XPost: uk.politics.misc 
 From: pamela.uklegal@gmail.com 
  
 On 21:32  13 Jul 2019, Norman Wells  wrote: 
  
 > On 13/07/2019 20:36, Keema's Nan wrote: 
 >> On 13 Jul 2019, Norman Wells wrote (in article 
 >> ): 
 >> 
 >>> On 13/07/2019 11:07, Keema's Nan wrote: 
 >>>> On 13 Jul 2019, Pamela wrote (in article 
 >>>> ): 
 >>>> 
 >>>>> On 08:40 13 Jul 2019, Ian Jackson 
 >>>>> wrote: 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>>> In message<0001HW.22D9288F002BB4A67000018152EF@news.giganews.com>, 
 >>>>>> Keema's Nan   writes 
 >>>>>>> On 12 Jul 2019, Ian Jackson wrote (in article 
 >>>>>>> <+b$nYvBG9OKdFwZ1@brattleho.plus.com>): 
 >>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>> In message, Pamela 
 >>>>>>>>   writes 
 >>>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>>> Nor should our ambassador be allowed to resign almost 
 >>>>>>>>> immediately because that causes considerable damage to Britain's 
 >>>>>>>>> image. 
 >>>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>> No. 
 >>>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>> "You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em 
 >>>>>>>> Know when to walk away and know when to run" 
 >>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>> Do you really think Trump would make any kind of decent poker 
 >>>>>>> player? If he had a bad hand he would throw a hissy fit, and if 
 >>>>>>> anyone beat him, he would stick them on death row for crimes 
 >>>>>>> against the president. 
 >>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>> Which all goes to prove we should have called his bluff. 
 >>> 
 >>>>>> No. It's unlikely that Trump will ever say "Let's kiss and make 
 >>>>>> up." When his private communications to the UK government were made 
 >>>>>> public, Darroch's position became untenable, and his job 
 >>>>>> impossible. 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> Trump respects those who stand up to him. 
 >>> 
 >>> Some fights are pointless fighting. This is one. 
 >> 
 >> You can€t prove it, because no one was man enough to stand their ground 
 >> and stare the nut-job Trump down. 
 >> 
 >> And anyway, it wasn€t a fight at all. 
 > 
 > You would have made it one, though, totally unnecessarily. 
 > 
 >> It was a deliberate contravention of the OSA. 
 > 
 > The what? 
 > 
 >> The UK buckled at the first hurdle, which is what Tories do. 
 > 
 > The UK has done nothing.  It can't force Darroch to unresign.  It can't 
 > force the USA to deal with him. 
 > 
 > It's clear you don't understand the first thing about diplomacy. 
  
 It's patently clear you don't understand diplomacy at all.  The idea that 
 an ambassador should resign within 72 hours of a tetchy president's tweets 
 regarding some home truths told in secret, is utterly outrageous. 
  
 Diplomacy is the art of working through such difficulties.  North Korea's 
 Kim did it with Trump, so why didn't the UK even try?  It's over 
 simplistic to say Darroch would have had to go anyway.  Maybe. Maybe not. 
 Most definitely not within hours. 
  
 Boris shamefully refused SIX times (and counting) to back Darroch, at a 
 time when every other senior member of government gave him unequivocal 
 backing. I posted this in another thread: 
  
    There had never been an event in Britain's history where any 
    government, friend or foe, had gone this far as to get a senior 
    diplomat removed from post € never. 
  
    Two world wars, Russia, Argentina and various other enemies of the 
    state through the ages, made up or otherwise, have not once achieved 
    such an event. 
  
    The government, about to be led by Boris Johnson has lost the 
    confidence of the Foreign Office and its boss has just put out a full 
    warning to Johnson.  Never in Britain€s history has this happened € 
    ever. 
  
 https://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/darroch-affair-brexit- 
 britain-losing-control 
  
 OR  https://tinyurl.com/british-humiliation 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)