Politics: A new beginning

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

P.S. to Say Hello -- I really liked your earlier post, where you suggested that Kennedy and Johnson and Clinton were isolationists, and that Kennedy and Johnson did not confront the Soviet Union. Nice piece of work there.

Oh yeah, and have at it with Clinton too. Which part of Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia or Kosovo did he do right again?

I'll give him credit for NAFTA, and it is a biggie. But when it comes to consistently holding a line against mass-murder, he was always just leaving, or a day late and a brigade short.

What else do we have. Nukes for NK? Brilliant, just when they were starving themselves too. Bringing Yasser to the White House? Sorry, but that was easily 5 times as much badness as any goodness from NAFTA, given our historical interests and the temporary departure it represented from our line on terrorism and terrorists. But hey, you never said they were good not_isolationists, so I'm just swinging at scarecrows here, maybe.


Hello

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Say Hello One thing that Carter can point to.

I think Carter foreign policy help has been pretty much 100% disaster since leaving office, but he did boycott the 1980 olympics. He caught tons of shit for this, and stood up to it. I admire him for depriving the USSR of the opportunity to invade Afghanistan then strut its olympics games within the same period of time.

[Say_hello_for_me]

The Chicago Tribune has an interesting installment today relating to an old topic. Apparently, boatloads of Pakistanis have been packing up and moving to Canada since 9/11. I know I posted something about this here 6 months ago or more, but it does put a face on some of the (scared) people who are leaving. Hard not to feel sorry for some of the people with handicapped children and all. Apparently, Canada and the U.S. have agreed to close the door to Canada too. Soon, people will just have to go back to Pakistan.

Did we ever have a rational immigration policy? Independently of that, how do they determine quotas here?

It doesn't matter. I still just see it all as a basis for a national ID card, legal or illegal -- everyone should have one while they are here.

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
What else do we have. Nukes for NK? Brilliant, just when they were starving themselves too.

Please explain what was wrong with Clinton's NK policy, and why you think the current administration has done any better. To receive full credit, you will have to account for the fact that they shut down their nuclear program for several years while Clinton was in office, and have developed nuclear weapons (and missiles putatively capable of reaching the West Coast) during Bush's tenure.

If you want background, search the old PB (if possible) for "plutonium" and "uranium."

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Please explain what was wrong with Clinton's NK policy, and why you think the current administration has done any better. To receive full credit, you will have to account for the fact that they shut down their nuclear program for several years while Clinton was in office, and have developed nuclear weapons (and missiles putatively capable of reaching the West Coast) during Bush's tenure.

If you want background, search the old PB (if possible) for "plutonium" and "uranium."

Aww no, I ain't defending GWB neither. There ya go with that moral equivalency stuff again. Pure, 100% Clinton bashing here, at least when S_A_M starts defending good ole Bubba.

But did you really just say "the fact that they shut down their nuclear program for several years while Clinton was in office"? OMG, you did just say that. Were you like, the inspector who verified that? It seems hard to believe, unless by "shut down" you mean, "did not, in fact, build a bomb for the first time". But you didn't mean that, did you?

Ya see, the thing is, I just find it hard to believe that a bomb and missile program can be built from scratch in, what, 3 years? Woo hoo, the Pentagon should hire North Korea as consultants if they are that efficient. Are they?

Hello

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Anyone ever heard of Gen. Dean (seriously, Gen. Dean). I hope he wasn't related to Howard, or there would be two ties to surrendering soldiers in the Democratic presidential camp. Not the legacy I'd want to convey. At least, not after the Manchurian Candidate and all. I can only imagine one of the Clinton's ancestors surrendered to the Chinese before the Chinese were communists (any time I can, I will).

Hello

Just in case there was any misconception, I was just joking. Well, apparently the Washington Post has eyes everywhere. Because, just to ensure we don't think that the Dean's might be wandering back to China to meet their handlers or nothing, they publish this today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Nov18.html


I'm sorry that his little brother is dead, and I'm not making light of the family's suffering. But this is just weird.

Him and his Australian buddy were hiking through Laos somewhere around 1973? Would the CIA send white boys on a mission like that? Weird.

So, ya think maybe they are related to the surrendered, and presumably brainwashed, Korean war general?

I rest my case!

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Aww no, I ain't defending GWB neither. There ya go with that moral equivalency stuff again. Pure, 100% Clinton bashing here, at least when S_A_M starts defending good ole Bubba.

But did you really just say "the fact that they shut down their nuclear program for several years while Clinton was in office"? OMG, you did just say that. Were you like, the inspector who verified that? It seems hard to believe, unless by "shut down" you mean, "did not, in fact, build a bomb for the first time". But you didn't mean that, did you?

Ya see, the thing is, I just find it hard to believe that a bomb and missile program can be built from scratch in, what, 3 years? Woo hoo, the Pentagon should hire North Korea as consultants if they are that efficient. Are they?

Hello

Fair enough on the moral equivalency point. But the rest of the post translates to: Who are you going to believe? The experts who write about this stuff, or my own speculations? There's no serious dispute that NK shut down its nuclear program for most of the Clinton Administration, and did not restart the more dangerous parts of it until well after Bush II took over.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Fair enough on the moral equivalency point. But the rest of the post translates to: Who are you going to believe? The experts who write about this stuff, or my own speculations? There's no serious dispute that NK shut down its nuclear program for most of the Clinton Administration, and did not restart the more dangerous parts of it until well after Bush II took over.

But again, it all depends on how you define "experts" and "shut down" and "restart" and "dangerous parts". Seriously, did 2000 NK nuclear scientists all go to the beach while Bubba was in office? If so, they sure did make a lot of quick progress once GWB came in.

I mean, if 9/11 was 8 months after Bush came into office, and that provocative "axis of evil" speech was in, what, October 2001, and you started arguing that NK was essentially nukular about a year ago, then what is the GWB culpability timeline here?

1 year from a meathead statement to NK goes nukular? You know any other countries that could do that?

Hello

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I admire him for depriving the USSR of the opportunity to invade Afghanistan then strut its olympics games within the same period of time.

Methinks we're going to be very lonely at Athens 2004. On the bright side, we might actually win men's soccer if all the early rounds are byes.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Methinks we're going to be very lonely at Athens 2004. On the bright side, we might actually win men's soccer if all the early rounds are byes.

Moral equivalency anyone?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Moral equivalency anyone?

Are you suggesting that it's OK to be alone if we get the gold in men's soccer? 'Cause I wouldn't have pegged you for that much of a soccer fan.

Do you have your tickets for the upcoming friendly match between Mexico and Iceland at Pac Bell Park? I'm figuring a lot of guys in green and red, and a very small, very blond contingent whose team is going to get whupped. As I recall, the population of Iceland is somewhere south of the population of Dubuque. NTTAWWT.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Are you suggesting that it's OK to be alone if we get the gold in men's soccer? 'Cause I wouldn't have pegged you for that much of a soccer fan.

Do you have your tickets for the upcoming friendly match between Mexico and Iceland at Pac Bell Park? I'm figuring a lot of guys in green and red, and a very small, very blond contingent whose team is going to get whupped. As I recall, the population of Iceland is somewhere south of the population of Dubuque. NTTAWWT.

No, equating our invasion of Iraq with the Soviet invasion of Aphganistan, though I am a soccer fan and actually played in Europe as a teen.

I think you are right on the crowd at Pac Bell. When I lived in LA and Mexico would play the US, there would be 70K Mexico fans and maybe 30K for the US.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hello
And, whether more muslims get mad at us or not, GWBs policy of fighting *them* everywhere by proxy or by Johnny, is the way to go....
Which is to say, its not the feelings of the french or the germans that I worry about. Its the feelings of our own youth and potential-part-time soldiers. Dissuade them from volunteering by using them in a foolhardy fashion, and we are going to have some real long-term problems on our hands.

Interesting point, one that definitely gives me pause. But aside from the domestic recruitment repercussions, hasn't our experience over the past two years shown that it does matter what other countries think? Not necessarily "the muslims", if that's the buzzword you want to avoid, but the other countries from whom we need the assistance/proxy/whatever to really carry this fight to the enemy?

I'm not just talking about the remarkable lack of assistance we have received in the reconstruction of Iraq; I've bellyached about that price tag enough on these pages (but I reserve the right to do so again should the spirit move me).

Rather, I'm talking about poisoning the same proxy relationships that you laud Reagan for cultivating. Many of the admin's supporters trumpet our successes in killing or capturing 2/3 of al Qaeda's leadership. However, it is never emphasized that the majority of those terrorists were captured not by US forces working alone but by other countries, working alone or in conjunction with US forces (e.g. Pakistan).

The more we alienate the populations of our democratic allies in the war on terror, the more trouble we will have getting them to cooperate in our global dragnet. Or, on the other hand, the more likely it will be that our allies are nations led by self-interested autocratic regimes who see their friendship with the US as a lucrative business opportunity (e.g. Pakistan).

This bothers me, not as a capital d Democrat, but as a citizen of a small-d democratic country. I would venture to guess, after your approval of Reagan's proxies, that you do not feel the same way. Which is valid; maybe I just am expecting too much of our foreign policy, beyond just the lip service to the "reverse domino" theory.

[Edited to clarify who is working in conjunction with whom.]

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Moral equivalency anyone?

Whiff.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
But aside from the domestic recruitment repercussions, hasn't our experience over the past two years shown that it does matter what other countries think? Not necessarily "the muslims", if that's the buzzword you want to avoid, but the other countries from whom we need the assistance/proxy/whatever to really carry this fight to the enemy?

I'm not just talking about the remarkable lack of assistance we have received in the reconstruction of Iraq; I've bellyached about that price tag enough on these pages (but I reserve the right to do so again should the spirit move me).

Rather, I'm talking about poisoning the same proxy relationships that you laud Reagan for cultivating. Many of the admin's supporters trumpet our successes in killing or capturing 2/3 of al Qaeda's leadership. However, it is never emphasized that the majority of those terrorists were captured not by US forces working alone but by other countries, working alone or in conjunction with US forces (e.g. Pakistan).

The more we alienate the populations of our democratic allies in the war on terror, the more trouble we will have getting them to cooperate in our global dragnet. Or, on the other hand, the more likely it will be that our allies are nations led by self-interested autocratic regimes who see their friendship with the US as a lucrative business opportunity (e.g. Pakistan).

This bothers me, not as a capital d Democrat, but as a citizen of a small-d democratic country. I would venture to guess, after your approval of Reagan's proxies, that you do not feel the same way. Which is valid; maybe I just am expecting too much of our foreign policy, beyond just the lip service to the "reverse domino" theory.

[Edited to clarify who is working in conjunction with whom.]

On the one hand, I agree that alienation is a bad thing. And, insofar as we can reasonably avoid alienating proxies or the constituents of friendly countries, we should certainly avoid doing so.

However, such a concern should not be the deciding factor in determining whether we confront an enemy or not. Or for that matter, in determining whether someone is an enemy or not. In determining who to confront, the world, including the U.S., has almost always tried to externalize the problems and hope they'd go away. The greatest example of this with the Europeans is the presence of our troops on their soil while their contributions of GDP to defense were something on the order of 1/2 to 2/3rd of ours (I might be too high with those figures even).

Obviously, there are other ways to measure such externalizations.

Of them, who can we count on? Not just do be our allies when it matters most, but also to encourage us to do the right things at the state level?

Do we (GWB) cultivate our relations with our allies? Who was the senior administration official to attent the state funeral in Italy? Does anyone realize how important it is to show respect to Italy on days like today? Somehow, I can't help but think that someone in the administration misses this.

So no, I don't disagree insofar as you appear to be suggesting that we could do more to make sure Europeans understand that we will try and hold common interests.

On the other hand, our government needs to start making loud noises about things like security expenditures. Do the Germans and French really want us drawing down to 6% of GDP?

Finally, as to Pakistan and the Northern Alliance etc..., the autocracy is just something for which I don't have an answer, let alone a right answer. Ultimately, I'd hope that an established democratic government is left in charge of Iraq, at least as a motivation to the other arab countries. Then again, I've expressed fears that our G is not going to implement a true democracy there, and I will not be happy if that does not happen.

In 50 years, the outcome of the '03 invasion of Iraq will be one of two or three defining markers for Dubya's first term, but it won't be favorable if the outcome is not the establishment of a democracy. And that would mean our nation expended great sacrifice for nothing. Which will not make me a happy republican.

Hello