tagliatelle
_____________________
I think rich.
Poor Mr Bush
- Thread starter Soapvox
- Start date
Yeah!
And I think Soapvox' idea that Europe views Bush as a bumbling fool has been soundly disproved in light of recent developments (if my earlier link to CNN didn't convince). If they believed him such a fool I don't think NATO would've invoked article 13 (an attack on one is an attack on all) immediately after the 11th.
And I think Soapvox' idea that Europe views Bush as a bumbling fool has been soundly disproved in light of recent developments (if my earlier link to CNN didn't convince). If they believed him such a fool I don't think NATO would've invoked article 13 (an attack on one is an attack on all) immediately after the 11th.
Soapvox
Want some of my Kool-aid?
Europe and America (in general terms) are allies and just because Bush is an idiot does not mean that Europe ( mainly England) wont support us when we are attacked, but we also have to wonder are we being led as sheeps are into a war that has no end and is senseless. Don't get me wrong it is abhorent what has happened to America and in now way do I think we deserved anything that has happened to us, but when everything is said and done are we going to learn from our follies that created the situation we are in now or keep on going around the globe as a bunch of bully idiots, or are we going to learn that we need to take care of our country and lead by example and not by force. I still say Bush is a bumbling idiot and think that most Europeans probably agree, but we also realize that he has one hell of a situation here and we have to hope that he will make the wisest decisions he can and follow the advice of his cabinent and listen to the voice of opposition to find out the proper ground to end this as quickly and with as few HUMAN casualties as possible, please people don't flame me this is my opinion and that is what this country is about the right to state our opinions without being persecuted because they are different, like I said we need to lead by example!
I'm sorry, but I cannot let your statement that Bush is an "idiot" stand. Please show me your data to back that up. I think I've made my point that intelligence is a cagey thing to quantify...
I also cannot believe that you actually meant to say that this war is "senseless."
Your view is known as Isolationism and has been the cause of more suffering and bloodshed than anything else in recent U.S. history. U.S. isolationist policy put us in the awful and unprepared states in which we found ourselves as we entered the 1st and 2nd World Wars. Had we actually focused on the world beyond our borders we could have been prepared for both conflicts; ending them with far less bloodshed for all combatants and civilians and probably without the use of nukes (in WWII). Source: Fukuyama (novels: End of History and the Last Man; and Trust), my grandfather (Colonel, US Army, Pacific Theatre OSS, Ret.), maternal grandfather (Commander, German Navy U-Boot Service, lost in action, North Atlantic ; info from Diary, notes and letters), my great grandfather (Major, Kaiser's Cavalry, French Sector, deceased; notes from an unfinished manuscript)
Sorry, Soap, but leading by example just doesn't work. I know this as a matter of both philosophy and practice. I did honors work in political science and international relations/political economy at Boston University, Yonsei University / ROK, Edinburgh, Scotland, University of Pretoria, ZA and Valparaiso Law. It's sad to say, but some people in this world just hate us. They hate our freedoms. They hate our wealth. They hate the way we let our women work. They hate the fact that they NEED us to feed their people. Damn, they resent our "leading by example!" That's not going to change. But basically, they hate us because of their own failure. Yes, their own failure. This is not just my opinion (read the contemporary writer Fareed Zakaria (sp?) and other writers on this subject; even back to Patton, von Klauswitz and even Sun Tzu)
In practical terms, I served in the US Army. I served in the Gulf and I was assigned to UN Operations in two countries. I've been spit on by the same people I was risking my life and leading by example to liberate. Once I made Captain, I worked with a British unit as Intel Officer in Sarajevo. We tried to lead by example and ended up with our hands tied, our rifles charged and targeted (my CAR-15's red dot had a militiaman pegged for a head shot), while some Slavs slaughtered women and children in front of us because they happened to be of a different religion. We weren't under attack so the rules of engagement (our "leading by example" civilised rules of engagement), didn't allow us to lay down even suppressing fire. We had to wait until they withdrew and then we dragged the bodies to a gymnasium as the Slavs would leave them out to rot as a warning or whatever. Tried to give them some dignity. At least they didn't rape or impale them as usual. I'm sure some husbands, fathers, grandparents, etc... would have loved us to be what you term "a bunch of bullying idiots" and drop those Slavs where they stood. The bastards actually smiled at us as they strutted back to their BMP.
If you're interested I have other examples of this line of thinking you espouse leading to just plain terrible things. Some specific/tactical, some abstract/strategic. I'd just prefer to talk about them privately. Actually I'd prefer not to talk about it at all but I think it's important that people know these things.
You dismiss the invocation of Article 13 too lightly. It has NEVER been invoked and requires unanimous consent of member nations. While not exactly spelled out, this action pretty much puts the man you say they consider an idiot in charge of all strategic decisions. Theatre Commanders will have tactical latitude, but even that would be held up to strategic scrutiny.
Also, your statement that most Europeans probably agree that Bush is a bumbling idiot is a gross generalization. You know what they say about generalizations...
While I might agree that certain sectors of European society may not like Bush's ideas (mostly due to economic and imagined conspiracy theories espoused by the Grns, Communists, Fascists, locally repressed ethnic minorities and other discredited, directionless groups and subgroups - some members of which I know personally; ex-girlfriend, university buddies, etc), I have to say that, dealing with Europeans on an almost daily basis, this is just not the case with either the "regular" people (relatives of mine, friends, their families and other acquaintances) or the political/economic/educational elite (business associates, colleagues, former classmates, friends) . The squeaky wheel gets the grease, you know - and the occasional rubber bullet or water canon. A highly vocal minority makes a big impact with the talking heads and 24/7 media drones. AND, I don't think any of those that criticize Bush's policies would call him an idiot as you do. Europeans tend to stay away from personal attacks when debating policy issues - it's seen as a sign that you have no real facts to dispute and so you rely on personal attacks to "discredit" or dishonor your adversary. When that happens the other side usually considers it a win for their side. Americans don't follow that path in debate as a rule, unless they've some training in debate and cultural differences therein.
If anything, Europeans saw Clinton as a laughing stock. He decimated our military. He basically got rid of all our human (wet) intelligence assets on the ground throughout the world - a leading problem we are just now trying to remedy - in favor of tech assets that just don't have the info gathering capabilities/initiative/flexibility that a man on the ground has. He blew it when we didn't buy the Russian scientists involved in NBC warfare ( OK, it wasn't just Clinton at fault for that, but it came to a head under his "leadership" if we can term it as such). He put us in bed with the Chinese (the ones who cheered when WTC burned and collapsed) who are, along with their DPRK lapdogs, THE next big threat to world security - IM me for references on this, I need to find the books and papers I wrote. Taiwan's "rogue province" status to PRC is just the stepping stone (we can discuss this in detail if you want). He had no foreign policy in the Balkans (NATO commanders - European ones since you use Europeans as a measuring stick for U.S. Presidents' abilities - just upped and resigned stating that his "plans" were idiotic, impotent and pointless). He replaced honorable, decorated and highly capable military commanders just because they wouldn't back down and follow his objective-less ops. He backed down from every confrontation - UN inspectors in Iraq, Bin Laden, Arafat's threats and refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist in violation of the working agreement and Mitchell Plan(he actually shook his hand and kissed his cheek for one of his all-important photo ops!)
Europe and America ARE allies (in much more than the general terms you claim). But saying that Europe will blindly support a man you call an idiot just because we were attacked doesn't say much for the intelligence of those Europeans you seem to hold in high regard, does it. Again, the NATO resolution is a BIG deal. I don't think many people realize this.
Lastly, Bush is the first President in recent history we've had who has had the balls to actually communicate to the people that this is a new kind of war. For those of you lucky enough to not have experienced war, it must be more difficult to wrap your brains around the concept. To eradicate terrorism, there will be casualties. It will be long and drawn-out. If I hadn't already done my bit and been wounded in the process, I'd re-up in an instant. It's that important that we secure a safe world for future generations - not just Americans. My wife and I just recently found out that we're (well SHE'S) pregnant. Have you ever been to Israel? I have. And if we, with or without our allies, don't do what needs to be done to shut down the terrorists, their money and their networks; that's the kind of nation we will have. That's not the America for my kid - having his/her bus blown up by some suicide bomber on the way to school.
That said, my civil libertarian side raises its head. We also need to be careful that we preserve our way of life and the freedoms we enjoy as Americans - all types of Americans. Security does need to be enhanced but not at the expense of our liberties. The founding fathers would shoot us if they heard some of the crap rolling down the halls of Congress. Argh. It's a tough call. And I find myself oftentimes torn in my opinions re: the security vs. liberty issues. I've quoted elsewhere on these boards: paraphrasing Bennie Franklin, "He who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither." or it's "...will have neither." If someone has the quote, please post it for me.
Soap: like I said, I respect your opinion - I've fought and killed for your right to think and say whatever you believe. I just disagree. That's healthy. Debate is good and it keeps us thinking. Between the two of us (and maybe the Admiral Ass Kick(ss)er), we can come to some new and better theory on this.
Could we have this discussion in Afghanistan? or a boatload of other countries? No way. We truly are fortunate.
I also cannot believe that you actually meant to say that this war is "senseless."
Your view is known as Isolationism and has been the cause of more suffering and bloodshed than anything else in recent U.S. history. U.S. isolationist policy put us in the awful and unprepared states in which we found ourselves as we entered the 1st and 2nd World Wars. Had we actually focused on the world beyond our borders we could have been prepared for both conflicts; ending them with far less bloodshed for all combatants and civilians and probably without the use of nukes (in WWII). Source: Fukuyama (novels: End of History and the Last Man; and Trust), my grandfather (Colonel, US Army, Pacific Theatre OSS, Ret.), maternal grandfather (Commander, German Navy U-Boot Service, lost in action, North Atlantic ; info from Diary, notes and letters), my great grandfather (Major, Kaiser's Cavalry, French Sector, deceased; notes from an unfinished manuscript)
Sorry, Soap, but leading by example just doesn't work. I know this as a matter of both philosophy and practice. I did honors work in political science and international relations/political economy at Boston University, Yonsei University / ROK, Edinburgh, Scotland, University of Pretoria, ZA and Valparaiso Law. It's sad to say, but some people in this world just hate us. They hate our freedoms. They hate our wealth. They hate the way we let our women work. They hate the fact that they NEED us to feed their people. Damn, they resent our "leading by example!" That's not going to change. But basically, they hate us because of their own failure. Yes, their own failure. This is not just my opinion (read the contemporary writer Fareed Zakaria (sp?) and other writers on this subject; even back to Patton, von Klauswitz and even Sun Tzu)
In practical terms, I served in the US Army. I served in the Gulf and I was assigned to UN Operations in two countries. I've been spit on by the same people I was risking my life and leading by example to liberate. Once I made Captain, I worked with a British unit as Intel Officer in Sarajevo. We tried to lead by example and ended up with our hands tied, our rifles charged and targeted (my CAR-15's red dot had a militiaman pegged for a head shot), while some Slavs slaughtered women and children in front of us because they happened to be of a different religion. We weren't under attack so the rules of engagement (our "leading by example" civilised rules of engagement), didn't allow us to lay down even suppressing fire. We had to wait until they withdrew and then we dragged the bodies to a gymnasium as the Slavs would leave them out to rot as a warning or whatever. Tried to give them some dignity. At least they didn't rape or impale them as usual. I'm sure some husbands, fathers, grandparents, etc... would have loved us to be what you term "a bunch of bullying idiots" and drop those Slavs where they stood. The bastards actually smiled at us as they strutted back to their BMP.
If you're interested I have other examples of this line of thinking you espouse leading to just plain terrible things. Some specific/tactical, some abstract/strategic. I'd just prefer to talk about them privately. Actually I'd prefer not to talk about it at all but I think it's important that people know these things.
You dismiss the invocation of Article 13 too lightly. It has NEVER been invoked and requires unanimous consent of member nations. While not exactly spelled out, this action pretty much puts the man you say they consider an idiot in charge of all strategic decisions. Theatre Commanders will have tactical latitude, but even that would be held up to strategic scrutiny.
Also, your statement that most Europeans probably agree that Bush is a bumbling idiot is a gross generalization. You know what they say about generalizations...
While I might agree that certain sectors of European society may not like Bush's ideas (mostly due to economic and imagined conspiracy theories espoused by the Grns, Communists, Fascists, locally repressed ethnic minorities and other discredited, directionless groups and subgroups - some members of which I know personally; ex-girlfriend, university buddies, etc), I have to say that, dealing with Europeans on an almost daily basis, this is just not the case with either the "regular" people (relatives of mine, friends, their families and other acquaintances) or the political/economic/educational elite (business associates, colleagues, former classmates, friends) . The squeaky wheel gets the grease, you know - and the occasional rubber bullet or water canon. A highly vocal minority makes a big impact with the talking heads and 24/7 media drones. AND, I don't think any of those that criticize Bush's policies would call him an idiot as you do. Europeans tend to stay away from personal attacks when debating policy issues - it's seen as a sign that you have no real facts to dispute and so you rely on personal attacks to "discredit" or dishonor your adversary. When that happens the other side usually considers it a win for their side. Americans don't follow that path in debate as a rule, unless they've some training in debate and cultural differences therein.
If anything, Europeans saw Clinton as a laughing stock. He decimated our military. He basically got rid of all our human (wet) intelligence assets on the ground throughout the world - a leading problem we are just now trying to remedy - in favor of tech assets that just don't have the info gathering capabilities/initiative/flexibility that a man on the ground has. He blew it when we didn't buy the Russian scientists involved in NBC warfare ( OK, it wasn't just Clinton at fault for that, but it came to a head under his "leadership" if we can term it as such). He put us in bed with the Chinese (the ones who cheered when WTC burned and collapsed) who are, along with their DPRK lapdogs, THE next big threat to world security - IM me for references on this, I need to find the books and papers I wrote. Taiwan's "rogue province" status to PRC is just the stepping stone (we can discuss this in detail if you want). He had no foreign policy in the Balkans (NATO commanders - European ones since you use Europeans as a measuring stick for U.S. Presidents' abilities - just upped and resigned stating that his "plans" were idiotic, impotent and pointless). He replaced honorable, decorated and highly capable military commanders just because they wouldn't back down and follow his objective-less ops. He backed down from every confrontation - UN inspectors in Iraq, Bin Laden, Arafat's threats and refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist in violation of the working agreement and Mitchell Plan(he actually shook his hand and kissed his cheek for one of his all-important photo ops!)
Europe and America ARE allies (in much more than the general terms you claim). But saying that Europe will blindly support a man you call an idiot just because we were attacked doesn't say much for the intelligence of those Europeans you seem to hold in high regard, does it. Again, the NATO resolution is a BIG deal. I don't think many people realize this.
Lastly, Bush is the first President in recent history we've had who has had the balls to actually communicate to the people that this is a new kind of war. For those of you lucky enough to not have experienced war, it must be more difficult to wrap your brains around the concept. To eradicate terrorism, there will be casualties. It will be long and drawn-out. If I hadn't already done my bit and been wounded in the process, I'd re-up in an instant. It's that important that we secure a safe world for future generations - not just Americans. My wife and I just recently found out that we're (well SHE'S) pregnant. Have you ever been to Israel? I have. And if we, with or without our allies, don't do what needs to be done to shut down the terrorists, their money and their networks; that's the kind of nation we will have. That's not the America for my kid - having his/her bus blown up by some suicide bomber on the way to school.
That said, my civil libertarian side raises its head. We also need to be careful that we preserve our way of life and the freedoms we enjoy as Americans - all types of Americans. Security does need to be enhanced but not at the expense of our liberties. The founding fathers would shoot us if they heard some of the crap rolling down the halls of Congress. Argh. It's a tough call. And I find myself oftentimes torn in my opinions re: the security vs. liberty issues. I've quoted elsewhere on these boards: paraphrasing Bennie Franklin, "He who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither." or it's "...will have neither." If someone has the quote, please post it for me.
Soap: like I said, I respect your opinion - I've fought and killed for your right to think and say whatever you believe. I just disagree. That's healthy. Debate is good and it keeps us thinking. Between the two of us (and maybe the Admiral Ass Kick(ss)er), we can come to some new and better theory on this.
Could we have this discussion in Afghanistan? or a boatload of other countries? No way. We truly are fortunate.