13-06-2005 10:04									#121
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Agathon This too will pass. What's the general consensus from diplos you know? I know a guy who was quite high in the Canadian diplomatic service and he keeps in contact with all his old pals. They all think Shrub and co are nuts, including many American diplomats.

let me put it this way - this is very much a politician's war, as is the war on terror.

Its run by staffers and spin doctors, just like that movie "Wag the Dog".

	13-06-2005 10:09									#122
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DanS You misunderstand me. The support for military action against Saddam Hussein to remove him from power was a steady 62% for 11 years before Bush Jr decided to do it.

right - populism

	13-06-2005 11:32									#123
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: In hindsight, I don't think keeping the world order stable was more important. Agreed. The old world order has been falling apart on its own ever since the Soviet Union fell. The Bush administration had a choice between continuing to prop up an ever more untenable status quo or using America's global weight to influence how the next world order will take shape, hopefully in our favor. I think they made the right call, even if I don't approve of many of the details of their execution.

Typical arrogant, self-serving crap from the American right. There was nothing particularly untenable about the status quo. The 1990s were certainly a lot less scary than the preceding four decades. I suppose that we were expected to believe the crap about "rogue states". Sorry, nobody did. North Korea and Iran are never going to be global threats, despite the best efforts of "defense policy analysts" to overturn the obvious.

The fact is that the US faces increasing irrelevance as other areas of the world (primarily China) become more prosperous. Everyone knows this and only Americans and a few others actually care that much. The problem with the account as you give it is that America's attempt to influence the next world order is doing it and the world more harm than good. I guess this is what happens to all empires as they face their downfall - attempts to aggressively stave off the inevitable. It's never worked before and it won't work this time. All it will do is press those who disagree together and give them greater ability to speed your downfall.

People around the world, especially in English speaking countries and the other European countries used to take the American view on things, with perhaps minor modifications. Nobody does that any more. You are regarded as stupid or untrustworthy and any agreement is no longer based on shared ideals, but on toleration.

Shout all you want, people are tuning out. I would have been surprised at how quickly this has taken root if you'd told me this would happen five years ago. Only cranks and silly old tories take the US side now. Even my grandfather (a major league Thatcherite) regards Bush as a menace.

You're losing, get used to it. After all a few Arabs with home made bombs are humiliating your expensive military. If you can't pacify a ****ed up camel-humper refuge like Iraq despite having the world's largest military budget, who are you trying to kid in saying that you have any real ability to force people to take your side?

	13-06-2005 11:36									#124
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Wow, you almost got me to respond to you, Aggie. Quality work. I might've done it if I didn't think discussing politics would ruin our friendship...

	13-06-2005 11:37									#125
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Nuclear proliferation is a good example. The US engages in blatantly self-serving activities in this regard, and then wonders why North Korea and Iran are developing nuclear weapons at an accelerated rate.

The answer is obvious to anyone who spends a moment to think about it: to protect themselves against aggression - notably American aggression.

	13-06-2005 11:51									#126
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

We did send the wrong message with the whole Iraq fiasco, which is ANOTHER reason the magnitude of the lie is horrible. We sent an inconsistent message. We invaded Iraq because they couldn't protect themselves. Meanwhile we just sit by while Iran and Korea are doing the very things that we said we would not tolerate.

Moral of the story: Get nuclear weapons before the USA invades you.

The 1990s were one of the best decades ever. Economic growth, reduced crime, and global security.

Nations are now not only pulling back from our diplomatic leadership, they are also questioning our economic globalization model. We are pretty much losing South America as we speak.

	13-06-2005 11:52									#127
	Put an end to popups!

Global security? You mean like when our US embassy was attacked under the Clinton administration?


Not to imply that we should simplistically blame one person for the attack -- Bill Clinton -- but that we should not idealize the 90s as being free of security problems.

	13-06-2005 11:54									#128
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

There were minor problems, as in every decade, there was the Kossovo war, along with the rest of the Balkans.

Perhaps I should rephrase what I meant:

We weren't bogged down in an indefinite conflict that cost $177 million dollars a day, while trying to fight a global war on terror at the same time.

Nor were we proactivley escalating hostilities against several different nations.

	13-06-2005 11:56									#129
	Inflate your Upload Space

ok, that is a better description

	13-06-2005 11:58									#130
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yeah, I guess it's the proactive war making part that I was trying to emphasize.

Our defensive capability is still very strong, but it's stetched to the limit, and is costing us alot of money. I am worried about the next threat that appears. Because in my opinion, you don't go looking for trouble because trouble comes looking for you.

Clinton should have been more proactive with responding to existing threats. I think he realizes this because every time someone asks him about Osama and all that, he gets very defenseive about it.

He wasn't as irresponsible as his political enemies try to say, but he could have done more, in retrospect.

The Kossovo thing I still don't understand personally.

	13-06-2005 12:03									#131
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: We weren't bogged down in an indefinite conflict that cost $177 million dollars a day, while trying to fight a global war on terror at the same time. Nor were we proactivley escalating hostilities against several different nations.

Yeah, we just sat back while Al Qaeda attacked the WTC, American bases in Saudi Arabia, American embassies in Africa and the USS Cole. Luckily those attacks weren't a sign of anything to come.

Passive foreign policy

edit:

quote: Clinton should have been more proactive with responding to existing threats. I think he realizes this because every time someone asks him about Osama and all that, he gets very defenseive about it. He wasn't as irresponsible as his political enemies try to say, but he could have done more, in retrospect.

Damn, there goes all my fun...

	13-06-2005 12:23									#132
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Aw, did that mean old Ted steal your thunder?

	13-06-2005 12:28									#133
	Tired of ads?

quote: Aw, did that mean old Ted steal your thunder?

Yes. How am I supposed to be mean old Drake if people do all my criticizing for me?

	13-06-2005 12:32									#134
	Remove this text

On the other hand Bush was proactively tracking down Osama Bin Laden before 9/11 happened.

Wait

	13-06-2005 12:39									#135
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Bush did indeed make a big mistake by initially following the policy of his predecessor.

	13-06-2005 12:42									#136
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Clinton did WAY more to track down Osama than Bush ever did, before 9/11.

	13-06-2005 12:46									#137
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker Clinton did WAY more to track down Osama than Bush ever did, before 9/11.

And getting this close to capturing him... then losing him... then getting this close to capturing him... then losing him...

	13-06-2005 12:47									#138
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Clinton did little in the 7 years between the first WTC attack and 2000. Bush wasn't any better, but he didn't have much time to loaf around before September 11th shoved those years of neglect into our collective faces.

	13-06-2005 12:52									#139
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Clinton: actively searching for Bin Laden

Bush pre 9-11: Didn't do one damn thing, even when his top expert urged him to
Bush post 9-11: Takes eyes off the ball and invades Iraq

Bush's Chief Counterterrorism officer warned him repeatedly that he wasn't taking the threat seriously:

quote: Frustrated by what he saw as an inadequate response to terrorism, Clarke sent a memo to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice one week before the deadly attacks, blasting the Defense Department for not doing enough against al Qaeda and criticizing the CIA for holding up a plan to arm Predator drones.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...911.commission/

	13-06-2005 12:55									#140
	Increase Your PM Length

Clarke goes on to note the difference in how Clinton's administration handled things competently:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...911.commission/

quote: Later, on CNN's "Larry King Live," Clarke said the Clinton administration's approach to a similar threat before the turn of the millennium -- on which top officials held daily interagency meetings and actively sought information from within their own agencies -- shows that a similar approach might have worked to prevent the September 11 terrorist attacks. He said that prior to 9/11, people within the FBI knew that two of the 19 hijackers were in the country, but that information never made its way up to the highest levels of power. "If Condi Rice had been doing her job and holding those daily meetings the way Sandy Berger did, if she had a hands-on attitude to being national security adviser when she had information that there was a threat against the United States ... [the information] would have been shaken out in the summer of 2001," Clarke told King. Samuel Berger, who was national security adviser to former President Clinton, also testified Wednesday.

	13-06-2005 12:56									#141
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Well, I guess Ted's reasonable behavior up above was just an isolated slip back to his old self...

	13-06-2005 12:58									#142
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Clinton did little in the 7 years between the first WTC attack and 2000. Bush wasn't any better, but he didn't have much time to loaf around before September 11th shoved those years of neglect into our collective faces.

Uh, that isn't the arguement being made. The Bush Administration has "come close" to capturing bin Laden, yet he manages to get away. Obviously, "time" isn't at issue here, so making a comparison to Clinton's 7 years and Bush's few months is a non-starter.

Clinton dropped the ball on his watch, but he and others inside the new administration tried to get Bush to pick up the slack. Bush ignored them, thousands paid with their lives, and we still haven't gotten the rat-bastard.

Oh, and bin Laden is still free.

	13-06-2005 13:07									#143
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Well said, DRoseDARs.

On top off that, "the gloves are off," so there shouldn't be any legal, diplomatic or any other political roadblocks in the way of capturing him.

We've had 4 "gloves off" years and still haven't found him.

Hey, we got Saddam though.

	13-06-2005 13:13									#144
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Hey, we got Saddam though.

And dealt a severe blow to Al Qaeda. How'd Clinton do on that score?

	13-06-2005 13:18									#145
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I think it's something like 3000 dead, economic recession, destroyed world credibility


Great score.

Osama Bin Laden is where?

	13-06-2005 13:21									#146
	Support Apolyton

Is that all you got?

Clinton - didn't get Osama, didn't get Saddam, didn't hurt Al Qaeda

Bush - hasn't got Osama, got Saddam, hurt Al Qaeda

Current Score: Bush 2 - 0 Clinton

	13-06-2005 13:26									#147
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Getting Saddam is actually an offensive foul and the shot doesn't count. Terrorism gets two technical foul shots and Al Queda gets to take the ball out of bounds. So -2 there, with the chance for a basket now we're up to -4, or -5 if they make the 3 pointer.

"Hurting Al Queda" doesn't count because we didn't have a valid pretext to go invade Afghanistan, until 9/11. So Bush didn't do crap, pre-9/11, so that gives him 0 points there. Any President would have invaded Afghanistan, probably would have even gotten Bin Laden.

So really it's a -2 or -4 to 0 according to your silly game.

	13-06-2005 14:12									#148
	Support Apolyton

what pwns the Bush administration is the example they are setting to other major powers - its okay to lie, to invade, to bomb, to torture or mistreat prisoners.

what are they going to say to China if it takes action against Taiwan or Russia if it attacks a neighbour?

Last edited by Alexander's Horse on 13-06-2005 at 17:53

	13-06-2005 14:38									#149
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

No one seems to remember that Clinton was sure that Iraq had wmd and backed Bush on the invasion of Iraq. I see no reason to disbelieve Bush or Blair when they claim that they also believed so based on the same faulty intelligence. Bush made clear in his first foreign policy speech during his first run for president that regime change in Iraq was one of his main goals. We all know (there were stories well before the war started) that the occupation and stabilization of Iraq were not planned at all well, in part because our intelligence was not good enough to predict how things would go and in part because the administration didn't want to endanger their policy with accurate appraisals of just how much this sort of thing migh cost in blood and treasure. This memo doesn't seem to add anything to what we already know. It seems more of an excercize in keeping people angry about what they cannot change. Consider that both Blair and Bush were both recently re-elected for instance.

	13-06-2005 14:54									#150
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: Hey, we got Saddam though. And dealt a severe blow to Al Qaeda. How'd Clinton do on that score?

Bush's anti-Islamic, Christian crusader tone (led by Boykin, who has not been disciplined or rebuked in any significant way for his "my God is bigger" remarks), not to mention Guantanamo, has led to today's situation, where Bush is al-Qaeda's best recruiting tool throughout the Islamic world.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3674632.stm