IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Bush launches really underhanded new ads
[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2933-2004Oct2.html|Washington Post]
President Bush said Saturday that under a "Kerry Doctrine," Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry would require permission of foreign powers before launching military action.

The inflammatory charge, leveled here by Bush and in a new campaign commercial, was immediately denied by Kerry's advisers. The accusation is based on a partial reading of Kerry's remark in Thursday's debate that he would have a "global test" to prove the legitimacy of U.S. military action; Kerry also said that he would reserve "the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States."

Bush is simply lying here. The global test that Kerry talked about is not putting the use of US forces at foreign whim. Rather it is a recognition that if everybody says something is a bad idea, it usually is. The article does a good job of laying this one out though, pointing out that Kerry has not said what Bush is claiming that Kerry said.

Jay
New foreign approval
How dare Kerry think for a moment about how our policies might be perceived abroad—not.

If Kerry's staffers have an intellectual or historical hair on their collective asses, they should consider citing Jefferson's Declaration of Independence:
a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes...
—or were the signers of that document spineless Eurocentric appeasers?

cordially,
Cthulhu for President. Why vote for a lesser evil?
New Is he?
Are you sure?

I've heard Kerry say quite a bit on the subject of making sure that the UN approves and that we make sure we have "coalitions of the willing" before we act.

So which is it...global test or presidential prerogative?

Look...the point is it is simply impossible to determine what the mans actual position is based upon what he says.

He might really be for preemption without any approvals or any care what the world thinks..but he needs to speak that point clearly.

This is why the flip-flop critique has teeth. He might actually be remarkably consistent...but he doesn't sound like it.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Consider: "flip-flop" .eq. "flexible"


Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
New You have already fallen into Bush's trap
I've heard Kerry say quite a bit on the subject of making sure that the UN approves and that we make sure we have "coalitions of the willing" before we act.

So which is it...global test or presidential prerogative?

Look...the point is it is simply impossible to determine what the mans actual position is based upon what he says.

He might really be for preemption without any approvals or any care what the world thinks..but he needs to speak that point clearly.

This is why the flip-flop critique has teeth. He might actually be remarkably consistent...but he doesn't sound like it.

You have already fallen into Bush's trap on this in accepting that the two posistion are mutually exclusive. And in any case it is supposed to be a Congressional prerogative, though that is a whole nother argument.

If I end up in a desperate situation and decide to jump my neighbor before he shoots me, my right to do so and my need to be able to justify my actions to other are not contradictory.

Jay
New Sorry, you're incorrect.
I haven't fallen into anyone's trap.

If you want to play the dainty game of "it isn't really mutually exclusive" you can.

I'm simply telling you what the general impression of Kerry is...and thus telling you why the Republican critique has traction.

If you don't like it...write Kerry and tell him.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Sounded pretty clear to me, Bill.
The President had the right to 'go'.

In the case of Iraq he was wrong to go it alone.



He voted to give that right to Bush. The President needed that right to do his job.

Kerry was disappointed in the way it was used. (As was I).



Look - authorizing force is NOT a mandate to USE it. And when almost all your friends and allies around you are yelling "No! Don't DO it George!" there might be room for second thoughts, no?

Unfortunately, our President is a childish, vindictive, cowardly, and stupid bully of a man, with no sense of responsibility to the US citizens he supposedly serves, and less honesty and honor tha most politicians.


THAT is proving to have some 'traction' - except of course with the large percentage of the US people who are childish, cowardly, and stupid.

Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 
Expand Edited by imric Oct. 3, 2004, 09:26:13 PM EDT
New Not in the 30 second sound bite.
Sounded like he thought our actions needed to "pass a global test".

Since he wasn't clear on what that meant...that bite was pounced upon and exploited.

Kerry does this >alot<.

Do I think it detracts from his ability to be President. Not at all.

Do I think it makes him hard to elect (if I'm the DNC). Bet your life.

Flip this ticket and they'd have a much better shot. I personally think they found their Mondale...and the only reason its even close is because people really don't like Bush.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Hmm. You are correct.
Sort of.

That's what I got from what Kerry said in the 'debate' (duelling press conference).

But you are right that the percentage of US citizens that are childish, cowardly and stupid (ie, the neoconned) are also likely to be those that couldn't maintain enough attention to listen to more than the Fox summary at the end of the 'debate'. I have no doubt that they will pounce on soundbites as vindication for supporting Bush.

The fact that Kerry is now ahead after this event (even slightly) says that the ones who could be bothered with more than soundbites - those that actually watched and listened - got it.

Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 
New Dunno
Polls looked pretty good for Kerry but I still haven't seen any giving him the lead...only seen them putting him within the margin of error.

Per the gallup survey on the debate...those that watched did, in fact, get it. I agree with that assessment.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Try this then:
Newsweek [link|http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041003/us_nm/campaign_newsweek_poll_dc_10|Poll].
Alex

"If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." -- Philip K. Dick, US science fiction writer
New Okee dokee
Still within the margin...but K is up.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Of course our actions are subject to a test...
... it's called a smell test, and nothing done in the light of day is exempt from that test.

I think it's indicative that this Corporate-Culture Administration interprets Kerry's plea for realism and plausibility (because we are so spectacularly free to take actions that fail that smell test) as a call for *external* controls.

Giovanni
Have whatever values you have. That's what America is for.
You don't need George Bush for that.
New Re: Sounded pretty clear to me, Bill.
This is the kind of shit that makes me want to go out and vote:

You write (and frigging Kerry implies),
"The President had the right to 'go'.

In the case of Iraq he was wrong to go it alone."

Unilateral... alone... what do these words mean? Did you understand when Bush corrected Kerry about our allies in this action? Even he corrected himself (Kerry) and said they are only contributing 10%... What kind of "mixed message" does that send to the newly democratic eastern Europe? Many of US get it when they talk about "old Europe" and what it thinks. France would still be a part of Germany were it not for the current coalition (US, GB, AUS, etc.)

This type of rhetoric is going to backfire.
Just a few thoughts,

Danno
New And the U.S. would still be part...
...of the United Kingdom if it weren't for France.
New Re: And the U.S. would still be part...
How many centuries do you have to go back to make that happen? We would all be a part of Rome/Greece/Macedonia etc... Let's just say recent history and define it by saying that "people are still alive that remember"...

Smartass...

8-)
Just a few thoughts,

Danno
New 60 years is not that recent.
The people that were actively involved in that effort are well into their '80s and '90s. I don't see any members in the administration that were veterans in that effort.

Should France automatically acquiesce to every\\ foreign policy decision of the U.S. because we came to the rescue a generation or two ago?
New Wrong question...
You write:
"Should France automatically acquiesce to every\\ foreign policy decision of the U.S. because we came to the rescue a generation or two ago?"

The answer is a resounding NO. But what you may be missing is, "why should we care what France thinks?" and most Americans really couldn't give a shit... Same with Germany. Ditto for the puppets with mouthpieces in the UN.

I was in both of those countries fighting the "cold war" with Russia. My ancestors were German... Many French and Germans "hated us" then - 20-24 years ago... only a scant 35 years after 1945... And if you want to talk about history, who's war was Vietnam?

That said, I don't hate the French people. I hate their government as of the past 25 years... Do you think the "French" care? I heard the same thing while in France. We like you but we hate your government...

We (the nations of the former British Empire) created the United Nations. It is in New York. We also created NATO... The permanent members (voting) has always been a bad idea.

Are you aware that almost all of our current conflicts are a result of hasty decision made at the end of WWII?

The former British Palestine /natch
The former British India /natch
Vietnam /natch (because of fall of Japan)
Korea /natch (because of fall of Japan)
Africa /natch (vacuum created by end of colonial powers)

etc...

Now that Russia is gone, the power vacuum that has been created will take years to completely shake out...

and so on... The world hates us because of Bush - PLEASE! The world feared us because we are the only nation on the planet who has actually USED weapons of mass destruction against an enemy...
Just a few thoughts,

Danno
New And as a joke, try reading this...
from [link|http://www.electionworld.org/france.htm|http://www.electionworld.org/france.htm]

The Kingdom of France is then shortly restored but in 1815 Napoleon regains power and the Empire is restored. Later that year Napoleon is finally defeated and the kingdom is restored again.

France becomes a constitutional monarchy after a revolution in 1830. After a third revolution France becomes a democratic republic as the French Republic in 1848. Louis Napol\ufffdon becomes president, but he stages in 1851 a military coup. His dictatorship develops in 1852 into the (second) French Empire. During the empire efforts were made to establish a parliamentary government. When France loses the French-German war, this leads in 1871 to the third French Republic, a republican parliamentary democracy. In the republic governments collaps with regularity, rarely lasting more than a couple of months, as radicals, socialists, liberals, conservatives, republicans and monarchists all fight for control. Throughout its seventy-year history, the Third Republic stumbles from crisis to crisis, from collapsing governments. Dominant parties after 1900 are the conservative F\ufffdd\ufffdration R\ufffdpublicaine, later Union R\ufffdpublicaine D\ufffdmocratique (Republican Federation, FR/Republican Democratic Union, URD), the conservative liberal Parti D\ufffdmocratique R\ufffdpublicaine (et Social) ((Social and) Republican Democratic Party, PDR, later PDRS), the liberal democrat Parti Radical et Radical-Socialiste (Radical and Radical Socialist Party, Parti Radical), the social-democratic Parti R\ufffdpublicain Socialiste (Republican Socialist Party, PRS), the socialist Section Fran\ufffdais de l'Internationale Ouvri\ufffdre (French Section of the Workers International) and the communist Parti Communiste Fran\ufffdaise (French COmmunist Party, PCF). Some prime ministers are longer in office. So can be mentioned in the period after 1900: \ufffdmile Combes (Parti Radical, 1902-1905), Georges Clemenceau (Parti Radical, 1906-1909, 1917-1920), Aristide Briand (SFIO, 1909-1911, PRS, 1913, 1915-1917, 1921-1922, 1925-1926, 1929), Raymond Poincar\ufffd (PDR/PDRS, 1912-1913, 1922-1924, 1926-1929), Paul Painlev\ufffd (PRS, 1917), \ufffddouard Herriot (Parti Radical, 1924-1925, 1926, 1932), Camille Chautemps (Parti Radical, 1930, 1933-1934, 1937-1938) Pierre Laval (1931-1932, 1935-1936), \ufffddouard Daladier (Parti Radical, 1933, 1934, 1938-1940) and L\ufffdon Blum (SFIO, 1936-1937, 1938).

After an interim period of Paul Reynaud (PDRS), Philippe P\ufffdtain becomes prime minister. During his government France is largely occupied by Germany. In the south of France a collaborationist state, the French State or Vichy France, under P\ufffdtain is established. He is succeeded in 1942 by Pierre Laval. On the other hand, those who refuse defeat and collaboration with Germany, the Free French, organise resistance movements in occupied and Vichy France and the Free French Forces. The Free French Forces are led by Charles de Gaulle.

After four years of occupation and the allied forces, including the Free French, liberate France in 1944. The fourth French Republic becomes a fact: again a parliamentary republic with unstable governments. Dominant parties are the Parti Radical, the conservative Centre National des Ind\ufffdpendants et Paysans (National Centre of Independents and Farmers, CNIP) the christian-democratic Mouvement R\ufffdpublicain Populaire (Republican Popular Movement, MRP), the SFIO and the communist Parti Communiste Fran\ufffdais (French Communist Party, PCF) After some interim governments the following prime ministers have been in officie for longer periods: Paul Ramadier (SFIO, 1947), Robert Schuman (MRP, 1947-1948, 1948) Henri Queuille (Parti Radical, 1948-1949, 1949, 1951) Ren\ufffd Pleven (Union D\ufffdmocratique et Socialiste de la R\ufffdsistance (Democratic and Socialist Union of the Resistance, UDSR) 1950-1951, 1951-1952), Edgard Faure (Parti Radical, 1952, 1955-1956), Joseph Laniel (CNIP, 1953-1954), Pierre Mend\ufffds-France (Parti Radical, 1954-1955) and Guy Mollet (SFIO, 1956-1957).

1958 is the year of a big politcial crisis: the Algerian War which pitts Algerian colonists, the army, and the far right, against the left and those who wanted peace. To deal with this problem France turns Charles de Gaulle who assumes power under the precondition that a new constitution would be introduced creating a powerful presidency. This fifth republic is a presidential democratic republic based on a strong president. His gaullist movement, originally named Union pour la Nouvelle R\ufffdpublique (Union for the New Republic, UNR), becomes under different names the dominant political force in France. France is a co-founder of the European Communities in 1957 (renamed European Union in 1993). When he resigns in 1969 De Gaulle is succeeded in 1969 by the gaullist Georges Pompidou, leader of the Union des D\ufffdmocrates pour la R\ufffdpublique (Union of Democrats for the Republic, UDR).

In 1974 the conservative Valery Giscard d'Estaing of the moderate conservative R\ufffdpublicains Ind\ufffdpendants (Independent Republicans, RI, later Parti R\ufffdpublicain, Republican Party, PR) is elected president. He is defeated in 1981 by the Fran\ufffdois Mitterand of the socialist Parti Socialiste (Socialist Party, PS), who remains president until 1995. The gaullist regain the presidency in 1995, when Jacques Chirac of the Rassemblement pour la R\ufffdpublique (Rally for the Republic, RPR) is elected president. During the legislative elections of 1997, the Parti Socialiste wins a majority in the Assembly, and Lionel Jospin becomes prime minister. This right-left "cohabitation" arrangement, which ended with Jospin's resignation following his defeat in the first round of the May 2002 presidential elections, is the longest lasting government in the history of the Fifth Republic. Chirac is re-elected in 2002 with the support of the left-wing parties in the second round against the nationalist leader Jean-Marie le Pen of the Front National (National Front, FN). Chirac reorganizes the right-wing and centrist parties that win the 2002 legislative elections into the Union pour la Mouvement Populaire (Union of the Popular Movement, UMP).


Which French government are we worried about upsetting?

:-0
Just a few thoughts,

Danno
New Ah, the old saw.
"In Britain, a hundred miles is a long way. In America, a hundred years is a long time."


Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
New You've got to know how to translate US political speech.
"Unilateral" and "Go it alone" = The US took military action without the support of the UN Security Council.

It doesn't matter how many other countries were involved, if the UNSC didn't specifically approve the action, it's "unilateral" according to the common usage these days.

It's sound-bite politics at its worst. It doesn't help people understand the issue and where the candidates stand on it.

People who care about the meanings of words should be upset by this, but it happens on both sides so it's hard for them to get upset about the words when they implicitly support their position.

At least that's the way I see it.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Re: You've got to know how to translate US political speech.
So maybe this is the "language murder" that Ashton keeps railing about... Yeah, it really bothers me that I spent all that time on the border 20 years ago fighting and winning the "cold war" to have American politicians (he's a damned senator) belittling the former Eastern Bloc countries who have allied themselves with GB and the US and are sending their sons and daughters (in whatever numbers) to a hostile place like Iraq. Many of those people dreamed of having freedom from the former Soviet Union... I know it's politics, but it makes me sick.

Did I mention I hate election years?
Just a few thoughts,

Danno
New Which border
What action during the cold war were you "fighting and winning"? And when?
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"
New I was a linguist...
and stationed on the east/west German border, W. German/Czech border and temp duty in Berlin and Turkey... from '81 to '84. How was I fighting and winning the war? Providing intelligence to my commanders? etc.

Based on the tone of your question, is there something wrong (ignoble, cowardly, not good enough for you) with being a Russian linguist at the height of the cold war? Since the Soviet Union fell, I took the liberty of saying "winning".
Just a few thoughts,

Danno
New Were you cunning?
:-0


Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
New As often as possible...
'cause when you're hung like a hamster (like I am :-0) you have to be good with your tongue...

C'est la vie,
Just a few thoughts,

Danno
New And I was stationed in Germany
from '72-'83. Various permanent posts and many TDY, including Turkey (Sinop), Reforger exercises, and Berlin. Was on the airstrip waiting move-out during 7 day war in '73.

At no time do I remember "fighting and winning" while stationed in Europe. Your claim to be doing so, riled me.
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"
New Re: And I was stationed in Germany
Fair enough, but opinions are like assholes, everyone has one - me included. But I view that whole timeframe after Vietnam (which my brother served in) and before the collapse of the Soviet Union "fighting and winning" the cold war. It was predominately done by outspending them, but as you are probably aware, the life of a linguist was no cakewalk. What were you doing in the service all that time? Collecting a paycheck? I'm proud that I served...

Now you can be really be riled...
Just a few thoughts,

Danno
New What was I doing?
Part of the time making sure front line troops had proper supplies to keep vehicles running.

For the 10+ years I spent in Germany...

Part of the time ensuring that you were paid correctly and on time.
Part of the time ensuring that plans and ops were properly prepared and executed.
Part of the time pulling guard duty.
Part of the time preparing and verifying your travel pay.
Part of the time responding to death.
Part of the time training new troops.
Part of the time inspecting finance offices.
Part of the time ensuring that all the DACs were paid.
Part of the time shoveling more coin than you'll ever see to ensure military banks didn't run out of money.
Part of the time working on classified operations.
and part of the time square dancing to erase boredom.

The other 11 years can be discussed later.

I've spent my time in the field and in garrison.

I'm proud of my accomplishments while in the Army.

But as I said before, the closest to "Fighting and winning", while in Germany, was the race riot on post or waiting to be shipped out during the 7 day war.

You had a job. You wore green clothes. You weren't "fighting".
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"
New Horsecr@p. Our allies are insignifigant
The 'coalition' is a joke, and you know it. We ARE going it alone; tell me what effect it would have on our strategy or losses if every one of the token allies we have pulled out entirely right now.

That's right, none.

Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 
New By the numbers...
BY THE NUMBERS Troops in Iraq

Which countries are providing military support
United States 138,000
Britain 8,530
Albania 70
Australia 850
Azerbaijan 150
Bulgaria 455
Czech Rep. 92
Denmark 510
Dominican Rep. 300
El Salvador 360
Estonia 55
Georgia 150
Hungary 300
Italy 2,700
Japan 1,000
Kazakhstan 25
Latvia 120
Lithuania 105
Macedonia 28
Moldova 25
Mongolia 180
Netherlands 1,263
New Zealand 60
Nicaragua 115
Norway 150
Poland 2,400
Portugal 120
Romania 730
Singapore 200
Slovakia 105
South Korea 675 (3,000 on way)
Thailand 460
Tonga 44
Ukraine 1,700

Sources: Reuters news reports/GlobalSecurity.org.
-YendorMike

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania
New Of these, how many are supplying troops....
...just to placate or win favor with the Americans?
New Uninformed tosh, I'm afraid.
According to Mike's numbers below, the other countries are providing 27,117 troops; if they were all pulled out tomorrow, the effect would be immediate and highly noticeable.

Basra and its environs would be in a right mess instantly, for a start; the UK troops are doing a fine job of keeping a lid on things darn sarf.


Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
New I don't question the valor
or competance of the troops that were sent; just that they were sent in signifigant/sufficient numbers.

Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 
New Question for you
Which would be more noticable? The removal of US troops? Or the removal of everyone else's?

Thanks,
Ben
About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
New Oh, no doubt.
I was merely casting nasturtiums on Skip's assertion that one could yank the non-US troops and not notice :-)


Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
New Well, Kerry wouldn't notice Poland ;-)
BTW did anybody notice that Poland just decided to leave Iraq? I find it very ironic that this happened right after Bush was jumping up and down reminding Kerry that Poland was part of the coalition...

Cheers,
Ben
About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
New They probably didn't like the attention being drawn.
And speaking of our "willing coalition", most people think that the damage down to international relations involve only those naybobs that refused to help. Actually, I think it's been as much, if not more, damaging for our long term relations with our partners.

International relations is very much about political capital. I don't see that any of our partners were on the forefront of the push to overthrow Saddam. Sure the British went along, and they probably presented a better case than we did to the rest of the world. But I think it all goes back to the Americans siding with Thatcher in the Falklands. The British are willing to help us, even when we act rashly.

The support of America will likely cause a political shift in many of the worlds capitals. Germany shifted before the war - with the German head winning election exactly because he played against American intervention. Spain's government was changed - though terrorism and deceipt were the immediate reason. The Phillipines didn't seem too committed. Probably others will also teeter. Whether these governments joined the coalition or not, a majority of their citizens show to be against the intervention - including our staunchest allies - the UK.

And for those Eastern block countries, it's mostly an effort to show that they belong to the West - not that they care for the intervention. Which brings up another point - political capital. In order to build the coalition of the willing, the U.S. has had to expend a lot of it. Think those countries don't expect something for their support? After all, they are gambling that the payback for their support merits ignoring their short term internal populace. Someone's gonna have to grease those palms in the long term.

The conclusion I draw is that it's been a costly war in terms of foreign relations, even if you ignore the vocal non-participants.
New Yeah, yeah. So I exaggerated a little
People have told me millions of times not to.

Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 
New Re: Horsecr@p. Our allies are insignifigant
Thank you for making this point... That's what you and Kerry's ilk actually believe, isn't it? What about the symbolism of this token effort? Andbythefuckingway, unilateral means "alone" - Great Britain (a European nation and our strongest ally) has/had a dog in this fight too... And almost all of the nations of the former Eastern Bloc. You don't think this is significant? I can't help you... What can I say?

And going to the meta - Iraq... Invading wasn't the right thing to do? I was having a fun type watching Kerry stepping all over his dick trying to link Al Queda to Iraq... Not that Iraq WAS A TERRORIST NATION AND ONE THAT HARBORED AND PAID TERRORISTS and completely consistent with what Bush said he was going to do in his 2002 State of the Union speech... I suppose that Kerry and all the other senators were asleep when he said he would "unilaterally" and preemptively attack terrorists nations (he even identified three, Iraq being one of them). YET THEY STILL VOTED TO GIVE HIM AUTHORIZATION TO GO TO WAR. And they are surprised?

By the way, when Germany takes over France yet again, do you think it will be us or the former Eastern Bloc that will bail them out? Ever take geography?

:-)

So, the coalition is a joke? I'm not laughing...

Just a few thoughts,

Danno
New For additional reading on the subject...
Try going to [link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html|http://www.whitehous.../20020129-11.html]
Was Kerry in the room?

I'll give you a sample:
While the most visible military action is in Afghanistan, America is acting elsewhere. We now have troops in the Philippines, helping to train that country's armed forces to go after terrorist cells that have executed an American, and still hold hostages. Our soldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to bomb our embassy. Our Navy is patrolling the coast of Africa to block the shipment of weapons and the establishment of terrorist camps in Somalia.

My hope is that all nations will heed our call, and eliminate the terrorist parasites who threaten their countries and our own. Many nations are acting forcefully. Pakistan is now cracking down on terror, and I admire the strong leadership of President Musharraf. (Applause.)


But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will. (Applause.)

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.
(Applause.)

Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.

We can't stop short. If we stop now -- leaving terror camps intact and terror states unchecked -- our sense of security would be false and temporary. History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight. (Applause.)


Kerry was in the room. He had to have known what he was voting for when he gave Bush the vote FOR the power to levy war...
Just a few thoughts,

Danno
Expand Edited by danreck Oct. 4, 2004, 03:45:05 PM EDT
New Sounds like...
...Kerry voted to allow Bush to invade North Korea, Iran as well as Iraq? Bush seems to have exercised jurisprudence in only carrying out one of the three wars that Kerry rubber stamped.
New Re: Sounds like...
Who's saying they're not next? I mean one of them is right next door...
Just a few thoughts,

Danno
New Getting all wet over the prospect of Winning Big, are we? (new thread)
Created as new thread #177762 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=177762|Getting all wet over the prospect of Winning Big, are we?]


The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves that make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them that we are missing.
--Gamel Abdel Nasser via Rick Moen


Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on "I am not too sure."

--H.L. Mencken via Rand
New Okay, I gotta differ on the Phillipines.
As you can probably tell from the picture next to my name, I've got a few local insights into the islands that many others here won't.

First off, Abu Sayeff is as much an Islamic terrorist organization as any other bunch of bandits that happens to need to fence stuff on the open market. YEARS ago, there was an Islamic insurgency with the same name, but they got their asses handed to them, pretty much dissolved, and a couple of the 'more shady' members picked up the tools left behind and went on a kidnapping spree. The Prez of the Phillipines sees an opportunity to get some U.S. help sqashing this group, labels them 'terrorists', and brings in the Almighty Force of the United States to squash what amounts to around 50-60 criminals. It's kind of like the United States asking the League of Nations to help quash Capone, claiming he's an international terrorist.

So, we went in to the Phillipines, squashed them like a bug, and got out.

And then the Phillipines, no longer having any real interest in helping out in Iraq, backed out at the first opportunity - I.E., as soon as one of their citizens actually got in harms way.

(Also note: Most of Al-Quaeda is currently considered to be hiding in Pakistan, THREE FUCKING YEARS after 9/11. If that's an ally, I don't even WANT to know who our enemies are.)

Just a few thoughts,
Me.
All I want for my birthday is a new President!
New ROFLMAO - Allies ARE insignifigant
Or are you saying that Bush WOULDN'T have gone to war without these allies?

That our 'strategy', our 'tactics' might be different 'if' we did?

Not according to his own rhetoric, anyway.

But, let's just see, shall we?

7 allies (21%, rounded) have greater than 1% contribution; rounded, they are:

UK, 5%
Australia, 1%
Italy, 2%
Japan, 1%
Netherlands, 1%
Poland, 1%
Ukraine 1%

The rest fall into rounding error - but more exact figures are here.

"United States",138000,0.851709900201818
"Britain",8530,0.052645546729866
"Albania",70,0.000432026760971937
"Australia",850,0.00524603924037352
"Azerbaijan",150,0.00092577163065415
"Bulgaria",455,0.00280817394631759
"Czech Rep.",92,0.000567806600134546
"Denmark",510,0.00314762354422411
"Dominican Rep.",300,0.0018515432613083
"El Salvador",360,0.00222185191356996
"Estonia",55,0.000339449597906522
"Georgia",150,0.00092577163065415
"Hungary",300,0.0018515432613083
"Italy",2700,0.0166638893517747
"Japan",1000,0.00617181087102767
"Kazakhstan",25,0.000154295271775692
"Latvia",120,0.00074061730452332
"Lithuania",105,0.000648040141457905
"Macedonia",28,0.000172810704388775
"Moldova",25,0.000154295271775692
"Mongolia",180,0.00111092595678498
"Netherlands",1263,0.00779499713010794
"New Zealand",60,0.00037030865226166
"Nicaragua",115,0.000709758250168182
"Norway",150,0.00092577163065415
"Poland",2400,0.0148123460904664
"Portugal",120,0.00074061730452332
"Romania",730,0.0045054219358502
"Singapore",200,0.00123436217420553
"Slovakia",105,0.000648040141457905
"South Korea",675,0.00416597233794368
"Thailand",460,0.00283903300067273
"Tonga",44,0.000271559678325217
"Ukraine",1700,0.010492078480747

Believe it or not, I am not 'putting down' these countries.

Hell, I applaud thier foreign policy gamble!


Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 
New Re: ROFLMAO - Allies ARE insignifigant
Okay, we're done...
Just a few thoughts,

Danno
New As near as I can tell...
...the Eastern block countries don't give a shit what happens in Iraq. They are in it for the prospects.
New Yes
Kerry also said "No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America".

I think "in any way necessary" pretty well covers it.

OTOH, I think he's trying to make the point that there are better ways of doing it than saying "you're either for us or against us".




That was lovely cheese.

     --Wallace, The Wrong Trousers
New It amounts to the same thing.
He's for allowing the dictatorships and weasels of the world to outvote our own best interests. The Bush campaign is telling the truth. Kerry is just nuancing again.

Kerry said what he said, in front of everyone, in unmistakeable terms, and he can't wiggle out of it now, even if he tries. That's the real meaning of the debate. The wave function has collapsed. He's reduced to particulars now. He's a fixed target, and we've got a lock on him.

Whining won't get you anywhere.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I will not rate.
Lucy Ramirez please pick up the white courtesy phone.
Kerry is a liar and he doesn't tolerate fights from others.
"All the news you wish would go away"
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
New Re: It amounts to the same thing.
you mean like samoza, pinochet et al?
regards,
daemon
New I was thinking more like....
...Musharef who dictates over the country where Bin Laden and many of his deputies currently reside. Seems the U.S. is picky about which dictators are tolerable and which are not.
New Re: Bush/Rove launches really underhanded new ads
Bush is simply lying here.

And that's different from the last ~4 years how?
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

     Bush launches really underhanded new ads - (JayMehaffey) - (52)
         foreign approval - (rcareaga)
         Is he? - (bepatient) - (46)
             Consider: "flip-flop" .eq. "flexible" -NT - (pwhysall)
             You have already fallen into Bush's trap - (JayMehaffey) - (1)
                 Sorry, you're incorrect. - (bepatient)
             Sounded pretty clear to me, Bill. - (imric) - (41)
                 Not in the 30 second sound bite. - (bepatient) - (5)
                     Hmm. You are correct. - (imric) - (3)
                         Dunno - (bepatient) - (2)
                             Try this then: - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
                                 Okee dokee - (bepatient)
                     Of course our actions are subject to a test... - (GBert)
                 Re: Sounded pretty clear to me, Bill. - (danreck) - (34)
                     And the U.S. would still be part... - (ChrisR) - (5)
                         Re: And the U.S. would still be part... - (danreck) - (4)
                             60 years is not that recent. - (ChrisR) - (2)
                                 Wrong question... - (danreck) - (1)
                                     And as a joke, try reading this... - (danreck)
                             Ah, the old saw. - (pwhysall)
                     You've got to know how to translate US political speech. - (Another Scott) - (8)
                         Re: You've got to know how to translate US political speech. - (danreck) - (7)
                             Which border - (jbrabeck) - (6)
                                 I was a linguist... - (danreck) - (5)
                                     Were you cunning? - (pwhysall) - (1)
                                         As often as possible... - (danreck)
                                     And I was stationed in Germany - (jbrabeck) - (2)
                                         Re: And I was stationed in Germany - (danreck) - (1)
                                             What was I doing? - (jbrabeck)
                     Horsecr@p. Our allies are insignifigant - (imric) - (18)
                         By the numbers... - (Yendor) - (1)
                             Of these, how many are supplying troops.... - (ChrisR)
                         Uninformed tosh, I'm afraid. - (pwhysall) - (6)
                             I don't question the valor - (imric)
                             Question for you - (ben_tilly) - (4)
                                 Oh, no doubt. - (pwhysall) - (3)
                                     Well, Kerry wouldn't notice Poland ;-) - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                         They probably didn't like the attention being drawn. - (ChrisR)
                                     Yeah, yeah. So I exaggerated a little - (imric)
                         Re: Horsecr@p. Our allies are insignifigant - (danreck) - (8)
                             For additional reading on the subject... - (danreck) - (4)
                                 Sounds like... - (ChrisR) - (2)
                                     Re: Sounds like... - (danreck) - (1)
                                         Getting all wet over the prospect of Winning Big, are we? (new thread) - (Ashton)
                                 Okay, I gotta differ on the Phillipines. - (inthane-chan)
                             ROFLMAO - Allies ARE insignifigant - (imric) - (1)
                                 Re: ROFLMAO - Allies ARE insignifigant - (danreck)
                             As near as I can tell... - (ChrisR)
             Yes - (tuberculosis)
         It amounts to the same thing. - (marlowe) - (2)
             Re: It amounts to the same thing. - (daemon) - (1)
                 I was thinking more like.... - (ChrisR)
         Re: Bush/Rove launches really underhanded new ads - (jb4)

Real live veggie burgers -- they cook 'em 'til they're pink.
148 ms