"The Ugly American" DIPLOMACY

[Calkoon]

As we've seen over the past year, Bush has done everything posible to avoid dialogue with opponents across the spectrum, Arafat has been shoved aside, North Korea, will never get their sought meeting with the American side.



The Americans are becoming notorious for NOT using diplomacy to solve conflicts and problems.



Unlike the France and the English who have had colonies world wide and have worked to adjust their foriegn policy to both fit and respect different customs and cultures. Lessons learnt mainly because of their involvement in administerating whole nations. On the other hand Americans have never had any colonies as such and so they they have not learnt how to deal with people different to them.



Consider an American salesman, as an example, any where outside America, they seem nothing more than a cheap gimmick using methods to excite and facinate to get a sale. It goes well in America, but an American salesman in the rest of the world, simply looks stupid.





As the typically arrogant US Diplomat lacked any true understanding and respect of the different cultures the world over, US diplomats have invarianble been CIA agents.



Here's a typical example of your US diplomat, drummingup support for the War on Iraq, as given in an article from a Caribbean Newspaper:





<b>OTTO, THE FOURTH REICH</b>



I HAVE never met the United States Ambassador to this country, Mr Roy Austin. But - and Im not writing this because he happens to have Caribbean roots the envoy comes across as a decent man, someone devoid of the arrogance that is usually associated with those who represent the worlds only superpower, especially when they are posted to small, developing nations. In the past, we have had meddlesome ambassadors and <font color="red"> lower-level officials (more than likely CIA operatives) who have personified "The Ugly American ", a world-view of wrong-but-strong US diplomats that was immortalised in a movie of the same name.

<!--color-->[/color]



Having said that, it must also be said that Austin is here as the nominee of the George Bush regime, so one must assume that he is Republican, and that he is compelled to support whatever decisions are made in Washington. So in the case of the US-UK axis of evil that is bent on invading Iraq at any and all costs, even if the rest of the world says they are wrong, I imagine Austin will support the move. What Id be intrigued to know, though, is exactly what his thoughts are about the former US Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere (he was demoted to a lesser position last November), one Otto Reich. Reich was the man who passed through town last week in his island-hopping quest to shore up support for the US-led war against Iraq.





&lt;&lt;snip





But Reich is different. He always was. After working his way up the anti-Castro ladder in Florida in the Ronald Reagan era of the 1980s, he was among those implicated in the Iran-Contra affair. In fact, at the time, he was elevated to head the State Departments notorious propaganda arm, the dubious Office of Public Diplomacy a misnomer, as you will see.







&lt;&lt;snip



<font color="red"> Reichs job was simple: churn out propaganda, the more outrageous, the better <!--color-->[/color] . His biggest or most memorable blooper was on the night Reagan was re-elected to power in 1984. Intelligence sources later identified as Reichs propaganda unit, caused NBC to break its elections coverage to announce that Soviet MIG fighter-aircraft were arriving in Nicaragua! He also charged that the Soviet Union had given Nicaragua chemical weapons (sounds familiar?) and the Sandinistas were involved in drug trafficking



&lt;&lt;&lt;snip



<font color="red"> So this modern-day Goebbels, a notorious purveyor of lies and half-truths, was the man selected by Bush to go through the Caribbean to try to convince the regions leaders to plough their support behind the US-UK axis against Iraq <!--color-->[/color] . I don't know what fanciful lies he offloaded on Manning. I think, though, that Ambassador Austin should get on that high-speed, secure telex machine on Marli Street and tell his boss that the Caribbean might be littered with poor countries that depend on the US for their existence. But Caricom is no Ship of Fools;. <font color="red"> <b>No "Fourth Reich" for us, Sir.</b> <!--color-->[/color]



<a href="http://www.trinidadexpress.com/opinion.asp?mylink=2003-02-16/opinion/Raffique%20Shah.htmmydate=2003-02-16mypage=opinionmyopinion=Raffique%20Shah.htm" target="_blank">http://www.trinidadexpress.com/opinion.asp?mylink=2003-02-16/opinion/Raffique%20Shah.htmmydate=2003-02-16mypage=opinionmyopinion=Raffique%20Shah.htm</a>

[hfsc_peace]

Sorry, but if you violate the agreement YOU signed, you've just OBJECTIVELY proved that talking doesn't matter or achieve results.

Don't know anything about this trinidad paper.. but I'm going to find out

[Calkoon]

<img src="/threads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" /> Huh ... and your point is?

So in your opinion everybody on the face of the earth has violated a previously negotiated treaty with the US, because it seems like US Diplomacy is non-existant.

[hfsc_peace]

in some instances he is just plain wrong in his assertions. For instance in his chemical weapons claim.(Unless it was made direct to him person to person)

Never the less he is a most entertaining read, and if you read some more of his stuff, you will see - quite hyperbolic. However he is as unbiased a writer on this subject as Ann Coulter would be regarding current arab states.

[hfsc_peace]

I am saying that in the case of Iraq and North Korea there is very little for bilateral discussion.

If you care to post other examples BESIDES these where we are acting as you put it, non diplomatically, please do. I think you'll find that where folks KEEP their agreements even when we a re in opposition it's WE who want to ENGAGE them.

Iran is a perfect example.

[Calkoon]

I don't give damn who or what Shah is.....

You obviously don't have the ability to comment on the above. We seem to always get this atitude from some of our America member. Who were you in the previous forum <i>(just to spare me the effort of finding out my self)</i>

It's a fact that a great majority of US diplomats are CIA operatives. IE the word "DIPLOMACY" is very much non-existant in their vocabulary.

The simple comparison I gave mentioning the French and British colonies is to further strengthen that view, to demonstrate the experiance in having a balanced foriegn policy that comes with administering colonies.

In that respect I must admit that the Us are just as bad as the Russians!

[Calkoon]

Is there dialogue with Iran? That's news to me. I remember when President Khatami extended his hand toward the US to build a new understanding, but was instead meet with silence and total reluctance to his overtures.

Iran is another example.............

You may be right about the chemical weapons claim. We'd need to look back at history on that one.

[hfsc_peace]

Search all you like. I work with someone else who wandered in here and clued me in.

As for the rest... please don't be silly. If there are NOT CIA in our embassies someone is not doing their job.

We simply expect them to, in order:
1)Protect the citizens of the US
2)Be a force for good

Sometimes one conflicts with the other
Sometimes they fail at both
Sometimes we hire idiots
Sometimes we get the right people
Sometimes they have bad bosses
Sometimes they have good ones
Are you expecting more of the USA than any other nation? (WE DO). Think about this for a moment.

However, when thinking about cold war leftovers, you will find no apologies here for anything ... taking down the USSR was righteous even if the world is more complex today.

Otherwise, perhaps you've lost me on this one. I'm doing sql/web services while entertaining myself with you guys

[hfsc_peace]

Iran ... just fininshed agreement with US regarding overflight for purposes of a 'war' with Iraq and agreed to recover and return US pilots, and allow rescue copters in.

PRETTY AMAZING.

If we did anything to reject an approach by the Iranian govt I'd be surprised. My 'impression' is that every time we get close to having a discussion they inevitably do the great satan jig (and MTV watching goes up another 3% in Qum).
BUt you never know

[Calkoon]

I fully agree with you when you say:

<i>If there are NOT CIA in our embassies someone is not doing their job.</i>

And yes:-


<i>We simply expect them to, in order:

1) Protect US citizens
</i>
That's expected and a must

<i>2)Be a force for good</i> BUT :-


Give me a break. That's probably what you think. Clearly most of the rest of the world has a different opinion. What's your definition of good? Do you have any idea of the uncountable US Army rape cases that happen annually around the globe, which NEVER result in a convition?

[Calkoon]

Amaizing indeed if true........... Haven't read anything of the sort, but considering that Iran opposed the war against Afghanistan, I find it very unlikely that they'd offer such support.

[hfsc_peace]

Is this where we have treaty such that US personnel are court martialed and not accused under local system? Or are you saying that rapists walk?

I'll see what I can find about the pilot thing w/Iran. I know I've heard it discussed on Fox and CNN

[hfsc_peace]

U.S. Met With Iranians On War
Tehran Was Asked Not to Interfere in Invasion of Iraq

By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 8, 2003; Page A01


Bush administration officials held a rare private meeting with Iranian envoys in Europe last month to seek a promise of humanitarian help and an assurance that the Tehran government would not interfere in military operations if the United States goes to war against Iraq, U.S. officials said yesterday.

U.S. diplomats carrying a carefully designed message also asked Iran to join search-and-rescue missions for downed U.S. air crews, officials reported. They further requested that the Iranian government deny haven to fleeing Iraqis who might try to cross into Iran and regroup against a U.S.-supported government in Baghdad.

A senior administration official said the White House hopes the Iranians "will stay out of the way" if U.S.-led forces topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in favor of a pro-Western government. U.S. and U.N. officials report that signals from Tehran have been encouraging, although the Iranian government opposes military action.

The overture to Iran, a member of what President Bush called an "axis of evil," demonstrates the extent of the administration's efforts to line up support in the Persian Gulf for an increasingly likely war against Iraq. Bush has condemned the politics of the Tehran government but is seeking its cooperation as agreements with Iraqi neighbors Turkey and Jordan fall into place.

In London this week, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said a war would have repercussions in Iran. But he said Iran is prepared to settle Iraqi refugees temporarily along its border. During the U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan on Iran's northern border, Iran offered to conduct search-and-rescue missions. "Iran is basically against war and is not going to support either side," Kharrazi said.

There is no fondness in Iran for Hussein, who waged a bitter war against the country in the 1980s and allegedly used poison gas against its citizens. Yet, great ambivalence exists about the prospect of a new government next door endorsed by the United States. It has been barely a year since a U.S.-backed government took root in Afghanistan after the fall of the Islamic Taliban government.

Analysts believe Iran has an abiding interest in the outcome of any conflict in Iraq. Tehran has long supported Muslim Shiite exiles from Iraq who intend to seek power if Hussein falls. Analysts predict Iran will not take an active role during any armed conflict, but will later seek influence in heavily Shiite southern Iraq and the central government. As a U.S. official put it, "They don't want to be shut out."

In another development, the Bush administration has begun notifying U.S.-based humanitarian organizations that they will be issued licenses permitting them to work in Iran and northern Iraq. The groups will be surveying potential needs and positioning supplies in readiness for a potential conflict, said representatives of the organizations and the U.S. government.

The aid organizations have been pressing the administration for months to make it easier to acquire the licenses. They are required because of U.S. economic sanctions against Iran and Iraq. The organizations welcomed the news but expressed frustration that time appears short to develop contingency plans in a region where relatively few humanitarian groups operate.

U.S. relations with Iran, troubled since the Iranian revolution nearly 25 years ago, took a still more difficult turn when Bush grouped Iran with Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil" in January 2001. Later last year, Bush issued a statement sharply critical of Iran's conservative leadership and supportive of pro-democracy protesters.

In last month's State of the Union address, Bush said the Iranian government "represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction and supports terror." Yet U.S. officials concluded that Iran should not be ignored in preparations for a potential conflict along its 904-mile border with Iraq.

U.S. envoys sought a measure of help while also reassuring the Iranians that a prospective war for control of Baghdad would not target them, said a U.S. official who was briefed on last month's mission. The U.S.-Iran meeting, which involved two U.S. officials steeped in the region's politics and history, coincided with a larger gathering on the future of Afghanistan that included U.S. and Iranian delegations.

The country in which the meeting was held could not be learned. The names of the U.S. envoys were withheld from publication at the request of U.S. officials.

"We wanted to make clear to them that, just as we cooperated with them in Afghanistan, we'll cooperate with them in Iraq. We're able and willing to cooperate in Iraq," the official said. He added that the administration and the Iranians have been communicating regularly through partners in Europe and the Persian Gulf.

To solidify its pledge that it seeks a representative government elected by Iraqis, the administration has also noted its acceptance of Tehran-based Shiite Muslim leaders among the Iraqi opposition. Indeed, members of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, whose militias are trained by the Iranian military, were welcomed with other opposition figures to Washington last year.

Elsewhere yesterday, U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad tried to calm Kurds in northern Iraq by declaring that Turkish troops entering the region would report to a U.S. commander and would pose no threat. Kurdish groups fear Turkish forces may try to seize territory; the Turkish government worries that the Kurds may grab oil-rich zones in the north or seek political autonomy

[Rohit]

Iran is not one govt but two. The elected and the Mullahs.

but considering Iraq, I am not surprised. Iraq shelters the anti-Iran movements and vice versa.

the million plus deaths in the Iran-Iraq war, the massacre of the Shias in Karbala (?) etc are pointers.

Calkoon - Iran supported the Afghan war. The Taliban were fierce anti-shias. execution of shias and iranis were not uncommon in afghanistan. it would be stupid for iran not to support moves to oust the taliban and saddam.

with saddam gone and with a political vacuum there is a golden chance for Iran to increase their powerbase in shiite areas in south Iraq.

The decrease of the Sunni axis power of Pakistan/Saudi/UAE in the region will always be welcomed by them.

[old_n_grumpy]

Calkoon,
I have no idea how many American servicemen are tried for rape but not convicted. Or are accused but never brought to trial? Would you please enlighten me?

How many Muslim women are raped every year but do not report the crime out of fear they will suffer greater consequences than the perpetrators?

[Brasco]

"How many Muslim women are raped every year but do not report the crime out of fear they will suffer greater consequences than the perpetrators?"

What has this got to do with anything?

Would you also care to enlighten us on this? How many indeed?

Women all over the world don't report rapes because they are afraid of they themselves being made to look bad.

It is not something exclusive to Islam?

For an Aussie, you sure love the US government and its foreign policy?

Or is it that you just like anyone that bashes Muslims?
************************************************** **********

[old_n_grumpy]

Brasco,
If you have read the post from Calkoon you should realise that I was replying to an observation of his that I thought was a bit silly. I have no idea how many women are raped in Muslim countries and that was not the point of my post. As I posted not long ago on the old forum, I would assume that rape rates are probably lower in Muslim countries than in the west.

What point do you think Calkoon was trying to make in referring to the number of women raped by US soldiers? Do you think the figure is especially high? Do you think the US military lets them off the hook? Are GIs sex crazed maniacs preying on foreign women? What, exactly, was he getting at?

I do a lot less bashing of Muslims than Muslims do of Yanks.

[Calkoon]

!! ONG, what has either ot to do with the other...!!



There have been many RAPE CASES by American Military personel that have not resulted in a conviction....! I've mentioned an issue that has been reported very widely........



where have you been??



Brasco, he's just trying to take the topic off subject.



It's all part of the Ugly Ameerican Diplomacy, as mentioned by "hfsc_peace" above to <b>protect the American citizen</b> , in this case, from prosecution if they commit a crime...!

[hfsc_peace]

English speaking democracies form the core (militarily and in principal). The nations who WERE in dictatorial regimes and are NOW experiencing freedom are present in LARGE percentage and numbers .. what can this mean?

[Mujahid]

American miliary servicemen and marines have it in their curriculum to kill innocent civilians rape the victims they capture. It is considered an act of bravery by their country and their president awards them with medals for the act. There was a documentary on TV recently where it showed how a new female recruit in the US marines was raped by his seniors continously and she narrated that it is a given thing for females to be the object of sexual desires of their senior officers in the US marines. So they get to practice with thier collegues and then they act upon their innocent prey after they have bombed their cities, and killed their men.

[Calkoon]

I made the comment in ref to what you had written:

"2) Be a force for good"

US forces are NOT necessarily a force of good..... They obey and executed as ordered. Morals do not govern the US soldier.

Next I'll hear you saying that the US Army is Gods force on earth.

[Calkoon]

I made the comment in ref to what you had written:

"2) Be a force for good"

US forces are NOT necessarily a force of good..... They obey and executed as ordered. Morals do not govern the US soldier.

Next I'll hear you saying that the US Army is Gods force on earth.

[hfsc_peace]

No, I'm afraid that title was already usurped several times ..we can probably go all the way back to Cyrus for that one (Zoroaster).

Think of that rule as down the list like Asimov's robotic rules.

The forces may perform 2, but only as it does not conflict with 1(Protect the US people and their vital interests)

Criminals are criminals and that has nothing to do with this. I believe (for instance) in Japan (Okinawa) our treaty stated that US personnel charged with civil crimes that aren't capital (murder) are to be tried by US Military. Thus they were charged under japan's law but never convicted, and by that light ..walked. But I believe they are pounding rocks in Ft Leavenworth in the case I am thinking about.

[Calkoon]

hfsc_peace, please always post the link back to the original site of the article, thank you.

[hfsc_peace]

Why not get involved in local politics?

Your ideas about the US military are wrong, and someplace 'inside' I'm betting you know US soldiers aren't trained to kill innocents. As MOST of the Iraqi army has cause to know (1991), let alone civilians ..who were literally showered with food in afghanistan the midst of our war.

[hfsc_peace]

which one are we talking about?

[old_n_grumpy]

The same moral standards apply to US soldiers as to any other American. There will no doubt be transgressions during wartime but these are not condoned.

Was it immoral for GIs to not take Japanese prisoners in circumstances when it was known that they were keen to pull the pins on hidden grenades so as to cause as many casualties as possible?

[Calkoon]

When will Americans start to blame Bush for the current diplomacy fiasco we are all living through?

A "good" president should be able to convince his allies, regardless of his hidden motives. It's happened on many other occasions where economic motives remained hidden behind rhetoric to get allies behind the President. The President should be able to manufacture a case for war where none exists. A "good" president would rely on facts instaed of distortions of facts.

Bush has totally failed to get anyone behind him. Isn't that a sign of incompetence from an American Presidents point of view??

[Mujahid]

Read my above post, I told you all that Americans have it in their curriculum to rape their victims and they get trained by raping their female collegues.

Here is the very latest to prove it

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/02/17/academy.investigation.ap/index.html" target="_blank">CNN Reports How the US Armed Forces teach RAPE to their soilders</a>

[hfsc_peace]

at the air force academy into teaching rape to soldiers, you missed your calling at the 12th KGB Directorate. The article is about TAKING BOTH SEXES EQUALLY AND SERIOUSLY IN COMBAT FORCES.

Puerile, infantile, and solipsoid argument.

By the way, how do they treat women in the KSA Air Force Academy? Oh wait... they can't even drive

Over and out on this issue

[hfsc_peace]

But the question is this.. can appearance mask substance? (Some people say, in fact, that's what diplomacy is for).

Here's a few issues:
1) Kyoto .. you have no unanimity, or mass consensus on global warming. So, forget it. BUT, was there a way to make nice over this refusal and make everyone else happy? You tell me.
2)Durban. A stacked deck. In fact I would rate Durban's appeal equal to that of Libya being the chair of UN Human Rights Commission. We should not have been there. Gloss this over some way?
3)The ABM treaty. All we saw was a whacko North Korea firing missiles across Japan and acting weird. Since then we see what had transpired. The decision to remove ourselves from this treaty to build a missile defense was in, fact PERFECT. Uncomfortable, but perfect. (Although I must admit I am one who believes that the most moral way to spend defense dollars is not on cluster bombs, but rather on a missile shield, or any function-alike system).

We can fault Bush for style points. Although he appeals directly to a very american 'no bull' strain.

But what pisses everyone off? What we do? Or the way we talk about what we must do?

You tell me. I honestly don't know.

[Rohit]

Bush is not totally 'no bull' style......

compassionate republicans(?) ........ Pure Bull
statement on why he opposes affirmative action ....... All Bull

Kyoto ...... Bull in china Shop
Anti-abortion ...... Bull in china shop
Fed. funding religious bodies ......... Bull in China Shop

so it depends on the situation and the context. We shall hear more of it as time comes. Strangely he reminds me of Nixon all the time.

[Dark Angel]

<i>American miliary servicemen and marines have it in their curriculum to kill innocent civilians rape the victims they capture. It is considered an act of bravery by their country and their president awards them with medals for the act.</i>



**** I find what you said stupid, insulting, misinformed and all-round absurd. But coming from you, that is no surprise at all. Seriously, do you actually think up this crap?





<i>There was a documentary on TV recently where it showed how a new female recruit in the US marines was raped by his seniors continously and she narrated that it is a given thing for females to be the object of sexual desires of their senior officers in the US marines. So they get to practice with thier collegues and then they act upon their innocent prey after they have bombed their cities, and killed their men.</i>



*** I think I have more military experience than you Mujahid. Hell, no, I KNOW I do. So let me tell you something ****



Article 120, Section (a) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice cleary states:



<b>"(a) Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act of sexual intercourse by force and without consent, is guilty of rape and shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct."</b>



That make sense to you? Now do some research before you spout rubbish.



<font color="red"> Just make your point and post your counter argument Dark_angel and cut out the personal insults!!! <!--color-->[/color]

[Brasco]

"But what pisses everyone off? What we do? Or the way we talk about what we must do?"

I think it is the fact that, at the very least, the US is inept at foreign policy.

This would not be such a bad thing if the US wasn't a hyperpower.

The fact that it is means that her ineptitude has serious and far-reaching consequences for everyone.

[Dark Angel]

Calkoon,

I find what Mujahid said personally insulting since I am a member of the Armed Forces of the US. So he just insulted me. I think you should edit his blatantly childish and peurile posts.

[Calkoon]

Dark_angel, how about commenting on the article he posted from CNN........ clearly if the military has ordered a review of how they handle sexual assault allegations by female cadets, there MUST be something wrong int he system....



Give us your inside view for a change without insults.





Your posts seems to contradict that reality



<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />
<b>Article 120, Section (a) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice </b> "(a) Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act of sexual intercourse by force and without consent, is guilty of rape and shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct."



<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">





If the Rape and Murder cases in South East Asia resulted in "punishment by death", I'd probably believe what you've posted, but to date non of the rape cases by US marines has resulted in a death sentence. Even the ones involving children..!!

[hfsc_peace]

and therefore the military does not as well.

Therefore this argument is specious at best.