Part of what has alienated these countries is not whether the 'axis' countries are doing bad things and are dangerous or not, nor is it whether something more active should be done in relation to them or not, but is, that America is threatening to move forward without any consensus of international scope, and doing so with a justification which definitely sounds more like a fanatical's call to arms than that of the leader of the most technologicaly advanced nation in the world.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well you're just wrong. The US can't/won't/doesn't have to wait for a timid France to come around. We have to protect ourselves before 9-11 happens again. Al Queda (sp?) are said to be regrouping in Iran. What are we to do? Ask France for permission to act? That only gets more Americans killed. Iraq is known to be making nukes. What are we to? Wait until the drop one on the Jews to do something? France is willing to wait. I'm sure the Jews aren't.
sure the US is willing to wait, as long as the genocide isnt happening on its soil.
Al Quaeda has been active for over 10 years. The taliban have been torturing women and men alike in Afghanistan since 1997. Did the US give a shit? No. There's a pipeline to be built. And I know France didn't do anything, that's not the point.
Al Quaeda has been active for over 10 years. The taliban have been torturing women and men alike in Afghanistan since 1997. Did the US give a shit? No. There's a pipeline to be built. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Remind me again why you think you are so well informed. Unocal's hoped-for trans Afghan pipeline project had unraveled by 1998. How is a failed pipeline proposal an explanation for anything? And the French think President Bush is simplistic!
This is from <a href="http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.HTM"; target="_blank">testimony</a> given on FEBRUARY 12, 1998 before the Committee on International Relations. Robert W. Gee, Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Energy gave testimony. (There were only two other witnesses before the committee, Unocal's Chairman John J. Maresca and Professor S. Frederick Starr of Johns Hopkins University.)
Nebraska Congressman Doug Bereuter (chairman of the Subcommittee) began:
[quote]... Stated U.S. policy goals regarding energy resources in this region include fostering the independence of the States and their ties to the West; breaking Russia's monopoly over oil and gas transport routes; promoting Western energy security through diversified suppliers; encouraging the construction of east-west pipelines that do not transit Iran; and denying Iran dangerous leverage over the Central Asian economies...
... Central Asia would seem to offer significant new investment opportunities for a broad range of American companies which, in turn, will serve as a valuable stimulus to the economic development of the region... It is essential that U.S. policymakers understand the stakes involved in Central Asia as we seek to craft a policy that serves the interests of the United States and U.S. business.
On the other hand, some question the importance of the region to U.S. interests, and dispute the significance of its resources to U.S. national security interests. Others caution that it will take a great deal of time and money to bring these resources to world markets. Still others point to civil and ethnic conflicts in Tajikistan and Afghanistan as a reason to avoid involvement beyond a minimal diplomatic presence in the area...<hr></blockquote>
Mr. Robert W. Gee testifies:
[quote]... Four factors frame our policy. First, promoting multiple export routes. The Administration's policy is centered on rapid development of the region's resources and the transportation and sale of those resources to hard-currency markets to secure the independence of these new countries. Accordingly, our government has promoted the development of multiple pipelines and diversified infrastructure networks to open and integrate these countries into the global market and to foster regional cooperation.
We have given priority to supporting efforts by the regional governments themselves and the private sector to develop and improve east-west trade linkages and infrastructure networks through Central Asia and the Caucasus. A Eurasian energy transport corridor incorporating a trans-Caspian segment with a route from Baku, Azerbaijan, through the Caucasus and Turkey to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan is inclusive, providing benefits to transit as well as energy-producing countries...
... In general, we support those transportation solutions that are commercially viable and address our environmental concerns and policy objectives. Based on discussions with the companies involved, a Baku-Ceyhan pipeline appears to be the most viable option. We have urged the Turks to take steps to make Baku-Ceyhan a commercially attractive option. For our part, we are also looking at steps the United States can take to provide political risk guarantees and to foster cooperation among the regional States on an approach that can lead to a regional solution for the longer term...<hr></blockquote>
In other words, by this testimony it's obvious that the Afghan option wasn't very high on the list.
[quote]<strong>And I know France didn't do anything, that's not the point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course it's not the point. The only point of your posts is to criticize the U.S.
sure the US is willing to wait, as long as the genocide isnt happening on its soil.
Seriously, do you think if something like 9/11 or a direct attack happened to one of our (US) allies we would just sit twiddling our thumbs singing "doodoodoo duhroo doodoodoo duhroo....". Hell no and you know it. Even if they attacked France we would come help you guys counter attack and protect your people (probably while being spat upon in Paris but spit doesn't kill).
<strong>sure the US is willing to wait, as long as the genocide isnt happening on its soil.
Al Quaeda has been active for over 10 years. The taliban have been torturing women and men alike in Afghanistan since 1997. Did the US give a shit? No. There's a pipeline to be built. And I know France didn't do anything, that's not the point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
France did nothing to. That is the point. They didn't ask us to do anything either. But your here now to point fingers.
Also your insinuation that the US did nothing because they wanted an oil pipeline is an insult. You have no PROOF (i keep asking for it and get none) that that's the case.
But that's how people like you work. Toss a bunch of shit on the wall and hope some sticks.
The points of my post is not to criticize the US. My point is to demonstrate that the US is not flawless, that it is not the end all be all of all countries, that the world does not revolve around it.
ScottH you're getting tiring with your proof requests, ignoring them everytime I point you to proof. I've pointed out links, book references etc.
The pipeline and other economical interests of the US in Afghanistan that (in part, of course, one has to be moderate and reasoned) are responsible for the US not acting earlier (because and in fact also paradoxically acting so quickly (ie the war against the taliban has been planned ever since Bush got elected regarding that pipeline) is here:
written by an ex CIA agent along with a former aid to some american senator.
I shit you not.
And this is not the average ex-CIA-cold-war-nostalgic-in-desperate-need-for-money kind of book either, it was proeminently featured in Le Monde.
This proof will of course get dismissed by ScottH, just like the fact that a few days ago a missile was fire at a convoy in afghanistan on the sole asumption that one of the men was quite tall and seemed to be treated as a chief, thus it could have been ben laden. To this day though, the US is still not sure.
Now to make my points very clear:
I could criticize in that manner any country in the world, including France. I admire the US just like I admire other countries on certain aspects. However, I critized the US here because I saw people it is better than country Y, or that the world revolves around it, or even that country W is irrelevant.
[quote]The points of my post is not to criticize the US. My point is to demonstrate that the US is not flawless, that it is not the end all be all of all countries, that the world does not revolve around it.<hr></blockquote>
It demonstrates that the U.S isn't flawless, yes, but no one claimed that the U.S. was flawless.
The U.S. is still the most important nation in the world, despite this. What other nation spends so much time in foreign media?
Obviously, that importance to each individual person changes, but as a whole, the U.S. is the top dog, I don't even know why this is disputed.
[quote]The pipeline and other economical interests of the US in Afghanistan that (in part, of course, one has to be moderate and reasoned) are responsible for the US not acting earlier<hr></blockquote>
Or maybe because the had given us no provocation?
Is that even a possibility?
Would it have been wise for us to start blowing Taliban sites up in Afghanistan in 1999 because they were being naughty to women?
[quote]because and in fact also paradoxically acting so quickly<hr></blockquote>
Thousands of our civilians were killed. That may be a small reason that we attacked them "so quickly" (correct me if I'm wrong, but it was at least an entire month if not more of enduring Taliban uncooperativeness).
[quote](ie the war against the taliban has been planned ever since Bush got elected regarding that pipeline)<hr></blockquote>
Help me understand what you're saying here, SYN:
First you say that we didn't do anything in Afghanistan because we wanted the pipeline.
Now you say that Bush planned on attacking Afghanistan pre-9/11 because of the pipeline.
Are you just making things up as you go along?
Which is it?
[quote]However, I critized the US here because I saw people it is better than country Y, or that the world revolves around it, or even that country W is irrelevant.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
I don't remember anyone saying the U.S. is "better" than any other nation. But it is the most important nation and the world and, as far as this situation goes, quite a few nations are irrelevant.
<strong>On the other hand, as the foreign minister might have noticed, the French may today enjoy springtime in Paris without the annoying sounds of jackboots all over the place, and the reason for that was the simple-minded determination of the British, the Russians and the Americans to fight the Nazis and to die by the millions, in order to make the world safe for, among other creatures, future French foreign ministers. "Simplisme" works. Against evil, it is the only thing that does.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some precisions about WW2 are needed.
there where a treaty including France , Great britain with Poland.
Germany invade Poland, and therefore Great britain and France attack germany to respect the treaty. At this time russia was with Germany, and USA was neutral even if is president was for the war but the publical opinion was not ready (before sending your sons to the death you have to think it twice).
Quickly germany invade France and defeat french and great britain army. The rest of the great britain army rejoing great britain, France capitulate : vichy governement with Petain.
Then germany attack russia, who become allies of France and Great Britain after have being his ennemy (one said that STaline did that in order to have more time to organize his defense). Japan attack USA in 1941 (japan was the allies of germany) . USA attack japan and become immediatly the ennemy of germany too. The us president was happy of that because he see there a good occasion to stop the nazis and to have the public opinion with him.
ManyÂ*historians have said that Great britain and French know that they where not able to defeat germany and should have done nothing to help polland. I am proud that both Great britain and France respected the treaty, even if France loose.
It pains me to see, as in one of teh posts above, that Americans just think that the French hate them and that they spit on us. THat is stupid and wrong, and it creates a feeling here in the states that its OK to hate the French: I know many French people and citizens that like America and Americans . . . and it saddens me that a general appeal to well rounded rhetoric should foster this kind of reactionariness.
There is an interesting article in todays Times which really says what I think: in it, there are South Koreans responding to the Bush Rhetoric: they know that something is correct about what he says, but, they KNOW that the way he said it was wrong, and do not like the fact that there was no talk with them before he 'shouted' his phrase.
THey feel that it jeopardizes the 'Sunshine' policy which is the one thing that the head of SKorea is most proud of having accomplished.
They know that NKorea is sevirely 'Evil', but that calling names and threatening will only do two things: one, it will warn them not to mess (which is the good side) and two; it will close off what gains have been made as far as exchange of information and openness and dialogue. and. further increase their (NK's) sense of isolation and need for defensiveness . . . this isn't just mamby pamby psychologisms here, this is the reality of delicate foreign policy...a subtle thinking is needed not 'drunken shouts'
So, if you look backon all the addendums that I have posted in this thread you will see that perhaps the only country that hasn't voiced some form of disaproval of Bush's phrasing is probably Venezuela.... but they seem a little distracted right now.
By the way, if anybody doesn't know how bad Nkorea is, they should read Pico Iyer's travell book about lonely places (title?): it has a great chapter describing life in a truly Orwellian Nightmare.
<strong>There is an interesting article in todays Times which really says what I think: in it, there are South Koreans responding to the Bush Rhetoric: they know that something is correct about what he says, but, they KNOW that the way he said it was wrong, and do not like the fact that there was no talk with them before he 'shouted' his phrase.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Times coverage of Iran was shown to be bias. The refused to publish the full story because they are pushing their agenda. Why would we trust coverage on Korea now?
As far as the Times goes, it is a very balanced newspaper: consevative at times as well as liberal.... but mainly its reporting a real attitude that I have also seen reported in other sources: the other time I made note of South Korea's responce and you asked it it was a joke . . . I wasn't pulling out of my hat, though I neglected to site a source its still true . . .
don't forget that Japan also feels like SKorea -- that he was right in content but wrong in timing and approach. Something that is potentailly very serious
besides the fact that it is revealing as far as teh over-all attitude of the administration . . . in the same way that the BJ of Clinton revealed a personality defficit with regards to his sex-life: (too healthy for its own good ?!?)
The Times is bias. They select on what to cover and how to spin the story. They'll give you the half of the news that they want you to hear. How are we to know what Japan and S. Korea realy feel when we can't trust the times to get the full story?
that's quit typical of ScottH. First denial, then when presented with proof, he walks on to some other subject.
[quote] The U.S. is still the most important nation in the world, despite this. What other nation spends so much time in foreign media? <hr></blockquote>
This makes it the most important nation? It's the most proeminent, sure, it's the loudest, yes, but that's it.
[quote] Or maybe because the had given us no provocation?
Is that even a possibility?
Would it have been wise for us to start blowing Taliban sites up in Afghanistan in 1999 because they were being naughty to women? <hr></blockquote>
Aside from not recognizing the taliban government, the US didn't exactly help massood or the northern alliance earlier. In fact, it helped the taliban drive massood out of Kabul in 97, as reported in "Massood, L'afghan". There's a thousand things the US could have done that it didn't. The VietKong didn't exactly provoke the US, nor did Cuba.
[quote] Help me understand what you're saying here, SYN:
First you say that we didn't do anything in Afghanistan because we wanted the pipeline.
Now you say that Bush planned on attacking Afghanistan pre-9/11 because of the pipeline.
Are you just making things up as you go along?<hr></blockquote>
No.
The taliban came to power in 97 amidst chaos and civil war, in part with the help of the US.
Ever since, the US has been negotiating for this pipeline, and other things (Afghanistan, for those that hadn't ever heard of the country prior to 9/11, is a very gas/oil rich country).
However, it became apparent circa Bush coming to power that the negotiations were going nowhere.
Thus the Bush administration started making up a plan to oust the Taliban.
Have I made myself clear this time? English is not my first language, so be tolerant.
[quote]Seriously, do you think if something like 9/11 or a direct attack happened to one of our (US) allies we would just sit twiddling our thumbs singing "doodoodoo duhroo doodoodoo duhroo....". <hr></blockquote>
That's not what I'm saying. However, historically:
a) The US didn't act in WWII until Pearl Harbor
b) The debt of Kuwait to the US ($ speaking) because of the Gulf War could almost make it the 51st state.
... The pipeline and other economical interests of the US in Afghanistan that (in part, of course, one has to be moderate and reasoned) are responsible for the US not acting earlier (because and in fact also paradoxically acting so quickly (ie the war against the taliban has been planned ever since Bush got elected regarding that pipeline) is here:
Ben Laden, la vérité interdite...
written by an ex CIA agent along with a former aid to some american senator.
I shit you not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, yes you are shitting us. Why would a book written by an ex CIA agent and an aid to a US Senator be written in French and not in English?
Comments
<strong>...
Part of what has alienated these countries is not whether the 'axis' countries are doing bad things and are dangerous or not, nor is it whether something more active should be done in relation to them or not, but is, that America is threatening to move forward without any consensus of international scope, and doing so with a justification which definitely sounds more like a fanatical's call to arms than that of the leader of the most technologicaly advanced nation in the world.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well you're just wrong. The US can't/won't/doesn't have to wait for a timid France to come around. We have to protect ourselves before 9-11 happens again. Al Queda (sp?) are said to be regrouping in Iran. What are we to do? Ask France for permission to act? That only gets more Americans killed. Iraq is known to be making nukes. What are we to? Wait until the drop one on the Jews to do something? France is willing to wait. I'm sure the Jews aren't.
Al Quaeda has been active for over 10 years. The taliban have been torturing women and men alike in Afghanistan since 1997. Did the US give a shit? No. There's a pipeline to be built. And I know France didn't do anything, that's not the point.
<strong>
Al Quaeda has been active for over 10 years. The taliban have been torturing women and men alike in Afghanistan since 1997. Did the US give a shit? No. There's a pipeline to be built. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Remind me again why you think you are so well informed. Unocal's hoped-for trans Afghan pipeline project had unraveled by 1998. How is a failed pipeline proposal an explanation for anything? And the French think President Bush is simplistic!
This is from <a href="http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.HTM"; target="_blank">testimony</a> given on FEBRUARY 12, 1998 before the Committee on International Relations. Robert W. Gee, Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Energy gave testimony. (There were only two other witnesses before the committee, Unocal's Chairman John J. Maresca and Professor S. Frederick Starr of Johns Hopkins University.)
Nebraska Congressman Doug Bereuter (chairman of the Subcommittee) began:
[quote]... Stated U.S. policy goals regarding energy resources in this region include fostering the independence of the States and their ties to the West; breaking Russia's monopoly over oil and gas transport routes; promoting Western energy security through diversified suppliers; encouraging the construction of east-west pipelines that do not transit Iran; and denying Iran dangerous leverage over the Central Asian economies...
... Central Asia would seem to offer significant new investment opportunities for a broad range of American companies which, in turn, will serve as a valuable stimulus to the economic development of the region... It is essential that U.S. policymakers understand the stakes involved in Central Asia as we seek to craft a policy that serves the interests of the United States and U.S. business.
On the other hand, some question the importance of the region to U.S. interests, and dispute the significance of its resources to U.S. national security interests. Others caution that it will take a great deal of time and money to bring these resources to world markets. Still others point to civil and ethnic conflicts in Tajikistan and Afghanistan as a reason to avoid involvement beyond a minimal diplomatic presence in the area...<hr></blockquote>
Mr. Robert W. Gee testifies:
[quote]... Four factors frame our policy. First, promoting multiple export routes. The Administration's policy is centered on rapid development of the region's resources and the transportation and sale of those resources to hard-currency markets to secure the independence of these new countries. Accordingly, our government has promoted the development of multiple pipelines and diversified infrastructure networks to open and integrate these countries into the global market and to foster regional cooperation.
We have given priority to supporting efforts by the regional governments themselves and the private sector to develop and improve east-west trade linkages and infrastructure networks through Central Asia and the Caucasus. A Eurasian energy transport corridor incorporating a trans-Caspian segment with a route from Baku, Azerbaijan, through the Caucasus and Turkey to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan is inclusive, providing benefits to transit as well as energy-producing countries...
... In general, we support those transportation solutions that are commercially viable and address our environmental concerns and policy objectives. Based on discussions with the companies involved, a Baku-Ceyhan pipeline appears to be the most viable option. We have urged the Turks to take steps to make Baku-Ceyhan a commercially attractive option. For our part, we are also looking at steps the United States can take to provide political risk guarantees and to foster cooperation among the regional States on an approach that can lead to a regional solution for the longer term...<hr></blockquote>
In other words, by this testimony it's obvious that the Afghan option wasn't very high on the list.
[quote]<strong>And I know France didn't do anything, that's not the point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course it's not the point. The only point of your posts is to criticize the U.S.
[ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
sure the US is willing to wait, as long as the genocide isnt happening on its soil.
Seriously, do you think if something like 9/11 or a direct attack happened to one of our (US) allies we would just sit twiddling our thumbs singing "doodoodoo duhroo doodoodoo duhroo....". Hell no and you know it. Even if they attacked France we would come help you guys counter attack and protect your people (probably while being spat upon in Paris but spit doesn't kill).
<strong>sure the US is willing to wait, as long as the genocide isnt happening on its soil.
Al Quaeda has been active for over 10 years. The taliban have been torturing women and men alike in Afghanistan since 1997. Did the US give a shit? No. There's a pipeline to be built. And I know France didn't do anything, that's not the point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
France did nothing to. That is the point. They didn't ask us to do anything either. But your here now to point fingers.
Also your insinuation that the US did nothing because they wanted an oil pipeline is an insult. You have no PROOF (i keep asking for it and get none) that that's the case.
But that's how people like you work. Toss a bunch of shit on the wall and hope some sticks.
[ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
ScottH you're getting tiring with your proof requests, ignoring them everytime I point you to proof. I've pointed out links, book references etc.
The pipeline and other economical interests of the US in Afghanistan that (in part, of course, one has to be moderate and reasoned) are responsible for the US not acting earlier (because and in fact also paradoxically acting so quickly (ie the war against the taliban has been planned ever since Bush got elected regarding that pipeline) is here:
Ben Laden, la vérité interdite
<a href="http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/ASIN/2207253201/qid=/sr=1-21/402-6013799-4678531" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/ASIN/2207253201/qid=/sr=1-21/402-6013799-4678531</a>
written by an ex CIA agent along with a former aid to some american senator.
I shit you not.
And this is not the average ex-CIA-cold-war-nostalgic-in-desperate-need-for-money kind of book either, it was proeminently featured in Le Monde.
This proof will of course get dismissed by ScottH, just like the fact that a few days ago a missile was fire at a convoy in afghanistan on the sole asumption that one of the men was quite tall and seemed to be treated as a chief, thus it could have been ben laden. To this day though, the US is still not sure.
Now to make my points very clear:
I could criticize in that manner any country in the world, including France. I admire the US just like I admire other countries on certain aspects. However, I critized the US here because I saw people it is better than country Y, or that the world revolves around it, or even that country W is irrelevant.
It demonstrates that the U.S isn't flawless, yes, but no one claimed that the U.S. was flawless.
The U.S. is still the most important nation in the world, despite this. What other nation spends so much time in foreign media?
Obviously, that importance to each individual person changes, but as a whole, the U.S. is the top dog, I don't even know why this is disputed.
[quote]The pipeline and other economical interests of the US in Afghanistan that (in part, of course, one has to be moderate and reasoned) are responsible for the US not acting earlier<hr></blockquote>
Or maybe because the had given us no provocation?
Is that even a possibility?
Would it have been wise for us to start blowing Taliban sites up in Afghanistan in 1999 because they were being naughty to women?
[quote]because and in fact also paradoxically acting so quickly<hr></blockquote>
Thousands of our civilians were killed. That may be a small reason that we attacked them "so quickly" (correct me if I'm wrong, but it was at least an entire month if not more of enduring Taliban uncooperativeness).
[quote](ie the war against the taliban has been planned ever since Bush got elected regarding that pipeline)<hr></blockquote>
Help me understand what you're saying here, SYN:
First you say that we didn't do anything in Afghanistan because we wanted the pipeline.
Now you say that Bush planned on attacking Afghanistan pre-9/11 because of the pipeline.
Are you just making things up as you go along?
Which is it?
[quote]However, I critized the US here because I saw people it is better than country Y, or that the world revolves around it, or even that country W is irrelevant.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
I don't remember anyone saying the U.S. is "better" than any other nation. But it is the most important nation and the world and, as far as this situation goes, quite a few nations are irrelevant.
I don't know.. for the last 50 years, it seems like it has...
<strong>On the other hand, as the foreign minister might have noticed, the French may today enjoy springtime in Paris without the annoying sounds of jackboots all over the place, and the reason for that was the simple-minded determination of the British, the Russians and the Americans to fight the Nazis and to die by the millions, in order to make the world safe for, among other creatures, future French foreign ministers. "Simplisme" works. Against evil, it is the only thing that does.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some precisions about WW2 are needed.
there where a treaty including France , Great britain with Poland.
Germany invade Poland, and therefore Great britain and France attack germany to respect the treaty. At this time russia was with Germany, and USA was neutral even if is president was for the war but the publical opinion was not ready (before sending your sons to the death you have to think it twice).
Quickly germany invade France and defeat french and great britain army. The rest of the great britain army rejoing great britain, France capitulate : vichy governement with Petain.
Then germany attack russia, who become allies of France and Great Britain after have being his ennemy (one said that STaline did that in order to have more time to organize his defense). Japan attack USA in 1941 (japan was the allies of germany) . USA attack japan and become immediatly the ennemy of germany too. The us president was happy of that because he see there a good occasion to stop the nazis and to have the public opinion with him.
ManyÂ*historians have said that Great britain and French know that they where not able to defeat germany and should have done nothing to help polland. I am proud that both Great britain and France respected the treaty, even if France loose.
There is an interesting article in todays Times which really says what I think: in it, there are South Koreans responding to the Bush Rhetoric: they know that something is correct about what he says, but, they KNOW that the way he said it was wrong, and do not like the fact that there was no talk with them before he 'shouted' his phrase.
THey feel that it jeopardizes the 'Sunshine' policy which is the one thing that the head of SKorea is most proud of having accomplished.
They know that NKorea is sevirely 'Evil', but that calling names and threatening will only do two things: one, it will warn them not to mess (which is the good side) and two; it will close off what gains have been made as far as exchange of information and openness and dialogue. and. further increase their (NK's) sense of isolation and need for defensiveness . . . this isn't just mamby pamby psychologisms here, this is the reality of delicate foreign policy...a subtle thinking is needed not 'drunken shouts'
So, if you look backon all the addendums that I have posted in this thread you will see that perhaps the only country that hasn't voiced some form of disaproval of Bush's phrasing is probably Venezuela.... but they seem a little distracted right now.
By the way, if anybody doesn't know how bad Nkorea is, they should read Pico Iyer's travell book about lonely places (title?): it has a great chapter describing life in a truly Orwellian Nightmare.
<strong>There is an interesting article in todays Times which really says what I think: in it, there are South Koreans responding to the Bush Rhetoric: they know that something is correct about what he says, but, they KNOW that the way he said it was wrong, and do not like the fact that there was no talk with them before he 'shouted' his phrase.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Times coverage of Iran was shown to be bias. The refused to publish the full story because they are pushing their agenda. Why would we trust coverage on Korea now?
As far as the Times goes, it is a very balanced newspaper: consevative at times as well as liberal.... but mainly its reporting a real attitude that I have also seen reported in other sources: the other time I made note of South Korea's responce and you asked it it was a joke . . . I wasn't pulling out of my hat, though I neglected to site a source its still true . . .
don't forget that Japan also feels like SKorea -- that he was right in content but wrong in timing and approach. Something that is potentailly very serious
besides the fact that it is revealing as far as teh over-all attitude of the administration . . . in the same way that the BJ of Clinton revealed a personality defficit with regards to his sex-life: (too healthy for its own good
What would you offer as alternative: USA today
[quote] The U.S. is still the most important nation in the world, despite this. What other nation spends so much time in foreign media? <hr></blockquote>
This makes it the most important nation? It's the most proeminent, sure, it's the loudest, yes, but that's it.
[quote] Or maybe because the had given us no provocation?
Is that even a possibility?
Would it have been wise for us to start blowing Taliban sites up in Afghanistan in 1999 because they were being naughty to women? <hr></blockquote>
Aside from not recognizing the taliban government, the US didn't exactly help massood or the northern alliance earlier. In fact, it helped the taliban drive massood out of Kabul in 97, as reported in "Massood, L'afghan". There's a thousand things the US could have done that it didn't. The VietKong didn't exactly provoke the US, nor did Cuba.
[quote] Help me understand what you're saying here, SYN:
First you say that we didn't do anything in Afghanistan because we wanted the pipeline.
Now you say that Bush planned on attacking Afghanistan pre-9/11 because of the pipeline.
Are you just making things up as you go along?<hr></blockquote>
No.
The taliban came to power in 97 amidst chaos and civil war, in part with the help of the US.
Ever since, the US has been negotiating for this pipeline, and other things (Afghanistan, for those that hadn't ever heard of the country prior to 9/11, is a very gas/oil rich country).
However, it became apparent circa Bush coming to power that the negotiations were going nowhere.
Thus the Bush administration started making up a plan to oust the Taliban.
Have I made myself clear this time? English is not my first language, so be tolerant.
<strong>that's quit typical of ScottH. First denial, then when presented with proof, he walks on to some other subject.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Typical? Since when have I failed to come back. If you want to speed me on my was proved a link to a book in english.
That's not what I'm saying. However, historically:
a) The US didn't act in WWII until Pearl Harbor
b) The debt of Kuwait to the US ($ speaking) because of the Gulf War could almost make it the 51st state.
<a href="http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20011015.html"; target="_blank">http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20011015.html</a>;
<strong>
... The pipeline and other economical interests of the US in Afghanistan that (in part, of course, one has to be moderate and reasoned) are responsible for the US not acting earlier (because and in fact also paradoxically acting so quickly (ie the war against the taliban has been planned ever since Bush got elected regarding that pipeline) is here:
Ben Laden, la vérité interdite...
written by an ex CIA agent along with a former aid to some american senator.
I shit you not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, yes you are shitting us. Why would a book written by an ex CIA agent and an aid to a US Senator be written in French and not in English?