|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 02/11/2002 : 10:22:44
|
what in the hell Bush was thinking when he decided to blatantly piss off yet another country.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57210-2002Feb11.html
I'm not too terribly savvy when it comes to foreign affairs, but it usually isn't that hard to see what possible motives exist in various policy desicions. But this one has me stumped.
The only thing I can conceive in this case is that the Bush administration actually wants more enemies, so they can retain their popularity!
Anyone have any better ideas?
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
 Posted - 02/11/2002 : 10:33:05 [Permalink]
|
To begin, I think it's obvious Bush should not be allowed to touch what his writers write or speak without censor. I know, freedom of speech, however, as a chosen leader words should be spoken with care. Something Bush seems incapable of at times. I can hope we understand that Bush is stirring trouble where there doesn't need to be any.
---
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 |
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2002 : 10:36:38 [Permalink]
|
This is what we get for "electing" a president with hardly any political experience and little comprehension of international politics.
Let's just be glad that the military knows what to do and it matters little what president is filling the chair or we would be in a world of hurt.
It's a shame to see a gradual warming trend in Iran-US relations reversed so dramatically because of such an asinine statement.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2002 : 11:36:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This is what we get for "electing" a president with hardly any political experience and little comprehension of international politics.
I think you are underestimating him.
I'm not so quick to assume that this was just an off the cuff inexperienced remark. He's surrounded by people with a great deal of experience in these matters.
My suspicion is that he knew exactly what he was saying, and exactly what the effects of it would be.
Like I said, I can't think of another reason he would say this, except that it was purposely meant to make yet another enemy that the American people can rally against, all for political gain. Unfortunately, this is easier for me to believe than simply "Bush is stupid".
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2002 : 11:53:03 [Permalink]
|
Which is more advantageous, pushing your own political career and agenda and running the risk that this will be discovered or doing what is best and perhaps wisest by accepting that Iran has its own agenda and attempting to work within that framework without compromising your own agenda?
Wow! what a run-on that was. As a leader, highly idealistic I know, a person should set aside their own personal agenda and do what is best for those whom they lead. I see this failure with Bush and several people in political office. Politics is now a business as much as anything else instead of a duty and responsibility. Oh well....
---
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 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2002 : 12:44:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think you are underestimating him
I don't think so. The memories of his call for a Crusade still ring in my ears. That call was one of the most dangerous things Bush could possibly say after 9/11 and he blundered right into it. What's also worth considering is that any "Axis of Evil" should include Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and even Egypt or even the US that gave funds to the Taliban. Pakistan was aiding the Taliban heavily before 9/11 and many Taliban are probably there now. But those are currently politically dangerous nations to blame so Bush went for the easy ones. Kinda cheap if you ask me.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2002 : 13:00:32 [Permalink]
|
So, you took this guy as someone who thought about the world's and the U.S.'s best interests before he made that statement?
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 02:57:18 [Permalink]
|
I don't really understand how somebody who has weapons of mass-destrutions himself can see the efforts pf somebody else to aquire them as something 'evil'.
It is obvious that Bush and his friends are desperatly seeking another country to wage the War Against Terrorism on. It is easier this way then actually doing something against the underlying problems.
It is especially sad to see him talking about "unelected few repressing the Iranian people's hope for freedom". Not that I think that Iran if an espescially free and democratic coutry but they do have elections of sorts there. And somebody who came to power under circumstances like him should really be carefull of acusing others of being unelected.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 06:39:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Hundreds of thousands of Iranians chanted "Death to America" during demonstrations Monday to mark the 23rd anniversary of the Islamic Revolution.
Thanks for kicking the hornet's nest, moron! 
Actually, I'm assuming that it isn't normal for hundreds of thousands of Iranians to chant this, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I know we already aren't liked by many over there, but hasn't this just made it that much worse?
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 02/12/2002 06:40:22 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 07:12:48 [Permalink]
|
Much worse indeed. I read an article on Drudge (yeah, yeah. I know!) where Saddam has offered help to his one-time bitter enemies across the gulf. Also, Putin is less than thrilled about threats to Iran.
I find it hard to believe that this entire administration is a loose cannon in a nor'easter, but it more and more looks like it. Surely there must be SOMEBODY there with good sense.
Probably there's several, but not listened to.
I got a nasty feeling about all this, and I make no psyhic claims.
f
"They will take away my Darwin Fish only when they pry it from my cold, dead bumper!" |
|
|
|
Archistrategos
New Member
28 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2002 : 20:08:29 [Permalink]
|
I m really worryed about that. Maybe he said that just to put away peoples attention, but that made things worse and gave another reason for dislike north americans. Here in my country no one seems to be bothered by those matters, no one here seems to realize the bad situation in the world. 
|
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2002 : 07:23:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I m really worryed about that. Maybe he said that just to put away peoples attention, but that made things worse and gave another reason for dislike north americans. Here in my country no one seems to be bothered by those matters, no one here seems to realize the bad situation in the world.
That may be a good thing, Archistrategos.
Hey, my 500th post. Finally!
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense." -Buddha
Edited by - James on 02/14/2002 07:23:57 |
|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2002 : 16:28:08 [Permalink]
|
What I get is that he was saying "You get your shit together too, or you're going to get your ass kicked as well. We've put up with this petty tribal conflict bullshit until you dumped it on our front door. Now you've got our undivided attention, so get with OUR program."
From what I read out of Iran afterwards, it seems like they got the picture. It's not "Iran" that is in trouble. It's those harbouring terrorists. However, North Korea and Iraq are going to get a beating.
For better or worse, America is the big kid in the playground, and while America may not always be right, the outcome is usually the best of a bad situation.
You're probably going to jump on me for being A) a war monger B) an imperialist pig, C) a corporate goon, D)other, when in fact I'm E) a guy who sees the way it is now, even though they're not how I'd like 'em to be.
For all the faults that have been pointed out in American politics and power mongering, it's still the best of a bad lot. Apart from the B'nai B'rith and Buddhists, what other choice is there?
Russia is turning democratic and capitalist, socialist states turn out to be inherently corrupt and totalitarian, we've already done the British Empire. To me it makes perfect sense that the US is going to step up for its turn as an empire.
Again, not the best solution, but the best available solution.
I'd say when George decided to blatantly piss off yet another country, he was telling it like it is.
I'm stumblin through the parking lot of an invisible 7-eleven. ZZ-Top |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2002 : 17:49:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What I get is that he was saying "You get your shit together too, or you're going to get your ass kicked as well. We've put up with this petty tribal conflict bullshit until you dumped it on our front door. Now you've got our undivided attention, so get with OUR program."
The Iranians? Where is there any confilct in Iran? It seems to me that they already have all their shit together. Not really all that nice and free as one might like it to be but definetly no big amount of interanl problems.
If you are reffering to Afghanistan and the conficlts there, you will probably remember that it were the US who started the whole war stuff in that area all that years ago.
quote:
From what I read out of Iran afterwards, it seems like they got the picture. It's not "Iran" that is in trouble. It's those harbouring terrorists. However, North Korea and Iraq are going to get a beating.
It are never countries who get a beating mostly people. The leaders and the Terrorist they are haroboring are the ones who get the least damage.
If you are proposing a 'we_will_bomb_you_ until_you_have_stopped_hating_us' strategy you probabyl need to rethink this a bit.
quote:
For better or worse, America is the big kid in the playground, and while America may not always be right, the outcome is usually the best of a bad situation.
It is usually written down in history books as the best in those situations by the victors.
quote:
You're probably going to jump on me for being A) a war monger B) an imperialist pig, C) a corporate goon, D)other, when in fact I'm E) a guy who sees the way it is now, even though they're not how I'd like 'em to be.
Some people on this world might jump you not for any of the opinions you hold but for being an American because of the kind of things mr. Bush says.
quote:
For all the faults that have been pointed out in American politics and power mongering, it's still the best of a bad lot. Apart from the B'nai B'rith and Buddhists, what other choice is there?
Russia is turning democratic and capitalist, socialist states turn out to be inherently corrupt and totalitarian, we've already done the British Empire. To me it makes perfect sense that the US is going to step up for its turn as an empire.
Again, not the best solution, but the best available solution.
I'd say when George decided to blatantly piss off yet another country, he was telling it like it is.
A good thing to do when discussing policy in a bar. When you are president of the 'most powerful nation in the world' you should try diplomacy.
quote:
I'm stumblin through the parking lot of an invisible 7-eleven. ZZ-Top
But seriously, what dou you think does america stand to gain by attacking Iran? It is not like Iran has been much of a threat to the US before. They were finacing the Anti-Taliban fighters when there were still US buisness men trying to make oildeals with the Taliban.
|
|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2002 : 18:23:52 [Permalink]
|
Hi, Lars! Love your comments!
First, with regard to Iran, not a big deal there. Bush just wants his back covered when he goes for Iraq. I think he was telling them to get the terrorists out, or the US would do it for them.
The US didn't START the conflicts in Afghanistan any more than they did any other multigenerational tribal conflicts in any other part of the world. What they are doing is finishing it. In my opinion, the world is different now, so tribal conflicts need to be resolved.
The days of "we will bomb you until you stop hating us" are long gone. Surgical strike is the current term. Take out the target, and avoid the collateral damage. Help the people, make the powers that be pay. Snipers, smart bombs, and commando teams are the tools of the new war.
With regard to the history books, while the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, and British Empire were all bathed in blood, they did advance civilization and improve living conditions for the conquered (sp?) territories. This is because they spread ideas, and better ways of doing things. I think that America would succeed by broadcasting Britney Spears videos (and muslims talk about 70 - 80 virgins serving them honeyed cakes!!) and dropping Coca Cola as well. The ideas are out there. The internet is out there. The old ways are doomed. Having said that, Bush et al are going about it "the old way". The Taliban isolated the country so that Coke and Britney couldn't get in. Now from a corporate standpoint, that's unacceptable to leave the market untapped.
Lars, with regard to being an American, I'm actually a Canadian. I do see the western culture pervading the world, though, and I see America as one of the fonts of that culture.
With regard to your comment about discussing things in a bar as opposed to using diplomacy because you're the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, I say when you're dealing with a bunch of lying bastards, in either case, some times you gotta tell them how you will hurt them if they don't stop screwing around.
For your final question, what I see accomplished by threatening Iran is that Bush will keep his back safe. Either he deals with Iran then deals with Iraq, or Iran deals with itself, and the US is then safe to deal with Iraq.
Korea is what has me scared.
I'm stumblin through the parking lot of an invisible 7-eleven. ZZ-Top |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2002 : 19:48:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Hi, Lars! Love your comments!
First, with regard to Iran, not a big deal there. Bush just wants his back covered when he goes for Iraq. I think he was telling them to get the terrorists out, or the US would do it for them.
Would they? There is no militant oposition ther on the ground that just has to be helped along. Not many rebels to back with airstrikes. You would have to actually send ground troops there. American soilders would have to die and leave behind an even more unstable and US-hating country after they were gone.
I think the Iranians are able to recognize an empty threat. Even if their was a chance of the US attacking Iran, how would their leaders deal with that?
Would they openly submit to Bush after speeches like that or would they happily sacrifice some of their followers in a blooddy massacre rather then show any weakness.
If he honestly wanted them to him a favour he should have build them a bridge to do so without loosing face.
quote:
The US didn't START the conflicts in Afghanistan any more than they did any other multigenerational tribal conflicts in any other part of the world. What they are doing is finishing it. In my opinion, the world is different now, so tribal conflicts need to be resolved.
They did not start the fire, but they happily were throwin gasoline into it when they thought it might burn the Souwjets. Then when there were no more communist to fight against they went home.
Leaving Afghanistan in the state it was after the cold war to itself was very dumb. Not noticing that something was going horribly wrong when the Taliban took control was blind. And I am not sure that what they are doing right now is a good thing either.
quote:
The days of "we will bomb you until you stop hating us" are long gone. Surgical strike is the current term. Take out the target, and avoid the collateral damage. Help the people, make the powers that be pay. Snipers, smart bombs, and commando teams are the tools of the new war.
It is debatable wether or not that strategy worked in Afghanistan. The Powers that be seemed to have gotten away for the most part. Thousands of civilianz are dead. How many wrong tragets were hit is hard to say because of the conflicting reports we are getting from both sides. The Afghans themsleves don't appear to like the US any better then before.
quote:
With regard to the history books, while the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, and British Empire were all bathed in blood, they did advance civilization and improve living conditions for the conquered (sp?) territories. This is because they spread ideas, and better ways of doing things.
Certainly right. I just have the bad feeling that if Hitler had won WW2 the same could be said about him. Such minor stuff as the holocaust would be glossed over and the good things would be brought out. The really bad thing about it would be that it would even appear to make sense.
quote:
I think that America would succeed by broadcasting Britney Spears videos (and muslims talk about 70 - 80 virgins serving them honeyed cakes!!) and dropping Coca Cola as well. The ideas are out there. The internet is out there. The old ways are doomed. Having said that, Bush et al are going about it "the old way". The Taliban isolated the country so that Coke and Britney couldn't get in. Now from a corporate standpoint, that's unacceptable to leave the market untapped.
Right you are. The bad thing is just that nobody cared when the Taliban took over. Nobody cared when they outlawed any form of culture. Probably because the country has nothing of interest besides opium. There is no market there to tap.
I also highly doubt that Bush is consciously aware of an alternative to the old ways.
The new way you described is something that more or less hapens by itself and can only influenced in small ways. Selfregulating Anarchy does not appear something that Mr. Bush would think of in a positive way. What good does it do him if the people of the world are growing together if he can't control it?
quote:
Lars, with regard to being an American, I'm actually a Canadian. I do see the western culture pervading the world, though, and I see America as one of the fonts of that culture.
Oops! Sorry about that. It is close enough form my example though. 
quote:
With regard to your comment about discussing things in a bar as opposed to using diplomacy because you're the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, I say when you're dealing with a bunch of lying bastards, in either case, some times you gotta tell them how you will hurt them if they don't stop screwing around.
The difference in this case being that a black eye or a broken bone can translate into hundreads or thousands of deaths. The eye and the bone will heal.
quote:
For your final question, what I see accomplished by threatening Iran is that Bush will keep his back safe.
I don't understand 'safe'? From whom?
quote:
Either he deals with Iran then deals with Iraq, or Iran deals with itself, and the US is then safe to deal with Iraq.
Why does Iraq has to be dealt with?
Sadam has not doen anything wrong lately has he?
quote:
Korea is what has me scared.
What is going on in Korea that I have missed again?
quote:
I'm stumblin through the parking lot of an invisible 7-eleven. ZZ-Top
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
