Bush senior was a far better diplomat. - Page 2

KrazyHorse · March 17, 2003, 19:18

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Actually, this isn't the case at all. For the last 12 years, there has been a topline 66% favor removal through force number in the US. This is much higher than Bush 41 had at the beginning.

With or without the UN along for the ride?

Because that number was at 40% or so until about 3 months ago. Bush has been busy doing a bunch of selling just to get the US onside, and Blair hasn't even close to managed the same in the UK. To my mind, Chirac took care of number one and said what his public wanted him to say: Go to Hell, Bush.

DuncanK · March 17, 2003, 19:18

Bush I was a better president all around. Bush II sucks on every account.

DanS · March 17, 2003, 19:20

Clinton then really didn't wanted an invasion of Iraq

Yes, he did. But the French and Russians said that they would never support it, so he put the problem off to future administrations. Regime change was Clinton policy from about '94 forward.

Drake Tungsten · March 17, 2003, 19:21

Quote:

The question is: was such "resentment" present before January 2001? I would say, no. It is one fo the great achievements of the Bush 43 admin.

I would say yes, but I can't be arsed to hunt all over the web for old articles detailing European resentment of US power prior to 9/11. Go read some old "Foreign Affairs" if you're really interested...

GePap · March 17, 2003, 19:28

Hunt old issues of Foreign Affairs? When did this resentment come up as a form of policy reaction, which is what we got? "resentment" is such a vague term and I view it as somewhat useless. The BUsh admin. has begun talking about overturning the international order and trying to remake it: that many states that eihter a) like the current order, b) would like it to change gradually or c) like it to change radically but in a different way would not support such a porgram of action. The issue is not some nebulous issue of "resentment" but a basic disagreement on what the future should be. I don;t think Bush 41 shares his son's view of what the international oder should be and hence would ahve faced far less resistance if he sought the same goal but from a different set of assumptions about what the final outcome should look like.

DanS: without 9/11 this president would have been just as unsuccessful as Clinton was in 1998. It was only due to 9/11 that Bush got 1441 passed, which is what allowe dhim to get any allies. It is also what has given him the internal support: Clinot back in 1998 would not have been able to get internal support for such an act.

Drake Tungsten · March 17, 2003, 19:29

Oh, what the hell. Here's one thing from 1999 I found real quick...

Quote:

The new Eurodefense, the editorial says, will be a force of 60,000 troops that could be deployed quickly and stay in the field for up to a year. Impetus for the force came largely from perceptions that Europe's contribution to NATO's campaign in Kosovo was insufficient. "This weakness threatens to corrode NATO," the Post says. "It breeds American resentment of European wimpishness and European resentment of American domination."

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/19...210141942.html

Drake Tungsten · March 17, 2003, 19:32

Here's a much better one. This is from 1999 as well...

http://www.nixoncenter.org/publicati...5no21drift.htm

That's all the research I'm doing for you, however.

GePap · March 17, 2003, 19:41

Don't bother, cause I do not think somehting as nebulous as "resentment" is the cause of the current split. Even if you do believe it is, note that the article quotes resentment both ways..not just against us, but from us against them....

BUsh 41 would have had more people on hsi side oging in simply because he would have wanted and sought more people along and thus would have done the necessary footwork.

Prior to the first gulf war, James Baker visited Turkey 3 times. Powell has not gone to Turkey once,and this time we wanted more form Turkey than in 1991. That is poor diplomacy. But again, this amdin. never really cared for diplomacy at all.

Drake Tungsten · March 17, 2003, 19:44

Quote:

Don't bother, cause I do not think somehting as nebulous as "resentment" is the cause of the current split.

I suppose you don't think such nebulous concepts as "ideological differences" were the cause of the Cold War either...

GePap · March 17, 2003, 19:50

Did you just state that "ideological differences" are a fuzzy concept? Yes, the difference between Capitalism and Communism are nothing but a smokes screen....
But even if i were to accept such an obviously wrong definiton as the one you try to allude to, Ideological differences did not stop tates from either acting together or against others when their interests dictated, case in point, the Sino-US anti-Soviet allience. If US and the French saw their interests in Iarq as being similar, then all the "resentment" in the world would be meaningless, just as all the "Muslim resentment" against the Us does nto stop Pakistan, Egypt, SA, Jordan and so forht from being our allies.

To try to state that the reason we failed to get a second resolution ast the UN was ebcause of "resentment" is to try to ignore the fact that we did not convince many states (nor many posters) about our version of what is at stake in Iraq. That the message failed is not the fault of the audience, but of the messanger and his message.

Drake Tungsten · March 17, 2003, 19:56

Quote:

That the message failed is not the fault of the audience, but of the messanger and his message.

That's pretty stupid. Kudos...

Japher · March 17, 2003, 19:59

Quote:

That the message failed is not the fault of the audience, but of the messanger and his message.

It's a lasar light show for the blind. Who is the wiser? The audience or the one who wrote the message?

GePap · March 17, 2003, 20:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

That the message failed is not the fault of the audience, but of the messanger and his message.

That's pretty stupid. Kudos...

Drake, I would be surprised i it were not for the fact that this sort of avoidance has become typical of you. I will wait till you get smoehting worthwhile. Hell, even japher had a far better response than yours. Maybe with more experience you can be like Japher!

Drake Tungsten · March 17, 2003, 20:06

You accuse me of avoidance? After you just brushed aside two articles about building resentment of the US in Europe by claiming resentment is "too nebulous" a concept to be a cause for current behavior? God, I hate being the kettle all the time...

Urban Ranger · March 18, 2003, 11:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
In this case though, Bush sr. probably would not have had better success. '91 was an invasion. Totally different.

As I pointed out before, GWB could definitely have gone through the back door channels. Send out some balloons, see what the UNSC members think, then proceed from there. He could work the diplomatic channels, get all the permanent members on some kind of compromise, before going to the Security Council with a resolution.

Or he could have tried something completely different. Lift all the sanctions, cancel the no-fly zones, and resume normal relations with Iraq. The idea behind this is to give Saddam Hussein enough ropes to hang himself - which was what Bush Sr. did apparently.

DanS · March 18, 2003, 11:34

One thing to keep in mind is that men of Bush 43's administration have a lot of overlap with the men of Bush 41's administration. Part of the actions of Bush 43's administration are due to what they perceived to be their own failures the first time around.

BUsh 41 would have had more people on hsi side oging in

While true, Bush 43 is getting more support in some quarters. For instance, this time Jordan is on our side, even though Turkey is sitting this one out.

Adam Smith · March 18, 2003, 11:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Or he could have tried something completely different. Lift all the sanctions, cancel the no-fly zones, and resume normal relations with Iraq. The idea behind this is to give Saddam Hussein enough ropes to hang himself - which was what Bush Sr. did apparently.

Let me see if I have this right .... we gave him enough rope to hang himself in 1991, which he did, and now we let him off the hook (UN says no evidence of anthrax, VX destroyed, remember?), so that we can give him enough rope to hang himself, ....

The point of this would be exactly what??

MOBIUS · March 18, 2003, 11:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You accuse me of avoidance? After you just brushed aside two articles about building resentment of the US in Europe by claiming resentment is "too nebulous" a concept to be a cause for current behavior? God, I hate being the kettle all the time...

One of your quotes supports the fact that Europe was actually doing something to avert this resentment...

And the other was from the Richard Nixon library...

Besides, you were talking about European resentment directed to the US after 9/11, which is patently untrue...

Since 9/11 Europe has broadly supported the US in its war against terrorism with enthusiasm.

The problem is that attacking Iraq is not technically a war on terrorism, no matter how it's dressed up.

Whatever you guys are fed in the US, it is commonly accepted here that there are no tangible links to Al-Qaeda...

The only links are that Saddam pays out money to the families of dead palestinian terrorists - but no WMD...

This is a blatant war of opportunism, consequently Bush's allies are thin on the ground

Urban Ranger · March 18, 2003, 11:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Let me see if I have this right .... we gave him enough rope to hang himself in 1991, which he did, and now we let him off the hook (UN says no evidence of anthrax, VX destroyed, remember?), so that we can give him enough rope to hang himself, ....

The point of this would be exactly what??

The point of that is, once he does that, you put a resolution in UNSC calling for his removal.

GePap · March 18, 2003, 11:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You accuse me of avoidance? After you just brushed aside two articles about building resentment of the US in Europe by claiming resentment is "too nebulous" a concept to be a cause for current behavior? God, I hate being the kettle all the time...

If I think "resentment" is too nebulous a term, then that is my opinion. These two articles put forward a thesis by the author. I disagree with it, saying that i feel that what drives policy is a view of what national interest are and not some feeling; and this being social sciences you can't present me some 'proof' about how their argument is correct and mine isn't, now can you?

On the other hand, when I stated that i felt the failure of Bush 43 to get support was based on the fact that he is a poor salesman of diplomacy and the message was flawed using a phrase, you say : "well, thats stupid" without any sort of counterargument.

These are not equivalent things Drake, and I hope you see why.

Adam Smith · March 18, 2003, 11:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The point of that is, once he does that, you put a resolution in UNSC calling for his removal.

How many bites at the apple do you want?

DanS · March 18, 2003, 11:59

AS: What is your current thinking on the whole deal? Has it changed lately?

DinoDoc · March 18, 2003, 12:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The point of that is, once he does that, you put a resolution in UNSC calling for his removal.

I thought that you were of the opinion that regime change was illegal.

Urban Ranger · March 18, 2003, 12:06

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I thought that you were of the opinion that regime change was illegal.

I was merely pointing out that such a route is far superior diplomatically for GWB; it is not an indication of a change in my position. Which is in accordance to international law IIRC.

Adam Smith · March 18, 2003, 12:23

DanS:

My view is still the same.

1. Saddam is not an immediate threat to anybody.
2. US has bigger fish to fry (Al Qeda, Israel - Pal, possibly NK)
3. We could take care of Iraq for virtually nothing if we waited a year.