How will Kerry "rebuild our alliances"?

[Nova Andromeda]

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.

--On a somewhat different topic aren't we out to "destroy their way of life" and by we I mean most modern democracies. After all, we would like to get rid of theocracies and push for secular states.
-Yes, I know that Bush would like to replace them one theocracy for another...

[Axis Kast]

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.

“Searcing for assistance?” Clinton canvassed and was turned down by so many forums, he became a virtual joke. His administration was no less determined to go to war against all dispute in Bosnia than Bush was in Iraq.

You also realize that, like Bush, in going to so many institutions, Clinton was essentially sending an ultimatum as well: support me, or I’ll prove you irrelevant.

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?

See above. The U.N.’s retro-active approval was the sign of a forced hand. An attempt to give their nod to an action that had revealed their irrelevance and impotence for all the world to see.

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?

We’ve already discussed this. There are no obstacles to aid outside Iraq. And that’s been stated in this thread by more people than just myself. As of this time, nobody has provided one iota of proof that we’re wrong.

[MKSheppard]

that soverignty is not as important when a nation is commiting genocide?

So your description of a nation fighting moslem insurgents on it's own land,
with neatly marked graves, is genocide?

[HemlockGrey]

You also realize that, like Bush, in going to so many institutions, Clinton was essentially sending an ultimatum as well: support me, or I’ll prove you irrelevant.

And yet Clinton is not hated by the international community, and he didn't make American credibility into a joke, nor did he unite the Western world in despising him. Obviously, his methods worked. Bush's methods, on the other hand, have caused the populations of even his most steadfast allies to absolutely hate him. The fact that the end both men achieved was similar to totally irrelevant, because Clinton did it successfully and diplomatically and Bush did not, and that is the issue.

[Axis Kast]

And yet Clinton is not hated by the international community, and he didn't make American credibility into a joke, nor did he unite the Western world in despising him. Obviously, his methods worked. Bush's methods, on the other hand, have caused the populations of even his most steadfast allies to absolutely hate him. The fact that the end both men achieved was similar to totally irrelevant, because Clinton did it successfully and diplomatically and Bush did not, and that is the issue.

But we've already agreed: there was never any chance for Bush to marshall an international coalition for Iraq. Germany and France were opting out, saying they would not support an invasion regardless of what Blix found. Furthermore, as Red Imperator pointed out, international dislike (or hatred) for Bush does not prevent cooperation that was going to occur anyway.

[BoredShirtless]

Germany and France were opting out, saying they would not support an invasion regardless of what Blix found.

You're lying. They said they would support a new UN "ultimatum" resolution if Blix found WMD's. You dishonest prick, you know that.

[HemlockGrey]

But we've already agreed: there was never any chance for Bush to marshall an international coalition for Iraq. Germany and France were opting out, saying they would not support an invasion regardless of what Blix found. Furthermore, as Red Imperator pointed out, international dislike (or hatred) for Bush does not prevent cooperation that was going to occur anyway.

But Clinton didn't have a grand international coalition for his war, either; he simply managed to enter it without pissing everybody off, which is what Bush failed at.

[Darth Wong]

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.

You're a fucking moron; sovereignty has to do with your rights within your own borders, not halfway around the globe.

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."

Wow, it's not arrogant because you say so. That's a powerful rebuttal; please look up "arrogant" in the dictionary, shithead.

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.

Correct, they're classified as human-rights violators. And if, say, China went around invading countries, there would be outrage. What's your point?

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!

Wow, you know so much about how countries outside the US perceive you, eh? And how do you know this? ESP?

Its the end actions that they're reacting against- not the way in which we do it.

Which is exactly what I said, you imbecile. It's the "hidden American agenda". American arrogance (such as yours) isn't the motivation, but it makes this idea easier to sell to any skeptics. Where did you learn to read, dumb-fuck?

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.

Again, where did you learn to read?

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

"Mockery of stupid people", you idiot. You obviously don't understand simple English, so you are classified as the moron that you are.

[Axis Kast]

You're lying. They said they would support a new UN "ultimatum" resolution if Blix found WMD's. You dishonest prick, you know tha

But both of them pledged that they would refrain from sending troops or supporting an outright invasion of Iraq, even if it came to that. They weren’t signing onto the war no matter what.

But Clinton didn't have a grand international coalition for his war, either; he simply managed to enter it without pissing everybody off, which is what Bush failed at.

And your argument is what, then? That Kerry’s better because he’ll engender more support in Iraq? We already know it wasn’t – and won’t – be forthcoming. France and Germany was promising to abstain even before the “Old Europe” comments and our decision to ignore the U.N. deadlock. That Kerry will put a brighter face on American action and reduce al-Qaeda’s capacity to encourage recruits? No; as long as he stays in Iraq and continues to do business with the Arab regimes, al-Qaeda will have as much recruiting material as under George Bush. That Kerry will garner new support in the War on Terror? Vladimir Putin’s already told us from the vantage point of a leader who refused to support the Iraq War: whatever differences might exist over the danger Saddam posed, there is no debate about what leader is seen as the stronger man to fight terrorism. Besides the fact that in order for the argument to be correct, somebody would have to prove that Europe is currently letting their guard down – consciously – just to piss on Bush.

[SecondStorm]

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.

You are not there with "just" the British. My own country and many others have sent troops to Iraq. And will stay there for as long as needed.

I know that it is an oversight of yours but it pisses me off none-the-less.

"I can accept derision and hate but never ignorance".

[Graeme Dice]

But both of them pledged that they would refrain from sending troops or supporting an outright invasion of Iraq, even if it came to that. They weren’t signing onto the war no matter what.

Here's a clue. Restating a lie doesn't make it any more true.

[Gustav32Vasa]

You are not there with "just" the British. My own country and many others have sent troops to Iraq. And will stay there for as long as needed.

I know that it is an oversight of yours but it pisses me off none-the-less.

Dont forget your sub.

[Edi]

You also realize that, like Bush, in going to so many institutions, Clinton was essentially sending an ultimatum as well: support me, or I’ll prove you irrelevant.

The difference between Bush and Clinton is that Clinton never thought that other countries were irrelevant even if the US did the heavy lifting in Kosovo, and even if he did, he damn well kept it hidden. Bush came right out and said to everyone (even those who had supported him after 9/11 and in Afghanistan) that they were irrelevant in Iraq if they would not do as he told them to, and his begging for international support to help him out of the mess after his administration fucked up the occupation very vividly illustrates that NO, those other countries he so derided before the war are indeed NOT irrelevant.

But do keep on believing the delusion that their actions are directly comparable. They are not. Europe did not feel like Clinton was giving us ultimatums and threats, Bush came right out and did that to our face.

Edi

[Mange]

CJvR, you're not the only Swede on this board that favors President Bush, but I must say that I believe that Kerry could be seen with more respect outside of the U.S., and perhaps he is a better diplomat than President Bush, but who really knows? If you say you prefer Bush here, you will in an instant be labeled a "Bush apologist" etc., by people that doesn't understand that people are of an other opinion.

[Edi]

CJvR, you're not the only Swede on this board that favors President Bush, but I must say that I believe that Kerry could be seen with more respect outside of the U.S., and perhaps he is a better diplomat than President Bush, but who really knows? If you say you prefer Bush here, you will in an instant be labeled a "Bush apologist" etc., by people that doesn't understand that people are of an other opinion.

You're not labeled an apologist unless you try to defend arguments that have already been demolished several times over, like you did when I called you one, Mange.

Edi

[Axis Kast]

Here's a clue. Restating a lie doesn't make it any more true.

Prove that France and Germany were ever willing to send troops to Iraq. Their stated plan should Blix have come up with any hard evidence was to keep inspections in-country for a bit longer, and maybe up the amount of personnel assigned to the task.

But do keep on believing the delusion that their actions are directly comparable. They are not. Europe did not feel like Clinton was giving us ultimatums and threats, Bush came right out and did that to our face.

Nice obfuscation. Either put up, or shut up.

Prove that some tangible good can come from all of Kerry’s bullshit about how he plans to sit down and talk out a problem on which Europe has already taken a stand, or concede the point. Bush may be brusque, and Bush may have been abrasive, but Kerry will most certainly not coax Europe into devoting to collective security any more than it already is.

[Mange]

CJvR, you're not the only Swede on this board that favors President Bush, but I must say that I believe that Kerry could be seen with more respect outside of the U.S., and perhaps he is a better diplomat than President Bush, but who really knows? If you say you prefer Bush here, you will in an instant be labeled a "Bush apologist" etc., by people that doesn't understand that people are of an other opinion.

You're not labeled an apologist unless you try to defend arguments that have already been demolished several times over, like you did when I called you one, Mange.

Edi

I take it you mean the "Massgraves unearthed in Iraq" thread (I'm sorry, I can't recall exactly what the thread title was) in which I stated that I thought it was a good thing (one of the few good things that came out of the Iraq war in a short term) that Saddam Hussein would be put on trial?

[Edi]

I take it you mean the "Massgraves unearthed in Iraq" thread (I'm sorry, I can't recall exactly what the thread title was) in which I stated that I thought it was a good thing (one of the few good things that came out of the Iraq war in a short term) that Saddam Hussein would be put on trial?

Yeah, that one, but there were other instances earlier where other people took you to task. I noticed them, but didn't say anything because there was nothing to add that had not already been covered.

Edi

[Graeme Dice]

Prove that France and Germany were ever willing to send troops to Iraq. Their stated plan should Blix have come up with any hard evidence was to keep inspections in-country for a bit longer, and maybe up the amount of personnel assigned to the task.

Here's a clue. Restating a lie doesn't make it any more true.

Prove that some tangible good can come from all of Kerry’s bullshit about how he plans to sit down and talk out a problem on which Europe has already taken a stand, or concede the point.

He's not Bush. Concession accepted.

[HemlockGrey]

And your argument is what, then? That Kerry’s better because he’ll engender more support in Iraq? We already know it wasn’t – and won’t – be forthcoming. France and Germany was promising to abstain even before the “Old Europe” comments and our decision to ignore the U.N. deadlock. That Kerry will put a brighter face on American action and reduce al-Qaeda’s capacity to encourage recruits? No; as long as he stays in Iraq and continues to do business with the Arab regimes, al-Qaeda will have as much recruiting material as under George Bush. That Kerry will garner new support in the War on Terror? Vladimir Putin’s already told us from the vantage point of a leader who refused to support the Iraq War: whatever differences might exist over the danger Saddam posed, there is no debate about what leader is seen as the stronger man to fight terrorism. Besides the fact that in order for the argument to be correct, somebody would have to prove that Europe is currently letting their guard down – consciously – just to piss on Bush.

No, Kerry won't be able to do anything in the short-term, Bush has already fucked over our chances of that, and, frankly, France and Germany and the like have no business in Iraq anyway. However, I find it difficult to believe you don't grasp the long-term benefits of having the population of other countries we may be called to work with in the future not despise the Administration and automatically distrust anything the country says?

[Axis Kast]

Here's a clue. Restating a lie doesn't make it any more true.

Prove the contrary. Prove that France and Germany were ever willing to send troops.

He's not Bush. Concession accepted.

That's not an argument.

No, Kerry won't be able to do anything in the short-term, Bush has already fucked over our chances of that, and, frankly, France and Germany and the like have no business in Iraq anyway. However, I find it difficult to believe you don't grasp the long-term benefits of having the population of other countries we may be called to work with in the future not despise the Administration and automatically distrust anything the country says?

If it is within their interest to cooperate with the United States, other nations will. As I've pointed out at least twice now, Vladimir Putin has indicated a willingness to do just that, despite a significant difference of opinion over Iraq.

[HemlockGrey]

If it is within their interest to cooperate with the United States, other nations will. As I've pointed out at least twice now, Vladimir Putin has indicated a willingness to do just that, despite a significant difference of opinion over Iraq.

But Vlad the Impaler doesn't have to worry about significant political pressure being brought to bear on his decision to cooperate. French, German, and British politicians do.

[Axis Kast]

But Vlad the Impaler doesn't have to worry about significant political pressure being brought to bear on his decision to cooperate. French, German, and British politicians do.

I dare say that French, Germany, and British politicans will not be persuaded to compromise their own security by engaging in silly tit-for-tats with the American leadership just because George Bush isn't very popular.

[Talon Karrde]

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".

Granted, this sounds like it makes sense. But if those who haven't the greatest affect by the managers actions, say thestock holders, (United States citizens in Bush's case) they should have the ultimate say. As of right now, right around 50% still believe he's better than the other "manager" available. I guess we'll have to see how that turns out on Nov. 2nd.

[HemlockGrey]

I dare say that French, Germany, and British politicans will not be persuaded to compromise their own security by engaging in silly tit-for-tats with the American leadership just because George Bush isn't very popular.

But if their populations support the United States, they will be more likely to support us when their security interests alone would not justify intervention.