We are taking a fairly unpopular stance in the world and we look like a big bully. Why would you alienate your friends at at time like that? Doesn't seem smart to me.
What unpopular stance specifically are you talking about and how does it make us look like a bully.
Tim, you just posted a link today that was some survey which polled people in at least 15 Middle Eastern countries...of whom the overwhelming majority believe we are acting inappropriately and don't even believe that 9/11 was done by Arabs/Muslims.
If you are talking about the posibility of an attack on Iraq's government, it hasn't happened, nor has our government announced an intention to launch such an attack, so it is not a stance that the US government is taking. Also if it is done it would be justified by the fact that Iraq has violated the ceasefire agreement (in addition to the fact that they are a major sponsor of terrorism and that the government opresses the people causeing many of them to suffer and die).
Right, Bush goes around the world rattling the sword and you sit here and tell me nothing is going on. Bush is threatening any country believed to be harboring terrorists with military intervention. That's at least 15 countries in the world. Would you not expect there would be some repercussions? Do you not think that they are p*ssed that we are making those threats? If the answer to both those questions is "yes", then lets go back to my original question........why would we want to alienate our allies at this time? I would think we would want as many friends as possible....don't you?
Why does it matter whether the Taliban were the gov't of Afghanistan or not? We are talking about prisoners of war.
Under the Geneva convention POWs are soliders of a government that are captured in a war. If the Taliban is not a government then its fighters that where captured would not be POWs. Of course since the Taliban did control most of Afghanistan it might be considered to be pushing it to not consider them a government (before there fall from power of course, they don't govern anything besides perhaps a small hidden cave now). It does matter under the Geveva convention if the Taliban was a government.
I think its pushing it just a little.
Maybe from where you are sitting the shift hasn't been very strong but from where I am sitting it has....and that's true for the Europeans as well.
So any shift from Clinton's ideas is unacceptable?
Tim, you need to go back and read what was written........I said that Europeans are surprised by the quick shift to the right. No where did I say it was bad. What I did say is that people have trouble dealing with significant change.
How is Bush so much more conservative then Reagan?
Bush is a TX Rep......Reagan a CA one...there's some difference.
Oh I guess he was beyond the pale too. BTW do we get to complain about shifts to the left when socialists or labor parties take over in Europe?
This is bs......I don't see the point to these questions. However, I will say that as I understand it, in Europe there are multiple parties and they tend to be more centrists except for the radical fringe and so the spread between conservatives and liberals I think may be smaller than here in the US where we have only two parties main parties. So the Bush administration seems markedly different than the Clinton administration.
things like the kyoto agreement and environmental issues in general
Kyoto was already dead, Bush just dropped the polite lie. It went down by something like 98 to 0 in the Senate, and even the Europeans countries never ratified it (except one or two).
Most other environmental issues are internal American matters or at most matters for the US and its Canadian and Mexican neighbors.
Okay, there is nothing different between Bush and Clinton. So why did you vote for Bush? In fact, why did you bother to vote?
our military positioning and
becoming an aggressor nation
?!?? Did something happen with our military today that hasn't been posted on SI? I suppose from a certain perspective Panama was an agressive action but it happened when Bush Sr. was president. Other then that you could argue that the Mexican/American and Spanish/American wars where acts of agression but they hardly represent recent shifts in US policy...
We just bombed the hell out of a country and we are threatening to do the same to at least three others. You don't think that's perceived as militarily aggressive. Forget our motivation for doing so.....most third world peoples and some in the developed world think we got carried away. I don't necessarily agree but I am not going to make believe that everyone agrees with me.
the rise in nationalism
There is nothing wrong with Americans careing about America or the American government being more concerned with important American interests then international consensus.
Some is fine......but nationalism can lead to military aggression and that's what gets people nervous.
renewed talk of star wars and the development of other military systems
1 - Its our business what military capabilities we want to develop. Unless the Europeans think we are going to attack them they have no reason to be worried about this.
2 - Missile defense never went away, it was just not the policy of the Clinton administration to do much about it, but even the Clinton administration kept developing technologies for it. It has been a firmly accepted policy on the Republican side ever since Reagan proposed the idea.
3 - Our missile defences not only wont hurt the Europeans, they might protect them. Particuarly in the case of the UK because they often cooperate with us in important military actions and right now there is no really effective way to protect our soliders against even something as primitive as Scuds (we have Patriots but they are not very effective, particuarly when you are trying to defend large targers like cities, or big air bases)
This is senseless.....I am trying to explain to you what are some of the other world viewpoints and in response, when you are not attacking the messenger[me], you are being defensive. Those are not my views but what I hear and read. We don't live in a vacuum nor is this world big enough for us to run around half cocked as we are the only remaining super power. Its just the facts.
Ashcroft's attempts to intervene in OR's right to death law...
That is entirely an internal American matter. If you want to talk about it in that context I might even agree with you as a matter of states rights but it isn't something that effects Europe.
You don't think Europeans know what's going on internally here........they are way more informed about us than we are about them. Things like the above color their perception for good or for bad.
Just the nature of your attitude in the paragraph above reflects the new conservatism.......fukk you if you don't like what we want, its us against the world. Doesn't work well in social groups and its the same for countries.
Ted, its like you decideing to get pissed at me if I had painted my house blue and you didn't like blue. If this happened and I said it was none of your business it would not be like saying FU. But Bush hasn't even said "its none of your business", he has been a lot more polite then that. If Europeans wants to talk to us about it we will listen and nod and perhaps try to make a few polite comments, and then do what we want. It isn't something that is going to hurt Europe and its our decsions not theres. Recognizing that fact is not being mean or arrogant.
I know the Europeans did not like Russia sitting at their back door but I bet you they liked the fact that there was another power that opposed us. Its human nature. No one wants to be in the scenario where one person/one country controls the situation.....where there are no choices should things get bad with the US. Bert pointed out that Europe has wanted its own military separate from NATO but the US has discouraged the move. Why? Because we would lose some control. Why does Europe want their own military? So they have control over their own destiny, not the US. We are not down to what color we paint our flag but we do have to be aware of the impact of what we are doing.
You know I am going to say something but don't get upset. Once before we were posting, I think, on zoning and I told you then that you would be happier in Australia where there is lots of open land and less controls on the land. Well, its the same thing on this issue. Australia can do things partly because they are tucked away "down under' and partly because they are not perceived as a major power that don't cause anyone to bat an eye but if we were to do the same things, the world would go nuts. It happens with people too.......my best friend was Australia, I was the US......I always got caught, he never did even though he usually instigated the trouble. ;~))
We have a position in the world that can't be ignored or forgotten and that acts as a brake on our behavior. If we throw off the brake, there will be an out cry every time. That's the way it is.
ted |
