Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sikboy on October 08, 2002, 08:42:05 AM

Title: The Hardest Part of International Relations
Post by: Sikboy on October 08, 2002, 08:42:05 AM
In my opinion, the single biggest problem in understanding international relations, is sorting out truth from fiction, and keeping the two apart.

When you look at this from a distance, it's pretty obvious. If we knew for a fact how people would react, and everyone knew for a fact how we would react, there would not be no need for diplomats, no need for treaties. There wouldn't be arms races that didn't result in wars. Everything would be right there, laid out in front of you. But it's not. Instead, the world of diplomacy is not only clouded, but fluid. Things that were not true yesterday are true today. People you counted on this morning will betray you tonight. And this is true of all nations in all of the world. I'm neither condeming, nor aquiting any nation when it comes to their conduct of foreign policy when it comes to this basic understanding.

I think the United States is bluffing. I do not believe that the United States has the intention to invade Iraq. Rather, I believe that the US knows that only the credible threat of invasion will force Hussein to allow UN inspectors to grant full unconditional access to his WMD facilities.

The problem though, is that if the US is able to get broad based international support for this effort, it can go from a threat to a reality at light speed. Things are clouded and fluid, we never fully understand what either side is up to, or where they are going. To be accurate, I can only base my analysis on known actions, and by the time they can confrim or refute my belief, it's already too late.  It's very frustrating.

-Sikboy
Title: The Hardest Part of International Relations
Post by: Ripsnort on October 08, 2002, 08:58:47 AM
When you say "bluffing", do you mean that they have no intention of going in there if they do not get unlimited access?

Bluff:"To mislead or frighten by a false,  bold front."
Title: The Hardest Part of International Relations
Post by: Eagler on October 08, 2002, 09:00:49 AM
it's about who you trust and believe more

this admin & our military minds

or

Iraq

or

France/Russia

or

the media

or

Dashole and his cling-ons

or

Europe libs

hmm, hard choice for me there :rolleyes:
Title: The Hardest Part of International Relations
Post by: Sikboy on October 08, 2002, 09:00:59 AM
I believe that they are counting on it not coming to that.

-Sikboy
Title: The Hardest Part of International Relations
Post by: Ripsnort on October 08, 2002, 09:03:42 AM
Well, I posted some months ago that I believe that they are hoping that it will not come to that, so they speak of war to prevent it, so I think we're thinking alike. However, I also think they're (We're) ready to back up our words too.
Title: The Hardest Part of International Relations
Post by: Sikboy on October 08, 2002, 09:06:25 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Eagler
it's about who you trust and believe more


Actually Eagler, my point was that it isn't about who you trust, because things are rarely as they seem.

I think the US Government is lying
(bluffing) right now, and I happen to agree with thier approach.  

I don't trust them, but I think I understand and agree with their policy. In my case trust has nothing to do with it.

-Sikboy
Title: The Hardest Part of International Relations
Post by: gofaster on October 08, 2002, 09:39:11 AM
Teddy Roosevelt had it right with his "Big Stick" policy.  :mad:
Title: The Hardest Part of International Relations
Post by: Sikboy on October 08, 2002, 09:43:08 AM
Quote
Originally posted by gofaster
Teddy Roosevelt had it right with his "Big Stick" policy.  :mad:


Roosevelt sounds like a good example. Did we really want to help out "Panamanians" or did we want to build a canal in Northern Columbia? :)

-Sikboy
Title: The Hardest Part of International Relations
Post by: GRUNHERZ on October 08, 2002, 09:45:09 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Sikboy


Roosevelt sounds like a good example. Did we really want to help out "Panamanians" or did we want to build a canal in Northern Columbia? :)

-Sikboy



Both, obviously.... ;)