's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

unilateralism(8 posts)

Jul 7, 2003 10:47 AM
seems like this is where bush is headed. after sept/11 he had almost the entire world's support and then instead of using this to his advantage he basically turned into the tough guy abd said we will kick any country's butt that doesnt do things "our" way and proceeded to do just that. is the damn the torpedoes approach the best for the country in the long run? how much have foreign relations been hurt by a president who seems to live by the "my way or the highway" motto?
re: unilateralismTJeanloz
Jul 7, 2003 11:54 AM
A large group of people believe that the United States, as the worlds sole remaining superpower, has the responsibility to look after the best interests of everybody in the world. Foreign relations are a two-way street, and for a long time it has been the United States doing all the giving and getting nothing in return.

I wish somebody could explain to me why appeasing foreign constituencies is so important to the United States. I'm not saying that we should go around the world carrying a big stick, but I thought Mr. Bush's comments late last week about giving aid to Africa were spot-on (in case you missed it, the gist was: we have money, we will give it to you, but you need to prove to us that it's being used for the things you said it would be). I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for another country to do things their own way. If you want my money, you do it my way.

Some people also make the claim that this attitude is what was responsible for September 11, which is an arguemnt that I find uncompelling, given that the planning for this attack, as well as other terrorist attacks, began under the kinder, gentler, Clinton Administration (nor do I blame Clinton).

So, I suppose my question is, in the long run, why is a gentler policy better?
maybe not a gentler policyColnagoFE
Jul 7, 2003 1:07 PM
but maybe a bit more diplomatic policy. i don't support giving money to african dictators either, but i don't think you are going to get much done if everyone hates your guts and you have to bomb every country that disagrees with you into submission. it doesnt hurt to try and work things out diplomatically instead of simply flexing your muscles and cowing countries into doing things your way or else.
You really should try a realistic viewpointNo_sprint
Jul 7, 2003 2:07 PM
Everyone hates us? Really? Bomb every country that thinks differently? LOL Hardly. If comparing the current administration to others, the prior administration had more wars than the current. Search for the Clinton wars.

So far, for this administration, diplomacy with the one country we've gone to war with had been tried by the world for a decade. A maniacal murdering country invader made great promises to the world, didn't keep them and paid for it by getting ousted by a coalition of over 50 supporting countries at last count. I'd consider other conflicts in the past, much more of a unilateral movement.

On to Liberia, we were asked to go there, Bush isn't making the decision on whether to send troops. That ruler is splitting, is convicted by the UN and asked for a peacekeeping force during transition.

Our country has had to change after 9/11. Just because you might have forgotten, I'm glad our leaders haven't.
TJeanloz and No-sprint you both ...Live Steam
Jul 7, 2003 7:19 PM
understand why things are the way they are. The Bush haters would and will be Bush haters no matter what he does. They pick and choose the information they deem appropriate to support their argument and their disdain for GW and the Republican party. TJeanloz your assessment of the 9/11 disaster was spot on. It was planned well in advance of GWs term in office. His policies had nothing to do with the vile behavior exhibited toward the US. You are also correct about our "new" approach to diplomacy. The old way obviously didn't work well either.

Let's look at NATO for example. The members of NATO sold out Turkey for considering to give the US access through their borders. Not for actively participating in the war, but for simple access. With friends like that, who needs enemies? I am not putting Turkey on some pedestal because they too had ulterior motives. But they at least were willing to step aside and not hinder or jeopardize lives of American soldiers.

No-sprint forget about the 50 country coalition. It does not exist in the eyes of the naysayers. The left is choosing their own poison on this. I believe they are doomed even more in the next election if they hit too hard on WMD and anything associated with the war and 9/11. Should another attack happen on US soil or in some other "friendly" nation, the American people will want more aggressive action taken and not less. The argument that our aggression will cause more acts of terror is bunk. These extremists will perpetrate these heinous acts no matter what tactic we use. Our only hope is to keep the pressure high and eliminate as many of them as possible to destroy their will to act. We must also attack them financially. All I can say is we need to be ever vigilant. For some of you genius' like MJ, Rerun and whom ever, look up the word vigilant and it's roots.

We here in the US have for too long been leaned upon when convenient and have also been double-crossed on many more occasions. The European Union is trying to make itself relevant at the expense of the US - GB excluded. The one thing they don't understand is we don't need them. They need us.
"The Bush haters would and will be Bush haters....bboc
Jul 8, 2003 8:11 AM
no matter what he does"

Just as you sir, a Bush lover, would and will be Bush Lover no matter what he does. You are just as guilty of blind observance as the liberals that you accuse.
Sorry, but you are wrongLive Steam
Jul 8, 2003 8:31 AM
If Bush is "proved" to have mislead us then I will be the first to crucify him. I also don't agree with many of his initiatives. I don't believe that the government should be responsible for our prescription drug care. I also don't agree that we need to be policing the entire world. I understand why he wants us in Africa, but I think we could keep tabs on that situation in a less overt manner. Do I like his "rah rah" attitude? Yes! We needed someone like him after 9/11 and still do. Nothing has changed since 9/11, so I am not sure why some of your attitudes have changed since then. After 9/11 everyone was united and quite nationalistic. I guess everyone got back into the slovenness of their own daily existence to care about the greater good of the country. Every other foreign national can be nationalistic about their country of origin, but when an American does it is branded as jingoism. I hate that.
Putin and unilaterialismSteveS
Jul 8, 2003 7:54 AM
You guys are doing well and I agree with your assesments, other than the original poster. I just finished reading an article where Putin is being interviewed by a Malaysian paper prior to going to visit this muslim country. One should note that suicide bombers (ostensibly Chechen Muslim females) murdered something like 13 people the other day in Russia.

Putin was asked a question about counter-balancing the power of the U.S. and he agreed that we are reading from the same sheet of music other than Iraq. Maybe. Then he warns of unilateralism. From my standpoint, if he is speaking of the collective efforts of the world to destroy terrorism, with every country playing a part, well and good. If he means for the U.S. to sit on it's thumb while anti-American street people protest any action, forget it. Obviously it is better if the world is united in opposition to terror and shares the costs in the effort, but it is obvious that large segments of Europe (in particular)are going to be of little or no use in the effort, if not worse.

Putin went on to say that one should recognize the roots of terrorism as poverty and it appeared to be he referred to the lack of the Israelis and Palestinians to compromise for peace. This is where Putin, like so many others, hasn't come to clarity. Poverty is not the root to Islamic terrorism, not financial poverty. There are vast numbers of impoverished peoples throughout the world that are not turning to religion-incited murder/terrorism to work their way out of poverty. That technique is prominent within the Islamic world only.

Since I didn't memorize Putin's interview, I don't remember his words clearly, but I got the distinct impression that Putin felt that the terrorists had to be destroyed (killed) rather the old "can't we all get along?" refrain. The implication being that there is no peace with the terrorist crowd.

In the end, it seemed he was confused, realizing Russia had to deal with the Chechen terrorists but opposed to the U.S. taking a pre-emptive lead (Iraq) and calling for multi-laterialism whereas it would seem unlikely that Russia would sit on their collective thumbs waiting for the Euros and third world to agree for Russia to protect itself from Islamic terrorism. Combine that with a threat to destroy the terrorists at the same time that he claims that poverty and lack of compromise in problems in the Middle East and the result seems to be a lack of clarity in his thinking.

I think I will take a break and try to visualize world peace. It seems to me that some famous religious teacher said that there would always be the poor. If that is correct, then visualization may be our only way to peace as terrorists will always be active, at least until they become multi-millionaires like Osama bin Ladin.Then, peace will reign.