Bush's new "we don't care" policy

Great Debates
161

Yeah yeah. Jack Welch was Caesar. Then Bill Gates was Caesar. Then, for a while, Larry Ellison was Caesar. After that, Bill Gates was Caesar again.

Momentary muscle and a cheer squad.

The practical upshot of those escapades is that the Caesars have been well rewarded, and the shareholders have been well and truly fucked over.

It’s more like: “I came, I saw, and I took whatever I could get”.

I guess GWB is continuing the great American tradition of “fuck you, I got mine.”

december, like any loyal flunky, is trying to talk the shares up, but the overseas investors just ain’t buying.

162

The US truly is the world’s only super-power. Should we pretend that we’re just another country? Maybe so. This was more-or-less the position that Presidential candidate Dean took, when he said that the US wouldn’t always be dominant. OTOH Dean was criticized by Sen. Kerry for that comment.

It’s the exact opposite. The US spent its own billions and sacrificed the lives of its own soldiers in order to eliminate the horrendous Hussein regime – an act that benefited the entire world. Sadly, some ingrates have responded “fuck you,” to this gift from the US.

163

It did so without just cause, december. Does the concept of “due process” mean anything to you?

164

“A gift from the US”? Gee, december, I didn’t get the memo. I thought it was because we were responding to an urgent threat. Yes, I’m sure that was it. Something about how they were just about to do something really, really bad to us and we had to stop them.

When, exactly, did that go down the memory hole? Just after the Gloat on the Boat? Or was it right about the time you began to suspect that you’d been had?

165

“Beware of Greeks bearing gifts”

166

Regardless of Bush’s motives, the world is a better place with Saddam out of power, isn’t it?

167

And will be an even better place when GeeDubya is out of power!

168

I will certainly grant you that it may be. Of course, the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan looked to make the world a better place.

It’s all about what happens next. Unintended consequences, ya’ know?

169

Sorry, I know this is addressed to me, but I don’t recognise anything in this paragraph as being of this world … completely and utterly surreal …

170

Not especially. If I ever want to insult you, I’ll call you out by name.

171

This policy should not be though of as “we don’t care,” which sounds so arrogant.

I think it’s more like “Strategic separation,” and I believe it’s a good way to begin actually closing the rift that has opened between the New and the Old Worlds.

First things first: America and Europe are both democratic societies. Commerce between us will continue. The fact is, we need you and you need us.

However…

The lesson of the Iraq war seems to be that bilateral relationships are flexible and fluid. They can be tailored to any particular situation and can carry as many obligations as each side desires. On the other hand, we learned multilateralism is a trap in which the failure to reach consensus among many nations paralyzes the ability to act. With the threats that America faces, flexibility is key.

Therefore, “strategic separation” means America to forge alliances with non-Islamic countries whose strategic interests coincide with those of the U.S. and whose geography is suitably close to the theater of operations - i.e. - the Middle East.

I think the move out of Saudi Arabia was the first step. In the near future, I expect the significant withdrawal of American forces from Germany and into southeastern Europe, nearer to the theater of operations and in countries much more politically aligned with us.

I would ask the German SDMB posters - isn’t this what you want? After all, Schroder was elected mostly by running on an anti-American platform - won’t the large withdrawal of American forces from your country be a victory for you? Seems like a win-win to me.

I also think that “strategic separation” means we will gladly play a lesser role in NATO, which more and more seems like an obsolete, Cold War relic. A few years ago, France offered to become full members of NATO again if the American role in the alliance was sharply reduced. I imagine we may actually agree with the French.

Of course, we will also pay dues that are commensurate with our lesser role. We will be equal members with France and Belgium and Germany, and by so doing will marginalize NATO influence and clout.

Turkey’s decision to forbid the basing of U.S. troops made bases in Bulgaria and Romania particularly valuable to the United States during the war in Iraq. Thus, while Bulgaria and Romania are not members of NATO, they proved much more important than NATO itself. I think Bush, Rummy, and Cheney have learned that lesson well.

I do admit that it will be interesting to see how we treat Eastern European countries like Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary, Romania. Those governments did support us (admittedly against popular will), and it may not be in our interests to encourage them to join NATO. Nevertheless, they are part of Europe and badly want to join the EU.

In other words, for better or worse, the security umbrella that America provides Europe will be significantly curtailed.

Curiously, I think this may be what Europe needs. Europe needs time and space to build its own identity, to develop its own strength, independent of us. I wish them well.

172

Ya gotta love that constantly shifting Republican justification: They were supporting Al Queda…er…I mean they had weapons of mass destruction…oh wait, I meant we had to liberate the Iraqi people. Now we’re down to the weakest justification of all: The ends justified the means. I’ve gotta hand it to you, it makes it tough to pin you down when you keep switching arguments.

173

No, the world is not a better place when a country has violated international law and has raised international tensions around the globe. A country is not better off when it uses illegal methods for good ends. America would not be a better country if it had just shot OJ Simpson and said “what the heck, let’s not waste time, we all know he’s guilty”. Doing that would have served a short term goal while doing huge long term damage to the foundations of the country. Illegally invading Iraq is a very serious blow to world peace and to international relations and it was done to achieve a goal which probably could have been better achieved by other, lawful, means.

174

Chacon á son gout.

175

Interesting indeed. The analysis would probably carry a little more weight if you’d demonstrated knowledge of the fact that Poland and Hungary are NATO members in good standing already.

176

[hijack]I’ve read many of your posts, Spiny Norman, but it only just occured to me what the name meant. The Piranha Brothers. :smack: [/hijack]

177

Oops - stupid mistake on my part. :smack:

Thanks for the correction, Spiny.

178

France, always there when they need you.

WSJ

What is the benefit to us of supporting countries that hate us? Why even bother with the UN?

179

A. We need to stop doing things to make other people hate us.

B. If we disregard international law and become a rogue nation, what authority do we have to demand that anyone else not do the same? Might makes right?

180

You got it.

And if we’re not a rogue nation, might-makes-right is still the only authority we have over other nations. Do you think rogue nations will behave just because we do?