Politics: A new beginning

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
As for flip and FU comments, how about the French comments regarding the toy helicopters they agreed to provide to NATO? This is not a one way street where America is all wrong and the French are victims.

I've noticed a couple of references to a "toy helicopter" comment here, but I must've missed that in the news. Does anyone recall where I can find a link on it? Thanks.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That's not the point in my mind. The point is that the French (via these companies) should not directly be receiving any American tax payer money given the spoiler roll they have been playing.

Do you feel the same way about the debt forgiveness issue? It seems to strain logic to think that we can take a hard line on the contracting issue while still asking countries to renounce Iraq's debt obligations. To me that's the big price tag here, and is why the timing of this announcement is going to cost us way more (in terms of building Iraq things that its oil revenues can't pay for with all this debt hanging over it) than a less-than-fully-competitive contracting process will.

I hope I'm wrong, and that James Baker can again work the magic he did back before Iraq War I. But we just made his job even harder.

As for flip and FU comments, how about the French comments regarding the toy helicopters they agreed to provide to NATO? This is not a one way street where America is all wrong and the French are victims.

I agree that the French aren't exactly victims here. (I know, stop the presses, a francophile lefty has criticized Honest Jacques Chirac...) But it's not just the French that are at issue here.

The larger point is that we as a country are more secure in the age of terrorism when we have other countries cooperating with us, either in capturing al Qaeda honchos on their soil or backing us with troops or money when we decide that it is in our national security interests to intervene somewhere.

There are very real costs for sticking a thumb in the world's eye, even if the underlying principle seems "right" at the time.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Do you feel the same way about the debt forgiveness issue? It seems to strain logic to think that we can take a hard line on the contracting issue while still asking countries to renounce Iraq's debt obligations. To me that's the big price tag here, and is why the timing of this announcement is going to cost us way more (in terms of building Iraq things that its oil revenues can't pay for with all this debt hanging over it) than a less-than-fully-competitive contracting process will.

I hope I'm wrong, and that James Baker can again work the magic he did back before Iraq War I. But we just made his job even harder.

This is a giant negotiation. There is no way we can effectively negotiate unless we hold some leverage, whether manufactured or organic. We have just shown some of our cards. Without this move, we have nothing to trade in return for debt reduction. With this card, we are now a player in the game.

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
There are very real costs for sticking a thumb in the world's eye, even if the underlying principle seems "right" at the time.

We are not sticking our thumb in the "world's eye" just the French, Germans, Russians, etc. This is negotiating and the other players realize this, even if they exhibit wounded pride in public.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
I like how you slip it in that Bush's tactics are designed for the ignorant rednecks who disagree with you.

I took it in the same spirit as the "How many electoral votes does France have?" comments.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
I like how you slip it in that Bush's tactics are designed for the ignorant rednecks who disagree with you.

Don't be a tool. You didn't disagree with anything I said, you just called me a dick for saying it. Moreover -- you assume (as usual) that it was said with a partisan sneer. Your life must be living hell, surrounded by all the Minnesota DEMS who have made you so bitter.

Would you disagree that a lot of the tough-guy stuff, and the very early decision to be very "unilateral" by the admin. -- as you put it "to govern for America's interest alone" -- is at least in part designed to play to a certain domestic political base?

I know that you're big on Bush as utterly transparent. But a man possessing no political calculation simply could not become President.

That being said -- then go ahead and convince me that the average American voter on either side is up on all the nuances of international law regarding preemptive war. Besides, you tool, you forget that I have consistently (from pre-War forward) said that I supported invading Iraq.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
There are very real costs for sticking a thumb in the world's eye, even if the underlying principle seems "right" at the time.

But a balanced view recognizes that there may be very real value in such a move, also. YMMV as to quantification of each, of course, but it appears that we can see how Bush assigns same.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
But a balanced view recognizes that there may be very real value in such a move, also. YMMV as to quantification of each, of course, but it appears that we can see how Bush assigns same.

If we're going to adopt the standard now that each poster must expressly acknowledge the presence of opposing viewpoints on whatever their issue may be and explain how they quantified the pros and cons to arrive at their particular conclusion -- while acknowledging that those who disagree are still decent patriotic Americans -- we're going to have some very long posts.

You go first.

S_A_M

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Don't be a tool. You didn't disagree with anything I said, you just called me a dick for saying it.

I think he meant it as a compliment.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Don't be a tool. You didn't disagree with anything I said, you just called me a dick for saying it.

Actually, I was laughing as I typed it. (Well, silently - I am at work, and laughing sort of implies that you really enjoy your work, and this is review/raise time, so I don't want to give away the store.)

And, yes, I do disagree. I think that Bush's tough-guy rhetoric isn't contrived, and isn't aimed at any segment of the American public so much as it is aimed at a core non-American audience. I think there is a horrible disconnect between Bush and State, which is where the apparent mixing of messages originates. I'm sometimes not sure that Bush knows what it is that State is saying. He's not a nuanced diplo-guy at all. And, I don't consider that to be an impediment, given where we are today. I see State as the source of conflict in this. (Yes, I know Bush is in charge of State, and I'm still wondering when he will TAKE charge of State.)

(And, AG, the "how many electoral votes" comment wasn't really designed to be snarky, I think. It was a direct statement of why a previous post that was being responded to was off-base.)

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Asked whether the exclusion of those countries from bidding on construction contracts violates international law, Bush said, "I don't know what you're talking about by international law. I better consult my lawyer."

Hehehe. Go Bush. International law, schminternational law.:fuckyou:

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You didn't disagree with anything I said, you just called me a dick for saying it.

We should form a club or something.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is a giant negotiation. There is no way we can effectively negotiate unless we hold some leverage, whether manufactured or organic. We have just shown some of our cards. Without this move, we have nothing to trade in return for debt reduction. With this card, we are now a player in the game.

Interesting viewpoint. However, it seems rather mismatched to be leverage, in that most of Iraq's debt is held by governments while the contracts would go out to corporations. But perhaps you're right, this is just a bargaining chip.

I'd certainly be pleasantly surprised to read that the Bush admin had dropped these contracting guidelines in return for some debt forgiveness. I just remain skeptical that that will happen, based on the admin's general stance towards F, G and R up until now.

We are not sticking our thumb in the "world's eye" just the French, Germans, Russians, etc. This is negotiating and the other players realize this, even if they exhibit wounded pride in public.

As I mentioned in an exchange with Mr. Hello awhile back, the world's perception of us does matter in terms of our receiving aid from other democracies in the war on terror. If we are ok with relying on autocratic regimes to help us out, then this probably wouldn't matter so much. But the admin's rhetoric, with which I agree, seems to prefer the fostering of democracy than the support of nondemocratic regimes.

So, while the "players" may be quite aware of this in an insider sense, what I'm talking about is how this story plays with the electorates of the rest of our allies in the larger context of our ongoing war on terror. You apparently have fewer worries in this regard. Again, I hope you're right.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
If we're going to adopt the standard now that each poster must expressly acknowledge the presence of opposing viewpoints on whatever their issue may be and explain how they quantified the pros and cons to arrive at their particular conclusion . . .

A noble standard, I think, and one entirely unreachable here . . .

. . . while acknowledging that those who disagree are still decent patriotic Americans . . . .

Unreachable simply because snarkiness is more fun than substance, I guess . . .

. . . we're going to have some very long posts.

Or long pauses, as I search to see where I called you treasonous, or unpatriotic, or . . . something like that.

You go first.

'kay.

America suffers just as much from a world perception of lack of will and lack of principles as it does from ill will from the world due to our past actions, I think. We need to address both. OBL did what he did in part because of a perception that our presence in his area was bad, but also in part because of his perception that the danger of retaliation from us was nonexistent. Somolia taught him that, as did other past trends that we have exhibited.

I think Bush perceives value in combatting this perception. I do too. (Politeness is important, but frankly, if some little schmuck tries to sucker-punch me, I'm going to hit back and pull no punches. I am not going to buy the justification that I have to be restrained because I'm bigger. They will not use my honor as a weapon against me when they have none.) The measures he has taken tend to put a bit of menace back in our image. I like that. In a world where intelligent dialogue is important, but where defense against crazies and idealogues is equally important, I don't think we can ignore one and just work on the other.

I see Bush's approach as serving that value, and so I quantify the value of his approach as "high". I see the cost of his statement as being relatively low. What change is going to occur at this point because Bush said something not diplomatic about how the rest of the world can't just say "pay us or we'll call you impolite and undiplomatic"? Very little, I think. He's simply making it clear that they can no longer hold us hostage by and with our honor and simultaneously expect to act without honor themselves. That's been his message from 9/11. Eventually, I think they'll get it. Right now, they're still stuck in the "but he can't DO that!" stage. They think he can't do that, because America isn't supposed to act that way, while they are allowed any action they deem profitable. I think that's over.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Would you disagree that a lot of the tough-guy stuff, and the very early decision to be very "unilateral" by the admin. -- as you put it "to govern for America's interest alone" -- is at least in part designed to play to a certain domestic political base?

FWIW, I don't think so. Bush can certainly be politically calculating, but I think this unilateralism is exactly who he is. In my limited experience, it smacks of the part of Texas he grew up in. He is not worldly, and does not think he's missing much. I don't think it has much domestic political appeal, either.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
We should form a club or something.

Cry me a river. Go back and read our exchange yesterday, and then come back here and talk about personal insult.