Wow. Did this fellow *completely* miss the point, or what? Is he related to Rush? If so, that explains it.
The point of diplomacy is to convince others that your position is indeed *the* right position. The positive aspects of inclusion are numerous; sharing of burden, clear mandate, building of trust. The negative aspects are: overtaxing of resources, opposition to objectives, and mistrust in future dealings.
Bush has had *plenty* of time to build his case against Saddam and convince others. The pure, hard fact is that he could not. The reasons are numerous, but all point to one overwhelming fact: Bush's thought process is so narrow as to proclude his ability to see the point of view of others. He is a simple man; great for focus, lousy for diplomacy. Btw: this failure started from the beginning of his term. He has consistently snubbed other nations and shown a disdain for the diplomatic process.
You might argue that diplomacy is not needed, that unilateralism is necessary, that the US should go it alone. But, you haven't a leg to stand on when you claim that Bush has not failed in diplomacy. |
