Time for democrats to admit they underestimated President Bush - Page 5

Sava · November 21, 2002, 17:20

It's called being facetious... but I don't blame you for not being able to pick that up.

Ned · November 21, 2002, 17:28

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Ned, according to King Hussein of Jordan, it was not Saudi Arabia who called in th Americans, but the US who told Saudi Arabia that 'we are coming, so you better ask us.'

Che, We can only ask Bush and the Saudi's. However, one can find reports and histories on the Web that state that the Saudi's gave Bush a call. Perhaps he called back after consulting with Powell and Chaney and said we are coming to help you.

Jaguar · November 21, 2002, 20:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
It's called being facetious... but I don't blame you for not being able to pick that up.

you should have used a smiley.

Imran Siddiqui · November 22, 2002, 00:40

Quote:

The other countries are important only in that they may provide some money and that their 'support' helps to calm the sheep who feel we have to have a group-hug before we take action against an enemy.

I'm sure glad you don't run foreign policy.

The ally structure the US has built up is essential to it's position of dominence. Without it, the US has problems in the future.

Quote:

Thats true, of course, but the UK-US alliance/friendship has lasted for more than 50 years. I cant think of any other two modern countries with such a relationship.

*cough* US/Canada, US/Australia, US/(West) Germany, etc, etc.

Quote:

But again, I don't consider you to be a credible source on anything.

Likewise. And more people consider you of less credibility than anyone else on this forum (and yes I'm including Fez).

Ming · November 22, 2002, 00:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And more people consider you of less credibility than anyone else on this forum (and yes I'm including Fez).

Oh please... let's discuss the issues, and not toss insults at other members.

Imran Siddiqui · November 22, 2002, 00:46

Sorry, but the target just asks for it.

Ming · November 22, 2002, 00:48

Attack the arguments... not the person... That's all.

DanS · November 22, 2002, 02:17

Re our foreign power, it is pretty weak, if our goal is hegemony. It's sufficient to do most good things, though.

Re our foreign policy, it makes sense to say that you will act a certain way, even though we know that we can't do it very often. It was quite useful for us to say that we would go it alone in this situation, if needed. Every time we said this, people could measure how much importance we placed on it.

Re Bush's approach on all of this... It sounds like he's getting most things right, approximately. Definitely misunderestimated by most.

SpencerH · November 22, 2002, 10:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I'm sure glad you don't run foreign policy.

Shall we can infer that you fear that America cant act independently from other countries? Should we ask permission before we protect our interests? Please Mr. Annon may we go and kill Al Queda?

Quote:

The ally structure the US has built up is essential to it's position of dominence. Without it, the US has problems in the future.

Its easier to take action with help, but its not imperative in any way.

Quote:

Originally posted by SpencerH
Thats true, of course, but the UK-US alliance/friendship has lasted for more than 50 years. I cant think of any other two modern countries with such a relationship.

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
*cough* US/Canada, US/Australia, US/(West) Germany, etc, etc.

Cough all you want. Neither Canada nor Australia has the same relationship with the US as the UK does. Germany doesnt even come close. Aside from NATO, our relationship with Germany is on par with our relationship with France.

It may be argued that Canada and Israel are Allies of the US but I would point out two things: the growing anti-US sentiment in Canada over the tariffs and other issues, and that our close support of Israel has really only been in place since Carter-Reagan. Since that time there have been several publicized accounts of Mossad activities in the US that IMO are not the actions of an ally.
[/QUOTE]

Imran Siddiqui · November 22, 2002, 10:36

Quote:

Shall we can infer that you fear that America cant act independently from other countries?

Because of the hegemony built up with the help of allied countries, the United States is able to act independently more often. However, even though the US CAN act independantly, usually the allies have been informed in order to keep the pecking order as it is and prevent dissent in the ranks.

You see what has happened with Bush's actions. The pecking order is being upset. Allies are grumbling. It doesn't hurt us so much now. But what happens when another country begins to challenge US hegemony? My bet is that if we continue on this path, the allies will become better allies of the rising power and lead them to hegemony over us.

Quote:

Cough all you want. Neither Canada nor Australia has the same relationship with the US as the UK does.

BS! Canada is the US's best friend, NOT the UK. Simply because the UK is more valuable doesn't mean they have a more 'special' relationship with the US.

DinoDoc · November 22, 2002, 11:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Simply because the UK is more valuable doesn't mean they have a more 'special' relationship with the US.

This back and forth over who "Dad" likes best is quite amusing.

DanS · November 22, 2002, 11:26

I think the pecking order could use some shaking up.

Ned · November 22, 2002, 12:51

If one thinks back to the post WWI era, Britain acted pretty much as we do today under Bush. It, with its close ally France, set the agenda in world affairs. It and France (with Poland) alone declared war on Germany. However, they had Roosevelt as a silent partner. I do not recall Britain first obtaining Roosevelt's consent for a declaration of war. Clearly, had they asked, Roosevelt would have had to say no. Fully 76% of the American people opposed American involvement in the European war.

The problem of our invovlement then was that the Brits and the French were colonial powers. They were not perceived to be acting for higher principles, such as democracy or human rights.

But, as events unfolded (manipulated by Churchill and Roosevelt) the US did eventually join the British-French alliance. But we did so with the understanding that we were fighting for democracy. We wanted to destroy dictatorships and to break up the Japanese Empire. As a condition of our support for Britain and France, we asked the same of them - that they give up their empires. They agreed to it.

This new, pro democracy alliance is the same alliance that we find today, but with France dropping out to a degree. The British and the US today set the agenda virtually as much as Britain and France did before WWII.

But, there was a time prior to G. W. Bush that we failed to truly lead. Bush's father was dragged into the Gulf War, and ended up leaving Saddam in power and pulling the plug on the Kurds and Shi'tes because of the insistence of the Arab members of the Gulf War coalition. Clinton was dragged into Yugoslavia by the Euro's. In testimony before Congress, Clinton's sec. of state testified that they could do no more than shoot a few cruise missiles at Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan because we had concluded that we could not build a consensus for a ground war.

In my view, the multi-lateral approach of Bush Sr. and Clinton, while popular among the Europeans, is ultimately ineffective. Coalitions can be manupulated by the opponent so that any action will be muted to keep the "weakest" link part of the coalition. The better approach appears to be that taken by Britain prior to WWII and by the present alliance of Bush and Blair - lead. State clear objectives. Ask that others join us, but do not condition action on their consent.

In a recent poll, the American people approve of Bush's Iraq policy by a whopping 68% approve to 18% disapprove. He has also lined up the UN 15-0, and now has obtained the unanimous support of Nato.

Bush must be doing someting right.

Imran Siddiqui · November 22, 2002, 13:10

Btw, what are the Arab numbers for support on invading Iraq?

You do realize a shitload of oil comes from there, no?

Oh, and nice comparison to Britain during the interwar period. You do realize Britain is now trying to kiss our ass. I wonder in the next 100 years who's ass the US will be kissing? Will it be China when they get to be the next hegemon?

SpencerH · November 22, 2002, 18:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Btw, what are the Arab numbers for support on invading Iraq?

You do realize a shitload of oil comes from there, no?

Oh, and nice comparison to Britain during the interwar period. You do realize Britain is now trying to kiss our ass. I wonder in the next 100 years who's ass the US will be kissing? Will it be China when they get to be the next hegemon?

Words fail me in the light of your knowledge of history and political science.

Seneca · November 22, 2002, 18:54

I must admit I never thought he'd blow the budget surplus quite that quickly - well done, Mr Bush!

Imran Siddiqui · November 22, 2002, 21:24

Quote:

Words fail me in the light of your knowledge of history and political science.

Bow down in front of your master

.

Mark my words, invading Iraq unilaterally (or even just with Britain and some minor countries) will bite us in the ass. Not in the short but DEFINETLY in the long run. Hell, it's only a matter of time before nuclear weaponry falls into the hands of an Arab state. I sure wouldn't like to piss them off before that happens.

SpencerH · November 23, 2002, 10:05

It could bite us in the ass anyway. Even if every UN country provided troops for an invasion of Iraq there would be Moslem extremists who would blame the USA and Israel. What worries me more is WMD in the hands of those lunatics now. Is doesnt take a great imagination to predict the possibility of martyrs infected with smallpox instead of carrying a bomb. If that happens in any significant numbers in the USA (and there would be given our inexperience with the disease and its lethality) I predict the end of Iraq as country.

Sava · November 23, 2002, 10:11

Why do people go off-topic and create silly arguments like "Who is the US's best friend?" ?

It takes me back to my childhood days arguing amongst friends. "No, I'm Sava's best friend." "Well, Sava likes me more than you, he plays nintendo at my house"

oh please.... don't use the old smoke and mirrors to distract people from your weak arguments.

Odin · November 23, 2002, 16:19

Che, lets revolt and put a socialist or greenie in the white house.

chequita guevara · November 23, 2002, 16:33

You had me with revolt.

DinoDoc · November 23, 2002, 16:34

che is revolting!

St Leo · November 23, 2002, 17:51

This back and forth over who "Dad" likes best is quite amusing.

Of course, by "dad" you mean the kleptomaniac arsonist kid who ran away from home when asked to get a parttime job to help pay for his university tuition and to stop sneaking into the trans-Appalachian neighbour's pool when they weren't looking.

Zkribbler · November 23, 2002, 19:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I wonder in the next 100 years who's ass the US will be kissing? Will it be China when they get to be the next hegemon?

China, the next hegemon?? Only if they abandon their bankrupt Communist economic policies and fully embrace the free-enterprise system

, and the democratic govenmental system that come with it.

Drake Tungsten · November 23, 2002, 19:28

Quote:

Only if they abandon their bankrupt Communist economic policies and fully embrace the free-enterprise system , and the democratic govenmental system that come with it.

Since when do free-market economics and democratic government go hand-in-hand? China is doing a pretty good job so far of embracing the former while avoiding the latter...

Chris 62 · November 23, 2002, 19:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Mark my words, invading Iraq unilaterally (or even just with Britain and some minor countries) will bite us in the ass.

This is an interesting comment in light of what's being said these days Imran.
The buzz that our diplomats have been leaking is the OFFICAL arab line in anti-invasion, anti-US action, while the PRIVATE line is almost 100% "please kill Hussein, he's a danger to us all".

Quote:

Not in the short but DEFINETLY in the long run.

I disagree, especially if it's a quick invasion, followed by a rapid withdrawl.

Quote:

Hell, it's only a matter of time before nuclear weaponry falls into the hands of an Arab state.

It already has, Pakistan.
Well, not EXACTLY arab, but Muslim.

Quote:

I sure wouldn't like to piss them off before that happens.

I can't disagree more strongly with "Man in the arab street' stuff, history shows us the man in the arab street usually toes the line his government puts out, if the US acts as it's been, this will be favorable (Bush has followed international law all the way, the hysteria has always been that he would not).

As for this so called "revenge someday", are you kidding?
Your willing to gamble Saddam is OK, and let the Iraqis continue to suffer under this ***** because you fear that someday some OBL-like nut will retaliate for this "imagined" slight?

I wouldn't exactly call that a desirable postion Imran.

Zkribbler · November 24, 2002, 01:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Since when do free-market economics and democratic government go hand-in-hand? China is doing a pretty good job so far of embracing the former while avoiding the latter...

Since the invention of the modern republic.

Try to couple despotism with capitalism, and the economy will strangle when the despot steals the profits.

Drake Tungsten · November 24, 2002, 01:56

Since when is despotism the only alternative to democracy? China is becoming a fascistic state, which quite effectively mixes free-market economics with authoritarian governance.

Imran Siddiqui · November 24, 2002, 02:21

Quote:

The buzz that our diplomats have been leaking is the OFFICAL arab line in anti-invasion, anti-US action, while the PRIVATE line is almost 100% "please kill Hussein, he's a danger to us all".

BS, where have you been getting this, your 'sources'. And of course Iran wants us to invade Iraq. Then they can take more land. No country in the region thinks Saddam is anything more than a paper tiger.

Quote:

I wouldn't exactly call that a desirable postion Imran.

Invading is an even worse position. Is isn't just an OBL like nut. It's the whole mood of the Arab world towards the US. Maybe even worse... maybe the Muslim world's reaction towards the US. BAD move.

Quote:

I disagree, especially if it's a quick invasion, followed by a rapid withdrawl.

RAPID WITHDRAWL?! What are you nuts?! Leave a power vacuum so the Kurds can break off and Turkey goes on a Kurdish killing spree, Iran can grab more land and warlords battle it out for the rest of the country? Don't be absurd.

And what kind of message does that send? Tow the line or else the US is just going to go in and kill the leader. Yeah, that's gonna make people want to deal with the US and their companies.

chequita guevara · November 24, 2002, 02:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Try to couple despotism with capitalism, and the economy will strangle when the despot steals the profits.

History says otherwise. Nazi Germany was not only one of the most profitable countries ever, it was so profitable German capitalists ran into trouble when they had so much profit they couldn't invest it all. Hence the need to conquer Europe. They need places to invest (which couldn't be done otherwise because of tariffs and similar economic nonesense of the time).