Bush's visit to Britain - Page 3

Ned · November 16, 2003, 20:34

Bush has little time for the UN? He seems to have spent more time before the UN arguing the US case than any prior president. The UN has backed the US position in all cases except for the famous "second vote" that would have given Saddam a second ultimatum.

Did you mean to say that the US under Bush does not role over and play dead when the French disagree with the US? That would be an accurate statement.

Tripledoc · November 16, 2003, 20:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman
Woodrow led America to pre-eminence; Bush is leading it into the abyss.

Woodrow Wilson led America out of Isolationism. Maybe Bush will lead it back into Isolationism. Not exactly the Abyss, but it would certainly make the world a more unsafe place if an offended America was simply to crawl under table and hide. However, the game can still be a lot of fun even when you have to follow the rules!

DinoDoc · November 16, 2003, 20:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman
Woodrow didn't launch the First World War,

Of course he didn't. He merely got the Americans involved in the "Great War" using much the same rhetoric that Bush is using now. "Making the world safe for democracy and all that rubish. If anything I'd say that Bush is quite the militant Wilsonian.

Quote:

Woodrow led America to pre-eminence

He was also quite the failiure as a statesman who was roundly ignored both at home and abroad fairly quickly after the war. Truman has a better claim to leading America to pre-eminence anyway.

DanS · November 16, 2003, 21:05

Wilson led the US to pre-eminence?

As DD says, he was almost universally reviled or ignored. Anyway, the neoconservatives are just dressed up Wilsonians. The only difference between the two is that the neoconservatives have been suckling at the *** of superpowerdom for a half century.

Sandman · November 16, 2003, 21:13

Quote:

Bush has little time for the UN? He seems to have spent more time before the UN arguing the US case than any prior president. The UN has backed the US position in all cases except for the famous "second vote" that would have given Saddam a second ultimatum.

Window dressing. Bush only cares about the UN when it can be subverted for his purposes. He doesn't care about international laws or justice.

Quote:

Of course he didn't. He merely got the Americans involved in the "Great War" using much the same rhetoric that Bush is using now. "Making the world safe for democracy and all that rubish. If anything I'd say that Bush is quite the militant Wilsonian.

Wilson wanted a world of laws, an 'association of nations'. Do Bush's actions suggest that he wants this?

Quote:

He was also quite the failiure as a statesman who was roundly ignored both at home and abroad fairly quickly after the war. Truman has a better claim to leading America to pre-eminence anyway.

Fair enough.

Ben Kenobi · November 17, 2003, 00:13

Quote:

Now, you could hardly call the pro-peace faction today a reactionary force.

So all of them must be liberal? I find that hard to believe from my perspective. I know a fair number of conservative, and even, *shudder* reactionary pacifists. Same results, but very different justifications.

Imran Siddiqui · November 17, 2003, 02:47

Quote:

Woodrow Wilson led America out of Isolationism. Maybe Bush will lead it back into Isolationism.

This argument always gets me. How is invading Iraq an isolationist act (from whatever portion of the spectrum you are on)? It is by all accounts exactly OPPOSITE of isolationism. Isolationism was to sit around and not go.

Quote:

Wilson wanted a world of laws, an 'association of nations'. Do Bush's actions suggest that he wants this?

Actually yes. The world that Bush wants may not be what you want, but in the end he definetly wants a world of laws and an association of nations. Before then he wants to democratize the ME, so you get countries that will follow the laws.

Drake Tungsten · November 17, 2003, 03:03

Quote:

If anything I'd say that Bush is quite the militant Wilsonian.

Does anyone else remember that piece a while back that examined the influence of Wilsonian values on Bush's foreign policy? I think it was a piece in Newsweek by Fareed Zakaria, but I can't remember for sure. Little help?

Imran Siddiqui · November 17, 2003, 03:12

Quote:

Does anyone else remember that piece a while back that examined the influence of Wilsonian values on Bush's foreign policy? I think it was a piece in Newsweek by Fareed Zakaria, but I can't remember for sure. Little help?

There was a piece in Time which said so. I believe that I may have linked that when it came out... but there have been a NUMBER of articles comparing ole Woodrow to George W.

Ben Kenobi · November 17, 2003, 03:21

http://hnn.us/articles/1451.html

HershOstropoler · November 17, 2003, 03:24

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How so? They both lauched wars to defend democracy and ended up instaling the UK as a major power in Iraq.

HershOstropoler · November 17, 2003, 03:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[The world that Bush wants may not be what you want, but in the end he definetly wants a world of laws

That the US oligarchy makes, and that are binding on everyone except the US.

Drake Tungsten · November 17, 2003, 03:50

Quote:

There was a piece in Time which said so. I believe that I may have linked that when it came out... but there have been a NUMBER of articles comparing ole Woodrow to George W.

I probably missed them all; I haven't been able to read a proper magazine in months. I really hate being illiterate...

HershOstropoler · November 17, 2003, 03:52

What they have in common is a dangerous mix of missionary zelotism, bigotry and self delusion. Although Bush will reap the consequences earlier.

Drake Tungsten · November 17, 2003, 03:57

They also both had to deal with two-faced and treacherous European leaders. The similarities really are striking...

KrazyHorse · November 17, 2003, 04:09

Blair and Aznar certainly aren't the most honest kids on the block, but calling them two-faced and treacherous is usually reserved for our side, Drake.

Drake Tungsten · November 17, 2003, 04:11

Why should you pseudo-Americans get to have all the fun?

HershOstropoler · November 17, 2003, 05:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
They also both had to deal with two-faced and treacherous European leaders. The similarities really are striking...

If you mean Schröder and Chirac: Those lousy whiners have been way too kind with you.

They warned you of a cluster****, now you have it.

They said go for a faster transition of power, that's what Bush is doing after his latest u-turn. (At least formally; how many puppet strings Bush seeks to keep remains to be seen).

From US national interest view, Chirac and Schröder have served you much better than Blair and Aznar.

Drake Tungsten · November 17, 2003, 06:14

When Lloyd George and Clemenceau stabbed the American president in the back at Versailles, they doomed the world to the horrors of World War II. I wonder what Chirac and Schroeder's betrayal of the American president will bring the world this time around?

MikeH · November 17, 2003, 06:35

Quote:

[SIZE=1]At the end of the day, you lot who hate the US are free to vote for who the heck you like, and the fact that you have not yet voted somebody in who agree's with you, speaks volumes. The next election is your chance, vote for an anti American party, and do your worst .. truth is, Prime Minister blair will still be here .. and any party that supports your view .. consigned to 3rd place.

1. I don't hate the US, I disagree with some of the policies of it's government. That's a massive difference. I find the suggestion that I hate the US to be a hugely offensive distortion. Americans are just people like me, some of them have different opinions to me and that's their right. I've said before that I don't even know what the concept of "being anti-America" means. I don't hate the physical land that it occupies, or the individual citizens or the principle of a powerful democracy... I don't hate anything about it, I just think that sometimes their government does stuff I don't like, just like our government sometimes does stuff I don't like and the French government and the German government and the Nigerian government etc. etc. etc. The main difference is that the US has more effect on us than most countries because it is so influential so what it does gets discussed more. It's to be expected when you are the most powerful country in the world.

2. Our relationship with the US is very important, especially with respect to getting our voice heard on the world stage. That doesn't mean we have to agree with everything they do. They have their interests and we have ours.

3. I voted Lib Dem before but I might vote for my labour MP this time because she's a great MP who's hard working, open and honest and who responds intelligently to my messages to her even when she doesn't agree with me. Also her views are closer to mine on a lot of issues than the party leadership.

4. If labour win, it doesn't mean that there is overwhelming support for Iraq, the ruling party almost never gets over 50% of the vote, and there are other issues. Also the other major party also supported the Iraq war and, sadly, we're still in a 2 party state.

HershOstropoler · November 17, 2003, 06:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
When Lloyd George and Clemenceau stabbed the American president in the back at Versailles, they doomed the world to the horrors of World War II.

Poor little Woodrow. If he hadn't ben such a complete idiot, he would have cared a little about the consequences. Also, the prime voice of moderation was George, not Wilson.

As for betrayal - who has betrayed the order of international law, who has crapped on alliances, to start a criminal war that ****s up the world? Dubya & company. Don't try to install your version of a Dolchstoßlegende - history will be very clear on who was responsible for this.

Tripledoc · November 17, 2003, 07:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Woodrow Wilson led America out of Isolationism. Maybe Bush will lead it back into Isolationism.

This argument always gets me. How is invading Iraq an isolationist act (from whatever portion of the spectrum you are on)? It is by all accounts exactly OPPOSITE of isolationism. Isolationism was to sit around and not go.

You are right that it was not an isolationist move, it was however a unilateral move. The political fallout from this move has so far been disturbing from the view of Washington, and things might turn out worse. That means that in future, when there is a real and clear threat, it might be terribly difficult to convince the American people, the Press, Congress, Allies, and perhaps even the President himself that military action is neccesary. Also if another President wins the next election that might be because he is running on a anti-war, pro-U.N. ticket. But it will perhaps be difficult to convince Congress that non-intervention means an increase in U.N. power. So one will have the lowest common denominator ruling political events. That is a anti-interventionist, anti-U.N. policy, perhaps anti-free trade too. All in all a very anti oriented policy.

problem_child · November 17, 2003, 08:29

Quote:

Originally posted by The Viceroy
I like MOST other brits are happy to see him here

Its a state visit for gods sake .. We are entertaining the head of a foreign government, just because the president of the US happens to be somebody you personally don't agree with, doesn't mean the United States should not come on a State Visit.

If your not happy, go and vote Lib Dem at the next election, and then we'll see who's in the majority ??

Truth is, those opposed to Bush's visit, and the war in general will make a lot of noise .. but the majority will be silent, and happy to greet our allies. Long may the US and UK fight for freedom along side each other, the world is a much safer place when we act together to defend our common values.

What gives you the right to assume your point of veiw represents most peoples point of veiw? One thing that makes me proud to be British is that we arent suseptable to the mass facisms that other populations are into, all this 'Our heroic armies of God fight fight fighting for truth and justice' crap turns more then just my stomarch.

Some of the things you War On Terrorists have been going on about lately makes me think of those Nazi propaganda posters with the brave heroic looking Aryan storm-troopers, marching against the Barbarian hordes supposedly threatening the Homeland.

The Mad Monk · November 17, 2003, 08:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman

Woodrow didn't launch the First World War, and he didn't 'install' Britain as a major power in Iraq. Neither did Bush, Britain has no power in Iraq.

Woodrow set up the League of Nations (too bad America never joined), Bush has little time for the UN.

Woodrow led America to pre-eminence; Bush is leading it into the abyss.

If any single president is to be credited for leading "America to pre-eminence", it's Theodore Roosevelt.

Wilson only had the tools and leverage he did because o TR's work -- and, as it turned out, he couldn't handle them.

The Viceroy · November 17, 2003, 09:11

problem_child .. note the smiley face at the end .. I was being a tad sarcastic, and why do you pick my post out, when I was taking the rip out of the earlier post which stated exactly the same thing ???

Granted you have to read from the top down to note it .. sorry if that confused you.

Actually, I don't know if my view is the most common .. what I do know is, those that opposed the war, Don't know that they are in the majority either ... !!

As for MikeH .. ok fair enough .. I wasn't pointing the finger at you directly as a US hater (and there are plenty around), but accept it read that way .

Ned · November 17, 2003, 09:20

There is a common "understanding" among all our European and Canadian friends here that Iraq is not going well and that Bush should have listened to Chirac and Shroeder. All this shows is that the media distortion of the facts concerning Iraq is pervasive in Europe and Canada. In point of fact, things are going very well in Iraq. MSNBC and Chris Mathews (a Democrat) ran a full week of in depth analysis on Iraq last week. The reports were all but glowing.

Obviously, our European friends will dispute this because it clashes sharply with their own media's spin. But the truth is, Iraq is turning out to be an enormous success.

MikeH · November 17, 2003, 09:40

Quote:

There is a common "understanding" among all our European and Canadian friends here that Iraq is not going well and that Bush should have listened to Chirac and Shroeder.

I don't even think that many of the French would suggest anyone ever listens to Chirac and Schroeder's an arse as well. I still wish that Bush and Blair could have turned the whole thing into a UN mission.

I see that the Iraq situation is improving all the time, true, although there are still huge problems there and I think it's still too early to say it's a great success. How much of that is down to your media's spin?

{tongue in cheek troll}Although it's nice that you admit that it's more likely to be true if it comes from a democrat{/tongue in cheek troll}

The success or not of the invasion is not the issue, it was always going to be an easy war and a hard fought peace. The issue is that our Governments didn't tell us the whole truth about the quality of the information they were giving us to justify the invasion.

MikeH · November 17, 2003, 09:44

In fact, I think there's a strong argument that you could consider what they did 'lying'.

Ned · November 17, 2003, 09:49

MikeH, assuming for the moment that Blair and Bush knew the intelligence was not reliable, what was their reason for going to war?

MikeH · November 17, 2003, 09:59

Good question!

I take your point though. The way the Bush administration changed the way intelligence was filtered up to the top seems dubious and everything that's come out with the Kelly inquiry here certainly asks a lot of questions about the way our government handles intelligence data. From what's come out at the Kelly inquiry it looks like our gov't wanted every piece of information that could possibly support an invasion regardless of the quality of that information. That worries me.

I think that Saddam was a monstrous leader who didn't deserve to be in power and the Iraqi people will be better off in a proper democratic system, I also think there are a lot of other countries in the world that applies to. I also think that both the US and the UK will benefit from a strong friendly government in the middle east because it might help bring stability to what is a very volatile region, very important to the world economy.