Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

George

Blatham quoted Britain, Australia and Spain, countries, whose population really oposed in the majority to the war (nearly 90% in Spain e.g.).

0 Replies

Walter,

Polls conducted by media outlets and advocacy groups are not the forums for the democratic processes of government. Austrailia, Spain, and the UK are all democracies with governments accountable to their people.

0 Replies

Quote:

Blatham now presumes to speak for all the citizens of all the countries that either supported or opposed the U.S. intervention in Iran. He knows that those governments that supported us did so in defiance of the wills of their peoples, and those that opposed us did so in accord with the wills of their peoples.

george
My god, man. Do you bother to attend to any reporting or commentary originating from outside the US? I don't 'presume to speak', I am reporting what has been commonly understood for a year. The citizens, the majority, and often a very large majority of citizens, of Canada, Britain, Australia, Germany, France, Spain - and more - opposed this war. You have three options: you can do some reading, you can check with the folks here from those counties, or you can deny and justify.

Quote:

Further he states that ,
"The US, and particularly this administration, is not terribly interested in democracy at all, nor in freeing oppressed peoples. They are interested in creating markets and in ensuring a level of 'stability' for the maintenance of those markets."
implying that somehow we are different from all the other countries of the world in this. I assume therefore that France and Canada, for example, are solely interested in the spread of democracy and in the freeing of oppressed peoples. France certainly didn't exhibit much interest in this during the two years of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia - in the heart of Europe - that preceded the intervention there demanded and led by the United States. What has Canada done to spread Democracy and free oppressed peoples? (Perhaps they will claim their economic relations with Cuba as an example.)

This portion of my post was a reference most specifically to a post of Timber's earlier where he made this exact claim - that the big picture in US foreign policy emerges out of a fundamental intention to free oppressed peoples from the yoke of terrorism and undemocracy. But of course, that same suggestion is forwarded daily by the White House, and by people on this board. That it is a lie, or a delusion, depending on if you are speaker or believer, is transparent to anyone who bothers to get themselves educated and extricated from the mythologies of American exceptionalism.

And you justify again, george. It makes talking with you a complete waste of time when you do this. Yes, in the matter of deceitful comments about state intentions regarding China, for example, Canada can be as bad as the US ("We are limiting visible protests against the Chinese leader's visit to Vancouver for the safety of the protestors"). Neither government gets excused on the basis of commonality of unethical behavior. Both ought to be horsewhipped for undercutting a fundamental of REAL DEMOCRACY...honesty about what is intended, what is being done, and why.

I made the claim that this administration cannot be trusted to tell you the truth. If the evidence for that wasn't already so overwhelming as to make your protests and defence of the administration look downright childish, take a look at his absolutely transparent untruth...

Quote:

The U.S. government's decision to bar firms based in countries that oppose the Iraq war from bidding on contracts for Iraqi reconstruction projects was not meant to punish them, a Pentagon spokesman said Wednesday.

"Nobody had the intent of being punitive when this was being developed" as the policy, said Larry Di Rita, spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

I'm frankly fed up with deceit by those in postitions of power, and with the abuses of power, and with those who excuse it.

0 Replies

blatham, It always amazes me that people ignore world history when it comes to the actions of the US. Some country will always have the advantage, and it is never given to them, it is faught for by some means of will and politics and mostly by military might.

It has always been this way, a country is going to act in it's own best interest, other countries be damned. Battles have to be carefully chosen and played out, some you win, some you don't. We try to defend democracy when we can, but we are not going to blatantly piss off China.

0 Replies

brand

The implications of your argument are these:

the US is not substantially different from any other imperial or dominating power. Therefore, it ought not to be held to any higher standard. It is justified in using it's military might as it sees fit, in order to further it's own self interest. Agreements made with other states are only temporarily in effect, and ought to be chucked as soon as they appear to limit or reduce that self-interest. What the government SAYS it will do and why, even to its own citizens, is merely a strategic concern. There is, at bottom, no ethical or moral constraint which trumps might and self-interest.

0 Replies

blatham, politics is about interest not morals, morals will be trumped by interest most of the time. It's always been and always will be. In the history of America, this administration isn't all that different. It's a competitive world, nothing is given, no one is in the humanitarian business per se.

0 Replies

brand

Very many individuals, and very many groups are indeed in the humanitarian business. Doctors Without Borders, ML King, kids working for CUSO, folks in your city providing clean needles for IV drug users, nuns risking their lives to bring foods and medicines, folks who turn down the big money offer from Dow and go to work for a UN agency seeking to alleviate the AIDS crisis in central Africa, the politicians who do work their asses off and who do give a damn....it is a very long list indeed of people who put principle and the easing of human suffering above self-interest.

Of course, the most despicable sort of person or agent is the one who claims to have such an intention, but does not. I did some work for an elderly widow recently and she told me of a fellow who had come to give her a quote of some renovations. She'd found his name in some newletter or posting area for seniors. He'd told her on the phone that he specialized in helping out the elderly and that he always cut his price in half for those who had been widowed. He came over, took a look around, and told her that the concrete in her basement had 'concrete cancer', and he'd solve this for her for only X dollars.

Everything is about morals.

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

Do you know of a specific instance where a president stated verbally that military force would be used if needed? I'm thinking the thought had only previously been in writing in the policy, Bush actually said it in an interview.

Sure. On June 27, 1950, Truman declared the "Nuetralization of the Formosa Straights", from which point in time Formosa/Taiwan has been explicity under US military protection from Chinese invasion. In 1953, Eisenhower stated specifically that the US 7th Fleet would " ... stand ready to stop a Chinese invasion of Formosa". In what became known as "deliberate ambiguity", Ike hinted strongly that he would "Consider" the use of nuclear weapons in defense of Formosa ... neither commiting to nor ruling out their use. On August 17, 1954, the US formally "Warned" China that the US would defend Formosa. A formal Mutual Defense Treaty, known as the Knowland Treaty, for its sponsor, Sen. Knowland, was signed by The US and the Republic of China government of Formosa on December 2, 1954, with much public fanfare. For another example, on January 28, 1955, Congress specifically authorized the use of force to defend Formosa. On March 10, 1955, Secretary of State Dulles publicly stated The US was " ... willing to use tactical nuclear weapons in defense of the islands". On March 15th of that year, Eisenhower explicitly stated "A Bombs can be used as you would use a bullet", implying "surgical strike". Is that strong enough for you? If not, plenty of other examples exist.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

the US is not substantially different from any other imperial or dominating power. Therefore, it ought not to be held to any higher standard. It is justified in using it's military might as it sees fit, in order to further it's own self interest. Agreements made with other states are only temporarily in effect, and ought to be chucked as soon as they appear to limit or reduce that self-interest. What the government SAYS it will do and why, even to its own citizens, is merely a strategic concern. There is, at bottom, no ethical or moral constraint which trumps might and self-interest.

I can accept most of the above statement, excluding only the last sentence and adding a somewhat different interpretation of the opening proposition.

Certainly, as the currently dominant power in the world, we should appropriately be judged relative to the other, mostly imperial powers that preceded ius in that role. Indeed, anything else would be illogical, and would defy historical analysis.

Like all countries, dominant and otherwise we act in our self interest as we perceive it. Agreements among states have historically been only temporary in effect, and I see nothing that suggests a change in this rather obvious fact of history. It is remarkable that an informed, educated person would presume otherwise.

All governments shape their public pronouncements to further their policy goals.

Of course self interest and strategic goals trump SOME elements of ethics and morality. Many people in the U.S. campaign to prohibit any government-sponsored program from subsidizing abortion and other practices that they see as immoral. Many others criticize them for imposing their concepts of morality on others and holding others hostage to impractical constraints, doing harm in the process. Governments conduct wars with full knowledge that some innocent people will be killed and otherwise harmed in the process. We do not have agreed ways of either establishing generally accepted standards of ethics or morality or, even in those instances in which there is at least near agreement, of applying moral laws affecting individuals effectively to the behavior of governments.

0 Replies

Quote:

Very many individuals, and very many groups are indeed in the humanitarian business.

Allow me to clarify. How many governments are in the humanitarian business, besides serving the basic population that lives within or under that governments rule. Humanitarian works inside a given government or it's own country is among it's primary functon. In other words, where would humanitarian works abroad be compared to other interest, near the top, middle, or toward the bottom of the list? It's a matter of prioritizing the needs of your own country. Even if you say you promote and defend democracy, logic and best interest sometimes take precedent over intensions and wishes.

0 Replies

brand

Governments too can be, and have been, in the humanitarian business. Tax dollars from most wealthy western countries are directed to such efforts either directly, or via external agencies such as the UN. People from many nations, representing the military of their nation, do peace-keeping and other humanitarian-directed activities.

You see, the thing is, I believe that Timber's statement about what the US is up to is precisely what the US OUGHT TO BE up to, but isn't, other than in piddling and quickly cancelled out ways. So whenever Bush or another administration official or a supporter CLAIMS this to be their goal, I just want to chuck my cookies.

george

Your argument takes away any and all grounds for all other nations (and their citizens) to consider the US as anything other than amoral predator. Perhaps it is this conclusion upon which we might finally agree.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Your argument takes away any and all grounds for all other nations (and their citizens) to consider the US as anything other than amoral predator. Perhaps it is this conclusion upon which we might finally agree.

On the contrary, I believe our historical record so far in trhe ranks of the "typical amoral dominant powers", is quite good indeed -- certainly far better than those of France, Germany, Spain, the Soviet Union, or the British Empire. I can't think of another better. Can you????

0 Replies

Quote:

brand

Governments too can be, and have been, in the humanitarian business. Tax dollars from most wealthy western countries are directed to such efforts either directly, or via external agencies such as the UN. People from many nations, representing the military of their nation, do peace-keeping and other humanitarian-directed activities.

You see, the thing is, I believe that Timber's statement about what the US is up to is precisely what the US OUGHT TO BE up to, but isn't, other than in piddling and quickly cancelled out ways. So whenever Bush or another administration official or a supporter CLAIMS this to be their goal, I just want to chuck my cookies.

You are not living in reality, blatham. Political wrappers come in all colors and labels, what's inside of them are true interest. Countries do humanitarian works in other lands, but there are often times ulterior motives, and those works are not generally a priority unless they are seen to return some benefit to the contributor.

Supposedly it is a win-win, maybe not always.

0 Replies

brand

It's easy enough to settle into the Hobbesian panorama. No challenge at all, really. And it's quite in keeping with the various rationales proffered up by mutual fund managers and oil company execs and this administration and rapists and george.

And there's a wonderful American consistency to it, as it allows lots of American folks to attribute, say, jealousy or sour grapes to any criticism of the US.

The degree to which this take on the world is failing you (America) is very likely to become more evident in the near future. Much, concerning your economy and your security is now dependent upon the rest of the world, and the rest of the world is liking you less and less. Like any empire, America is greatly blind to the flaws within itself, and when attribution is made for failures and problems, the attribution is incorrect.

george

I do know you believe those things above, and that you can, in one breath, describe a set of national policies that might have been written by the Mafia and, in the next breath, laud your country for it's moral superiority to the Hell's Angels and the Chinese Triads. Congratulations on your nation's achievements.

I think I'll let you fellas continue happily on together.

0 Replies

Regardless the ethico-moral propriety of retaining or replacing Bush the Younger, the matter of actually replacing him faces significant challenge.

Quinnipiac University Poll. Dec. 4-8, 2003 , 1071 Registered Voters, Margin of Error: +/- 3%

"Suppose the general election for president were being held today, and the candidates were [see below] the Democrat, and George W. Bush the Republican, for whom would you vote?"

Curent poll/(Previous}
Bush : 51%/(48)=+3
Dean : 40% /(42)=-2

Bush : 51% /(48)=+3
Lieb : 40% /(43)=-3

Bush : 50% /(47)=+3
Clark : 41% /(43)=-2

Bush : 53% /(49)=+3
Geph : 38%/ (43)=-5

Bush : 51% /(49)=+2
Kerry: 39% /(43)=-4

OK ... 14 plus for Bush, 16 minus for the spread of Dems. That gives Bush an average pickup of of 2.8, with an average Dem loss of 3.2, head-to-head , and consistent 50% or better response to a 41% posted by the numeric Denocrat leader, Clark, who is the only candidate not at a 2-digit disadvantage; the average Bush margin is 11.6%. The average works out to Bush's favor conclusively ... and note that the margins are in excess of the Margin of Error. Of course, its just one poll among many, an early one at that.

Still, it indicates to me that despite Dean's putative status, Clark and Lieberman each appear to be stronger, if just marginally, against Bush than Dean. Interesting. The two things that surprise me most so far is Clark's persistent strength and Kerry's increasing weakness at least among Registered Voters who consent to respond to surveys.

Its going to be interesting to see how the primary voters actually feel about Dean ... likely more surprise possible there than in the matter of how the voters feel about Bush come next November.

0 Replies

timber, GWBush may enjoy 51% in the most recent polls, but I prefer to look at the long term trend of his approval rating which is decidedly going down south. If this trend holds true through next year, his approval rating and potential for the next election should be down in the 30's.

date Approve Disapprove Don't Know
% % %

12/03 51 43 6
10/03 51 42 7
7/03 53 41 6
6/03 57 35 8
4/03 73 22 5
3/03 53 39 8
2/03 54 39 7
11/02 62 30 8
2/02 76 16 8
12/01 83

32% down since 12/01. Look'n good!

0 Replies

I confess I am beginning to think that this administration is in big trouble, and it's going to get bigger. Iraq and Afghanistan are albatrosses the size of elephants, and listening to Rubin speak last evening, and hearing of his conversation with Greenspan, unless these boys make changes they are most unlikely to make, things are likely to get very ugly. In a way, I'd like Bush to win though. Because things are likely to be SO bad in five years, that it could destroy the Republican Party as presently constituted.

0 Replies

Look at what you think matters, c.i. ; its all guesswork. One thing I see is that the long-term figure across a broad spectrum of polls shows Bush 50% or higher in almost every category, while disapproval at or above 50% is exceedingly rare. I note too that recently, positive trtending for Bush is evident, with a growing gap between supporters and opposition. That is slight, yes, and of recent nature after a period of declining favorability which had begun to close that gap. Of course it all can change ... I just don't expect it to get much worse for Bush, or much better for The Democrats. I will grant The Democrats have not established a candidate, and have formed and presented no platform as yet, beyond revenge for 2000. They're gonna have to find and focus on something that will sell better than that. Maybe they can.

But I doubt they will.

0 Replies

just curious but as this point in the campaign when George the younger was running, what was his platform other than revenge for Clinton beating his father? and then afterwards in George's battle with McCain and the really dirty tricks started was that George's clear moral stance that he was focused on? You must remember how McCain was said to have been "brain washed" in order to undermine him in the bible belt. George really seemed to have borrowed from Nixon with that one.

0 Replies

This "jobless recovery" is no recovery at all. The outlook for the stock market isn't good for the next two years and just who, do you suppose will be buying all these products American companies are producing with cheap foreign labor? Not Americans, because they won't have jobs to produce the income it takes to buy the stuff.

The stock market is high now because large corporations are trying to buy back their stock, anticipating trouble to come. This inflates stock prices because those holding the shares being sought demand a high price......but not for long.

0 Replies

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know