Time for democrats to admit they underestimated President Bush

[Sava]

It's called being facetious... but I don't blame you for not being able to pick that up.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Ned, according to King Hussein of Jordan, it was not Saudi Arabia who called in th Americans, but the US who told Saudi Arabia that 'we are coming, so you better ask us.'

Che, We can only ask Bush and the Saudi's. However, one can find reports and histories on the Web that state that the Saudi's gave Bush a call. Perhaps he called back after consulting with Powell and Chaney and said we are coming to help you.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Sava
It's called being facetious... but I don't blame you for not being able to pick that up.

you should have used a smiley.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The other countries are important only in that they may provide some money and that their 'support' helps to calm the sheep who feel we have to have a group-hug before we take action against an enemy.

I'm sure glad you don't run foreign policy.

The ally structure the US has built up is essential to it's position of dominence. Without it, the US has problems in the future.

Thats true, of course, but the UK-US alliance/friendship has lasted for more than 50 years. I cant think of any other two modern countries with such a relationship.

*cough* US/Canada, US/Australia, US/(West) Germany, etc, etc.

But again, I don't consider you to be a credible source on anything.

Likewise. And more people consider you of less credibility than anyone else on this forum (and yes I'm including Fez).

[Ming]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And more people consider you of less credibility than anyone else on this forum (and yes I'm including Fez).

Oh please... let's discuss the issues, and not toss insults at other members.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sorry, but the target just asks for it.

[Ming]

Attack the arguments... not the person... That's all.

[DanS]

Re our foreign power, it is pretty weak, if our goal is hegemony. It's sufficient to do most good things, though.

Re our foreign policy, it makes sense to say that you will act a certain way, even though we know that we can't do it very often. It was quite useful for us to say that we would go it alone in this situation, if needed. Every time we said this, people could measure how much importance we placed on it.

Re Bush's approach on all of this... It sounds like he's getting most things right, approximately. Definitely misunderestimated by most.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I'm sure glad you don't run foreign policy.

Shall we can infer that you fear that America cant act independently from other countries? Should we ask permission before we protect our interests? Please Mr. Annon may we go and kill Al Queda?

The ally structure the US has built up is essential to it's position of dominence. Without it, the US has problems in the future.

Its easier to take action with help, but its not imperative in any way.

Originally posted by SpencerH
Thats true, of course, but the UK-US alliance/friendship has lasted for more than 50 years. I cant think of any other two modern countries with such a relationship.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
*cough* US/Canada, US/Australia, US/(West) Germany, etc, etc.

Cough all you want. Neither Canada nor Australia has the same relationship with the US as the UK does. Germany doesnt even come close. Aside from NATO, our relationship with Germany is on par with our relationship with France.

It may be argued that Canada and Israel are Allies of the US but I would point out two things: the growing anti-US sentiment in Canada over the tariffs and other issues, and that our close support of Israel has really only been in place since Carter-Reagan. Since that time there have been several publicized accounts of Mossad activities in the US that IMO are not the actions of an ally.
[/QUOTE]

[Imran Siddiqui]

Shall we can infer that you fear that America cant act independently from other countries?

Because of the hegemony built up with the help of allied countries, the United States is able to act independently more often. However, even though the US CAN act independantly, usually the allies have been informed in order to keep the pecking order as it is and prevent dissent in the ranks.

You see what has happened with Bush's actions. The pecking order is being upset. Allies are grumbling. It doesn't hurt us so much now. But what happens when another country begins to challenge US hegemony? My bet is that if we continue on this path, the allies will become better allies of the rising power and lead them to hegemony over us.

Cough all you want. Neither Canada nor Australia has the same relationship with the US as the UK does.

BS! Canada is the US's best friend, NOT the UK. Simply because the UK is more valuable doesn't mean they have a more 'special' relationship with the US.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Simply because the UK is more valuable doesn't mean they have a more 'special' relationship with the US.

This back and forth over who "Dad" likes best is quite amusing.

[DanS]

I think the pecking order could use some shaking up.

[Ned]

If one thinks back to the post WWI era, Britain acted pretty much as we do today under Bush. It, with its close ally France, set the agenda in world affairs. It and France (with Poland) alone declared war on Germany. However, they had Roosevelt as a silent partner. I do not recall Britain first obtaining Roosevelt's consent for a declaration of war. Clearly, had they asked, Roosevelt would have had to say no. Fully 76% of the American people opposed American involvement in the European war.

The problem of our invovlement then was that the Brits and the French were colonial powers. They were not perceived to be acting for higher principles, such as democracy or human rights.

But, as events unfolded (manipulated by Churchill and Roosevelt) the US did eventually join the British-French alliance. But we did so with the understanding that we were fighting for democracy. We wanted to destroy dictatorships and to break up the Japanese Empire. As a condition of our support for Britain and France, we asked the same of them - that they give up their empires. They agreed to it.

This new, pro democracy alliance is the same alliance that we find today, but with France dropping out to a degree. The British and the US today set the agenda virtually as much as Britain and France did before WWII.

But, there was a time prior to G. W. Bush that we failed to truly lead. Bush's father was dragged into the Gulf War, and ended up leaving Saddam in power and pulling the plug on the Kurds and Shi'tes because of the insistence of the Arab members of the Gulf War coalition. Clinton was dragged into Yugoslavia by the Euro's. In testimony before Congress, Clinton's sec. of state testified that they could do no more than shoot a few cruise missiles at Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan because we had concluded that we could not build a consensus for a ground war.

In my view, the multi-lateral approach of Bush Sr. and Clinton, while popular among the Europeans, is ultimately ineffective. Coalitions can be manupulated by the opponent so that any action will be muted to keep the "weakest" link part of the coalition. The better approach appears to be that taken by Britain prior to WWII and by the present alliance of Bush and Blair - lead. State clear objectives. Ask that others join us, but do not condition action on their consent.

In a recent poll, the American people approve of Bush's Iraq policy by a whopping 68% approve to 18% disapprove. He has also lined up the UN 15-0, and now has obtained the unanimous support of Nato.

Bush must be doing someting right.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Btw, what are the Arab numbers for support on invading Iraq?

You do realize a ****load of oil comes from there, no?

Oh, and nice comparison to Britain during the interwar period. You do realize Britain is now trying to kiss our ass. I wonder in the next 100 years who's ass the US will be kissing? Will it be China when they get to be the next hegemon?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Btw, what are the Arab numbers for support on invading Iraq?

You do realize a ****load of oil comes from there, no?

Oh, and nice comparison to Britain during the interwar period. You do realize Britain is now trying to kiss our ass. I wonder in the next 100 years who's ass the US will be kissing? Will it be China when they get to be the next hegemon?

Words fail me in the light of your knowledge of history and political science.