XPost: uk.politics.misc 
 From: hex@unseen.ac.am 
  
 On 14/07/2019 12:07, Pamela wrote: 
 > 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. 
  
 There are lots of undesirable elements to this story.  The truth, 
 however, is that, as a guest of the USA who had lost credibility with 
 the President, his position was untenable. 
  
 > Diplomacy is the art of working through such difficulties. 
  
 With diplomacy, not with fists, which is what you're advocating. 
  
 > North Korea's Kim did it with Trump, so why didn't the UK even try? 
  
 It's not a thing to fight over. 
  
 > It's over 
 > simplistic to say Darroch would have had to go anyway.  Maybe. Maybe not. 
 > Most definitely not within hours. 
  
 You think we should have stamped our little feet and shouted, do you? 
  
 > Boris shamefully refused SIX times (and counting) to back Darroch, at a 
 > time when every other senior member of government gave him unequivocal 
 > backing. 
  
 Every *other* senior member of government?  Boris isn't even in the 
 government, let alone a senior member of it. 
  
 How has that simple fact eluded you? 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)