 |
| |
|
|
Thue
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Jan 1970
time: 06:24
|
|
From BBC.
Sometimes the retorics get so steriotypical you can't help but smile a bit. Maybe it helps that I just read about the russion-finnish winter war where the russions said they attacked premptively to counter finnish agression  . Note: I am not saying that all the Bush administration talk is crap, only some of it.
"Send the Marines" by Tom Lehrer seems very appropriate here.
quote:
When someone makes a move
Of which we don't approve,
Who is it that always intervenes?
U.N. and O.A.S.,
They have their place, I guess,
But first - send the Marines!
We'll send them all we've got,
John Wayne and Randolph Scott;
Remember those exciting fighting scenes?
To the shores of Tripoli,
But not to Mississippoli,
What do we do? We send the Marines!
For might makes right,
And till they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
Till somebody we like can be elected.
Members of the corps
All hate the thought of war;
They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means.
Stop calling it aggression,
Ooh, we hate that expression!
We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo.
They love us everywhere we go,
So when in doubt,
Send the Marines!
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
Yep. Sounds to me like the country that needs liberating is the US.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Demerzel
|
|
I just love the way that Bush is seemingly using external aggression to mask internal problems. By keeping the American public's attention fixed firmly on the "Axis of Evil" he's hiding his flawed domestic programme.
Or maybe it's just that he's a mad son of a ***** who just wants to go and kill as many Iraqi's and North Koreans as possible.
Regardless Bush worries me immensely and Blair isn't exactly impressing me with his loyalty act. Following a madman into the chasm because you're being loyal is rather stupid indeed.
Where next? Iran? Are they going to "liberate and democratise" all the middle eastern countries? China & Turkey have human rights issues, is he going to attack them to "help" them too?
Wonder how much a bomb shelter costs?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Demerzel
|
|
Bush resigning could only be a good thing surely? His attitude, which seems very hawkish indeed, really does scare me especially with the potential of it going nuclear in North Korea.
The whole "Axis of Evil" speech was a masterstroke by Bush. He managed to destroy years of patient diplomacy with these nations in 10 mins or so. Good work sir!
Wonder what would have happened if he'd been the US President during the Cuban missile crisis. You've gotta suspect that we'd not still be around and the cockroachs would be ruling the world by now with their axis of evil...
They always said that Bush was weak on foreign policy before he was elected. Guess he hired himself Rambo as his National Security Advisor.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Demerzel
The whole "Axis of Evil" speech was a masterstroke by Bush. He managed to destroy years of patient diplomacy with these nations in 10 mins or so. Good work sir!
|
The DPRK "diplomacy" was a joke - they admitted having a weapons development program in place that was a clear violation of the agreed framework, thinking they'd bargain it away for more aid. That weapons program predated the Axis of Evil speech by two years, so there goes any pretense of good faith there.
Saddam's been defying the UN and playing games, and bought plenty of time to mothball and hide his weapons programs, if any. There's no "diplomacy" with Saddam's continuous defiance, I just don't see an adequate casus belli to justify the cost and extent of the US military commitment necessary to thump his ass.
The US negotiated with the Khatami side of the Iranian government, but while Khatami said (and no doubt wanted to do) one thing, Khamanei and his cronies did their thing. I think it was stupid on Bush's part to publicly insult the Iranians, because that undercut Khatami domestically, and forced him to kowtow more to the Ayatollah crowd that he can't be rid of yet, but the other two countries are useless thugocracies. Just not enough so to go to war over.
quote:
They always said that Bush was weak on foreign policy before he was elected. Guess he hired himself Rambo as his National Security Advisor. |
That would be "Ricebo" 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Demerzel
|
|
With respect to diplomacy with Iran & Iraq, true things aren't going particulary well but to undercut everything with his speech didn't help. How he expects any diplomacy to work at all after labelling them evil is beyond me. Relations with Iran had been improving for years, as you say they are still weak but they were improving. Now they're stone dead.
With regards to North Korea, calling them evil was pretty stupid imho. South Korea has been working with the north for years to try to calm down the situation, re-open links and allow some travel between the two countries. It had been working, a rail link was created and families who hadn't seen each other for decades had got to reunite.
Then Bush said North Korea is evil, which naturally causes the North to get all pissed off and the South to have to deal with the fact that its in their interests to sort things out with the north but to also keep the US on their side. If they agree with the US then they lose any hope of dealing with the North and if they sympathise with the north then the US gets all annoyed.
It's not just US diplomacy that was affected by Bush's speech, the EU's work is tainted with the same brush as affects the South Koreans as I mention above. Being allies of the US these days is pretty fraught with difficulties, I'd hate to be a diplomat for one of them. Every day you'd wake up and think what Bush quote will I have to deal with today?
*edit*
good point Cheney is possibly just as bad - maybe the majority leader as 3rd in charge could take over? or you Americans could just demand comprehensive new elections?
with regards to the US needing UN approval, Bush has already said he'll go to war with or without the Security Council asking for it. That's what worries me, he's prepared to be unilateral on the subject and ignore everyone else if he feels its right. The question is his judgement seems suspect at the moment, far too hawkish - you'd want a bit of congressional oversight at all times surely?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Demerzel
|
|
we'll see whether it's wise or not, I'm prepared to be persuaded but the way that Bush is portraying himself as bloody-thirsty at the moment can't be wise.
As mentioned above, he risks looking a complete fool and being completed unsupported after all his comments and I suspect that he'll go to war regardless. Can't say I would want to be in the armed forces right now and risk being killed so that Bush can get his approval ratings up.
Btw MtG, I'm astounded that you think that most of the middle eastern arab countries are american lackeys. I think that most of them are trying to grapple with the problem of doing the right thing at times ( e.g. work with the US to free Kuwait ) whilst keeping themselves in power with often the majority of their peoples against their policies. Fragile balancing act. Most of the countries there are very new in most senses having being ( re- ) created after the first world war. The leaders probably see the reason in removing Saddam for stability but are not anxious to have the US just go gung-ho when it feels like it. Having the UN be involved in the process validates it in that due process will need to be observed. That way they can do the right thing without risking discontent.
Remember too that hardly any, if any at all, of the arab middle eastern countries are democracies. Yet not surprisingly, the US deals quite happily with them. As observed elsewhere, America often deals with extreme dictators whilst refusing to deal with moderate democracies. They've gone to war to defend non-democratic countries like Kuwait, where torture occurs and was commonplace allegedly after Iraq was outed, but not gone to war to defend democratic countries ( maybe the lack of oil in those countries was decisive?  ).
Note, I've used America in the paragraph above but you could easily substitute every instance above with a fair few countries. It's just that America ( by that I mean Bush ) is now on the warpath after 11 years to remove Saddam by any means fair or foul and it's interesting to note how things work.
I suspect I've not made my point half as well as I'd hoped but I'm rather tired right now and should be in bed. Sadly I'm tired but not sleepy - so here i still am at 1.35am...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Demerzel
|
|
I should rather have said that America has dealt happily with non-democratic nations before and not tried to change their status whilst trying to force more democratic nations into change. America worked happily with Iraq and Saddam Hussein for years and sold him weapons for his armed forces, even when they ( & chemical agents ) were used against his own citizens.
Now consider Saudi Arabia, it's a Kingdom and is not democratic in the slightest. Yet America has not done anything about it, nor has it done anything with Kuwait which is likewise non-democratic. I believe there were serious accusations of torture conducted after the gulf war and corruption issues. Yet if this is indeed true, then these issues have been ignored whilst countries which are far more democratic are interfered with.
quote:
After the restoration of the amirate government in 1991, there were many reports of beatings and torture to extract confessions from suspected collaborators. The Department of State estimated that forty-five to fifty Palestinian and other foreigners were tortured to death by police or military personnel. As many as 5,800 persons, mostly non-Kuwaitis, were detained on suspicion of collaboration during the four months of martial law that followed the country's liberation.
|
It's simplistic and no doubt completely facetious but it really does seem that the US & most other nations will ignore the wrongs if something like oil is on the cards.
As you say, you have to deal with non-democratic nations and try to resolve things diplomatically whenever possible. I just feel its a bit iffy of Bush to use the "liberate and democratise" line with Iraq when its just an excuse for his agenda rather than something real. There are plenty of nations out there to liberate and democratise but how many will be?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Demerzel
|
|
I seem to remember they promised, a couple of months ago, to release a dossier containing all the information needed to persuade people of the case for war. Well we're still waiting and no document afaik.
Not sounding good really is it? We're going to war lads but we can't give you any information whioch would prove our case to you! Trust us!
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-01-2003 04:39
|