How long will it take to repair the damge to America done by the Bush regime

[Ted Striker]

The only point the UK laid out that I thought was unrealistic was to have Saddam go on TV to his own people and lay out all his arms.

There was no way he'd do something humiliating like that.

But hey if it gets the show on the road faster...

[germanos]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


The 2 things are intimately linked. It was the US reaction to 9/11 which has caused the current deep rift. Instead of building an international coalition the Bush Administration quickly started alienating international support with its unilateralism. Its a peculiar mix of international activism and isolationism. It seemed to be quickly forgotten that every Western country lost people in 9/11, not just Americans.

You would have to say that sadly the 9/11 attack has been extraordinarily successful in weakening the Western alliance. Many good things now hang in the balance - NATO, EU integration, the world trade round, the United Nations to name but 4. Worst of all, this militarism is a massive distraction from global economic recovery. Looks like Bush is making similar mistakes to his father - its the economy stupid!!!

I completely disagree that it is the 9/11 attacks that has caused the rift and wekening in the alliance.
Many people and governments are struggling with the matter since they know the terrorism of 9/11 must be countered.
Yet they know the path that Bush' path on Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. There simply are no links between 9/11 and Iraq.
So they are faced with the terrible dilemma that they should (and want) to support a 'war' against terrorism and aid the latest victim of terrorism, but yet know that what is currently happening with the Iraq issue is only taking away valuable resources from the struggle against terrorism.

The first reaction of the US (Afghanistan) has received widespread support.
The war on Iraq is a completely different ballgame.
Hence I disagree that it is 9/11 that has brought the rift. It is Bush' ridiculous policies that have nothing to do with 9/11, other than that Bush might have been traumatized by the event and made him loose his judgement.

[DanS]

What AH says with regard to unilateralism is totally bizarre. Bush created an extremely large coalition on terrorism. AH must be blind.

The only thing that I would grant is that this coalition is largely built of bilateral relationships, with the US at the center. In this sense, the relationships do not support past alliance structures. Nor do the past alliance structures support the coalition.

The reason why this is scary to the rest of the world is that this is the realization of a largely unipolar power system. Even with a preponderance of military power, a case can be made that the US doesn't have the overall power to institute such a system successfully. If unsuccessful, the result would be a hodgepodge of two broken systems.

[Dis]

how can oil have anything to do with it when all the oil will be torched?

I do think he will torch that oil. Those fields will be of little use for a long time.

[Dis]

AH maybe you can help me here.

I heard some Australian guy is bringing up the fact that there is a little known clause in the U.N. charter which allows the U.N. to take action even without security council approval if a nation such as the U.S. and U.K. goes attacking other countries without provacation. Supposedly it says the U.N. can take any action deemed necessary up to the use of force.

So how likely is it for the U.N. to attack the U.K. or the U.S. by force?

I know, that is completely unlikely. Economic sanctions are much more likely.

[KrazyHorse]

Dan: Bush didn't build crap. The coalition lined up at his door in sympathy (Europe) and opportunism (much of the rest of the world).

He then proceeded to break what had been handed to him.

[Guest]

How's the UN gunna do that?

It has no Army!

Just goes to show how much of a joke the UN is.

It's only value is when everyone agrees, which as the current case shows, is almost always going to be never.

[Dis]

remember France has an army.

Err, well you are right, they have no army

But it is possible that the U.N. could levy economic sanctions against the U.S. and the U.K. for their unprovoked attacks on another nation.

But that would hurt the countries levying the sanctions as much as the us, so I doubt that will happen.

[HolyWarrior]

Re: How long will it take to repair the damge to America done by the Bush regime

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

the usual leftist rant

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by DanS
What AH says with regard to unilateralism is totally bizarre.

Unilateralism is official Bush Administration policy, not something I made up.

Go and read Wolfowitz's famous article about maintaining US hegemony. Read the Axis of evil speech again.

"Bizarre" is not the word I would have chosen to describe Administration unilateralist policy, but it does certainly have bizarre aspects - like tearing up important alliance relationships just so you have a war with a fourth rate cardboard villain and insignificant spent force nobody like Saddam Hussein. That is truly bizarre, I have to agree.

He's so beneath the contempt of The United States and other civilised countries, I really don't know why you bother puffing him up the way you have, almost to equal billing with your President on the world stage. Bizarre indeed.

[HershOstropoler]

Also seems Bush has managed to lose the global popularity contest with Saddam. Now that's an achievement.

I used to think the rightwing extremists' ramblings are funny (hegemony, sure ), but with the Bush admin and especially 9/11 they got real policy traction.

As for the obsession with Iraq, I don't get it either, but I never understood political extremists and I doubt they can be understood. Bush and co had two agendas: Tax cuts and war on Iraq. With 9/11 it took them just a second of surprise to ramble "see? SEE? we need tax cuts and a war on Iraq!". If california got wiped out by an earthquake or aliens invaded, they'd call for tax cuts and a war on Iraq.

Hmm... probably they are just postbots who mutated into policybots...

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler

I used to think the rightwing extremists' ramblings are funny (hegemony, sure ), but with the Bush admin and especially 9/11 they got real policy traction.

This is the direct link between 9/11 and Iraq - 9/11 let the neo conservative unilateralist Hawks off the leash and put them in charge of US foreign policy.

Settling scores with Iraq - mainly to show America is "strong" - has been a long term goal of theirs - again see Wolfowitz articles. See also the open letter Wolfowitz, Perle amd Rumsfeld signed even before Bush came to office.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Also seems Bush has managed to lose the global popularity contest with Saddam.

Kind of makes you think doesn't it? If the world thinks that Saddam is the good guy then no wonder the US is prepared to go it alone. Poor little Saddam. I am glad that the world understands him finally. Maybe they can erect a monument recognizing his achievments in Europe someday.

[HershOstropoler]

"Kind of makes you think doesn't it?"

It should make you think.

[Lincoln]

It does. I think that the left will celebrate anyone regardless of how vile they are if they oppose Bush for any reason. You people are motivated by hate and envy. I think about that quite a bit. There must be another life besides criticizing the US no matter what we do. Try and find another outlet for your hate.