[Mastrap]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
but instead the regime seems to be going for the strategy of maximizing suffering in order to win sympathy in the Arab world, and in the west.

There is a therory that the people who ar doing the suffering aren't doing it because they like Saddam but because they dislike the US more. This is certainly evident if you follow interviews with the non-western news agencies. To quote a piece from the BBC:

"But viewers across the Arab world are not watching the news with their usual sad resignation - with events proceeding beyond their control or the control of their political leaders.

"Look, the Iraqis are fighting back," says Khalid proudly, as a news item reports on how four US marines have been killed by a suicide car bombing in southern Iraq.

Khalid, a Palestinian living comfortably in a well-to-do district of the Jordanian capital, sums up the feeling of many Arabs that - in Iraq - the US might finally be paying for years of "double standards" in its Middle East policy.

"The Americans thought they were going to be greeted by celebrations and ululating women as they walked into Basra," Khalid says.

"But what they don't realise is that people hate and fear them even more than they may hate or fear Saddam Hussein."

The reason for this fear and hatred, Khalid says, stems from the perception that Washington gives unqualified support for Israel, a country known here for gross human rights violations of Palestinians, threatening its neighbours and possessing weapons of mass destruction.

"These are exactly the things the Americans and British accuse Saddam Hussein of doing - so why don't they go to Palestine and liberate the Palestinian people from Israeli occupation, instead of 'liberating' Iraq - from an Iraqi leader?"

It is a view that has currency across the Arab world - with the notable exception of Kuwait, where the US has won many friends for liberating the country from invading Iraqi forces in 1991.

But other Arabs feel that every day that Iraq holds out against the western armies, Arab honour is being restored and Arabs' sense of helplessness to resist foreign domination diminishes.

To paraphrase the observation of one commentator, in 1967 it took six days for Israel to overrun the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai and the Golan Heights; the Iraqis have already held out for 10 days against the might of the world's only superpower. "

I am not saying that the above is my opinion but shouldn't we be able to do a better job at PR?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
To paraphrase the observation of one commentator, in 1967 it took six days for Israel to overrun the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai and the Golan Heights; the Iraqis have already held out for 10 days against the might of the world's only superpower. "

How much did Israel hold back its firepower in 1967 in order not to harm civilians? Not much, I suspect.

The US could end the war in Iraq in about 4 minutes if we didn't have the goal of minimizing civilian casualties. It isn't holding out against the might of the only superpower if the superpower is purposely tying one arm behind its back. We'll win this war as cleanly as possible. There is no need to go full out.

[theolein]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Could, but won't. That would hand victory to Saddam. Is that what you want?

No, I want this disgusting orgy of death and murder to stop. Point. Carrying on the war won't stop it, whether the US/UK wins or not. I see you trying your old tricks of trying to turn my words against the killing into support for Saddam Hussein. Sorry, not this time. There is enough killing, murder, rape, death, starvation and suffering in this world. That is why I want this war to stop. I feel like crying when I see pictures of or read articles about suffering and dying little children. It makes me so sick with anger I can barely type these fukking words.

Is that what you want???????

[MacGorilla]

You're right. The war would have been won by now if we didn't hold anything back. TV images of Baghdad flattened by our bombing would have been baaaaaaaaaad PR.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Kitschy:

You display an image about Americans apparently caring about the people of Iraq???

Where, pray tell, the fukk were you and your benighted country when Saddam was murdering the Shiites in the South and the Kurds in the north in 1991? Where the fukk were you? Why did your holy apostles of the modern crusade stop after they had already entered into Iraq? Why did they desert the people then? Where was the big American general in shining armour, a la Douglas McArthur, proclaiming, "We will be back"?

Where were you when the Tutsis were being slaughtered in their millions in Rwanda in 1994?

And you, personally, want me to believe that you care about some people in a country like Iraq?

[Joshua]

Originally posted by theolein:

And you, personally, want me to believe that you care about some people in a country like Iraq?

Is that really so hard for you to believe? It may not be the only reason we're in Iraq, but if you really think American's aren't capable of caring for the Iraqi's, you have no clue about America or the American people.

[Mastrap]

Theo, chill matey

Of course there are people in the US who care deeply about the Iraqi people and their fate. A fair number of them just happen to be in favour of this war.

We mustn't forget that not everybody who wants to dispose of Saddam using force is an oil hungry imperialist swine. I'd go as far as saying that the vast majority of them are decent people who are as convinced that they are doing the right thing as some of us are that they aren't. And vice versa.

Peace.

[Kitschy]

Originally posted by theolein:
You display an image about Americans apparently caring about the people of Iraq???

Where, pray tell, the fukk were you and your benighted country when Saddam was murdering the Shiites in the South and the Kurds in the north in 1991? Where the fukk were you? Why did your holy apostles of the modern crusade stop after they had already entered into Iraq? Why did they desert the people then? Where was the big American general in shining armour, a la Douglas McArthur, proclaiming, "We will be back"?

Where were you when the Tutsis were being slaughtered in their millions in Rwanda in 1994?

And you, personally, want me to believe that you care about some people in a country like Iraq?

So, your argument is that since we did not interfere in those previous situations, we should not interfere now?

I'm not much of a history buff, and since I was only 11 in the first gulf war I wasn't interested in the events you mentioned at the time they occurred. I'm just not familiar with them. I can't speak about those, but if they are as atrocious as you say, then yes we should have gone in. You sound passionate about those previous conflicts, so I'm confused as to why you aren't in support of removing Saddam who we know is committing the atrocities you mentioned.

Finally, the style in which you framed your argument can be summed up by (drum roll please) an Ann Coulter quote:

"The most crazed religious fanatic argues in more calm and reasoned tones than liberals..."

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
Finally, the style in which you framed your argument can be summed up by (drum roll please) an Ann Coulter quote:

"The most crazed religious fanatic argues in more calm and reasoned tones than liberals..."

Aha! Pefect opportunity for the "Ann Coulter Game"

"The most crazed religious fanatic argues in more calm and reasoned tones than Ann Coulter..."



The rules are simple. Funny how it always fits too

[clarkgoble]

Where, pray tell, the fukk were you and your benighted country when Saddam was murdering the Shiites in the South and the Kurds in the north in 1991?

Yelling at the government to ignore the rest of the region's pressure and defend the Shiites.

Surely during the buildup you've noticed the rather pronounced guilt over the treatment of the Shiites. The only real defense Bush 1 gave was that he thought they might win.

I do agree that had we taken out Sadaam way back in '91 there would have been far, far fewer problems today. Who knows, perhaps a democratic Iraq would have really helped prevent 9/11. Of course one of the administration people I really admire, Colin Powell, was largely behind ending the war when we did and not supporting the Shiites.

I definitely think Bush has been completely incompetent in terms of preparing the world for war. I think he should have been doing interviews in Europe and getting the populace on board. I also think that he should have been trying much harder to bring peace in Israel. Even if it turned out to be a lost cause, it would have showed the mideast that we were trying and cared about the Palestinians. I think Bush felt he couldn't achieve anything there and decided Iraq first and Israel second. I'm not sure that was right. At a minimum I think he ought to have publically smacked down Israel for illegal settlements.

On the other hand I think that all of this hangwringing is premature. I recall reading all the Newsweek articles on Afghanistan last year. They were typically gloom and doom over and over again. Very similar charges were involved as well. (Not enough troops, not engaging the enemy, etc.)

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
I definitely think Bush has been completely incompetent in terms of preparing the world for war. I think he should have been doing interviews in Europe and getting the populace on board.

This is where Bush's weakness in the context of public speaking really hurts the situation. I don't think he is capable of engaging in this sort of way, at least not without coming off as scripted or stand-offish. People often try to minimize the impact of his speaking skills (or lack thereof), but presentation is as important as the message when communicating to a large group, such as, say, the world. For all his good/bad points, this is one that doesn't help the situation in the least.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
This is where Bush's weakness in the context of public speaking really hurts the situation. I don't think he is capable of engaging in this sort of way, at least not without coming off as scripted or stand-offish. People often try to minimize the impact of his speaking skills (or lack thereof), but presentation is as important as the message when communicating to a large group, such as, say, the world. For all his good/bad points, this is one that doesn't help the situation in the least.

This may be, but really it isn't the place of an American president to be campaigning directly to European audiences. He is the president of the United States. He seems to do just fine communicating to American audiences (judging by his poll numbers). Whether or not he is well-received in Europe isn't part of the job description and no president has any business making what would amount to a domestic political campaign in Europe against European leaders. It's one thing for a president to use the bully pulpit to go over the head of congress, it is quite another to go over the head of Chirac and Schroeder. In their countries they get to lead political opinion.

On the other hand, I do think that our ambassadors have once again shown their uselessness. They are not heads of state. It is appropriate for them to be visible and articulate spokespersons for their country. Diplomats assigned to democratic countries should be spending less time at cocktail parties, and more time explaining US policy to the public.

[clarkgoble]

Whether or not he is well-received in Europe isn't part of the job description and no president has any business making what would amount to a domestic political campaign in Europe against European leaders.

I disagree. First off he would be explaining the US position. Secondly it would be preparing people. Reagan used to give speeches in Europe all the time. Admittedly Reagan was even more disliked than Bush, but I think he recognized the issue of public relations far better than Bush does.

Even if Bush didn't do it, he should have had high level officials explaining things and doing a PR effort.

Bush's strengths also tend to be his weaknesses. His down home folksy way of speaking makes Americans trust him. But it often has an opposite effect on non-Americans (and even some Americans who demand "intellectualism" from speakers) Likewise he is able to reduce things to simple ideas, which is useful for action. However at the same time this means complexities one must deal with after one decides upon a course of action are overlooked. One could go on.

This is true of many politicians, btw. Clinton's strengths were also his weaknesses.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This may be, but really it isn't the place of an American president to be campaigning directly to European audiences. He is the president of the United States. He seems to do just fine communicating to American audiences (judging by his poll numbers). Whether or not he is well-received in Europe isn't part of the job description and no president has any business making what would amount to a domestic political campaign in Europe against European leaders. It's one thing for a president to use the bully pulpit to go over the head of congress, it is quite another to go over the head of Chirac and Schroeder. In their countries they get to lead political opinion.

On the other hand, I do think that our ambassadors have once again shown their uselessness. They are not heads of state. It is appropriate for them to be visible and articulate spokespersons for their country. Diplomats assigned to democratic countries should be spending less time at cocktail parties, and more time explaining US policy to the public.

I would agree in normal situations, but this is far from normal. The world is acutely divided, and right or wrong, the world takes a dim view of Bush and suspects his motivations. If the ambassadors cannot fulfill their responsibilities, then it is up to the president to make sure the right message gets out, about what we think is right and why. The president does have the opportunity to do that himself when visiting other countries. Usually a joint press conference of some sort takes place where the foreign press is given the chance to ask direct questions. Whether or not it is in his job description, it happens, and that is where he falls short. With regard to speaking over a foreign head of state, it's noteworthy to mention this has happened, but in reverse - you may recall Chirac's interview with 60 minutes.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
I disagree. First off he would be explaining the US position. Secondly it would be preparing people. Reagan used to give speeches in Europe all the time. Admittedly Reagan was even more disliked than Bush, but I think he recognized the issue of public relations far better than Bush does.

There is a real difference between now and when Reagan was president. In the 1980s, you had politically friendly governments in power in Europe - Kohl, Thatcher, Craxi, Lubbers, even Mitterand and Gonzales. Reagan could therefore be reasonably sure of receiving a fair hearing and at a minimum, he wasn't going there to actually challenge the elected leaders then in power. That would be completely different from Bush going to Germany or France to meet with Schroeder or Chirac. With those leaders actively encouraging anti-Bush sentiment, Bush would be eaten alive. He'd have his hands tied by the need for diplomatic protocol because if he did challenge them on their own turf it would rightfully be greeted as an inappropriate act.

So by going there, he would simply be handing his international opponants an opportunity to humiliate him. This would be the case even if Bush were as good a communicator as Reagan was - which we all recognize he is not. Even Reagan had his difficult moments in Europe. Remember when Reagan spoke to the European parliament and the socialists started heckling him and turning their backs?

No. It's a nice idea, but it would be a disaster.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
There is a real difference between now and when Reagan was president. In the 1980s, you had politically friendly governments in power in Europe - Kohl, Thatcher, Craxi, Lubbers, even Mitterand and Gonzales. Reagan could therefore be reasonably sure of receiving a fair hearing and at a minimum, he wasn't going there to actually challenge the elected leaders then in power. That would be completely different from Bush going to Germany or France to meet with Schroeder or Chirac. With those leaders actively encouraging anti-Bush sentiment, Bush would be eaten alive. He'd have his hands tied by the need for diplomatic protocol because if he did challenge them on their own turf it would rightfully be greeted as an inappropriate act.

So by going there, he would simply be handing his international opponants an opportunity to humiliate him. This would be the case even if Bush were as good a communicator as Reagan was - which we all recognize he is not. Even Reagan had his difficult moments in Europe. Remember when Reagan spoke to the European parliament and the socialists started heckling him and turning their backs?

No. It's a nice idea, but it would be a disaster.

If you speak in the context of today, then yes it is too late for Bush to try to engage the public in other countries. I'm talking about at a point much earlier, before passion and politics took over and drove the whole situation as it does today. As an example, about a year ago Bush was in France, and he did take questions from the press. While his image was already "tarnished" in the eyes of the French, positions had not polarized and hardened to the degree they are today. It was a golden opportunity to impress, or at least head off some of the negativity rather than just echo the same crap that rallies everyone stateside. So, the point in my original post was, the President needs the ability to communicate effectively and comfortably on his feet. My second point is that the opportunity for doing so with other nations does exist and could have been exploited at earlier stages of this situation.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
My second point is that the opportunity for doing so with other nations does exist and could have been exploited at earlier stages of this situation.

You mean before Chirac changed his policy from being in the middle with the two-resolution plan to siding with Schroeder? Perhaps. But my understanding is that Chirac's change caught the administration completely by surprise. There are reports about how blindsided Powell felt during that Friday UNSC meeting by De Villepin's remarks. Once that meeting occured, the gloves came off all around and no press conference was going to save it.

Actually, I think the administration was also blindsided earlier by the German election results. Remember, Schroeder's reelection was a massive upset. The problem is, once the US realized what was happening and the direction the rhetoric was going, it was too late. By that point, Germany was deep in the campaign and any US interferance would have been completely inappropriate.

In hindsight though, what Bush should have done is offered a heck of a lot of US military forces to help with the German flood relief effort. We hade 70,000 troops in country. They have been used for German flood relief before. A few images of GIs mucking in would probably have been a nice gesture.

[clarkgoble]

If you speak in the context of today, then yes it is too late for Bush to try to engage the public in other countries. I'm talking about at a point much earlier, before passion and politics took over and drove the whole situation as it does today.

Yes. Further had he at a minimum appeared to be listening to countries like France, Germany, and Turkey in deciding what to do it would have been better. Yes France and Germany were intrinsically against the war. But the problem was that our diplomacy consisted mainly of getting people to do what we wanted.

A little appearance could go a long ways. While I doubt we'd have convinced France and Germany, we may have lowered the rhetorica a lot and prevented some of the actions of the past 3 months. We'd also likely have had Turkey on board. A lot of reports suggested that Turkey would have gone along had we been publically consulting them and their fears months earlier. The Turkish were very offended that we appeared to just be buying them off.

Whether this is correct or not, the fact it is the perception largely rests with the Bush administration. Yes the media will always report things in a very sensationalist sense. (Not always politically biased, but biased to make news - and how that is done varies from country to country.) Reagan was often the master of being able to get his message out despite the media. Bush does well in America, but not elsewhere.

I think that had Bush more than a year ago started publicizing issues in Europe publically then things would have been much better. Had he appeared to be working on the Israeli issue it would have been even better.

I think that Bush's idea was the right one. However his diplomatic and political incompetence in the world arena may make the military victory moot.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
[BWhether this is correct or not, the fact it is the perception largely rests with the Bush administration. Yes the media will always report things in a very sensationalist sense. (Not always politically biased, but biased to make news - and how that is done varies from country to country.) Reagan was often the master of being able to get his message out despite the media. Bush does well in America, but not elsewhere. [/B]

I don't know. I was living in the UK when Reagan was president. He was equally hated and for basically the same reasons.

Bush and Europe were always on a collision course. He wants to do things. They just want to talk.

[NosniboR80]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't know. I was living in the UK when Reagan was president. He was equally hated and for basically the same reasons.

Bush and Europe were always on a collision course. He wants to do things. They just want to talk.

I think you'd better don your flame retardant suit.


It really would have been interesting to see how the major European governments would have preferred to deal with Iraq. As it was, they simply were fighting the 'commands' of Bush ('commands' would be how Chirac and Schroeder would label Bush's diplomatic 'tactics'). They were totally just avoiding succumbing to American pressure. They weren't really taking a stand one way or the other on Iraq, that was just the means of sticking it to Bush.

I don't think a deliberative diplomatic process could possibly have ended with the trying of Saddam in the ICJ and the freeing and disarming of Iraq, without an aggressive action by him to start it all, but it would have been interesting to see what Chirac and Schroeder would have done.

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't know. I was living in the UK when Reagan was president. He was equally hated and for basically the same reasons.

Bush and Europe were always on a collision course. He wants to do things. They just want to talk.

Couldn't agree more with this post.

[clarkgoble]

I don't know. I was living in the UK when Reagan was president. He was equally hated and for basically the same reasons. Bush and Europe were always on a collision course. He wants to do things. They just want to talk.

Overall I agree. I think that the European position largely reduces to, "don't shake the boat and make other powers dependent upon you." It is a defensable position. Afterall the United States has largely followed it with respect to China since Kissenger. It seems like nearly every new admistration says they won't and yet they end up taking largely the same stance.

With regards to the cold war Reagan shook it up and was correct. It was a bit of a gamble, but worked. Bush is doing the same.

The difference, and this was what I was trying to get at, is that Reagan was able to communicate his issues clearly. Bush is not able to. If you've read that George Schultz collection of Reagan's radio messages, you know Reagan had thought about these issues. He wasn't the idiot that people portrayed him as. (I didn't always agree with his positions - but it is a frequent mistake to assume those we disagree with are stupid)

But you are right, a lot of anti-Americanism since Afghanistan is very similar to a lot of anti-Americanism during the cold war. And, as in the cold war, some of it is deserved. What I hope is that, unlink cold war, we don't let expediency rule our moral clarity. And in that I think Bush may end up being superior to many cold war leaders.

[tie]

Bush's diplomatic mistakes have hurt our military effort. If he had been able to win Turkey over, then there would be another major front threatening Baghdad. If he had not delayed the US position on Israel, and if he had won more world support, then the attitude of Iraqis may have been more positive.

It's painful to see politicians hurting this war (referring esp. to Rumsfeld).

Simey, you can't deflect blame from Bush onto our ambassadors. Bush is responsible for our ambassadors. Even if Bush didn't go to Europe, he could have given more convincing speeches, released more convincing evidence sooner. Powell could have gone to Europe, to Turkey for example. Why has Powell waited until today to go to Turkey?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by tie:
Simey, you can't deflect blame from Bush onto our ambassadors.

Actually, my rant about ambassadors is a pretty general critique and something I have felt for a long time. It far precedes this specific discussion.

Even though I know a few former US Ambassadors and have a great deal of respect for the ones I have come into contact with, insititutionally, there is a lot wrong with the way the diplomatic corps operates. This is an equal opportunity criticism. I'd make it about both Democratic and Republican administrations.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Joshua:
Is that really so hard for you to believe? It may not be the only reason we're in Iraq, but if you really think American's aren't capable of caring for the Iraqi's, you have no clue about America or the American people.

No, I lost my temper, and I apologise for my outburst. I am very against this war for all the killing and seeing and reading about little children dying and suffering makes me cry with anger at the senslessness of this.

I don't know about the other non Americans on this board, but I did work for the US Air Force from 1987 to 1989 in Berlin, Germany, and I met a fair amount of very nice people there. By no means all, but enough to show me that Americans are human beings as is everybody else on this planet. I was surprised that so few of the military personel stationed there took any interest in the city where they were stationed. I knew almost no one who made any attempt to learn German, but I don't know enough about the lengths of duty there to be able to make a definite statment there. If there was ever anything strange there, it was that it seemed to me as if many Americans were not interested in much things foreign and spent almost all their time in American shops and movies etc. But I can't really speak to much about that, not having known more people than I did.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Theo, chill matey

Of course there are people in the US who care deeply about the Iraqi people and their fate. A fair number of them just happen to be in favour of this war.

We mustn't forget that not everybody who wants to dispose of Saddam using force is an oil hungry imperialist swine. I'd go as far as saying that the vast majority of them are decent people who are as convinced that they are doing the right thing as some of us are that they aren't. And vice versa.

Peace.

Yup, sorry. I got too upset after reading that article on children dying and seeing pictures of a hurt child in the paper today. I apologise.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
So, your argument is that since we did not interfere in those previous situations, we should not interfere now?

I'm not much of a history buff, and since I was only 11 in the first gulf war I wasn't interested in the events you mentioned at the time they occurred. I'm just not familiar with them. I can't speak about those, but if they are as atrocious as you say, then yes we should have gone in. You sound passionate about those previous conflicts, so I'm confused as to why you aren't in support of removing Saddam who we know is committing the atrocities you mentioned.

Finally, the style in which you framed your argument can be summed up by (drum roll please) an Ann Coulter quote:

"The most crazed religious fanatic argues in more calm and reasoned tones than liberals..."

I am very much in favour of Saddam, his sons and family and his host of murderous butchers being removed from power, and would greatly rejoice in seeing them stand trial in the Hague, for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

I am very much against starting a war to achieve that end.

I find it impossible to believe that this war will achieve that goal without many, many normal Iraqis dying and suffering, yet once again in a conflict in which they had no say. The standard Iraqi soldier is drafted and had no say in whether to start wars or not. It doesn't make them innocents, by any means.

What I do think is that this war will have the effect of bringing up a perhaps long dead streak of Iraqi nationalism, in effect, polarising Iraqi society into those who defend their country against a foreign invader, as you would if your country were to be attacked, I assume, and those who support the Allied invasion, such as the Kurds in the north. I don't see this as any precondition for a peaceful future.

The Iraqis have had a government forced on them before by foreign armies: The British placed a foreign king on the throne who was immensly unpopular and finally deposed. I don't think it will work. Whatever the outcome, there will be a trail of American, British and Iraqi bodies littering that path.

Tell me something? Why do you feel the need to quote a woman whose integrity doesn't seem to be a thing of national concensus? This woman, judging from her web site seems to be very much of the one hit wonders who live on cheap scandal and bad taste in order to further their personal and financial aims. Belongs more in Hollywood, doesn't it?

[NosniboR80]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Actually, my rant about ambassadors is a pretty general critique and something I have felt for a long time. It far precedes this specific discussion.

Even though I know a few former US Ambassadors and have a great deal of respect for the ones I have come into contact with, insititutionally, there is a lot wrong with the way the diplomatic corps operates. This is an equal opportunity criticism. I'd make it about both Democratic and Republican administrations.

I'm interested. Could you direct me to some readings on the issue?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by theolein:
I was surprised that so few of the military personel stationed there took any interest in the city where they were stationed.

That's perfectly true. I saw the same thing when I was in England (the town I lived in had 2 US bases nearby) and when I was stationed in Germany with the Army.

But I do think you are exaggerating slightly. A substantial minority spent a lot of time on base and more than a few married locals (after all, that is how SimeyTheLimey came into being). Nevertheless, I saw a lot of barracks rats.

A couple of things you should bear in mind, however. One thing is that the phenomenon of the barracks rat isn't just an overseas assignment thing. It's also endemic in the military on stateside bases. Military life is tiring. The days are long and often pretty physically demanding. You get into a routine. Going out requires a certain effort when you might prefer to just loll about the barracks. I never realized what a luxury sleep is until i went into the Army.

You sould also recall that a lot of soldiers don't have a lot of money, and that many if not most of them do not ask to go overseas. For the most part, you are talking about working class folks. It is asking a bit much to expect them to act like seasoned world travellers just because Uncle Sam packed them onto a C-141 and flew them to Europe.

Mastrap and I have discussed this in a related discussion. If I judged say, the British, by the standards of the average Benidorm visitor I might have a bit of a negative attitude. Well, you are talking about a comparable cross-section here. And have you hung out with British Army soldiers much? Intellectuals they mostly are not (good guys, though). So maybe you might bear these things in mind when you judge people.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by NosniboR80:
I'm interested. Could you direct me to some readings on the issue?

Sorry, not off the top of my head. It's mostly an impression gained from general reading and from talking to former diplomats (including at least one of those ambassadors, who advised me not to go into the State Dept).

[theolein]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't know. I was living in the UK when Reagan was president. He was equally hated and for basically the same reasons.

Bush and Europe were always on a collision course. He wants to do things. They just want to talk.

Yup, Reagan was definitely not popular in Europe with the whole Pershing missile deal. When he came to Berlin to give his, "Ich habe noch einen Koffer in Berlin" speech, there were 80 000 demonstrators in the streets of Berlin to welcome him. His motorcade took an alernative route into the city as the city center was rather full of unwelcoming people, and happened to whizz by the house I was busy renovating that day. Reagan was staring out the window of his black limousine and I had the opportunity to give him my personal opinion about his visit: I gave him the finger. I remember him looking slightly puzzled.

[theolein]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's perfectly true. I saw the same thing when I was in England (the town I lived in had 2 US bases nearby) and when I was stationed in Germany with the Army.

But I do think you are exaggerating slightly. A substantial minority spent a lot of time on base and more than a few married locals (after all, that is how SimeyTheLimey came into being). Nevertheless, I saw a lot of barracks rats.

A couple of things you should bear in mind, however. One thing is that the phenomenon of the barracks rat isn't just an overseas assignment thing. It's also endemic in the military on stateside bases. Military life is tiring. The days are long and often pretty physically demanding. You get into a routine. Going out requires a certain effort when you might prefer to just loll about the barracks. I never realized what a luxury sleep is until i went into the Army.

You sould also recall that a lot of soldiers don't have a lot of money, and that many if not most of them do not ask to go overseas. For the most part, you are talking about working class folks. It is asking a bit much to expect them to act like seasoned world travellers just because Uncle Sam packed them onto a C-141 and flew them to Europe.

Mastrap and I have discussed this in a related discussion. If I judged say, the British, by the standards of the average Benidorm visitor I might have a bit of a negative attitude. Well, you are talking about a comparable cross-section here. And have you hung out with British Army soldiers much? Intellectuals they mostly are not (good guys, though). So maybe you might bear these things in mind when you judge people.

I'm not judging them (at least I hope I made that clear enough). Most of those I knew were in the military for the education that the military paid for. And I wouldn't have called them working class. I come from a fairly poor family myself, which didn't have the money to pay for my education, so I could understand that quite well. There were, as I said in my post, some really nice people there, quite intelligent too. Their days were fairly easy actually, and involved sitting around in front of computer screens. The woman I almost married was one of them, and had I done so, I suppose there would now be yet another SimeytheLimette or something along that line

[theolein]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You mean before Chirac changed his policy from being in the middle with the two-resolution plan to siding with Schroeder? Perhaps. But my understanding is that Chirac's change caught the administration completely by surprise. There are reports about how blindsided Powell felt during that Friday UNSC meeting by De Villepin's remarks. Once that meeting occured, the gloves came off all around and no press conference was going to save it.

Actually, I think the administration was also blindsided earlier by the German election results. Remember, Schroeder's reelection was a massive upset. The problem is, once the US realized what was happening and the direction the rhetoric was going, it was too late. By that point, Germany was deep in the campaign and any US interferance would have been completely inappropriate.

In hindsight though, what Bush should have done is offered a heck of a lot of US military forces to help with the German flood relief effort. We hade 70,000 troops in country. They have been used for German flood relief before. A few images of GIs mucking in would probably have been a nice gesture.

What I think a lot of Americans (and here I do mean Ameircans in general) don't realise is the impact of your politicians over here. The USA is the most pwerful nation in the world and American national politics and especially international politics gets reported in great detail over here.

There is definitely a tendancy over here to distrust American politics, and that does make it harder for an American politician, but Clinton was actually more popular over here, it seems, than he was in his own country (Simey pointed this out). Nobody here worried much about his Monica stories, and indeed Schr�der himself is divorced and has had his tussles with the media over his private life.

The thing is that Bush got off to a bad start from an especially European point of view. The Kyoto and ICC being ignored by his government were taken as an insult to a continent that is starting to take the environment seriously and make everyone accountable in war. Those alone made him, as a symbol of his nation extremely unpopular.

The 9/11 attacks gained the USA and Bush many points of sympathy. He got all the support an American President could ever hope for in his campaign against terror.

He has since lost all of those points. But he is not the main one to blame, and although the main focus of all the demonstrations has been against him and the war, the reason the USA has earned so much antagonism in France and Germany is the fault of Donald Rumsfled. His comments on "Old Europe" were seen by almost everyone here as an outrageous insult. His lumping of Germany with Libya, Cuba and Syria made him the permanent enemy of the Germany press. His attempts to bully Austria, a neutral country, into allowing American troops to pass through were greeted with an enormous amount of anger. Similarly, the comments of American Ambassadors to France and Germany actually having the nerve to threaten those two countries with "serious consequences" was the final straw, and was the catalyst in Germany and France finally starting to get their butts into gear to form their own European Defense Force. The Ambassador to Canada, apparently did the same thing. Bush, being the president and the symbol of his nation, is the one who then takes the heat, but he wasn't the one who did the damage. I seriously think France might have supported a second resolution in the end, if Rumsfeld hadn't said what he did.

In Germany, it is now so far that even the oppostion conservative Christian Democrats are now all ganging up against the one single person left in that party who is in favour of that war, Angela Merkel. It is rare that a conservative party in Germany gangs up against one of their own like that (they didn't do that with Kohl and his financial scandal), and shows just how unpopular the war has become here.

For the popular majority in Europe (and I don't mean the masses out demonstrating) there has never been any coherent or believable reason given by any American politician for this war. The anger here by normal working people against the American war is palpable. No one believes that the inspectors weren't doing their job well. No one here believes (as I don't) that this war is about liberating the Iraqi people. No one here believes Bush or any American politician when they talk about weapons of mass destruction. And no one here believes that there was ever any connection between Hussein and Al-Qaida. Most people here see it either as Bush trying to finish what his father didn't, i.e. as a peronsal thing or as an act of war in order to grab the region's oil. (I see it as a geostrategic move in order to better threaten Iran and syria). People here see the images of the dead and suffering children, and are not only immensely angered by that, but also insulted that they are supposed to pay for the cleaning up after all the killing is done.

The reason no one believes these things is because no American politician has ever, once, presented any evidence to the contrary. Most people here felt that Powell's drawings in the UNSC were a joke at best, and an insult to their intelligence at worst.

They may yet be proven wrong (I also think Saddam has chemical weapons and will use them if cornered), but I doubt that the USA is going to be able to get Western Europe to support it ever again otherwise.

[clarkgoble]

There is definitely a tendancy over here to distrust American politics, and that does make it harder for an American politician, but Clinton was actually more popular over here, it seems, than he was in his own country (Simey pointed this out). Nobody here worried much about his Monica stories, and indeed Schr�der himself is divorced and has had his tussles with the media over his private life.

Although oddly, several of Clinton's scandals appeared in European papers long before the mainstream American press would touch them. That included everything from the strange murder in the park of that friend of the Clintons to many issues of sexual harassment by Clinton. I remember reading a lot of articles in the Guardian from the UK about Clinton.

Of course, I suspect your point is that despite those issues the Europeans by and large didn't care. (Having a rather different perspective on mistresses and sex)

Clinton actually did get off to a rough start in Europe. The initial three months had lots of stories about diplomatic faux pas. However I get the impression that happens every time the Presidency changes. Sometimes US policy changes radically and it makes our allies nervous.

I should add that Clinton's greatest strength - his charisma - really was amazing. Even better than Ronald Reagan's ability to speak. It was also his weakness, since it contributed to the "slick willie" label. But I suspect that he was able to wow the Europeans just as he did everyone else. Further in many policies Clinton was far more sympathetic to many European views than the typical American. Of course, despite the fact Republicans don't want to give him any credit, he tend actually follow a lot of the general policies of the right. Indeed he ran as a moderate-right Democrat.

Hell, I'm by and large largely sympathetic to the right and *I* voted for him initially.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by theolein:
I am very much in favour of Saddam, his sons and family and his host of murderous butchers being removed from power, and would greatly rejoice in seeing them stand trial in the Hague, for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

I am very much against starting a war to achieve that end.

Then how do you suppose this is going to happen?

[itai195]

Originally posted by theolein:
There is definitely a tendancy over here to distrust American politics, and that does make it harder for an American politician, but Clinton was actually more popular over here, it seems, than he was in his own country (Simey pointed this out). Nobody here worried much about his Monica stories, and indeed Schr�der himself is divorced and has had his tussles with the media over his private life.

Is that any surprise? Clinton generally preferred making grandiose speeches rather than actually doing things. His policies were actually somewhat conservative. Americans have become fully aware of these facts, and that's precisely why many Democrats in his mold are so unpopular here nowadays. A great example is CA's very own governor, Gray Davis, whose most important policies are attending fundraisers and earning re-election.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by theolein:
What I think a lot of Americans (and here I do mean Ameircans in general) don't realise is the impact of your politicians over here.

---snipped for brevity---

Amen to that. An excellent and truthful description of what's happening over here. I am especially amused by the fact that the US administration seems to expect my tax money to be used for clearing up after a war I am opposed to.

[pooka]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
I am especially amused by the fact that the US administration seems to expect my tax money to be used for clearing up after a war I am opposed to.

I feel for you. Really do. But you do know that most folk's tax money is spent on **** they're opposed to? Schools, roads, hookers, covering up the killings of hookers who talked to much, etc.

[clarkgoble]

I am especially amused by the fact that the US administration seems to expect my tax money to be used for clearing up after a war I am opposed to.

Why do you think the administration "expects" anything unless your government plans on spending something this year? I think a lot of Americans expect that we'll be paying the lion's share of rebuilding Iraq.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by theolein:
The thing is that Bush got off to a bad start from an especially European point of view. The Kyoto and ICC being ignored by his government were taken as an insult to a continent that is starting to take the environment seriously and make everyone accountable in war.

This is unfortunately partly the fault of the ignorance of the European press. Bush did not begin US opposition to these treaties. US policy did not change at all from the Clinton Administration. Clinton was quite hostile to both Kyoto and the ICC and siad so on many occasions. You might recall that the US Senate (which has to ratify treaties and which gets a voice independent of the president) expressed hostility to Kyoto by a 98-0 vote. So it wasn't Bush. Those treaties were both dead from the US POV before he took office.

Unfortunately, there were things about the treaties that gave them the false impression of still being alive. One is that there has been a tendency in multilateral treaties for the treaty itself to contain strong-arm language. Since roughly the landmine treaty (also opposed by Clinton) the trick has been to write multilateral treaties such that In order to influence the details on how the treaty is written, you have to sign on to its principles before the details are written. That is putting the cart before the horse and is counter to traditional treaty writing. It's supposed to force reluctant countries to sign on rather than risk being forced to choose between being shut out or having to choose a treaty they don't like on the details. But it also leads to countries signing on early, and then later refusing to ratify treaties that tehy have signed. That's pretty much what happend to the US. Clinton signed, saying that he wanted to use membership to rewrite both the ICC and Kyoto. But once he signed, the other members didn't change the parts the US found objectionable.

That's the background to the US position before Bush became president. Bush just made official and vocal what was already de facto US policy. Something similar would have happened under any administration given the opposition of the senate. The problem is that the European media, always suspicious of a new president, and deeply hostile to a conservative republican with a rural accent, jumped on this without explaining the full story.

[theolein]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is unfortunately partly the fault of the ignorance of the European press. Bush did not begin US opposition to these treaties. US policy did not change at all from the Clinton Administration. Clinton was quite hostile to both Kyoto and the ICC and siad so on many occasions. You might recall that the US Senate (which has to ratify treaties and which gets a voice independent of the president) expressed hostility to Kyoto by a 98-0 vote. So it wasn't Bush. Those treaties were both dead from the US POV before he took office.

Unfortunately, there were things about the treaties that gave them the false impression of still being alive. One is that there has been a tendency in multilateral treaties for the treaty itself to contain strong-arm language. Since roughly the landmine treaty (also opposed by Clinton) the trick has been to write multilateral treaties such that In order to influence the details on how the treaty is written, you have to sign on to its principles before the details are written. That is putting the cart before the horse and is counter to traditional treaty writing. It's supposed to force reluctant countries to sign on rather than risk being forced to choose between being shut out or having to choose a treaty they don't like on the details. But it also leads to countries signing on early, and then later refusing to ratify treaties that tehy have signed. That's pretty much what happend to the US. Clinton signed, saying that he wanted to use membership to rewrite both the ICC and Kyoto. But once he signed, the other members didn't change the parts the US found objectionable.

That's the background to the US position before Bush became president. Bush just made official and vocal what was already de facto US policy. Something similar would have happened under any administration given the opposition of the senate. The problem is that the European media, always suspicious of a new president, and deeply hostile to a conservative republican with a rural accent, jumped on this without explaining the full story.

Actually I spy an attitude of yours there that might very well be symptomatic of the whole problem. You use a phrase, "ignorance of the European press".

I'm a bit astounded when reading something like that because, while there are definitely publications that play on their readerships ignorance (Tabloids, such as the Sun, Daily Mirror, Bild, Blick etc) the mainstream European press is one thing that I have always been impressed by as to it's depth and detail. To make a statement accusing the European press of ignorance is something that I would definitely not do.

But I wonder if that isn't some sort of problem, as a whole, with regards American-European relationships. The Americans, it seems, have this idea that Europeans are some quaint Disneylandlike backwater that neither understands English (big crime that one ) and has to be treated with simple phrases so that they will "Capisce" what the wise men in Washington are doing. Believe me, the peformances that Rumsfeld gave ealier this year, do justice only to some of the tiny lunatic fringe political parties that one generally associates with fear and hatred of all things foreign.

It's ironic because that is excatly what many people here feel is the problem with Bush: not overly blessed with the gift of intelligence.

To get to the point about US views on the Kyoto treaty and the ICC. No American politician ever attempted to explain why the USA was so against those treaties. Not one, ever.

The picture that was gained here was that the USA, this country with 4% of the worlds population using 25% of it's resources, was one of utter arrogance, selfishness and disrespect to the rest of the world. Here in Europe, people asked themselves why they, in a union with almost double the American population (i.e. 8% of the worlds population) can live very well with very strict enviromental policies and laws (there are big exceptions to this-Spain is one of them, but it is changing even there) and use 17% of the worlds resources, and the USA can, figuratively treat the world as it's garbage dump.

The ICC treaty gathered more anger, because, the picture gained here was that the Americans wanted to be able to fight wars of their choosing using any means possible and not be accountable for war crimes committed.

You can imagine that that didn't exctly paint a picture of a nation that has respect for anything. rather, it enhanced the image here of a nation that wants to be able to behave without any responsibility in this world, and further it's aims with gunboat diplomacy.

Much seems to made in the USA that the Europeans only want to talk instead of doing things, and that is certainly true to a certain extent. However, the Americans, almost no one it seems, seems to even realise the complexities involved in coordinating the policies of 15 nations speaking 12 different languages. Brash gunboat diplomacy here in Europe has only led to the world wide wars we had in the last century and the continent wide wars in the centuries prior to that. It isn't easy, because there is no central government with as much power as that in Washington DC. There are efforts underway to change that and simplify the vast bureaucracy that the EU has become, because the present system, in that everyone agrees, will be almost unworkable when 10 new members with 10 new languages join the EU next year.

There are many, very angry people here in Europe, who see this war as being responsible for the massive split within the EU, and there are very many people who feel that the USA seriously attempted to split the EU in order to weaken it, with Rumsfeld's insulting attacks here. You can imagine what would have happened if a European commisioner had gone to Washington and started throwing acuusations and insults around, left, right and center.

These are my impressions, and of course, I might be totally wrong, but, here in Europe one gains the impression that America takes a paternalistic attitude towards this continent, instead of treating it with respect. I have yet to see any American politician even in a halfhearted form, attempt to explain why the American government behaves as it does. To us here, it seems as if the American government doesn't think the Europeans worthy or intelligent enough.

[MacGorilla]

I am especially amused by the fact that the US administration seems to expect my tax money to be used for clearing up after a war I am opposed to.

I am always amused by things such as this. How else do you expect the government to pay for it? Sell girl scout cookies? The government cannot even turn on a light without using tax dollars.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by theolein:
Actually I spy an attitude of yours there that might very well be symptomatic of the whole problem. You use a phrase, "ignorance of the European press".

I'm a bit astounded when reading something like that because, while there are definitely publications that play on their readerships ignorance (Tabloids, such as the Sun, Daily Mirror, Bild, Blick etc) the mainstream European press is one thing that I have always been impressed by as to it's depth and detail. To make a statement accusing the European press of ignorance is something that I would definitely not do.

I use the phrase in full knowledge of the nature of the European press because, as you well know, I have been reading at least a reasonable slice of it for years. It is true that the European press is fairly in-depth, but like media everywhere, it never quite shakes off its parochial biases.

I'm being quite specific here. The European public seems to have gotten the impression that the Bush Administration radically changed US policy on the Kyoto and ICC treaties. It didn't. In fact, US policy has been uniformly hostile to both of them since they were first proposed. In the case of Kyoto, that means since the first Bush Administration, right through the Clinton Administration, and into the Bush Administration. The treaty, and the ICC stood no chance whatsoever of US ratification as written, and never did under any of those presidents. Now, how is it then that the European public thinks this all this changed suddenly when Bush came into office? The answer seems to me to be lousy reporting of the facts.

To get to the point about US views on the Kyoto treaty and the ICC. No American politician ever attempted to explain why the USA was so against those treaties. Not one, ever.

And the point that Europeans never seem to get is that no American politician is obliged to do anything of the sort. We aren't in a union with you like the European Union. Our politicians aren't responsible to you. They are responsible to us. I've noticed this all my life. You (the in-depth news-watching European population) pay so much attention to US national politicians that somehow you think in return that they are supposed to take your views into account. But you are not part of their constituency, and never were.

Treaties are things that countries enter into willingly after domestic political debate. And if the domestic political debate comes out against, no country is obliged to sign and ratify a treaty it considers bad just because other countries want it to. Nor is it obliged to explain its sovereign decision to others. Your argument about population size indicates you think that somehow this is something that the US should be bullied into joining or that somehow this is a majority rules thing. It isn't.

Clinton's negotiators spent years explaining to your governments the aspects of both treaties that his administration (and the Senate) found unacceptable. He implored them to change the treaties, saying that he wanted to be able to be able to sign on. But the rest of the countries refused to modify the sticking points. That is their privilege, but under those circumstances, the US will not ratify.

Theolein: I know you hate this argument because it is one based on a reassertion of sovereignty. But think about this differently for a moment. I think it is fair to characterize your position that France and Germany are right not to sign on to the war in Iraq if they disagree with it. You have said that all they are doing is following public opinion, which in a democracy is right. If I recall correctly you also said the same thing when Turkey's parliament voted not to allow US troops to enter.

What the US has done on Kyoto and the ICC is an expression of the same principle. US public opinion is against both of them. And the US government has made its decision. You have the right to be upset and critical, but you have no more right to demand that the US government sign treaties that it thinks are bad than the US would to make France and Germany vote its way in the UN. All sovereign nations can do is try to persuade one another. But in the end, the decision is each country's to make, and other sovereign nations must respect that decision. Now, the decisions on the ICC and Kyoto were made years ago. It is high time that your public accept it and move on.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by theolein:
Where, pray tell, the fukk were you and your benighted country when Saddam was murdering the Shiites in the South and the Kurds in the north in 1991?

Listening to the United Nations, which had not given us permission to go into Iraq and overthrow Saddam.

Originally posted by theolein:
Where were you when the Tutsis were being slaughtered in their millions in Rwanda in 1994?

Ask Bill Clinton, the first "black" President.

Originally posted by theolein:
And you, personally, want me to believe that you care about some people in a country like Iraq?

I can't speak for Kitchy, but I personally do care for the people of Iraq.

If you want to prove to me that doing nothing would kill fewer people than acting militarily and getting it over with, I'll change my opinion.

After all, your argument that we should have done something in 1991 and in Rwanda seems to contradict your argument that war in this case is wrong.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
I am especially amused by the fact that the US administration seems to expect my tax money to be used for clearing up after a war I am opposed to.

Fine. I agree. And I shouldn't have to pay taxes to go towards government programs I don't agree with.

The only time a liberal doesn't like taxes is when he realizes some of the money goes to the military.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Fine. I agree. And I shouldn't have to pay taxes to go towards government programs I don't agree with.

The only time a liberal doesn't like taxes is when he realizes some of the money goes to the military.

Ahem - I don't live in the US. So, your government wanted this war, your government can pay for the consequences.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Ahem - I don't live in the US. So, your government wanted this war, your government can pay for the consequences.

Hopefully, we'll pay for it by cutting off funds to the UN.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Ahem - I don't live in the US. So, your government wanted this war, your government can pay for the consequences.

Your government wanted it too, my friend.

[Spliffdaddy]

*still waiting for theo's 'non-violent solution' to Saddam*


reckon I'll be waiting a while.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Theolein: I know you hate this argument because it is one based on a reassertion of sovereignty. ...

All sovereign nations can do is try to persuade one another. But in the end, the decision is each country's to make, and other sovereign nations must respect that decision. Now, the decisions on the ICC and Kyoto were made years ago. It is high time that your public accept it and move on.

I don't like the nation state theory that you doggedly cling to either, Simey and I'm not alone. The vast majority of international relations scholars argue that the theory in its pure form is dead as a doornail. The applicability of the theory in the case of the USA is more descriptive than prescriptive. The US is able to assert its sovereignty absolutely not because sovereignty is the basis of the international order, but because it is the hegemon. Clearly, many countries on this planet of ours are not able to just refuse to play by the rules the way the USA is and the challenges facing states today don't come purely from statal sources. We've had this argument before though...

The Kyoto protocol is much like a marriage certificate. It doesn't stop emissions in the same way a marriage certificate doesn't keep you faithful. But it is a sign of commitment. What Europeans want to see is the USA start reducing its emissions and start recognising that what Americans are doing is not sustainable and putting the future of the planet at risk. It just so happens that the majority of the rest of the world has agreed that the Kyoto protocol represents the best chance we have of facing this problem as a planet and that the prescribed way to show commitment to the cause is to go through the prescribed ceremony, i.e. sign the Protocol. The US as the biggest per capita and volume polluter on this planet has no coherent plan for reducing its emissions and more importantly, it has no marriage certificate; it hasn't made the public commitment in a form that is acceptable to the international community. What's worse is the reason its leaders provide for refusing to sign, namely that Americans' quality of life will be affected.

What's interesting to me is the common thread between this argument, the argument for waging the "war on terrorism" and for attacking Iraq. The common thread is American interests and the message that goes out to the rest of the world is that American interests are more important than anyone else's. You see, it's less a question of signing the Protocol than it is one of the implication of refusing to sign. The public in Europe (most of the rest of the world is probably too uneducated to know what's happening) can't just accept that the USA is dooming their children's futures by destroying the planet. They can't just move on because the effects are tangile now. So until the US finds a way not only of making its development sustainable, but of making a commitment to the rest of the world, things will sour progressively - much like the 12 year old Burgundy I had been saving and decided to open last night!