« E-A-B-E-A-B-A-E-A-B-E-A |
| i always depended upon the kindess of not-quite strangers »
Posted by me on March 16, 2004 05:29 PM | Permalink
Of course the nations who have been long time US allies (even uneasy ones) are anxious to see an American president who does not routinely flout international law and take unilateral action that threatens to destabilize the most dangerous regions of the world. The Bush administration has cost us HUGELY in credibility overseas.
In the wake of the Bush administration, it's going to take years, maybe decades to convince the world we are not a gang of arrogant armed thugs. And a time will come when we need our allies again, count on it.
David Strain |
March 16, 2004 05:44 PM
These "long time US allies" have just conducted the largest naval exercises ever w/ the Chinese PLAN in a blantant attempt to intimidate Taipai(sp)and the Taiwanese electorate on thier referendum on formal independance.
Why shoud we give a damn what those "allies" think?
March 16, 2004 06:15 PM
I'll take Poland and Australia over France and Germany, any day.
The latter 2 have been less allies than military dependents, anyway.
You keep Belgium and Canada, I'll keep South Korea, Japan, and England. And the Czechs, Hungarians, and Romanians. Somehow I think My teaam can beat your team.
March 16, 2004 06:30 PM
The French can do as they wish. Why they want this guy, I'm not sure
March 16, 2004 06:38 PM
hey, with friends like these...
I see it the other way around - Bush has established our credibility in a way I haven't seen from a President in years. There are those in the world who may disagree with our decisions, but they cannot doubt we are serious when we say we will pursue our enemies and defeat them.
Dave in Texas |
March 16, 2004 07:02 PM
The day that the survival of the United States is dependent on the military might of France is a day I expect I'll never see.
John Barrett Jr. |
March 16, 2004 07:58 PM
The U.S. hasn`t had the "credibility overseas" that you mention for years. That lack of credibility is one of the reasons for the 9-11 attacks. The U.S. had become complacent under the previous administration to the point of simply lobbing a cruise missle or 2 every time an attack occured. The terrorists took that as a sign of weakness, having already commited themselves to absorbing any such losses. They knew that there were millions more recruits willing to fill the void.
Why don`t you ask them how easy it is to get new recruits now? It`s not so easy when they know they will die en masse. Radical muslims might be crazy, but they ain`t stupid.
The policy of appeasment that you suggest,and it IS a policy of appeasment, make no mistake, would simply convince the radical muslims that they were right to think that America would soon forget about 9-11. It would promote their recruitment and terrorist attacks would escalate.
If a country is pissed at us because we don`t give in to terrorism and begin a policy of appeasment again, then we don`t really need them do we, since, to me, it would seem that they were more concerned for the welfare of terrorists than of us, their supposed ally.
You seem to be suggesting appeasment. I don`t.
Appeasment simply puts off the inevitable.
"Appeasers always win. They seem reasonable and peaceful. Everything is great until the whip comes down. Then most appeasers turn into blamers. Still the prudent must go on. Still evil must be stopped."
March 16, 2004 08:30 PM
Damn, that was pitiful, Dave. What happened to you? I thought you had a spine.
Andrea Harris |
March 16, 2004 08:38 PM
By the way, did you know he served in Vietnam?
David Ross |
March 16, 2004 08:41 PM
Of course the French government hates Bush. He bounced one of their closest business associates. Bush cost France a lot of oil money/graft. No wonder they're pissed.
Didn't France offer refuge to Pol Pot, Idi Amin, & Papa Doc Duvalier? That's some serious sophistication.
What was the final death count during the French heatwave?
March 16, 2004 08:50 PM
"Why don`t you ask them how easy it is to get new recruits now? It`s not so easy when they know they will die en masse. "
Uh, dude, the problem is that they want to die and take out as many of us as possible in the process.
" The policy of appeasment that you suggest,and it IS a policy of appeasment, make no mistake, would simply convince the radical muslims that they were right to think that America would soon forget about 9-11."
Never have I suggested a policy of appeasement. However, I deeply disagree with the administration's decision to persue a war against Al-Quaeda, an Afghani-based organization, in Iraq, a regime the Bush administration is documented as having an invasion agenda planned prior to 9/11. It's like that guy who lost a nickel in the library but went outside to look for it where the light was better.
The attacks in Spain should be clear evidence to you that the War in Iraq is not helping matters at all in terms of Al Quaeda, but rather kicking the hornet's nest of a part of the world that already views the United States as a grasping, aggressive, bullying regime that pursues its own agendas with a sense of complete impunity and entitlement.
March 16, 2004 09:40 PM
I agree with the decision to invade Iraq. The case is simple as I see it. Iraq had already shown its willingness to its neighboring countries. Iraq had been ordered by the world ( UN ) to dis-arm repeatedly, not asked, but TOLD.
IT IS A FACT the Saddam had, was seeking to develop, and was developing WMDs.
IT IS A FACT the Saddam was very willing to use WMDs on his enemies and his own people.
It`s also a fact that Saddam was sponsoring, training and financing Al Quaida.
While Iraq didn`t pose a direct threat ( as in, an invasion ) to the U.S. the indirect threat posed by colaborating with Al Quaida was quite formidable.
You may be one of those who would point out the other arab countries as equally likely targets to the U.S. as an argument that Bush singled out Iraq.
To that, I would point out that while all of these countries had SOME of the same criteria as Iraq, i.e, WMDs, support for Al Quaida, financing terrorism, none of them had ALL of the criteria as Iraq. I`m convinced that a good portion of the 9-11 planning went on INSIDE IRAQ.
Keep in mind that while the Taliban was running Afghanistan, and while the Taliban were Al Quaida supporters, Al Quaida IS NOT the Taliban.
We aren`t ONLY fighting the Taliban, and we`re not ONLY fighting muslims. We are fighting terrorism.
Here`s an analogy for you.
If a man lives in your neighborhood who beats his wife and kids, tortures his pets, robs and threatens his neighbors and insults and threatens YOU, what would you do about it?
Me, I`d go stomp a big, deep, mud hole in his ass.
March 16, 2004 10:17 PM
Also. Read this article by Mark Steyn CLICK HERE . Islamic terrorists DON`T CARE if a country likes them or not.
To them we are infidels so we must die. PERIOD.
March 16, 2004 10:24 PM
Andrea, beg pardon?
Dave in Texas |
March 16, 2004 10:38 PM
Dude, don't drink any more Jolt Cola tonight.
You state things in your arguments repeatedly that you claim are facts, but are in fact opinions and opinions that we are discovering more and more are based on faulty intelligence and conjecture. Yes, Saddam was a butcher and a terror to his people, but so were Aristide, so is Kim Jong Il and a dozen other third world dictators.
Neither one of us is going to convince the other of anything, though, and truth be told, from our comfortable living rooms and our expensive computers, we really don't know the whole truth about what is happening on the other side of the world, just what we are able to glean through the media filters.
I'm just one of those bleeding hearts who sees the bloodshed of today, American and Iraqi and Spanish, as a trickle compared to a future of torrents. We just disagree over the best means to avert that. I don't want to see people die any more than you do.
David Strain |
March 16, 2004 10:38 PM
Dave in Texas: I was referring to Mr. Strain.
Andrea Harris |
March 16, 2004 11:39 PM
And Mr. Strain: so you want to avoid bloodshed and don't want to "see people die." What can I say, we are all going to die at some point... Personally, I'd rather die knowing I had fought for freedom than die knowing I had given in to the sort of people who would stone me because I walk about with my head and arms exposed, and who like to crush gays under stone walls. And I neither need nor want the approbation of the sort of people who think that giving in to bullies is the best way to deal with them.
Andrea Harris |
March 16, 2004 11:46 PM
"Personally, I'd rather die knowing I had fought for freedom than die knowing I had given in to the sort of people who would stone me because I walk about with my head and arms exposed, and who like to crush gays under stone walls."
And I take it Saddam Hussein was coming to your neighborhood to do just that?
The US will need its allies, especially in the years to come. We are on thin ice in the world.
But thank you so much Ms Harris for coming in as usual to offer the most emotional and overwrought take on the topic.
David Strain |
March 17, 2004 01:13 AM
Okay, DS the ball is in your court. Since you are so concerned about future bloodshed, what do you suggest? How about we just dial up Osama and offer to negotiate. First we could withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe then they would leave us alone. We could dump that Judeo/Christian stuff that is clogging up the courts and offer to become Muslims. Maybe then they would leave us alone. We could nuke Israel or relocate her people to Oklahoma or Idaho. Maybe then they would leave us alone. We could restore the caliphate to its rightful place in history and hand over Spain and Italy. Maybe then they would leave us alone. And after all that, maybe those cool French kids would finally let us hang out with them. That alone would make it worthwhile.
March 17, 2004 04:14 AM
OK D tell you what Doood. You go ahead and kiss their ass dood. I`ll just stick to helping kick their ass. Peace Dood.
March 17, 2004 06:17 AM
They also go wild over Jerry Lewis. 'nuff said?
Ken Summers |
March 17, 2004 09:34 AM
Andrea - sorry I missed that, thanks.
Dave in Texas |
March 17, 2004 09:41 AM
Wow, you really hate strawmen.
Should we appease you so you'll stop doing that?
Patrick Chester |
March 17, 2004 10:28 AM
Yesterday, France almost caught Bin Laden. How sweet that would have been.
Chirac: "You see George, while you were playing colonial misadventures, we were chasing the real enemy."
Bush: "Janet Jackson's left titty?"
Chirac: "Why do you hate America?"
March 17, 2004 10:28 AM
The people of Spain are smarter than the people of America. America should take Spain as an example.
"It is not caving in to the bees to stop poking a stick into their hive."
March 17, 2004 10:30 AM
"Okay, DS the ball is in your court. Since you are so concerned about future bloodshed, what do you suggest? "
First off, I suggest getting a new president.
Moaf, it's spelled 'Dude'. D-U-D-E. It has its origins in the 'dude ranches' of the western frontier in the 1800's.
March 17, 2004 10:57 AM
Vince, that didn't happen yesterday.
Our men were not very far,’’ Bentegeat told France’s Europe-1 radio station. ‘‘On several occasions, I even think that he slipped out of a net that was well closed.’’
Bentegeat did not specify when or where the escapes took place and a Defence Ministry spokeswoman declined to give details.
Yea, you should have seen the fish that got away. It was huuuuuge!
And let's not forget the helpful Frenchman who tried to run over bin Laden.
Too bad it wasn't ol' binnie boy.
March 17, 2004 11:01 AM
Oh, and Vince-
David Strain |
March 17, 2004 11:05 AM
A French guy almost ran over Bin Laden? I missed that. Was he trying to surrender?
Dave in Texas |
March 17, 2004 11:08 AM
French driver targets pedestrian he mistook for bin Laden!
March 17, 2004 11:20 AM
Regardless of when the French almost caught Bin Laden, should the French catch him, oh boy, I'm going to have a shit. If I were Chirac, I'd keep him on principle, for this 'freedom this' and 'freedon that' LOL.
As per this 'once I caught a fish this big' business, gimme a break. That handy rhetoric would be handy for Powell and Bush.
"Saddam Hussein has a vat of anthrax THIS BIG. Invade! Ok, maybe they doesn't. Sorry for all those dead soldiers. Here, have a miniature American flag!"
March 17, 2004 11:37 AM
Vince, dear. It would not matter to me on iota if the French caught bin Laden. The point is, he would be caught. That's the bottom line. For you, it would be a chance to gloat and say 'nyah nyah America!" For me, it would be a chance to rejoice that the man who is responsible for the deaths of 3,000 people will be held accountable.
I guess that's what separates us, Vin. That whole moral issues thing.
March 17, 2004 11:44 AM
Moral issues, my dear, have nothing to due with my comments. You (and the rest of the right wingers) have this convienient little way of rationalizing your hatred for all those who disagree with Bush as they are Bad Things For America, and people like myself as having no morals.
On one hand, you disparage the French non stop. You say the French support Kerry, which is a Bad Thing For America. You imply the terrorists want Kerry to win, which is a Bad Thing For America. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the right's implication of France supporting terrorism. But that's OK, as the French are having the last laugh.
Bin Laden will be caught. I hope the French catch him. Obviously I'd prefer Canada catching him, but for the French to catch him, oh boy, I'd have a shit. The amount of abuse hurled at the French (for being correct, I might add) over the past year disgraced America. I don't have a problem with proles like you and I badmouthing the French; some Frenchman do the same about Americans. What disgraced America were things like was how some government cafetarias took fries off the menu and renamed them; media outlets sponsoring these events where people would pour their Champagne on the ground (dumbasses). Australian wines being served at Bush's ranch instead of French (silly political statements). Stupidity on a national level. The fact the lowly French would succeed at something they are assumed to have no interest in would definately wake up America.
Moral issues, sweetheart, are something the right should look at and try to learn from. Obviously you didn't hear about Bush et al trying to pass off actors as journalists for their Medicare program. Obviously you didn't hear about how the Homeland Security Department have been ordered to produce a photo op a month for Bush's relection bid. But since you never heard about these immoral acts I'll let you slide on those ones.
But back to Bin Laden. "It would not matter to me on iota if the French caught bin Laden. The point is, he would be caught. That's the bottom line." Of course that's your opinion. It is most sane people's opinion. But to see the right wingers squirm and fidget when Pierre announces they have custody of Bin Laden, that's where I gloat, sing the nah-nah-nahh-nahh-hey-hey-goodby song, have a glass of Champagne, think of the victims of 9/11 and how THIS is what they deserve, and wonder if the $100 billion, 500+ soldiers and 6,000 wounded on the invasion of Iraq could have been better spent on catching Binnie, and maybe even preventing Bali and Madrid. Of course, to imply that catching the head of a terrorist organization may prevent future acts of terrorism by the same organization is folly. Or at least that's how Repubs think.
I watched The Manchurian Candidate last night. You don't look like Angela Landsbury, do you?
March 17, 2004 12:13 PM
See, this is what happens when people confuse me with right-wingers. I'm not quite a true right winger.
I never renamed my frech fries or poured champagne down the drain. I never even boycotted Johnny Depp movies or Radiohead's music.
As far as the French supporting terrorism, well you'll have to wait for me to write something up on that. Don't have the time here. And it's not so much supporting terrorism as it is NOT supporting the war on terror.
this convienient little way of rationalizing your hatred for all those who disagree with Bush as they are Bad Things For America, and people like myself as having no morals.
Well, that would certainly put me in a predicament as I disagree with Bush on quite a few issues. Am I bad for America or good for America? Do I have morals or not? Damn, now you have me arguing with myself.
Again, it would please me greatly to have bin Laden caught, no matter who did the catchy. There will be no squirming. Sorry.
March 17, 2004 12:28 PM
"First off I suggest getting a new president." Great idea, maybe then they'll leave us alone. Only problem is, Kerry's got no ideas beyond treating terrorists the same as the guy robbing the 7-11 with a dash of the U.N. thrown in. Just a question, how many family and friends did you lose on 9-11 or 3-11? This is more than a philosophical debate for me. My husband is a commercial airline pilot, my sister a flight attendant, my dad and brother United Airlines employees. We lived Torrejon, Spain about 20 years ago. We rode those trains from Atoche into Madrid every day. I know you don't care about our friends' deaths or our grief, but please don't try to tell me that the U.N., France, Spain or North Korea knows the best course for the U.S.
March 17, 2004 03:31 PM
And by the way D.S. lest you try to portray as a right-wing nut, I am a registered Democrat who voted for Al Gore.
March 17, 2004 03:34 PM
"I know you don't care about our friends' deaths or our grief,"
How dare you presume such a thing or accuse me of siding with terrorists. You should be disgusted with yourself for attempting to pull this discussion down to that level.
I espouse the beliefs I do because I believe that the administration's bully pulpit approach to world politics will only create more terrorists. Does this mean I want your family to die?
How are we to coordinate the tracking of punishment of terrorists if the governments of Europe and the Middle East refuse to cooperate with us? No matter how much cowboy rhetoric Bush may spew, we CAN NOT go it alone and protect ourselves effectively. We need the cooperation of other nations and their intelligence agencies.
David Strain |
March 17, 2004 04:57 PM
It's telling that you equate my statement with a slap at your loyalties. I didn't say that, you did. A bit defensive are we? You didn't answer my question. How many friends, how many relatives of yours lived their last moments in abject terror as they rattled in silver death boxes toward skyscrapers, the pentagon and a grassy field in Pennsylvania? I know I should be disgusted with myself for asking, but I'll get over it. And by the way are you confusing the public display of animosity by the Spanish prime minister elect, the French and Germans with their intelligence agencies? Try thinking outside la boite.
March 17, 2004 07:17 PM
"How many friends, how many relatives of yours lived their last moments in abject terror as they rattled in silver death boxes toward skyscrapers, the pentagon and a grassy field in Pennsylvania?"
Mikey, honey, my father was at the Pentagon on 9/11 and helped several people escape, so don't talk to me about not understanding the effects of terrorism.
"It's telling that you equate my statement with a slap at your loyalties. I didn't say that, you did. A bit defensive are we?"
That was your implication. My loyalties are with the American people.
You really are a piece of work, dear. To have taken my imputation that the Bush administration has cost us in vital support we need from our allies and then stretch it around to the conclusion that I "don't care about our friends' deaths or our grief" is precisely the kind of reductive non-logic worthy of a Klansman or a witch-burning Inquisitionist. He's a heretic! Let's burn him at the stake for being in league with the devil!
I am through with this discussion since you seem to have the debating skills of a four year old.
March 17, 2004 07:36 PM
Nah, I'm not done with you, 'Mikey'.
I just want to let you know that it is (ahem) great thinkers like yourself that will keep the world of blogging and bloggers from ever being taken seriously as news organs or even interpreters of current events.
David Strain |
March 17, 2004 07:40 PM
DS, I honestly don`t see your point.
I don`t know what your political leanings are and it`s none of my buisness but on this thread you sound almost like anyone at DU.
"Cowboy Bush", "Go it alone"
A: What`s wrong with cowboys?
B: How does a 90 country coalition equate to unilateralism?
We are not alone in this and have never been.
Al Quaida is the enemy. Bush has a plan, and it`s working. Kerry doesn`t, he does have a plan to have a plan, but just like everything else he says it answers nothing and causes me to have more questions.
FYI, I didn`t really like Bush during the `00 elections, I preferred Mc Cain. I voted for Bush because in my opinion he was the MUCH lesser of 2 evils. Gore would have been worse than Clinton.
As far as I`m concerned Bush has done a very good job during his 1st, but not last, term. Some things I disagree with strongly but that`s life. As far as the war goes, he`s doing great.
I have a pretty good perspective on this.
Our "credibilty overseas" isn`t a problem.
Those fine and upstanding countries (sarcasm mode) like Phrance, Russia, Germany and others that are pissed at us are pissed because Bush broke the status quo. He doesn`t kow tow to theirs or the (spit) UNs every whim like they were used to.
My messege to them is "Get over it". We, as a soveriegn nation, have our own destiny. A big part of that destiny is to not let ANYBODY get away with an attack like 9-11.
I frankly don`t give a tinkers damn if they like us or not. The popularity contest under the Clinton administration is what allowed 9-11 to happen.
Piss on `em.
Terrorist don`t have to love us.
They don`t have to like us.
They don`t have to respect us.
But they WILL, by God, fear us.
So they`re willing to die for their cause? Good.
Our troops are willing to kill for ours.
Those mighty nations that are pissed at Bush can either get behind us on this or get the hell out of the way.
March 17, 2004 07:41 PM
As usual with the ad hominem attacks David? Keep on hitting those you disagree with a stick, it will no doubt change their opinions. Your dad was in the Pentagon on 9/11? Thanks to him for his bravery and my deepest condolences for any friends or colleagues lost. And you are through with me, because I have to get back to my real job - a daily newspaper reporter. So as far as blogs versus the real "serious" media, I guess I'm your worst nightmare.
March 17, 2004 08:10 PM
Well, I'm a reporter for an NPR station and your newspaper has COOTIES if they'll employ you!
Nyah, nyah, nyah.
David Strain |
March 18, 2004 06:05 PM