Bush's comments at UN speech

[samclemens]

wondering what everyone thinks about bush's comments to the UN today

 

then iran is punking out, skipping the luncheon that castro once used to force clinton to shake his hand in.

 

of course, france is back to its old ways...pathetic

[WilliamTell]

I love the France sucks part on the title.

[Jenksismyhero]

It's a shame that Bush has lost any persuasive power in the world by being the scapegoat for our own intelligence debacle and the media writing revisionist history. I don't support all of Bush's decisions (a lot actually), but the guy has been blamed for everything (hurricanes for god sake) and is now practically useless on the world stage. He's made mistakes, I know, so I'm not going to defend him totally, but still I refuse to become so anti-Bush that I fault him for anything bad that happens in the world.

 

But what he says is true. There's some f'd up people in the world who are trying to start an ideological/religious war. The pope says muslim people are violent, and then they kill a nurse, bomb buildings and burn down churches in response. Hmmmmmm....no, they aren't violent. The problem needs to be addressed by the world and not just the US, because ultimately other countries are going to be affected (as some European countries already have and will again).

 

As an aside, are people as tired of the extremist muslims as I am? PR wise I mean. These people can stand up and say 'death to all jews' or 'death to the west' and it's cool, not one cares, rarely is there a word about it. But the minute any western person says anything bad about Islam they revert to violence. It makes me sick we don't stand up for ourselves. The arguments have been rehashed, I'm sure, but the Denmark political cartoon situation comes to mind. We as a country refuse to piss these people off, for what? Respect? Or fear? Modernity rarrived when were civilized enough to laugh at Jesus beating the crap out of Santa Clause on South Park (much earlier I'm sure, but I'm young and that's the biggest media moment for me with that). These f'ckers are stuck in the middle ages and should be treated like it.

 

The Chirac thing doesn't surprise me. The French are the biggest p'ssies in the world and I really hope the next time they're attacked we ignore them. Lets decipher their logic: we'll remove sanctions that will protect us in the future because we fear them attacking our troops. What nonsense is that? Why don't they just roll over and beg for mercy now?

[StrangeSox]

Someone on another forum I frequent suggested this idea:

 

What if the US and France are playing out a "good cop, bad cop" scenario?

[Rex Kickass]

Actually, that's frequently the scenario that the US and France as well as other EU states play when the EU and US have common security goals.

 

Or France is trying to defuse a situation that looks more and more similar to the US drumbeat for a war against Iraq three years ago.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's a shame that Bush has lost any persuasive power in the world by being the scapegoat for our own intelligence debacle and the media writing revisionist history. I don't support all of Bush's decisions (a lot actually), but the guy has been blamed for everything (hurricanes for god sake) and is now practically useless on the world stage. He's made mistakes, I know, so I'm not going to defend him totally, but still I refuse to become so anti-Bush that I fault him for anything bad that happens in the world.

 

Perhaps Bush is useless on the world stage because he comes off like frat boy and he led the effort into a disaster of a war in Iraq.

 

And who blamed him for a hurricane? The only blame I saw people put on him for Katrina was a) his nomination of Brownie, with no related credentials, to head up FEMA and B) the late (and weak) start of the national-level response to it. And those do indeed fall in his lap.

 

But what he says is true. There's some f'd up people in the world who are trying to start an ideological/religious war. The pope says muslim people are violent, and then they kill a nurse, bomb buildings and burn down churches in response. Hmmmmmm....no, they aren't violent. The problem needs to be addressed by the world and not just the US, because ultimately other countries are going to be affected (as some European countries already have and will again).

 

Of course he is right - no one denies that religious extremists in the Middle East are a major problem. And for at least the hundredth time... this isn't about Islam. If you make it about Islam, it becomes a crusade, and you unfaily punish 90% of the 1 billion Muslims on earth. Its about extremism and anger, brought on by a variety of problems including but not limited to corruption, poverty, western "tinkering" in Middle Eastern affairs, the creation and location of Israel, historical conflicts that date back centuries, natural resources particularly oil, and dictators in many of those countries.

 

Islam, being a religion, is used simply as an excuse and a social shield for violent idiots. There are plenty of examples of this same thing happening throughout history with other idiots using Chrisitianity, Judaism, and any number of other religions for that same purpose. Its a recurring theme in world history. Our aim, in my opinion, should be to ignore it entirely and focus on the real problems (as noted above).

 

As an aside, are people as tired of the extremist muslims as I am? PR wise I mean. These people can stand up and say 'death to all jews' or 'death to the west' and it's cool, not one cares, rarely is there a word about it. But the minute any western person says anything bad about Islam they revert to violence. It makes me sick we don't stand up for ourselves. The arguments have been rehashed, I'm sure, but the Denmark political cartoon situation comes to mind. We as a country refuse to piss these people off, for what? Respect? Or fear? Modernity rarrived when were civilized enough to laugh at Jesus beating the crap out of Santa Clause on South Park (much earlier I'm sure, but I'm young and that's the biggest media moment for me with that). These f'ckers are stuck in the middle ages and should be treated like it.

 

No one cares? Not a day passes when the front page of cnn.com or msnbc.com doesn't have multiple new items related to violence in the middle east. What news are you watching where that doesn't come up? Because I'd love to see that happy news network.

 

"Those f'ckers are stuck in the middle ages and should be treated like it" - that sounds like good policy to you? How do you expect anyone in the world to take a country seriously that has that attitude? It rings of the kind of arrogance of failed empires and genocidal maniacs. Actually, it sounds very much like the way many people saw the American Indians centuries ago.

 

The Chirac thing doesn't surprise me. The French are the biggest p'ssies in the world and I really hope the next time they're attacked we ignore them. Lets decipher their logic: we'll remove sanctions that will protect us in the future because we fear them attacking our troops. What nonsense is that? Why don't they just roll over and beg for mercy now?

 

Yeah. Because standing up to the U.S., the most powerful country on earth, requires a pussy. Makes sense, actually. I mean, it explains why women are smarter than men. Not to mention a lot less violent.

 

Courage is about putting yourself in danger to help someone else. That is NOT the same as being stubborn or narrow-minded or "sticking to your guns" even when you are obviously, painfully wrong. I therefore fail to see how current US policy in the Middle East is any more (or less, to be fair) courageous than France's.

[samclemens]

Yeah. Because standing up to the U.S., the most powerful country on earth, requires a pussy. Makes sense, actually. I mean, it explains why women are smarter than men. Not to mention a lot less violent.

 

Courage is about putting yourself in danger to help someone else. That is NOT the same as being stubborn or narrow-minded or "sticking to your guns" even when you are obviously, painfully wrong. I therefore fail to see how current US policy in the Middle East is any more (or less, to be fair) courageous than France's.

 

and i fail to see how france's shameless appeasement policy is a good thing. iran is a country who is developing nuclear weapons while openly calling for the destruction of israel, and openly supports hezbollah (a terrorist organization- yes, they are). remember, this is about UN sanctions, not an invasion of iran. france doesnt even think we should sanction iran. apparently, you agree: would you mind explaining your support of france on this issue? this should be interesting.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Actually, that's frequently the scenario that the US and France as well as other EU states play when the EU and US have common security goals.

 

Or France is trying to defuse a situation that looks more and more similar to the US drumbeat for a war against Iraq three years ago.

 

 

Or perhaps France, like it always does, is looking out for its own selfish interests and who cares if Iran gets nuclear weapons.

 

Someone on another forum I frequent suggested this idea:

 

What if the US and France are playing out a "good cop, bad cop" scenario?

 

 

Strongly doubt it.

[NorthSideSox72]

and i fail to see how france's shameless appeasement policy is a good thing. iran is a country who is developing nuclear weapons while openly calling for the destruction of israel, and openly supports hezbollah (a terrorist organization- yes, they are). remember, this is about UN sanctions, not an invasion of iran. france doesnt even think we should sanction iran. apparently, you agree: would you mind explaining your support of france on this issue? this should be interesting.

I don't agree with France's take on this. Sorry if that wasn't clear. If for the moment we push aside all the mistakes that led us to this moment, and think entirely forward... I do think sanctions are a good idea right now. I think that the best incentive we can lay out for Iran and its people is economics - do they want to be a part of the world community, with all its perks, or not? Sanctions should not be the end of our strategy, but they need to be part of it at this point.

 

The point I was trying to make was more about the labels and the way we look at France's actions. Being the "dove" in their case, saying they want to leave sanctions off as a way to entice Iran to the table, isn't being a "pussy" or lacking in courage. France is standing up and loudly saying that it thinks the U.S. is wrong, that its better to offer a chance than to threaten to take it away. But, I agree with you, that is just not the right approach right now.

 

Do you see the distinction I am trying to make?

[samclemens]

I don't agree with France's take on this. Sorry if that wasn't clear. If for the moment we push aside all the mistakes that led us to this moment, and think entirely forward... I do think sanctions are a good idea right now. I think that the best incentive we can lay out for Iran and its people is economics - do they want to be a part of the world community, with all its perks, or not? Sanctions should not be the end of our strategy, but they need to be part of it at this point.

 

The point I was trying to make was more about the labels and the way we look at France's actions. Being the "dove" in their case, saying they want to leave sanctions off as a way to entice Iran to the table, isn't being a "pussy" or lacking in courage. France is standing up and loudly saying that it thinks the U.S. is wrong, that its better to offer a chance than to threaten to take it away. But, I agree with you, that is just not the right approach right now.

 

Do you see the distinction I am trying to make?

 

yeah, i get ya, looks we agree here

[Balta1701]

I don't agree with France's take on this. Sorry if that wasn't clear. If for the moment we push aside all the mistakes that led us to this moment, and think entirely forward... I do think sanctions are a good idea right now. I think that the best incentive we can lay out for Iran and its people is economics - do they want to be a part of the world community, with all its perks, or not? Sanctions should not be the end of our strategy, but they need to be part of it at this point.

 

The point I was trying to make was more about the labels and the way we look at France's actions. Being the "dove" in their case, saying they want to leave sanctions off as a way to entice Iran to the table, isn't being a "pussy" or lacking in courage. France is standing up and loudly saying that it thinks the U.S. is wrong, that its better to offer a chance than to threaten to take it away. But, I agree with you, that is just not the right approach right now.

 

Do you see the distinction I am trying to make?

Ok, here's a counter-point on sanctions on Iran...why exactly would we expect that Sanctions would work at all in this case? For the last century, economic sanctions have an ungodly bad record of actually accomplishing any political goals. They don't turn a population against it's leadership, they often strengthen it, and the people who wind up suffering are the people themselves. Sanctions against Iraq just killed a lot of people, 40 years of sanctions on Cuba has done nothing except increase the cost of sugar and make Coke taste worse, and so on. Virtually all the data out there show this is true.

 

And specifically in this case, I find it highly doubtful that sanctions would do anything at all, because of the oil issue. Seriously, how important is the threat of sanctions against Iran if Iran still finds itself able to sell oil at >$50 a barrel? Someone is going to buy that oil, whether it be China, India, Pakistan, Iraq, or someone else. And that is going to render whatever sanctions regime we come up with quite ineffective.

[southsider2k5]

Hmmm so you are saying we should nuke their oil fields? Interesting...

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Ok, here's a counter-point on sanctions on Iran...why exactly would we expect that Sanctions would work at all in this case? For the last century, economic sanctions have an ungodly bad record of actually accomplishing any political goals. They don't turn a population against it's leadership, they often strengthen it, and the people who wind up suffering are the people themselves. Sanctions against Iraq just killed a lot of people, 40 years of sanctions on Cuba has done nothing except increase the cost of sugar and make Coke taste worse, and so on. Virtually all the data out there show this is true.

 

And specifically in this case, I find it highly doubtful that sanctions would do anything at all, because of the oil issue. Seriously, how important is the threat of sanctions against Iran if Iran still finds itself able to sell oil at >$50 a barrel? Someone is going to buy that oil, whether it be China, India, Pakistan, Iraq, or someone else. And that is going to render whatever sanctions regime we come up with quite ineffective.

I agree with part of what you are saying, and disagree on another.

 

The oil part of the picture does indeed muddy the waters. Even if the whole western world, and Russia, respect the sanctions (which would be difficult to achieve), someone else will try to dive in. As you said. But all that causes really is a shift in alignment of economic channels - some countries buy more from Iran, we buy more from other countries. So yes, oil complicates things, but I don't believe it causes problems for sanctions.

 

As for the history of trade sanctions, I do not agree on their ineffectiveness. I'll give you two reasons. One, look at Iraq. Even though Saddam was still holding on to power, and his inner circle still grew fat... his military continued to weaken, civil strife increased, and the effect was felt even for him.

 

Second reason, and much more important, is... the internet. Why you may ask? Here is what is very different now from 10, 20, or 50 years ago. Information can flow freely into Iran, and does. Iran's population is growing more and more attached to western culture every day - products they cannot easily get elsewhere. And further, they see what is actually going on in the world. This cuts the legs out from under dictators and controlling governments. For this reason, I feel strongly that economic sanctions are much more likely to succeed than they have previously.

[Balta1701]

Second reason, and much more important, is... the internet. Why you may ask? Here is what is very different now from 10, 20, or 50 years ago. Information can flow freely into Iran, and does. Iran's population is growing more and more attached to western culture every day - products they cannot easily get elsewhere. And further, they see what is actually going on in the world. This cuts the legs out from under dictators and controlling governments. For this reason, I feel strongly that economic sanctions are much more likely to succeed than they have previously.

Wait one second...how exactly does economic sanctions help the people in Iran gain a more free flow of information? What economic sanctions are likely to do is first make the people of Iran more poor, such that it will be more difficult for them to afford the sorts of communications technologies that would allow them greater access to information, second it would make that sort of equipment more expensive because it would be harder to import it into Iran, and third it would likely make the people themselves more dependent on the government for general supplies that they can't get elsewhere, like food, which works against any anti-government instinct that people in that country might have.

[NorthSideSox72]

Wait one second...how exactly does economic sanctions help the people in Iran gain a more free flow of information? What economic sanctions are likely to do is first make the people of Iran more poor, such that it will be more difficult for them to afford the sorts of communications technologies that would allow them greater access to information, second it would make that sort of equipment more expensive because it would be harder to import it into Iran, and third it would likely make the people themselves more dependent on the government for general supplies that they can't get elsewhere, like food, which works against any anti-government instinct that people in that country might have.

I think you missed my point. Economic sanctions will not help people get a more free flow of information. What I said was, they already HAVE a growing flow of information, and despite Iran's best efforts, people there are getting access to it. The way that plays in with sanctions is all about blame. Iran's people, if they see the news about the sanctions and they want to continue to have access to western culture, will blame their own government and cry out for change. THAT is why you put on the sanctions.

[southsider2k5]

Wait one second...how exactly does economic sanctions help the people in Iran gain a more free flow of information? What economic sanctions are likely to do is first make the people of Iran more poor, such that it will be more difficult for them to afford the sorts of communications technologies that would allow them greater access to information, second it would make that sort of equipment more expensive because it would be harder to import it into Iran, and third it would likely make the people themselves more dependent on the government for general supplies that they can't get elsewhere, like food, which works against any anti-government instinct that people in that country might have.

 

After watching the Irani President's speech on CNN, they had an excellent analyst on there who talked a lot about the backround of the President, where he came from, and why he was elected. It was interesting because hearing him talk, the situation reminded me a TON of the elder Bush's Presidency. The analyst said that Ahmadinejad was elected pretty exclusively because of his promises to reform the Irani economy and to stop soaring unemployment and inflation. The locals in general didn't really seem to care as much about the foreign policy stuff, and that things haven't changed that much under the current President despite the near record oil prices that Iran has seen over the past year. The foreign policy stuff seems to be aimed more at the Palestinians, the Lebannonese etc, and not really his own people. The interesting conclusion was that already Ahmadinejad would be seemingly vulnerable when up for reelection if there isn't some tangible change in the economic situation of the average Irani. I guess they vote with their pocketbooks as well if you believe this reporters research and interviews off camera with Joe Irani.

[Balta1701]

The interesting conclusion was that already Ahmadinejad would be seemingly vulnerable when up for reelection if there isn't some tangible change in the economic situation of the average Irani. I guess they vote with their pocketbooks as well if you believe this reporters research and interviews off camera with Joe Irani.

Interesting point...but it's only an issue if you believe that Ahmadinejad is either the only problem or is the actual source of power in that country. I don't believe either of those...Iran's government is still run mostly by the Islamic Clerics, who do not come up for a vote. These were the same clerics who expelled quite a few candidates from the Presidential race that elected Ahmadinejad, and they're the ones who have the power over the military.

 

There is some infighting in Iran constantly in terms of the elected leadership wanting more power from the clerics, but the constitution of that country gives these folks a huge amount of power. They can declare war, run the military, appoint the nation's judges, appont members of their parliament, etc. Simply getting rid of Ahmadinejad will not suddenly make Iran's government pro-America. The Clerics are another big part of the problem.

[southsider2k5]

Interesting point...but it's only an issue if you believe that Ahmadinejad is either the only problem or is the actual source of power in that country. I don't believe either of those...Iran's government is still run mostly by the Islamic Clerics, who do not come up for a vote. These were the same clerics who expelled quite a few candidates from the Presidential race that elected Ahmadinejad, and they're the ones who have the power over the military.

 

There is some infighting in Iran constantly in terms of the elected leadership wanting more power from the clerics, but the constitution of that country gives these folks a huge amount of power. They can declare war, run the military, appoint the nation's judges, appont members of their parliament, etc. Simply getting rid of Ahmadinejad will not suddenly make Iran's government pro-America. The Clerics are another big part of the problem.

 

Whoa there. I never said Ahmadinejad not getting reelected would lead to a pro-American group getting elected in Iran. In reality that is probably never going to happen. They have been chanting "death to America" after Friday prayers for almost 30 years now, I doubt that who is the President is suddenly going to make the average Irani forget the years of indoctrination that they have been raised with. Heck the vast majority of Iranis aren't even old enough to remember the Shah, let alone anything pro-American ever being said in their country.

 

Where I was going with that point was you felt economic sanctions might not matter... I was sharing that people are already upset with their standing in life by and large in Iran. If the people felt that the government's insistance on taking on the world on certian issue was exsaserbating their suffering, Iran might be more likely to back down, fearing revolt or revolution in a country that has done it before.

[NorthSideSox72]

Where I was going with that point was you felt economic sanctions might not matter... I was sharing that people are already upset with their standing in life by and large in Iran. If the people felt that the government's insistance on taking on the world on certian issue was exsaserbating their suffering, Iran might be more likely to back down, fearing revolt or revolution in a country that has done it before.

And that right there is basically what I was trying to get at.

 

People in Iran, increasingly, have enough information to know about their country's foreign policy and actions. They will know who to blame.

[Rex Kickass]

Anybody read Chavez' speech transcript. Can't say I agree with him, but I loves me some oratory! He calls the UN worthless, calls Bush "the devil", complains about the smell of sulphur, cites Noam Chomsky repeatedly!, invites everyone to Venezuela, and talks about how most of his delegation isn't allowed out of the planes that took them to the US.

 

That's some speechifyin!

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Anybody read Chavez' speech transcript. Can't say I agree with him, but I loves me some oratory! He calls the UN worthless, calls Bush "the devil", complains about the smell of sulphur, cites Noam Chomsky repeatedly!, invites everyone to Venezuela, and talks about how most of his delegation isn't allowed out of the planes that took them to the US.

 

That's some speechifyin!

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

 

 

Rex, you must be one of about 4 people on this planet that take that blustering idiot seriously.

[Rex Kickass]

Did I say I'm takin him seriously? It's really an entertaining read.

[Balta1701]

Rex, you must be one of about 4 people on this planet that take that blustering idiot seriously.

As much of the U.S.'s oil as Venezuela supplies, someone better take him seriously about something. Even if it's not his oratory.

[kapkomet]

If this were 25-30 years ago, this would be condemned to high hell on US soil. Now, no one cares. PATHETIC.

[Rex Kickass]

There has been a long history of people rebelling against empire. Often to establish an empire of its own. I think, in this case, Chavez has a point. American foreign policy since 1991 has very much been to spread its dominion as far as possible throughout the world. Being the only major power left in the world, the policy was in my opinion inevitable. However, not tenable for more than a medium term. Too many powers were ascending, notably China. We have been, knowingly or not, following a policy of empire across the planet partially because our own policies move glacially in worldview. We went from a bipolar world to one that was quickly moving from US hegemony to multipolarity. Our policies have not kept up with world events because our political worldview has also not kept up with world events.