Printable View
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read
If people from places like Syria and North Korea can respect what George stood for...why cant others? Maybe it is because they never lost their freedoms?
Dubya may not be the greatest politican by any stretch, but I think in standing up to dictators, he didn't do as bad as people think...
Bush was also not capable of a dialog and believed in force. He tried to bully other countries to do his way, Syria and North Korea only bully their own. Bush tried to be a global dictator instead of a local dictator.Quote:
Nor is Mr. Hendi a fan of this administration's efforts to engage the regime, most recently by deciding to send an ambassador to Damascus for the first time since 2005. "This gives confidence to the regime," he says. "They are not capable of a dialogue; they don't believe in it. They believe in force."
So lame!Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
I could care less if other countries like us.
I want them to respect us. The US was respected much more under Bush than it is now.
No matter who is in the White House, there will always be some who feel ignored and some who feel empowered.
I like the way Obama seems detached - it's not the USA's job to solve the world's problems. But it's also worth noting that the baby Obama was left holding was quite different to what Dubya inherited, and who's fault is that? Well, that's a debate for years and years...
What you mean is 'couldn't care less'. It does help add weight to one's arguments if they are written coherently.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Can we have a drug test for Tony, please?Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Opinion surveys in Europe have shown exactly the opposite view coming across, which can only be a good thing.
Lol, by who was us respected during bush, and what make you think that way?Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Well, that 'standing up' to Iran and North Korea did bugger all good, didn't it? Did he 'stand up' to Robert Mugabe? Not a bit. And his stance on Iraq was less than heroic. By the time Bush came to power, we know full well that the Ba'athist regime under Hussein had been effectively emasculated, not least militarily, in which sense it posed no threat to anyone whatsoever. What the actions of the Bush regime did far more effectively than 'stand up' to dictators was impress the American right by virtue of its own brand of bellicose fundamentalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Well, the Baltic States were certainly beneficiaries of Bush's approach to foreign policy. Without strong American support, we would have never been admitted to NATO in the midst of very strong Russian opposition. Would we be accepted now, after Obama's "restart" in relations with Russia, with a much "softer" American approach? I doubt it. The Balts are certainly thankful and consequently contribute more than most (per capita) to American/NATO war efforts. At one point during the recent election in Afghanistan, Estonia actually had more troops on the ground per capita than the US.
That said, I wouldn't say Bush ever inspired that much respect. The everyman quality that endeared him to Americans left him open for so much ridicule in Europe that... And then there's the question of competence. What do you call it when a conservative president doubles the national debt and significantly limits personal freedoms? Overreaction, poor judgement. And then the needless war in Iraq...
If I were American, I'd miss Clinton, not Bush. Leaving aside what I think were the totally insignificant sex scandals, I think Clinton was an excellent president, for the US and for the world.
Well, I will just say if Bush did nothing about Mugabe, neither has Obama. Obama has a foreign policy of mainly confusing and contradicting stances. He is for Israel, then he ticks off its president and snubs him publically. He enters office, and the first thing he does is send back a famous gift (the Bust of Churchill that sat in the oval office) to the UK and sends the Queen an Ipod of HIS speeches on it. I mean...Dubya has his faults, but he spoke out against places like Syria and Myanmar oppressing their people. He also didn't tolerate much with the North Koreans.
VOP's point also is well taken if you are honest. It may not be the US's job to be the world's policeman, but it is also not always their job to be loved by everyone either.
Well we can put Iraq to bed. I think having Hussein gone isn't a bad thing, but I will agree maybe the war was a pretty expensive way to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
That said, the "American Right" against dictators shouldn't bother you. If the western powers were more united on this sort of thing instead of playing paddy cake with them, moral suasion to open up human rights might have a great effect. I look no further than the example set by Apartheid. When did South Africa truly cave in? When people like PM Mulroney of Canada working on Reagan and Thatcher to come to the world's view that any and all forms of boycott of South Africa were neccessary. The minute Reagan started to join the chorus, things changed.
IF the Western world is UNITED on asking oppressive regimes to smarten up, often events push those nations into a much more progressive stance on human rights. Mugabe exists because the nations of the world tend to ignore African issues.....Just like Rwanda was a slaughter because Clinton ignored it, and Darfur is an issue because the world ignores that officially too. Everyone knows there is a problem, but no one says anything. Bush's greatest crime wasn't standing up stronger against clowns like Mugabe and the thugs in Sudan...