The Stout Republican

Nice to meet you Right Girl! An American that can apparently empathize with Castro and other “evil” regimes more than the majority of her own country. You sound like one in a million, but something tells me, by the closeness of the key races you lost, that you’re actually one of a few.

I personally would prefer it if other countries “liked” us. Allies do come in handy every now and then. Yes, I want France to like us. Oh, and those people in England, I prefer having them on our side. I also wouldnt want China to have a death wish towards us.

Diplomacy isnt dead (even though Bush wishes that it was) Hopefully our new government will have an open dialouge with people like Castro and crazy ole Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Maybe then we can actually solve some problems, and change the way the world is heading for the better. Unless you want us to just blow everybody up………

Castro and “evil” in quotes…someone doesn’t know their history if they can’t solidly link Castro with evil actions…do you own a Che Guevera t-shirt and listen to Rage?

While it is nice to be liked…I didn’t know international politics was a high school dance. Our role is a leader, not a best friend… regardless of whether or not France likes us (they should be more concerned with their failing social culture, economy, political structure, and country in general) I don’t see them going to war or cutting off trade with us because we’re not “liked”. One of the joys of being the world’s largest consumer is our economic muscle is far more important that batting our eyelashes and cuddling up with evil people (I know you moral relativists hate to hear that) hoping that they’ll listen to our suggestions when there is no real repercussions on the table.

And yes Practical…intelligent interpretation of the alternatives…being liked, or blowing every one up (I’m sure you have more than Iraq to support such a well thought out statement…if I recall, your Clinton had 25 major troop deployments and has bombed more countries than George Bush, and he’s very well liked). I suppose that’s what “nuance” is.

I put “evil” in quotes because it’s such a dogmatic, narrow minded term in a gray world. He’s a bad guy to us and others, no doubt. But unfortunately, he’s part of the rest of the world, whether you’d like to admit it or not. And the allies we surely could use in case we go to war with anyone else are a necessity with our troops being so thinly spread out in Iraq.

But, deny that if you like. That’s why you’re not in power anymore. (oh, I’ll never get tired of saying that)

See stout, there was a reason “liked” was in quotes. I know that there is a difference between a country saying “America is so Cool!” and “America is a nation that we want to work with and support” They may not like all of our policies, but it is important that they feel as though they can work with our government and have an open dialouge with them. In the last 6 years we have made too many enemies. We have lost the support of nations that used to be our allies. We went against all recomendations of the United Nations. While I understand that war and “bombing” is a necissary evil, I dont think that it is the only way to solve problems. Clinton did bomb other countries (and I assume that you mean he bombed more countries than Bush, not that he dropped more bombs than Bush) but he didnt TAKE OVER and impliment new governments on these countries under false pretenses while thousands of Americans died. He also went in with NATO and didnt alienate our allies in the process.

I dont pretend that this is a perfect world and that bombs will never be necissary, I simply make the point that having friends in the world is important. I for one am happy that other nations are happy (and may I say relieved) that there is a change in our direction of government. I dont blame them.

I understand your train of thought here PL, but your facts are just wrong. Is it better to be loved or feared? We should be feared by those countries that pose a threat…otherwise we have a Clinton/Korea agreement with wine and signed basketballs, and look at how well that turned out. We can’t treat tyrants with kid gloves giving them whatever they want just because they throw a temper tantrum in the grocery store…sometimes they need a swift smack, otherwise what good is our word. Libya disarmed after we invaded Iraq, they didn’t like us (no kudos from Dems on that one, which was a huge accomplishment), but military action was a language they spoke, not appeasement, which seems to be the monolingual language of the lbierals. We talk when necessary, but military is always on the table.

The US has and will always have enemies..we haven’t made many enemies that we didn’t have before, and I challenge you to list enemies that we’re not so under Clinton. Not people who are upset…but enemies, your word. Yes, relationships are strained, but to cross over in enemy territory, that’s reserved for a few totalitarian regimes that have been, even before George Bush came into office, and will always be evil. For a group of people who are supposed to not see things in black and white, it’s odd that the assumption that relationships being strained means they hate us…and even if they did, my earlier argument (unaddressed) is that being liked means little in the world…our role in the World Market means far more.

Clinton did however create the law that allowed Bush to “Take over” (misleading choice of words since we voted for none of the current leaders in Iraq).

This placing of blame consistently on Bush is ridiculous and banal. At the time we did invade Iraq, most countries were with us, as their independent intelligence came to the same conclusions ours did…but that doesn’t matter because of the bumper sticker mentality, “Bush Lied, Kids Died.”

No military action, however, is risk-free. I know that the people we may call upon in uniform are ready. The American people have to be ready as well.

Dealing with Saddam Hussein requires constant vigilance. We have seen that constant vigilance pays off. But it requires constant vigilance. Since the Gulf War, we have pushed back every time Saddam has posed a threat.

-Bill Clinton – 1998

Like US? Hell they LOVE US!!!

All the statistics I can find indicate that the US is still by far and away the destination of choice for immigrants WORLD WIDE…39 of 91 million immigrants world wide in 2005 chose the US.

As for tourists…46 of 711 million tourists world wide in 2005 chose to visit the US.

Proudly,

GoingThere

The argument isn’t whether or not we have more enemies under Bush, it’s the fact that we have less allies. And though we have the same amount enemies as before, said enemies have turned on their hatred from opinion to action.

And your Clinton quote is a tad irrelevant considering Saddam didn’t pose as a threat to us. Just ask Hans Blix and the 9-11 Commission. Oh wait, no. That’d be like relying on the UN or, gulp…the family of 9-11 victims. You know, the ones who were personally affected by the tragic attack.

It is incredibly important that as the leader of the free world, the U.S. take the correct stances on difficult issues. It may not make us popular, but we have done the right thing in our post 9/11 decisions. When you have children (assuming you don’t already) would you prefer that you are popular with them by being their “cool friend”, or would you prefer to lead with authority and be ultimately respected as a result? In the long run, the decisions we have made up until this point have been for the betterment of our future, not only as a country but ultimately for the free world.

Can anyone now tell me what the Dems plan to do with Iraq? But really, what’s their strategy (that apparently is far more superior to the current) again? Oh yeah…there isn’t one.

I believe that it’s just such metaphors/perspectives (comparing these other countries to our children) that lead to our former allies resenting America.

But nope, couldn’t tell you the Dems plan other than to discuss it and debate it rather than just supporting Bush and going along for the ride in the ditch.

PR, I was using said metaphor to help those who don’t understand that leadership and respect are different than being liked and friends. But of course you knew that, being as intellectually astute as you are.

Right Girl, as you can see in my post abouve, being “liked” had nothing to do with being a countries “cool friend.” I used liked in quotes because it is how you simplified it in your original post. Of course we have to have a firm hand on issues, but that dosent mean that we have to alientate our allies and create MORE hostility towards us. I will be the first to say that war can be an unfortunate evil. Part of the responsibility of being a superpower is having to work together with people and other nations, and making the choices that will not just benefit us, but will benefit others as well. Sometimes that is war and violence, sometimes it is diplomacy. But if we anger enough people in the world by saying “We dont care what you haave to say, we aernt listening!” the diplomacy part of the equation with not be possible.

We have not benefited from Iraq, Iraq has not benefited from us being there( as they are now in thethrows of a civil war and have lost thousands upon thousand of innocent civilians, and I know they have a democracy now and Saddam is gone, but it will never be any good if their people dont stand behind their new government), and the world has not benefited from it in any way that I can see.It has just futher divided all of us.
So you say we made the right decisions after 9/11, and I will continue to disagree. I believe that Afghanastan was the right decision, but Iraq was an incredible mistake. Can you tell me why we went in there? They didnt attack us, they had nothign to do with 9/11, and there were no WMDs. So how was it the right choice?

And as far as the dems strategy in Iraq, I am not sure what it will be. I am no fan of the democratic party all the time either. I just know that we need a change, we need to do SOMETHING different, and Bush and his pals werent giving it to us. So I am putting my faith and my hopes into a new direction led by the democratic party, just like people all over the world are.

“It is incredibly important that as the leader of the free world, the U.S. take the correct stances on difficult issues”

I couldnt agree more.

Right Girl, don’t worry. I won’t hold your personal attack via blunt sarcasm against you. I’ve come to realize that before, back in the day when I would resort to such tactics, it wasn’t a problem with me personally. It’s that I was representing the minority party. The losers. So now that I know what it’s like to be in those shoes, I won’t hold it against you when you lash out at me for pseudo-consolation for being such a loser.

“Libya disarmed after we invaded Iraq, they didn’t like us (no kudos from Dems on that one, which was a huge accomplishment), but military action was a language they spoke, not appeasement, which seems to be the monolingual language of the lbierals.”

First of all, kudus for getting Libya to disarm, although that is not coming from a Dem, but an Independent, so I dont know if you will count that…..

Second, military is always on the table for Dems as well (ie Bill Clinton and all the countries he bombed, which you pointed out) Its just never the only option, and when military force is used, it is usually used in common with the UN and NATO as a last resort.

I dont believe that any of my posts have implied in any way that I am for “appeasement, which seems to be the monolingual language of the lbierals.”

There was no inferring that you are for appeasement, this has been a criticsm of the Democratic party.

I think this sums it up for my thoughts on that (pardon the bumper sticker):

Even I have to admit that is pretty funny.

See I’m just picky about my wars, while republicans seem to think any war will do………… :)

Does this country really have friends or are our allies just allies because the U.S. give billions of dollars a year away in foreign aid? If other countries want to be our friends, then why do they try to influence our laws and affect change on our sovereignty to benefit themselves? It is laughable to believe that the likes of France and other European nation really want to be our friends. We save a lot of asses in world war two and forgave a lot of war debt so that these other countries could be rebuilt. Not to mention that foreign aid we handout to these beggars every year. We get attacked on 9/11 and what do they say? “Gee were sorry America, But it must suck to be you.” Europe did not like our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq for one simple reason. They were complicit in the oil for food scandal and we ruined their con game.
And you can forget negotiating with terrorists. It has been tried and has never worked. Trying to negotiate with a terrorist or terrorist nation is like trying to tell a small child it cannot have candy. The only response is to whine and ask “WHY” and throw a fit. Sooner or later you have to put diplomacy aside and use a little corporal punishment.
Oh…and by the way. The Dems may have control of both houses of Congress, but the President is the one that dictates foreign policy. The Dems do not have that power. Neither the house of reps or the senate have that power. I guess they have not learned that control is an illusion. You cannot control something you do not have full and complete power over and even then it is not perfect control.