How will Kerry "rebuild our alliances"?

[CJvR]

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.

Europe is a big and diverse place. I suspect that in big Germany the US election is viewed with more accademic intrest than in small Sweden.

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

LOL! Well pro-Bush euros are sort of rare...

[Durandal]

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.

Rehash of the "Kerry can't guarantee that he won't be as big a failure as Bush" argument. Even if Kerry can't get them to send troops into Iraq, he won't continue to antagonize them with annoying, demeaning, nationalist rhetoric the way Bush probably will.

[Rogue 9]

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.

"Right of conquest" can kiss my ass. 1.) The entire concept is simply "if we can take it, we can keep it;" armed robbery writ large and nothing more. The idea deserves to be driven into the ground. 2.) Suspending my revulsion at the idea for a second, even if it was a legitimate right, France and Germany did jack shit in the war, so why should they get any such right?

[BoredShirtless]

"Right of conquest" can kiss my ass. 1.) The entire concept is simply "if we can take it, we can keep it;" armed robbery writ large and nothing more. The idea deserves to be driven into the ground. 2.) Suspending my revulsion at the idea for a second, even if it was a legitimate right, France and Germany did jack shit in the war, so why should they get any such right?

Uh, I'm pretty sure Iceberg was saying Bush was telling the world that the right to conquest is Americas God given right. But I'm pretty drunk so maybe I'm wrong.

[Coyote]

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.

Rehash of the "Kerry can't guarantee that he won't be as big a failure as Bush" argument. Even if Kerry can't get them to send troops into Iraq, he won't continue to antagonize them with annoying, demeaning, nationalist rhetoric the way Bush probably will.

I agree. My point is not that the allies will suddenly 'jump aboard' but rather that their decision not to employ troops will be focused more on the diplomatic reasons and less on the personal emnity.

The Europeans are not America's lapdogs, regardless of who is President (Republican or Democrat) and have their own legit reasons for staying out of the war.

Kerry would have a far greater chance at restoring relations, but again that does not translate into 'stepping back into the role of becoming America's drones'... and anyone who thinks that Europe will reverse course and send Pierre and Hans to stand with Joe and Tommy the day after Kerry is sworn in will be in for a rude shock...

[Durandal]

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.

Rehash of the "Kerry can't guarantee that he won't be as big a failure as Bush" argument. Even if Kerry can't get them to send troops into Iraq, he won't continue to antagonize them with annoying, demeaning, nationalist rhetoric the way Bush probably will.

I agree. My point is not that the allies will suddenly 'jump aboard' but rather that their decision not to employ troops will be focused more on the diplomatic reasons and less on the personal emnity.

The Europeans are not America's lapdogs, regardless of who is President (Republican or Democrat) and have their own legit reasons for staying out of the war.

Kerry would have a far greater chance at restoring relations, but again that does not translate into 'stepping back into the role of becoming America's drones'... and anyone who thinks that Europe will reverse course and send Pierre and Hans to stand with Joe and Tommy the day after Kerry is sworn in will be in for a rude shock...

Tell me, who in this thread has claimed that France and Germany will throw themselves into Iraq as soon as Kerry is elected? This is a strawman argument employed by Bush's supporters in favor of the status quo, and it's growing extremely tiresome.

Do you honestly not see the benefits of improving America's image in the world, even if it doesn't translate to France and Germany sending troops into Iraq?

[Iceberg]

"Right of conquest" can kiss my ass. 1.) The entire concept is simply "if we can take it, we can keep it;" armed robbery writ large and nothing more. The idea deserves to be driven into the ground. 2.) Suspending my revulsion at the idea for a second, even if it was a legitimate right, France and Germany did jack shit in the war, so why should they get any such right?

Uh, I'm pretty sure Iceberg was saying Bush was telling the world that the right to conquest is Americas God given right. But I'm pretty drunk so maybe I'm wrong.

BoredShirtless wins a cookie.

[Coyote]

Tell me, who in this thread has claimed that France and Germany will throw themselves into Iraq as soon as Kerry is elected? This is a strawman argument employed by Bush's supporters in favor of the status quo, and it's growing extremely tiresome.

Do you honestly not see the benefits of improving America's image in the world, even if it doesn't translate to France and Germany sending troops into Iraq?

I did not accuse anyone of staking a position that France and Germany will involve themselvbes in Iraq. I simply stated the obvious: "restoring alliances" means just that, not "getting the EU to do as we wish". In some circles people see them as one and the same.

You continually address me as if I am a Bush supporter. Knock it the fuck off. I think he's a son of a bitch. Just because I don't see Kerry as some great savior doesn't pack me on the Bush meatwagon.

Restoring America's image will do a lot for the touchy-feely need to be liked, but what will be the solid, material benefits? I mentioned the possibility of using France's ties to the Arab world and maybe some cash help to rebuild (most likely handled by the UN) but what else might be of cold hard benefit to restoring our image?

Having our dicks sucked doesn't bag Osama. Good will and smiles are cheap. Since troops are out of the question, then what? International Police cooperation? Coordinated border patrols? Intelligence sharing? Extradition treaties?

For example: If America abandons the Death Penalty we may see more willingness to extradite suspects to our coirts-- has Kerry stated a willingness to do that? Is America willing to take that step in all seriousness?

[Darth Wong]

Restoring America's image will do a lot for the touchy-feely need to be liked, but what will be the solid, material benefits?

Do you honestly not understand why Bush has been good for Al-Quaeda recruiting? The more arrogant America is perceived to be on the international stage, the easier it is to convert Islamic people into Islamic terrorists.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Restoring America's image will do a lot for the touchy-feely need to be liked, but what will be the solid, material benefits?

Do you honestly not understand why Bush has been good for Al-Quaeda recruiting? The more arrogant America is perceived to be on the international stage, the easier it is to convert Islamic people into Islamic terrorists.

1. Acting unilaterally does not, necessarily, mean one is being arrogant.

2. Muslims are not attacking America because of an "arrogant" attitude.

[SirNitram]

Restoring America's image will do a lot for the touchy-feely need to be liked, but what will be the solid, material benefits?

Do you honestly not understand why Bush has been good for Al-Quaeda recruiting? The more arrogant America is perceived to be on the international stage, the easier it is to convert Islamic people into Islamic terrorists.

1. Acting unilaterally does not, necessarily, mean one is being arrogant.

Dismissing others as irrelevent, however, does. Thanks for playing, try again anytime.

[Darth Wong]

Restoring America's image will do a lot for the touchy-feely need to be liked, but what will be the solid, material benefits?

Do you honestly not understand why Bush has been good for Al-Quaeda recruiting? The more arrogant America is perceived to be on the international stage, the easier it is to convert Islamic people into Islamic terrorists.

1. Acting unilaterally does not, necessarily, mean one is being arrogant.

2. Muslims are not attacking America because of an "arrogant" attitude.

1. I see you are trying to be stupid again, as usual. Unilateral declarations of war in defiance of international law and international opinion while telling allies to fuck off if they won't follow your instructions is the very definition of arrogance.

2. I see you need me to connect the dots for you, because you are apparently too stupid to do it for yourself. You see, they are attacking America because they believe America is out to destroy their way of life. Its arrogance on the international stage makes this "hidden American agenda" theory much easier to sell to Muslims.

[Axis Kast]

Kerry will not increase cooperation in the War on Terror. Vladimir Putin has already made that much clear, announcing that despite Russia’s strong opposition to the War in Iraq, that George Bush was Moscow’s preferred candidate when it came to opposing international terrorism. If anybody thinks Kerry will engender more support for intelligence cooperation between the United States and Europe, they need to step up to the plate and prove that Europe is currently holding resources back just because they’re dealing with George W. Bush.

Furthermore, Europe isn’t angry because the United States “violated international law.” Nobody in Europe so much as batted two eyelashes as Bill Clinton ran from deliberative body to deliberative body, asking one after another to sanction action in Kosovo – until finally he ran to NATO and turned up some support for a war he made clear he would enter regardless of whether or not he could find somebody’s rubber stamp of legitimacy.

There is a benefit to leadership that gives a moderate face to American action – of course, if John Kerry stays the course in Iraq and does everything he’s promised, his won’t be that moderate face for Arab Muslims dissatisfied with American action in the Middle East. Recruiting will continue apace.

John Kerry may satisfy Americans who have a hankering to believe they’re well loved by the rest of the world. But in reality, closing the windows and pretending that you’re moving never did anything for anyone.

[RedImperator]

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".

I don't know if this analogy completely works, because relations between nation states aren't like relations between individuals, even though we're often tempted to treat them as such. Yeah, we're stuck in Iraq with just the British to help because Bush is an arrogant tool, but his arrogance didn't cause France and Germany to say "fuck you, do it yourself". Rather, his arrogance convinced him he didn't need their help, and so he didn't bother trying to convince France and Germany going in to help with Iraq was in their interests.

If you believe in the Realist model of international relations (and I do), then nations don't have emotions, or hold grudges, or are grateful. In the case of Iraq, we're on our own because we couldn't make it worth anyone's wile to help, and now it's going to be tremendously difficult to do so. Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroder might think Kerry is the best thing since canned beer and a wonderful fellow and every other damn thing, but they won't have anything but nice words for him if he can't convince them to take the dangerous and tremendously unpopular step of sending troops to Iraq to help us. "He's not Bush" isn't going to cut it.

Frankly, I don't think Bush actually has done as much damage as Kerry claimed. They're certainly strained, but the simple fact of the matter is, without the Red Army ready to pour through the Fulda Gap, the United States and Continental Europe have less of a common strategic interest, and the natural centrifugal forces that have always existed between North America and Europe are going to strain the alliance no matter what. Iraq exacerbated things to be sure, but to me it seems it didn't do anything more than widen cracks that were starting to show back in the 1990s.

Conversely, the US and Europe DO have a great number of common strategic interests, those being primarily stopping the spread of Islamofacism, preventing Islamist terrorism, and maintaining a peaceful world order for the conduct of international trade. Those priorities aren't changing or going away anytime soon, and nothing this side of Bush bombing Paris would damage the US-European alliance badly enough to prevent cooperation on those issue.

[Graeme Dice]

Nobody in Europe so much as batted two eyelashes as Bill Clinton ran from deliberative body to deliberative body, asking one after another to sanction action in Kosovo – until finally he ran to NATO and turned up some support for a war he made clear he would enter regardless of whether or not he could find somebody’s rubber stamp of legitimacy.

And you'll note that he actually got that approval, unlike Bush.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Unilateral declarations of war in defiance of international law and international opinion while telling allies to fuck off if they won't follow your instructions is the very definition of arrogance.

No, its the very defination of being a soverign nation. An alliance is nothing but a group of nations working towards a common goal. If their goals diverge, it is not "arrogant" for a nation to say "we're going it alone- see you later."

Additionally, international law is a joke. Nations, such as the ones sitting on the Human Rights Council in the UN, routinely ignore international law without being punished..... or being classifed as "arrogant" for that matter.

You see, they are attacking America because they believe America is out to destroy their way of life. Its arrogance on the international stage makes this "hidden American agenda" theory much easier to sell to Muslims.

Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit! Its the end actions that they're reacting against- not the way in which we do it. If the United States invaded Iraq in a "humble" fashion, with the "moral support" of Europe the terrroists would just claim that the "puppets of the US had knuckled under" or that there is a conspiracy among Christian Europe to destroy the Muslim way of life. Our "attitude" is a minor contributing factor- not the underlying cause.

Also- there is no need to for you to be a fucking asshole by insulting me over a casual conversation about international politics.

[CJvR]

Rather, his arrogance convinced him he didn't need their help, and so he didn't bother trying to convince France and Germany going in to help with Iraq was in their interests.

He would have to be lucky to get even 10000 from them, a force adjustment of perhaps 7%. Germany is unwilling even if it is in their intrest, France was unwilling because accepting Saddam's bribes was far more profitable than having a war.

[HemlockGrey]

Does anyone else remember that little anecdote Kerry used in some speech a while back? Might have been a debate. Basically, he said that, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Kennedy Administration grabbed their photos of the missile sites and went to France, telling deGalle that they had proof that the Soviets had missiles in Cuba. To which deGalle replied that he didn't need proof, he trusted the American president implicitly.

Whether or not that story is entirely true, I don't know. However, I think it illustrates a good point. A President who is not Bush and who has a natural inclination to diplomacy can help to repair our relations with other nations in such a way that, while we might not reap any immediate benefits, our credibility in the future will not be completely shot, and I think national credibility and popularity with foreign citizens is an important factor in determining the response of foreign democratic nations.

[Axis Kast]

And you'll note that he actually got that approval, unlike Bush.

He got it after shopping around at far more institutions than did George W. Bush. Clinton, too, was turned down by the U.N.

[SirNitram]

And you'll note that he actually got that approval, unlike Bush.

He got it after shopping around at far more institutions than did George W. Bush. Clinton, too, was turned down by the U.N.

And he didn't dismiss the members of it as an 'Irrelevent debating society', he kept searching for assistance. Bush the wonder Chimp would do well to learn from that, but it's obvious he won't.

[PainRack]

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

And why should this op ed be that devastatingly accurate? Note, if this was true, then America should had been hated in WWII, the Cold War and all the way up to the Gulf War. Why is it that it has only been when Bush entered the arena, and more interestingly, after the push for the Iraq war, after 9.11 gave the US the highest sympathy vote since ever that America has truly became the Great Satan for the west?

[PainRack]

And you'll note that he actually got that approval, unlike Bush.

He got it after shopping around at far more institutions than did George W. Bush. Clinton, too, was turned down by the U.N.

Bullshit. Clinton failed to have the UNSC authorise his entry BEFORE he attacked. You do know that the UNSC did authorise intervention after the invasion, and more importantly,they said that it was a legitimate mission, that soverignty is not as important when a nation is commiting genocide?

The plain, simple fact that having a US leader who wil be well liked by the Peoples of the west, make governments who have realist reasons to aid you have no obstacles in doing so seems to have escaped you totally. Tell me, do you think if it was anybody else but Poodle Blair, will anybody had blindly followed Bush into invading Iraq, when they knew the majority of their populace was against it?

No, its the very defination of being a soverign nation. An alliance is nothing but a group of nations working towards a common goal. If their goals diverge, it is not "arrogant" for a nation to say "we're going it alone- see you later."

Additionally, international law is a joke. Nations, such as the ones sitting on the Human Rights Council in the UN, routinely ignore international law without being punished..... or being classifed as "arrogant" for that matter.


Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit! Its the end actions that they're reacting against- not the way in which we do it. If the United States invaded Iraq in a "humble" fashion, with the "moral support" of Europe the terrroists would just claim that the "puppets of the US had knuckled under" or that there is a conspiracy among Christian Europe to destroy the Muslim way of life. Our "attitude" is a minor contributing factor- not the underlying cause.

Also- there is no need to for you to be a fucking asshole by insulting me over a casual conversation about international politics.

*Awaits BlkbrryTheGreat Bloody Mary.*

[Graeme Dice]

He got it after shopping around at far more institutions than did George W. Bush. Clinton, too, was turned down by the U.N.

Yes, you are stating the obvious. So what? He still got the approval.

[Coyote]

Restoring America's image will do a lot for the touchy-feely need to be liked, but what will be the solid, material benefits?

Do you honestly not understand why Bush has been good for Al-Quaeda recruiting? The more arrogant America is perceived to be on the international stage, the easier it is to convert Islamic people into Islamic terrorists.

I believe the issue here focuses more on the perception of American Arrogance, which has been a staple of MidEast political discourse for decades. You are correct, however, in pointing out that Bush's actions seem to embody what Arabs have always held suspicious about America and/or its interests in the region...

But that makes Bush an effigy for Arab 'conspiracy theories'-- they hated us before Bush was ever on the scene, they've hated us even since before Israel was on the scene-- the Wahhabist movement and its roots in the salafiyya movement, the rejection of modernism as 'un-Godly', have been around since the 1800's.

Changing leaders WILL help build our image in the rest of the world, though... people's logic here is indeed sound on that mark... but for the fundy Arab/Muslim movements, even if we elected a devout Muslim as President they would just declare him an 'apostate' and envigorate the Jihad.

How much will having a friendly Europe help us in the face of this? What have Kerry's stated goals been to get Europe to help without involving troops? A good public image to Europe is, in a way, preaching to the choir-- we need to find a way to disable the Muslim loonies.

Europe may dislike America or Bush, but I doubt they express this by offering support to al-Quaeda in retaliation. If the EU was giving money to Osama out of spite, and we could wean them away from that, then yes there's a solid tangible benfit. But since that does not seem to be the case... then Europe might just be upset that we're rocking their neighbor's boat and it makes their ride rougher. But we need to pitch the loonies overboard, so some boat-rocking is justified.

[salm]

Germany is unwilling even if it is in their intrest

the requirement for germany to go to iraq is to have a UN mandate.

germany is actually already involved. german troops train iraqi law inforcers in saudi arabia and provide them with the spürpanzer fuchs.

not sure if i like that.