Argh, the posts in this thread are ridiculously, outlandishly long.
The simple truth of it is this: isolationism will save our lives. The next terrorist attack will prove to us all that we can’t stop them, so we must simply stop provoking them. To stop provoking them, we must do nothing at all outside our borders…other than trade. Dump our allies, starting with Israel. Abandon NATO, leave the UN, renounce any agreements of mutual defense with other nations…basically, stop our political and military meddling. Trade with everyone but don’t try to dip our fingers in the political waters in other countries.
That doctrine would save American lives, and the person who institutes it would be hailed as a visionary. But that ain’t Condi Rice. I don’t think she has the wherewithall to tell Isreal to blow off, we’re going to keep meddling and the American civilian death toll will rise.
And you wonder why P.J. O’Rourke is the only Republican humorist. This is why.
Yes, yes, its a pun, I admit it! I try, but I can’t help myself, the Devil made me do it! Just the other day I said that Portnoy’s Complaint should have been titled The Gripes of Roth!
The Devil made me do it! I’m weak, weak!! I know its anti-semantic but…aaaaaaaarrrrgghh!
Rex, I’m curious to know how one simultaneously dumps one’s allies, and continues to trade with them.
Is it like when you’re married and your wife is also your business partner, and then you dump the wife but expect to continue to work with her? How well does that work, in real life?
When did this change in thinking come about? IIRC in the old days those leaders who had served in the military were held in suspicion - with the fear that they would view a military approach to problems as the default solution.
Dumping allies means regaining neutrality. Just because the USA might say to a present ally “we are no longer going to use our military to come to your aid when you’re under attack, and we relieve you of that same responsibility towards us”, why should that affect trade? We trade with plenty of countries right now who aren’t our allies. We import all sorts of stuff from China, and they’re hardly an ally. In fact, other than the “Axis of Evil”, I’d say China is our number one enemy. I’m not advocating turning allies into enemies, just abandoning the alliance system and the international treaty organizations in favor of a return to official neutrality. Wars and alliances between those other nations might occasionally hinder our trade, but we won’t be putting any barriers up ourselves. Neutrality and trade worked well together before 1917, when the USA’s international meddling was born. It can work again, and it’s essential to our survival in a world of terrorists, where anyone from anywhere with or without a nation-state backing him can strike out and cause thousands of deaths.
I spent 45 minutes composing a reply to Sparticus. Then my PC crashed on preview. Screw it, you get the super-abbreviated version.
George W. Bush spent more time in the military than Abraham Lincoln. Neither had combat experience.
Whatever Bush and Rice are advocating, it isn’t “isolationism.” The are advocating intervention on the world stage, which is the opposite of isolationism. The correct distinction is unilateralism versus multilateralism – in this case, the Bushistas are unilateral interventionists.
Development of NMD and securing our borders are not mutually exclusive propositoins. Scrapping the ABM treaty will allow for better testing conditions for NMD, and thus was a worthwhile goal. The unilateralist approach brought Russia to the table.
Thank God you aren’t in charge of airport security. I’d never get to where I was going. (Plus, some of your assertions are false – checked luggage is searched on a random basis; I’ve had my checked bags searched on more than one occasion).
I did not say that Rice caused the fall of the Soviet Union or German unification. I said she held a critical post during a dicey time in history, and rose to the challenge well.
Well, jeepers, if every bit of information had ended up in just the right place at just the right time, it’s possible that 9/11 could have been prevented. You could say the same for Pearl Harbor, or the Oklahoma City bombing, or the first WTC bombing. Do you blame the Clinton NSA for not preventing Oklahoma City?
9/11 was unique. It was on a completely different scale than a nut in a Cessna. Tom Clancy is not a “terror analyst.”
Powell did not have to accept the post at State. He can resign at any time. Your assertion that Bush is trying to prevent a Powell presidential run is ludicrous. (No one’s going to get the nomination from Bush in 2004 anyway; why would Bush care about 2008?)
Your explanation re oil does not make sense. Please elaborate or rephrase. (I never challenged the assertion that weapons manufacturers do well during wartime).
What “150 nations” are going to be fighting with us? Even in Gulf War I, with its vaunted coalition, the overwhelming bulk of the fighting was done by US forces. Even if we get the Saudis on board, it’s not like the Saudis are going to be committing troops to the war. It’ll still be almost entirely American lads being shot at. Your only remotely plausible point is the one about the hospital – and I’m pretty sure the Israelis will allow us the use of their facilities.
I don’t think Dewey was slamming Lincoln. He made a mistake saying Lincoln never served, yes, but I think he was quoting him and FDR in response to YOUR criticism of warmongerers who have never served in combat.
I really dont see the point in discussing the authority of a person to make judgements relative to war based on one’s combat experience. Being a cancer victim does not make one an oncologist. My father served at Iwo Jima, nonetheless, his lifelong loathing of the Japanese was not justified.
Similarly, I would much sooner trust Al Gore’s judgement than George Bush’s, not because of any alleged advantage due to veteran’s status, but because I think Al is smarter. I would also take Ghandhi’s opinion over that of Curtis LeMay, or Roosevelt over Patton.
I have never seen kittens stuffed into blenders, I don’t need to in order to make a judgement.
As far as I can tell, the “Rice is Brilliant” argument has this for evidence:
Earned a master’s degree by age 21, from Notre Dame. Just getting into Notre Dame from the University of Denver is pretty impressive. Of course, she did graduate cum laude and Phi Betta Kappa.
Has a Ph.D in international relations.
Rose rapidly to be a major player on the world stage while still in her 20’s.
While in her 30’s was already serving on the boards of a dozen corporations, did a stint in the white house, and became provost of Stanford.
Became National Security Advisor in her early 40’s.
Author of numerous highly-regarding books and articles on foreign policy.
Concert-level pianist.
On the ‘Rice is not smart’ side, I observe the following arguments.
Oh, and I should point out here that the liberals in this threat have been yammering on about her clothing, the gap in her teeth, how ‘hot’ she might be, etc. Whatever happened to the party of feminism?
Oh yeah, I forgot. Politics always supercedes principles.
Er, Sam? The “yammering on” about her clothes, etc., was in the nature of “humor”. I know it’s a difficult concept.
And I got a news flash for ya–being able to play the piano doesn’t qualify anybody as “brilliant”, sorry. I understand you have a lot of respect for someone who can read and waggle her fingers at the same time, but it doesn’t prove “brilliance”.
I’m not saying, “She’s not smart.” I’m saying, “She doesn’t deserve the label ‘brilliant’.” I’ve been sitting here going through her resume and I’m sorry, she’s bright enough, but “brilliant”? No, I don’t see it. And, ya know, Sam, I don’t have any particular feelings about Ms. Rice one way or another–I actually wish her all the best in her chosen career–but dang if you didn’t trigger all my debunking instincts with your unquestioning acceptance of her resume as some kind of proof of her “brilliance”
Especially the part about her being a concert pianist.
Not to mention how “getting into Notre Dame from the U of D” doesn’t make her “brilliant”, either. Notre Dame accepts 34% of applicants. Harvard only accepts 11% of applicants.
And lots of people have their masters degree by age 21. It doesn’t prove “brilliance”, just a willingness to start early, take a heavy course load, and go to summer school. Here’s how she did it. http://argonaut.ndnu.edu/Feb02/rice.html
She’s bright, but she’s not “brilliant”. Lots of bright-but-not-necessarily-brilliant kids start early, work hard, and are out by age 21.
Lots of other people also graduate cum laude, which I might point out is not that big a deal (cum laude–with honors; magna cum laude–with high honors; summa cum laude–with highest honors,) and all you need to get a Phi Beta Kappa key are straight As and good citizenship. Lots of non-brilliant good citizens get straight A’s and a Phi Beta Kappa key.
All you need to get a Ph.D. in any subject, whether it’s rocket science or the loosely termed “international relations”, is a willingness to do the gruntwork necessary–to sit through the courses and write a thesis. I might add that it’s particularly easy to get a Ph.D. in the “soft sciences”, like PoliSci, that don’t require a knack for engineering.
What? I mean, HUH? She was born in 1954, so when she was in her 20s, that would have been in the mid-to late 1970s, and she was still working on her doctorate, which she got in 1981.
She didn’t even join the Stanford faculty until 1981.
In 1986, while she was still on the faculty at Stanford, and when she was 32, she was an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, and she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I mean, I’m sorry, neither of those positions qualifies as being a “major player on the world stage”. Secretary of State, that’s a major player. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that’s a major player. But a “special assistant” to the Director of the JCS, who himself is just a glorified office manager for the Joint Chiefs? Nope, sorry.
So then, for two years, from 1989 to 1991, again while she was still on the faculty at Stanford, she served the George Herbert administration as a “Soviet specialist”–“Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.” I suppose that in some circles, that counts as being a “major player on the world stage”, but (a) it wasn’t when she was in her 20s–she was 35, and (b) she evidently wasn’t “brilliant” enough for the incoming Clinton administration to wanna hang onto her talents.
From 1993 to 1999, she served as provost at Stanford. Being named provost of a university doesn’t prove “brilliance”. Lots of people of only average intelligence have been named provosts of universities. Being the youngest provost ever named at Stanford doesn’t necessarily prove “brilliance”, either.
Being named NSA was purely a political appointment, and having it happen in her mid-40s means absolutely nothing. Lots of less-than-brilliant people land political appointments in their mid-40s. Lots of less-than-brilliant people land plum political appointments. Neither of these things proves “brilliance”.
I don’t have enough pixels to list all the less-than-brilliant people who have written lots and lots of books and articles and essays on foreign policy, even highly regarded books and articles and essays on foreign policy. That don’t prove nothin’.
As for “serving on the boards of corporations” proving something about intelligence, sheesh, give me a break. :rolleyes:
Nobody ever accused Kissinger of needing to “broaden himself”, especially on such a vital area as, geez, virtually half the world, huh? Oh, not much, just “Asia” and “the Middle East”. How nice that a Soviet specialist is our National Security Advisor–her skills will come in handy if the Russians ever get fed up with capitalism and decide to go back to Capital-C Communism.
So what does someone have to do to be regarded as ‘brilliant’?
How many people on this board entered a prestigious college at age 15 and had a Masters from that college by 21?
I keep mentioning her ability as a musical prodigy because musical skills correlate to intelligence, just as artistic, literary, mathematical, and people skills correlate to intelligence. She was a piano prodigy at age 3, for pete’s sake.
Yeah, sounds like a plodder to me. No sign of brilliance there.
Your own cite above described her as a ‘young phenomenon’. The second link said this about her:
Considering the rooms she hangs out in (the faculty lounge at Stanford, the White House), that’s a pretty serious statement.
It also says this:
Yes, I was slightly off when I said she was a ‘major player’ in her 20’s. Sorry. She was 32 before she became a member of the council on foreign relations, and at age 35 was the top Soviet expert in the White House.
Just what does she have to do to be regarded as brilliant by you? I’m guessing, “Join the Democratic Party”.
Uh, no, guys, I have not been yammering on about her clothing, teeth, etc. Nor have I called the woman stupid or denigrated her intelligence at all. She is obviously well educated and smarter than the average bear.
I’ve merely pointed out that resume building is not “brilliance”. It is apparently a point we disagree on. In my long life experience, this isn’t evidence of brilliance. It doesn’t make it exclusive of intelligence, but it isn’t even slight evidence of it. If you guys just want to gush about her, fine. Holding jobs and getting degrees is very artificial, as thrilling as the moment of acquisition is. Where is the special defining moment? You say it is unfair to compare her to Kissinger, etc. Since when is life fair? Yes, Kissinger had opportunities that Rice has not. Since when do conservatives think life is fair?
I have called her policies/politics of isolationism and unilateralism reckless and foolish. The only historical major world superpower that I can think of that did something similar were the ancient Chinese. Despite having Ghengis Khan’s empire building, rivaling Alexander’s in scope, and despite having the best education and the most advanced technology in the world, they turned insular and have spent hundreds of years playing catch up, in the meantime being the doormat for every foreign power that wished to subjugate them within their own borders, including Japan, Great Britain, France, the US, and even the Portugese.
There is a reason the art of international realtions is called “diplomacy” and not “fuck you”.
Now, one of the above apologists thought it was unfair that I keep comparing her to Kissinger. She simply doesn’t have the portfolio of Secretary of State too. Well, then why are her policies overriding Powell’s at almost every opportunity? Why is her’s the policy adopted instead of Powell’s? Her level of influence on top level matters almost always prevails over Powell’s.
Dewey, I have a lot of sympathy for your post getting eaten. But still, dismissing Lincoln and FDR as warmongers was what I still take away from your part of the argument.
Chumpsky, I spent about a half hour responding to your post before the hamsters ate it. I am sorry. I thought you raised some good points in a manner worthy of your namesake. Yes, I agree countries including the US do what they consider in their interest. It just so happens that the internationalists (those of us who consider FDR brilliant and not a warmonger) have long viewed the building of international institutions to be in the primary US interest in both the short and long run. We can only hope that someday that we will follow the international laws we helped created in all matters. The Bush application to the UN for Iraq authorization, as badly as it was handled and for the wrong reasons, was the correct thing to do, and the precedents set during the last 60 years managed to get Powell to prevail over Rice on this important issue. For those who want to know more about international relations, Chumpsky refers to the Athenians, and this is an excellent example. Thucydides wrote about the Athenian hegemony after the war with the Persians and how the rest of the Greeks eventually rose up against them under the leadership of the Spartans. There are good translations out there. This is the bible for international relations. I’ve also mentioned Machiavelli (not just the Prince, but the discourses too) and Clauswitz.
The original point was whether Rice was brilliant. In view of the fact that we have been here before with the Gulf war, and had 150 plus nations anxiously joining us for battle or supporting us, and now we don’t, I have to wonder at how easily this compliment of “brilliant” is handed out by conservatives. The primary reason we do not have worldwide support on this course of action is because GW Bush has his diplomatic middle finger more or less permanently thrust out at the rest of the world, and that isn’t Powell’s fault, it’s Rice’s. She provides the intellecutal muscle for international relations that the Republicans have adopted. And even our allies find it offensive.
So every achievement of hers is ‘resume building’?
Yeah, when she was a prodigy at age 3, I’m sure she was just padding her resume.
Apparently, I have a different definition of ‘brilliant’ than you guys do. So why don’t you define it, and then we’ll see if A) your definition is ridiculous, or B) whether she fits it.
And try to define it in terms that don’t require one to be a liberal in order to be granted recognition.
I guess it doesn’t count that she has risen to the highest levels of government despite having no family connections to power, and despite her being a black female?
Do you know how she wound up in Bush’s cabinet in the first place? Bush Senior recommended her to his son, saying that she was one of the smartest people he had ever met. And he’s met plenty.
Sparticus, meet point. You missed each other the first time around. :rolleyes:
I wasn’t dismissing Lincoln or FDR as “warmongers.” I was pointing out that there are plenty of great leaders who have made war without the benefit of combat experience. In other words, I was saying that combat experience is not a prerequisite for wisdom on matters of war and peace.
And there’s also a reason why Rice’s title is “National Security Advisor”, and not “International Treaty Advisor”. Her job is to protect the American people. Colin Powell, on the other hand, is the Secretary of State, and his job is to represent the interests of the United States on the world stage.
If both of them do their jobs well, there will be compromise between them. And both of them are doing their jobs very well.
I do not know so much about Rice, or if it has a big difference if Abe was at combat or not. If Abe would have been what Sylvester Stallone represents in his films, how would that affect a new Iraqi war?
There are visions in the OP.
I have “snipped” a lot. I just took the points how the US politics has, very commonly, been “seen from outside USA.” In Europe and I think also in other “allied countries”.
I just wonder if Bush Jr and his administration (Rice?) and the others that are responsible for the politics, gives a shit if the world is looking up to USA or looking down on it?
The people is not responsible, but I guess that there is some % of people, even in these threads, that have an attitude that it does not matter what people “outside” is thinking.
My own favorite countries has always been: Finland (my own country), Norway, England, USA, France. Now the list is longer, if I would like to have USA “still hanging around” in the “favorite countries”-list. And I think that I speak for a quite a lot of Europeans, saying so. The political USA, not the people, is now signaling: “We do what we do, just watch us…” And in almost every thread I can see some citizen(s) from USA saying much the same. It is a sad thing to read these posts and take the same blows again reading the news.
Naturally I do not think Rice is to blame for it all, but should not USA create politics, or in fact, any country, so that “the rest of the world” can look up to it?
Just read some points, which I regard as objective: Sparticus wrote:
(Bolding mine).
I think the world should do at least 3 things before it is too late:
Build up an international military force, a coalition, under e.g. UN. Back up international laws etc. (not only when it suites a country).
Continue to coordinate the “War against Terrorism”.
Uproot the causes of poverty and ignorance as a link in this war.
Without USA it would be impossible, anyhow with the cards given today.
This does not mean that USA can do so much in this direction alone either, let’s say in thirty years, which is the minimum of the main war, the War against Terrorism. Two wars? Five wars? Does it really matter where the limit is? The final result is what counts. Even a long rope has a beginning and an end.
On the other hand, how many dictators are so crazy that they would even in words, begin to fight a coalition backed up by some 100 countries? If these countries really does back up a coalition and its army?
If we slide to a “every man for his own”-situation, the terrorists has already won a big battle.
Isolation politics, when the world has shrunk to a one day trip, is just an ostrich with the head stuck in the sand. It gives a feeling of security for a while, no doubt.
