<strong>Perception? When you conduct yourself in such a way that so many of your traditional allies - governments and especially the citizens - dislike you so much that they want you to fail, that's a reality.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Does that not work both ways? Are there not many many people unhappy with France as well?
[quote]<strong>If we had a competent president this current disaster (and anyone who says it's not a disaster has their head in the sand) never would have happened.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A more competent-in-foreign-diplomacy president probably wouldn't have asked in the first place. Like Clinton.
Is that what you mean? That the US should just go and do it and not ask anyone else what they think?
So President Bush is saying that we need to attack Iraq because they aren't complying with UN disarmament rules and they present a threat to the region and the world.
And President Clinton said that we needed to attack Iraq because they weren't complying with UN disarmament rules and they present a threat to the region and the world.
Similarities:
- Both plans put a lot of Iraqi civilians at risk.
- Both plans involve heavy military intervention.
Differences:
- Bush's plan involves ousting Saddam Hussein.
Clinton's plan did not involve ousting Saddam Hussein.
- Bush's plan calls for self-determination among the Iraqi people after the war. Clinton's plan did not call for self-determination among the Iraqi people after the war.
- Bush's plan will end with a disarmed Iraq.
Clinton's plan did not end with a disarmed Iraq.
- Bush is asking for UN support before he acts. Clinton didn't ask for UN support and in some cases didn't even ask Congress.
You're onto something, giant, it's like night & day.
You know, you seem to want to discuss wars being illegal and such but have no rebut for the evident fact that there have been 26 shooting wars since the inception of the UN and only 3 were met with UN approval. Not only that, but all 3 of those were brought by the US. Not only that, but 2 of those were named Bush.
In the end, a week-long bombing campaign and a decades long military campaign aimed at transforming the region are not at all comparable.
The Bush admin wants to go to war outside of the UN, and the only reason the issue even went to the security council is because powell pushed for it. Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Feith and Rumsfeld have all been extremely public about their intentions having nothing to do with UN resolutions or the UN, going so far as saying, for a few year now including before Bush was in office, that the US should not consult the UN, but instead should conduct military campaigns in its own interest.
How you feel you can compare the two eludes me, only because I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have at least thought it through a little.
<strong>In the end, a week-long bombing campaign and a decades long military campaign aimed at transforming the region are not at all comparable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is going to be a decades-long operation? I haven't heard a single human being claim that taking Iraq would last any longer than a few months at the absolute maximum.
Or are you trying to draw this out to a larger issue because you are too prideful to concede that your original claim (re: Bush going after Iraq) is a load of garbage and have no logic to refute my point?
And also, how can a Bush undertaking be "decades-long"? You do realize we have term limits here in the United States do you not and Bush, at absolute maximum, has only 5 years remaining?
[quote]<strong>The Bush admin wants to go to war outside of the UN, and the only reason the issue even went to the security council is because powell pushed for it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And since Powell is a part of the administration ( a pretty big part of it, no less) you can't simply remove him from it.
[quote]Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Feith and Rumsfeld have all been extremely public about their intentions having nothing to do with UN resolutions or the UN, going so far as saying, for a few year now including before Bush was in office, that the US should not consult the UN, but instead should conduct military campaigns in its own interest.[/qb]<hr></blockquote>
You're right, they have. And this is the type of foreign military intervention policy shared by the previous administration. And it's looking more and more like it's the best way to do things.
Of course, you want to ignore than because so much of your lame argument rests on Bush being stupid or evil or something else. I'm sorry, giant, but this is not new.
[quote]<strong>How you feel you can compare the two eludes me, only because I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have at least thought it through a little.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I still have yet to see you expound on how they are different. You want to make it seem as if it is too obvious for explanation because you have no explanation. You'll express frustration at my resistance to your idea because when pushed you can't come up with any logic to defend it.
Your reasoning relies on a series of unfounded conspiracy theories and total ignorance of the past. It's laughable, really.
<strong>You like to throw this around. So, when did Clinton overthrow Iraq? I must have missed that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did I say Clinton overthrew Iraq or did I say Clinton took unilateral military action against Iraq? A unilateral military action that cost civilian lives, no less.
Of course Clinton didn't "overthrow" Iraq. I don't know if it's possible to "overthrow" a nation.
<strong>Would you also say that France putting pressure on many other nations to agree with its stance is unilateral as well?
Chirac telling Eastern Europe to "shut up", actively trying to get African nations on his side and saying that they will "under no circumstances" support force?
Is this not unilateral as well using the definition applied to Bush?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The US is the only superpower, and thus she is able to bend the world to his own views. France canno't do this, she is not a superpower, only a small power (second military power of europe behind UK, third ou second economical power ) even if she wanted to be unilateral, she can't. When Chirac tell eastern Europe to shut it appears like a joke (see the thread here), but when US said something it happears serious.
I never claimed that France was superior to US in a moral point of vue, you will never see such a claim coming from me. The problem is , US is the only superpower so each thing she do is more important. At the time of cold war, things where more simple for US, there where two camps and US was the good one. Gorbatchev said one day to an US official, i give you a terrible gift, now you have no ennemie.
In my job, it's amazing how some insignificants words i said, could become so huges for my patients. I must be very cautious of what i am saying. Us is very important and powerfull, thus everything coming from her is amplified. In one of your post, you said that European know too much about US (you meant too much , but not enough, like some patients who pretend to know better my job than my-self and are ready to teach me my job.
There is a sort of silly (silly because it's a mix of hate and love) fascination of US around the world. US did not ask or tried to be the only superpower, she is happy to be that, but did not push others in order to achieve this goal. US is the only superpower because of the failure of the others countries : failure of Europe who have sucked for a centurie (from the 19th centurie to WW2 and perhaps nowdays, if we consider how her armies are weak), failure of the communist system, and thus failure of Russia, introversion of China ....
In short the more powerfull you are, the most cautious you must be if you don't want to be quickly impopular. It's the back face of the medal.
You've actually overstated the differences between the two plans, rat. Bush is basically implementing Clinton's plan. Clinton could be fairly criticized for not implementing his own plan, but remember two things: 9/11 changed the political will for wars against Arabs, and Republicans accused Clinton of wagging the dog when Clinton did attack Iraq. In short, Clinton probably couldn't have done it. And it took Bush more than the time Clinton had left in office to get on with this.
Your blind love of your boy in the White House prevents you from seeing how badly he has screwed this up. My complaint is that in pursuing this policy, Bush has succeeded in uniting our traditional European allies with Russia and China and Syria against us, in making France the hero of the world for opposing us, and in having Tony Blair commit a very public political suicide for his support.
It's hard to say if it could have been different, but it seems to me, looking at the world's attitude toward Bush's early administration, that it was Bush that caused this. He ticked them off even before Iraq became an issue. But I'm sure you'll go into sputtering denial again about how wonderful your boy is and flame anyone who criticizes his policy on this. Salute, everyone, when you say W!
This is going to be a decades-long operation? I haven't heard a single human being claim that taking Iraq would last any longer than a few months at the absolute maximum.<hr></blockquote>
How can anybody be expected to read your post when your first two sentences are...well, there they are. Need I say more?
So are you saying you are surrounded by aliens and they run our country?
Hell, maybe a official MINIMUM of TWO YEARS (multiply official estimates by at least 3) just for Iraq (not counting Pakistan) is your idea of a couple of months. Weren't you the person that called my time living in texas a 'stop-over.' I think you might have a problem with perception of time.
[quote]And this is the type of foreign military intervention policy shared by the previous administration.<hr></blockquote>
How about not. I guess the grand new national strategy is not being factored into your analysis. You might want to consider the actual 'military intervention policy' next time, OK?
<strong>The US is the only superpower, and thus she is able to bend the world to his own views. France canno't do this, she is not a superpower, only a small power (second military power of europe behind UK, third ou second economical power ) even if she wanted to be unilateral, she can't. When Chirac tell eastern Europe to shut it appears like a joke (see the thread here), but when US said something it happears serious.[/q ]<hr></blockquote>
That is false, powerdoc, a lot of nations have a lot of different powers. Chirac threatened them with their membership to the EU, this is not something he implied, those were his words.
Do not act as if he his harmless and the US is a bully.
[quote][qb]I never claimed that France was superior to US in a moral point of vue, you will never see such a claim coming from me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I never thought you said that, you misunderstand me.
I'm talking about these accusations of "unilateral" action.
[quote]<strong>In one of your post, you said that European know too much about US (you meant too much , but not enough, like some patients who pretend to know better my job than my-self and are ready to teach me my job.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes.
[quote]<strong>There is a sort of silly (silly because it's a mix of hate and love) fascination of US around the world. US did not ask or tried to be the only superpower, she is happy to be that, but did not push others in order to achieve this goal. US is the only superpower because of the failure of the others countries : failure of Europe who have sucked for a centurie (from the 19th centurie to WW2 and perhaps nowdays, if we consider how her armies are weak), failure of the communist system, and thus failure of Russia, introversion of China .... </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think we wanted to become a superpower more than you make it seem, but you're right for the most part (in my opinion).
[quote]<strong>In short the more powerfull you are, the most cautious you must be if you don't want to be quickly impopular. It's the back face of the medal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But would you also agree, to use your plastic surgeon/patient analogy, that the surgeon must also put the patient in his place and say "I am the one who does this, I will do the right thing."?
--
Powerdoc is the best European ever!
--
BRussell:
[quote]<strong>You've actually overstated the differences between the two plans, rat. Bush is basically implementing Clinton's plan. Clinton could be fairly criticized for not implementing his own plan, but remember two things: 9/11 changed the political will for wars against Arabs, and Republicans accused Clinton of wagging the dog when Clinton did attack Iraq. In short, Clinton probably couldn't have done it. And it took Bush more than the time Clinton had left in office to get on with this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have always said that if you give Clinton 9/11 he'd be aiming to overthrow Saddam as well. I'm a lot more friendly to Clinton's time as president than you might think.
I remember yelling matches with my parents about Desert Fox. Being the brain-dead Republicans they are they accused him of trying to merely distract from Lewinsky (how amazingly important *that* was!). I remember it like yesterday. I remember John McCain on television questioning Clinton's resolve on the matter. Believe me, I remember it.
[quote]<strong>Your blind love of your boy in the White House prevents you from seeing how badly he has screwed this up. My complaint is that in pursuing this policy, Bush has succeeded in uniting our traditional European allies with Russia and China and Syria against us, in making France the hero of the world for opposing us, and in having Tony Blair commit a very public political suicide for his support.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They can unite all they like it makes no difference if Bush calls the bluff. Of course it looks like his knees are getting weak and I can just see Powell whispering in his ear telling him to blow the UN diplomats a little longer. There comes a time for the nut-cutting and Bush is wavering and it makes me very angry with him.
Clinton was smarter, Clinton didn't even bother asking the bickering sewing circle.
[quote]<strong>It's hard to say if it could have been different, but it seems to me, looking at the world's attitude toward Bush's early administration, that it was Bush that caused this. He ticked them off even before Iraq became an issue. But I'm sure you'll go into sputtering denial again about how wonderful your boy is and flame anyone who criticizes his policy on this. Salute, everyone, when you say W!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have a hard time blaming Bush for being hated. He was hated before he took office. He didn't actually do anything to warrant such disdain.
People had to work up all the fortitude they could to compliment him on his handling of 9/11 and even that was very brief and very grudging.
I am starting to think his policy of going to the UN was a very stupid policy indeed. There are a metric ass-load of things I disagree with him on, I don't know where you get that I worship him merely because I think it's childish to base arguments against the war on cartoonish portrayals of him.
That pisses me off just like Republicans in 1998 who relied on insulting Clinton's proclivity for extra-marital sex to attack real issues. To me there's no difference.
--
giant:
[quote]<strong>Hell, maybe a official MINIMUM of TWO YEARS (multiply official estimates by at least 3) just for Iraq (not counting Pakistan) is your idea of a couple of months. Weren't you the person that called my time living in texas a 'stop-over.' I think you might have a problem with perception of time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I meant the military operation. The dangerous part where civilians would be at risk.
How exactly are civilians going to be at risk in a way comparable to their current predicament once Saddam is out, our military is keeping the peace and the economic sanctions are lifted?
[quote]<strong>How about not. I guess the grand new national strategy is not being factored into your analysis. You might want to consider the actual 'military intervention policy' next time, OK?</strong><hr></blockquote>
So it wasn't the previous administration's policy to use extra-UN military intervention to solve problems? Interesting indeed.
<strong>How exactly are civilians going to be at risk in a way comparable to their current predicament once Saddam is out, our military is keeping the peace and the economic sanctions are lifted? </strong><hr></blockquote>
How about we start by finding out how the civilians have been doing over the past 2,3 maybe 5 years. Report back and we'll compare notes.
<strong>How about we start by finding out how the civilians have been doing over the past 2,3 maybe 5 years. Report back and we'll compare notes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They have been doing very very badly for two reasons: 1) Saddam Hussein, 2) economic sanctions.
the Observer's (UK) copy of leaked NSA memo to UK, Can, Aus, NZ asking them to help spy on and bug the "undecided" UN Security conference members is getting lots of play on CBC tonight.
strange reactions from those voting countries might be unsurprising when the news they've been bugged for months as well as being pressured, filters down.
unsurprising news (countries spy, duh), but whistle-blown physical confirmation of espionage targeting supposed supporters has got to be a serious burn for the US
looks like those 9 votes might be harder to get
and let me be the first to wager on the irony that a non-UN war will begin on April Fools Day
That is false, powerdoc, a lot of nations have a lot of different powers. Chirac threatened them with their membership to the EU, this is not something he implied, those were his words.
Do not act as if he his harmless and the US is a bully.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps you are true, Chirac is not totally harmless, i must have been contamined by some members here who explain that France equal to zero .
BTW Chirac was wrong to do this, i call this a bad move. But Chirac is not alone in europe, he is one of the three most influent member (but not the more powerfull, each member having the same weight), but he is still one vote between 15. The inclusion of a new countrie need 15 votes, but even if we supposed that France wanted to "punish" eastern countries, the others members have many way to make pressure on the frenchs (the common agriculture policie for example). So it's technically difficult for France to act in a unilateral way concerning europe.
In short, i will say that what Chirac did speaking of these countrie was a unilateral approach in a moral point of vue, but moslty innefective in a technical point of vue.
[quote] I think we wanted to become a superpower more than you make it seem, but you're right for the most part (in my opinion). <hr></blockquote>
You are right, but to take a sport analogy, they did it in a particulary smart way. Nobody can complain that US is the only superpower. If people are unhappy with that, they have to look upon their own failures.
[quote] But would you also agree, to use your plastic surgeon/patient analogy, that the surgeon must also put the patient in his place and say "I am the one who does this, I will do the right thing."?<hr></blockquote>
You got me this on this one ! . This anology was just about the difference of weight of words coming from different people. Otherwise, the patient has the right to refuse my cure.
Do you think that US is the plastic surgeon of the world ? (however if Bush could change the ugly faces of Saddam it will be great, may i suggest the explosive face lift ? )
[quote] Powerdoc is the best European ever! <hr></blockquote>
Powerdoc, I don't ask this in a rude way but I am just curious. When Chirac speaks does he ever look still ahead or does he always look up, left, right, down, roll his eyes shift to the left, then up again. etc. etc.
I have seen footage of him in several interviews, press, etc and he looks like he can not look one direction for more than a split second.
He almost comes across as a drunk who tries to appear as though he is not. Again just my observation. I was curious as to your thought on this.
Many talk about the traits of Bush etc. Speaking ability and all.
I just have noticed with more attention given to Chirac lately that every time I see him on television in different places he has a terrible time looking straight ahead. He moves his head around so much he must get sea sick.
You are more familiar with him what is your take on this?
Comments
<strong>Perception? When you conduct yourself in such a way that so many of your traditional allies - governments and especially the citizens - dislike you so much that they want you to fail, that's a reality.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Does that not work both ways? Are there not many many people unhappy with France as well?
[quote]<strong>If we had a competent president this current disaster (and anyone who says it's not a disaster has their head in the sand) never would have happened.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A more competent-in-foreign-diplomacy president probably wouldn't have asked in the first place. Like Clinton.
Is that what you mean? That the US should just go and do it and not ask anyone else what they think?
A more competent-in-foreign-diplomacy president probably wouldn't have asked in the first place. Like Clinton.
<hr></blockquote>
The situations are not comparable.
And I'm still not seeing it.
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
And President Clinton said that we needed to attack Iraq because they weren't complying with UN disarmament rules and they present a threat to the region and the world.
Similarities:
- Both plans put a lot of Iraqi civilians at risk.
- Both plans involve heavy military intervention.
Differences:
- Bush's plan involves ousting Saddam Hussein.
Clinton's plan did not involve ousting Saddam Hussein.
- Bush's plan calls for self-determination among the Iraqi people after the war. Clinton's plan did not call for self-determination among the Iraqi people after the war.
- Bush's plan will end with a disarmed Iraq.
Clinton's plan did not end with a disarmed Iraq.
- Bush is asking for UN support before he acts. Clinton didn't ask for UN support and in some cases didn't even ask Congress.
You're onto something, giant, it's like night & day.
You know, you seem to want to discuss wars being illegal and such but have no rebut for the evident fact that there have been 26 shooting wars since the inception of the UN and only 3 were met with UN approval. Not only that, but all 3 of those were brought by the US. Not only that, but 2 of those were named Bush.
Could you please address this?
In the end, a week-long bombing campaign and a decades long military campaign aimed at transforming the region are not at all comparable.
The Bush admin wants to go to war outside of the UN, and the only reason the issue even went to the security council is because powell pushed for it. Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Feith and Rumsfeld have all been extremely public about their intentions having nothing to do with UN resolutions or the UN, going so far as saying, for a few year now including before Bush was in office, that the US should not consult the UN, but instead should conduct military campaigns in its own interest.
How you feel you can compare the two eludes me, only because I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have at least thought it through a little.
<strong>In the end, a week-long bombing campaign and a decades long military campaign aimed at transforming the region are not at all comparable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is going to be a decades-long operation? I haven't heard a single human being claim that taking Iraq would last any longer than a few months at the absolute maximum.
Or are you trying to draw this out to a larger issue because you are too prideful to concede that your original claim (re: Bush going after Iraq) is a load of garbage and have no logic to refute my point?
And also, how can a Bush undertaking be "decades-long"? You do realize we have term limits here in the United States do you not and Bush, at absolute maximum, has only 5 years remaining?
[quote]<strong>The Bush admin wants to go to war outside of the UN, and the only reason the issue even went to the security council is because powell pushed for it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And since Powell is a part of the administration ( a pretty big part of it, no less) you can't simply remove him from it.
[quote]Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Feith and Rumsfeld have all been extremely public about their intentions having nothing to do with UN resolutions or the UN, going so far as saying, for a few year now including before Bush was in office, that the US should not consult the UN, but instead should conduct military campaigns in its own interest.[/qb]<hr></blockquote>
You're right, they have. And this is the type of foreign military intervention policy shared by the previous administration. And it's looking more and more like it's the best way to do things.
Of course, you want to ignore than because so much of your lame argument rests on Bush being stupid or evil or something else. I'm sorry, giant, but this is not new.
[quote]<strong>How you feel you can compare the two eludes me, only because I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have at least thought it through a little.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I still have yet to see you expound on how they are different. You want to make it seem as if it is too obvious for explanation because you have no explanation. You'll express frustration at my resistance to your idea because when pushed you can't come up with any logic to defend it.
Your reasoning relies on a series of unfounded conspiracy theories and total ignorance of the past. It's laughable, really.
<strong>
And this is the type of foreign military intervention policy shared by the previous administration.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You like to throw this around. So, when did Clinton overthrow Iraq? I must have missed that.
<strong>You like to throw this around. So, when did Clinton overthrow Iraq? I must have missed that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did I say Clinton overthrew Iraq or did I say Clinton took unilateral military action against Iraq? A unilateral military action that cost civilian lives, no less.
Of course Clinton didn't "overthrow" Iraq. I don't know if it's possible to "overthrow" a nation.
<strong>Would you also say that France putting pressure on many other nations to agree with its stance is unilateral as well?
Chirac telling Eastern Europe to "shut up", actively trying to get African nations on his side and saying that they will "under no circumstances" support force?
Is this not unilateral as well using the definition applied to Bush?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The US is the only superpower, and thus she is able to bend the world to his own views. France canno't do this, she is not a superpower, only a small power (second military power of europe behind UK, third ou second economical power ) even if she wanted to be unilateral, she can't. When Chirac tell eastern Europe to shut it appears like a joke (see the thread here), but when US said something it happears serious.
I never claimed that France was superior to US in a moral point of vue, you will never see such a claim coming from me. The problem is , US is the only superpower so each thing she do is more important. At the time of cold war, things where more simple for US, there where two camps and US was the good one. Gorbatchev said one day to an US official, i give you a terrible gift, now you have no ennemie.
In my job, it's amazing how some insignificants words i said, could become so huges for my patients. I must be very cautious of what i am saying. Us is very important and powerfull, thus everything coming from her is amplified. In one of your post, you said that European know too much about US (you meant too much , but not enough, like some patients who pretend to know better my job than my-self and are ready to teach me my job.
There is a sort of silly (silly because it's a mix of hate and love) fascination of US around the world. US did not ask or tried to be the only superpower, she is happy to be that, but did not push others in order to achieve this goal. US is the only superpower because of the failure of the others countries : failure of Europe who have sucked for a centurie (from the 19th centurie to WW2 and perhaps nowdays, if we consider how her armies are weak), failure of the communist system, and thus failure of Russia, introversion of China ....
In short the more powerfull you are, the most cautious you must be if you don't want to be quickly impopular. It's the back face of the medal.
<strong>
Of course Clinton didn't "overthrow" Iraq. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Good. Just wanted to make sure we were comparing Apples & Oranges.
Your blind love of your boy in the White House prevents you from seeing how badly he has screwed this up. My complaint is that in pursuing this policy, Bush has succeeded in uniting our traditional European allies with Russia and China and Syria against us, in making France the hero of the world for opposing us, and in having Tony Blair commit a very public political suicide for his support.
It's hard to say if it could have been different, but it seems to me, looking at the world's attitude toward Bush's early administration, that it was Bush that caused this. He ticked them off even before Iraq became an issue. But I'm sure you'll go into sputtering denial again about how wonderful your boy is and flame anyone who criticizes his policy on this. Salute, everyone, when you say W!
This is going to be a decades-long operation? I haven't heard a single human being claim that taking Iraq would last any longer than a few months at the absolute maximum.<hr></blockquote>
How can anybody be expected to read your post when your first two sentences are...well, there they are. Need I say more?
So are you saying you are surrounded by aliens and they run our country?
Hell, maybe a official MINIMUM of TWO YEARS (multiply official estimates by at least 3) just for Iraq (not counting Pakistan) is your idea of a couple of months. Weren't you the person that called my time living in texas a 'stop-over.' I think you might have a problem with perception of time.
[quote]And this is the type of foreign military intervention policy shared by the previous administration.<hr></blockquote>
How about not. I guess the grand new national strategy is not being factored into your analysis. You might want to consider the actual 'military intervention policy' next time, OK?
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>The US is the only superpower, and thus she is able to bend the world to his own views. France canno't do this, she is not a superpower, only a small power (second military power of europe behind UK, third ou second economical power ) even if she wanted to be unilateral, she can't. When Chirac tell eastern Europe to shut it appears like a joke (see the thread here), but when US said something it happears serious.[/q ]<hr></blockquote>
That is false, powerdoc, a lot of nations have a lot of different powers. Chirac threatened them with their membership to the EU, this is not something he implied, those were his words.
Do not act as if he his harmless and the US is a bully.
[quote][qb]I never claimed that France was superior to US in a moral point of vue, you will never see such a claim coming from me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I never thought you said that, you misunderstand me.
I'm talking about these accusations of "unilateral" action.
[quote]<strong>In one of your post, you said that European know too much about US (you meant too much , but not enough, like some patients who pretend to know better my job than my-self and are ready to teach me my job.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes.
[quote]<strong>There is a sort of silly (silly because it's a mix of hate and love) fascination of US around the world. US did not ask or tried to be the only superpower, she is happy to be that, but did not push others in order to achieve this goal. US is the only superpower because of the failure of the others countries : failure of Europe who have sucked for a centurie (from the 19th centurie to WW2 and perhaps nowdays, if we consider how her armies are weak), failure of the communist system, and thus failure of Russia, introversion of China .... </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think we wanted to become a superpower more than you make it seem, but you're right for the most part (in my opinion).
[quote]<strong>In short the more powerfull you are, the most cautious you must be if you don't want to be quickly impopular. It's the back face of the medal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But would you also agree, to use your plastic surgeon/patient analogy, that the surgeon must also put the patient in his place and say "I am the one who does this, I will do the right thing."?
--
Powerdoc is the best European ever!
--
BRussell:
[quote]<strong>You've actually overstated the differences between the two plans, rat. Bush is basically implementing Clinton's plan. Clinton could be fairly criticized for not implementing his own plan, but remember two things: 9/11 changed the political will for wars against Arabs, and Republicans accused Clinton of wagging the dog when Clinton did attack Iraq. In short, Clinton probably couldn't have done it. And it took Bush more than the time Clinton had left in office to get on with this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have always said that if you give Clinton 9/11 he'd be aiming to overthrow Saddam as well. I'm a lot more friendly to Clinton's time as president than you might think.
I remember yelling matches with my parents about Desert Fox. Being the brain-dead Republicans they are they accused him of trying to merely distract from Lewinsky (how amazingly important *that* was!). I remember it like yesterday. I remember John McCain on television questioning Clinton's resolve on the matter. Believe me, I remember it.
[quote]<strong>Your blind love of your boy in the White House prevents you from seeing how badly he has screwed this up. My complaint is that in pursuing this policy, Bush has succeeded in uniting our traditional European allies with Russia and China and Syria against us, in making France the hero of the world for opposing us, and in having Tony Blair commit a very public political suicide for his support.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They can unite all they like it makes no difference if Bush calls the bluff. Of course it looks like his knees are getting weak and I can just see Powell whispering in his ear telling him to blow the UN diplomats a little longer. There comes a time for the nut-cutting and Bush is wavering and it makes me very angry with him.
Clinton was smarter, Clinton didn't even bother asking the bickering sewing circle.
[quote]<strong>It's hard to say if it could have been different, but it seems to me, looking at the world's attitude toward Bush's early administration, that it was Bush that caused this. He ticked them off even before Iraq became an issue. But I'm sure you'll go into sputtering denial again about how wonderful your boy is and flame anyone who criticizes his policy on this. Salute, everyone, when you say W!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have a hard time blaming Bush for being hated. He was hated before he took office. He didn't actually do anything to warrant such disdain.
People had to work up all the fortitude they could to compliment him on his handling of 9/11 and even that was very brief and very grudging.
I am starting to think his policy of going to the UN was a very stupid policy indeed. There are a metric ass-load of things I disagree with him on, I don't know where you get that I worship him merely because I think it's childish to base arguments against the war on cartoonish portrayals of him.
That pisses me off just like Republicans in 1998 who relied on insulting Clinton's proclivity for extra-marital sex to attack real issues. To me there's no difference.
--
giant:
[quote]<strong>Hell, maybe a official MINIMUM of TWO YEARS (multiply official estimates by at least 3) just for Iraq (not counting Pakistan) is your idea of a couple of months. Weren't you the person that called my time living in texas a 'stop-over.' I think you might have a problem with perception of time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I meant the military operation. The dangerous part where civilians would be at risk.
How exactly are civilians going to be at risk in a way comparable to their current predicament once Saddam is out, our military is keeping the peace and the economic sanctions are lifted?
[quote]<strong>How about not. I guess the grand new national strategy is not being factored into your analysis. You might want to consider the actual 'military intervention policy' next time, OK?</strong><hr></blockquote>
So it wasn't the previous administration's policy to use extra-UN military intervention to solve problems? Interesting indeed.
nice post.
i was beginning to think i was in the wrong thread...
no name calling... respectful discussion of issues...
even a grudging acknowledgement that the personal attacks are less important than real scrutiny of the policy decisions
rational reasoned writing like this might get you on the wrong side of the rabid
but bravo for bringing more brain than bile
care to spread some of that jejune juice with some of our other members and keep AO from the flamerama of FSC
<strong>hey groverat,
nice post.
i was beginning to think i was in the wrong thread...
no name calling... respectful discussion of issues...
even a grudging acknowledgement that the personal attacks are less important than real scrutiny of the policy decisions
rational reasoned writing like this might get you on the wrong side of the rabid
but bravo for bringing more brain than bile
care to spread some of that jejune juice with some of our other members and keep AO from the flamerama of FSC</strong><hr></blockquote>
YOU SUCK, you FILTH,Y no-good, BEAST!
How DARE you try and limit MY free speach given to me by the CONSTITUTION of the US of A!
You are nothing but an anti-American, cheese eating coward! There I said it.
PS: Bring back FireSide Chat!
(the above was in jest)
<strong>How exactly are civilians going to be at risk in a way comparable to their current predicament once Saddam is out, our military is keeping the peace and the economic sanctions are lifted? </strong><hr></blockquote>
How about we start by finding out how the civilians have been doing over the past 2,3 maybe 5 years. Report back and we'll compare notes.
<strong>How about we start by finding out how the civilians have been doing over the past 2,3 maybe 5 years. Report back and we'll compare notes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They have been doing very very badly for two reasons: 1) Saddam Hussein, 2) economic sanctions.
The war will remove both.
<strong>
They have been doing very very badly for two reasons: 1) Saddam Hussein, 2) economic sanctions.
The war will remove both.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh I get it! We're just going to sort of take them ( and their oil ) under our wing. So to speak.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
strange reactions from those voting countries might be unsurprising when the news they've been bugged for months as well as being pressured, filters down.
unsurprising news (countries spy, duh), but whistle-blown physical confirmation of espionage targeting supposed supporters has got to be a serious burn for the US
looks like those 9 votes might be harder to get
and let me be the first to wager on the irony that a non-UN war will begin on April Fools Day
<strong>
That is false, powerdoc, a lot of nations have a lot of different powers. Chirac threatened them with their membership to the EU, this is not something he implied, those were his words.
Do not act as if he his harmless and the US is a bully.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps you are true, Chirac is not totally harmless, i must have been contamined by some members here who explain that France equal to zero
BTW Chirac was wrong to do this, i call this a bad move. But Chirac is not alone in europe, he is one of the three most influent member (but not the more powerfull, each member having the same weight), but he is still one vote between 15. The inclusion of a new countrie need 15 votes, but even if we supposed that France wanted to "punish" eastern countries, the others members have many way to make pressure on the frenchs (the common agriculture policie for example). So it's technically difficult for France to act in a unilateral way concerning europe.
In short, i will say that what Chirac did speaking of these countrie was a unilateral approach in a moral point of vue, but moslty innefective in a technical point of vue.
[quote] I think we wanted to become a superpower more than you make it seem, but you're right for the most part (in my opinion). <hr></blockquote>
You are right, but to take a sport analogy, they did it in a particulary smart way. Nobody can complain that US is the only superpower. If people are unhappy with that, they have to look upon their own failures.
[quote] But would you also agree, to use your plastic surgeon/patient analogy, that the surgeon must also put the patient in his place and say "I am the one who does this, I will do the right thing."?<hr></blockquote>
You got me this on this one !
Do you think that US is the plastic surgeon of the world ?
[quote] Powerdoc is the best European ever! <hr></blockquote>
You are too kind with me my beloved friend.
I have seen footage of him in several interviews, press, etc and he looks like he can not look one direction for more than a split second.
He almost comes across as a drunk who tries to appear as though he is not. Again just my observation. I was curious as to your thought on this.
Many talk about the traits of Bush etc. Speaking ability and all.
I just have noticed with more attention given to Chirac lately that every time I see him on television in different places he has a terrible time looking straight ahead. He moves his head around so much he must get sea sick.
You are more familiar with him what is your take on this?
Fellowship
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>