Bush's 'Americanized' foreign policy.

[Lord Merciless]

Idealists are more dangerous than pragmatists.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MrFun
I'm afraid if I repeatedly visit this thread, I will lose count on how many times Imran uses the sticking-tongue smilie.

Counting... it's fundamental .

Spiffor, would you consider Reagan an idealist?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Counting... it's fundamental .

Spiffor, would you consider Reagan an idealist?

Yes -- when I'm cruising, I'm good at counting how many guys I see, that I'm interested in, for instance.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Troublemaker!

Cruising clogs city streets!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Troublemaker!

Cruising clogs city streets!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Spiffor, would you consider Reagan an idealist?

I don't know enough about the specifics of Reagan's foreign policy. I don't know about the deals and compromises he may have done or not.

Reagan for sure wasn't a pro-democracy idealist. He was more than nice with pro-American dictatorships. Again, in the cold war context, especially after Carter's policies, I cannot blame his for taking this pragmatic approach.

But I don't know if he was an anti-communism idealist. His propaganda sure looked like it, with the medieval 'evil empire' and other crusadelike crap like that. But I don't know if his most important policy towards the USSR (the arms race) was first aimed at destroying communism, or aimed at protecting American interests no matter that may be*.

Except for the arms race, I know of no policy that really looks idealistic to me. When both camps were tired of racing, he signed the disarmament treaty. He maintained relationships with communist countries. He didn't seem to favor ethnical unrest in the USSR (or I missed something).

I guess Reagan was sure driven by the willingness to reduce USSR's influence, but I don't think how this goal is different from US' interests at the time, and how it is different from all previous coldwar policies (except Carter's)

---

*I must admit I'm a bit puzzled as to why the two superpowers would enguage in an arm race when both already have thousands of nukes. I mean, how does it matter that the other side get more nukes ? There are already more than enough to make the whole world glow !

(I admit there must be some strategic usefulness to the arm race, other than chest thumping - otherwise the crippled USSR wouldn't have ruined itself even more doing this adventure. But I have no idea what this use mioght be)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well most here consider Reagan the biggest idealist since Wilson (myself included). He was very principled in his idea that the USSR (and communism) was an evil system. He softened his rhetoric later, but it never gave way ("Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall" was in 1988, IIRC). He believe in free markets and human rights, even though he backed those people who were interested in them (his pragmatic side telling him communism was worse... and it was).

[GePap]

Well, Reagan, like Wolfie begun a liberal.

This amdin. is a strange mix. The neo-cons and the trogledytes are using each other, at least in the ME. I dislike the neo-cons becuase of the tennet of thier ideology (just as Bush), and they are very green vis a vi playing the world game. But the article is correct that his admin. is immensely political and is using foreign policy as a club politically (Reagan, besides his age, would have never tried that carrier stunt). The obsessive secrecy of this admin. is also more Nixon than Reagan.

[Spiffor]

I was under the impression that talks about Iraq became insistant during the midterm campaign. I suppose this timing was purely coincidental (well, it sure coincided with the wariness of the population towards the inability to find Bin Laden )

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm kinda worried about this political bent. Yes, it's smart as Hell, but for someone who says his hero (except for Jesus ) was Ronald Reagan, he doesn't seem to act on his idealism.

I kinda like the idea of seperating the domestic politics from the international politics... which interesting his father did (of course some say his father didn't pay any attention to the domestic sphere) . And, of course, I love the elder Bush... at least now, being able to look back.

As a NeoConservative, 43's playing for domestic politics and not ideals tends to trouble me.

And GePap... it's paleo-conservative, please .

[Dis]

Bush is starting to scare me. I originally supported him. But I'm having my doubts. He does seem to have alterior motives. Yes you dems knew this all along. But I like to give people a chance to prove themselves. And Bush hasn't done that yet.

[Jon Miller]

I use to consider Bush to be as bad as any dem

now I think he is worse thana good portion

hence will be voting dem this next time

Jon Miller

[Imran Siddiqui]

But Diss.. his 'alterior' motive is the SAME as every other politician... to get re-elected.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But Diss.. his 'alterior' motive is the SAME as every other politician... to get re-elected.

Ah ha! So THAT'S his plan.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It takes Mr. Fun three years to get it... now I understand how it works .