He obviously lacks any understanding of the subtleties of diplomatic language. He parroted a bunch of Chinese catchphrases about cooperation and mutual respect, etc. China has declared a big diplomatic victory. By saying so, Goofball, leastwise in China’s eyes, has given China a green light in the South China Sea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, among other areas of conflict.
What a moron. No wonder he avoids answering the press’s questions.
Not directly, but it (potentially) undoes several decades of diplomatic status quo regarding China and the self governance of Tibet, Hong Kong and Taiwan. For example, since 1999, the US State Dept has listed China on their list of Countries of Particular Concern for egregious violations of religious freedom. One presumes that Tillerson’s statement of ‘mutual respect’ means that ongoing problems like Falun Gong organ harvesting will now no longer be of any concern to the US State Dept.
Well, with one seven-word post Fleetwood has convinced me that, contrary to my personal observations and experiences of the last eight years, Obama was a truly terrible President and has irreparably harmed the lives of everyone I know.
Has there ever been a politician, in any branch of government, in any party, in any country, in any era, who didn’t have at least a small portion of his or her brain made out of fecal matter?
[QUOTE=The Devil’s Dictionary]
POLITICIAN, n. An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared. When he wriggles he mistakes the agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice. As compared with the statesman, he suffers the disadvantage of being alive.
[/QUOTE]
Nope. We don’t have an operationaly policy of regime change in Syria, so he’s absolutely correct. Do you actually want the US to go in and overthrow Assad? That would be a “goofball” position to take. The former administration was fond of saying “Assad must go”, but that was empty rhetoric and everyone knew it. The idea that the US “grants permission” for dictators to do awful things to their civilians is naive at best. The world does not revolve around us, and not everything that happens in the world is because of something we did (or did not) do.
That’s what’s frightening. A lot of people seemed to abandon him to vote Trump, and God has a history of punishing nations that pretend to be following him but aren’t.
I’m not prepared to be as scornful in that department; I feel as though my party failed its own people. We had chance after chance to select a Rubio, a Kasich, a Bush – perhaps unpalatable to you, but hopefully you’d agree each of them are well within political norms. We didn’t provide what they were looking for; they didn’t trust. And of course, Mrs. Clinton had her own issues of trust on the other side of the aisle. I feel as though many people must have voted for Trump out of desperation, not approbation.
To be honest, my sense of political norms likely varies significantly from yours. I might say Rubio, Kasich and Bush are within the typical range for leaders of the United States, but that’s not a statement of praise for them or the country.
It strikes me as being so irrationally fearful of being murdered that one elects to commit suicide first, though there’s also the element of the hatred many Americans feel for other Americans - wanting them to suffer, enjoying their suffering, indeed cheering their suffering, even while assuming the suffering is far greater than it actually is.
I’m always happy to get on board mocking or condemning anything that bubbles to the surface of Swamp Trumpy, but based only on the two articles, I can’t condemn Tillerson just yet.
These are both very complicated and muddy issues.
I do think that even just verbal condemnation of a despot is important for the message it sends to your own people and to your allies and enemies around the world. Yes, trying to keep your own country out of a needless war is important, but you can avoid getting embroiled in a war while still affirming your values on the global scene by condemning the actions of a brutal despot like Assad. Words don’t mean as much as actions, but they don’t lack all significance. Tillerson’s words, while *NOT actually giving approval of Assad, do sound very stand-offish and should be viewed with some suspicion.
*(Sorry BigAppleBucky. I don’t agree with your interpretation, based on the article you linked to.)
Reading the article, it’s hard to say whether Tillerson used the term “mutual respect” without knowing it’s rhetorical significance to the Chinese government (which would be an unfortunate, but forgivable faux pas) or whether he used it knowingly to gain ground with them (perhaps to placate them in the face of his boss’ repeated insults to China, or perhaps to get their cooperation in dealing with North Korea).
It is troubling to think that Tillerson may be willing to indicate even tacit approval of China’s policies and practices in Asia and its human rights violations, but at the same time, if the US can get China to reign in North Korea, that’s a good thing.
In any case, I think any diplomat under the current administration has a tough job.
