President Bush should stop his Clintonian ways

[z edge]

What is going on?????

Remember the Axis of Evil?

Now they are saying we (the USA) have no current plans for attacking Iraq and making a much-needed regime change.

Is this just Agitprop? Or have we abandoned our commitment, and changed our focus with the war on terrorism?

This coming after we curtailed or ally Israel in their own response to terrorism. And we seem to be appeasing the Saudis with our restraint of Israel and our own restraint with Iraq.

And Bush meeting with Putin and agreeing to get rid of nuclear weapons while Pakistan and India seem poised to go to war with their own confirmed stockpiles.

And what if we here in the USA end up fighting a war on 2 fronts with the reminants of the Clintonian military while maintaining a good homeland base against imminent attacks?

What is really going on here?

Should Bush choose to emulate an ex-president, I strongly reccomend for the preservation of our nation he look past Clinton and become a little more Reaganesque.

 

[U2Bama]

Maybe he didn't want to agree with Lieberman about Iraq.

 

[anitram]

Perhaps it's because he knows that the rest of the world isn't even lukewarm about his original plans for Iraq. That's actually putting it mildly.

The support just isn't there. Bush can act unilaterally on a number of issues, but this one is too complicated, and involves too many factors for him to simply ignore world opinion.

JMO.

 

[z edge]

Well I am sorry to say but if world opinion is that then they are ignorant to the possibility of the likes of Iraq developing nukes that have range to Israel or even the USA, and all of their little puppets chiming in. And what about N. Korea and China, if war breaks out the N. Koreans would love the chances to strikes the south while the USA is preoccupied elsewhere (i spent 2 years in S Korea). And whom will China side with. The ramifacations of this are what scares me.

THink about this chess match folks.

 

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by anitram:
Perhaps it's because he knows that the rest of the world isn't even lukewarm about his original plans for Iraq. That's actually putting it mildly.

The support just isn't there. Bush can act unilaterally on a number of issues, but this one is too complicated, and involves too many factors for him to simply ignore world opinion.

JMO.

Nice statements, However, I'm not so sure that the support that really matters is not there.. Wasn't England just touting that Iraq needs to be taken care of.. Also.. Russia.. our apparent new best friends are reported of having our back in this..

I've got more to say on the Mid East situational support/nonsupport, but the Fuente I just finished is forcing me to lay back, watch a bit of Lenny Briscoe, and down a chilled Guinness.

Z.. Rush was going through this exact same story today, and threw out a bit of evidence of how it may be one big ruse.. for multiple reasons.. And that's what I kind of make of this thing.. We'll see though..

L.Unplugged

[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 05-24-2002).]

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Originally posted by Lemonite:
Wasn't England just touting that Iraq needs to be taken care of..

Just to add a quick comment on this subject. The Prime Minister has stated that he would probably give support to a US attack on Iraq, but whether that support would be dependent on the US acting in accordance with a UN resolution is unclear.

However, there is strong opposition to such an attack in the House of Commons. 157 MPs have already signed EDM927 which opposes the UK giving support to a US attack on Iraq. 131 of those MPs are members of the Labour Party (who currently hold office), and a good number of them are MPs who have very rarely spoken out against government policy. There is very significant opposition to any action against Iraq both within the Commons and from the people of the UK. While Blair might offer his support, he's going to have great difficulty in persuading the Commons to approve the use of the British military in an attack on Iraq.

Just briefly, on the suggestion that Bush is becoming more like Clinton, I can understand why you think this. However, you mentioned his response to the situation in the Middle East and I think it's important to remember that the US is still the main supplier of arms to Israel, that the US still does not endorse UN resolutions 242 and 338 (which demand that Israel withdraw to it's 1967 borders and allow Palestinian people the right to return to their homes) and that any criticism of Israel made by President Bush has been extremely mild and immediately followed by strong condemnation of Palestinian suicide bombings. Also, there is a suggestion that Bush's motivation for these actions has been a desire to calm down the situation in the Middle East so it would be possible for the US to consider an attack on Iraq.

On Bush and Putin's agreement to reduce nuclear weapons, remember that they haven't agreed to destory weapons, rather they've agreed to put them in a situation where they can't be used immediately but can be brought back into use should a situation in which they feel this would be appropriate should arise. Also, even without these weapons, both the US and Russia have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over.

And on the suggestion that he's maintaining the same military as Clinton had, I'd point out that this year he approved a $48 billion increase in military spending. Besides, on domestic policy, Bush has taken a far more conservative position on most issues than Clinton ever did. Even Clinton was right-wing compared to many in the Democratic party, but Bush is much further to the right, both compared to others in the Republican party and in general.

 

[Anthony]

Very true, FizzingWhizzbees. In fact, I would go on to say that the current debate in the House of Commons pretty much reflects the rest of the UK - I don't think the UK wants to see Iraq attacked, and should it be, I don't think it would have anything to do with it. The Prime Minister is treading on a very fine line, here.

Ant.

 

[Salome]

Originally posted by z edge:
but if world opinion is that then they are ignorant

that must be it



------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

 

[STING2]

It certainly is. Few if any people around the world understand the military and terrorism risk that the world faces today. Of course, thats nothing new for the United Kingdom and Europe considering their unsuccessful foreign policies towards growing German power in the 1930s and their inability to stop the war in Yugoslavia without US intervention. Europe can and should do better than this.

 

[Anthony]

What?

Primarily, it is better that you do not tread over stuff that happened way back in the 1930s, and start accusing Europe and Britain's policies as 'unsuccesful', atleast they fought when it was time to. If anyone's foreign policies are unsuccesful, its America's in the present moment. And as for that amazing comment about the war in Yugoslavia, US intervention did little else but aggravate the situation.

Just because Europe may not agree with certain approaches the US is taking on this inherently vague war on Terrorism, it is no excuse for you or anyone to amass a collection of distinct opinions under 'they should know better'. We do know better.

I supported the war in Afghanistan, but Iraq would be fool-hardy. I feel that it is misguided, as it is 'unecessary at the moment'.

Ant.

 

[z edge]

Unnecessary until they have enough nuclear weapons to erase Israel, and with their allies come against the USA and possibly Europe?

 

[anitram]

I agree with Anthony wrt Yugoslavia.

I'm sure CNN was very self congratulatory when the whole Kosovo thing went down. Too bad some 250,000 people died for no reason, over the span of a decade.

Walk down the street in any of: Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, and you're likely to hear quite an earful of what really happened there. A number of American politicians there are absolutely reviled, starting with Bush Sr., and continuing on with Holbrooke, who is generally referred to as a "lopov", which means a thief/thug.

Thinking that US foreign policy rescued the situation in Yugoslavia is naive, to say the least.

 

[z edge]

Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees:
and that any criticism of Israel made by President Bush has been extremely mild and immediately followed by strong condemnation of Palestinian suicide bombings.

Well, rightfully so!

Also, there is a suggestion that Bush's motivation for these actions has been a desire to calm down the situation in the Middle East so it would be possible for the US to consider an attack on Iraq.

Well see I buy into this one, as I have speculated on it before and have heard it speculated on, perhaps this is the Agitprop.

On Bush and Putin's agreement to reduce nuclear weapons, remember that they haven't agreed to destory weapons, rather they've agreed to put them in a situation where they can't be used immediately but can be brought back into use should a situation in which they feel this would be appropriate should arise. Also, even without these weapons, both the US and Russia have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over.

Good point, thanks for bringing it up

And on the suggestion that he's maintaining the same military as Clinton had, I'd point out that this year he approved a $48 billion increase in military spending.

True I am evidence of that with my job. $48 billion sounds like a start, and it is going to take a long time to turn this thing around. The fastest growing segment of our economy is the government, perhaps this is the reason

Even Clinton was right-wing compared to many in the Democratic party, but Bush is much further to the right, both compared to others in the Republican party and in general.

Bush is not as far to the right as you think, he is compromising a lot to the likes of Ted Kennedy and Daschle, too much so IMHO




[This message has been edited by z edge (edited 05-25-2002).]

 

[z edge]

Originally posted by Salome:

Originally posted by z edge:
but if world opinion is that then they are ignorant

that must be it

I am not saying the entire world opinion is ignorant to everything. If you had included my entire sentence in your quote I am suggesting that they (if their opinion is such) are ignorant to Iraq, and what they are capable of.

 

[Salome]

I still have trouble believing that if one country's view/opinion is different (on just about any subject) from a lot of/most other countries that you can say that one country is right and the rest ignorant

I don't think any country is ignorant of Iraq's military capabilities
that we might want to handle it in a different way doesn't show ignorance on the subject

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

[This message has been edited by Salome (edited 05-25-2002).]

 

[z edge]

Originally posted by Salome:
I still have trouble believing that if one country's view/opinion is different (on just about any subject) from a lot of/most other countries that you can say that one country is right and the rest ignorant

Opinions differ on the basis of those who have taken action in the past and those who are merely spectators.

One reason I believe that a lot of other countries seem to be opposed of the USA as a superpower and taking military action is because they are not in the same situation as us. The view is not the same too, and perhaps they want us to not have any superiority at all. That probably sounds redundant as I wrote it. As usual, I have a hard time expressing a serious thought for others to consume.

I may edit it later when I figure out how to word it.

I don't think any country is ignorant of Iraq's military capabilities
that we might want to handle it in a different way doesn't show ignorance on the subject

I do, or at least they are ignorant of the capability of their leader Saddam and his possible succesor.

This guy and his son need to be shut down, they will do their best to convert and conquer the entire world to their way and beliefs within their grasp. In given time, they will do so. Thats their big push now to get as many rouge allies they can along the way. Have Al Queda carry out the deeds in the name of religion to busy the USA will neutralizing any possible coalition we have till its just us and their other main target Israel. ANd using Israel as a reason to bring on the unholy in the struggle, throw the US military and admin off guard, while alinging the rouge nations and the puzzle is coming together.

I don't know what the popular consenses of handling this amongst the Europeans is, but consider this. We have fought this army once, we know more about this enemy than you and we have the reason to worry and want to procede to cover up our mistake of complacency and mis-intel back in 1991. I say this with a nod to anyone and everyone who can give advice to us, we should listen and consider it carefully. It's everyones world, and everyone has the right to say and portest so please don't misunderstand me.

But it's my feeling that most of you think we should just let this problem take care of itself, that it will go away if we stop making an issue of it. Wrong folks, thats what I call ignorance, in referring to above. In good faith, best intentions will not prevail without a hearty sacrifice. We have already committed the sin of letting this piece of shit stay in power in Iraq. He has grown more powerful and we will have to pay a price to remove him. It is a price that will scar us forever, yet will save us later should we choose to do the right thing.



[This message has been edited by z edge (edited 05-25-2002).]