# Bush's new "we don't care" policy **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 28, 2003, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757 "2003-04-28T20:01:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![torben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5daacb/32.png) [@torben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/torben)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/101 "2003-04-30T07:18:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > \*\*I don’t know which is more frightening: that the administration doesn’t care what the rest of the world thinks, or that there appear to be Americans who actually think this is a good thing.:eek: \*\* Yet the rest of the world wasn’t attacked was it? America was. Why should we care what they think? All of these anti-war/anti-American countries are right. 9/11 is not there problem. It’s ours. And we’re dealing with it accordingly. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/102 "2003-04-30T07:29:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly \* > I’m typing really slowly now, in case you find any of this hard to follow. Nice talking to you.:wally So, would any non-smartasses like to discuss the topic? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/103 "2003-04-30T07:30:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by torben \* > \*\*Yet the rest of the world wasn’t attacked was it? America was. Why should we care what they think? All of these anti-war/anti-American countries are right. 9/11 is not there problem. It’s ours. And we’re dealing with it accordingly. \*\* Iraq didn’t attack us. ---
**Author:** ![torben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5daacb/32.png) [@torben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/torben)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/104 "2003-04-30T07:46:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > \*\*Iraq didn’t attack us. \*\* No, Iraq just sponsors terrorism and the terrorists that attacked the United States. Our attack on Iraq is a direct result of 9/11 and our crackdown on terrorism. My point is that America was the only country harmed by 9/11 and it really doesn’t matter what other countries think. We are doing what is necessary to make sure this kind of attack does not happen again. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/105 "2003-04-30T08:00:12Z")
**Torben** , do you realize the various allegations you make (e.g. Iraq sponsors terrorism) are not demonstrated – they are merely treated as true by Americans thanks to the efforts of the US government? You may want to read up on these issues rather than providing us with simplistic knee-jerks. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/106 "2003-04-30T08:11:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by torben \* > No, Iraq just sponsors terrorism and the terrorists that attacked the United States. That’s far from proven. As we speak, U.S. forces are hard at work scouring Iraq for evidence of what you are saying, and so far are having a hard time coming up with much. > [@](#): > > Our attack on Iraq is a direct result of 9/11 and our crackdown on terrorism. That’s what Bush said, but most of the world doesn’t see it that way, which is the whole point. > [@](#): > > My point is that America was the only country harmed by 9/11 and it really doesn’t matter what other countries think. We got a lot more worldwide support for the Afghanistan invasion, because it was much more clearly a direct response to the WTC attack. The Taliban were protecting bin Laden; the connection to a known terrorist who was a direct threat to the U.S. _on_ U.S. soil was much stronger. With Iraq, the case made was much, much weaker. So weak, in fact, that it’s now being downplayed in favor of the specious argument that we had to “liberate the Iraqi people”. A lot of the rest of the world could easily see through the empty rhetoric that was used to justify the Iraqi invasion. And it most certainly _does_ matter what other countries think. If we are belligerent towards our enemies, and alienate our allies, we will soon find ourselves alone and opposing the rest of the world, which is not a good position to be in. > [@](#): > > We are doing what is necessary to make sure this kind of attack does not happen again. Many would disagree with you. I find it more likely that we are _increasing_ the odds of another attack. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/107 "2003-04-30T08:21:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > \*\ ***December** , that cite seems to be from the opinion page of the paper, \*\* The cite was a summary of the article from the New York Times. You may still be able to find the full article. Anyhow, the full article had specific dollar figures. Even thought it was on the op-ed page, specific numbers should be as accurate there as on the news page, The oil for food has sold many billions of dollars worth of oil. The UN’s take has been over a billion dollars. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/108 "2003-04-30T10:20:43Z")
**December** , an _opinion piece_ is simply not a valid cite, whether it has numbers in it or no. It is still on-line, but only for paying customers. I am reluctant to fire up the Visa to read a piece from the opinion page of _any_ publication. Surely you can provide information of better quality than that? Or do you expect someone else to do the work for you?? Since I have previous experience with the cites you tend to bring to our attention, I Googled the name Claudia Rosett, the same one who wrote the opinion piece in the NYT you cited. Well it seems Ms Rosett is a professional opinion page writer with a nasty little axe to grind. Do a search on this idiot woman and see for yourself the various biased rubbish she has written, regularly avoiding the real issues with a zeal that is hauntingly Decembrist. From what I have just read of this distasteful little toad, Rosett’s goal in writing seems to be the pursuit of an ethnocentric _America uber alles_ philosophy in which the US and Bush are never wrong, and in which the UN is an evil second only to the likes of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and rogue states (!!). Oh, and the Red Cross, the international community, and pretty much anyone who disagrees with her are little better. Avoid the opinion pages (of any slant) and you’ll be better off. Give me a real cite, one that supports that wisp of an argument of yours (and of Rosett’s – I’m guessing you’re a fan?). Note that my earlier message about the UN and sanctions is still waiting. ---
**Author:** ![torben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5daacb/32.png) [@torben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/torben)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/109 "2003-04-30T11:00:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > \*\ ***Torben** , do you realize the various allegations you make (e.g. Iraq sponsors terrorism) are not demonstrated – they are merely treated as true by Americans thanks to the efforts of the US government? > > You may want to read up on these issues rather than providing us with simplistic knee-jerks. \*\* I’ve seen very little evidence that disproves these “allegations”. If you think Saddam’s regime did not sponsor terrorism you are more stupid than you are naive. But since you seem to know more than my own government does why don’t you enlighten me? :rolleyes: Oh wait… **You Don’t**. Why don’t you pull your head out of your ass and get a clue before providing me with “simplistic knee-jerks.” ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/110 "2003-04-30T11:12:18Z")
torben, you need to get the feel of this place. Here we require some support for our allegations and telling people to “pull your head out of your ass” is not how we operate in this forum. As far as I know the US government has never directly and inequivocally accused Saddam Hussein and his regime of sponsoring the 9/11 attacks or any other terrorist attack directed against the USA. If you have any cites proving otherwise we would like to see them. What the US government has done is use vague phrases and innuendo to try to taint Iraq, and it has (obviously) worked with some people. But AFAIK, there has never been any firm, direct affirmation. To ask us to prove a negative is just silly and we try not to play silly games around here. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/111 "2003-04-30T12:56:43Z")
Okay, **sailor** , but what about the bounty money being paid to Palesteinian terrorists by Hussein? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/112 "2003-04-30T13:29:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly \* > \*\*I’m saying that _international_ terrorism, as identified by GWB in his Axis of Evil speech, is a fundamentally different type of challenge than domestic ideologically-inspired crimes. One can be treated as a military and diplomatic issue, the other is a matter for law enforcement. Law enforcement is international as well as domestic, although it requires some of that “diplomacy” stuff that the Bushies scorn (making the world less safe, btw). Ideological motivations are also international - there are haters of the federal government in ample supply right here as well as overseas, and many of them even look like us. So I see no useful distinction there that you could explain to a grieving family visiting a bombed building site. > [@](#): > > I’m saying that a foreign-based terrorist organization wouldn’t have attempted the WTC attacks without funding and protection from state sponsors. Why not? How much money do you think it takes to rent a cheap apartment and buy food for a few months, and pick up a few boxcutters? Hell, go to Canada first, like Atta et al., did, and claim refugee status and the \*welfare payments[ start immediately. You don’t need a government to cover the cost, and you don’t even have to be rich (although Osama is). You just have to want it badly enough. I truly do not understand the need some, like you, have to find an easily-definable enemy with a name to fight back against, instead of simply trying to make an honest effort to understand the nature of the problem. Your approach makes you even more enemies without dealing with the ones who have already attacked you. As for understanding interpersonal and international relations and economics from Gene Roddenberry, that’s at least as valid as learning them from Robert Heinlein and Ayn Rand, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![mooka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@mooka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mooka)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/113 "2003-04-30T14:04:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by manhattan \* > \*\*That’s because you miss a possibility. Specifically, that there are some things so important that the US is willing to suffer whatever consequences necessary to achieve some aim. > > It’s not like this is unique. Lots of countries have something so dear to them that they “don’t care” what others may say about it. It could be maintinaing fishing rights to X miles instead of Y miles charging to use airspace or something far more important. Seriously – call Great Britain and tell them that monarchies are outdated and that if their Queen visits she can take the subway like everyone else. They don’t care – but you sure won’t get a visit from the Queen. Get on the horn to Canada and tell them their lumber system unfairly subsides Canadian companies and is anti-competitive. They don’t care. Slap whatever tariff you want on 'em, they’re still going to do it. > > With the US, it’s currently international terrorism. \*\* Thats fair enough. As you say, many countries have issues that are so important to them they are not willing to compromise. There’s a difference between that though and having a “we don’t care” policy where you refuse to compromise on all issues. A country can get away with saying “we don’t care” on a particular issue if it compromises elsewhere. To expect any country to be able to get its way on all issues, without any compromise at all though is something else. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/114 "2003-04-30T15:19:49Z")
**torben** : > [@](#): > > Why don’t you pull your head out of your ass [Moderator Hat ON] torben, we do NOT allow comments like that in this forum. You can argue and debate without telling people they have anything up their ass. [Moderator Hat OFF] ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/115 "2003-04-30T19:37:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > As for understanding interpersonal and international relations and economics from Gene Roddenberry, that’s at least as valid as learning them from Robert Heinlein and Ayn Rand, isn’t it? Thank you, and I just want to add that I said the situation _reminded_ me of the Star Trek episode. I didn’t say I _learned_ the principle from Star Trek. I would think anyone who has lived on this planet any time in the last few thousand years would realize that violence tends to escalate. Attacking others does not make them want to acquiesce, but rather makes them want to fight back, _especially_ when you are dealing with zealots willing to die for their cause. I didn’t learn this from Roddenberry; he just happened to illustrate the idea in a particularly clever way. [Or more precisely, the writer of that episode]. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/116 "2003-04-30T20:14:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by asterion \* > \*\*Okay, **sailor** , but what about the bounty money being paid to Palesteinian terrorists by Hussein? \*\* Yeah, what about it? Has the USA ever mentioned that as a justification? I don’t think so. And a good thing it is too because it would be a pathetic and laughable excuse. What’s your point? ---
**Author:** ![GoHeels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b3f665/32.png) [@GoHeels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GoHeels)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/117 "2003-04-30T22:04:47Z")
“Muscular withdrawal”? On second thought, that sounds like a birth control method for steroid freaks. "Neo-_realpolitik_ "? Nah, too foreign sounding. Peoria will never buy it. (For the ones who don’t like the policy: “Operation Fuck OFF”) My favorite: “Trial Separation” ---
**Author:** ![GoHeels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b3f665/32.png) [@GoHeels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GoHeels)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/118 "2003-04-30T22:07:57Z")
“Muscular withdrawal”? On second thought, that sounds like a birth control method for steroid freaks. "Neo-_realpolitik_ "? Nah, too foreign sounding. Peoria will never buy it. (For the ones who don’t like the policy: “Operation Fuck OFF”) My favorite: “Trial Separation” - I think this name elicits an appropriate post-modern interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/119 "2003-04-30T22:33:39Z")
Make what you will of this. [Oil-for-food](http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/), official UN site. [2.2 percent.](http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/fact-sheet.html) > [@](#): > > Out of the total oil revenues, 25% goes to the Compensation Fund for war reparation payments, while 2.2% covers the United Nations administrative and operational costs for administering the programme and 0.8% is allocated to the weapons inspection programme. The new oil-for-food plus is big business. > [@](#): > > Oil-for-Food Plus: The Programme, as outlined in the latest report of the Secretary-General, has been expanded beyond its initial emphasis on food and medicines. Its scope and level of funding includes infrastructure rehabilitation and covers 24 sectors: food, food-handling, health, nutrition, electricity, agriculture and irrigation, education, transport and telecommunications, water and sanitation, housing, settlement rehabilitation (internally displaced persons - IDPs), mine action, special allocation for especially vulnerable groups, and oil industry spare parts and equipment. \*\*The Government of Iraq introduced the following 10 new sectors in June 2002: construction, industry, labour and social affairs, Board of Youth and Sports, information, culture, religious affairs, justice, finance, and Central Bank of Iraq. \*\*[bolding mine] Interesting. ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757/120 "2003-04-30T23:20:26Z")
Just one other follow-up on **december’s** post. If you recall: > [@](#): > > _ **december** wrote:_ > Because there is no longer any reason for UN inspections, for sanctions, or for the oil-for-food program. These were all aimed at the Saddam Hussein regime, which is obviously gone. Nevertheless, Blix and Chirac (and Putin) want to hang onto them. In the case of Chirac and Putin their reasons are transparently financial. They want the new Iraqi government to guarantee debts committed by Saddam. They want oil concessions. They are threatening to ball up the new Iraqi government if they don’t get some kind of payoff. > > I don’t know what Blix’s motivation is. One possibility might be that Blix (and Kofi Annan) want to keep oil-for-food going as long as possible, because the UN makes a fortune from the program. First, France doesn’t want to keep the sanctions. They came out in support of removing the sanctions. Second, Blix hasn’t asked to go back into Iraq, he has said he and his team is ready, should the UNSC request they go (and further, he has announced he is retiring in June). I am unaware of any statement by Russia as to whether they will or will not support the lifting of sanctions (feel free to educate me). The same argument could be directed toward the US - that the US just wants the spoils of war - liberators, indeed. Not that I am now making that argument, btw. Just showing how silly it is. And as for the oil for food program, **Beagle’s** post has sufficiently addressed that (if you think 2.2% is too high, show me a non-profit charitable organization that does better). Now, how any of this, even if correct, would have help make your analogy more precise, I will never know. And frankly, at this point, I don’t care. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-we-dont-care-policy/171757.md?page=7)