Getting Political

[Ypsilanti Undead]

Okay I'm getting serious here, but these are serious times.

Whether or not you support the war against Iraq, you shouldn’t be happy about our President going on television Monday and lying to the American people in order to sell the war.

Here’s a nice, concise article running down some of Bush’s lies, citing some specific documents which his statements directly contradict:

Credibility Bomb
Doug Ireland
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7426

Here’s a rather long article which is more exhaustive but unfortunately doesn’t cite any documentation:

Preparing The Nation For War:
An Annotated Critique of Bush's March 17th Address
by Stephen Zunes; Foreign Policy in Focus; March 18, 2003
http://www.zmag.org/content/print_ar...3&sectionID=15


Of course you may support the war and disagree with any number of the editorial assertions of these articles, and I respect that. But even so, Bush lied to the American people, thereby impairing their ability to form an informed opinion.

Now more than ever, it's vital to think critically about the news we receive!

[Nittany Dodgers]

A sitting President lied to the American people?!?!?!?!

[Topes]

Dunno. Sounds to em like you're one of 'them' !

[Topes]

http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblo...16.html#000337

BTW, where you be at Hudson Valley???

[Ypsilanti Undead]

Originally posted by Nittany Dodgers
A sitting President lied to the American people?!?!?!?!

Unfortunately, not much of a shock. Of course what's different here is the magnitude of the consequences. These lies are to justify a war of aggression that will kill thousands of people. And that's just in the short term.

We're lucky enough to live in a free society where we can actually, to some degree, hold our leaders accountable for their words and actions. I just think it will be really important, when this is all over, to remember what those words were at the beginning.

[Ypsilanti Undead]

Originally posted by Topes
BTW, where you be at Hudson Valley???

Chicago. I wasn't at the protest last night because my wife had the flu. But if she's feeling up to it, we'll be there tonight. And we won't be doing anything stupid to get arrested.

[Ypsilanti Undead]

Originally posted by Topes
Dunno. Sounds to em like you're one of 'them' !

You mean a giant, radioactive ant? Regrettably, no.

[Nittany Dodgers]

OK, in reading the article, I find just as much misinformation as the author claims Bush put forth. First, the article states that Bush insinuated that Saddam has nukes. Bush never said that. The statement "some of the most lethal weapons ever devised" does not strictly mean nukes. Nukes are the most devastating weapons ever created. The term "some of the most" implies other weapons, including biological and chemical weapons, which I think you can consider some of the most devastating. If you don't think they are devastating, ask the Kurds, Iranians, and the Iraqi troops who mustard gassed themselves when they used them on themselves.

As far as the terrorist link, I will admit that is weak. Bush is stuck in the rut of thought that he has to link Saddam to terrorism in order for the American people to support the war. I think that is false, as the hawks of the country will support the war link or not. Anyone who makes up their mind on the war based only on Saddam link, or lack there of to terrorism, has to do a little more research on the issue for themselves. That said, I think it is entirely possible that the Bush administration has knowledge of links, and are conceiling the evidence for strategic purposes. Obviously they shouldn't put all their cards on the table. Remember when it was leaked to the media that american intelligence was tracking bin-Laden in Afganistan through the use of his satelite phone? What happened then? You guessed it, he stopped using the phone and we lost track of him. Obviously there could be other scenarios where information release would be detrimental to the cause.

As far as his claims on democracy in the region, I don't think any one person can tell the future crystal clear. He may sincerely hold out hope that by installing a democratic government in Iraq, it will spread. I don't think a beurocratic report "proves" that hope false.

As far as his veto of the international criminal court, would you seriously like to subject our military leaders to a court we have no control over? Good God is that idea insane.

The theory that this war is going to start a nuclear arms race is rediculous. Where's the proof to that assertion, or should we just take this writers conjectures as facts? That sounds more than a little hipocritical considering the thrust of this article.

As to the whole "unprovoked attack" notion, I belive we are justified in enforcing the terms of the cease fire from the Gulf War. I think we have ample evidence that Saddam has no intention of disarming (funny how Saddam was destroying his al-Samoud missles, but yet just this week he seems to have some ready to fire).

Of course we have think think critically about anything we hear. No one should believe anything from the Government, the press, their parents, teachers, friends or anyone else without thinking and researching for themselves.

[Topes]

Originally posted by Hudson Valley Undead GM


You mean a giant, radioactive ant? Regrettably, no.

I, for one, welcome our insect overlords. ;)

[Ypsilanti Undead]

First off, please pardon me for starting a discussion that I don't have time to keep up with!


Thanks for the response Brian. Yes the articles have several weaknesses. I was really just trying to draw attention to the parts that cite specific documents; a lot of the rest is, as you point out, editorial speculation.

Originally posted by Nittany Dodgers
First, the article states that Bush insinuated that Saddam has nukes. Bush never said that.

Very true. What he did do, a few months ago, was assert that Saddam was actively trying to obtain them, and provided forged documents as evidence.

Bush is stuck in the rut of thought that he has to link Saddam to terrorism in order for the American people to support the war.

I think it's just as much about convincing the UN. According to the UN charter, we wouldn't need explicit Security Council approval to start a war if (and only if) we are defending ourselves from an imminent threat. The terrorist link was the only plausible way Bush could make the argument that Saddam was an imminent threat to the U.S.

That said, I think it is entirely possible that the Bush administration has knowledge of links, and are conceiling the evidence for strategic purposes.

This, I think, is establishing an exteremely dangerous precedent. If we take as valid the argument that we can start a war without explicit approval of the Security Council AND without proving that we are defending ourselves from an imminent threat, then consider the consequences: how could we diplomatically refute any other country's right to invade any other country? Using this logic: all Saddam needed to make his invasion of Kuwait legitimate was to claim he had intelligence that Kuwait posed a security threat to Iraq. It also opens the door for all those countries who claim the existence of Isreal is a threat to the region. Or for India to start a war with Pakistan. The net effect, in my opinion, is to render the UN impotent as a diplomatic tool for international security.

As far as his claims on democracy in the region, I don't think any one person can tell the future crystal clear. He may sincerely hold out hope that by installing a democratic government in Iraq, it will spread. I don't think a beurocratic report "proves" that hope false.

I would find the idea of our president ignoring the advice of his intelligence agencies on this issue to be pretty alarming

As far as his veto of the international criminal court, would you seriously like to subject our military leaders to a court we have no control over? Good God is that idea insane.

Do you think the Nuremburg trials were insane?

The theory that this war is going to start a nuclear arms race is rediculous. Where's the proof to that assertion, or should we just take this writers conjectures as facts? That sounds more than a little hipocritical considering the thrust of this article.

The writer is clearly speculating, just as I was speculating that diplomacy of international security will break down, and just as the White House is speculating that our version of democracy will succeed in Iraq and spread throughout the region.

As to the whole "unprovoked attack" notion, I belive we are justified in enforcing the terms of the cease fire from the Gulf War. I think we have ample evidence that Saddam has no intention of disarming (funny how Saddam was destroying his al-Samoud missles, but yet just this week he seems to have some ready to fire).

I think the UN resolutions which constituted the Gulf War cease fire contain no language authorizing war as means of enforcement, and that using war to enforce them without the explicit approval of the Security Council is a violation of the UN charter. And Saddam had only destroyed a fraction of his al-Samoud missles, in compliance with the schedule prescribed by Hans Blix.

All right, I really have to get to work. Thanks, Brian, for making a thoughtful and considered reply. And I hope there's never any doubt that I think Saddam is a despicable tyrant; I think getting him out of Kuwait was justified; and I think it's a damn shame that we didn't support the uprising that would have overthrown him after the Gulf War. But we have no business going in there right now without UN approval, it's a violation of international law, and it's not worth the price of blood, treasure, and international stability.

And please don't doubt for a second that I support the troops. They're not in a position to question their leadership, I respect their decision to serve, and I wish them all health and a safe return.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally posted by Hudson Valley Undead GM
Very true. What he did do, a few months ago, was assert that Saddam was actively trying to obtain them, and provided forged documents as evidence.

True. I'm not sure what happened there. I really can't believe our intelligence agencies thought they could pull a fast one on the interenational community with that document. I'm more likely to believe that this was a mistake made on the part of some lower level intelligence beauricrat, but obviously I don't know.

This, I think, is establishing an exteremely dangerous precedent. If we take as valid the argument that we can start a war without explicit approval of the Security Council AND without proving that we are defending ourselves from an imminent threat, then consider the consequences: how could we diplomatically refute any other country's right to invade any other country?

I wasn't trying to say that they could go to the international community and say "we have this evididence, but we aren't going to share it" and that would be valid. I'm saying what I think they did was show as little as they could to make their case, and are strategically keeping the rest under wraps. If this is the case, they obviously either miscalculated and shared too little, or the amount they could share without compromising their securities interests wasn't enough to make the case. Either way, my main point is that they don't need to proove it in the first place, so it's all moot.

I would find the idea of our president ignoring the advice of his intelligence agencies on this issue to be pretty alarming.

I'll have to go back and read the article, but my memory was that the article that stated the possible outcome was produced by a single individual, or a single department, not an official "this is what the CIA thinks" document. Either way, the CIA could disagree with the joint chiefs who could disagree with the NSA, who could disagree with Bush's advisors.

Do you think the Nuremburg trials were insane?

No, and I don't disagree with the idea of ad-hoc international courts. I do not agree with submitting US military personnel to a court of international public opinion. Look at the UN. So there is some anti-American feelings going on there, so we get kicked off the human rights committee and are replaced by Lybia? Is that the kind of logic we want ot submit our military leaders to without having any control over it? So the courts starts feeling a little anti-American so they throw a couple of our guys in prison out of spite? If you think that is totally impossible, then you should be all for it. I think strager things have happened, so I do not support it.

The writer is clearly speculating, just as I was speculating that diplomacy of international security will break down, and just as the White House is speculating that our version of democracy will succeed in Iraq and spread throughout the region.

Right, but the writer is criticizing the President every time he speculates. The writer calls for proof. So why does the writer get free reign to speculate? Thats my issue with it.

I think the UN resolutions which constituted the Gulf War cease fire contain no language authorizing war as means of enforcement, and that using war to enforce them without the explicit approval of the Security Council is a violation of the UN charter. And Saddam had only destroyed a fraction of his al-Samoud missles, in compliance with the schedule prescribed by Hans Blix.

UN Resolution 678 authorized "all Member States to use all necessary means" to uphold and implement UN Resolution 660. The Security Council gave us authority in '91. We don't need to ask for it again just because we've given Saddam over a decade to comply.

I also think it is rediculous to think that the security council is acting in the best interests of the world. China has gone into Iraw and laid a broadband communications network, against the UN resolutions. China has sold long range rocket fuel to Iraq, possible with the assistance of France (though that evidence is not concrete) against UN resolutions. France is the sole proprietor of Iraq oil contracts from Saddam. They are both on the security council with veto power. You really think they are going to vote against their own financial interests? Is that right? Assuming you agree it is not, why should we have to submit to them?

All right, I really have to get to work. Thanks, Brian, for making a thoughtful and considered reply. And I hope there's never any doubt that I think Saddam is a despicable tyrant; I think getting him out of Kuwait was justified; and I think it's a damn shame that we didn't support the uprising that would have overthrown him after the Gulf War. But we have no business going in there right now without UN approval, it's a violation of international law, and it's not worth the price of blood, treasure, and international stability.

I don't doubt your convictions on Saddam and I certainly respect your right to voice your dissent. I agree that we should have done more post-Gulf War to help the Shiites and Kurds topple Saddam, but instead we let Saddam beat them down again and again.

When the war is over, and Saddam is gone, I optimistically look forward to pro-US rallies in the streets of Bagdad. One of the few moments of joy I have taken from the war so far is the video of the marine along with the Iraqi ripping down the poster of Saddam. I hope there is much more of that footage to come.

[Ypsilanti Undead]

Originally posted by Nittany Dodgers
I also think it is rediculous to think that the security council is acting in the best interests of the world... a [France and China] are both on the security council with veto power. You really think they are going to vote against their own financial interests? Is that right? Assuming you agree it is not, why should we have to submit to them?

[/b][/quote]

Veto power should be abolished from the UN, IMO. Basically, the Security Council can hardly hold any nation with veto power, or the close allies of any of those nations, accountable for anything they do, which diminishes its effectiveness. But that's just my opinion. As it stands, we've bound ourselves via international treaty to the decisions of the Security Council (when those decisions survive our own veto); and of course there are debates over whether that's a good or bad thing, but currently it's case.

All right, back to work again! Man, I could talk about this all day....

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally posted by Hudson Valley Undead GM
Do you think the Nuremburg trials were insane?

Just a little post-war debate. Did you see the article that there is a movement in Europe that wants to bring Tommy Franks to the International Court for war crimes? (I can track down the link if you'd like to see it). I was wondering if you still support the idea that we should be submitting our military leaders to an international court driven by anti-american biases.

[smsmith40]

Firstly Nittany you're post makes it sound like there is a vast movement of people out to get poor Tommy Franks. There is a small bunch of crackpots applying to a non-biased ICC.

Any perceived bias might be helped by the US signing up to the ICC rather than bitching about how it will be nasty to Americans.

Question - Assuming Sadaam is captured, how will the US bring him to justice for the 30 years of repression of his own peole and aggressive invasion of Kuwait and Iran without the help of the only international judicial body currently in place? Will it accept him being tried in an Iraqi court (of course no Iraqi court system exists) ?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally posted by smsmith40
Firstly Nittany you're post makes it sound like there is a vast movement of people out to get poor Tommy Franks. There is a small bunch of crackpots applying to a non-biased ICC.

Any perceived bias might be helped by the US signing up to the ICC rather than bitching about how it will be nasty to Americans.

Question - Assuming Sadaam is captured, how will the US bring him to justice for the 30 years of repression of his own peole and aggressive invasion of Kuwait and Iran without the help of the only international judicial body currently in place? Will it accept him being tried in an Iraqi court (of course no Iraqi court system exists) ?

The ICC may be non biased in structure, but the parties to the ICC are biased. The UN, in structure, I would argue is non biased, but obviously when you take into consideration the members, it is obviously anti-US (if you need an example, look at how the US was booted from the UN Human Rights Committee, while Lybia is the chair and Cuba was recently voted back onto the committee). If everything happened just as it had over the last 2+ years, with the exception of GW Bush not pulling us out of the ICC, the ICC would be no less biased towards the US. I think it rediculous to think such a thought, and see no compelling evidence that this would not be the case. The US has traditionally been the largest finanical support of the UN, as well as other numerous world wide organizations, but that has done nothing to earn us favor. I don't see why our mere re-entrance into the ICC would help us any more.

Hopefully Saddam has already met his justice. If not, and if we do find him, I would think the World Court would be a suffient body to deal with him.

If the World Court is not sufficient, or cannot try Saddam as it did Milosevic (if memory serves correctly), why is it our responsibility to bring him to trial? I would say our goal was to topple his regime and bring freedom of governement to the people of Iraq, as well as secure the freedom from Saddam for the people of the US, and the World. We have succeeded in the latter, and are working on the former. If Saddam does need to go to the ICC, why doesn't Kuwait bring him to the ICC? Oh, they aren't a member either. How about the new governement of Iraq? Oh, Iraq isn't a member either, and neither is any other middle east government aside from Jordan. So, as it is, it appears that the ICC wouldn't even have jurisdiction over Saddam, unless the new Iraqi government joins the court, which would be quite extrodinary.

[Topes]

Originally posted by smsmith40
Any perceived bias might be helped by the US signing up to the ICC rather than bitching about how it will be nasty to Americans.

Never happen.

Those freedom-haters don't like that we execute children here.

[Topes]

Oh, and by the way, ummm... everybody who believe it was about WMD bought into a lie. Frankly, I'd feel better had they kept up the charade. This admission that the public were systematically lied to in order to garner support for the war, coming so soon after the fact, betrays an uncanny arrogance. This is wrong.

Oh, By the Way, You Are a Retarded Pawn

White House Officials Say Privately the Sept. 11 Attacks Changed Everything
By John Cochran

W A S H I N G T O N, April 25 — To build its case for war with Iraq, the Bush administration argued that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but some officials now privately acknowledge the White House had another reason for war — a global show of American power and democracy.

Officials inside government and advisers outside told ABCNEWS the administration emphasized the danger of Saddam's weapons to gain the legal justification for war from the United Nations and to stress the danger at home to Americans.

"We were not lying," said one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis."

Officials now say they may not find hundreds of tons of mustard and nerve agents and maybe not thousands of liters of anthrax and other toxins. But U.S. forces will find some, they say. On Thursday, President Bush raised the possibility for the first time that any such Iraqi weapons were destroyed before or during the war.

If weapons of mass destruction were not the primary reason for war, what was? Here's the answer officials and advisers gave ABCNEWS.

The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks changed everything, including the Bush administration's thinking about the Middle East — and not just Saddam Hussein.

Senior officials decided that unless action was taken, the Middle East would continue to be a breeding ground for terrorists. Officials feared that young Arabs, angry about their lives and without hope, would always looking for someone to hate — and that someone would always be Israel and the United States.

Europeans thought the solution was to get a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. But American officials felt a Middle East peace agreement would only be part of the solution.

The Bush administration felt that a new start was needed in the Middle East and that Iraq was the place to show that it is democracy — not terrorism — that offers hope.

Sending a Message

Beyond that, the Bush administration decided it must flex muscle to show it would fight terrorism, not just here at home and not just in Afghanistan against the Taliban, but in the Middle East, where it was thriving.

Officials deny that Bush was captured by the aggressive views of neo-conservatives. But Bush did agree with some of their thinking.

"We made it very public that we thought that one consequence the president should draw from 9/11 is that it was unacceptable to sit back and let either terrorist groups or dictators developing weapons of mass destruction strike first at us," conservative commentator Bill Kristol said on ABCNEWS' Nightline in March.

The Bush administration wanted to make a statement about its determination to fight terrorism. And officials acknowledge that Saddam had all the requirements to make him, from their standpoint, the perfect target.

Other countries have such weapons, yet the United States did not go to war with them. And though Saddam oppressed and tortured his own people, other tyrants have done the same without incurring U.S. military action. Finally, Saddam had ties to terrorists — but so have several countries that the United States did not fight.

But Saddam was guilty of all these things and he met another requirement as well — a prime location, in the heart of the Middle East, between Syria and Iran, two countries the United States wanted to send a message to.

That message: If you collaborate with terrorists, you do so at your own peril.

Officials said that even if Saddam had backed down and avoided war by admitting to having weapons of mass destruction, the world would have received the same message; Don't mess with the United States.

Former CIA Director James Woolsey said on Nightline this week that although he believed Saddam was a serious threat and had dangerous weapons, going to war to prove a point was wrong.

"I don't think you should go to war to set examples or send messages," Woolsey said. Get the transcript of the Woolsey interview.

Sept. 11, 2001

But what if Sept. 11 had never happened? Would the United States have gone to war with Iraq? Administration officials and others say no, at least not now.

The Bush administration could probably have lived with the threat of Saddam and might have gone after him eventually if, for example, the Iraqi leader had become more aggressive in pursuing a nuclear program or in sponsoring terrorism.

But again, Sept. 11 changed all that.

Listen closely, officials said, to what Bush was really saying to the American people before the war.

"I hope they understand the lesson of September the 11th," Bush said on March 6. "The lesson is, is that we're vulnerable to attack, wherever it may occur, and we must take threats which gather overseas very seriously. We don't have to deal with them all militarily, but we have to deal with them."

Has the war done what the officials ABCNEWS talked to wanted?

It seems to have improved the behavior of the Syrians and maybe the Iranians, they said, although there is still concern that Iran will meddle in Iraq. And it may have even put some fear in the North Koreans, they added. Plus, they said it probably has helped the Middle East peace process.

But will Iraq be the model that can persuade young Arabs there is more to life than hatred? Too early to know, they said.

Their point: We are deeply worried about the Shiites. It will be a tragedy if radical, anti-American elements gain control in post-Saddam Iraq.

One official said that in the end, history and the American people will judge the United States not by whether U.S. officials find canisters of poison gas or vials of some biological agent.

History will judge the United States, the official said, by whether this war marked the beginning of the end for the terrorists who hate America.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Topes, interesting article, though I don't see a convincing quote from anyone that really proves the thrust of the article. It seems to be more about a theory with no evidence to back it up.

Since you'd prefer that they administration keep up the charade, you should go back and watch Tom Brokaw's interview with Bush from last week. Bush stated plainly that he was certain they would eventually find the WMDs. At least Bush is keeping up the charade.

[smsmith40]

Milosovic is on trial at the International War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, a special body set up by the UN specifically to address the outcome of the Balkans conflict. The ICC is essentialy a permanent version of this court.

The World Court is another body set up to settle legal disputes between member States. Individuals cannot appear before this body.

THis took about 5 mins research to find out.

I do not accept that either the UN or the ICC are inherently anti-American. The problem is that the US government is following a number of policies that the majority of nations in the world disagrees strongly with. The ICC, Kyoto protocols and the Johannesburg agreement on Sustainable Development are just three examples of this disagreement. As the US is the only remaining superpower and therefore the most high profile nation on earth it gets the most attention.

Other countries need to act together to get anything useful done, therefore a generally co-operative approach to big world issues has developed (there are some obvious exceptions). For the last 60 years America has supported this approach, despite the fact that the US is the one country who could go it alone. However, the present US government has chosen to use America's overwhelming military and economic advantage to further its own agenda. I'm not saying that there is anything morally wrong with this choice, but to expect it to be popular with the rest of the world and the institutions it undermines is naive.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Smith, to respond to your points:

I was looking through the World Court docket, and thought I saw Milosevic listed. I'll take your word for it and say I was wrong. Either way, as I've said earlier in this thread, I support ad hoc international courts set up to address specific individuals over a standing court.

Secondly, I did not say the UN was inherently anti-American. What I did say is that there are members of the UN, which makes up a significant portion, that are anti-American. I said plain as day that the structure of the UN was NOT biased, but instead that some members were.

Finally, I never said I expected the world to support us if we do something on our own. I fully expect certain countries to oppose actions we take if they disagree with them. But, until the world is covered in democratic governements, I don't see why we should submit to an international body that goes against our constitution.

[smsmith40]

Too late Nittany, The US has already signed up to the UN Charter. It did so over 50 years ago. The US constitution in Article VI clearly makes provision for the US to be subject to this treaty obligation

Article VI

Of course the US has the right not to sign up to those bodies which it does not feel benefits its citizens but there has to be a realisation than this will cause a negative reaction in the rest of the world.

By the way, its disengenuous to continue to call it anti-American, much more accurate to say that some peole and nations disagree with some of the policies of the US government.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally posted by smsmith40
Too late Nittany, The US has already signed up to the UN Charter. It did so over 50 years ago. The US constitution in Article VI clearly makes provision for the US to be subject to this treaty obligation

Article VI

Of course the US has the right not to sign up to those bodies which it does not feel benefits its citizens but there has to be a realisation than this will cause a negative reaction in the rest of the world.

By the way, its disengenuous to continue to call it anti-American, much more accurate to say that some peole and nations disagree with some of the policies of the US government.

Do you read anything I write? Arguing with you is like arguing with my wife. :p She already thinks she knows what I'm going to say so she responds to that instead of what I actually say. Again, I never said the US hasn't signed up with any international body that had rules contradictory to our consitution, I simply questioned why we should submit to such bodies. Obviously, we went against the majority wishes of the UN in our attack on Iraq, so even though we are a member, we haven't totally submitted to the UN.

Also, I don't believe using the term anti-American is disingenuous. No, not all policy desires of foreign nations are anti-American, but to think that non are is quite naieve. To think that France, among others, has no motivation to attempt to check American power, regardless of the policy, is to be a rube.

[smsmith40]

I never read what other write it gets in the way of a good argument. I don't really want to fall out with you Nittany. You're from a different league and we don't really know each other.

But ..... I just can't help myself.

I have carefully read you're post. I will even quote directly from it.

I never said the US hasn't signed up with any international body that had rules contradictory to our consitution, I simply questioned why we should submit to such bodies.

I think when you join up to a club you are obligated to play by its rules.

No, not all policy desires of foreign nations are anti-American, but to think that non are is quite naieve. To think that France, among others, has no motivation to attempt to check American power, regardless of the policy, is to be a rube.

I'm not sure I know what a rube is but I'm guessing it ain't good. As I explained earlier France, Germany and now Russia believe in a system of international co-operation to address big issues such as WMD, Iraq, international terrorism etc. up until recently so did the US (bye and large). The current US government follows a different approach with which France fundamentally disagrees with. I really don't think it is anti-American to do so, or indeed is it anti-American to continue to push for the approach you believe in (general French arrogance admittedly doesn't help).

The fact of the matter is that France have been entirely consistent in their foreign policy approach and goals. It the US that has changed.

[Topes]

Some would call me anti-American for stating that the current administration is the most un-American bunch of bastards I can recall.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Just good natured debate.

Originally posted by smsmith40
I think when you join up to a club you are obligated to play by its rules.

Are you obligated even if the club doesn't enforce its own rules on other members?

I'm not sure I know what a rube is but I'm guessing it ain't good. As I explained earlier France, Germany and now Russia believe in a system of international co-operation to address big issues such as WMD, Iraq, international terrorism etc. up until recently so did the US (bye and large). The current US government follows a different approach with which France fundamentally disagrees with. I really don't think it is anti-American to do so, or indeed is it anti-American to continue to push for the approach you believe in (general French arrogance admittedly doesn't help).[/b]

I disagree with the assesment that France, Germany and Russia believe in a system of international co-operation to address the issue of Iraq. All three of them have been huge trading partners with Iraq since the end of the first Gulf war (three of the four largers, China being the other). I'm not sure how continuing to trade with a country such as Iraq, supplying it with chemicals and rocket fuel, in spite of UN sanctions against such actions, is part of their belief in international co-operation. It seems to me that they were more interested in their own personal economic interests in the situation.[/b][/quote]

The fact of the matter is that France have been entirely consistent in their foreign policy approach and goals. It the US that has changed. [/b]

That is quite debatable, and certainly not a fact. France has voted for UN resolution after resolution, but yet when it comes time to enforce the resolutions, they back away their support. Tell me how that is consistent?

I will agree that the US has changed its foreign policy since the first guld war. No one can debate that. We've had three different presidents since '91, so obviously our foreign policy changes. However, one thing that hasn't changed since then is that the US has held that Saddam needs to be held accountable for his actions, and now he has been.

[smsmith40]

Are you obligated even if the club doesn't enforce its own rules on other members?

I presume you are talking about Israel-Palestine for instance ? I know you can quote back to me other examples. Thats the problem there are bad examples all around.

By the way don't think for a minute that I am trying to defend the details of France's foreign policy, I'm just trying to put in a strategic context why the preceived anti-Americanism is actually a much deeper, more complex issue that seriously needs addressing. The only people that can do this is the US government.

You've probably guessed by now I am not American. I live in the UK, you can also conclude that as I play Fantasy Football (slightly obsessively), work for a US corporation and count many Americans within my friends, colleagues (and bosses) that I am definitely not anti-American. However, the tone of the US administration has become increasingly off putting.

Frankly, Europeans don't understand the current US government, they come across (in European terms) as a bunch of right-wing Christian fundamentalists. These kind of politicians are largely unknown in mainstream politics here.

By the way, its getting late here. I am going to settle down with a cold beer for the night. See you later

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally posted by smsmith40


I presume you are talking about Israel-Palestine for instance ? I know you can quote back to me other examples. Thats the problem there are bad examples all around.

By the way don't think for a minute that I am trying to defend the details of France's foreign policy, I'm just trying to put in a strategic context why the preceived anti-Americanism is actually a much deeper, more complex issue that seriously needs addressing. The only people that can do this is the US government.

You've probably guessed by now I am not American. I live in the UK, you can also conclude that as I play Fantasy Football (slightly obsessively), work for a US corporation and count many Americans within my friends, colleagues (and bosses) that I am definitely not anti-American. However, the tone of the US administration has become increasingly off putting.

Frankly, Europeans don't understand the current US government, they come across (in European terms) as a bunch of right-wing Christian fundamentalists. These kind of politicians are largely unknown in mainstream politics here.

By the way, its getting late here. I am going to settle down with a cold beer for the night. See you later

Israel-Palestine is a good example, but I was going for the obvious one-Iraq. The UN passed resolution after resolution with which Iraq did not comply over the period of a decade. Then when one member (the US) demanded they be brought into compliance, the other members by in large said they wanted nothing to do with enforcing the resolutions.

I hadn't guess you were not an American, but it does explain why someone who can carry on a fairly intelligent debate didn't know what a rube is (it's American slang for a naieve person).

I'm not surprised for a second that people on the other side of the pond don't understand our administration. I guarantee you that most people over here don't understand what drives European governements, middle eastern governments, or governments from anywhere else. That's not a knock on us, as I am guessing European commoners don't understand everyone else totally either.

I'm sure the current administration strikes you as it does for a couple of reasons. First, compared to the relativeley liberal politics of England, they are quite conservative. Also, the press loves to paint people as much simpler as they are, and to constantly characterize Bush as the standard right wing christian is easy for them. There's more to it than that, I don't have to time to go into it now, which makes it easy to understand why the press doesn't either.

How will it be fixed? Bush certainly gives less credence to long standing foreign relationships than any other president in recent history. I would imagine that who ever suceeds him will think about that more and begin to repair relationships. I think Bush has said "to heck with that, I'm taking care of business" and leaving the mess for someone else to clean up.