Reply #60: What do you think he was talking about???

[Violet_Crumble]

Of course he was calling for an attack on Iran. How else do you interpret this?

""Diplomatic" language is one of the last holdovers of the pre-democratic age. It belongs to a time when international relations were conducted exclusively between a handful of eminent representatives of European dynasties. Today it's all out in the open -- President Ahmaddasanatta proposed his not-quite-final solution for Israel on TV. McLellan and Ereli likewise gave their response on TV. So the language of international relations is no longer merely the private code of diplomats but part of the public discourse -- and, if the government of the United States learns anything from the last four years, it surely ought to be that there's a price to be paid for not waging the war as effectively in the psychological arenas as in the military one."

"We assume, as Neville Chamberlain, Lord Halifax and other civilized men did 70 years ago, that these chaps may be a little excitable, but come on, old boy, they can't possibly mean it, can they? Wrong. They mean it but they can't quite do it yet. Like Hitler, when they can do it, they will -- or at the very least the weedy diplo-speak tells them they can force the world into big concessions on the fear that they can."

When diplomacy is exhausted, or not pursued, the next step is military conflict. This isn't opinion - this is hard, cold fact. This man supports military attacks on Iran. There is no way this article can be misread so that it says anything else. And anyone who doesn't respect the role of diplomacy and recognises that sometimes it does fail, and who thinks diplomacy is the arena of appeasement, should seriously have a think that this is the language of the right-wing....

This stuff about 'absense of outrage' and 'mockery', CB. Where is it in this thread? I'm not seeing it...

Violet...