How will Kerry "rebuild our alliances"?

[Joe]

Kerry says he will do this whenever questioned about foreign policy. But he never says how he's going to do it. And I couldn't find anything beyond some ultra-vague politicianspeak on his website about it either, unless the answer is buried in some speech he gave months ago. So how's he going to do it? Not "how SHOULD he do it"; what is his actual plan for achieving this objective?

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Kerry's "plan":

Step 1. Win election.
Step 2. <shrugs shoulders>
Step 3. Use allies.

[Darth Wong]

Kerry says he will do this whenever questioned about foreign policy. But he never says how he's going to do it. And I couldn't find anything beyond some ultra-vague politicianspeak on his website about it either, unless the answer is buried in some speech he gave months ago. So how's he going to do it? Not "how SHOULD he do it"; what is his actual plan for achieving this objective?

He can go a long way to rebuilding his alliances by simply not being George Bush. As facetious as that sounds, it is 100% true; much of the world hates America right now because of their anger at George W. Bush himself. As much as you would like to mock the "not Bush" answer, it is perfectly workable in this case.

PS. Let me put this in terms you might understand: you go to a store, and the manager is an asshole. You're angry at the store, and you promise never to go back. The store calls you back and says "We apologize for the conduct of the manager. He has been fired." Would this not make you more likely to go back to that store? Certainly a hell of a lot more likely than a message saying "I'm still the manager, and you can still kiss my ass".

[HemlockGrey]

I think apologizing would be a start.

[BoredShirtless]

By allowing France and others a bit of the Oil Pie over in Iraq?

[Iceberg]

By allowing France and others a bit of the Oil Pie over in Iraq?

That would help, I think. Bush's attitude of "We're gonna drive right of conquest into the fucking ground" didn't help anything.

[Stormbringer]

Kerry says he will do this whenever questioned about foreign policy. But he never says how he's going to do it. And I couldn't find anything beyond some ultra-vague politicianspeak on his website about it either, unless the answer is buried in some speech he gave months ago. So how's he going to do it? Not "how SHOULD he do it"; what is his actual plan for achieving this objective?

He can go a long way to rebuilding his alliances by simply not being George Bush. As facetious as that sounds, it is 100% true; much of the world hates America right now because of their anger at George W. Bush himself. As much as you would like to mock the "not Bush" answer, it is perfectly workable in this case.

PS. Let me put this in terms you might understand: you go to a store, and the manager is an asshole. You're angry at the store, and you promise never to go back. The store calls you back and says "We apologize for the conduct of the manager. He has been fired." Would this not make you more likely to go back to that store? Certainly a hell of a lot more likely than a message saying "I'm still the manager, and you can still kiss my ass".

It would no doubt help, how ever France and Germany are more or less telling us that they don't give a shit who ever is in office. Any Body But Bush might be a good step; but it won't go far at all.

[BoredShirtless]

Kerry says he will do this whenever questioned about foreign policy. But he never says how he's going to do it. And I couldn't find anything beyond some ultra-vague politicianspeak on his website about it either, unless the answer is buried in some speech he gave months ago. So how's he going to do it? Not "how SHOULD he do it"; what is his actual plan for achieving this objective?

He can go a long way to rebuilding his alliances by simply not being George Bush. As facetious as that sounds, it is 100% true; much of the world hates America right now because of their anger at George W. Bush himself. As much as you would like to mock the "not Bush" answer, it is perfectly workable in this case.

PS. Let me put this in terms you might understand: you go to a store, and the manager is an asshole. You're angry at the store, and you promise never to go back. The store calls you back and says "We apologize for the conduct of the manager. He has been fired." Would this not make you more likely to go back to that store? Certainly a hell of a lot more likely than a message saying "I'm still the manager, and you can still kiss my ass".

It would no doubt help, how ever France and Germany are more or less telling us that they don't give a shit who ever is in office. Any Body But Bush might be a good step; but it won't go far at all.

His point is it will invite them back to the table, which is more or less the state of things before Bush.

[Darth Wong]

It would no doubt help, how ever France and Germany are more or less telling us that they don't give a shit who ever is in office. Any Body But Bush might be a good step; but it won't go far at all.

I assume you are using your traditional definition of "refuse to throw their men into our stupid meat grinder" = "don't give a shit". Two years ago Bush made the mistake of assuming it didn't matter if anybody in the world approved of his actions. It would appear that some people still haven't learned that lesson.

If you think that successful diplomacy means "get our allies to obey our every command", you're dreaming. But that doesn't mean we should wholeheartedly accept Bush's mentality of "fuck 'em".

[Stormbringer]

I assume you are using your traditional definition of "refuse to throw their men into our stupid meat grinder" = "don't give a shit". Two years ago Bush made the mistake of assuming it didn't matter if anybody in the world approved of his actions. It would appear that some people still haven't learned that lesson.

If you think that successful diplomacy means "get our allies to obey our every command", you're dreaming. But that doesn't mean we should wholeheartedly accept Bush's mentality of "fuck 'em".

I'm not talking about "obey our every command" but frankly all France and Germany have given us is the finger. They've said they will not contribute at all. And from the beginning they've said unless Saddam nukes some one we're not lifting a finger. That by any measure is not giving a shit.

As for "fuck 'em" I think quite frankly in France's case that's exactly what should have been done a long time ago. They were playing games with NATO way back in the day just to prove their were big dogs (never mind the stupidity of that) and their attitude hasn't gotten any warmer since. So yeah, fuck 'em.

[Sir Sirius]

As one of these "non-Americans" pissed off at Bush I agree with Mike, Kerry would improve the perception of America and it's actions of many people a great deal by just not being George W. Bush.

[Stormbringer]

As one of these "non-Americans" pissed off at Bush I agree with Mike, Kerry would improve the perception of America and it's actions of many people a great deal by just not being George W. Bush.

And useless affection from Europe is going to make us safer how?

I agree Bush has treated some of our real allies poorly, but the notion that simply because Europe is happy we're some how safer strikes me as utterly moronic. What exactly is a happy Europe going to do that the grumpy one isn't?

[BoredShirtless]

I assume you are using your traditional definition of "refuse to throw their men into our stupid meat grinder" = "don't give a shit". Two years ago Bush made the mistake of assuming it didn't matter if anybody in the world approved of his actions. It would appear that some people still haven't learned that lesson.

If you think that successful diplomacy means "get our allies to obey our every command", you're dreaming. But that doesn't mean we should wholeheartedly accept Bush's mentality of "fuck 'em".

I'm not talking about "obey our every command" but frankly all France and Germany have given us is the finger.

You gave them the finger first. What, you think that complex over on 42nd and 1st is Koffee's house?

They've said they will not contribute at all.

Cause you gave them the finger.

And from the beginning they've said unless Saddam nukes some one we're not lifting a finger. That by any measure is not giving a shit.

Oh you had better provide a source for this one!

[Darth Wong]

I'm not talking about "obey our every command" but frankly all France and Germany have given us is the finger. They've said they will not contribute at all.

I don't often have the pleasure of seeing an opponent contradict himself so gloriously in just two sentences. Thank you; you define "given us the finger" as "refuse to obey our orders to send their troops into a stupid and futile exercise of our making, based on a decision in which we ignored their wishes completely."

And from the beginning they've said unless Saddam nukes some one we're not lifting a finger. That by any measure is not giving a shit.

No, they said you have to provide evidence of WMDs. But thanks for inadvertently proving that you're willing to resort to outright lies in order to cling to your preconceived notions.

As for "fuck 'em" I think quite frankly in France's case that's exactly what should have been done a long time ago. They were playing games with NATO way back in the day just to prove their were big dogs (never mind the stupidity of that) and their attitude hasn't gotten any warmer since. So yeah, fuck 'em.

Spoken like a true neo-con. And you people still wonder why there's an increasing level of global hatred directed toward the US, and anyone in it who agrees with George W. Bush.

And useless affection from Europe is going to make us safer how?

By not being HATRED, you idiot. You honestly don't understand how it's less likely for global hatred against America to thrive if people like you? You don't understand how a pervasive global cultural atmosphere of hatred and mistrust directed against America is good for Al-Quaeda recruiting and bad for you? Do I need to draw a fucking diagram?

[Stravo]

Is it really that hard for Bush supporters to see the horridness of his so called diplomacy? I mean we went from a Grand coalition from the Gulf War that included nations like Syria for fuck's sake to what Rummy calls "The mother of all coalitions" that spans England, Poland and Australia as the major commiters of troops and equipment. Poland is pulling out next year and so has Spain. Costa Rica put us on the Do NOt Call List. This is not a president who cares about alliances or is even remotely diplomatic.

Also the polls coming out of Europe are stunning in terms of Bush's negatives. Highest in France and England. (one of the grand alliance members citizens hate Bush with a passion) And to be clear - by hate I mean SINGLE DIGIT approval numbers.

His father was a diplomat and war hero. Bush is a cowboy with Messainic delusions.

EDIT: And as to the question in OP. How can you do WORSE than Bush?

[SirNitram]

Is it really that hard for Bush supporters to see the horridness of his so called diplomacy?

Probably, given all the spin done after the rest of the world gave Bush the finger. Remember how the Right desperately spun the refusal to go to Iraq as actions of 'Irrelevent' groups and 'Old world clinging to the past' and so forth. Is it a surprise this shit stuck? The average Bush Supporter still beleives Iraq had WMD.

[CJvR]

what is his actual plan for achieving this objective?

The main point in Kerry's plan is probably the same as his main point in the election, he is not Bush. Bush was passionately hated by the euroleft the moment he won the election, Kyoto, Afghanistan and Iraq only added fuel to that. Bush, christian Texan conservative is practicaly a walking advertisment for all the euro paranoia about the US - and this reach far into the right wing in European politics.
I suspect he is hoping that the mere change in Whitehouse resident will rally more allies to him, this might not be an entirely unreasonable assumption. Also if that isn't enough he can always get the French by forcing the Iraqis to let then collect on the bribes Saddam offered them.
Seriously though I doubt you can get Europe more involved in the war, it is far more comfortable to blame all the problems in the ME on the US and Israel than having to deal with the Islamic lunatics.

[theski]

Nice take on this...

Awe and Loathing

Why is America disliked so intensely and widely, with special emphasis in the Middle East? Here is one explanation: "No people are so disliked out of their own country … They assume superiority, and this manner is far from pleasant to other people … I have never seen among any people such rudeness and violation of good breeding … As a nation they are intensely selfish and arrogant." A furious indictment, to be sure — but not of the United States. For the words are those of an American, Robert Laird Collier, writing of the Britain he toured at its imperial zenith in the 1880s.

Over the past half-century, in one part of the world after another, U.S. influence has moved into the vacuum left by the British and other departing powers, often with reluctance (the Middle East), not always with success (Vietnam) but in any case as the pre-eminent force among several, even where the commitment has been a U.N.-endorsed multilateralist's dream (Korea, Kuwait).

What America shares with an earlier Britain is that insufferable sense of mission, the conviction that it a force for good in world affairs. Any force for change, good or bad, presents a challenge to an existing order, and resentment comes with it.

That would be enough to raise hackles. But America, more so than even Britain, represents a special type of challenge to the world. That challenge has been recognized, feared, resented and finally hated, as Barry Rubin and Judith Colp Rubin amply illustrate in their fascinating study: "Hating America: A History." From America's frontier era, when it appeared an ungovernable land with an inhospitable climate; to the 19th-century European conceit that it was a failed society, racked by vices obsolete in Europe (like slavery); to the triumph of American economic expansion and military power, the success of what is now the world's sole superpower has caused anti-American resentment to become a perverse ideal.

It is not easy for established, traditional nations, whether in Europe, the Middle East or elsewhere, to see a new society, pioneered by the huddled masses of their teeming shores, aggregate the energies of its mixed population and outperform all others in virtually every branch of modern human endeavor.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20041021 ... -4483r.htm

OP-ed

[Darth Wong]

what is his actual plan for achieving this objective?

The main point in Kerry's plan is probably the same as his main point in the election, he is not Bush. Bush was passionately hated by the euroleft the moment he won the election, Kyoto, Afghanistan and Iraq only added fuel to that. Bush, christian Texan conservative is practicaly a walking advertisment for all the euro paranoia about the US - and this reach far into the right wing in European politics.

That's because he proves them right. All the bad things liberals said he would do when he got into office (getting in bed with big corporations, breaking down the wall between church and state) came true, and though he got support for Afghanistan (despite your false claims to the contrary), he burned a lot of bridges by ignoring international law and international opinion when he went into Iraq.

Seriously though I doubt you can get Europe more involved in the war, it is far more comfortable to blame all the problems in the ME on the US and Israel than having to deal with the Islamic lunatics.

Perhaps that's because Europe knows that this war was a bad idea in the first place and that it's only generating hatred, which they want no part of. But as long as America regards global public relations to be irrelevant in its so-called "War on Terror", it will be fighting a losing battle. It's like the War on Drugs; if the demand keeps going up, it's a pointless and futile struggle to keep attacking the supply.

[BoredShirtless]

what is his actual plan for achieving this objective?

The main point in Kerry's plan is probably the same as his main point in the election, he is not Bush. Bush was passionately hated by the euroleft the moment he won the election, Kyoto, Afghanistan and Iraq only added fuel to that. Bush, christian Texan conservative is practicaly a walking advertisment for all the euro paranoia about the US - and this reach far into the right wing in European politics.

What the fuck are you on about? Did you conduct some sort of poll to get to your conclusions? We Europeans couldn't give a rats ass whether Bush prays 10 times a day, all we care about is his foreign policies.

I suspect he is hoping that the mere change in Whitehouse resident will rally more allies to him, this might not be an entirely unreasonable assumption.

You're right, see Darth Wong's post above for the reason why.

Also if that isn't enough he can always get the French by forcing the Iraqis to let then collect on the bribes Saddam offered them.
Seriously though I doubt you can get Europe more involved in the war, it is far more comfortable to blame all the problems in the ME on the US and Israel than having to deal with the Islamic lunatics.

"Lunatics" you helped created. To solve a problem, it's a good idea to look at the cause/s, rather then just focusing on the symptoms.

[Darth Wong]

Nice take on this...

What's special about it? From the excerpt you posted, it's just a long-winded way of stating the "they're just jealous" argument, which is total idiocy and utterly fails to explain why America is far more hated in the last two years than they were before. It's not as if America's economy is thriving, nor are its military interventions.

[CJvR]

That's because he proves them right. All the bad things liberals said he would do when he got into office (getting in bed with big corporations, breaking down the wall between church and state) came true, and though he got support for Afghanistan (despite your false claims to the contrary), he burned a lot of bridges by ignoring international law and international opinion when he went into Iraq.

Well the main concern here was that he would go completly isolationist, didn't quite turn out that way. True the US got support for Afghanistan, but on the leftwing it was reluctant and you would hear alot more complaining about Afghanistan if it hadn't been for Iraq being a much easier target.

[CJvR]

What the fuck are you on about? Did you conduct some sort of poll to get to your conclusions? We Europeans couldn't give a rats ass whether Bush prays 10 times a day, all we care about is his foreign policies.

As a European I can say that here most of the concern about Bush's foregin policy before his election was the absence of policy. I was simply refering to how the public debate sounded here during the election and the early Bush presidency.

"Lunatics" you helped created. To solve a problem, it's a good idea to look at the cause/s, rather then just focusing on the symptoms.

IIRC the last time Sweden was involved in the Islamic world was when Karl XII fled to the Ottoman empire after the defeat at Poltava.

[Coyote]

I don't believe Kerry ever has laid out any "plan" for rebuilding alliances; I think it is as Darth Wong said-- by simply not being that guy who pissed folks off he'll be able to sit down and talk with the opposing countries.

But again, being an ally does not mean being a lapdog. Europe sees security and the MidEast in a differenmt perspective than we Americans and that needs to be taken into account. Middle Easterners are right on Europe's doorstep and they will be the first ones to deal with waves of refugees, immigrants, or terrorists too cheap or lazy to go to the US.

But while Kerry will be able to get a dialogue going with Germany, France, and other dissenting countries, again that does not mean they will send troops or anything else.

At best we can hope for more diplomacy (France has good relations with some Arab countries) and perhaps a bit more financial help, but that would be about it. But the message would be delivered more politely: "No, sorry, m'sieu" instead of "Fuck off, Ami Merde!"

Decide how important that is on your own, I guess. At least if Europe (and I'm using Europe as a blanket term fior all the dissenting nations, no matter where they are, I guess) likes Kerry, it won't close the door to future talks. Right now things are so cold between us and the rest that there is no chance of talks at all.

[BoredShirtless]

As a European I can say that here most of the concern about Bush's foregin policy before his election was the absence of policy. I was simply refering to how the public debate sounded here during the election and the early Bush presidency.

As another European, I remember the complete lack of "giving a shit" when he ran for his first term. The only debates I remember were the ones after Iraq; Europe was fully behind the US after 9/11.

"Lunatics" you helped created. To solve a problem, it's a good idea to look at the cause/s, rather then just focusing on the symptoms.

IIRC the last time Sweden was involved in the Islamic world was when Karl XII fled to the Ottoman empire after the defeat at Poltava.

Ok, I thought you're a US citizen, sorry.