[sailaway21]

I'm always more than slightly amused when a lack of leadership is decried. Leadership is funny that way; when it's in your preferrred direction it is bold and insightful, while contary to your desires it resembles nothing other than misguided folly. People crying out for "true" leadership often seem to also be susceptible to the diplomacy bug. Diplomacy is generally what you do when you have no other options. It's really just a nice way of saying that you'll kick the can down the road and, maybe, by the time we get back abreast of it things will have changed.

And we're supposed to consult with and respect Yurrup's opinion. Here's an obvious but simple question, why? For nearly a quarter century the US protected Yurrup via the NATO shield, long after our european betters had abandoned the notion of an effective military force sufficient to the Soviet threat. The US protected Yurrup in spite of Yurrup. Most of the Euro's didn't want the Pershing missile in the 1980's, yet we installed them and the USSR, for that reason and others, relinquished. In fact they basically ran up the white flag. What'd Yurrup do to bring this chain of events about? Bupkis is the word I believe.

So we should get on the same page as the feckless ninnies that we've protected since the end of WWII while they dither and clamour for their opinions to be taken seriously. If you won't save yourself, why would I listen to your opinion on saving anything?

Chances are, if they call you arrogant and insensitive to Yurrup type needs, or they say that you're not a team player-taking into account Yurrup's ideas of diplomacy-you're probably a leader and don't give a rat's patoot about what the Euros think. Think about it; the last war the French won was the French Revolution and they were fighting themselves. (g)

Leadership is probably happening when it seems that everyone is P.O.'d the most.