The U.S. Foreign Policy is working

Originally posted by jsobeckyThe problem is that the world hasn't seen the US stand up for itself in a long long time. They were used to the John Kerry's of the US. Now, we have a president who says what he means, and then delivers. And that frustrates the world.

What do you mean? America has been the world's biggest power since World War 2. Who were the John Kerry's of the US?

The world doesn't like the US because of its actions and its foreign policy not because the US follows that foreign policy. If the world doesn't like the actions, then they don't like the root cause of those actions, which is American foreign policy.

If Bush says what he means, then I am afraid considering he has said things like this...

“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we,” Bush said. “They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”

msnbc.msn.com...

[edit on 20-8-2006 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by Jamuhn
What do you mean? America has been the world's biggest power since World War 2. Who were the John Kerry's of the US?

Of course I'm referring to Kerry's intent to put our decision for pre-emptive action to a "global test". And his meeting with communists in France in the 70's.

But also, the Clintons, who were weak on foreign policy, and others like him.

The world doesn't like the US because of its actions and its foreign policy not because the US follows that foreign policy. If the world doesn't like the actions, then they don't like the root cause of those actions, which is American foreign policy.

I have to wait for my head to stop spinning before I can respond to that.

You cannot open a closed mind. It's a sad fact that some are afraid of being chastised if they happen to look at things in a different way.

jsobecky

And that my friend is why I have had to use the ignore button for the first time ever. I refused to contribute to someone obviously not contributing to the thread and making overt attempts to derail it.

I can debate with you all day and find it immensely enjoyable. That is because you debate, consider and answer with intellect and thoughtfulness even if you vehemently disagree with the post. Others on here have shown a proclivity to dismiss, derail and discount any opinion not their own. Sad really, but I do not have the time for it.

Thanks for your input my friend, I always look forward to your opinions.

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
I can debate with you all day and find it immensely enjoyable. That is because you debate, consider and answer with intellect and thoughtfulness even if you vehemently disagree with the post.

Errrrrrrmmmmmmmm, what did you two Disagree on Something?

Dude!

Okay, Dudes and Dudettes!

Let's stick to the topic of US Foreign policy as stated in the OP.
No more what could be seen as personal attacks or patting each other on the backs.

Just a good debate on the pros and cons of the material quoted in the opening post

The fact that the original post for this thread is the whitehouse website pretty much casts enough reasonable doubt on the information.

After all, does anyone REALLY expect the whitehouse website to announce "our foreign policy is an absolute mess, the world hates us, and Bush's political capital is overdrawn"?

Its one of the more obvious examples of propoganda.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
The fact that the original post for this thread is the whitehouse website pretty much casts enough reasonable doubt on the information.
:
Its one of the more obvious examples of propoganda.

And every nation under the sun uses propaganda in one form or the other. The proof of the pudding is whether there is truth to it. North Korea, for example, posts outright lies for consumption by it's populace.

In this case, however, the truth is obvious. More and more nations are beginning to show their disappointment with NK and Iran. At one time they were supportive of them, or silent at best. Now they are beginning to realize the dangers that these regimes pose to the free world. One example:

UN weighs action against N. Korea
Missile tests called threat to peace
By Farah Stockman and Joe Lauria, Globe Staff and Globe Correspondent | July 6, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The UN Security Council held an emergency session yesterday to consider action against North Korea after the Stalinist state test-fired at least seven missiles, including one long-range rocket that US officials feared was capable of reaching US territory.
:
The European Union, NATO, Australia, and a host of countries condemned the tests, which took place after US military satellites observed the preparations for more than a month and after leaders around the world warned against such an action.

North Korea condemned

And that's from the Boston Globe, a newspaper that is not exactly a friend of Bush or a bastion of conservatism.

Originally posted by jsobecky

And every nation under the sun uses propaganda in one form or the other. The proof of the pudding is whether there is truth to it. North Korea, for example, posts outright lies for consumption by it's populace.

Of course, every country has a propoganda matrix. I didnt say they didnt. But we are discussing the whitehouse claims here. Not other countries.

In this case, however, the truth is obvious. More and more nations are beginning to show their disappointment with NK and Iran. At one time they were supportive of them, or silent at best. Now they are beginning to realize the dangers that these regimes pose to the free world. One example:

UN weighs action against N. Korea
Missile tests called threat to peace
By Farah Stockman and Joe Lauria, Globe Staff and Globe Correspondent | July 6, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The UN Security Council held an emergency session yesterday to consider action against North Korea after the Stalinist state test-fired at least seven missiles, including one long-range rocket that US officials feared was capable of reaching US territory.
:
The European Union, NATO, Australia, and a host of countries condemned the tests, which took place after US military satellites observed the preparations for more than a month and after leaders around the world warned against such an action.

North Korea condemned

And that's from the Boston Globe, a newspaper that is not exactly a friend of Bush or a bastion of conservatism.

I do not see any support of US foreign policy here. Just because everyone agrees that NK and Iran are threats, does not mean they all agree on what should be done, and certainly does not mean that they support Bush's unilateralism.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Or perhaps you could show me even one protest where there were BILLIONS of participants?

Maybe you were asleep Feb. 15, 2003? Millions of people around the world told you with the Iraq invasion...

The February 15, 2003 anti-war protest was a co-ordinated day of protests across the world against the imminent invasion of Iraq. Millions of people protested in approximately 800 cities around the world. According to BBC News, between six and ten million people took part in protests in up to sixty countries over the weekend of the 15th and 16th; other estimates range from eight million to thirty million.

Or perhaps more recently?

More then 30,000 demonstrators filled the streets around the White House today chanting, "Stop the US-Israeli war against Lebanon and Palestine."

The New York Times reported today that the demonstration's "diverse crowd included many Arab-Americans and Muslims, college students and families, as well as veterans of prior demonstrations against the war in Iraq." The NY Times goes on, "thousands of people rallied near the White House on Saturday to protest what they described as Israeli aggression in Lebanon and the United States' unwavering support for Israel

US foreign policy is not appreciated nowhere...except the US itself I guess...and just maybe in the UK. Mmm...Taiwan also comes to mind...and...that's about it.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Semper started this thread with a good point. More and more of the world is beginning to realize that NK and Iran are led by madmen and are threats to world peace. And this is in great part due to the leadership of the US.

Opposed to the US attacking any country deemed an enemy, or with opposing ideology? Led by madmen...well, most likely, but no BIG difference to the US, I'm sorry to say. Leadership of the US with..whom? The US is not precisely surrounded by "allies". Even the UK, concretely it's people starts to reject the US policy.

As for those who cite world opinion, well we don't run the USA according to what Europe thinks, and they don't elect our president.

Thank god we don't

Too bad, so sad.

The only sad thing here really is that the US citizens are scared constantly, by so many "threats", so they need Mr Bush to "protect" them.

Europe is ineffectual and weak.

Mmm...well, Us is by no standard effective, and your "strength" is not growing...so whatever.

Take the current actions regarding the cease fire in Lebanon right now; where are all the French soldiers?

At home, resting peacefully, watching on TV the Israelis break the cease-fire. Same Israelis who in the past have "accidentally" bombed UN positions.

Their "commitment" dropped from 15,000 down to 200. And those 200 won't even be peacekeepers. They will be "engineers".

Well, no wonder France doesn't want to send peacekeepers, why keep their end of the bargain, if Israel breaks at will it's agreements?

They talk a good game, but when the rubber meets the road, they are nowhere to be found.

Maybe the US should send troops, maybe the Israelis won't bomb them...

Maybe if they started kicking in men and money to help out around the world

Help out as in...invading and occupying foreign countries? Or trying to meddle with everyone's internal politics? Thanks, but no thanks.

we'd be more inclined to listen to them. Maybe.

Mmm...well the US certainly doesn't have a history of listening to everyone else...except if that someone else has a couple thousands nukes pointing at them...maybe that's what they need?

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Opposed to the US attacking any country deemed an enemy, or with opposing ideology?

We consider NK and Iran our enemies. We also considered the USSR an enemy at one time.

When did we attack them?

Even the UK, concretely it's people starts to reject the US policy.

Once again, let me reiterate. Public opinion does not foreign policy make.

As for those who cite world opinion, well we don't run the USA according to what Europe thinks, and they don't elect our president.

Thank god we don't.

Yes, or we'd be a second-rate, ineffectual country like many Euro ones.

The only sad thing here really is that the US citizens are scared constantly, by so many "threats", so they need Mr Bush to "protect" them.

Sorry, you're wrong. The US citizens are not "scared constantly".

Take the current actions regarding the cease fire in Lebanon right now; where are all the French soldiers?

At home, resting peacefully, watching on TV the Israelis break the cease-fire. Same Israelis who in the past have "accidentally" bombed UN positions.

Watching TV and breaking their committments. And we should concern ourselves with their opinion?

Well, no wonder France doesn't want to send peacekeepers, why keep their end of the bargain, if Israel breaks at will it's agreements?

It's becoming more and more apparent what your position on Israel vs Hezbollah is.

Help out as in...invading and occupying foreign countries? Or trying to meddle with everyone's internal politics?

Meddling with everyone's internal politics? What was that you were saying about the US ignoring Euro opinion?

Mmm...well the US certainly doesn't have a history of listening to everyone else...

And why should we, when they are incapable of nothing more than "relaxing and watching TV" and breaking committments?

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Of course, every country has a propoganda matrix. I didnt say they didnt. But we are discussing the whitehouse claims here. Not other countries.

I only mentioned it because you brought it up as a reason to discount it.

I do not see any support of US foreign policy here. Just because everyone agrees that NK and Iran are threats, does not mean they all agree on what should be done, and certainly does not mean that they support Bush's unilateralism.

Well, you won't hear any ringing endorsements of American foreign policy from them. After all, they must maintain a facade of sorts for their populace. But as I said before, tacit approval and silence on the matters of Iran and NK are slowly changing to the grudging realization that what we have been saying all along is correct. And that's a good first step.

And believe me, the US would rather not tackle these problems unilaterally. But we also cannot afford to be constantly on the defensive because rogue countries have found that they can ignore UN resolutions. And unfortunately, many countries feel that their responsibility ends with support of a resolution. "Hey, we tried! What else can we do?" is their attitude.

Originally posted by jsobecky
We consider NK and Iran our enemies. We also considered the USSR an enemy at one time.

When did we attack them?

Well...I do remember the US being at war with NK, don't you? And Mr Bush has included it in the "axis of evil", so he'll attack...when he rallies support after a tragedy, like 9/11, or scaring people with lies, like he did in Iraq.

Once again, let me reiterate. Public opinion does not foreign policy make.

Well...eventually, as you know, the current PM will stand down, and a new one, belonging to the "Public opinion" will rise, public opinion should matter in foreign policy. It's the public the one that can pressure it's government to change it's foreign policy, best example? The american citizens during Vietnam.

Yes, or we'd be a second-rate, ineffectual country like many Euro ones.

American ego has no boundaries...well, if you can call Euro countries second-rate, just because they don't have soldiers dying around the world...I'll just laugh...unless you mean Eastern Euro countries...which still gives me a laugh, since they won't be "second-rate" forever. Lastly...never seen a trailer park in Europe...still second rate? Don't think so...

Sorry, you're wrong. The US citizens are not "scared constantly".

Really?? I think I'm very right, just sit one day to watch the news (which is what the vast majority of the US citizens do btw) And it goes from the several colors of alert (that's really funny), to "shocking news" about new diseases, or dangerous medicines, or killers, or violence, or shootings at schools, or whatever...then come to Europe and see how we are scared..."Heat wave getting hotter..."

Watching TV and breaking their committments. And we should concern ourselves with their opinion?

Mmm...breaking their committments...just about as Israel broke the cease-fire. Wonder who would send troops, when Israel has not a great accuracy record regarding UN.

It's becoming more and more apparent what your position on Israel vs Hezbollah is.

And that "apparent" position would be Hezbollah? . Actually, I'd like to see both fanatics stand down, not 1 win over the other.

Meddling with everyone's internal politics? What was that you were saying about the US ignoring Euro opinion?

I was saying the US was ignoring the Euro opinion. Which has nothing to do with Us trying to "liberate" Cuba, or taking a position regarding the Mexican elections, or liberating Iraq, or chasing OBL in Afghanistan. Mmm...or maybe fueling the war in middle east by supporting Israel, instead of making it stand down? That's what I meant by saying, meddling with everyone's politics.

And why should we, when they are incapable of nothing more than "relaxing and watching TV" and breaking committments?

Because you don't want to send some to Lebanon either, and the French won't budge, unless they know Israel and Hezbollah will stand down.
Either side does not seem to be going to do so...why risk a public backlash of "friendly" fire? Or be caught in the wild wild middle east? Israeli trigger-happy "cowboys" vs. Hezbollah's fanatic "indians". (note the parenthesis...)

Originally posted by semperfortisForestlady,
I too would like to know what rights that are protected under the Bill of Rights that you have lost.

I have been teaching Practical Application of Constitutional Law in the Academy for around 10 years now, and I'm not familiar with any repeals. If I missed them, please update me.Semper

Then I would think that you would know that our rights have been and continue to be, seriously eroded. Of course the Bill of Rights has not been repealed, that would be too obvious. No, they continue to pass bills which take more and more of our rights away. These laws themselves are flagrantly unConstitutional. Innocent citizens are not supposed to be spied on by our govt for instance, yet it's been happening big time, more than ever, in our country, with the NSA tapping our phones and heck, even our own phone companies tapping them. Read the Patriot Act, it tramples all over the Bill of Rights. Read our foreign policy statement, written by PNAC, it says that we will pre-emptively invade ANY country that WE DEEM to be a threat. In other words, it's up to the president to decide if someone is a threat to us. It is supposed to be Congress who decides whether or not we go to war, not the prez.

Peaceful demonstrators (protected by the Constitution) have been beaten, even killed, and sent to prison for years when they did absolutely nothing wrong, except express an opinion. This is blatantly against the Bill of Rights. Protesters have been put in cages, yes, that's right, cages just in order to be part of a peaceful protes, in many cases miles away from the event. We have the right to peacefully protest ANYWHERE, ANY TIME in this country, or well we used to. These people were put in cages, sometimes when they had been severely beaten and required medical care. There was a guy who brought his little 11 y.o. sister to a peaceful protest in San Francisco. The cops decided to beat her up, since her brother "should have known better than to bring her here". And don't forget the detainees that have been held 5 years with absolutely no attempt at a trial. Why is that? The Constituion states that the U.S. will not detain anyone without a speedy trial. Now Bush has signed legislature that says that he can detain American citizens for any reason, for as long as he wants to. That is the suspension of Habeas Corpus, a law which goes back to the Magna Carta of 1215. This bill means that our rights have been diminished to a pre-1215 level. Besides that, what possible reason could any govt have for keeping a prisoner indefintely? It is to no one's benefit and I for one, do not want to pay for the incarceration for 5 years of someone who could be perfectly innocent.

I ahve more examples as well, but I don't want to explode my hard drive's memory by listing them here. Besides, BushCo is not alone in the blame, it's been going on since at least the '60's. But Bush has passed probably more laws that are unConstititional than any other president. And we have accomplished not one damn thing in Iraq except to tear down their infrastructure and throw the country into absolute chaos. So much for foreign "policy". There wasn't even an exit strategy planned before invading Iraq.

All of this opens the door for further abuses by our govt. I dont have time now to list all of the ways our Bill of Rights have been infringed upon, nor do I have time to create a list of sources for this info. I have already given you the names of some journalists and websites you might check out. If you really want to find out the truth, the truth is out there but you will need to find it for yourself, just as the rest of us have. I wish you luck in your search for the Truth.

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Well...I do remember the US being at war with NK, don't you?

You should do some research on the civil war, the invasion by NK into SK, and the involvement of the USSR, that preceded America's involvement. Then you'd realize that your choice of "attack" was ill-advised.

And Mr Bush has included it in the "axis of evil", so he'll attack...when he rallies support after a tragedy, like 9/11, or scaring people with lies, like he did in Iraq.

Lies like the missile launches done by NK on the 4th of July? More research needed from you.

Lastly...never seen a trailer park in Europe...still second rate? Don't think so...

Here's a pic of a ghetto in the Czech Republic. Nice place, eh?



And how about Les cites in France? The residents nearly burned Paris down recently.

You need a certain standard of living above that to live in a trailer park.

I think I'm very right, just sit one day to watch the news (which is what the vast majority of the US citizens do btw) And it goes from the several colors of alert (that's really funny), to "shocking news" about new diseases, or dangerous medicines, or killers, or violence, or shootings at schools, or whatever...then come to Europe and see how we are scared..."Heat wave getting hotter..."

The Amerians are tough enough to take the news; it doesn't mean we're scared. It has the opposite effect on us.

Oh, and the "heat waves" .... are you referring to the ones where 3,000 people died while their responsible officials vacationed in 2003?

Mmm...breaking their committments...just about as Israel broke the cease-fire. Wonder who would send troops, when Israel has not a great accuracy record regarding UN.

Some more research needed on your part: Hezbollah broke the cease-fire within hours of it's inception.

And a lesson: You cannot excuse bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.

It's becoming more and more apparent what your position on Israel vs Hezbollah is.

And that "apparent" position would be Hezbollah?

. Actually, I'd like to see both fanatics stand down, not 1 win over the other.

You don't have to defend your support for Hezbollah to me. I couldn't care less.

Because you don't want to send some to Lebanon either, and the French won't budge, unless they know Israel and Hezbollah will stand down.
Either side does not seem to be going to do so...why risk a public backlash of "friendly" fire? Or be caught in the wild wild middle east? Israeli trigger-happy "cowboys" vs. Hezbollah's fanatic "indians". (note the parenthesis...)

No we don't want to send troops either, but we probably will. Because it needs to be done by somebody, most preferably a leader.

And then, of course, you will come back and accuse them of aggression.:shk: France only wants to get involved when things are easy - that's why they are a second-class nation in decline.

And I didn't notice any parentheses.


[edit on 22-8-2006 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by jsobecky
You should do some research on the civil war, the invasion by NK into SK, and the involvement of the USSR, that preceded America's involvement. Then you'd realize that your choice of "attack" was ill-advised.

Well...first, why did NK and SK exist at all?

Despite promises of an independent and unified Korea in the 1943 Cairo Declaration, the United States and Soviet Union helped establish two separate governments in 1948; the communist North and the capitalist South.

Lies like the missile launches done by NK on the 4th of July? More research needed from you.
.

Mmm...well faulty missiles exploding in mid-air (some of them that is) coming from a country starving to death, but made look like Soviet ICBMS, are lies...sorry. And more concretely I meant lies like: Going into Afghanistan after OBL (then he got away, even though the zone was surrounded...what a surprise), or maybe Iraq's wmds, same ones Saddam got help to make from the US. Oh sure, they did found some, but from GW1 and useless... oh...proof there were NO wmds?

Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA’s Europe division, revealed that in the fall of 2002, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice a were told by CIA Director George Tenet that Iraq’s foreign minister — who agreed to act as a spy for the United States — had reported that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction program

Here's a pic of a ghetto in the Czech Republic. Nice place, eh?

Wow...could that be called eastern europe?

And how about Les cites in France? The residents nearly burned Paris down recently.

Les cités you mean, housing projects for poor north african and african inmigrants. Burned down Paris? Not quite...and I believe that was last year, November-September 2005.

You need a certain standard of living above that to live in a trailer park.

Sure you do if you say so.

The Amerians are tough enough to take the news; it doesn't mean we're scared. It has the opposite effect on us.

Sure it has, that's why Bush was reelected, riiiiight. So TOUGH! They invented alert colors because your TOUGH!.

Oh, and the "heat waves" .... are you referring to the ones where 3,000 people died while their responsible officials vacationed in 2003?

Mmm...no, I refer the heat wave of this year, perhaps you missed it. The 2003 event was indeed a saddening thing to see.

Some more research needed on your part: Hezbollah broke the cease-fire within hours of it's inception.

No research needed. Hezbollah broke the cease-fire according to...Israel? They have the same credibility...and I believe more UN than Israel for the case...

The ceasefire in Lebanon was holding by a thread last night after Israel sanctioned a commando raid in the east of the country. Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general, said Israel had violated the truce, and he was 'deeply concerned' about it.

or any number of western media...

Four guerrillas were killed near the village of Hadatha in southern Lebanon on Monday after the group approached an Israeli position "in a threatening way,"

Maybe Gaza?

August 19, 2006 Israeli troops early today arrested the Palestinians' deputy prime minister, the highest-ranking official to be seized since Israel began arresting Hamas members who are figures in the Palestinian government.

And a lesson: You cannot excuse bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.

Tell that to Mr Bush, will you?

You don't have to defend your support for Hezbollah to me. I couldn't care less.

Lol...I don't support either, is that so hard to understand for you , not everything is black and white, unlike what Bush says.

No we don't want to send troops either, but we probably will. Because it needs to be done by somebody, most preferably a leader.

You won't so rest assured you won't have anymore soldiers dying foolishly for a stupid cause. A leader would put a leash on it's dog, which in the US case is Israel, and tell the Russians to pressure Iran to put a leash on theirs, Hezbollah. Instead, US just supports Israel, and makes no pressure for a lasting cease-fire.

And then, of course, you will come back and accuse them of aggression.:shk: France only wants to get involved when things are easy - that's why they are a second-class nation in decline.

I would have no reason to...unless of course that meant US decides to stick around as in Iraq, and "rebuild" the country, and arresting the "terrorists", or anyone for the case that might oppose the US staying, and send them to Gto...instead of just upholding the ceasefire...

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Well...first, why did NK and SK exist at all?

Despite promises of an independent and unified Korea in the 1943 Cairo Declaration, the United States and Soviet Union helped establish two separate governments in 1948; the communist North and the capitalist South.

It still doesn't qualify as an "attack", does it?

Mmm...well faulty missiles exploding in mid-air (some of them that is) coming from a country starving to death, but made look like Soviet ICBMS, are lies...sorry.

Not sure I understand this one. Are you saying that NK didn't launch missiles?

The fact that they exploded in mid-air is irrelevant. The intent is what matters.

And more concretely I meant lies like: Going into Afghanistan after OBL (then he got away, even though the zone was surrounded...what a surprise), or maybe Iraq's wmds, same ones Saddam got help to make from the US. Oh sure, they did found some, but from GW1 and useless... oh...proof there were NO wmds?

Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA’s Europe division, revealed that in the fall of 2002, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice a were told by CIA Director George Tenet that Iraq’s foreign minister — who agreed to act as a spy for the United States — had reported that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction program

Been discussed on ATS ad nauseum. And taking the word of an Iraqi FM? Riiiight!

Burned down Paris? Not quite...and I believe that was last year, November-September 2005.

Recent is relative. And they did a lot of damage.

Sure it has, that's why Bush was reelected, riiiiight. So TOUGH!

Tougher than John "Put it to a global test" Kerry.

No research needed. Hezbollah broke the cease-fire according to...Israel?

Yep. If Israel was lying, they would have lied for a reason, like to restart full-scale hostilities. But they didn't.

Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general, said Israel had violated the truce, and he was 'deeply concerned' about it.

I know who he is. And suffice it to say, he would not have been so deeply concerned over Hezbollah's infractions.

Lol...I don't support either, is that so hard to understand for you , not everything is black and white, unlike what Bush says.

Most tough decisions are black or white. Appeasement for all sides is sometimes the worst option.

You won't so rest assured you won't have anymore soldiers dying foolishly for a stupid cause.

Mideast peace is not a stupid cause. I don't know what qualifies as a good cause to you, but I have an idea.

I would have no reason to...unless of course that meant US decides to stick around as in Iraq, and "rebuild" the country, and arresting the "terrorists", or anyone for the case that might oppose the US staying, and send them to Gto...instead of just upholding the ceasefire...

Keep trying to pin everything on the US and Israel. It's not working. And "arresting the "terrorists", or anyone for the case that might oppose the US staying" is pure exaggeration, with no basis, and the mark of a person who is out of ammunition.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Opposed to the US attacking any country deemed an enemy, or with opposing ideology?

We consider NK and Iran our enemies. We also considered the USSR an enemy at one time.

When did we attack them?

We didn't, Becky, but that fact actually supports the other view, not Bush's.

There are norms of international behavior. One of those norms is that nations should not start wars, and that those who do are a threat to peace and need to be opposed.

Strictly speaking, we did not consider the USSR an enemy, because an enemy, properly so called, is a country with which your country is at war. We were never at war with the Soviet Union, unless you count U.S. intervention in the Russian Civil War. Certainly at no time since the entry of the U.S. into World War II was the Soviet Union our enemy, although after the war ended they did cease to be our friend.

When Bush defines nations as "enemies" based not on their having attacked us, but on the argument that they MIGHT do so, and we let him get away with that, we have departed from all standards of civilized behavior and become the world's new barbarians. We are Napoleon, we are Hitler, we are Stalin, we are Genghis Khan. We are the world's enemy, the threat to peace that must be opposed.

Luckily, Bush's star is very much waning, so I doubt it will come to that in the end. He will leave office in a couple of years, disgraced and politically ruined (assuming he's not impeached first), and the policies he has advocated will be repudiated by every serious candidate to replace him.

But at any rate, the problem with America's foreign policy is not that it is unpopular with the world. The problem with it is that it is wrong.

Originally posted by jsobecky
It still doesn't qualify as an "attack", does it?

Oh...excuse me, an intervention , does that sound nicer? My point was the meddling in others politics this I proved...

Not sure I understand this one. Are you saying that NK didn't launch missiles?

Oh, I can help you out on this one...If I stated exploding in mid-air it might be kinda obvious they must have been launched

The fact that they exploded in mid-air is irrelevant. The intent is what matters.

Sure it matters...nevertheless you must not forget they don't work well more so, they are not advanced by any standard, and could not be possibly compared to the threat Soviet ICBMS were. Again point proven, since Bush wants the world to think NK is a threat to everyone , as the Soviet ICBMS were . NK is not a threat to everyone...sorry

Been discussed on ATS ad nauseum. And taking the word of an Iraqi FM? Riiiight!

Over Bush? If a dog could speak and give you his word, it would be more valid than Bush's. Fact is, if your own intelligence told you there were no wmds...the UN told you there were no wmds...then that makes lies out of what Bush said...point proven...again.

Recent is relative. And they did a lot of damage.

I did not say they didn't, yet "burned down" Paris is a bit too much.

Tougher than John "Put it to a global test" Kerry.

Well, I can't say I agree with Kerry on that or that it could have been done...yet I still think it would have been better for the US to have elected him over BUsh. Point was...Bush tries to scare it's people at every chance he has, you said no, because US citizens are "tough"...it's not about toughness, but how much fear the government tries to show them, to pressure them into supporting some whacky ideas Bush has...

Yep. If Israel was lying, they would have lied for a reason, like to restart full-scale hostilities. But they didn't.

Well...they could have just lied not to seem foolish, or untrustworthy. My point was, neither Israel or Hezbollah have real credibility. Israel says it killed 800 militia, while Hezbollah claims 100 and vice versa.

I know who he is. And suffice it to say, he would not have been so deeply concerned over Hezbollah's infractions.

Glad you know who he is, so you know as well he would not make such a statement lightly.

Most tough decisions are black or white. Appeasement for all sides is sometimes the worst option.

The worst option? Would it be that bad for both sides to stop the deaths, and allow each other to prosper? Sorry, but I really differ on that one.

Mideast peace is not a stupid cause. I don't know what qualifies as a good cause to you, but I have an idea.

Lol...but see, Middle East is not what would motivate US intervention. It would be Bush's agenda...that qualifies as incredibly stupid, and not worth the life of a single man of your country. Hell, a single fly...

Keep trying to pin everything on the US and Israel. It's not working. And "arresting the "terrorists", or anyone for the case that might oppose the US staying" is pure exaggeration, with no basis, and the mark of a person who is out of ammunition.

Mmm...trying to pin? No, you might try to see it whatever way you want, yet you said I would call it an agression, and I stated,

Originally posted by ME! I would have no reason to...unless of course that meant US decides to stick around as in Iraq, and "rebuild" the country, and arresting the "terrorists", or anyone for the case that might oppose the US staying, and send them to Gto...instead of just upholding the ceasefire...

That is, only IF the US decided to do such things. Exaggeration? Tell that to the people you hold without trial or charges in Guantanamo , as well as secret prisons in Eastern Europe and Middle Eastern US allies...ok?