Surely it is in a countries best interests to try and get along with other countries though when possible. I don’t think the point is that you should care what the rest of the world thinks, its that you should care about the consequences of that. Sure, some people are going to hate America whatever you do, so you can ignore them. But if you are going to alienate key allies, and diplomatically isolate yourself on the world stage, the payoff for doing so better be pretty bloody good, otherwise you are actually harming your own interests.
I don’t think that things are that bad yet for the US internationally. If your administration can show a bit of respect for your allies, and actually use diplomacy and tact rather than gung ho tactics then i’m sure relations will normalise in the end. However, if Bush continues on the course he has been, the consequences of increasing anti US sentiment will be felt. What happens when previously friendly foreign governments feel that in order to be popular with their own electorate they have to be seen to be “standing up” to the US, rather than cooperating? When being anti US is a vote winner?
I’m not saying that US foreign policy should be solely dictated by world opinion. Just that you should try to avoid alienating other countries whenever possible. Something Bush is not doing.
Well, we obviously disagree on this, though this isn’t the tread to get into this subject on. I’d like to see your views on ‘bring(ing) those responsible to justice’ though, and what exactly America could have done differently than it did as far as Afghanistan is concerned. My guess is that you are a bit light on the flow of events in that particular conflict, or are conflating it will the fuck up that was Iraq, but I’m not sure, and don’t think this is the right forum for it. Start a thread on the Afghanistan affair and I’ll gladly give my two cents worth.
I think you under estimate the British peoples reaction to something similar, though as I’m not a citizen (I’ve worked in London and have several friends scattered about here and there in England and Scottland) I can’t really speak to this as you can. Certainly my reading of history is that the UK has never shown a lot of restraint when it was attacked or its interests threatened. I think that if several thousand innocent civilians in London were killed, your people would be screaming for blood, but thats just my opinion.
I will conceed that bringing the guilty to justice is a worthwhile goal. However, when the ‘guilty’ is a nation state, how do you ‘bring it to justice’ short of war? I’m not convinced sanctions are the best thing, either for the people of the outlaw country, or for the world at large.
Yes, I’m familiar with the Irish conflict, as my wife is from there. I’m more neutral about it, but my wife would have more interesting things to say about British ‘restraint’. However, as you well know, the US GOVERNMENT didn’t support the IRA and INLA, but that private CITIZENS did, through donations. Thats a key difference, no? I’m not going to sit here and say that it was right or wrong…certainly my wife’s feelings on the subject would blister your ears on who is right or wrong (for what its worth, I disagree with her on this), but at no time I’m aware of, did the US government support those groups either through money or through any other kinds of support. Or am I wrong? As this is an obvious analogy to Afghanistan, I’ll ask you…are the Taliban’s hands equally clean in your mind, and it was only ‘private citizens’ of Afghanistan that supported AQ and its attack on the US?? On second though, lets save that for the thread you might start on the subject, as its again irrevelent to this thread I think.
From From notquitekarpov
Ah, but the US DOES listen to the rest of the world (or at least its allies). Listening, however, doesn’t always constitute agreeing. Just like the rest of the world LISTENS to the US, but doesnt always agree (see France for a recent expample). Its their right, just as its ours, no? And unless you are saying that the US has to always AGREE with what the rest of the world says, then I don’t see your point. ALL countries that are part of the world community LISTEN to what other countries say. However, in the end they have to make their own decisions and do what THEY think is best. Doesn’t mean they are RIGHT (or wrong for that matter)…but its what we pay those slimy dogs in power to do, and if they screw up (like Bush did) we have the option to boot them out, if enough of our fellow citizens agree with us. No?
I think we were saying different things from different points of view, and thats where the confusion was on this. I think the US does need to consider very carefully when and where (and IF) it exects its power or influence, and needs to weigh the opinions of its allies and the rest of the world community too. I think that the US made a mistake with Iraq, though I think we did the right thing in Afghanistan. However, at a more basic level, all countries have to, in the end, do what THEY feel is the right thing for themselves and their citizens. If they make a mistake (like we did in Iraq) then they have to pay the consequences (which we are, through bad feelings globally, through the huge monetary costs incurred and still on going, etc).
You are confusing the issue. The question isn’t “Should American foreign policy take into account other nation’s interests?”, it’s “Should Americans take world opinion into account when selecting their next leader?”
Oh, OK. But it is indeed hard to separate the two. And the world is a big place with a lot of opinions.
I guess the answer would have to be “yes, ideally.” But different countries should carry different weights; some are totally dead in the water, some are batshit crazy, some have values opposite of ours, etc. As for our fellow friendly developed countries, of course they should be taken into account; but the majority of us came here, to be frank, escaping from those same countries.
Do you have any idea how a next president and government of the USA will be able to resolve this?
Do you have any idea how this will end if the US’ers are crazy enough to re-elect this same president and crew?
I don’'t ask if the US’ers should take the world’s opinion into account or not.
I ask: how do you think as next government - or this one if re-elected - are going to manage to repare the dammage.
At present when looking at the UN Security Council, we don’t see such an enthousiams to forget the arrogance, the insults and the blatant lies of the US, nor is there overwhelming enthousiasm to go help them out in their a bit derailed colonisation of Iraq.
I don’t see Germany and France approve a resolution that makes UN involvement possible under US command.
The arrogance of this, to ask the UN to place soldiers under US command in order to help them out in their illegal occupation of a sovereign nation, invaded while overruling the UN, is typical.
The UN wanted the Iraqy people to live instead of being teared to pieces by the US criminal “you ain’t seen nothing yet” attacks under the cynical name “shock and Awe”.
They want them to have now a government of their own, instead of the USA occupying the country. That is one of the demands and arguments of both France and Germany today.
Arguments like “the UN doesn’t care for the Iraqy people” sounds to me a bit like shooting the sheep and kissing the wolf.
By the way:
Your input = you additional question “should the US voters take in account the world’s opinion” is welcomed.
It would be interesting to see what the members think of that.
A lot of people have responded to you, Aldebaran, throughout this tread, answering your questions while posing more too you, or requesting cites from you to back up your various, um, positions. Now you are hijacking your own thread by taking us into deep waters of the Iraq debate, the UN, etc. Fair enough, its your thread. Since you haven’t seen fit to answer many of the myriad responses given to you, or back up any of your ‘facts’ with cites though (though its been requested of you several times), I don’t see that this is anything more than a ‘flame on America the Evil’ thread. Its kind of hard to discuss anything with you, unless you are willing to at least TRY and be reasonable. I’ll try this:
From Alderbaran
This seems overly simplistic (if not to say nieve and partasan in the extreme). To me, the real contention between Germany/France/UN and the US (atm) is mearly Who Is In Charge. You obviously see it differently, so…care to back any of this up with anything more than flames? The points I’d like cites on would be (to spell it out plainly): That the US government has no intention of allowing Iraq to have its own government, now or in the future. That the US government intends to continue occupation indefinitely. That France and Germany’s position is mearly that Iraq has a government of its own (you will have already ‘proved’ that the US doesn’t with your privious cites), and that they DON’T intend to continue the occupation (albiet under a UN charter). Once you provide some cites for ANY of this, we can then hijack your thread into a new direction you obviously want to go in.
As to THIS gem…
From Alderbaran
It must be nice to live in a world of black and white, where there is clearly good and evil in the world…and America is the Font Of All Evil. If you REALLY believe that the ‘UN wanted the Iraqy people to live instead of being teared to pieces by the US criminal’ and that THIS was their main concern, then I feel sad for you.
This is simplification of a complex event down to something I’d expect from a kindergartner to be honest. UN goooood…want help children and puppies…plant nice flowers…want nice people of Iraq to live and be happy. US baaaad…want kill children and puppies, no nice flowers, want enslave the good and happy people of Iraq.
If you can’t see or understand the underlying power struggle that went on behind the scenes between the various European powers opposed to this adventure and the US, then you are indeed nieve. If you can’t understand that there were real, valid, economic reasons countries like France and Germany (in THEIR own interests, not Iraqs) opposed the US about this, again I’m saddened for you. You need to get out more I fear.
There were NO good guys in this Iraq mess…only various shades of slimy dogs, with the US being arguably closer to the bottom than the top, but by no means the ONLY one at fault. Lest you forget, Iraq and SH get to take some blame too…unless its your contention that they are blameless??
Well, you will be happy to know that, short of some cites to back up your various claims, I won’t trouble you in this tread again Alderbaran (prolly most of the rest of you will be glad to be rid of me too :)). I hope someday you can learn to post in something a bit less provocative, with something like a shred of facts to back up your conjectures…otherwise I fear that like Reeder and December, the name Alderbaran will become fairly infamous here…
If your "friendly" neighbor requested young men from you, so as to be send them to the meat grinder would you send any ? I think the US request is pretty silly. It can be summarized as "We keep control and you guys put Blue Helmets and get shot at."
To say that only France and Germany don't want to send is silly thou xtisme. Everyone from Russia to Pakistan to Bangladesh are reluctant to send troops under the US flag. Legitimacy is necessary and that will come only from UN control or resolution. To "help the Iraqi" whilst helping the Bush invasion is a major No No for most countries. (Poor polish target soldiers). So if the US wants to maintain control... then the US should supply the boys for the bodybags themselves. No one is about to take political heavy flak to help Bush and to get soldiers killed.
As for Afghanistan... it wasn't a pretty thing to see... but I agreed with the invasion. I thought maybe less bombing or more careful dealing with civilian areas was called for. The result is that a lawless country like Afghanistan isnt as bad as one might have thought. Compared to Iraq its pretty good. The US is blundering thou... and things might get worse in Afghanistan. Now the key difference was that Afghanistan was clearly involved with Al Qaeda... and the US had international support. The locals took over too thru the Northern Alliance which helps "legitimacy".
Actually I think it goes along the lines of “You augment our 150,000 troops and 50 Billion dollar reconstruction project to re-establish stability in a region critical to your economies, while we have the final say on what happens. Oh, and we all get shot at.”
Personally, while I support the war and the over throw of Saddam, I am absolutely staggered by the lack of diplomatic ability,tin ear to the state of Iraq and post-war planning that the US has displayed.
Sorry, maybe i could have put my point clearer. I was basically saying yes at the moment Americans should take world opinion into account, because you have a leader that has had such a large negative impact on your image and international goodwill. In fact, should he be allowed to continue on this course it is going to start seriously harming your own interests.
I’m not saying Americans should be concerned with small changes in world opinion, of course not, this is unlikely to significantly impact on your interests. But you should be concerned when your government causes large shifts in world opinion like yours has.
It obviously escapes you that my referation to standpoints of UN members is in fact an answer to your over-optimistic statement in an earlier post.
And I’m so sorry, but comparing me with members I have no idea about is a bit silly.
I’m not long enough member of this message board to know who or what on earth you talk about.
Oh, by the way: Feel free to take certain posts of mine as presenting issues rather black and white, since they do. The reason why is explained in one of my other posts here. (One you said you didn’t understand.)
Grey I saw your “rolleyes” later only… What does the expression “Tin Ear” exactly mean ? (I am guessing deaf). Dont know that expression.
A second term by Bush will certainly face ever greater bad will by foreign governments. Many countries are just waiting out Bush fully expecting americans not to re-elect him. The Bush doctrine on the long term is a total disaster and reverses so many gains of globalism and international cooperation… (even thou I think the middle east and the UN needed some slapping around to get in shape…)
Forgot: You also overlooked the fact that when France and Germany start talking about the Iraqis having their country back, this is part of the political game.
You also completely overlook that if the UN sends UN troops under the US command, this is a reason for the USA to have their propaganda machine rolling again = present this as if the UN approves finally their invasion and occupation of Iraq.
I’m sorry, but I think you lack a bit of impartiality and insight.
As for your referation to “Iraq” ans “SH” and your following -childish - insinuation: this is the kind of reaction I don’t find even worth read.
But since you hijack thus the topic with this I have a question:
What has in your opinion “Iraq” to do with the invasion and occupation by the USA? The same question counts for Saddam Hussein. Maybe you could open an other thread on that?
Thank you.
With reference to Xtisme’s last posting in which he came back on my points.
You mentioned Afghanistan in your rebuttal of my previous, not me. So if you want to start a thread on the subject…
My irritation is the inference that could be drawn that I was introducing extraneous issues into this thread. I was simply addressing the issues your raised. If that was not your intent I apologise, but to also dismiss me as “being a bit light on the flow of events” because you do not agree with my views I find arrogant and frankly insulting. I did not assume you knew nothing about NI - I allowed for the possibility.
Briefly to answer your core point, what the Coalition Forces could have done different was use US airpower which led directly to the killing of innocent Afghan civilians. Although arguably also illegal (but maybe justified in view of the breakdown of central authority) what they could have done instead was insert troops (only - not cluster bombing) to arrest al qhaida suspects - and if they resist arrest use minimum necessary force to attempt to apprehend them. And of course kill them in the attempt if you have to.
You appear to have totally missed the point of my analogy, perhaps I did not make it clear. That the US government was not responsible for the terrorist funding in Ireland is exactly my point. I am unconvinced the Afghan Taliban government supported directly al qhaida. IMHO al qhaida simply took advantage of a state too weak to resist a “take over” in certain zones by the organisation. Go for al qhaida if you must, but minimise the collaterial damage as far as possible.
3, IMHO the US government have an extra responsibility to act in a responsible fashion in view of the huge power they can project. Essentially you are judged against a higher measure. Unfair? Maybe but that is the responsibility of power. “Yes, US voters take note please”, is my take on Alebaran’s supplemental above.
What does the expression “Tin Ear” exactly mean ? (I am guessing deaf). Dont know that expression.