Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Diplomatic Incompetence

By Sam Huntington

Let us consider for a moment the most appropriate course of action: should the United States deny Egypt $1.5 billion in US taxpayer funds and possibly discourage Moslems from murdering Coptic Christians and other non-Moslems at will, or should the Obama administration grant the Moslem Brotherhood a human rights waiver in order to preserve the “long-standing relationship between Egypt and the United States,” and reward Egyptian Moslems for their murderous behavior?


Should anyone think the most appropriate course of action is granting a waiver, enabling murderous Moslem access to American taxpayer funds, they may qualify to work for Hillary Rodham Clinton in the State Department. On the other hand, if one thinks the United States has a moral obligation to conduct its affairs in consonance with our professed values —or happen to think murderous Moslems should never receive even one-thin-dime of US taxpayer money, then they are probably conservative with no business associating with anyone in the Obama administration.

For far too many years, the State Department has proven itself incapable of coherent foreign policy. Consequently, no one who endorses the concept of responsible stewardship is able to conclude American diplomats warrant our confidence. No wonder there is so much anger directed at the American people from around the world. They view us as insufferable because that is how the State Department portrays us. Our diplomats place all Americans in jeopardy.

The Obama administration wants us to believe our long-standing relationship with Egypt is at stake, but if this is true, why did President Obama conspire to oust long-standing ally Hosni Mubarak? If Mr. Obama wishes to appear impartial in our treatment of other nations, why has Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton granted human rights waivers to Egypt, while denying them to Libya?

President Washington admonished us to observe moral behavior in our dealings with other nations. He encouraged our new nation to maintain good faith and justice toward all men. He told us to avoid long-term relationships and rivalry, and he warned us that attachment to some and animosity toward others cannot help but lead to unnecessary conflict and failed foreign policy. These views were shared by Thomas Jefferson, our first Secretary of State. Mr. Jefferson understood the importance of neutrality and equality when dealing with other nations.

They were both correct —and this leads us to wonder why our leaders steadfastly ignored Mr. Washington’s advice, or Mr. Jefferson’s example. Our willingness to spend billions of dollars funding murderous behavior by Moslem extremists is immoral, but so too is providing extremists with technology and monetary resources that can be later used against our own interests. How can we achieve a peaceful world while rewarding extremist behavior?

American diplomacy is widely criticized because of our perceived arrogance and hypocrisy. Our detractors say that American diplomats lack vision, are manipulative, and not to be trusted. Frequently cited is America’s support of foreign dictators who abuse their own citizens and charges that we are too selective in condemning other countries for human rights violations. This is true.

Why must we interfere in the way other leaders run their countries?  When did we begin to think “international leadership” equates to global dictatorship? If we agree with Mr. Washington’s advice and Mr. Jefferson’s example, then there is no justification for a diplomatic double standard. To get around this, however, American politicians simply pretend it doesn’t exist. None of our officials is hesitant to pay bribes to foreign thugs from money extorted from American taxpayers, or borrowed from other tyrants.

Proof of our diplomatic failure is that American politicians are unable to articulate our foreign policy interests. As an example, if the Secretary of State and President of the United States lack coherence in explaining our military involvement in Afghanistan, then there is no American interest in Afghanistan —and this begs the question, “Then why are our troops dying in Afghanistan?” What interests does the United States have in nation building in a region that has never known civilized behavior?

We may attempt to explain away our diplomatic incompetence by evaluating those who have served as Secretary of State. Few since John Hay have a qualified resume to serve in that capacity. It may suffice to observe that diplomatic ineptitude is a likely consequence of our dreadful decision at the ballot box. We are made to suffer when our children die in war because our diplomats are incompetent.  Our diplomats are incompetent because we voters failed to exercise due diligence in choosing our president. It is why we must agree with the philosopher Joseph de Maistre: “Toute nation a le gouvernement qu’elle mérite.

36 comments:

  1. Funding for the Palestinian Authority, too?

    In a memorandum sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton [on Wednesday, April 25, 2012], Obama cited his authority under section 7040(b) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 2012 section 7040(a) of the Act, to provide appropriated funds to the Palestinian Authority.

    The president directed Clinton to inform Congress of his action.


    Note the bypassing of Congress on the above.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hillary has pulled off a few coups, Burma being one, but I agree. Our diplomatic establishment is a failure and we need a good house cleaning at the State Department. I've been overseas and I've seen how other countrys' diplomats work. The hold festivals, give props to the local culture and boost their values. We suck at that.

    I Think it can't all be laid at the feet of State however. Do we as a nation even know what our foreign policy goals are?

    ReplyDelete
  3. We have no long term policies. No onw can count on us any longer. We sell out our allies, and those who support us during our "interventions" are left to be slaughered or at least sent to the gulags.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, and other meatheads et al: We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.

    Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
    Here is a model separation agreement:
    Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
    We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.
    You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.--Since you hate guns and we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.
    We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel.
    You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.
    We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.
    You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, protests, druggies and illegal aliens.
    We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks.
    We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood
    You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.
    You can have the peaceniks and war protesters, occupiers,letter writers, boy-cotters,etc. And when our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.
    We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.
    You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness, Jane Fonda,Rosie O'Donnell, Barbara Streisand, Bill Maher, Michael Moore,
    Sean Penn, and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill.
    We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks and over-sized luxury cars. You can take every Volt and Leaf you can find.
    You can give everyone healthcare, Obamacare and all the taxing that goes with it if you can find any practicing doctors.
    We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.--We'll keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "The National Anthem."
    I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine", "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing", "Kum Ba Ya" or "We Are the World".
    We'll practice trickle-down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.
    Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.
    Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete.
    Thank you and Good-bye.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Do we as a nation even know what our foreign policy goals are?

    I think the answer to the question is "no" ... and neither does the State Department or any president since 1900.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @ Bunkerville ... you are correct. Perhaps our diplomats should take an oath that begins with, "First, do no harm."

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Egyptians are going to hate us in any event so we may as well save the money and waste it on something else ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  8. AOW ... bypassing congressional authority is what we should expect from a totalitarian dictator. Your post the other day and Z's post today illustrates the seriousness of our situation, but I don't think many people are listening.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If you elect a Muzloon you end up with Muzloon beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Our diplomats are incompetent because we voters failed to exercise due diligence in choosing our president."

    In the business world, someone wouuld have to be insane to fill a vacancy with someone they knew could not do the job. Yet in politics we voters often vote for the lessor of to evils, i.e., someone we know who can't do the job. Insanity!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sam,

    I wonder about your article from a number of perspectives.

    You have basically argued two ideas. The first is that the State Department is incompetent and even responsible for the bad image the US has overseas. The second is via the examples/assumptions made such as "should the United States deny Egypt $1.5 billion in US taxpayer funds and possibly discourage Moslems from murdering Coptic Christians and other non-Moslems at will". The latter does not work as the statement itself is illogical and void of context and reality, the first I also have doubts. Let us look at the first.

    Your State Department is a civil service organisation that reflects the policies of your Administration and Congress. Additionally, it represents other US government departments in particular Commerce. Embassies are primarily there to be a communications/contact point between the US and other countries or in some cases organisations. It is there to assist your citizens based on the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and it is to facilitate direct communications between your Government and others. It is also there to report on activities and in some cases express opinions of your government on that nation.

    The above list shows that by itself it is nothing other than the eyes, ears and limited mouth of your own governments. From that I would consider your argument to be an unfair slap in the face of hard working employees whom are often sent to difficult places to work to often heavy demands set upon by those back in the US.

    If there is any criticism that can be given it is how political some appointments are within the State Department such as Ambassadors. What you get are politically motivated individuals who do not shed their partisanship once appointed. The best examples are John Bolton and John Huntsman. Bolton (Ambassador to the UN)continued his political far-right bais in his job and was most certainly instrumental in damaging the US whilst Huntsman did a very good job and was bipartisan and a good civil servant and Ambassador.

    In other words, blame the Administrations and the political appointments, not the career diplomats whom are often simply cleaning up the mess.

    ..... continued

    ReplyDelete
  12. ..... continued

    On the second point and your example of Egypt, you have already assumed a situation that in itself is out of context. Apart from the blatantly wild generic "the Muslims" reference, you have assumed also incorrectly that the funding will either contribute to and also halt violence by "radical Islamists" (not simply generic Muslims) against Copts and others. The reality is such violence will continue until Egypt has a stable government willing to stop it not because America will not fund it. it also implies that the money goes to the radical Islamists which it most certainly would not. The other point, that is generally accepted by all whom know a little about Egypt, is that if America simply stopped giving aid or investment to Egypt that Egypt will simply go elsewhere and thus any influence the US has will just dry-up to less than negligable.

    A last comment, because it appears like AOW your knowledge of the MENA (Middle-East and North Africa) is rather poor, the life of non-Muslims in Egypt is not as bad as the internet and bloggosphere likes to point it out. Copts in certain districts suffer horribly, that is most certainly the case, but in general Copts are just living their life in normality and in some cases better off than the average Muslim. They have a higher rate of civil service jobs, leadership roles and in Alexandria a much higher wage bracket. That reflects, if anything, their hard-earned efforts but is also reflects their acceptance by the majority of Muslims. The increasing power of Islamists also does not necessarily mean that things will get better or worse. The problem is that whilst there is instability in the country, the radical side of Islamists get a chance to push their agenda.

    I suggest you look into the differences that exist in the Islamic world and in particular within the MENA region. You will find with a bit of study that there is a difference between say what is a Salafi and Wahhabi compared to others. Also what is actually sanctioned by governments or the main universities in comparison to private organisations and political groups. When you understand that then you get the correct picture and the reality on the ground. A hint, the bloggosphere almost never is able to give that picture.

    Regards

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mr. Charles

    I will be happy to debate American foreign policy with you if you are an American. If you are not, then the formulation and implementation of American foreign policy is really none of your concern. Whether State Department employees are knowledgeable and hard working people, stifled by political appointees, or rather are lethargic, disinterested, and poorly led … what matters most are the results of American foreign policy. When the result jeopardizes American institutions, then we can say diplomats have not earned our trust and confidence. In my opinion, American diplomats have no business dispensing tax money extorted from the American people to Islamic organizations that profess adherence to un-American, indeed anti-American policies —and this would include the Moslem Brotherhood and anyone associated with Salafism.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sam,

    No I am not American I am British.

    I have to say I am disturbed by your comment "I will be happy to debate American foreign policy with you if you are an American. If you are not, then the formulation and implementation of American foreign policy is really none of your concern."

    The fact that it is "Foreign Policy" immediately makes it my concern as I am "Foreign". Secondly, US Foreign Policy is a major subject to most of the planet for multiple reasons.

    If you personally do not want to discuss your country's "foreign" policy to anyone other than another American then just say so and leave then the judgement of why or your inabilities to the rest of us.

    We could also follow that logic and discuss why you should not be making any comments about other countries and especially their own external affairs and policies as well but I suspect that you do so.

    I have no problem if you wish to discuss British FCO work and our policies and we can add that of Spain as I am a dual-national of both countries.

    A last comment, it would be good if you actually provided some references to your comments such as the one "American diplomats have no business dispensing tax money extorted from the American people to Islamic organizations that profess adherence to un-American, indeed anti-American policies ".

    Which diplomats to which organisations? What money was "extorted from which American people?".

    As I advised, I suggest a bit of study regarding Egyptian and basic MENA history and politics. I assume your talking about the political arm of the Egyptian MB party. The MB is in fact a pan-Arab social movement that follows Islamist views.

    Salafis do not, in general, join the MB as they consider the MB to be not "Islamist" enough.

    The Egyptian MB in general is divided into three large sub-groups with differing levels of conservatism and radicalism. The smaller radical group has been pushed out and is no longer part of the processes, the more conservative group has some influence but the less conservative element is leading the political movement that you now see trying to gain power in the country. That they sided with the salafi is certainly disturbing.

    As for US giving money to the MB, I would like to see evidence of that, you might wish to put some links in your postings, I noticed that you have yet to do that. Be sure that the US government has provided ZERO money to Salafis though I could see that some links with the less conservative MB members of the new political wing may have occured as they will be part of the future government there is some form.

    I have strong contacts with lawyers in Egypt (both Muslim and Christian) and they keep me up to date. If you are unaware, I have a degree in Islamic Studies and can read/write Arabic.

    Final comment, your mixing policies from the Administration and then blaming the diplomats is akin to shooting the messenger. As my sister is married to a US diplomat and my knowing a good dozen or so, I suggest you actually talk to some diplomats before laying such a wide-sweeping condemnation.

    Cheers

    Damien Charles
    Gibraltar

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mr. Charles,

    Actually, I don't mind if you are disturbed. Formulation of American foreign policy is, and ought to remain a matter for Americans to debate. What should be your concern is the effect of American foreign policy, which in my view is consistently dismal. I do understand why you would want the millions of dollars from the pockets of American taxpayers to continue.

    Let me encourage you to have good feelings about the fact that your sister is married to a diplomat, although I’m not quite sure I understand how that makes you an expert in matters relating to international relations, law, or American foreign policy.

    You will notice that I haven’t challenged your bona fides. Good manners would suggest that you extend the same courtesy to me and the lady who owns this blog. While you may be impressed with your degree in Islamic studies, I am not. Finally, let me opine that birth is the least impressive claim to citizenship and persons with dual citizenship are the least dependable during a national crisis.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Why don't we just stop aiding any and all Muslim nations. They clearly despise us and so why should we fork out our money to help them? Especially, when they support hurting, torturing and murdering innocent people.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @D Charles

    Simple reason why debating American politics with a non-American does not work: different values. Englishmen have different values, goal and dreams than Americans. Now I will not say if one if superior to the other, that is a case of 'to each his own,' IMO. But because of this matural rift, debate cannot take place. You, as an Englishmen, would value different things and have different ideas on what America should do then an American, and the same would be if I wanted to debate British policy. Since we share different values, we would think some things more or less important, and come to different conclusions. Englishmen might laugh of or ridicule things America hold dear (such as our guns, having gotten into that argument today in fact with an Englishwoman), while an America may scoff at certain British practices. Debate can hardly take place if one party disregards the others opinions and values.

    And one other thing: Your a Englishmen, and I would assume your loyality is to English and your wish is to see it prosper. America? Not so much. Sure, our being weak would help any other foriegn country, as their's would be comparativly stronger, which any man would want. BUT as an American, I perfer America being strong, and could care less if we look like a bully (I have yet to see that accussiation, but I do mean any comment about America being too strong or stubborn). So while discussion can take place, our interests our clearly divided and biased by our nationalities. And EVERYONE has a bias so don't say you don't in some degree.

    -Wildstar

    ReplyDelete
  18. A Pict Song

    Rome never looks where she treads.
    Always her heavy hooves fall,
    On our stomachs, our hearts or our heads;
    And Rome never heeds when we bawl.
    Her sentries pass on — that is all,
    And we gather behind them in hordes,
    And plot to reconquer the Wall,
    With only our tongues for our swords.

    We are the Little Folk — we!
    Too little to love or to hate.
    Leave us alone and you’ll see
    How we can drag down the State!
    We are the worm in the wood!
    We are the rot at the root!
    We are the taint in the blood!
    We are the thorn in the foot!


    Mistletoe killing an oak —
    Rats gnawing cables in two —
    Moths making holes in a cloak —
    How they must love what they do!
    Yes — and we Little Folk too,
    We are busy as they —
    Working our works out of view —
    Watch, and you’ll see it some day!

    No indeed! We are not strong,
    But we know Peoples that are.
    Yes, and we’ll guide them along,
    To smash and destroy you in War!
    We shall be slaves just the same?
    Yes, we have always been slaves,
    But you — you will die of the shame,
    And then we shall dance on your graves!

    We are the Little Folk — we!
    Too little to love or to hate.
    Leave us alone and you’ll see
    How we can drag down the State!
    We are the worm in the wood!
    We are the rot at the root!
    We are the taint in the blood!
    We are the thorn in the foot!


    ~ Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

    Submitted by FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  19. You might want to ask yourself why I posted that particular piece of Kipling's on this thread?

    I'd be interested to see what answers you might come up with. Idle speculation is always welcome along with closely reasoned attempts to find an explanation.

    Who are "The Little Folk," and what do they symbolize?

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  20. By they way, Mr. Charles, you often engage in high-toned accusatory rhetoric, and make frequent demands for links and references to "prove" or at least "support" assertions made -- particularly about your beloved Middle East. I have noticed, however, a notable lack of the same in your extended orotund remarks. You seem to expect us to accept your word as authoritative with no further proof needed.

    I do quite a lot of that, myself, of course. I think it should be all right in these informal settings where everything is taken with a grain of salt anyway, but then I do make a practice of chastising and catechizing those who respond to me.

    I mention this only because I think most reasonable men dislike the application of multiple standards.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ms. Wildstar,

    Since Mr. Charles did not trouble to correct you, I will take the liberty and tell you that Mr. Charles, is not truly English. He is a Gibraltarian -- a native of The Rock, if you will. He may be a British SUBJECT, but that does not make him an Englishman.

    He has in fact confessed to me on these pages that he is more conversant in Spanish than in English, even though he has said he was educated at Harrow -- the same school where Winston Churchill went as a young lad.

    As an American I agree with you about wanting our country to preserve and expand her hegemony, but at the same time I think the suggestion that we Americans ought to be more aware of -- and take greater interest in -- the way we are perceived abroad than we generally do is a point worth considering in some depth.

    Since our government does not truly represent us, the American public, -- and has not for some time -- I think it would be both naive and foolish for us to assume that our State Department and our triune government in Washington, DC has our best interests at heart, and can, therefore, be trusted to do the right thing simply because it is "our" government.

    Mr. Jefferson warned us to be jealous, suspicious and a mite resentful of government power at all times.

    Unlike most in power today Mr. Jefferson was a very smart man.

    Best regards to you, Ms. Wildstar! Keep thinking.

    FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ms. Wildstar,

    Here's the quotation from Mr. Jefferson I referred to above:

    "It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism -- free government is founded on jealousy, and not in confidence which prescribes limited constitutions . . . In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

    As I said, he was a very smart man. How I wish he were here today!

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  23. "...why has Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton granted human rights waivers to Egypt, while denying them to Libya?"

    Here's one theory, Egypt shares a border with Israel, Libya doesn't, and we all know how fond obama is of Israel don't we. Hence his ass-kissing of the extremist muslims in Egypt.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Wildstar,
    Thank you for making time to stop by and to comment.

    You are absolutely correct to cite that different nationalities have different values and different values. Such has been the case since the rise of nation states.

    About that Englishwoman you mentioned....It is interesting that she takes such a position on guns. Her husband is retired military and, for a time, one of her sons was in the military reserves (or some such). Perhaps opposites really do attract?

    ReplyDelete
  25. FT,
    After recently reading A Tale of Two Cities, I have an interpretation of "The Little Folk." I have no idea whether my interpretation is correct, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Will Egypt after "The Arab Spring" now codify sex after death as a privilege for Muslim husbands?

    Ugh.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I'd be very interested to learn what you think about "The Little Folk" anytime, AOW.

    Also what does he mean by "Rome?"

    And why did he call it a PICT song?

    It could be making of a great class discussion.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  28. FT,
    My curiosity about the poem was stimulated enough for me to look up the Picts, a term that I must have heard somewhere along the way.

    So, I'll say that "Rome" represents oppression or oppressors and that "the little folk" refers to those who resist oppression and refuse to conform. Because they refuse to conform, they are the thorn in the foot.

    "The little folk" cannot win against the mighty ones in a traditional sense. But in the end, "the little folk" have a victory: But you — you will die of the shame,
    And then we shall dance on your graves!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Most Americans may have by now forgotten the "diplomatic incompetence" that caused the first gulf war, when Saddam was informed by the US Ambassador that the US had no interest in Kuwait. We cannot celebrate the fact that Americans and Iraqis died needlessly because of this failure. And it is also interesting that saving Kuwait, while costing the precious lives of US warriors, only cost the Kuwaitis a new library for President George H. W. Bush ...

    Damn rotters.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Mustang,
    Americans' memories are short. Furthermore, Americans may never have even know the fact that you are pointing out. **sigh**

    ReplyDelete
  31. Dear Sam,

    if you consider that talking about one's own "foreign policy" is the domain only of your own nation then I suggest, with respect, that you no longer discuss the policies of other nations - which obviously is not your domain.

    that alone is why I consider your argument that as a non-American I have no right to discuss your foreign policy.

    logic is rather simple.

    in addition, I have watched and participated in discussions on this blog long enough (and with many other blogs to make comparisons) and frankly I find the lack of knowledge and reality on the ground regarding life in Muslim countries to be pathetic.

    Though I most certainly support some views expressed such as the abuse by Islamists based in your country, the fact remains that the owner of this blog and many contributors here base their responses in wide-sweeping baseless accussations and assumptions. They also base their arguments on either guess-work or some vile context-less situation.

    That I apparently make occassional efforts to point that out only results in stubborn AI/IA (arrogant ignorance or ignorant arrogance).

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  32. Wildstar,

    as someone else pointed out I am not English and not only Gibraltarian but also Spanish.

    Your argument that discussing the foreign policies of one's country with outsiders is futile because they come from and have different views and perspectives is interesting but ultimately does not work. Why is that?

    The reason is that by the vary nature the subject is foreign policy means that it affects other nations and thus when it affects another nation it is therefore most certainly of interest to that nation.

    Additionally, as I have pointed out to Sam above, assuming you take your idea seriously, you obviously do not comment on the foreign policies of other nations - or do you?

    The reality is that discussing policies, actions and views of all our governments is open domain. In the course of that discussion it becomes obvious that those from without will have a differing perspective and that is normal. We will share views and we will disagree, that is normal and not only from being "an outsider" but because of say political views, experiences and from what we have been exposed to.

    A last comment. Though I have dual nationality I do consider myself British and yes my loyalities are to Great Britain first. I cannot see though the logic that by being from another country that one does not wish another to prosper, that is a very negative view and frankly not logical in most cases.

    Prosperity in economic terms is now a global issue or at least regional. It would be wrong to assume that denying the US prosperity would be to the benefit of anyone else. The reality as the largest economy in the world, a failing US would simply affect everyone else. Believing that by politically influencing and dominating the rest of world equates to prosperity is debatable and if the US previously, currently or in the future will influence world peace of make a greater divide is just that - debate.

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  33. FT,

    I no longer frequent this blog that much because it is to a degree just another blog that in many issues does not reflect the reality on the ground and thus no longer has value.

    That I talk in a haughty accusatory tone is actually on purpose and I fully admit to it. It has a lot to do with a lesson I learnt from Harrow some four decades ago - dishing out to the level of the content discussed - or in other words and maybe in a language you may understand better - since the discussion is cr*p then treat it as such.

    Though my language may be debated, I have never ever demanded that people accept my views as anything other than just that. That was my other goal in using that form of language - simply because those who have no certainty or true conviction in their argument find it hard and thus I bring it out. Those that actually provided real facts in context and stood by their arguments never suffered my "language" and often I supported that argument.

    My point for being here was simply to argue that arguments should be based on facts and the reality on the ground. Unfortunately this blog just pushes populist rumours, wide-sweeping generalisations and forgets something called "context".

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  34. FT,

    I no longer frequent this blog that much because it is to a degree just another blog that in many issues does not reflect the reality on the ground and thus no longer has value.

    That I talk in a haughty accusatory tone is actually on purpose and I fully admit to it. It has a lot to do with a lesson I learnt from Harrow some four decades ago - dishing out to the level of the content discussed - or in other words and maybe in a language you may understand better - since the discussion is cr*p then treat it as such.

    Though my language may be debated, I have never ever demanded that people accept my views as anything other than just that. That was my other goal in using that form of language - simply because those who have no certainty or true conviction in their argument find it hard and thus I bring it out. Those that actually provided real facts in context and stood by their arguments never suffered my "language" and often I supported that argument.

    My point for being here was simply to argue that arguments should be based on facts and the reality on the ground. Unfortunately this blog just pushes populist rumours, wide-sweeping generalisations and forgets something called "context".

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  35. “Several small bombs, believed to have been fashioned from fizzy drinks cans, were thrown into a lecture hall that was being used for a Sunday morning service in Kano, a city that has been repeatedly attacked by Muslim radicals.
    “The explosions killed one person and injured many others. But as the crowd fled the lecture hall, gunmen waiting outside opened fire with automatic rifles.
    “Several dozen people who had been unable to enter the building, at Kano's Bayero University, who were listening to the service outdoors were also targeted.
    Source

    Ergo, when Mr. Charles wrote about, “…wide-sweeping baseless accussations and assumptions … base their arguments on either guess-work or some vile context-less situation…” he was demonstrating that he is a despicable liar.

    Mr. Charles, you should never, ever lecture anyone about ignorance or arrogance. You are an insufferable ass, and I say this with all due contempt. I regret that I have no contact within the Home Office, otherwise I should recommend that they revoke your citizenship.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective