Good, Bad, or really sad Bush?

[abe*]

the link to the guardian didnt work for some reason, but i think all the tension we are seeing btw the two countries (ie. germany and the US) goes a lot deeper than the current iraq shouting match.

first of all germany has been closely tied to the US for the past 50 years and those ties have been sloley eroding, in part because of german commitments to the EU and simply because the cold war and fascism are no longer threats to germany so the US protection/occupation/tutelage system is kindof obsolete. the US also has other worries now. a lot of things, other than the different positions on iraq are affecting US-german relations. trade disputes are part of this.

now, as for german public opinion, it is instinctivly anti-war (for obvious reasons) and this has slanted the public debate during every crisis in the past ten years (bosnia, kosovo, gulf war etc.) towards non-intervention, even when else agreed.

as for the question about bush: ill have to say that his performance has been sad in pretty much every respect, but the current iraq thing is, imo, an exeption. the way he has handled it has been somewhat shitty, but his overall strategy has been good. keep in mind that he IS still trying to work through NATO and the UN and that a war has not started yet.

as for the gore vs. bush: i think its very unfair to assume that gore would have handled sept.11th badly. i great deal of our response also depended on bureaucrats and intelligence/law enforcement people, who are there regardless of whether the current administration is democrat or republican. i for one think that gore would have handled the crisis just as well and perhaps would have even been more diplomatic and less offensive to Europe than the cheney and his sock-puppet. who knows, maybe germany and france would support the war if gore was in charge. theres no use in speculating, i know, but this was a speulative topic.
and yes, i voted for gore b/c bush is a tard, cheney is evil and nader is a clown. gore isnt perfect but i prefer him of any of those guys......not much choice, really.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

the link to the guardian didnt work for some reason, but i think all the tension we are seeing btw the two countries (ie. germany and the US) goes a lot deeper than the current iraq shouting match.

Only half the link became clickable so you are going to need to copy and paste.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

It means he is taking this in the right direction. As far as strongarming the UN and bullying countries that don't agree with us into supporting us, I think that this is the wrong thing to do.

Strongarming, another word I don't agree with.  Why is it that the USA is the only nation NOT allowed to apply political pressure on anyone?  It's always referred to as being a bully, or strongarming.

Right now we are starting an economic embargo on Germany to punish their chancellor for what Bush called "traitorous behavior". This is not just arrogant talk, this is arrogant action. We can't honestly expect everyone to agree with what we do, and alienating a major powerhouse like Germany is never a good idea.

But it is an ok idea for them to alienate the USA?  So, if the USA decides it doesn't like another nation, it still has to do business with that nation?  That's as fucked up as saying it was ok when the Nipponese had much higher tarrifs on American Auto imports, and then complained when the USA was going to up the tarrifs here too.  

I don't think that France, Belgium or Germany are holding up their end of the NATO treaty right now.  Seems like our government doesn't think so either.  So instead of pulling out of NATO, and having it crumble like the Warsaw Pact did, the USA seemsto be exploring a different, standard, political tool.

Tell me what is wrong with this in theory?  Why is it that they can protest, and undermine, our position, but we can never do it?  Hell, a couple people even said it's wrong for us to have an embargo against Iraq!!  So, no matter what anyone in the world does, we should never voice our opinions (especially with our dollars)!!!

I cry BULLSHIT!

Now, I'm not saying we should have a trade embargo with Germany, or that we should move quickly.  I am saying that it doesn't matter what the USA does, some people seem to think that we should be lapdogs to the rest of the world.  (to overstate it like some of the ultra liberals here do).

I'm also going to point out how many German liberals have wanted our bases out for a long, long time.  

Bottom Line.  If we don't see Germany as supporting the USA, why should the USA support it?  

The first action that comes to mind is Afghanistan. Now I'm not saying that nothing should have been done in response to 9/11, because the terrorist groups definetely need to be pursued and punished. And its good that we destroyed strongholds they may have had in Afghanistan.

But the other effects of the war weren't so good.

Also, whether or not that war actually deterred any terrorist attacks is up for argumentation. Obviously we didn't get Osama (as Bush promised he would).

Obviously they harbored terrorists there, but they harbor terrorists in numerous other countries and it just seems like the US government needed a scapegoat for 9/11.

I'll just hit those key points real quick.

First, none of that equals "plunged" to me.

Second, like you said, US forces took out terrorist strongholds.

Thrid, don't forget HUGE stores of weapons.

Fourth, you say we just replace one leader with another, not much different, that isn't exactly an example of a negative effect.  Is it?  Saying we could have done better isn't the same as saying we did bad.

Fifth, just by eleminating that many weapons, we slowed down some terrorists, even if they weren't going to be used in America.  That's still good.

Sixth, Bush also said it may take many years in the promise, and he's not done yet, is he?

Seventh, you say that the US isn't going after other countries that harbor terrorists, but you also say we havn't proven it with other countries (like Iraq, for example).  Don't argue both sides of the issue.  As long as the US Government hasn't stopped it's hunt for terrorists, then you can't call anything a scapegoat.  Especially since everyone knows that Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, and he was the prime target.  Where would you suggest the go after first then?

Things can always be done better, only a fool would think that this went perfect.  But, it could have been much worse, you have to admit that too.  

And don't argue that we aren't going after other countries in one post, and about why we shouldn't go after Iraq in another.  They are a bit conflicted, no?  I mean, do we have stronger evidence that other countries are involved then we do with Iraq?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Great, THAT is going to make the US popular.  They make an example to threaten Europe to play along.  My guess is it will just make countries more likely to stand against the US if they are going to try and blackmail Europe into fighting a war at the threat of lost economic activity.

Oh, another big word.  BLACKMAIL.  So again, by pulling out troops and bases (something that liberals have argued that we do in the past), we are blackmailing them.  Hmm.  

So, if I see that this store down the street is wrongfully refusing service to arab-americans, just being typical biggot assholes, I shouldn't be allowed to not shop there anymore.  Because they count on that money I spend there every week, and for me to not spend it there anymore would be blackmail.  

Do you need to get that new dictionary and look up blackmail now Bondo?

In other news from today, the protests held here in Colorado Springs resulted in the police using tear gas and pepper spray on the crowd of 2-3k (largest protest ever in the city).  Rather glad I didn't go.

Yep, gotta love those liberals that say fighting for peace is wrong, then throw a brick at a cop car.  LOL.  The PEACEFUL demonstrations here went off without a hitch.  

[The Ghost of Bondo]

You say the US should be able to pull out.  I agree, but it shouldn't be BECAUSE Germany disagrees on the war.  It should be because we have a valid reason to not have the army over there such as they don't need us there and we don't need us there.  To use this other reason delegitimizes the action.

As for the word blackmail...my definition is Extortion of money or something valuable from a person by threatening to expose a past criminal act or discreditable information.

Lets see, in a way the US is extorting something valuable from a country (rather than person specifically) for discreditable information (tarnishing image).  It isn't perfect but it is hardly misused in this context.

The problem with your analogy is that Germany hasn't really done anything wrong, it is withing their right to do what they've done.  Denying service based on race is discrimination and illegal in our country.

As for Germany not holding up their end of NATO...they don't have to provide military support just because someone asks for it.  It isn't like Turkey has been attacked.

[kami]

Just a response to the article tasty posted... I don't think it's wrong to pull out that military materiel because frankly, Germany is in no need of protection what so ever, it's just old stuff left from the time before the Berlin wall fell. However, threatening to harm the German economy like that is not going to help the situation in any way at all. It will not make Germany comply to what the US wants and would probably just stir up more anti-Americanism, and not just in Germany, all over the world.
And just a theoretical question... what would happen if the rest of the world stopped trading with the US and started to not care about the US anymore? That's what will happen if they are going to do this to everyone who doesn't agree with them.

[tasty]

Strongarming, another word I don't agree with.  Why is it that the USA is the only nation NOT allowed to apply political pressure on anyone?  It's always referred to as being a bully, or strongarming.

Two things. First off, I never said that I supported other nations applying political pressure. I also never said that the US isn't allowed to apply political pressure. I merely implied that I don't think that this particular situation begged the action of cutting economic ties with Germany. Germany is an important country to trade and our ties with it should not be taken lightly. Also, although our pulling out will hurt them more than it will hurt us, it certainly isn't going to help us economically. It never hurts to have powerful trading partners. I'll even approach this from a pro-war point of view. Sure, it would be nice to have the Germans with us on this, but we don't need them to accomplish our goals and we have plenty of other allies that will join us. And I don't think that its plausible to argue that this action will make the Germans cooperate with us. If anything it will further the gap that currently exists between us. So what are we accomplishing by this? I don't see much good to come of it.

But it is an ok idea for them to alienate the USA?  So, if the USA decides it doesn't like another nation, it still has to do business with that nation?
?
Bottom Line.  If we don't see Germany as supporting the USA, why should the USA support it?  

Frankly, it is ok for them to alienate this US. We don't have to like them. They don't have to like us. But for the purposes of peace, diplomacy, and mutual economic benefit, why not keep your options open? Once again, I must point out that Germany is not an economic vessel of the US, but rather a valued trading partner. Trade is a two-way exchange. Domestic forces in Germany virtually prohibit its leaders from supporting this war. Its the economic right of any person or institution to choose who they do business with. I don't buy Starbucks coffee, Nike shoes, or anything else from egregious sweatshop offenders. But what the US does economically matters a lot more than any individual. The entire global economy depends on what the US does, to a far greater extent than any other country can effect it. I don't think this action is worth it on this one issue.

Seventh, you say that the US isn't going after other countries that harbor terrorists, but you also say we havn't proven it with other countries (like Iraq, for example).  Don't argue both sides of the issue.  

I say this because right now the US is trying to prove that Iraq harbors terrorists and use that as part of its justification for war (a relatively weak link to say the least) when we know for a fact that there are other countries that are supporting and harboring terrorists and have clear, undisputed links to prove it. The first country that comes to mind is Saudi Arabia. They support terrorism more strongly than any current country. Certainly they support it more than Iraq. Yet the US is not focused on the Saudis, nor really any other country with terrorist links stronger than Iraq (Pakistan, Libya, Egypt). With my post I merely wanted to point out that if we are going to go after countries that harbor terrorists that Iraq is not the only country nor is it the most prominent country. After all, Osama did refer to Saddam as "an infidel that should not be trusted".

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I agree, but it shouldn't be BECAUSE Germany disagrees on the war.  It should be because we have a valid reason to not have the army over there such as they don't need us there and we don't need us there.  

So, them not needing us is a valid reason?  But them not supporting us isn't a valid reason?  I call bullshit Bondo.  Not supporting Turkey's request, amongst other things, sounds "valid" to me.  I mean, we don't NEED to have those bases there anymore.  Why should it hurting their economy be our problem?  Because we are supposed to support each other?  Or only support each other in the things YOU agree with?

As for the word blackmail...my definition is Extortion of money or something valuable from a person by threatening to expose a past criminal act or discreditable information.

Lets see, in a way the US is extorting something valuable from a country (rather than person specifically) for discreditable information (tarnishing image).  It isn't perfect but it is hardly misused in this context.

Hmm.  What, exactly of value are we extorting?  Their support?  And we aren't looking to tarnish their image, we are talking about not supporting their economy with our bases anymore.  So, you are missing the expose part.  Maybe if you said we just weren't bribing them anymore it would fit.

The problem with your analogy is that Germany hasn't really done anything wrong, it is withing their right to do what they've done.  Denying service based on race is discrimination and illegal in our country.

And it's within our rights to boycott them, remove our bases, stop supporting their economy, and even place trade embargos.  Isn't it?  That's perfectly within our rights.  Isn't it?  

And you are right, my analogy could be better (although being a private shop, he can chose who he sells to or not, he just can't use that excuse for employment in this state).

So, to fix my analogy, the cocksucker of a shop owner down the street was mouthing off about how all the arab americans here should be rounded up and put in camps, or deported back to the middle east.  Those were some of the nicer things he said.  Now, I've been spending money in there for years lets say (not true, since I just moved here, but it works for the analogy), and he's come to count on me and my money.  Now, since I think he's being a cocksucker in this case, even though I have nothing else against him, I decide to boycott his store.  So I tell him I'm going to boycott him and take my business elsewhere if he keeps this attitude.  

Am I wrong?  Is it wrong for me to do it?  Even if I was a loyal customer for years and years, and this was our first major disagreement, I don't think I would be wrong.  I may be reacting a little to fast, but it's still within my rights.  

That fits better.

As for Germany not holding up their end of NATO...they don't have to provide military support just because someone asks for it.  It isn't like Turkey has been attacked.

Yep, they don't.  They can be asses and not even honor Turkey's request to start planning.  They weren't asked to provide military support, they were asked to open talks about it.  Big fucking difference.

[abe`]

thanks, bondo. im kindof retarded on sundays it seems.

tasty, what article said that was that the US was closing down bases in germany now and calling it punishment for not supporting the iraq-agenda, but its not an "embargo". its a move by the pentagon, mcdonalds will still be allowed to do buisness there, dont worry. actually, i think the article played up the significance of the closing of these bases, which has been in the works for a while. german public opinion is also very against the presence of US troops there, so its a lot more convenient for the US to relocate their bases to new ally countries in eastern europe (i.e. poland, czech rep. and hungary). iraq is NOT the only factor affecting US german relations as i mentioned above.

also, i wouldnt dismiss the link between osama and saddam as quickly as you do. i know it sounds far fetched and a little too convenient, but saddam does have some pretty good terrorist credentials and admit to paying money to the familes of suicide bombers in israel, including islamic fundamentalists. so i wouldnt completely exclude the possibility of him giving discret support to alkaida, even if his and their ideologies conflict. the notion of my enemies enemy is my freind is more than a cliche in the middleeast. this is not to say that i am completely convinced myself, but i dont exclude the possibility.

[clarck]

 So, if the USA decides it doesn't like another nation, it still has to do business with that nation?  That's as fucked up as saying

iraq doesnt like usa, then they stoped selling oil to USA and after that bush wanted to go to war more than ever.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Damn Tasty, you are really overstating one side while understating the other.

Ok, I started to go through your last post, but half way through, I decided to trash it and start over.

First, while I mentioned embargo's and talking with your wallet, that's not how far anything is being taken.  Let's look at the situation.

Germany (amongst others) blocked a request by a NATO member (Turkey) to start PLANNING FOR DEFENSE.  That is not moving troops.  That is not comitting anything but the time and knowledge.  Turkey has a concern that it may be attacked.  Agree with it or not, what harm would there be in talking about it and planning?  

So, the USA is looking at pulling bases out of Germany and putting them somewhere else.  Let's see, why would it make sense for us to do that?  It's not like Germany is the perfect place to have them, now that the cold war is over.  It's not like we owe Germany anything.  So, why should, as part of NATO, we continue to reward them economically (with the money they make from the bases)?  Why shouldn't we reward a nation that a) wants the bases there and b) supports our views more?

That's where we stand.

As for embargo's and boycotts, those are more extreme steps, and were also discussed with Iraq, so they may be getting confused.

Another thought, you talk about the US having much more of an impact on the world market.  Ok, but I'm not a commie.  I'm in business.  I have always learned that you take care of your best customer, you don't piss them off.  If you got a fat cat that accounts for most of your income, you cater to them.  You don't expect them to cater to you (with some few exceptions).  So, that would mean that they should have more reason to cater to us.  We don't force trade down their throats.  As a matter of fact, many nations have unfair trade practices with us.  Just because we can have a negative impact doesn't mean we should support peole we don't agree with.  To carry on with the Nike analogy, lets say that I bought enough from them that if I switched to Adidas, they would go under, thousands would be out of work.  Does that mean I should compromise my morals and still do business with them?  Ok, I say I will if they change, but they don't.  Is it wrong of me to leave, spend my money elsewhere and let them die?  No.  It's not.  If they can't support themselves without me, and they chose not to listen to me and work with me, then to hell with them.  Go ahead and scale that up.

Last note.  You say we know it for a fact.  That we know these other countries.  Where's the evidence?  Point some out, because I haven't seen them.  I've seen opinions on it, but if those counted, you don't need the proof with Iraq.  I know there was proof with Lybia in the 80's.  But that's 20 years old, I need something a little fresher.  One thing to keep in mind: I think all terrorist groups should be hunted down, from the Basq to the PLO.  But, I think that the government is (and has to) go after the ones that are a threat to America first.  I think that we should help the Russians with the terrorists (if they ask).  I think we should help all of them, because terrorism is a global problem.  We aren't going after the terrorists in South America yet either, but we should get to them (should, and I hope we do).  So, point out the facts that we know about other states harboring terrorists for me, I'd like to see them.

[tasty]

bucc and abe, i agree with you in my last post i overstated the importance of this move. that doesn't mean i'm changing my opinion, but yes i made it sound worse than it is.

and just for fun, cuz i hate nike:

To carry on with the Nike analogy, lets say that I bought enough from them that if I switched to Adidas, they would go under, thousands would be out of work.  

Oh no, you mean the Laotian slave labor would be out of indentured servitude?  

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Oh no, you mean the Laotian slave labor would be out of indentured servitude?  

Actually I meant that the slave masters wouldn't be earning a penny of the backs of the Laotions anymore.  But close enough  

[jn.loudnotes]

Well, I just waded through all that.

I think the biggest thing that jumps to mind is that the US is being extremely unilateralist.  Bucc, you've made a distinction between Bush's actions and his words, but I don't really see it.  He's talking "tough" with poor grammar and the like.  But the actions you cite bely (sp?) his intentions.

He may be talking with the UN, but take a look at how it's being done.  The real power in the UN is the Security Council, of which the US controls a major part of.  Yet we're asking for the support of the whole world, while simultaneously rejecting it.  I live in North Carolina, not far from about 5 major military bases.  For one, several local economies down here have been crippled lately.  Do you know why?  Because thousands of troops are leaving every day. . .

No matter what the UN says, we're prepped for a full-scale invasion on little more than a moment's notice.  So given that, I think any "diplomatic" action is posturing, an attempt to manufacture some sort of moral justification.  So given that situation, Germany and anywhere else should have every right to object if they feel threatened, etc.  Or if they simply feel the whole deal is wrong.  It's Bush and the US that is acting the cocksucker by reacting with an embargo.  Sure, you can shop anywhere, but you don't have to be an ass about it.

And the fact of the matter is, as the most powerful nation in the world, we theoretically can do everything we as a nation are doing.  Not to mention anything we damn well please.  But I find it galling that Bush seems so ready to use that power.  International politics isn't like a mountain. . .you don't conquer it just because it's there.  Ultimately, is the removal of the current Iraqi government paramount over the need for international stabillity and mutualism?

[BTs_Mysterio]

Two things to say about George Double-ya Bush:

As a Canadian I stand by the saying "BUSH IS A MORON!"

Also I would like to say, from my own point of view, "BURN BUSH AT THE STEAK!"

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Loudnotes,

I started another long post, but I'm killing it.

Let me just say that you may have waded through the whole thread, but you missed many key points.  I say this because you don't talk about them to even refute them.  

You also got a few things wrong (the US has threatened to take bases out of Germany, not an embargo, and it's because of the Turkey issue).  

 So, instead of repeating myself, I'll just say put your waders back on, and when you come out again, we can probably talk about it.  But to preview, I'll show you where I'd start:

Bucc, you've made a distinction between Bush's actions and his words, but I don't really see it.  He's talking "tough" with poor grammar and the like.  But the actions you cite bely (sp?) his intentions.

I'm saying his actions (actually the US's actions) don't agree with his words.  I'm saying that from this, you can't say that his words are his intentions.  Yes, his actions don't match his words.  As for his intentions, I don't pretend to know them for sure.  I'm just pointing out that, if you look at the whole picture, and don't just listen to the sound bites, you don't get what you are claiming.

I mean, if Bush's intentions were really what people around here have said, the war would be over already.  We would have attacked long ago.  And I understand where people get the information from, but they are only looking at it from one angle.  Not the big picture.  

[jn.loudnotes]

No bucc, I just skipped a lot of the side issues.  The big picture, as I see it, is fairly simple.

Bush says:  Death to Iraq, bombs, war, etc etc
Bush does:  HUGE military buildup in and around Iraq

Ok, so he's waiting to actually attack.  But it's not like he's going to just pull out of the desert if the UN doesn't want him to attack.  And I say "him" because I can't seem to get past the fact that he's an unelected president lacking a great deal of popular support.


Why would he be possibly be waiting?  I don't see any reason other than the potential to win some sort of farsical UN justification for unconcionable actions.

[abe*]

Loudnotes,
i think bush is talking tough, simply because this is the only way to get saddam to do anything. before he started beaing the war drum, saddam refused to even let the inspectors in. can you tell the difference between a military buildup to force iraq to comply and a "invasion force"? because i sure as hell cant, and saddam cant either. thats the whole point. i am not for war automatically, but i think that force is the only way to get him to comply. can u find just ONE example of saddam cooperating because of harsh words and criticism from the Security Council?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bush says:  Death to Iraq, bombs, war, etc etc
Bush does:  HUGE military buildup in and around Iraq

Where's the Bush does: presents evidence to the UN

Where's the: Iraq has actually been getting off it's ass and doint what it should have been doing all along because of this threat?

These aren't side issues.  

You don't like Bush, so what.  It doesn't make everything he does evil.  It doesn't mean that, for the right or wrong reasons, he is doing the right things (actions, not words).

Yes, he's talking tough.  Yes, he often talks stupid and out of his ass.  Yes he is preparing the military to enforce the UN resolutions.  And all of this has gotten Iraq to finally cave.  If they cave the rest of the way, war can still be avoided.  Or, do you think that Saddam just decided to start adhearing and cooperating out of the goodness of his heart?  That Bush's statements and actions had nothing to do with it??

And I say "him" because I can't seem to get past the fact that he's an unelected president lacking a great deal of popular support.

Just get over it already.  He was elected, by our laws.  We have an electoral college, and it has always been known that a president could win the election without winning the popular vote.  We even talked about it way back at the Ford / Carter elections.  I'm sure it was discussed long before that.  It's not a secret.  In fact, it's been pointed out in every political class I've ever taken.  

I didn't vote for him.  I don't like him.  But he was elected, and we have to live with it.  Do something about changing election laws, I'm all for it.  But it doesn't change what is now history.  And history shows that Bush was elected.  

And I don't consider enforcing UN resolutions "unconcionable actions".  What's unconcionalbe about it?

[tasty]

I just have to make another off topic rant and clarify that the argument that Gore won the election has nothing to do with the fact that he won the popular vote. That merely has symbolic power. People who believe the election was stolen (such as myself) believe it is so because of conflicts of interest in Florida and on the Supreme Court, and because of mistakes made by those who ran the Florida election that caused Democratic votes to not be counted.