonable non-biased non-agenda driven individual "Shows the other side of the coin" or "Plays devils advocate".

Every point you make that attempts to smear these individuals is absolute rubbish. There is no denying that, and as I previously stated..

"No &#39;fair and balanced&#39;, honest person of any political persuasion would respond to that letter with desperate smear tactics. I suspect such an individual would respond to the content."

[hobbes]

What is my agenda?

I am simply not going to jump on their wagon because they oppose Bush and Blair. Just because they are anti-Bush/ Blair doesn&#39;t mean I need to agree with them.

They need to impress me first and provide a clear vision. I see nothing but the barest of vagarities in the document I have fully read. I have no assurance that these people actually know what they are talking about.

Had I wanted to be desperate, I would have cited individual names, arrest records, drug rehab, and all that. All I did was ask for some concrete accomplishments.

You do nothing but lie and distort, you are dismissed from my world. No joke. You are either not very bright (doubtful), or you just enjoy distorting posts to draw a reaction (which makes you even more intolerable). Too many times I have attempted to clarify my posts when you "misunderstand" me. We all are irritated when people state that we said or meant something which is simply not true. How many times have I try to clarify, be more explicit, reach compromise, with no success. I actually feel stupid for trying now but I finally "get" it. My hopes that you would come from your bitter corner have been replaced by an admission to failure.

Have a good life Lefty, come to the beach sometime and enjoy some comraderie under a warm sun.

[lynx]

The current approach Image Resized
[img]http://www.eilertech.com/photos/photo5/stick.jpg' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'>


Proposed approach

Which would you prefer?

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by Biggles@28 April 2004 - 11:31
The strongest counter I have seen yet from the current establishment is that these people clearly went "native" during their stay in the ME and this has coloured their opinion. This point of view has generally caused much hilarity.

hmm... perhaps a test is in order? these diplomats should be made to answer a brief questionnaire to the tune of:

Which do you prefer?

[&nbsp; ] tea and football
[&nbsp; ] Allah and Arafat

if they choose tea, they prove themselves English through and through. or else they&#39;re actually Chinese.

[Rat Faced]

Diplomats dont dictate policy, they do what they are told...so they wouldnt have any "accomplishments" unless the Government instructed them to do something achievable... not something any Diplomats from the UK or the USA have managed in the ME... possibly as they&#39;ve been told to do the impossible?


The Government response of "Gone Native" is laughable.... unless such people as The Pope also have... There are an awful lot of people that have been saying the same thing, in both countries no doubt, for years.

Many havent even been to the ME to go native....

[vidcc]

source


DUBYA THE DANGEROUS May 5 2004


Now US diplomats sound alarm

From Anthony Harwood, US Editor in New York


MORE than 50 American ex-diplomats have told George Bush that his policies in the Middle East are dangerous.

Their letter to the US president echoes a similar one sent last week from 52 British former diplomats to Tony Blair.

The American retired officials told Dubya: "You have placed US diplomats, civilians and military doing their jobs overseas in an untenable and even dangerous position."

The open letter strongly criticises Mr Bush&#39;s support for Israeli leader Ariel Sharon and praises their British colleagues for calling on Britain to exert more influence over the United States.

They told Mr Bush: "Your unabashed support of Sharon&#39;s extra judicial assassinations, Israel&#39;s Berlin Wall-like barrier, its harsh military measures in occupied territories and now your endorsement of Sharon&#39;s unilateral plans are costing our country its credibility, prestige and friends." Israel has claimed it has to kill militants planning suicide attacks and is building the West Bank barrier for security.

Andrew Kilgore, who served as US ambassador to Qatar, said: "We thought American diplomats were as unhappy as British diplomats were over what the president did."

A spokesman for the American Educational Trust, which counts some of the diplomats among its members, said: "Early responses are staggering. Signatories are united by their belief that the US government is heading toward great danger."

Last week, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw issued a sharp warning against attempts to undermine Britain&#39;s relationship with the United States in the wake of the British diplomats&#39; letter.





Our chaps are at it now

[Rat Faced]

Was this guy one of them?

Just need to find the other 49 now

[Rat Faced]

The full text of a letter from some 50 retired US diplomats urging President Bush to reverse his Middle East policy.

Dear Mr President:

We former US diplomats applaud our 52 British colleagues who recently sent a letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair criticising his Middle East policy and calling on Britain to exert more influence over the United States.

As retired foreign service officers we care deeply about our nation&#39;s foreign policy and US credibility in the world.

We also are deeply concerned by your April 14 endorsement of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon&#39;s unilateral plan to reject the rights of three million Palestinians, to deny the right of refugees to return to their homeland, and to retain five large illegal settlement blocs in the occupied West Bank.

This plan defies UN Security Council resolutions calling for Israel&#39;s return of occupied territories.

It ignores international laws declaring Israeli settlements illegal.

It flouts UN Resolution 194, passed in 1948, which affirms the right of refugees to return to their homes or receive compensation for the loss of their property and assistance in resettling in a host country should they choose to do so.

And it undermines the Road Map for peace drawn up by the Quartet, including the US. Finally, it reverses longstanding American policy in the Middle East.

Your meeting with Sharon followed a series of intensive negotiating sessions between Israelis and Americans, but which left out Palestinians.

In fact, you and Prime Minister Sharon consistently have excluded Palestinians from peace negotiations.

Former Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo voiced the overwhelming reaction of people around the world when he said: "I believe President Bush declared the death of the peace process today".

By closing the door to negotiations with Palestinians and the possibility of a Palestinian state, you have proved that the United States is not an even-handed peace partner.

You have placed US diplomats, civilians and military doing their jobs overseas in an untenable and even dangerous position.

Your unqualified support of Sharon&#39;s extra-judicial assassinations, Israel&#39;s Berlin Wall-like barrier, its harsh military measures in occupied territories, and now your endorsement of Sharon&#39;s unilateral plan are costing our country its credibility, prestige and friends.

It is not too late to reassert American principles of justice and fairness in our relations with all the peoples of the Middle East.

Support negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis, with the United States serving as a truly honest broker.

A return to the time-honored American tradition of fairness will reverse the present tide of ill will in Europe and the Middle East - even in Iraq.

Because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the core of the problems in the Middle East, the entire region - and the world - will rejoice along with Israelis and Palestinians when the killing stops and peace is attained.

Sincerely,

Andrew I Killgore, Ambassador to Qatar, 1977-1980
Richard H Curtiss, former chief inspector, US Information Agency
Colbert C Held, Retired FSO and author
Thomas J Carolan, Counsel General Istanbul, &#39;88-&#39;92
C Edward Bernier, Counselor of Embassy, Information and Culture, Islamabad, Pakistan
Donald A Kruse, American Consul in Jerusalem
Ambassador Edward L Peck, former Chief of Mission in Iraq and Mauritania
John Powell, Admin Counselor in Beirut, &#39;75-&#39;76
John Gunther Dean, last position held US Ambassador to India
Greg Thielmann, Director, Office for Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs, Bureau of Intelligence and Research
James Akins, Ambassador to Saudi Arabia
Talcott Seeyle, Ambassador to Syria
Eugene Bird, Counselor of Embassy in Saudi Arabia
Richard H Nolte, Ambassador to Egypt
Ray Close, Chief of Station Jeddah, Saudi Arabia 1971-1979
Shirl McArthur, Commercial Attache, Bangkok

My thanks to Scroff @ anywhichway



Off Topic, but i thought it was funny: