Is the Bush Administration incompetent in international affairs? - Page 2

Agathon · February 16, 2003, 21:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker

Non-partisan.

Not you again, you lunatic. I thought you would have been locked up by now.

If you bothered reading the first post you would have noticed that all the criticisms are about Bush's handling of events, not about the justice of his aims or the moral right of the US to do these things.

Even a chimp could understand the difference.

Comrade Tribune · February 16, 2003, 21:46

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I also fail to see how the Israel/Palestinian situation can be laid at his door step given the intransience of both sides.

Israel may yet prove transient.

Sultan Bhargash · February 16, 2003, 21:47

The answer is YES.

This is by far the least competent government- whether the issue is foreign affairs, economics, "homeland security", or public relations, that the United States has had in over a century.

And no wonder why, when you realize it was put together around a "reformed" alcoholic idiot silver spoon up his nose. 9-11, a great tragedy for almost all Americans, was Mr. Smirking Chimp's big break- the chance to bulldoze our country and plunder our wealth while UTTER MORONS defend him by barking about all those scary threats.

Enraging.

Sava · February 16, 2003, 21:51

Berzerker, this may be hard to believe, but just because somebody knocks Bush, doesn't mean they are a Democrat. While your view of the politics may be two-sided, there are many gray areas. Bush is a fool. He's a bad president. And like Boris said, he's squandering the good will that the world offered in the wake of 9-11 in order to push through his agenda.

St Leo · February 16, 2003, 21:52

WRT Iran its fine to call them for what they are. No use dealing with Khatami when it is clear he has no power. I think it is important he maintain the moral courage to do what Clinton failed to do and enforce the terms of the allies peace treaty with Iraq

Okay. Let's pretend that Bush had said that Iran was part of the Axis of Stupid. Do you also expect Jane Iranian to not be offended by it and understand that she just needs to get rid of Khomeini somehow and then her country will magically stop being Stupid?

Ozz · February 16, 2003, 22:55

Bush's record for being called a moron, idiot etc in
PUBLIC by heads of tradational allies of the USA
is unmatched.

And up to this time , unheard of.

Q Classic · February 17, 2003, 00:29

so it turns out maybe the ex president of skorea bought the thaw in relations -- meaning it may not have been completely honest.

from timeAsia

from joong-ang ilbo (english)

'course, the fact that bush kinda ruined whatever little headway that did occur, what with his unilateral decision to break off any talks with north korea almost immediately after entering office, without so much has a how-do-you-do to koizumi and kim, our allies in the area...

and it also doesn't seem that bush is listening to anybody who lives in the area...

DanS · February 17, 2003, 00:36

Q^3: On the contrary, Bush is pushing a multilateral approach, which is correct. Japan especially has interests there, which should be represented. This SK policy of triangulating between NK and their ally, the US, is a real dog.

Yes some allies might have been offended, but a way might have been found to ensure some unity rather than the obvious fracture in the alliance.

This is a little unfair. The administration was caught in an intra-European power play, a futile attempt at a reconstitution of the French-German motor for Europe. The fight had almost nothing to do with Iraq.

Ted Striker · February 17, 2003, 00:44

Please expand on this French-German power play DanS.

Imran Siddiqui · February 17, 2003, 01:09

The contrary view, which may or may not be correct, is that Bush knows exactly what it is doing. It knows who it is isolating and who it is drawing nearer. It seem to want to use 9/11 to clean out the drawer, so to speak.

DanS · February 17, 2003, 01:12

Germany and France did a series of deals on the future of Europe, such as whether the big states would continue to hold sway after the new European countries joined the club--nobody else was invited to participate in the smoke-filled back room.

In this series of purely intra-European deals, a deal must have been struck on opposing the war on Iraq, at least for a while. Schroeder doesn't want to be seen as isolated among Europeans in his anti-war stance,. France wants to be seen as driving European foreign policy, which it thinks will be a superpower at some time or another.

It had little to do with Iraq, and only to do with the US insofar as the US is the sole superpower. Rather, it had very much to do with the distribution of power within Europe.

Ted Striker · February 17, 2003, 01:25

Damn DanS that was pretty deep.

Certainly there is alot more going on here than all of us are seeing. Thanks for the information, that gives me a new angle, and, is beginning to explain the mysterious arrival of a French carrier group to the Gulf.

DanS · February 17, 2003, 01:33

is beginning to explain the mysterious arrival of a French carrier group to the Gulf

Nah, I still think the carrier is lost.

The sad thing is that this whole string of actions was necessary due to Schroeder making a mistake: not giving himself sufficient rhetorical wiggle-room to compromise on support to the war.

Anyway, perhaps France now is starting to believe its own press and will continue to block in the UN. They were pleased with themselves for a "victory" in the Council on Friday.

KrazyHorse · February 17, 2003, 02:42

Dan: that's a pretty crap explanation as far as I see it...

France had to say something on this; it's a SC permanent member and it's always expected to do something. So with 80% of his voters telling him to tell the US to go **** themselves, I don't really see what else he could have done...

The fact is that the US can't really do anything to hurt France, so there's no downside to this for Chirac. All marginal issues aside the only real sticks the US holds are military and economic, and neither are realistic when applied to any EU nation. The possible consequence the US does not control (that France and Germany will look isolated and weak) isn't really credible either, as long as they've got the support of half the other EU members and the support of basically every other EU country's population...

Spiffor · February 17, 2003, 02:54

DanS :

I suppose the Germans will end up participating eventually. Sure, they will not send any troops during the war, since Schröder cannot betray so obviously what he has repeatedly told, but they'll send troops for the peacebuilding process and relieve the US of some extra costs (and Schröder will try to look good towards the Germans)

I agree with everything you said about the itnernal European causes of the French-German barking (heck, I think I said this too

). However, now that Russia has joined France in this mess, I'm wondering how the situation is evolving. With France, China and Russia being agreed, it is now possible that Chirac brings his veto to the end. Also, his position in the SC has met unexpected support in France. I think I've never seen Chirac so widely supported here.

DanS · February 17, 2003, 03:16

Spiffor: I think we're in agreement on this mostly. Chirac only has a small amount of time to reverse course--about two weeks by my reckoning. And he may have already done too much.

The fact is that the US can't really do anything to hurt France, so there's no downside to this for Chirac.

Frogger: Not directly, no. However, more than any other permanent member, the bulk of France's power is invested in the Security Council. If Bush goes to war without the backing of the Security Council, then the relevance of the Security Council is diminished. This would ultimately hurt France's power. There would be a cost to Bush, of course.

Agathon · February 17, 2003, 04:04

Hijack my thread!!!!!!!!

Grrrrrrr.

Bush is an incompetent lunatic - discuss.

KrazyHorse · February 17, 2003, 04:14

Alexander's Horse · February 17, 2003, 06:13

Its painfully obvious the Bush Administration lacks foreign policy experience. Its hard to see how they could have screwed up international relations more than they already have but they keep surprising everyone with new lows of incompetence and spectacular foreign policy debacles.

Their motto seems to be if you see a bridge burn it. They only take their foot out of their mouth long enough to cram the other foot in there. They really seem to have no idea how to get what they want internationally, hence the hopeless megaphone diplomacy, the ridiculous B Grade Western rhetoric and the crude bully boy tactics.

Many Americans have been patriotically defending their government against international criticism but sooner or later they will tire of it. No American likes to see their country become an international laughing stock, a pariah state with missiles. Of course after Iraq things started getting beyond the joke. And when you start making Saddam Hussein look like a sympathetic figure you know your foreign policy is in the toilet. Why the US made its foreign policy and all its international relationship hostage to dealing with an insignificant flea like Saddam Hussein I'll never know.

Of course I'll be accused of being anti-American, which I'm not, but the oafishness is getting really pitiful to watch.

Someone should tell Bush the world isn't Texas and to get some half decent staff pronto, starting with a decent Presidential speech writer.

No more born again Christians for President please.

CerberusIV · February 17, 2003, 06:45

The impression I am getting is that Bush (even more than Reagan) lives in a B movie western and wants to be the guy in the white hat. That means finding someone in a black hat to shoot. If so, then his foreign policy is, sadly, brilliant since he is successfully manufacturing a series of enemies.

Urban Ranger · February 17, 2003, 06:51

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Q^3: On the contrary, Bush is pushing a multilateral approach, which is correct. Japan especially has interests there, which should be represented. This SK policy of triangulating between NK and their ally, the US, is a real dog.

This clearly illustrates the problem with W's foreign policy, something his supporters don't understand.

He is pushing an approach which the two principle party involved don't want. He thinks his solution is better, which means he lives in a world of his own. He doesn't want to see things from other people's view, let alone care. This doesn't make a very good diplomat.

Drake Tungsten · February 17, 2003, 06:54

Quote:

Its painfully obvious the Bush Administration lacks foreign policy experience.

I can't think of a US administration that has had more foreign policy experience than the current one. Nice try, Horsie.

Alexander's Horse · February 17, 2003, 07:06

Yeah nice try Drake but half world is laughing at your government and the other half sees Bush as an evil Hitler-like demagogue who must be stopped. That must be pretty hard to take for an American.

Urban Ranger · February 17, 2003, 07:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Its painfully obvious the Bush Administration lacks foreign policy experience.

I can't think of a US administration that has had more foreign policy experience than the current one. Nice try, Horsie.

Who has this experience in the carbinet?

Drake Tungsten · February 17, 2003, 07:12

Quote:

Who has this experience in the carbinet?

Rumsfeld and Cheney alone have more experience than most administrations. Powell and Rice aren't rookies either. I don't even need to get into the lesser members of the foreign policy team.

Quote:

Yeah nice try Drake but the whole world is laughing at you. That must be pretty hard to take for an American.

It doesn't really bother me that much. The world has looked down on Americans for most of our history, but who came out on top? We must be doing something right...

Chemical Ollie · February 17, 2003, 07:25

It tells us something about a country when the most incompetent leader is also the most popular ever. And not because of what he did but because of what some lunatics with furniture knifes did.

CerberusIV · February 17, 2003, 07:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten The world has looked down on Americans for most of our history, but who came out on top? We must be doing something right...

The world has tolerated Americans for most of your history. In the last 100 years they have mostly tolerated your money. Care to bet how long it can go on for?

Alexander's Horse · February 17, 2003, 07:35

It really worries me the way America is going. Its tragic to see a great country sink so low in the eyes of the world.

Drake Tungsten · February 17, 2003, 07:36

Quote:

In the last 100 years they have mostly tolerated your money. Care to bet how long it can go on for?

We have the largest economy in the world by a large margin. I'm confident that this will be the case for quite some time.

CerberusIV · February 17, 2003, 07:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

In the last 100 years they have mostly tolerated your money. Care to bet how long it can go on for?

We have the largest economy in the world by a large margin. I'm confident that this will be the case for quite some time.

The average "man in the street" in England in the 1860's thought much the same. I expect to see the US cease to be a dominant global superpower in my lifetime, Bush is just accelerating the process.