Le Sabot Post-Moderne

Wait a minute. You said:

Bush clearly has the respect of the leaders of North Korea, Pakistan, Libya and Iran.

3 of these 4 countries are in the "Axis of Evil" according to his own words. And respect from these people is a good thing?

Respect, as in fear, and serious regard.

I remember standing in the rain in front of the U.S. consulate in Munich on September 13, where the ground was covered in flowers and a couple dozen ordinary people were lined up to sign a condolence book. I also remember Shcroeder promising "absolute solidarity," and NATO invoking its mutual defense clause for the first time in its history. And I remember that Germany is commanding the international force in Afghanistan. And Bush has squandered that currency like a drunken sailor on shore leave.

Kerry didn't say "foreign leaders", but "more leaders". The reporter who first quoted him as saying that went back to his tape and found he'd transcribed it incorrectly.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/3/16/11939/3395

Of course all the dissidents of Iran are pro-Bush. They are hoping that he will again play the role of the white knight galloping in on the noble stead of the US military and save them from their oppressive leader, just as he did in Iraq. White knights are great for saving damsels in distress. The IAEA is for issues of nuclear weapons. And the President of the US is supposed to be focused on American needs. In an ideal world, I suppose.

And as for "respect", maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but my trusty rusty Microsoft Word thesaurus lists 7 meanings and 6 synonyms for respect, none of which are fear. "Fear" may be used to connote "respect" (such as in "the fear of the Lord") or "reverence" as stated in the aforementioned thesaurus, but not the other way around.

Even if Disco meant "fear", I don't think instilling fear into the hearts of people with, or trying to procure, nuclear weaponry is necessarily wise. Who do you think they will most want to neutralize if they have fully functioning weapons? Those they hate or fear. In the case of the US, it would then be, hate AND fear. And if we can act unilaterally, iolating international law, whose to stop them?

Well here's the question, given that the countries Disco mentioned feared/hated the US long before Bush came on the scene do we leave them free to do whatever they want (including develope nuclear weapons)? Or do we do everything in our power to make sure that they know that they can hate us all they want but the moment that they chose to act on that hate it will be their undoing?

What's the deal with the drunken sailor crack? I've got friends and relatives in the Navy and no of them are of the drunken big spender variety. It's unfortunate that Americans are so willing to disrespect those who serve in the military to defend our freedom to do so.

Of course their hatred of the US is nothing new. But backing people into a corner is never a good idea, that's all I meant. It makes people act desperately.

I don't think it's our place to make sure other nations don't have nuclear weapons. That's what international agencies are for, and of course we should act within the confines of our role in those organizations. How would we feel if suddenly Britain or (gasp!) France decided they were the world's police? Would we kowtow to their self-ascribed authority? Heck, no! So why are Americans so surprised at the world's balking at our decision to do that very thing?

Further, if you think about it why should we be able to have nuclear weapons and other countries not? The argument that they are the bad guys, aggressors, and that we are the good guys, defenders, doesn't hold water anymore. Not since we became attackers ourselves.

As for the "drunken sailor," it's a figure of speech long entrenched in the English language. I won't presume to speak for Liberal Media, but I doubt he meant to insult your family anymore than people mean to insult the mentally challenged when they refer to stupid people as idiots (an archaic term for the severely retarded).

As AutMom said, it's a long-established figure of speech. I see no reason for you to infer disrespect for the U.S. military (not all sailors are in the U.S. Navy, or even in any Navy at all) from my comment.

OK, so Bush squandered the currency like a drunken North Korean merchant sailor buying Cuban cigars, Russian vodka and Iranian pistachios in a French cafe in Hamburg. That better? Now would you care to respond to my argument?

I would disagree that the reformists are looking for a "white knight". I could be wrong, but my guess is that they respect (not fear, reverence, etc.) Bush for standing up against a brutal Stalinist regime. It's the same thing they're trying to do, and they recognize a man with similar values.

Autmom-

You don't think instilling a certain amount of awed respect is good? The great thing about having Clinton prior to Bush is that we don't have to compare the two approaches in a vacuum. Clinton played VERY nice with all of these regimes for 8 years, and turned the other cheek when the Cole was attacked, two embassies were bombed, and the Twin Towers were nailed the first time. And what did it yield? An economic shakedown from North Korea, no inspections from Iran, a Libya meddling in sub-Saharan Africa and maintaining WMD programs, and an emboldened al-Qaeda. Bush has made progress on each of these fronts.

I'll take respect over contempt pretty much any day of the week.

Liberal Media-

Germany and France, during a time when vitually everyone believed Saddam Hussein had missiles and poison gas ready to fire, refused to approve Patriots for Turkey, a NATO member. That's how far their actual loyalty to NATO members runs. About as far as their oil interests or political whims will allow them. Not far.

Autmom, again-

The reason we should be able to have nuclear weapons and (some) other countries not is because some countries are insane. This, to me, should be obvious to anyone who accepts the world as it actually is, rather than viewing it through some sort of moral equivalency goggles. Anyone who thinks there is some sort of equivalency between, say, Britain and North Korea is crazy.

N.K., for example, has been Iran's greatest help in developing nukes. Iran, for the uninitiated, is one of the world's largest terrorist supporting nations. A huge percentage of the national economy rests directly in Rafsanjan's hands, and gets funneled to Hezbollah and the like. It takes a great deal of faith in human nature to think nuclear technology wouldn't follow the same route. I'm a Calvinist, and have little such faith. :-)

Ryan-

Liberals sneered the same way about Reagan during the 80s. I know you're young, but can you remember back when liberals actually admired and supported freedom activists? You'll prolly have to take my word for it, but there was actually a time when libs were at the forefront of supporting movements for democratization. Unfortunately, the Iranian activists have names like Reza and Hassan. Too bad there aren't any Castros or Allendes in Iran, they might get more respect. ;)

Seriously though, I agree. They aren't looking for a white knight, they're looking for what every dissident trapped inside a totalitarian nightmare is looking for -- pressure from the free world on those oppressing them. Reagan kept the struggles of the brave anti-Soviet dissidents in front of the eyes of the world in his speeches and actions. Bush does the same for those suffering in Iran and North Korea.

On the other hand, North Korea has been practically glowing about Kerry.

Which makes you wonder -- if people like bin Laden and Kim Jung Il support Kerry, shouldn't that tell us something?

Autmom-

I just reread what I wrote. PLEASE don't read the part about "anyone who thinks such-and-such" is crazy" as literal. I have tremendous respect for you, and would hate to accidentally give offense to you. :)

I guess I've been away from the computer too long. Just because a disparaging phrase is a well established in any language doesn't mean it should continue to be used. I think my point about the willingness of many to disparage those who protect them is still valid. I wasn't responding out of some emotional desire to defend family and friends. I provided them as examples that the stereotype is mostly false. I just think it is sad that such an unflattering charicature of people who defend us is still so willing used.

As for responding to Liberal Media's argument that President Bush screwed up this that and the other thing, if I did say anything about it would you listen? Or would it just be another chance for you to carry on about how Bush messed something up? You seem pretty committed to your opinion.

There are lots of other things mentioned here that I would love to ask questions about but it's late so good night.

Disco-

Liberals once supported democritization? And here I thought that all that stuff in my text books at Uni was just revisionist history. Next your going to tell me that they actually supported working class people back in the day... you old timers sure do remember things differently.

No offense taken, I'm getting used to you :).

About the moral equivalency thing, of course they are not the same; as I stated once before sometimes I get on a roll and start exaggerating a smidge. Call it my fiery Italian nature. But, only a smidge, I'll say, because my point was not that I honestly thought that we should arm N. Korea but that I'm finding it hard to discern, these days, the good guys from the bad. Before we attacked Iraq, the line seemed much clearer. Bad guys are instigators, good guys don't attack unprovoked.

Yes, Hussein was a horrible, evil man, but there are lots of horrible, evil men running countries and who died and made America God, so as to rid the world of these evil men? The way we went about it was ALL WRONG and if America the Beautiful can do something all wrong perhaps we are not as good as we thought. And if we can be not as good as we thought, perhaps others are not as evil as we thought. Or perhaps we are simply further down the goodness-evil continuum than we thought. And at what point do we get so far down that we pass from being worthy of the trust of the world to possess/manage nuclear weaponry, to unworthy? And if/when we do cross that line, will be willingly disarm the way we expect other nations to do?

I don't know why you should offer it, but I appreciate your stated respect. May I bottle it and carry it around with my in purse? (Purse? Who am I kidding, my purse is a diaper bag with a wallet thrown in :)!)

Disco -
You stated that bin Laden supports Kerry? I must've missed that news day. When did he release this statement? And even if he did say this, let's see, you thought he'd support Bush for re-election?
OK, now on to Clinton. First, let it be said that my first Presidential election I was eligible to vote in, I proudly submitted by absentee ballot from college for Jorge Sr. Then when Clinton won, I wore all black to denote this miscarriage of justice, and wearing the only black clothes I had, a turtleneck and jeans, all day in Phoenix, is true dedication to one's beliefs, let me tell you. When the Monica Lewinsky affair became public, I danced around my living room, thinking we had finally found a way to get rid of him. I'm no Clinton fan. BUT...
According to Richard Clarke's recent statements, Clinton actually was very active in combatting al-Qaeda. It was during his term that at least 2 millenium terror attacks were thwarted, because of the diligence he showed in monitoring them. Clarke said there were daily, or every-other-day, meetings with Clinton concerning al-Qaeda, and information was forthcoming from down the ranks and it was listened to and acted upon. Further, there WERE bombings in Afghanistan, trying to neutralize him. So if you look at it logically, Clinton prevented attacks like 9-11 from happening. It was only after Bush ignored them for 9 months that 9-11 was able to be executed. Clinton thwarted attacks, Bush didn't. And the reason Clinton did not follow Clarke's advice to actually decimate the training camps was two-fold
1) The public would not have supported the attacks because we had been kept largely in the dark about al-Qaeda. Average American Joe knew nothing about what was going on in this realm. And
2) He thought the public would perceive it to be a maneuver to detract from the Monica affair, and truth be told, that is exactly what I would have thought at the time.
At the time of the transition in the White House, it has been said that the ONE piece of advice Sandy Berger gave to Condoleeza Rice was to watch al-Qaeda, and I've heard it said that a similar piece of advice came from Clinton to Bush. This from an administration that, if the stories are true, childishly removed all the W's from the White House keyboards as they moved out.
If you want to talk about an emboldened al-Qaeda, let's talk about what it's become since Bush steered attention and our military might off of Public Enemy Number One.
And no, I don't think Libya or Iran respect us, I think they are toying with us.

Disco- Denying Patriots to Turkey was despicable. But this came *after* trans-Atlantic relations had sunk to a post-war low and German solidarity with America had disappeared, and has to be seen as part of a series of despicable actions, on both sides - but I put most of the blame on Bush.

Samantha - How is it a stereotype of the people who defend us? Not all sailors are in the U.S. Navy.

You're absolutely right that just because a phrase is well established is no reason to go on using it if it's offensive. I just don't see it in this case (though that may be because I'm hyper-skeptical of claims about offensive language, having heard so many ridiculous ones from the left).

And my argument is not that "Bush screwed up this, that and the other thing," it's that he squandered the genuine sympathy and solidarity of the German (and French) people and government.

Disco - forgot to ask: which oil interest exactly is Germany defending in Afghanistan?

Samantha - I didn't mean to imply that your objection is ridiculous - at least not as ridiculous as the ones form the other side of the spcetrum ;) - just that I don't see it.

Don't know if anyone is still reading this thread, sorry, was on vacation...

Ryan, you said:

but my guess is that they respect (not fear, reverence, etc.) Bush for standing up against a brutal Stalinist regime. It's the same thing they're trying to do, and they recognize a man with similar values.

The difference I see is that Iranians have a perfect right to take back their country from oppressive leaders, it's THEIR country. Bush led us into a war to overthrow someone else's leader, and create a new system of government that, to my knowledge, they never asked for. A movement that might have come from the people of Iraq would have had the advantage of having the support of most Iraqis, at the very least a grassroots support network. And there'd be 613 (that was last Thursday's count anyway) more people alive in our military, had such a movement come from Iraq, internally.