Milo: You might notice that Ireland is not part of the United States. No citizen or official is held responsible for maintaining peace outside of his own nation. However, a responsible individual does make efforts to promote and enable peaceful resolution of differences among his neighbors.
No president will be held accountable for achieving world peace. All they will be responsible for is a demonstration of our intent to assist where we can. In this way, President Clinton has performed admirably.
Now tell me, why do you get so worked up over this? The Democrats are not your enemy or mine and Bill Clinton has not attempted to do anything but help you. Regardless of your baseless performance appraisal, them’s the facts, Jack.
Milo, I’m sure the 1985 Reykjavik Agreement can be credited entirely to Ronald Reagan, right?
Fucking hell, these repetitive Democrats vs. Republicans threads are getting lamer every day.
FWIW, Bill Clinton has been the most constructive US President in terms of foreign policy since Jimmy Carter arranged the Camp David Treaty in 1979. And I don’t think I’m the only furrener who is rather apprehensive about what Republicans think is “foreign policy”.
I think that the best arguments for how good Clinton was as a president will begin to filter in in about… eight days.
It’s going to be fun to watch these armchair commanders-in-chief try to explain away real corruption, real criminal activity, real foreign policy fiascoes and real economic meddling that leads to the suffering of millions.
Think I’m full of shit? Let’s revisit this topic in a year.
The general problem is that we’re way too liberal, if you would put us on an “American” political map. Even our (main) right wing party is probably more progressive than the American democrats.
That, and we don’t care much for nukes, Star Wars defense systems, and other assorted muscle stuff. By definition, the Republicans are more “alien” to us than the Democrats.
That’s why I was curious about Milo’s opinion on the Reykjavik Agreement that ended the nuclear arms race, and effectively the Cold War. Anyone who suggests that that Agreement should be credited to Gorbatchov for less than 80%, is obviously not being objective. Reagan loved all that cold war crap.
Am I to understand here that people are regarding it as a major failure of Clinton’s foreign policy that he didn’t bring about permanent peace in Northern Ireland and the Middle East? Man, he must be really good if the bar’s been raised that high in the past eight years, eh?
Coldfire, I’m confused about your comments. The Reykjavik Agreement was a monumental achievement. What does that have to do with what Clinton’s done, foreign policy-wise, over the past eight years? And what on earth have I said that would lead you to believe that I give Reagan most of (or even the majority of) credit for that?
**
Based on what? Indeed, what has Clinton done that even remotely compares to Reykjavik, or Carter’s Camp David accords with Egypt and Israel?
Tymp:
**
I don’t disagree with your first sentence. I do disagree with the rest. I think we used to care more about long-lasting results, and less about the appearance of our intentions. As far as photo-op diplomacy goes, you’re right. President Clinton has performed admirably.
**
A. Who’s worked up?
B. Who thinks Democrats are their enemy?
C. “Baseless performance appraisal?” Point out to me what parts of it are baseless, please.
Sofa King:
**
Yeah; as opposed to that fake stuff with China and our national security breaches. :rolleyes:
This isn’t going to be one of those Pit threads that gets moved to Great Debates, is it? We did mention blow jobs, after all.
If you think the Chinese having our nuclear weapons technology is scary, just wait until they start selling our redwoods back to us as chopsticks–at a profit.
Honestly, this is not the time to debate this. I’m stepping out, having given my “prophet of doom” speech. Sofa King predicts that many of you will find you’re Democrats again, once you feel your asses are pressed against the pock-marked wall.
It’s all up to the new guy, now. We’ll see if the clown suit is buoyant or not shortly, and then we can begin to decide just how awful his predecessor was.
I don’t see why the fear of being the victim of chopstick price-gouging should be any more serious than fear of being incinerated in a nuclear holocaust.
As far as foreign policy goes, I think Clinton oversaw a period of general settling of tension around the world. Basically, he had more opportunities to work towards bringing enemies together than anyone before him, and took advantage of them. I would say that Bush Sr. had a much more difficult period of time to deal with, overseeing the adjustment to the post-Cold War world. Both performed adequately.
Really, I can’t think of any Presidents since Truman who have really stood out one way or the other as far as foreign policy goes, unless you want to give Reagan too much credit for ending the Cold War. I expect George W. to follow the pattern.
Hey now. Don’t turn it around. I used the Reykjavik Agreement as an example of a monumental achievement that Ronald Reagan is sometimes credited with - and not rightly so, IMHO. Reykjavik was Michail Gorbachov all the way. Ronnie was just along for the ride, and fought it off long enough until he realised the worlds opinion was stacked against him. As such, it has little to do with Clinton: it is, however, the major change in US foreign policy that comes to mind when I’m digging for Republican presidents in my active memory (which, due to my wee age, goes back to 1980 or so).
Also, keep in mind that my perspective on US foreign policy is completely different from yours. I do not consider muscle-rolling stuff like supporting the Nicaraguan contras “constructive foreign policy”. Supplying terrorists with weapons just because a local regime isn’t to your fancy is not an impressive way to show the world how you’re involved in external politics. Not to mention the completely hypocritical treatment of general Noriega in this respect. Air raids on civil targets because of a North African dictator supporting terrorism show little rationalism, and a lot of anger. Understandable, but not very impressive on an international political level.
Again, these serve as examples of what I think about when Republican presidents and foreign policy come to mind. Can you understand that my view on these matters is somewhat different than an American one (Democratic or Republican)?
I didn’t believe you would say that. I made a general remark about Gorbachov being at least 80% resonsible for the Agreement. I’m glad to see you agree.
[ul][li]Middle East Peace Endeavours[/li][li]Northern Ireland Peace Talks[/li][li]Making the shift from the US being the self-proclaimed policeman of the world to the US being a more constructive member of the United Nations that actually listens at times as what all those other annoying little countries have to say.[/ul]Or did the UN Security Counsel ratify the 1986 Tripoli bombings as well? Or did Clinton launch an attack on Yemen when the USS Cole was bombed?[/li]See the difference? I’m not saying what’s right or wrong here, or even understandable. I certainly am not here to reform anyones political beliefs. I’m merely here to stipulate that American foreign policy is viewed differently by the outside world. And that it has looked a hell of a lot better under Clinton.
Let me explain something to you. you probably know everything that I’m about to say, but if you will bear with me, I hope you will understand.
Effectively, My country was at war from 1969 until very recently. Various administrations of the US passed through while this was happening. When Clinton started to take an interest in 1992, it was the first time since Kennedy did my country actually feel that someone was actively watching the events in Ireland. Admittedly, there wasn’t a whole lot for Kennedy to do with us, but his Visit here was an amazing success.
When the troubles began, there was considerable international interest, but nobody stepped in to mediate. we were left alone.
Fast forward to 1994. There was no need for Clinton to involve himself, or his administration, in Northern Ireland. He send Senator George Mitchell to try and mediate among the relevant sides. We soon had a peace agreement.
We had hope once again that this time it might work.
The events in Canary Warf in London, changed that but Mitchell didn’t give up.
The parties got together again. If it wasn’t for Mitchell and Moe Moelam (bless her cotton socks) I have no Idea what state our country would be in.
Clinton put his reputation on the line for us. His visits here emboldened the idea that, at last, we may have a significant chance of peace.
we may not have a full peace at the moment, but what we do have is the closest thing to a peaceful nation since 1189 when Dermott McMurrough invited a couple of his closest Norman friends over for a wine and cheese evening. His hospitality was so good they decided to invade (OK, thats not exactly what happened, but you get the Idea…)
We are closer than ever before. And we have Clinton, amongst others equally to thank.
Personally, I don’t feel that Dubya will take the same interest if things go pear shaped again. Ireland needs a Clinton involved to keep the sides together. Left alone (which I fear is what Dubya would do), I don’t know what would happen.
just my thoughts, but As far as I am concerned, Clinton should be acknowledged for his foreign policy in Northern Ireland.
Seems the most serious loss of information from Los Alamos was the design of the W85 warhead, and that this occurred during the, um, '80’s. Identifying the President and CIA Director during this period is left as an exercise for the reader.
The McDonnell-Douglas deal re satellite-launching rockets can most simply be described as our GETTING the design of their guidance system in return for us teaching them how to solder an electrical connection. No argument that it was a one-sided arrangement.
The Chinese campaign contribution appears to have been a single general giving $250K to a self-promoting middleman, who passed on $25K to the DNC, who returned it as soon as they found out where it came from. The full FEC investigation into both parties resulted in only one recommended prosecution for taking and keeping Chinese money: Haley Barbour. Determining which party he was chairman of is also left as an exercise for the reader.
We now return you to your regular uninformed flaming, already in progress.
… and you would be wrong, spooje. But thanks for playing.
Be less than overflowing with praise for a Democrat, and you think Democrats in general are your enemy?
I won’t use the rolleyes smiley here, because the vigor with which I would need to roll my eyes at that ridiculous statement makes me worry that my eyes would stay that way.
I was watching Senate confirmation hearings on CSPAN last night, and I couldn’t mention one Democrat that I saw for whom I have anything less than respect.
You, on the other hand, fuck-face …
(Trying desperately to keep this in the Pit.)
I concede that Clinton made good efforts in Ireland and in Israel. The fact that the IRA have refused to disarm (a key component of the Irish accords) needs to be taken into account, however. And the Israel-Palestine negotiations were even less effective. I’m not sure what could be done there by anybody else, as I’ve said. But I don’t think I’d be trumpeting my foreign policy accomplishments, either.
Clinton’s trip to India and Pakistan was an embarrassment. They essentially thumbed their noses at him. North Korea has been yanking us around for about a decade, too.
**
I can see where you would have that perspective, Coldfire. Another perspective is that America’s influence overseas has diminished. We used to be more persuasive in our diplomacy than we are now. Would that have happened anyway? Maybe. Probably.
But if Kosovo is an example of how this coalition-type strategy is going to work, with a room full of politicians from a dozen or so countries hamstringing the military and not doing what is necessary to win a military objective (or even determine a military objective) after engaging an enemy militarily, forgive me if I’m less than enthusiastic.
But hey? Why are we getting bogged down on the foreign policy end of it? Let’s talk domestic.
There, Clinton got lucky. An enormous new industry developed during his time in the chair. How many homes had computers when Clinton took office? How many do now? Do the same thing with cellular phones, and other technology.
Clinton deserves acknowledgement for staying the fuck out of the way, and for eliminating the budget deficit. So does the Congress, which was mostly led by Republicans over this period.
Again, I wouldn’t be going on a Victory Tour in my last days taking credit for it. (Look what The Victory Tour did for The Jacksons, after all.)
But I guess that’s what politician’s do.
Clinton had as much to do with our economic prosperity as he does with our recent economic slump. Ti ti; very little.
Why should any leader make any foreign policy approaches that do anything but directly effect (positively) their nation.
Why does the US always have to be the guys in the white hats? Why can’t we just say, “That country is a pain in the ass, let’s kill them” if it’s in our interests?
Why should the most powerful nation in the world subordinate it’s interest to those of an international body like the United Nations? If China or France were in our position they wouldn’t. God knows if the Soviets had outlasted the US they wouldn’t have…so why should the US not use our power and influence to unilaterally advance our own interests?
Now, let’s make something clear. I’m not supporting an American Hegemony or a Pax Americana. I just feel that there’s an underlying assumption to this thread (and world opinion) that should be examined here.
Milo I get the impression if the man gave you a house for free you’d bitch about the wallpaper.
You asked for one example and I think I, Coldfire and ToF have at least done that.
But hey he’s your pres. and Dubya will be.
I wonder however will you be so analytical of Dubya’s achievements when the next election comes out and “IT”(Ginger) has made America even richer than it is now
**
To this “point,” everybody, I invite you to do the following:
Go to your favorite Internet search engine.
Type “Los Alamos” and “espionage.”
Read.
**
Nice try. Except McDonnell-Douglas isn’t involved in what I’m talking about. It was Hughes Electronics and Loral Space and Communications.
I urge one and all to carefully read this article from that vitriolic right-wing rag, The New York Times.
Whose assessment of what was done do you trust, the Pentagon’s or ElvisL1ves’?
**
A. Have you read the news this morning?
B. “Yeah; we accepted money from a Chinese general. But when we found out where it was from (or got caught), we gave it back.”
Your response to that is, “Oh. OK. Fair enough?” You don’t find that fucking incredible? You don’t find it particularly troubling, given that Clinton transferred authority of sale of satellite and aerospace technology from the Defense Department to the Commerce Department, over the howls of protest of his defense and national security advisors? And that single act enabled the aforementioned transfer of satellite and aerospace technology that you completely misrepresented above?
I think somebody else needs to spend a little more time getting “informed.”
Milo, the lack of facts, as opposed to vitriol, presented in rebuttal in your post speaks for itself, as usual. A little more time spent exploring other news sources than the Wall Street Journal or Murdoch’s organization might be useful.
