Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Almost appears the Bush administration is intent on using its military and economic might to invite others to see things our way, and if refused, either force or punish them.

Is it any wonder, the U.N. announced Iraq security is inadequate to justify U.N. intervention? It is a diplomatic way for the U.N. to say to President Bush and his administration, a majority of the rest of the nations in the world will not make your reelection any easier as long as the U.S. postures itself as political and cultural imperialist of the world.

Reminds me of Animal Farm, (authored by Aldous Huxley if I remember correctly,)you are free to say and do anything I say you can. It was called democratic there too, by the ministry of propaganda.

Thats right. Countries that wouldn’t lift a finger — despite having voted in the UN Secutirty Council for military consequences as a result of inaction by Iraq — ought not to be punished for their decision.

But the companies — not the governments — are the ones being punished! Or does Bush not realize that only in the U.S. does “Big Business” so entirely control the government?

Charlie, you ignore the fact that the UN opposed the US action in Iraq.

I think it goes to show that the current administration is only digging itself deeper and deeper and this whole deal of national security is a rather lame packaging to cover our own interests. So instead of trying to rebuild damaged ties with states that are members of an ever increasingly powerful European Union, we continue to shut them out and anger more countries and people.

True, I can see the reasoning by not allowing them to help reconstruct, but the excuse for it seems like a rushed attempt to keep them out. So maybe I am more annoyed by that than anything else.

I heard one journalist on TV this evening report that the contribution of troops was not necessarily a prerequisite for opening contracts to the banned nations, rather, the Pentagon and Administration are seeking an agreement from those countries that they will cease and desist from critizing the Administration. That could be sufficient.

This from a democracy which “champions” freedom of speech for all in the world. From and adminstration that claims to be freeing the peoples of the world from tyranny. Yeah, right! Exercising the power of government to squelch freedom of expression if it is critical, is just one more sign of the loss of our democracy, IMHO.

Yeah it’s pretty self-defeating because the big French and German companies will be able to bid through their British subsidiaries for the contracts anyway . This makes the administration look strangely weak and infantile.

It was George Orwell :p

Bob Hope, thank you, George Orwell is correct. Going to buy it for my 13 year old for Christmas. Give us a lot to talk about in the civics area next year. At 53 it is getting harder to remember details like authors of books I read in the 8th grade.

Many thanks.

Ah, I remember reading Animal Farm when I was 13! My teacher placed pieces of paper with different colors on them on our desks and told us that those with Blue got an automatic A if they as long as they did all their homework, those with yellow got a B and didn’t have to do the work, etc. Bringing the “All animmals are equal, but some are more equal” idea from the book into the classroom.

All but 2 of us revolted by walking out of his class the next day and not returning for 2 days. We were summonsed to his classroom at lunchtime by the security guard and thought we’d get suspended, but instead he taught the lessons from his colored cards and actually was only mad at the two who had remained in class because they just accepted his tyrany rather than fighting for what was right and fair!

Reading that book was probably my political awakening, and to this day I fight for what is right and fair, and that’s why Bush needs to be removed from the White House.

“Yeah it’s pretty self-defeating because the big French and German companies will be able to bid through their British subsidiaries for the contracts anyway.”

Unfortunately, in Europe, most company’s subsidiaries are very transparent, making it very easy for them to be passed over. Especially when all anyone has to do is call Tony Blair or Silvio Berlusconi and ask the backgroud of any company.

First, we need to remember that they can bid on subcontracts which form the basis for monetary amounts in prime contracts, so the ‘more expensive’ worry isn’t as big a deal.

Second, European companies and especially large French companies are very closely tied to the government, so the idea that we are punishing the wrong people is much weaker than it would be if we were talking about US companies. You guys are used to the US standards of corporate/government relations. European standards contribute to much closer ties.

Third, France, Germany and Russia had already decided not to aid much. This decision was made early and has not changed nor was it likely to change. I’m using ‘aid’ in the sense of donating money or troops or expertise for Iraqi reconstruction. There are many countries who have chosen to provide substantial aid. The reconstruction contracts in question (as opposed to aid) are being funded by the US government. There is nothing wrong with profit from money donated by the US going to those who were not our diplomatic enemies in the run-up to the war. I have seen no evidence that France, Germany and Russia were anywhere near to providing aid. So I can’t see how “Reduce Likelihood of Cooperation/Assistance” is much of a worry. I’m not likely to dicover the cure to cancer, and while my refusal to become a doctor reduces the likelihood of me discovering a cure to cancer even further, it isn’t a major concern. This decision mildly punishes those countries which have already decided not to give aid. Perhaps it will be a negotiating point for current aid, or leverage for aid in future endeavors. In any case the marginal difference in French, Russian and German unhelpfulness is negligible at this point.

Fourth, and related to the third point regarding: “Reinforces belief war started out of greed”. This is the kind of belief for which decisions have already been solidified. If you believe that Bush sacrificed American soldiers so that US companies could earn a bit more profit you are already operating under a huge number of assumptions which would need to be dealt with individually. The marginal change in opinion of people like that isn’t going to do much. If you are someone who believes that the US had a strategic and moral interest in getting rid of Saddam, this isn’t going to do much. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I don’t see too many fence sitters for whom this kind of decision will be a big deal.

Problem is, Bush wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants international support, but he’s not willing to do the horsetrading necessary to get people to see it in their interests to do so.

I don’t know. What did they do? Require that all the state and defense department people take a class in how to alienate allies?

I have never seen this country so compromised as a world power as I see it now.

“I have never seen this country so compromised as a world power as I see it now.”

United States after Vietnam. USSR after Afghanistan. Japan after WWII. Germany after WWII. Italy at at least 5 different points in its history. Spain after fighting with the British.

“but he’s not willing to do the horsetrading necessary to get people to see it in their interests to do so.”

I don’t see it. France and Germany aren’t willing to engage in the horsetrading at all. That is hardly something that can be assigned as blame to Bush.

Sebastian, why are you bringing up all those countries? I’m only referring to this one. And evidently, I’m too young to have experienced the low point of Vietnam. So don’t nitpick that.

Yes, France and Germany had obstinate blowhards in office, who had political reasons to reject the war in Iraq. But Bush could have been the reasonable party. Clinton went up against all that, did the Kosovo campaign without UN support, and came out smelling like a rose.

Why couldn’t your wonderful and amazing Bush use diplomacy and statecraft to get his way, instead of being so transparently disrespectful of the international community that he made these guys look like heroes to their countries and the rest of the UN?