Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Someone famous (I forget who) is often quoted saying “Walk softly and carry a big stick”. I believe as a foreign policy this is a wise and extremely useful basis for diplomacy. Thus, I have no debate with you if the argument is made that Bush’s attack on Iraq was a demonstration of that wisdom. I think the point was made in Afghanistan and Iraq was overkill, but that is not what I want to discuss.

The problem with the ‘big stick’, as our founding fathers were well aware, is that it can turn the righteous and justified wielder of it into an onerous Goliath to be taken down by those oppressed by the big stick if the wielder is not judicious and sparing in its use.

As a liberal thinking person, this is my chief concern regarding Bush and international relations. We used our big stick in Afghanistan. I was 100% behind the President as were most Americans regardless of ideology and most nations in the world. When we then turned the big stick on Iraq under pretenses that were not supported by a large majority of Americans nor a large majority of nation’s peoples, we began to appear as Goliath, intimidating, wreckless and fearsome.

As a style for leadership, that image will not garner support. In fact, it will be resisted and critizized. And if the use of the big stick proves to be a preferred method of dealing with problems, the wielder will become the targeted Goliath to be taken down at any cost.

I think and hope the Guardian is quite right in its assessment that Bush is returning to traditional diplomacy for whatever reason. For if he is not and will not, he will make Americans the evil to be removed from the world.

>>When we then turned the big stick on Iraq under pretenses that were not supported by a large majority of Americans nor a large majority of nation’s peoples, we began to appear as Goliath, intimidating, wreckless and fearsome.

Hee, hee, hee, we overturn a truly EVIL dictatorship, doing so with a minimum losses even to enemy combatants, freeing the Iraqi people, and you call us a “Goliath?” “Intimidating and fearsome?”

Maybe to the dictators of the world.

Here’s another question you can avoid; what free country should fear us? Heck, which countries that are not free should fear us?

>>As a style for leadership, that image will not garner support.

It already has, as France and Germnay move closer to our position. And it definitely has in Libya, Syria, Saudia Arabia and the rest of the Middle East where strength is far more respected than weakness.

There is a difference between following a leader out of respect, and following the dictates of a power which cannot be resisted, at least overtly. Concentration Camp occupants followed the orders of their captors, it could be called respect for their power, but it was not without total contempt and hatred for the abuse of that power over them.

In defense, one is entitled almost any means to protect oneself. But, crossing the line to offense and calling it defense, neither works in our courts nor in the international court of opinon. That is, in the minds of 100’s of millions of people around the globe, the line the U.S. crossed in invading Iraq.

I believe Bush can defend his invasion of Iraq if his future policy does not reflect to the world an intent to wield its power for national gain. A mistake is easily forgiven, a pattern of mistakes which clearly projects prior intent, will not be forgiven nor go unopposed.

Thresholds need to exist for our use of force. We cannot give those who do not live up to agreements forever to restore themselves from their delinquency.

But Bush botched that. The whole point to this state of affairs was that Saddam was defying the UN. He might have been defying us, but if we whine about that too much, we look weak or unaccountable. He was defying the UN.

This is where the diplomacy could have come in handy- Bush should never have named an Axis of Evil. It telegraphed his stance on them, and this made him the one making the racket. He should have introduced initiatives on resuming weapons inspections. Once there, he should have made the standards fair to the Iraq government.

Then, he should have let the Iraqis make the mistake of interfering with inspections. Then Bush should have played hardball. He should have piled on all the violations of previous UN security council resolutions. he shouldn’t have been trying to prove any case on the weapons themselves, because the absence of them would be a blow to the legitimacy of our case against him.

It would be then that he call on the UN to enforce the resolutions. It would be then that he starts deploying ground troops, then that he makes the ulimatums, then that he asks Saddam to leave, and then that he invokes 9/11, saying we can’t let tyrants like him defy the UN forever.

Start an aerial campaign immediately, start targeting the infrastructure that Saddam’s military depend on. Then start bringing the troops in, whether by air, sea, or land. Or better yet, start the buildup when he ceases to be cooperative, but keep it quiet. In any case, have Saddam in a position where people are saying it’s his own fault he is where he is.

Send in enough troops to do the job right. Do your shock and awe, but not after you’ve been harping on it for weeks. Be truly shocking, make things truly awe inspiring by failing to prepare them for the jolt.

That’s the way to be hard-edged.

Bush’s problem is that so much of his behavior rests on affectations and pieties. He puts himself out in front as the heroic leader, the tough guy, and the born again man, but often, it just seems to me that he’s echoing the scripts and cliches of those roles instead of taking them on naturally, being functionally tough, heroic, and Christian, as much as tries to be obviously so.

We need people who are functionally what they are supposed to be, not merely convinced of the fact.

Then, he should have let the Iraqis make the mistake of interfering with inspections. Then Bush should have played hardball. He should have piled on all the violations of previous UN security council resolutions.

But that is what happened!!

Saddam had been taking UN inspectors for a ride for twelve years, and each time the UN kept giving him another chance. Each time he let in inspectors because of military muscle-flexing by the US, and then stopped co-operating with them later. For twelve years!

Truth is —- most UN members care more about power-wrangling measures with the US than world security.

Which is why alliances like the “Coalition of the Willing” and NATO, where members share much greater common ground, and are much less adversarial, are much, much more effective than the UN.

The sooner we stop caring about the UN the better.

Vivek, I appreciate your view of the U.N. as being weak and ineffective. But, I fear the day we stop caring about the U.N. is the day we march down the road toward regional multi-national wars that have the potential of damaging the human race beyond repair.

The dream of the U.N. was to mediate and resolve international disputes if at all possible to prevent war from occuring. That is an ideal worth supporting and leading and working toward, even though it may not be an ideal achieved in our lifetimes.

The U.N. operates on democratic principles. Democracy is a sloppy and inefficient form of government, by design, but it is the best there is. If we reject the U.N., we will in part be rejecting it because it is democratic. That is hardly a position America could hold its head up high over.

The dream of the U.N. was to mediate and resolve international disputes if at all possible to prevent war from occuring.

What has stopped most modern messy situations from flaring into wars is not fear of the UN, but fear of the US (or NATO). What has encouraged most messy modern situations to get messier is the precedent that the UN will surely drag its feet and prevent any real action.

The U.N. operates on democratic principles.

Patently false.

That would be true if the governments (and UN ambassadors) of countries like (former) Iraq, Iran and North Korea were representative of their people. They are clearly not.

There is no more stingingly true demolition of the UNs tower of babble than the address of Iraq’s foreign minister to the security council:

“One year ago, the Security Council was divided between those who wanted to appease Saddam Hussein and those who wanted to hold him accountable….

The UN as an organisation failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny of 35 years. The UN must not fail the Iraqi people again.”

That is reality.

Never mind the mythic ideal than the UN is supposed to represent, but does not.

“What has stopped most modern messy situations from flaring into wars is not fear of the UN, but fear of the US (or NATO).”

Where’s your proof? Where has NATO or the US supressed armed conflict through the use or threat of force?

“That would be true if the governments (and UN ambassadors) of countries like (former) Iraq, Iran and North Korea were representative of their people. They are clearly not. “

Answer me this, then: Why did Bush recognize the People’s Republic of China, and not Taiwan, if that is your policy? Why doesn’t Pakistan fall under your opprobation for not representing its people? Why was Georgia allowed into the “Coalition of the Willing” with Eduard Schevardnadze’s government in place?

Your case fails Historically, too. In the name of freedom, your wing of the party has been more than willing to support tyrants and dictators, from Marcos to Pinochet. Don’t forget: for twenty of those year which that man spoke of, your people supported Saddam’s government in the name of fighting Communism.

Going back to the UN comment, I wonder how many times we intervened in the UN on Saddam’s side, how many times we used our power as you described it to aid him in holding onto his office.

I also wonder, considering our current relationship with nations like Pakistan, whether or not we might face another US backed tyrant in battle not to many year from now.

Vivek, the U.N. is made up of representatives of the governments of nations around the world. One nation, one vote. It is indeed a democratic institution representing heads of government, regardless of the type of government which rules the people of that nation.

Which is precisely why, if the U.N. is going to succeed, the U.S. must support the U.N., pay its debts to the U.N., and exercise some of the greatest statesmanship our nation can muster to lead the cause of peace, in the U.N. To oppose the U.N. is to oppose the democratic process designed to mediate and resolve conflicts before they result in WWIII.

Anyone who has followed the news of late cannot ignore the Asian regional pacts, the African coalitions being formed to unify the continent, the EU, and NAFTA. The world of nations is factionalizing into regional political entities for the purpose of free trade, but, also for the purpose of enhancing political bargaining strength as a region of neighboring political interests.

The U.N. is the one organization that holds out the hope that these regional pacts do not become military regional entities. The day that happens, and there are signs already in Asia, we enter a stage set for WWIII.

It is the height of folly for any to believe that the U.S. as a single nation will be capable of maintaining the peace throughout the world. Contrary to all our complacent beliefs in our being the wealthiest nation in the world, we haven’t the resources to maintain that role for any length of time.

Rifts now exist between the EU and the U.S., between the U.S. and the Middle East (Saudi Arabia and Israel excepted) between the U.S. and China. Continue down this path while abandoning the U.N. and its mission is pure arrogance and self-deluding folly, in my opinion.

I am not suggesting we concede to injustice, or exported terrorism, or turn a blind eye to dictatorial regimes which choose a militaristic path of growth and expansion. I am suggesting the worlds problems are too big and many to handled without the assistance and resources of the U.N.

Stephen:
Why doesn’t Pakistan fall under your opprobation for not representing its people?

About Pakistan, I completely agree with you. All the more after recent reports about it being the #1 nuclear shop for rogue nations. Pakistan lucked out because of its strategic geographical advantages, but it is an uneasy ally at best. You could add Saudi Arabia to that list too.

David:
The U.N. is the one organization that holds out the hope that these regional pacts do not become military regional entities. The day that happens, and there are signs already in Asia, we enter a stage set for WWIII.

That is highly alarmist. All those pacts (e.g Asia has SAARC, ASEAN) are purely economic, trade and diplomatic pacts. Asia (except for China and Pakistan) is by and large democratic, and making excellent progress —- nobody is hankering for war, even though there may be tensions (India/Pak, China/Taiwan). In fact, it was an ASEAN summit that brought together China and Japan, setting aside long-standing historical scars on both sides (Japan is not even an ASEAN member).

When there’s moolah to be made, nobody cares about these things. When there’s moolah to be made, even the Communist party in China begins to open up its markets, try out limited forms of capitalism, and grapple with property rights.

All these pacts are not cause for alarm, but a development towards progress and partnership —- just like you want. They don’t go through the UN because its too massive, bureaucratic and irrelevant for those purposes.

“Most governments in the world are either outright dictatorships or deeply corrupt 3rd World Kleptocracies; governments that maintain power by oppressing and ripping off their citizens.”

They’re all thieves and beggars, aren’t they? Savages that would cut your throat and smile with their last two teeth.

” Which raises two questionds; 1) How could representatives of these governments make honest and sound decisions, and 2) why would the US wish to strongly support and empower such a corrupt organization?”

Which raises the questions: 1) How could I trust a circular argument any further, where my opinion of UN Corruption is used to support my accusation…

Wait, why don’t you tell me precisely how many of these countries are dictatorships or otherwise, and why don’t you fill me in on the information that will demonstrate such widespread corruption? and 2) why don’t we leave the second question until we’ve taken care of the first?

“Okay, let’s take 3 reasonable people, 5 representatives of Organized Crime organizations and 4 representatives of deeply violent, criminal sociopaths. Then let’s abide by the “democratic process” that occurs. Anyone want to live under the resulting rules? I think not, heh.”

In America, until one gets a felony conviction, lets one’s voter registration lapse, or drops one’s citizenship, one is entitled to vote. Personal morality has little to do with it. We can call this the Sergio Leone method of government: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. The UN was created to reflect this. As long as these countries stay within the rules, they get to participate. But if you pull something like the invasion of a foreign country, that’s where the UN’s laws are meant to intercede. Saddam learned this to his chagrin.

“There isn’t the slight evidence that the UN has any chance of ever doing that. Look how they sat on their hands during the mass kiillings in Bosnia, the genocide in Rwanda and Hussein’s long efforts to develop WMD’s as he massacred his people. If WWIII ever occurs, odds are the UN will have played a role in it occurring, not preventing it.”

You keep bringing up Rwanda- tell me, what was your party’s response to suggestions that they go into that region? And how long was this after the debacle in Somalia?

As for Bosnia, I recall that the elder Bush, having freed Iraq, did nothing for Bosnia. Clinton continued that mistake, but made up for it with Balkan peace plans and his defense of the Albanian Kosovars.

You make such a big deal out of our backing, and you hardly square any of the responsibility for lopsided policies like Bosnia on our shoulders. Tell me, what was the tenor of what your party was saying in response to Bosnia at that moment?

As for WWIII, we can count at least one occasion when such prevention was the case. One we have already discussed into the ground.

“Which is wny we have the English, the Polish, the Italians, the Koreans, the Japanese, the Thais and many, many other countries helping us, both militarily and with aid in Iraq, although I don’t believe anyone is so foolish to think that the US can maintain peace everywhere.”

As I recall, only the English have forces in the area approaching our scale of involvement.

“What is it that prevents you from seeing that agreements can be made without the UN being involved?”:
-Richard Clement

“Anyone who has followed the news of late cannot ignore the Asian regional pacts, the African coalitions being formed to unify the continent, the EU, and NAFTA. The world of nations is factionalizing into regional political entities for the purpose of free trade, but, also for the purpose of enhancing political bargaining strength as a region of neighboring political interests.”
-David R. Remer, before he was asked the above.

He knows such agreements can be made. He just doesn’t agree that such Hegemonic activity needs to be increased, which will be the result of a diminishing of the UN in his eyes.

WWII saw Japan’s entrance to the War with an attack on Pearl Harbor. Why? Because the U.S. had stopped exports to Japan of resources it needed in response to Japan’s hostile activities in China which were designed to co-opt territory that would provide Japan with resources it needed.

Wars start far too easily over economic interests and economic politics, which can be a form of war itself. My point was that with the regional trade pacts taking place in the world, what effects one country can and most likely affect its trade pact members as well. These trade pacts, if attacked economically through targeting one of its member states, can result in the trade pact becoming a military defense pact.

The days of targeting France for economic sanctions without raising the ire of the EU are numbered. Bush’s plan of coercing through economic sanctions or punitive measures, other countries’ support for our military and geo-political agenda is full of pitfalls, both now through precedent that won’t be forgotten, and later, as such countries appeal to their regional pact members to defend against American aggressive economic, military, and geo-politcial self-interested agenda.

A President with vision and geo-political understanding and saavy, would pursue economic and political agendas which have appeal to the bulk of other nations. And the same President would have invaded Afghanistan because the world at large agreed with the principle of stopping those directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks and terrorism around the world. That same President
would not have invaded Iraq unless and until either the proof of links to 9/11 could be presented to the world, or 2) proof of WMD or imminent threat to the U.S. or its allies could be presented in defense of such action. This President we have now failed on both points and has demonstrated adequately for this voter that his term needs to expire for the general welfare of all Americans and our nation’s future.

I just wanted to point out a minor quibble regarding the original article. The recent news about Libya is just the latest step in a policy of rapproachment that predates Bush.

I agree with the assessment that a long lived policy of rapprochement assisted Qaddafi’s supposed willingness to cooperate, if you are using the word rapprochement ironically. However, it does not appear that it is Bush pushing any buttons according to a NY Times article entitled Libya Presses U.S. to Move Quickly to End Sanctions, in which it is Qaddafi dictating the terms. There is no question, the man has found it difficult to hold power and prosper under the long economic seige against his regime.

David. You guys are having a great debate, but I do want to make a point.

“When we then turned the big stick on Iraq under pretenses that were not supported by a large majority of Americans nor a large majority of nation’s peoples, we began to appear as Goliath, intimidating, reckless and fearsome.”

David. You guys are having a great debate, but I do want to make a point.

“When we then turned the big stick on Iraq under pretenses that were not supported by a large majority of Americans nor a large majority of nation’s peoples, we began to appear as Goliath, intimidating, reckless and fearsome.”

The fact remains that the majority of Americans, including both houses of Congress, did and still do support the War in Iraq. It is also a fact that the U.S. did not act unilaterally. You can not turn your minority position into a “large majority of the nation’s peoples.”

And Oswald did shoot JFK.

Oswald may have shot JFK, with a lot of help.

It is a fact that the majority of Congress and the people did and still do support the War in Iraq. No argument from me there from the polls I have seen. However, it remains to be seen if the 52% who still believe Hussein had a direct involvement in the 9/11 attacks, a fact already refuted by the President as he defended that he never said that Husseing did, will become more informed before Nov. If even a third become informed on this issue, like so many millions who have become informed and changed their minds on whether it was right to invade Iraq, it will indeed spell a very dicey election for the President.

I think one thing that must be said about the UN’s opposition to Saddam’s removal is that France, Germany, Red China, and Russia had business deals with the dictator. This is not subject to debate, but is a matter of public record.

For the UN to agree to stop him, all these countries had to vote against their immediate economic benefit, and as the US gained influence in the region, their intermediate and long term financial interests in the region, as well.

SInce these countries had this special financial interest in seeing Saddam continue to hold power no matter what he did, how could they help but be prejudiced?

A judge with such a conflict would have to recuse himself. But for the UN, it is better to paint us as invaders, and themselves as moral guardians (not very convincing when the end result is a vicious dictator remaining in power), and try to force us to continue to provide stability to the country at our expense while they continued to do business with Saddam, at his people’s expense.

How can you hold the high moral ground if your position is that your country should continue to empower a mmurderous dictator and the UN should stop anyone from interferring. Why should we honor such blatant injustice and flagrant — and self-righteous- self interest as anything but what it is?

Jfiles, you miss one important fact- to some we appear to be the profiteers. So they’re asking that same question. In this model of things, one can say, “How can America treat this as if it were a matter of security. They were just using their military power to get an edge on these economic resources” They could frame it, from that point of view as economic competition.

Not saying that’s what we’re doing, but you got to work with people’s perceptions.

Dear Jfiles,

I have a couple of remarks on your message, please excuse my quoting.

>> I think one thing that must be said about the UN’s opposition to Saddam’s removal is that France, Germany, Red China, and Russia had business deals with the dictator. This is not subject to debate, but is a matter of public record.

As a matter of fact, it’s not subject to debate. It’s resoundingly false. This absurd interpretation has been spread by the American right-wing press, in order to discredit the aforementioned countries’ position in the eyes of the American public. In fact, at least Germany and France opposed an unjustified aggression on a country that posed little or no threat to world peace (so where are the weapons, lad?), whose rulers had no connection of Al Qaeda (being a secular, anti-islamist regime that should not surprise anyone) and whose sin was to be sitting on too much oil.

>>For the UN to agree to stop him, all these countries had to vote against their immediate economic benefit, and as the US gained influence in the region, their intermediate and long term financial interests in the region, as well.

Ditto. This is plain defamation. The public in all these countries, and I mean the free ones, was squarely opposed to the Aggression. It was so even in those European countries whose governments chose to follow George W no matter what. We have little Fox-style propaganda around here, it seems.

>>SInce these countries had this special financial interest in seeing Saddam continue to hold power no matter what he did, how could they help but be prejudiced?

Again, I have no financial interest in Iraq, and I was and still am opposed to the Agression, of course. I’m all set for your defamation, buddy (just not here or you’ll be banned!)

What did Bush exactly attain? Besides the oil wells, of course, and the reconstruction contracts for his friends. That’s so selfless…

>>A judge with such a conflict would have to recuse himself. But for the UN, it is better to paint us as invaders, and themselves as moral guardians (not very convincing when the end result is a vicious dictator remaining in power), and try to force us to continue to provide stability to the country at our expense while they continued to do business with Saddam, at his people’s expense.

You ARE invaders. There’s no need to picture you as such. Just ask any Iraqi! Don’t think so? Let’s a have a look at your so-called “casus belli”:

1) Iraq has an enormous stockpile of chemical and biological weapons that needs to be removed.

FALSE. UN experts never believed it to be huge, but modest at best. It turned out to be ZERO. It never seemed like a very compelling reason to invade the guys in the first place. This is an impoverished country, reduced into submission by a decade-long sanctions regime by the UN, whose army was obliterated in a previous war and never rebuilt in any meaningful way (The war proper was a cakewalk, remember?), which posed NO THREAT to even its neighbours, but had to pretend otherwise.

Any decent leader would oppose an invasion of such a country. France and Germany should be an example for everyone else.

2) Iraq has links with 9/11

FALSE. Both Mr. Powell and Mr. Bush have had to admit there’s no solid evidence of those links. I suggest they stop bothering. They’ll never find it. Mr. Osama famously scolded Saddam -an atheist- in his speeches. Arab nationalism (Baath Party’s supposed idelogy, the real one was self-perpetuation) is the opposite of Islamism. Some members of his goverment even were Christians, not Muslims. 15 out of the 19 hijackers were from guess where? Saudi Arabia. How many from Iraq? None. Not one. Funded from Saudi Arabia. Born, raised and educated there. Ideologically brought up to hate ANY secular regime, including Saddam’s. Where on Earth do they think they can find this supposed evidence? They’ll probably forge something, like they did with the yellowcake report.

So, did Saddam fund Tim McVeigh, too? They could have made this assertion, too, why not? The guys had a lot of things in common. Saddam and Osama only have one thing in common: they both speak Arabic (different dialects, though).

3) “We are removing a vicious dictator from power”

Only wielded after the previous two were hard to sustain, this one touches the hearts of decent people. Problem is, it conveniently forgets to mention the handful of vicious dictators supported by, or installed in power by, the US. Would you like me to discuss this “reason” in full? I’m more than willing. But this message is already too long.

>>How can you hold the high moral ground if your position is that your country should continue to empower a mmurderous dictator and the UN should stop anyone from interferring. Why should we honor such blatant injustice and flagrant — and

self-righteous- self interest as anything but what it is?

High moral ground?? I’ll tell you who doesn’t hold it.

Tell me, who is the US to invade countries for the sake of stopping “proliferation” (proliferation meaning non-puppets having lots of weapons), when it happens to have the world biggest stockpile of WMD? You consider that to be a “high moral ground”? Do you think the biggest offender is entitled to pursue minor ones?

Dictators? I lost count LONG ago of all the dictators that the US has helped overthrow legitimate governments (an example, Saddam himself). Who are you to claim the moral ground on that, after helping Pinochet and so many others to slaughter their own peoples?

France and Germany? Pursuing self interest? No, basic decency. Mr Bush cannot claim that much in this episode, sadly for the US.

Regards,

German, Madrid, Spain