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...
And neither has anybody, but that's not the point I'm making, which is about the deeply selective nature of the stance of Bush (and Blair, for that matter) in relation to unpleasant regimes. I cannot think of any defence that can be mounted of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
What is wrong with that stance? There are many of us who, unlike some, would defend the right of Israel to exist but criticise its policies. I am pleased to see Obama reflecting this widespread view. Supporting the continued existence of Israel in the face of threats does not mean that one should offer unconditional backing to its leadership on every issue. Unfortunately, Israel has never appreciated this and takes every criticism as a serious affront.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
To what end? And he was hardly a vehement human rights campaigner before he took office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Until all foreign forces are out of Iraq and the country is genuinely a peaceful, stable place once more, we can't put it to bed. I'm afraid the (North) American right, and Blair and his acolytes, won't get people to just 'move on' from the issue of Iraq just by saying that they should.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Ben, what Obama is doing with Nethanyu is personal in how he attacks him.
Mark my words, Obama is a very thin skinned idealogue and he isn't above getting personal in showing his displeasure. Apparently he had Benjamin cooling his heels in the Oval Office while he had dinner with his kids. Not sure on how this diplo thing is supposed to work, but I do believe that sort of message is just childish.
AS for Bush's lack of campaigning about human rights before he was elected, maybe he saw the light once he was in the Oval office? Cant criticize the man for being late to the party if he arrives and recognizes the wrongs being done and uses his office to add pressure. My point is, and always was, that he isn't the dope he has been portrayed at, and some of the things he has done in the 3rd world have been ignored by the opponents. The US spent WAY more on foreign aid in Africa on anti-AIDS prevention and treatments than Clinton did, and it was Bono who pointed THAT out, hardly a Bush acolyte.
As for the Americans getting out of Iraq, I suspect Obama would have had them out yesterday if the country would stand on its own. Most Americans want their troops out of there, both left and right. However, this goes under the category of "you broke it, you bought it"....and the US and the UK have a moral duty to at least leave the nation on some sort of footing of self sufficiency. This being the Arab world, that usually means a dictator imposing peace. Since that wont do....the troops stay while the Iraqi's figure out this democracy thing and learn to work with it, instead of blowing each other up with large car bombs and the like.
Like I said, there is a very good argument to be made for not having gone to Iraq in the first place, I get that, but it is water under the bridge now...
Ask our enemies.....and our "friends."Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomi
you see, I don't care about the general public of other nations....I care about the Governments. They respected Bush. Look at Libya. They saw what Bush was doing and cleaned up there act quick.
I have seen nothing to object to in this, and I am not someone who is automatically impressed by Obama. It is about time Israel was shown that its 'you're either with us or against us' attitude, not one to have served its interests well, cannot be tolerated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
No it isn't! There are still people dying there in an armed conflict that would not have occurred had those who knew it was an awful policy to pursue been listened to. This is what we hear ad nauseam from the likes of Blair whose backing was unconditional: 'Let's move on'. No, we won't, thank you very much. Then there's the view of people such as David Cameron who, for some reason, were naive and misguided enough to support the war in the first place and have now realised the error of their ways but are unwilling to admit their mistake: 'If I'd have known then what I know now about how Iraq will turn out...' Neither is that good enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Once more?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I guess genocide and political repression is peaceful for you. Not Surprising seeing what flag you wave.
The Republic of Iraq is currently seeing it's greatest moment of peace and stability since it's inception in 1958. The only destabilization occurring is from outside interference. Better known as Iran.
That is revisionist history. Libya was already cleaning up its act some time before Bush came along. Diplomatic relations with many nations had already been restored and trading links set up. Don't forget, it announced in 1998 that it would be giving up the alleged Lockerbie suspect. It was probably not the right man, but the very action of doing so was a deeply symbolic move.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
The flag under my name is the modern flag of post-war Germany. Your point being...?Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Neither do Syrians, Iranians and North-Koreans care if other countries like them, at least their leaders don't. You're just like them.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
You're just like some Russian youths I saw interviewed on TV. They said they don't care if other countries like Russia, they prefer them to respect and fear Russia.
:laugh: Respect? I used to like and respect the US before Bush. Under Bush I used every opportunity to crack a joke about the US, ridicule it and criticize it.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Which, I think, is a perfectly fair and valid point. But it should be remembered that I don't feel that the US' leaders, with one possible recent exception, would agree with the view that they don't care about what the rest of the world thinks of them. It certainly wasn't true of Reagan or Bush senior, two politicians for whom I would never have voted, but whose manner and style were infinitely more acceptable to more people than merely a particular section of the American electorate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Jokes and cracks almost always achieve currency for a reason. No President of whom I can think has done more to destroy the external image of the US, end of story. This is a huge shame, as that view came to mask the many outstanding things about a great country and its people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
So the stability of a country run by a meglomaniac who killed thousands of his own citizen for sport is superior to a country with a democratic base being formed, but is still fighting interethnic conflict? Heck, if you want to blame anyone for Iraq, how about the British foreign office that thought three distinct groups in this part of the world can get along in one nation? Where does it stop?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
My point is, you can be mad as hell about Bush and Blair going to Iraq all you want, it is water under the bridge. Both are out of power, and both the UK and US have committed themselves to helping this nation find some sort of footing. IT isn't their fault tho that these morons with car bombs and religious/political agenda's cannot get along...
Umm Tony, I wont quibble with your first statement...but the Republic of Iraq was more STABLE under Hussein at times than it is now. Not a fun place to live I grant you, but no one was putting car bombs in markets either.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Most of the fighting I wager is NOT just Iranian influenced, but the Sunni/Shiite dislike for each other. Toss in the fact the Kurd's don't trust the other two, and it is like Yugoslavia's disintegration all over again..
They should have seen it coming. Saddam's mass killings were more water under the bridge, over 10 years had passed since them before the invasion, and they happened because those morons with religious/political agendas couldn't get along. Bush got rid of Saddam, but he couldn't get rid of those morons or the root cause of the problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
We don't care if you respect us. The Government of Finland does...that is the only thing that matters when discussing US-Finland relations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
That you proudly fly the flag of a people who willingly used Government repression, Terror and Genocide. A people who never willingly gave up the practice but had to be forced.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
So why would anyone expect you to think that Iraq is better off now than when they practiced Government Repression, Terror and genocide?
It is you who is using revisionist history. The Only reason some European countries were working with Libya is because of Oil. Libya continued down the anti-western path while selling oil to you people.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Europe has a terrible history of turning a blind eye to evil governments that continues to this day.
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Besides, the government of Finland is elected by Finnish citizens. Finland didn't join the US coalition in Iraq, and the former Finnish Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen had to go when people found out that he had secretly promised Bush that Finland will aid in rebuilding Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governm...vasion_of_Iraq
Furthermore, the Finnish President Tarja Halonen later said in the UN that the invasion was illegal:Quote:
In Finland, Anneli Jäätteenmäki of the Center Party won the elections after she had accused her rival Paavo Lipponen, who was prime minister at the time, of allying neutral Finland with the United States in the war in Iraq during a meeting with President George W. Bush. Lipponen denied the claims and declared that "We support the UN and the UN Secretary-General." Jäätteenmäki resigned as prime minister after 63 days in office amid accusations that she had lied about the leak of the documents about the meeting between Bush and Lipponen. This series of events was considered scandalous and it is named Iraq leak or Iraq-gate. The main point was that special advisor of President of Finland had leaked series of documents which were considered secret. Special advisor Martti Manninen gave these secret documents to Anneli Jäätteenmäki, who used information provided by these documents to accuse Paavo Lipponen of supporting the Iraq war. The secret documents included a memo or memos of discussions between George W. Bush and Paavo Lipponen. Later on criminal charges were pressed against Martti Manninen for leaking secret documents and against Anneli Jäätteenmäki for incitement and aid to the same.
The Finnish government stated that they took a stronger stand on the Iraq question at a meeting chaired by President Tarja Halonen. The meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Foreign and Security Policy issued a statement according to which the use of force against Iraq would not be acceptable without the authority of the UN Security Council. [18] [19]
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...s-inspectors/2
Quote:
Other leaders who followed Bush to the microphone declared the invasion illegal, echoing UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's similar statement in an interview last week.
Saying there was no alternative to unified international action on security issues, Finnish President Tarja Halonen told delegates, "Some nations resorted to the use of force, which was not compatible with international law."
You don't get the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
No, please explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
We are serious about our neutrality. We don't take kindly to threats like "you're either with us or against us".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fl...1933-1945).svg This is the flag of a people who willingly used Government repression, Terror and Genocide. They were indeed forced to give up the practice.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Germany.svg This on the other hand is the German flag.
Nazi Germany perished 65 years ago. Ask any German about the actions of their forebears, their nation's actions in the 1930's and 40's and the reaction you get is muted. One generally of shame. There is a cultural 'joke' in the UK when discussing Germans - "Don't mention the war" is said in jest.
Not because there was a winner, but because of the godawful things that human beings did to one another in that time.
The rest of the world has moved on and respects Germany for the peaceful, tolerant and immensely successful nation and culture that it is. The fact that you feel the need to (innaccurately) dredge up the second world war in reaction to someone flying the German flag (if I recall correctly, Ben is domiciled there?) to try and make the point that America was more respected under Bush, displays the frankly breathtaking arrogance and ignorance of the rest of the world that the Bush administration displayed in reducing what was a global superpower to little more than a global laughing stock which is essentially owned by China.
(Have you any idea how screwed the American Economy is if China relinquishes it's American investments? Debt is owed to someone....I suggest you practice the phrase nǐ hǎo....)
You're ridiculous. No one can take you seriously for ridiculing a modern German for WWII. Talk about a can of worms! Also, you're always whining when someone insults you, but you easily dish out a load of crap. The give-it and can't take-it crowd (see: coward).Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Right, which is the same reason America is in Iraq. Thanks for gracefully illustrating that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
I haven't seen anyone under the Obama administration lose any of their political freedom. If anything he's trying to rectify it by using Federal laws (speaking about Arizona's illegal immigration law). Seems like these guys are just G.W. Bush brown-nosers trying to make a big issue out of nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
This is an incorrect assertion. The last 2 times that I visited the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, it was dominated by the Syrian military.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
If one wants to go down that road, it is worth noting that the internal situation in Iraq had largely been becalmed for several years by the time the invasion took place. But say that, and one is immediately lumped in with the view that one supports Hussein, which is patently nonsense, but doesn't stop right-wingers of little intelligence putting two and two together and making five.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
I think your knowledge of flags is sadly lacking. Germany then used a different flag to Germany now. Indeed, the name of the state of Germany is different. But this may be a little too nuanced for you. (Sorry about the number of syllables used there, as well.)Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Tell me, at what point does something become 'water under the bridge'? When talking about it starts to become inconvenient or embarrassing? Do you have a set timescale for this? Again, say that all you like, but it won't be forgotten. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
I should maybe say that I am not actually German, though I can understand why someone not using the flag of their own country on an internet message board is tantamount to treason as far as someone like anthonyvop is concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by gloomyDAY
A statement that was only deemed appropriate or effective by those of spectacularly little brain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki