Anyone catch Nightline last night? Great debate about the timing of the war. Seems even old Ted is in the "let's get it on" camp.
I agree. His Cowboy Arrogance is showing too clearly. Especially with continually changing the terms and conditions for avoidance of war. First it was disarm, now its disarm and exhile Saddam. What will it be now that France, Germany and Russia have strapped on their balls?Michael Stumpf said:Whether you are in favor of war, opposed, or undecided, I think you have to agree that the Bush team has handled the foreign policy aspect extremely poorly. Rather than negotiate behind closed doors, gain consensus, and then propose action, Bush has (arrogantly) plowed forward with his plans and expected everyone else to acquiesce. Pretty dumb. He is not his father.
Spot on!Michael Stumpf said:Whether you are in favor of war, opposed, or undecided, I think you have to agree that the Bush team has handled the foreign policy aspect extremely poorly. Rather than negotiate behind closed doors, gain consensus, and then propose action, Bush has (arrogantly) plowed forward with his plans and expected everyone else to acquiesce. Pretty dumb. He is not his father.
I love John Wayne movies, and can seldom pass up one of his westerns. You always knew there would be action. People would'nt talk about their differences and try to find a compromise, they would fight. If the problem was big enough, it would be a gunfight. When I think about the way Bush handles himself, I think of the old westerns and of their image of cowboys. Cowboy diplomacy. I wonder if "The Man Who Shot Libery Valance" isn't perhaps in some ways a good metaphor for what is going on now.gkmo62u said:Stop with the gratutitous "Cowboy" references.
gk - dont get me wrong, I support the POTUS and support the war effort (although I'm still wrestling with this at some level).gkmo62u said:I tend not to think so and that all this hatred for the President arises because you (all-not individual specific) couldn't get enough votes in Florida and you have had no outlet for dealing with your defeat.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying Clinton handled this right. I would not say that Clinton handled anything right. We should have held Saddam's feet to the fire back then, but we failed due to poor leadership from the president. As a result, we are now faced with a different situation in 2002-3 than we were in 1992-3.gkmo62u said:17 UN Resolutions. 12 years. If a Cowboy was this slow to draw, he'd be up on boot hill.
Big Stick diplomacy has a place, but it still must be done tactfully. Unfortunately, we are being made to look like we are the bullies who will not be contented with anything short of war. Our good friends in France and Germany have helped quite a bit to paint that picture, but it is still ultimately a failure of the US foreign policy team.gkmo62u said:Michael:
I guess it is old fashioned Big Stick dimplomacy. It may be unsettling to some, yet peace at all costs is equally bad diplomacy, in my opinion....
...I think the one other item that I may be out there on is that I am less concerned with how the French people, or more particularly the Arab peoples see us.
I am leaning towards a fairly isolationist stance at this point.
Those arms manufacturers are owned by your fellow Americans. I have stock in Northrup Gruman. Do you think I'd rather make an extra $1000 in the market knowing 1000 American soldiers will die and as many as 100 times more Iraqis may die? No way.BKM said:Its just part of the same ol' "realpolitic" that ends up profiting nobody but large arms manufacturers.
What happened to the United States' nation-building capabilities? With our help, Germany and Japan were both turned into model republics after those nations lost Word War II. It's too soon to tell what will happen in Afghanistan, and pundits on the left claim that nation-building efforts in Iraq would just fail. Why?BKM said:Not only will "democracy" not be spread in the mideast, but it will be, over time, threatened right here.
Michael, we clearly will have to disagree on this one. Defeat? Embarrassment? If we lose the vote on Resolution #18 a thousand times, I would concede neither defeat nor feel the sting of embarrassment. It will be a soulless, debasing victory for those that oppose us and that threatens the security of everyone, and we can't be embarrassed by nations that are proving themselves ethical midgets with respect to their own foreign policy.Michael Stumpf said:We will have to disagree on whether the Bush team has played the foriegn policy game well. To me, it just seems that we have set ourselves up for several embarrassing defeats and have not clearly stated either our goals or reasons.
My point exactly. We should have simply eliminated him. Either send in the Special Forces or Mike DeVouno and some Philly boys to off him. Instead, we have created this huge international mess where we come off looking pretty bad.El Guapo said:
Who do we want to kill him?
Crowd: American Special Forces!
I once helped to organize a counter-demonstration when the John Lennon Society marched on the College of Business and ROTC (military-industrial complex) on my campus. Fun!
I have never proteseted before. That feels liberating. Anyone want to hold a sit in at my local PBS station with me?
Ah, yes, that again. The "rush." The 12 year, 17 UN resolution, Congressionally approved rush to war.Greenescapist said:Gee, W's saber-rattling has really affected a bunch of you here. I am still against rushing into military action.
France's duplicity goes a little beyond prickliness, in my mind. You may not think much of Italy, Poland, Hungary, Albania, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, Qatar, Kuwait, Pakistan, Australia - I'm getting tired of typing - but I sure value their support. And really, I'm pretty sure their military contributions to this thing will make a bigger difference than if France and Germany threw everything they had our way.Yes, it's true that France is prickly with everything the US wants to do-- they just want to be different, but look at our allies with this thing.... the UK, Spain and Bulgaria.That's not exactly a broad coalition- two fallen imperial powers and a poor, developing country.
Again, I've decided that for me, twelve years is enough time.Why shouldn't we give diplomacy some more time?
Potential American lives lost is always a throat-lumper and heart-stopper, unless a person is just cold beyond belief. But I think America will only lose its moral high-ground if it leaves the Iraqi people hanging. The beauty of it is - their liberation intersects with our security and long-term regional peace and stability! And when by "Dad's mistake" you really mean, well, the continuation of a brutal dictatorship, then the quest to right it seems pretty darn worth it, to me.Aren't the risks of American lives lost and American moral high-ground too great to gamble on W's quest to right his Dad's mistake?
WTH? The peaceniks want it both ways. In 1991 George the first was a real SOB in the peacnick circles for keeping the killing going on the highway of death and going after the Republican Guard. He surely wasn't allowed to go to the Capitol and kill Saddam. George the first followed the will of the coalition in not making a regime change by taking Baghdad.El Feo said:And when by "Dad's mistake" you really mean, well, the continuation of a brutal dictatorship, then the quest to right it seems pretty darn worth it, to me.
Dude, did you misunderstand me? I don't think it's ultimately GHWB's mistake at all. I read about "Dad's mistake" all the time, and was only trying to point out the fallacy of calling it that, and what it is that's really at stakeEl Guapo said:WTH? The peaceniks want it both ways. In 1991 George the first was a real SOB in the peacnick circles for keeping the killing going on the highway of death and going after the Republican Guard. He surely wasn't allowed to go to the Capitol and kill Saddam. George the first followed the will of the coalition in not making a regime change by taking Baghdad.
[ot]Just to clarify, while many of you may have assumed that El Guapo is my handsome twin brother, alas we are not related by blood - though if politics is genetic, we may have been separated at birth unbeknownst to me.Greenescapist said:I know I hit a nerve with Guapo and Feo (is there an El Malo somewhere, too?).