|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
 Posted - 01/30/2002 : 07:04:53
|
Interested in opinions on this, including diplomatic moves as well as military.
Also, comments on the State of the Union. I personally think the warning to Iran was a misstep.
My kids still love me.
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2002 : 07:14:25 [Permalink]
|
I think this administration needs to communicate with each other better.
Bush: "War on terrorism, war on evil, war war war"
International community: "How come you guys won't let us come to Gitmo to see if your prisons are acceptable for POWs?"
Rumsfeld: "POWs? War? Who said anything about war?"
Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things. - Silent Bob |
 |
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2002 : 07:18:38 [Permalink]
|
Agreed PhD, but that still assumes there is some step beyond improving communications.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2002 : 07:44:10 [Permalink]
|
I think the centrists in GW's cabinet are working with an entirely different play book than the right wingers, and the right wingers' play book is a secret. It doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.
As far as the State of the Union Address goes, the thing that bothered me most was the faith based initiatives reference. For some reason giving tax money to a profit making institution that already doesn't pay taxes makes my skin crawl.
Plus, if for some reason this thing gets by the Establishment Clause, wouldn't telling church's how to use their newly found windfall be a violation of the Free Exercise Clause?
"The Constitution ..., is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society." P. Robertson |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2002 : 13:51:14 [Permalink]
|
Exactly how was the State of the Union address? Sorry was helping my kid study German and had to turn the TV off. Too hard to concentrate on both.
---
There is no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our world. It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've known. Sagan |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2002 : 14:23:12 [Permalink]
|
I had things going on, too, so I popped in and out of attention during it. I'm not really a big SotU fan, believing that it's mostly pomp.
From a faulty memory, he said, relatively well, but not superbly:
1. The war ain't over.
2. North Korea, Iraq and Iran better stop helping terrorists or we'll getcha.
3. We kicked al Qaeda's butt and the Taliban's butt all by our lonesome.
4. Huge increase in military spending.
5. Double monies on homeland security.
6. The recession ain't over but won't be so bad.
7. We need two years of minimal deficit spending to fund the war and homeland security, but the 10 year net will still be a surplus.
8. Every American needs a good education.
9. Every American should have a job.
He kept it very short compared to the Clinton days.
Lots of enthusiastic but still pro forma applause during the war talk. Lots of Republican enthusiasm and Democratic abeyance during the economy talk.
Dick Gephardt's Democratic response said:
1. We support the president
2. Congress has worked well with the White House during the crisis and I'm the reason why
3. I don't like the economic stuff he said but I'm too politically timid to say so right now so I'll just mention some platitudes and say "Rah, U.S.!"
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2002 : 16:48:48 [Permalink]
|
Haven't listened to it yet, but here is another set of views of GW Bush's speech. Look for the 1/30/02 program:
http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow.html
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2002 : 04:11:03 [Permalink]
|
Thanks, Gorgo, I'll listen to that site when time allows.
The more I see, the more I am convinced that including Iran in the "Evil Axis" was a HUGE mistake. At best, it throws away a legitimate opportunity to begin rebuilding normal, even friendly, relations with Iran. At worst, we've created an active antagonist.
I fear it leans more to the latter than the former.
Interesting dynamics in Iran over the past decade. The ruling clergy remain mostly anti-American (especially Ayatollah Khameini) and may actually be actively supporting terrorist activity against the US. But the political leadership (President Khatami and former Pres Rafsanjani especially who is still a bit of a force) along with much of the private powers including most major news publishers have been pushing for more normalized relations with the US. The populace seems to have been leaning that way, too. The clergy still hold the upper hand, but cracks have begun showing.
Now we strike the face of the entire country with a spiked gauntlet, and suddenly the people are mad again.
We're not good at making friends.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2002 : 09:38:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The ruling clergy remain mostly anti-American ...and may actually be actively supporting terrorist activity against the US. But the political leadership ... have been pushing for more normalized relations with the US. ...The clergy still hold the upper hand, but cracks have begun showing.
Now we strike the face of the entire country with a spiked gauntlet, and suddenly the people are mad again.
We're not good at making friends.
I think you are judging this situation as though Iran were a Western nation. Being 2 faced has been a way of life over there since Babylon fell. The politico's make nice to us (probably only because they are afraid of us) while supporting the religous power's terrorist activity. These are not the kinds of "friends" we need. Hitting them with a "spiked gauntlet" is a way to tell them that they aren't fooling any body.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2002 : 10:04:12 [Permalink]
|
I don't think it's unfair to mention that we earned the animosity of the Iranians by meddling in their affairs for decades. Since the Shah was deposed we have done everything we can to make sure that old wounds never heal. We have funded various factions in the region for decades. We funded the Northern Alliance since 1998. I don't see the diference in what Iran is doing now. So just who is really in the wrong here?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2002 : 10:07:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think you are judging this situation as though Iran were a Western nation. Being 2 faced has been a way of life over there since Babylon fell. The politico's make nice to us (probably only because they are afraid of us) while supporting the religous power's terrorist activity. These are not the kinds of "friends" we need. Hitting them with a "spiked gauntlet" is a way to tell them that they aren't fooling any body.
It's possible I'm misjudging, certainly, but your implication is that these nations have never been trustworthy allies (or simple cordial neighbors--whatever) when in fact they have. Or to put it another way, if they have two faces, let's make sure only one hates us instead of both.
I grant that their 'style' is not equivalent to ours, but I do not grant that it follows that stable relations are therefore impossible. Particularly in Iran which has a fairly Western infrastructure and bent. Women in Iran are still secondary to men politically and socially, but unlike in some other Islamic states they are not only allowed but encouraged to receive education, and many do. Women are not unheard of in the secular arm of politics. I believe, though I'll need to verify it, that there is at least one female member of their parliament-equivalent.
And regardless of the attempts to roll it back, their are economic ties to the US in particular and the west in general.
Make them best buddies and give them gives to the kingdom? Not a chance. But certainly sieze any opportunity to at least move and keep them from the camp of the enemy.
I say it is such an opportunity, even if not a certainty. Or I say it was until the State of the Union.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2002 : 10:54:03 [Permalink]
|
Being two-faced is a way of life for politicians, not limited to geographic area.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2002 : 12:06:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Being two-faced is a way of life for politicians, not limited to geographic area.
Granted in a sense, but not in the sense I believe Slater meant it. "Two-faced" may be unnecessarily pejorative, the idea is that loyalty beyond a certain sphere is not expected to last beyond its practicality, nor are honorable dealings defined as we would define them.
The Afghani warlords are an example, with the best perhaps being General Rashid Dostum, commander of the Northern Alliance. Trace his history to before the Soviet invasion and you will walk a road littered with betrayals, turncoats, and even murder. It is extremely telling that this man did not join the Taliban when they came to power; I suppose even he saw the undesirability of their sort of despotism.
The point is that switching sides and breaking agreements are not seen in the light we in the west would see them. And please don't jump on me now about us having a history of breaking agreements, too; I recognize this.
Anyway, that's Slater's point, I think, and I apologize if I have misstated it.
My point is that even if correct, it does not by itself prevent a workable relationship with them.
quote:
I don't think it's unfair to mention that we earned the animosity of the Iranians by meddling in their affairs for decades. Since the Shah was deposed we have done everything we can to make sure that old wounds never heal. We have funded various factions in the region for decades. We funded the Northern Alliance since 1998. I don't see the diference in what Iran is doing now. So just who is really in the wrong here?
I'll mostly agree, @tomic. Next to Central America as a whole, I put Iran as our grossest diplomatic failing. It almost seems intentional when we screw it up, given the golden opportunities we've had to make friends.
quote:
1951- 1953 -- Iran's Majles passed a law sponsored by the nationalistic (soon to be prime minister) Dr. Mossadeq to nationalize Iran's oil from British control. The British, enraged by the threat to their oil concessions, froze all of Iran's Sterling assets and took their case to the International Court of Justice. The Court ruled in Iran's favor. Undeterred, the British placed a total trade embargo on Iran and enforced it with their navy, leading to the collapse of Iran's economy. Citing the threat of a communist takeover, British Intelligence and the CIA sponsored a coup to topple Dr. Mossadeq's government. In the midst of the coup, the young Shah, having thought the plan had failed, left the country. Shortly thereafter, Dr. Mossadeq's government was overthrown and the Shah was put back in power.
Mossadeq is about as close to a national hero that Iran has; we would have been welcomed heartily had we supported him.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2002 : 13:51:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
the sense I believe Slater meant it. "Two-faced" may be unnecessarily pejorative, the idea is that loyalty beyond a certain sphere is not expected to last beyond its practicality, nor are honorable dealings defined as we would define them.
Yeah, that's what I mean by 2 faced. And if it sounded pejorative, or derogatory it was not by accident.
European (including us) countries work on a code of behavior loosely based on the medieval warrior ethos of chivalry. All of our notions of fair play and ethics come from this code. The East (with the exceptions of India, Thailand and Japan) don't share this code (nor do they have a similar one of their own devising). Afghans are loyal to their friends until it no longer suits their whim. We are loyal to our friends even when it costs us dearly.
I'm not sure why you think that it is up to the USA to court the friendship of these regimes? It openly offers its friendship to just about everybody who'll accept it. China is one big example. Hardly the world's nicest people. Human rights abuses left and right. They offered what passes for friendship and we took it. The important part was that they offered. There is a racism rampant in the world. Asians (Japanese / Chinese--not south East Asia) and Moslems each consider themselves above the other races of the Earth (an attitude we can recognize from our own past). To have these "lesser" people-these Satan's of the World-offer their friendship is pretentious of them, or worse, a sign of weakness. The Moslem's, to show their own nobility, must be the first to offer friendship, on their terms and theirs alone.
Our mistake is in thinking that if we will comply with their wishes the friendship we will receive is based on European ethics. It is not, and we get routinely burned. Then you get some web site that complains about how we could have supported these awful people. The same site would complain if we didn't support them. Why don't we court everybody's friendship/why do we support such an oppressive regime. How can we let atrocities like that go on/ who made the United States the world's policeman.
There is really no winning no matter what course of action we might take.
Right now the war is winding down. People are starting to loose interest. There are complaints that the same people who have sworn to kill you-who tried to crash the plane they were on by gnawing through hydraulic lines-are being ill treated because they have to wear orange jump suits.
The problem with this war, unlike previous wars, is that the attacks we've suffered aren't a means to an end. They are an end in themselves. In other words there is no thought given to gaining anything (land, booty) by attacking.
The attacks show that Allah is Great. Even in the midst of his stronghold Satan is not safe from the wrath of Allah.
This is too surreal for Americans to comprehend. Nazis we could understand, we knew at least what they wanted. We keep thinking politically-what did we do wrong, what mistakes did we make. We are flooded by the media with the news that this is not a religious thing. Islam is wonderful, very peaceful. Look, here's a mosque in Marin County that is having an open house with milk and cookies on the CBS news. (Same mosque, it turns out, that produced the "American Taliban")
Only it is about religion. Religion and racism.
I'm afraid that public support for doing a more complete job of wiping these nut cases off the face of the Earth will fade until they again feel the need to murder some more of us in the name of god.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2002 : 04:28:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm afraid that public support for doing a more complete job of wiping these nut cases off the face of the Earth will fade until they again feel the need to murder some more of us in the name of god.
I agree with you on this. I have said elsewhere that from the point of view of maintaining support, it is almost a bad thing that we have had so few casualties in Afghanistan. The lack of loss allows emotional detachment which leads to boredom which leads to wavering support. And now, I suppose, some will take me to task for advocating getting our own troops killed which I decidedly am not.
quote:
Right now the war is winding down. People are starting to loose interest. There are complaints that the same people who have sworn to kill you-who tried to crash the plane they were on by gnawing through hydraulic lines-are being ill treated because they have to wear orange jump suits.
I agree again, mostly. Those who decry the treatment at Guantanamo are hapless fools, hopeless ideologues, or hateful idiots.
My bit of disagreement, though, regards the idea that the war is winding down. The public perception of the need for continuing war is winding down; the actual war is merely changing gears. The danger is the perennial American danger that the actual war will fall prey to fallacious perception rather than be prosecuted in accordance with the dictates of reality.
quote:
I'm not sure why you think that it is up to the USA to court the friendship of these regimes? It openly offers its friendship to just about everybody who'll accept it.
Yes, we offer friendship to just about everybody, but not universally and not without caveat. Mind you, I am not saying we 'should' offer it universally or without caveat; I'm just qualifying your blanket statement.
And I think it is the US's responsibility to court other regimes only insofar as we seek to be involved in their affairs, an involvement that the US has wanted to restart in Iran for some time.
quote:
There is a racism rampant in the world. Asians (Japanese / Chinese--not south East Asia) and Moslems each consider themselves above the other races of the Earth (an attitude we can recognize from our own past). To have these "lesser" people-these Satan's of the World-offer their friendship is pretentious of them, or worse, a sign of weakness. The Moslem's, to show their own nobility, must be the first to offer friendship, on their terms and theirs alone.
I question this aspect of Islam as a prevailing attitude, though I would accept it as a necessary attribute of rulers whose rule is based on personality such as Hussein, Qaddafi, and Kim Jong-Il, as well as the Chinese. I grant, also, that regardless of who initiates relations, Islamic regimes must be seen and wish to be seen as not kow-towing to the US, as coming to deal with us on their terms. Yet this is not unique to Islam.
quote:
Our mistake is in thinking that if we will comply with their wishes the friendship we will receive is based on European ethics. It is not, and we get routinely burned.
Agreed, but this is not an argument for no relations; it is, instead, an argument for educating ourselves on expectations.In any case, it remains my contention that Iran has, on some level at least, and in some form, HAS offered this friendship. Not the clerical leadership certainly, but the secular political arm and the populace to some extent. I suspect that in an identical situation, other nations might have sought and found a way to convince the Iranians to complete their offer, to initiate fully the offer of friendship.
In writing my response I have been thinking that I really don't disagree with you as much as it seems, and so I was prepared to say "I'm on board with Slater again," which is not a bad thing. But now in beginning to solidify my thoughts, I'm having the rather arrogant thought that you are more on board with me than you think.
Iran, as an Islamic nation, must offer friendship first. I think they did, and we missed the opportunity to accept.
Iran, as a Central Asian state, would act upon its loyalties differently than our own codes would demand, and we would therefore risk getting burned again. Agreed. Yet this is an argument for a change in tactics, not a cessation of diplomacy.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
