The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

Please talk to me about our bully actions. Seriously. I have never considered us to be a bully nation. Are we talking militarily?

In the last century, what can I think of?

Participation in WWI.
Participation in WWII.
Korea.
Bay of Pigs.
Vietnam.
Failed rescue attempt in Iran.
Afghanistan (assisting rebels)
Grenada.
Nicaragua (assisting rebels)
Panama.
Gulf War I, and the extension of it in Gulf War II.
Afghanistan.

I see all of those as reaction to other bullies or as a direct action to protect allies or our citizens. I can see two exceptions to that, being the Bay of Pigs and ousting Noriega from Panama (it was Noriega, right?). We can argue about the logic of particiapting in Korea or Vietnam or helping Afghan rebels when the Soviets invaded (now there's a bully nation, thankfully having returned to dust) or whatever, but how can those things be regarded as us being a bully or an aggressor?

Are we talking economic bullying? I suppose I don't know enough about that to say yes or no.

Are we talking about not giving in to what the rest of the world wants, like Kyoto?

I see bullies out there. Plenty of them. Oppressors of their own people. Saber rattlers who proclaim that Isreal must be run into the sea and that Jews must be exterminated. Warlords who starve people to control them. Plenty of former ones as well that no longer exist, like (Nazi) Germany and the USSR. I do not consider us to be in that company.

Edited to add: I have no doubt my list is incomplete. I have been thinking of others since I posted, most significantly the naval blockade of Cuba.

[Not Afraid]

Well, your list of facts is impressive, but it doesn't seem to help the impression and perception of many others in the world that we are the big bully's as opposed to the benevolent leaders and protectors. It's always a sad wake up call to hear how many citizens of other countries the world over percieve us. It doesn't really matter if the perceptions are based in facts or not, it's a perception that needs some attention IMHO or we will will be in for more terrible catashtophes.

[scaeagles]

Let's look at Somalia. Our primary mission there was humanitarian, if not solely, even to the point that we wouldn't provide troops with armored personel carriers to avoid the appearance of looking like we were trying to be bullies. Did it do us any good? Not in the least. The result was the troops that were there to pass out food ended up getting shot at and killed.

No matter what we do, there will be opposition from someone. Those who perceive our actions as unacceptable or wrong. The simple fact is that in a big world there is no way to please everyone. So you do what you think is best. I realize that this means other groups or countries will do what they think is best. Sadly, this means that conflicts arise. The difference is that we typically win. I won't go into the numerous reasons why we do, but when you are at the top of the food chain economically and militarily, others are gunning for you because they want to be in that position.

In a world of unending conflict, where there will always be conflict, I will make no apologies about being happy that we usually come out on top in those conflicts, because I am on our side. I am not saying in any way that anyone here is not on "our side", but I think many here have an unrealistic view of the world in that conflict can and should be avoided at all costs. I don't think many governments or peoples in the world think that way, though they often play the part when it suits their interests. Considering that I believe us to be the most free country there is (based on rights we have gauranteed to us in our Constitution that no other country has), I want us to be in a position to be able to continue to ensure that freedom. And that means when conflict arises that it is our responsibility and in our best interest to have it come out our way.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Let's look at Somalia. Our primary mission there was humanitarian, if not solely, even to the point that we wouldn't provide troops with armored personel carriers to avoid the appearance of looking like we were trying to be bullies. Did it do us any good? Not in the least. The result was the troops that were there to pass out food ended up getting shot at and killed.

Let's look at the current situation in Palestine. And, because looking at an individual situation in isolation without looking at the larger world picture is particularly pointless, let's combine it with the larger world picture. In fact, let's start with the larger world picture which, for the last three or so years, has been about Bush's drum-beat about freedom and democracy. Freedom and democracy is the Middle East's path to being a player in the world economy without sanctions. Freedom and deomcracy is what we respect. Hold free, democratic elections, and the will of the people will guide your countries to happiness and prosperity!

Unless you elect Hamas.....

Do you see the inherent bullying b.s. of that attitude? Here we are in Iraq, dozens of people dying nearly daily, and our whole message is that we're bringing them the glory of free elections. And yet we turn around and pull the rug out from under the Palestinians, who have just held the freest elections the Muslim world has seen in a long time.

Now, I'm NOT saying I disagree with cutting off aid and political negotiations with Hamas. They are terrorists and until they move the way of the PLO, they should be treated as such. But the lesson that I think needs to be drawn is that we need to shut the hell up with this whole, "Our ways of democracy and freedom are your ticket to splendor" bullsh!t. It's the hypocritical attitude of "We're going to fight for your freedom...as long as it's our brand of freedom!" that gives the US its reputation. By all means, join in support of those fighting for freedom, but running around the world espousing free elections as the one, absolute answer for everyone is guaranteed to land us in this exact position, because there is no absolute answer for everyone.

[scaeagles]

While I see your point, I disagree with your conclusion.

I don't think the point has ever been that free elections is the end to your problems. We have enough problems in our own country to know this is not the case. However, it is a first step.

I am not surprised that the Palestinians voted as they did. They danced in the streets when 9/11 happened (prior to "pulling the rug out from under them", as you put it), and financially support suicide bombers killing innocent civilians. I think this is exactly what was expected. What happened is we went from a position of having to deal with Arafat and the PLO, who were never interested in peace (as Clinton was able to demonstrate when he got Isreal to agree to 96% of the land the Palestinians were demanding and they turned it down), to having exposed them as a country that truly does not desire peace in that they elected Hamas, who as a group has sworn to eliminate Isreal.

You see bullying. I see great foreign policy.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I am not surprised that the Palestinians voted as they did. They danced in the streets when 9/11 happened (prior to "pulling the rug out from under them", as you put it), and financially support suicide bombers killing innocent civilians. I think this is exactly what was expected. What happened is we went from a position of having to deal with Arafat and the PLO, who were never interested in peace (as Clinton was able to demonstrate when he got Isreal to agree to 96% of the land the Palestinians were demanding and they turned it down), to having exposed them as a country that truly does not desire peace in that they elected Hamas, who as a group has sworn to eliminate Isreal.

You see bullying. I see great foreign policy.

Once again you've narrowed your view to an isolated situation, rather than the world perspective. I told you I don't disagree with the decission to not deal with Hamas. I disgree with us throwing our weight around spouting our ideals when we (correctly) don't hold to them when it's convenient for us.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Once again you've narrowed your view to an isolated situation, rather than the world perspective. I told you I don't disagree with the decission to not deal with Hamas. I disgree with us throwing our weight around spouting our ideals when we (correctly) don't hold to them when it's convenient for us.

Once again you fail to see the uniqueness of this situation.

I understand you agree with the decision, and you clearly stated so. I think you are misreading what happened. There was an election. We have not gone in and overthrown the government and installed a different one. We have simply said "OK, you've made you choice. We don't support terrorist governments." It is most certainly holding to two of our foreign policy philosophies, being the pursuit of democratically elected governments and not dealing with terrorists. It is completely consistent with our stated foreign policy goals.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Once again you fail to see the uniqueness of this situation.

I understand you agree with the decision, and you clearly stated so. I think you are misreading what happened. There was an election. We have not gone in and overthrown the government and installed a different one. We have simply said "OK, you've made you choice. We don't support terrorist governments." It is most certainly holding to two of our foreign policy philosophies, being the pursuit of democratically elected governments and not dealing with terrorists. It is completely consistent with our stated foreign policy goals.

I understand all that. But from the perspective of the citizens of the countries we've invaded and have threatened to invade, that's not the message. When we spend 3 years spewing rhetoric about freedom, this looks like complete undermining of what we're spouting.

Madeningly, so much can be fixed simply with a change of attitude, not a change of action. If Bush had focused on the situation at hand, rather than going on and on about the spread of freedom across the world, it wouldn't look nearly as bad. But all of his posturing has set us up to look like bullies.

[Gemini Cricket]

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Wednesday he is resigning, continuing a shakeup in President Bush's administration that has already yielded a new chief of staff and could lead to a change in the Cabinet.

In another move in an ongoing shakeup of the White House staff, longtime confidant and adviser Karl Rove is giving up oversight of policy development to focus more on politics with the approach of the fall midterm elections, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

Source

[innerSpaceman]

I thought Scott McClellan was the worst press secretary EVER. And that's saying a lot!