Why isn't there more talk of the smoking gun memo?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Agathon
This too will pass.

What's the general consensus from diplos you know? I know a guy who was quite high in the Canadian diplomatic service and he keeps in contact with all his old pals. They all think Shrub and co are nuts, including many American diplomats.

let me put it this way - this is very much a politician's war, as is the war on terror.

Its run by staffers and spin doctors, just like that movie "Wag the Dog".

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by DanS


You misunderstand me. The support for military action against Saddam Hussein to remove him from power was a steady 62% for 11 years before Bush Jr decided to do it.

right - populism

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

In hindsight, I don't think keeping the world order stable was more important.

Agreed. The old world order has been falling apart on its own ever since the Soviet Union fell. The Bush administration had a choice between continuing to prop up an ever more untenable status quo or using America's global weight to influence how the next world order will take shape, hopefully in our favor. I think they made the right call, even if I don't approve of many of the details of their execution.

Typical arrogant, self-serving crap from the American right. There was nothing particularly untenable about the status quo. The 1990s were certainly a lot less scary than the preceding four decades. I suppose that we were expected to believe the crap about "rogue states". Sorry, nobody did. North Korea and Iran are never going to be global threats, despite the best efforts of "defense policy analysts" to overturn the obvious.

The fact is that the US faces increasing irrelevance as other areas of the world (primarily China) become more prosperous. Everyone knows this and only Americans and a few others actually care that much. The problem with the account as you give it is that America's attempt to influence the next world order is doing it and the world more harm than good. I guess this is what happens to all empires as they face their downfall - attempts to aggressively stave off the inevitable. It's never worked before and it won't work this time. All it will do is press those who disagree together and give them greater ability to speed your downfall.

People around the world, especially in English speaking countries and the other European countries used to take the American view on things, with perhaps minor modifications. Nobody does that any more. You are regarded as stupid or untrustworthy and any agreement is no longer based on shared ideals, but on toleration.

Shout all you want, people are tuning out. I would have been surprised at how quickly this has taken root if you'd told me this would happen five years ago. Only cranks and silly old tories take the US side now. Even my grandfather (a major league Thatcherite) regards Bush as a menace.

You're losing, get used to it. After all a few Arabs with home made bombs are humiliating your expensive military. If you can't pacify a ****ed up camel-humper refuge like Iraq despite having the world's largest military budget, who are you trying to kid in saying that you have any real ability to force people to take your side?

[Drake Tungsten]

Wow, you almost got me to respond to you, Aggie. Quality work. I might've done it if I didn't think discussing politics would ruin our friendship...

[Agathon]

Nuclear proliferation is a good example. The US engages in blatantly self-serving activities in this regard, and then wonders why North Korea and Iran are developing nuclear weapons at an accelerated rate.

The answer is obvious to anyone who spends a moment to think about it: to protect themselves against aggression - notably American aggression.

[Ted Striker]

We did send the wrong message with the whole Iraq fiasco, which is ANOTHER reason the magnitude of the lie is horrible. We sent an inconsistent message. We invaded Iraq because they couldn't protect themselves. Meanwhile we just sit by while Iran and Korea are doing the very things that we said we would not tolerate.

Moral of the story: Get nuclear weapons before the USA invades you.

The 1990s were one of the best decades ever. Economic growth, reduced crime, and global security.

Nations are now not only pulling back from our diplomatic leadership, they are also questioning our economic globalization model. We are pretty much losing South America as we speak.

[MrFun]

Global security? You mean like when our US embassy was attacked under the Clinton administration?


Not to imply that we should simplistically blame one person for the attack -- Bill Clinton -- but that we should not idealize the 90s as being free of security problems.

[Ted Striker]

There were minor problems, as in every decade, there was the Kossovo war, along with the rest of the Balkans.

Perhaps I should rephrase what I meant:

We weren't bogged down in an indefinite conflict that cost $177 million dollars a day, while trying to fight a global war on terror at the same time.

Nor were we proactivley escalating hostilities against several different nations.

[MrFun]

ok, that is a better description

[Ted Striker]

Yeah, I guess it's the proactive war making part that I was trying to emphasize.

Our defensive capability is still very strong, but it's stetched to the limit, and is costing us alot of money. I am worried about the next threat that appears. Because in my opinion, you don't go looking for trouble because trouble comes looking for you.

Clinton should have been more proactive with responding to existing threats. I think he realizes this because every time someone asks him about Osama and all that, he gets very defenseive about it.

He wasn't as irresponsible as his political enemies try to say, but he could have done more, in retrospect.

The Kossovo thing I still don't understand personally.

[Drake Tungsten]

We weren't bogged down in an indefinite conflict that cost $177 million dollars a day, while trying to fight a global war on terror at the same time.

Nor were we proactivley escalating hostilities against several different nations.

Yeah, we just sat back while Al Qaeda attacked the WTC, American bases in Saudi Arabia, American embassies in Africa and the USS Cole. Luckily those attacks weren't a sign of anything to come.

Passive foreign policy

edit:

Clinton should have been more proactive with responding to existing threats. I think he realizes this because every time someone asks him about Osama and all that, he gets very defenseive about it.

He wasn't as irresponsible as his political enemies try to say, but he could have done more, in retrospect.

Damn, there goes all my fun...

[DRoseDARs]

Aw, did that mean old Ted steal your thunder?

[Drake Tungsten]

Aw, did that mean old Ted steal your thunder?

Yes. How am I supposed to be mean old Drake if people do all my criticizing for me?

[Ted Striker]

On the other hand Bush was proactively tracking down Osama Bin Laden before 9/11 happened.

Wait

[Drake Tungsten]

Bush did indeed make a big mistake by initially following the policy of his predecessor.