An Irish Re-Elect "George W" Canpaign

dangerman

So its a moot point, beyond recognising that protests of the above nature are not your right.

I'm still not convinced. If all such protests back to the start of the state were unconstitutional, then i have to say i'm surprised.

It centres on the constitutional definition of 'nuisance' does it really mean ms. alberkerky can't drive into the ilac center parking & buses being diverted or does it mean something more sinister?

But I definately take on your point about it being moot. The simple fact is that if 100,000 people choose to assemble, no one can do anything about it short of rolling in tanks.

In the end, of course I'll have to back down if in legal terms it's not a right. But I still think it's a great thing that people can and do protest in the manner that they do, whether or not i agree with the reasons - just like the taxi drivers protests about deregulation. I definately didn't agree with them, but i was glad they could do what they did.

You raise very interesting points about clinton vs. bush, stuff I was already semi-aware of. [I didn't go out to welcome clinton.]

However, I think you are ignoring a vital point.

The fact that clinton was a bastard just like bush doesn't mean its hypocritical to march against bush. Not for me anyway. I can see where your coming from, your getting to the point that everyone liked clinton and didn't mind him f*cking over the world or whatever, yet now that bush is at the helm everyone is rallying against him.

It's the arguement that is the problem: If you didn't do something in the past [protest against clinton], then your just an idiot for protesting about bush now.

No i'm not. Fine, maybe everyone should have been up in arms about the clinton administration. But they weren't, everyone welcomed him like he was jesus. Whatever about that, that was then. Maybe we were blind, uneducated, maybe it's cause since then half the population has read stupid white men. I'm not sure.

It's certainly a valid point and well worthy of further discussion. But it's not a protest-killer.

But Id imagine if an American was to look at the protests, and then think back to the hysteria that greeted Clinton on his visit, theyd be mightily confused as to the difference in reaction.

Good. As i said, if americans get confused, they may ask questions, read more about it. Maybe vote ralph in!

Anyway. There's a bit of a problem here with this discussion. Your talking about the general folk who protest, whereas I'm replying with my own personal defence for protesting. The two are slightly different. I woudn't even begin to legitimise other people's reasons for protesting what with the complete tards who go to these things on a regular basis [like the may 1st situation.]

I agree that the clinton/bush love/hate relationship may seem irrational to you; someone who was aware then of the 'evils' committed by clintons admin and now seeing whats happening with bush; in terms of the complete mood swing. Is it really vitrol and pure hatred? I'm not sure. A lot of people take the pragmatic view that we shouldn't piss off the americans, which sometimes i feel myself leaning towards. I think it's just the growing publicity surrounding the current us administrations blunders; same or not as the previous administration, people are aware of them now and wish to march now. I don't think this is really that irrational.

Like it or not, hypocritical or not, bush is to be held responsible for the problems that get put on our screens like the torture, like the reports of americans & iraqis dieing everyday. It just so happens that he is on his way here. People don't like war, people have always disliked war. People march against it to show they're own personal disgust for it. Are they wrong? Are they ignoring the hugely complex international situation? Not sure. But they still have the right to get out and protest about it if they feel strongly about it. What's certainly true is this war has so much more popularity in the media; which puts it far more in peoples minds, the horror of it, daily; people are angry about it.

To a certain extent I agree, but it is wasted effort. People get so hyped up about protests, and yet when the time comes to vote those hundred thousand people who were voting with their feet reckon theyve done their part and the same shower get in again. All that passion and effort and nothings changed.

My reasons for marching are because i believe americans will here about it and wonder why we're doing it - if a large enough contingent do it then they can't pass it off as 'the usual yobos.' Though now that Farenheith 911 has received the palm d'or - that'll have a far bigger impact than our march.

Tell you what. I'll do my bit to help you guys out. I'll march in single file.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Bush didnt do anything Clinton and Europe hadnt done already

Could you show me the war Clinton started on false pretenses?

The Bush borked the Kyoto Treaty?

This is crazy - Clinton *signed* the Treaty, but he never got it ratified by the American Congress, because it would be like tossing a lamb into a lion pit.

Yes, but Clinton actually recognised the importance of the Kyoto treaty, and was considered to be generally on the side of the ecologists in this issue, because their case was convincing enough. Since Bush has come into power, respectable scientists and their opinions have been increasingly sidelined, in favour of appointed teams who will find results which match the already pre-formed decisions of teh Administration.

This month's SciAm has an editorial on exactly this - criticising how Bush has repeatedly done this, up to and including suppressing and/or skewing findings that did not back his pre-formed visions.

Clinton, on the other hand, was - and is still - highly respected for how seriously he treated science and research, and - while he wasn't perfect - he at least gave a convincing impression that he was interested in finding out what was right, and working it into his political ideals, rather than deciding what was right and making the science fit it.

And indeed ratifying the treaty is only a token effort - Last I heard Ireland, who ratified the deal, was way over its target emissons. Which is worse? Rejecting a deal, or ignoring it?

Firstly, the Kyoto protocol set targets for the end of a time-period. Your argument is like saying that because a transatlantic plane is behind schedule over the atlantic, it shoudl be considered late, even though all that matters is when it lands.

Secondly, the Protocol doesn't take effect until it has a required number of signatories, so you're basically arguing that we are at fault for not meeting something we signed up for but which hasn't actually come into effect yet.

Bush is the pawn of big business?

This is great - I didnt know this, but when I found it out I learned I wasnt cynical enough. The top three contributors to Al Gores campaign in 2000......were the also the top three contributors to George Bushs campaign. Talk about hedging your bets!

Yes, but how much did they give to each? And what overall percentage of Bush's monies electoral were from big business vs Gore's erquivalent percentage?

And what if we compare Bush to, say, Clinton - who came before him - or Kerry - who is his current challenged. You've seen enough discussions here about why Nader cost Gore so many votes - because Gore was the most Republicanesque Democraat findable - and yet you present this as a defense of Bush??? Gore lost some of his own party's support because he wasn't enough of a party-guy. He was too much like the opposition. Trying to spin this to say that this shows they're all the same is ludicrous.

It would stand to reason that if Bush is a slave to his backers, and directs policy on their behalf, then Gore - Clintons VP - would also be a slave to his backers,

Hold on. You talked about Gore's Presidential backers. Now you're saying that these people must have had him in his pocket when he was also a veep. Don't you think you should actually show that this was the case first?

Bush is attempting to cement US world domination? Have you read that Project for a New American website?

Seriously - should he be planning towards losing American domination? Was this what Clinton was doing?

No, but Clinton made great moves to improve US relations with the rest of the world, and did so to a level of success unimaginable when he came into office. He had his disasters, and he had his successes, but he managed to do it in a way where - at no time - did he ever turn around and basically say "fsck the rest of the world's opinion. We're doing this thing because we say its the right thing to do, and if you don't support us, we'll consider you to be against us".

If you want, you can reduce it to Clinton - and his Administration - being immeasurably superior diplomats and salesmen than the current crew.

The world needs a hegemon, that is so powerful that no one can contemplate war against them, especially a hegemon that is fairly benevolent and is idealogically at least for free trade and economic/personal liberties.

And under Clinton, that was quite probably teh perception. Under Bush, far more people see that his vision is that the world needs a controller.

And - for me - the key words here are "fairly benevolent". Thats what is missing in Spades from the Bush Administration - or at least, thats the growing perception. "Failrly benevolent" is being replaced with "do as we say, or else".

The other options are far worse.

I fail to see how a more altruistic, benevolent hegemon is a worse alternative to a more abusive, self-serving one.

I mean when you look at it, when you compare Bush to Clinton and see the wildly opposing views on them its incomprehensible.

Yeah. I mean...Clinton lied about sex for Gods sake. How unconscionable is that. Bush would never stoop so low.

You can only say that people hate Bush because hes Republican, plays up his Texan and religious values, and has an amusing speech impediment.

Maybe you can only say that, but its far from hte only thing that can be said.

The level of vitrol and pure hate just doesnt make any sense on a rational level.

Sure it doesn't....when you dismiss all the allegations against the Administration as "vitriol and pure hate", rather than considering that maybe...just maybe...there's a fire or two behind all of that smoke.


jc

Ste.phen

Who are the jackasses voting for

If they do it I will attack them

I mean if you're apparently protesting against bush and his policies (particuarly those that are human rights related), isnt a pot kettle black situation?


aaah... some people...

Redleslie2

Originally posted by Igy
Who are the jackasses voting for



I mean if you're apparently protesting against bush and his policies (particuarly those that are human rights related), isnt a pot kettle black situation?


aaah... some people...

If a pro-war mob got attacked in the streets as they waddled along in single file, it'd be poetic justice in a way.

Redleslie2

Originally posted by Sand
The world needs a hegemon, that is so powerful that no one can contemplate war against them, especially a hegemon that is fairly benevolent and is idealogically at least for free trade and economic/personal liberties.

That's the most amusing thing Sand, or anyone else for that matter, has ever posted here. I tip my hat.

sceptre

Originally posted by Sand
The world needs a hegemon, that is so powerful that no one can contemplate war against them

You honestly want a state that we're all essentially subservient to (or for the paranoid, more subservient to)?

How about a doomsday machine? (we could even get around the most obvious disadvantage by telling people about it)

Sand

In the end, of course I'll have to back down if in legal terms it's not a right. But I still think it's a great thing that people can and do protest in the manner that they do, whether or not i agree with the reasons - just like the taxi drivers protests about deregulation. I definately didn't agree with them, but i was glad they could do what they did.

Yes, I agree, freedom of assembly is all fine and good and shouldnt be threatened. If were to llok at a more recent example, the truckers are threatening to shut dublin down with their protests unless the Minister for Finance satisfies their demands.

Now they have a right to protest the policy of the Minister. But do they have a moral right to cause a general nusiance - which is what theyre threatening - to shut dublin down? And if not why not? Its all well and good to say, well its only one day, youll get over it , but when every lobby group, union and students union is out there having their one or two days causing a general nusiance to the majority, in the interests of a minority....well its no wonder that the more astute protest organisers have realised that "shutting dublin down" might do more harm to their cause than good.

No i'm not. Fine, maybe everyone should have been up in arms about the clinton administration. But they weren't, everyone welcomed him like he was jesus. Whatever about that, that was then. Maybe we were blind, uneducated, maybe it's cause since then half the population has read stupid white men. I'm not sure.

They should have been - they should have been up in arms when the Chinese Premier visited as well if it was the principle of the thing that bothered them. But they werent. As for SWM....reading that isnt going to educate anyone tbh. My own theory is two fold - the US is the dominant culture and so is the whipping boy for western protestors, and of course rebelling in conformity. I could be wrong. Thats just my own take on it.

The reality is that a lot of people in Ireland dont have a problem with Bush visiting - its not a big deal to them, no more than the Chinese Premier was. Those who feel strongest about his visit will unsurprisingly be the most vocal however.

I think it's just the growing publicity surrounding the current us administrations blunders; same or not as the previous administration, people are aware of them now and wish to march now. I don't think this is really that irrational.

I think theres more hype about it now - the UN "crises" is an example. The US not heeding the security council was horrific, appalling, disgraceful, the actions of a rogue state and mad war monger etc etc etc etc. A few years ago half the politicians taking this line were participating in the same activity *with* Clinton. There wasnt half as much hype about it then - even Annan didnt seem to mind too much.

Tell you what. I'll do my bit to help you guys out. I'll march in single file.

Cheers man, every little helps

Could you show me the war Clinton started on false pretenses?

Kosovo - supposed to mass genocide by the Serbs there - as it turned out less than 2000 were killed and refugees were actually attacked by NATO forces if I remember correctly.

Bush invaded Iraq on bad intelligence and it seems Clinton did too. Much as the intel of WMD drastically overstated the immediate threat, the intel of genocide also overstated the problem.

Of course if you mean false, as in supposed lies, you can look at Haiti, which Clinton invaded to supposedly rebuild democracy - more likely it was to give him a good exscuse to get rid of all the boat people leaving Haiti - which he did. No refugees were making it as far the Carribean from Rwanda so he didnt invade there despite an appalling massacre. However, neither did Ireland or any other Western power until it was far, far too late.

Yes, but Clinton actually recognised the importance of the Kyoto treaty, and was considered to be generally on the side of the ecologists in this issue, because their case was convincing enough.

So what? He knew it couldnt be sold. The Senate 100% rejected the Kyoto deal before it was even finalised - before Clinton even signed it, let alone presented it to the . It was a lousy deal as far as the US was concerned - it was never going to be passed and Clinton never did get it passed. It was left to Bush to admit that it couldnt be passed. So Clinton gets all the glory for signing a pointless deal, and Bush gets demonised for bringing a dose of reality to the situation. If anything Clinton should be criticised for being such a bad negotiator as to sign up to a deal that he couldnt get ratified.

Ah, but the difference was PR? Clinton smarming through promising everything and delivering nothing? Compared to Bush making it clear that this deal wouldnt be ratified? Clinton effectively wasted everyones time. He shouldnt sign up to a deal he cant deliver his end of, just to get kudos from enviromental lobby groups. Thats contributing to the problem, not solving it.

Yes, but how much did they give to each? And what overall percentage of Bush's monies electoral were from big business vs Gore's erquivalent percentage?

See this page, bout half way down . For detailed stats you could try google. I do remember reading somewhere that the Rep party makes more from small donations than the Democrats do - all those mid western Christian fundmentalists I guess.

Gore lost some of his own party's support because he wasn't enough of a party-guy. He was too much like the opposition. Trying to spin this to say that this shows they're all the same is ludicrous.

If you look at the profile for Gore on that site, it claims that Gore was actually more populist than Clinton and this may have harmed his chances, though it notes his polls jumped after more populist speeches, so thats debateable. Clinton may not have been the typical Dem but Gore was to the left of him, not the right.

and Nader is stealing votes from the Dems because a significant proportion of the Dems believe that there isnt much difference between the Dems and Reps - perhaps because they *both* act as slaves to big business?

No, but Clinton made great moves to improve US relations with the rest of the world, and did so to a level of success unimaginable when he came into office. He had his disasters, and he had his successes, but he managed to do it in a way where - at no time - did he ever turn around and basically say "fsck the rest of the world's opinion. We're doing this thing because we say its the right thing to do, and if you don't support us, we'll consider you to be against us".

I dont see that to be true - Bush Snr presided over a fairly peaceable passing of an era with the end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet empire, mobilised a massive colaition and won UN backing for the liberation of Kuwait and also undertook a highly successful misson in Somalia to alleviate the biblical famine there. Not entirely unsucessful in foreign policy tbh.

On the other hand Clinton withdrew from Somalia after 18 soldiers died supporting UN operations against the warlords in that country. He did so unilaterally, basically saying " "fsck the rest of the world's opinion. We're doing this thing because we say its the right thing to do, and if you don't support us, we'll consider you to be against us"

Oh alright - he didnt say the well consider you part. Makes all the difference. With out the US support the UN in Somalia were royally and totally fecked- the remaining troops were practically beseiged inside their camp. But again, Saint Clinton, Demon Bush.

If you want, you can reduce it to Clinton - and his Administration - being immeasurably superior diplomats and salesmen than the current crew.

Ill give them that. Bush and co are too honest - they just come on out and say whats on their mind, "axis of evil", "old europe" and all that. Clinton didnt do anything really different - indeed the Kosovo war by committee design pretty much ensured the US would never submit to something like that any time soon - they were just better at hoodwinking people that yes, their views mattered and were important.

And - for me - the key words here are "fairly benevolent". Thats what is missing in Spades from the Bush Administration - or at least, thats the growing perception. "Failrly benevolent" is being replaced with "do as we say, or else".

Agreed - perception.

Sure it doesn't....when you dismiss all the allegations against the Administration as "vitriol and pure hate", rather than considering that maybe...just maybe...there's a fire or two behind all of that smoke.

Im not dismising them out of hand- Ive looked at the things that apparently make bush evil, compare them to the actions of King Clinton the Good and I dont find anything that justifies the 180 in reaction beyond the mans PR.

Sand

You honestly want a state that we're all essentially subservient to (or for the paranoid, more subservient to)?

Do I want it? No? But a hegemon discourages conflict - if no one can win a war against the hegemon then no one will start one. Assuming the hegemon is pro free trade, liberalisation and so on it stands to reason that in this enviroment smaller nations that have good government, rule of law property rights and so on along with open trade policies will prosper.

Or you could have a world of several major powers who view a war against a rival as winnable, thus leading to mistrust, the creation of blocs, alliances, closed trade, and so on.

So weather we like the concept of a hegemon, benevolent hegemons are good for the trade and the economy and thus for living standards. Keynes lamented in a book in 1919 the passing of an internationalist age when a Londoner could prior to WW1 could order goods and services from across the world and travel freely without a passport. That sort of reality is only slowly coming back to exist again in todays world. Where the British Empire used to be the global hegemon, now it is the US. neither were or are perfect - but theyre a damn sight better than other hegemons such as the Chinese or another Cold war or balance of power powderkeg.

User45701

OK so the way it is now its 23 will attack if they march and 7 will march.
Thats 3-1 i like those odds i will be marching if there is a pro bush march so i will see all u 23 ppl on the combat field, i never throw the first punch i always throw the last.

GeorgeBush

The people of Ireland have an excellent opportunity to stand shoulder to shoulder with America against the Islamic terrorist campaign and show their admiration of a strong US president by giving him a warm welcome.

I for one am a admirer of George W Bush and the great work he has done in preventing further attacks against America and making the terrorist understand that America will not tolerate terrorism against its people or country.

Ordinary Iraqis can now look forward to a free and prosperous country, without the evil dictator making their every day lives a living nightmare. The countries in the Middle East can bid farewell to the aggression and bad faith of the former evil Saddam and welcome with open arms the new developing democracy.

So lets all gather our thoughts again and reappraise the situation and show our backing for George W Bush!

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Kosovo - supposed to mass genocide by the Serbs there - as it turned out less than 2000 were killed and refugees were actually attacked by NATO forces if I remember correctly.

Errr? Excuse me? Kosovo is - as far as I know - the first time that chanrges of genocide have been made and successfully prosecuted against those who orchestrated it.

The death toll (between 3000 and 4000 from what I read) was not the prime mover here, but rather the hundreds of thousands of people (million and a half rings a bell) forcefully evacuated from their homes, the forced rape of women etc.

It is also arguably the first time that someone intervened early enough to actually stop things before the worst happened, rather than waiting for that and then saying how bad it was. To class that as "false assumptions" when the US's reasons for action were never about death-toll (in order to justify action, it was the impact on surrounding nations caused by the masses of fleeing refugees which was the justification) is staggering.

Bush invaded Iraq on bad intelligence and it seems Clinton did too.

No, Clinton had enough evidence to satisfy the legal requirement of NATO's charter - that a threat was posed to other nations.

He presented this evidence, and not only showed that it was incontrovertible in terms of the significant number of refugees and the impact they would have, but he and his administration were also very careful to state that they did not know the fate, but feared the worst of the missing men.

It was the media, not the govenrment, who jumped on the notion that there were far more dead than was known.

It is also known - for a fact - that once it became clear that action would be taken, action was taken to hide bodies. In "A problem from Hell", for example, it is mentioned how there are satellite photographs of fresh graves, which - when investigated - were no longer there, replaced instead by signs of heavy machinery.

So again, the figure for deaths is known to be too low...it is simply the verified deaths. However I wouldn't argue that the initial figures reported by the media were grossly exaggerated.

The final death toll - even allowing for the uncertainty - was still far lower than the media reported at the time, but there was no false assumptions that I am aware of on the US' behalf. But maybe you could point them out?

Much as the intel of WMD drastically overstated the immediate threat, the intel of genocide also overstated the problem.

Nope. Not the case.

Genocide is not legally restricted to the killing of people. The mass exodus from Kosovo has been accepted as fitting the legal definition of genocide.

And, as I mentioned above, convictions re: genocide have been obtained against some involved in Kosovo, so its a bit hard to claim that the claims were in any way jumped up.

Of course if you mean false, as in supposed lies, you can look at Haiti, which Clinton invaded to supposedly rebuild democracy

And did he not leave a democratic state behind him?

Sure, we can argue he did a botched job, but there's nothing except those conspiracy theories you love to debunk so much giving credence to the idea that there was an agenda to build a corrupt government, is there?

No refugees were making it as far the Carribean from Rwanda so he didnt invade there despite an appalling massacre. However, neither did Ireland or any other Western power until it was far, far too late.

I would readily agree that Rwanda was the blackest mark on Clinton's book. He didn't take action because of a number of factors, but primarily because there were no US interests at stake.

So what? He knew it couldnt be sold.

Sand, you wanted to know why he is more liked.
He wanted Kyoto. Because he knew it couldn't be sold - as you say - then surely trying to sell it would have been even more stupid than biding his time and waiting to see if the situation changed, or an opening presented itself to sell it.

Clinton never gave up on Kyoto, and even after his presidency has become even more vocal in support of "Green" issues.

Bush, on the other hand, has given ecological issues a big two fingers, repeatedly, since the start of his term in office.

You tell me which is more likeable - someone who wants to do something you agree with but can't, or someone who doesn't want to do it at all and instead does the opposite?

Ah, but the difference was PR? Clinton smarming through promising everything and delivering nothing?

Yes, thats why Bill is still going on about Kyoto almost 4 years after he left office. Its because he didn't really care about it and was just using it as a smarmy popularity-grabber.

I don't think so.

Compared to Bush making it clear that this deal wouldnt be ratified?

Compared to Bush who not only said it wouldn't be ratified, but that there was no real scientific evidence to fully support it anyway, and that America needed to use more resources, only use them more wisely...not use less.

Yeah - I can see how the world would be confused into only seeing it in a PR light, when the two men clearly actually believe in diametrically opposing things.

Clinton effectively wasted everyones time. He shouldnt sign up to a deal he cant deliver his end of, just to get kudos from enviromental lobby groups. Thats contributing to the problem, not solving it.

More spin. Clinton could never have even tried to get it ratified if he hadn't signed....and he had a window in which to at least make the effort.

Bush Snr

Huh? In explaining why you can't see how junior is worse than Clinton, you feel the need to show how Clinton stacked up against Daddy???

I don't get it.

On the other hand Clinton withdrew from Somalia after 18 soldiers died supporting UN operations against the warlords in that country.

Yes, he did. He did so because after analysing the situation, it was clear that the US' position in Somalia was no longer tenable, and hadn't been since before the Mogadishu disaster. It was determined - rightly or wrongly - that the US was now part of the problem, no longer part of the solution. And, of course, it would be popular back home too, which obviously had an issue.

With out the US support the UN in Somalia were royally and totally fecked- the remaining troops were practically beseiged inside their camp. But again, Saint Clinton, Demon Bush.

No, Clinton took what was generally regarded as the least worst option at the time. Again, we have the delight of being able to apply over a decade of hindsight into how poor a choice that was in retrospect, but you don't have the same benefit with the actions of Dubya, so it makes the comparison somewhat unfair.

As a matter of interest...if the US are asked to and do leave Iraq by the government post June-30th (assuming it all comes to pass), and all hell breaks loose in Iraq....will that be Dubya's fault or not?

Im not dismising them out of hand- Ive looked at the things that apparently make bush evil, compare them to the actions of King Clinton the Good and I dont find anything that justifies the 180 in reaction beyond the mans PR.

Well then I'm pretty sure that you never will understand it.

Clinton was far from perfect, and pointing out his individual failures (and then daddy's successes) as some sort of score-card to try explain the shift in popularity is so out of touch with reality that I can't seriously believe that you even believe it.

jc

Magnolia_Fan

In Time magazine it was said Clinton had intelligence on (I forget which, it was a while ago) but either Sadam or Usama of their exact where abouts and had the chance to launch a strike on him and he chose not to because he was in the middle of a presidential Golf tournament.

I agree with poster George Bush to a certain extent...but though I wouldn't vote for Kerry I still wouldn't give Dubya my full backing he has made some very bad desicions during his time in office. I felt his main stance for going to war with Iraq should have simply been Sadams failure to play by the E.U regulations instead of WMD because even if Sadam had WMD, with the time limit Bush gave him he could have buried or destroyed them..or chances could be they got rid of them 10 years ago..maybe.

Another thing that frustrated me was that he seems very politically correct. He never really expresses too much emotion. If I was called a cowboy I wouldn't contain myself..or if Peace Protestors were calling me "dumb" and a "war monger" and even having burning effigys I wouldn't just say "I understand they are peace loving people"..and if Al Gore said I was "betraying my country" I sure as sh!t would take it lying down...but somehow he does and I feel it often goes un-noticed...Politically it is a good thing but I don't like it simply because every time I see him talking I want him to lash out at them

Sand

No, Clinton had enough evidence to satisfy the legal requirement of NATO's charter - that a threat was posed to other nations.

Woah, woah, woah. When the hell is NATO the UN security council - the absolute final authority on when war is allowed or not allowed. To fail to go with the UNs opinion are the actions of war mongers and rogue states - isnt it?

They violated Yugoslavias sovereignty, intefered in an internal affair. Are you saying that NATO has the right to ignore the UN where it see fits?

Clinton couldnt prove genocide to the satisfaction of the UN security council - these are the absolute final judge, the international community.

Oh wait. Now I get it. When we say international community and approval we mean Western Europe. Now I understand - because when you think about it the only difference between Iraq and Kosovo in terms of the UN was the Europeans, sorry, the international community, agreed with Clinton and didnt agree with Bush.

Europe=International Community.

Now I get it.

And, as I mentioned above, convictions re: genocide have been obtained against some involved in Kosovo, so its a bit hard to claim that the claims were in any way jumped up.

Ah right, the end justifed the means?

The only difference in the intel is that Clinton got convictions on the genocide and Bush didnt walk into a WMD lab. The evidence they acted on was of similar quality.

There is no doubt that Saddamn used to have WMDs, that he had used them previously, that it was not certain they were all gone, and that he would at the first opportunity develop them again - and then a lot of varibale quality intel from defectors and so on. None of this means that WMD were there, but its a lot of smoke.

The same goes for the evidence of genocide that Clinton acted on. A lot of people fleeing out with terrible stories, clear combat between the KLA and the Serbs, and the Serbs past history in recent conflicts. A lot of smoke and there was fire - with the fire only being *proven* after the fact.

Clinton could have just have easily found that the Kosovars had fled the Serbs *reputation* rather than their actual actions - along with the simple desire to get out of a warzone , and that the terrible stories were just rumours or exaggerations. Where would he be then?

Sure, we can argue he did a botched job, but there's nothing except those conspiracy theories you love to debunk so much giving credence to the idea that there was an agenda to build a corrupt government, is there?

Haitians were fleeing Haiti for the US in their thousands - they were picked up by the Us and kept in Gitmo ( not US territory so no asylum claims afaik). Clinton then invaded a tin pot dictatorship and then got in some UN troops to garrison the place, fled and dumped the Haitian refugees back on the Island and washed his hands of the affair. I mean, with a democratic Haiti in place those refugees could go home with no guilty US conscience.

Misson accomplished, Mr Clinton.

Now dont get me wrong, tin pot dictator gone is a good thing, with the chance of democratic state being built equally good - but that was just cover for getting rid of the refugees.

Sand, you wanted to know why he is more liked.
He wanted Kyoto. Because he knew it couldn't be sold - as you say - then surely trying to sell it would have been even more stupid than biding his time and waiting to see if the situation changed, or an opening presented itself to sell it.

I go into a bar. Ive only got a fiver in my pocket, but I announce Ill buy the drinks for everyone all night - just put it on the tab. Everyone thinks, what a nice and generous guy. It comes to pay up time and then I cant foot the bill.

Am I still a nice guy for saying ill do what I clearly cant? Or am I fool for wasting everyones time, encouraging them to plan on a false pretence?

Ill finish up when I get home.

mike65

I hav'nt been following this thread since it turned into a "quote-fest" but clicked out of..........boredom only to see in the poll 26% of voters said they will attack George Bushs' supporters.

Could you please all identify yourselves, I feel we should know who you are.

Mike.

Ajnag

Thats probably just the boards garda contingent, It would be unprofessional to Just to attack anti bush protesters without extending the same even handed treatment to pro-bush protesters.

BEAT

Originally posted by thejollyrodger
I thought I was alone but I always thought Geroge Bush was a brilliant leader. Im honoured that he wants to visit our small country and I will be making every effort to come out and support him

He has done so much for America, Africa and the middle east that once Iraq becomes peaceful, history will record his vision of world stability that he has help bring. This will no doubt be recorded as the turning around of Africa to prosperity and the iradication of debt and illness like AIDS etc.

We owe so much to America, they provide us with military secuirity, econmic development, and a cultural connection, we should salute the president that (those) americans voted into office.

The US Army short comings in Iraq and its certain mis use of tatics should not be allowed to cloud our judgement or turn a proud day sour.

Even I became a bit ill after reading that...hey where is that bucket?

BEAT

Originally posted by GeorgeBush
The people of Ireland have an excellent opportunity to stand shoulder to shoulder with America against the Islamic terrorist campaign and show their admiration of a strong US president by giving him a warm welcome.

I for one am a admirer of George W Bush and the great work he has done in preventing further attacks against America and making the terrorist understand that America will not tolerate terrorism against its people or country.

Ordinary Iraqis can now look forward to a free and prosperous country, without the evil dictator making their every day lives a living nightmare. The countries in the Middle East can bid farewell to the aggression and bad faith of the former evil Saddam and welcome with open arms the new developing democracy.

So lets all gather our thoughts again and reappraise the situation and show our backing for George W Bush!

good lord, forget the bucket, some one hand me a pistol :rolleyes:

Sand

Alright - Continued.

Yes, thats why Bill is still going on about Kyoto almost 4 years after he left office. Its because he didn't really care about it and was just using it as a smarmy popularity-grabber.

Sand, you wanted to know why he is more liked.

Yeah I see your point, he wasnt just playing up something that would never work purely for personal popularity.

Compared to Bush who not only said it wouldn't be ratified, but that there was no real scientific evidence to fully support it anyway, and that America needed to use more resources, only use them more wisely...not use less.

Well first of there was a Saudi Oil minister, whose name escapes me, who said that the Stone Age didnt end because people ran out of stones.

Also what George Bush said about the Kyoto Treaty was that it was deeply flawed...

"The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."

The Villainous George Bush, articulating why such a treaty would never ever ever ever be passed by the US senate, which actually had been rejected prior to Clintons decision to sign up to this treaty which was seen as deeply unfair on the US.

But yeah, Clinton was great because he signed up to something he couldnt get passed. Ever. I know I speak with the benefit of hindsight but there was never the slightest hint of a chance of that treaty being ratified.

More spin. Clinton could never have even tried to get it ratified if he hadn't signed....and he had a window in which to at least make the effort.

Or he could have taken an honest negotiating position and said, listen, I cant sell this crap - Youve got to give me something I can sell or I might as well not waste your time and my time.

Only he was too cowardly to be honest, and instead fled, leaving the tough and unpopular decisions to his successor. But, at least his heart was in the right place, what a great guy.

Huh? In explaining why you can't see how junior is worse than Clinton, you feel the need to show how Clinton stacked up against Daddy???

Well, it was a bout a week between your last post that i responded to and this one so Ill let it go. But the quote function is there for a reason.

I was responding to your point that Clinton was so great because he did so well on the foreign policy front, on a level unimaginable at the time of his arrival - which implies his predeccessors were disastrous or plain bad.

His predeccessor was Bush Snr, who as I demonstrated, and you expertly ignored, actually ran a pretty damn good foreign policy in terms of accomplishing goals, maintaining stability in an era of unprecedented change and forging and maintaining a massive UN alliance to defeat Saddam.

In comparison Clintons foreign policy achievements were ****ing the UN in Somalia, invading haiti for less than valourous motives, desperately doing his best to ignore Rwanda, ignoring the growing threat of Al queda, bombing Sudan, Iraq and Kosovar refugees.

Oh yeah, and wasting everyones time with Kyoto.

Now Im not saying Clinton was far worse than Bush Snr, or even Bush Jnr, but to claim that his was a period of great american foreign policy triumphs unimaginable at the time of his election is setting your standards pretty damn low.

And indeed, his administration operated by a opportunistic unilateralist philosophy - going with the consensus when it agreed with them, going against it when it did not. They blatantly ignored the UN when it wouldnt give them what they wanted, they violated national sovereignty as and when they saw fit, they blatantly applied double standards - Haiti was worth involvement, Rwanda wasnt, - and screwed the UN misson in somalia, deserting it. You cant blame them, compared to the US operations designed to end the famine (the US refused UN requests to attempt to disarm the somali warlords saying it would lead to trouble, the UN took over, tried to disarm the warlords.....trouble) the UN operation was a disaster, but the international community still felt it worthwhile until Clinton ran, unilaterally.

So - tell me, of all the sins the Bush administration has committed, which one wasnt committed by the Clinton administration in some shape or form? Enlighten me as to the rational reason, that Clinton was hailed as a god whereas Bush will be demonised as Satans chief servant upon the earth?

Beyond hype.

And, of course, it would be popular back home too, which obviously had an issue.

I would have actually believed this myself - Americans have a reputation of not being able to stand bodybags, and until I read up on Somalia i assumed it was public pressure that led to the withdrawal. But apparently, US polls, however innacurate, and they are, found that a majority of polled Americans at the time favoured sending *more* troops to combat the warlords in Somalia as a response to the deaths of the 18 soldiers, let alone staying in to complete the job.

The implication being that US politicians are the ones who cant stand bodybags. Understandably, come election time.

No, Clinton took what was generally regarded as the least worst option at the time.

By himself, for himself.

As a matter of interest...if the US are asked to and do leave Iraq by the government post June-30th (assuming it all comes to pass), and all hell breaks loose in Iraq....will that be Dubya's fault or not?

If theyre asked to leave, rather than just saying "feck this for a game of soldiers - youre on your own lads" then the resulting chaos would be on the hands of Iraqi provisional government. They after all are the provisional representitives of the Iraqis, and are accepted as such by the US.

Which Somali government asked Clinton to leave Somalia by the way?

Clinton was far from perfect, and pointing out his individual failures (and then daddy's successes) as some sort of score-card to try explain the shift in popularity is so out of touch with reality that I can't seriously believe that you even believe it.

I ask the question why the polarised opinions towards the two presidents and compare their records trying to see the major differences that could cause such a shift. I dont find any major changes beyond spin, hype and pr.

How else am I to attempt to analyse the seeming paradox of varying opinions on presidents which followed the same basic views with regards to foreign policy? Read up on Michael Moore? Now thats out of touch with reality.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
They violated Yugoslavias sovereignty, intefered in an internal affair. Are you saying that NATO has the right to ignore the UN where it see fits?

No, but I'm saying that - unlike Bush - Clinton was at least able to prove in hindsight that the reasons he offered for invasion were actually valid.

Bush has had to perform this foot-hopping, excuse-changing exercise, where the reasons offered weren't the real reasons, because the real reasons (we did it because he's a bad man) were apparently too complex or something.

Clinton couldnt prove genocide to the satisfaction of the UN security council - these are the absolute final judge, the international community.

Clinton's action resulted in the UN charging people with genocide and finding them guilty. The court action, in retrospect, proved that even if clinton was wrong to ignore the UN, the UN's opposition was actually the incorrect position. Genocide was occurring, and the court trials have since proven that.

Bush, on the other hand, also insisted that the UN was wrong, rushed into a war when there was no apparent crisis that made it so urgent (unlike CLinton) and - in the end - came out and said that the information presented as being the conclusive threat that justified his actions was just plain wrong....and still maintains that he hasn't made any mistakes.

Ah right, the end justifed the means?

Well, you'll notice that I have previously been personally highly criticial of the bombing tactics employed by Clinton, so no, I don't believe that at all. Nor do I believe that Clinton was above criticism.

What I do believe is that Clinton had a genuine crisis, which he recognised, investigated responsibly and accurately, decided to take action on, took said action, was highly successful, and ultimately ran a campaign that cost very few (if any?) NATO lives, achieved is objective, and then handed the relevant people over to the international community to face charges.

Bush's campaign, on the other hand, has been pretty much the antithesis of this, other than that they both were refused UN actions.

[quote[]b]
The only difference in the intel is that Clinton got convictions on the genocide and Bush didnt walk into a WMD lab. The evidence they acted on was of similar quality.
[/b][/quote]
So are you saying, then Sand, that in your newly-formed position that being right isn't even required? That all you have to do is go on your best guess, and right or wrong you should be judged the same? So you're saying both Clinton and Bush should be condemned. I'll agree to that, as long as we agree that Clinton has - at least - the mitigation that he should be less condemned because in hindsight he was correct and prevented a genocide from being far larger than it was, whilst Bush was just plain wrong, and getting wronger all the time?

There is no doubt that Saddamn used to have WMDs, that he had used them previously, that it was not certain they were all gone, and that he would at the first opportunity develop them again - and then a lot of varibale quality intel from defectors and so on. None of this means that WMD were there, but its a lot of smoke.

But Sand...it wasn't that it was possible he had them. It was that it was certain he had them, coupled with allegations that it was certain he would use them, and that he genuinely posed a threat that he did not pose.

Not only that, but the more these allegations are being investigated, the more and more things seem not to fit. Apparently more and more of the evidence was known be be shaky, but the Administration claim they were never told this. So apparently, the real reason Bush got it wrong - or so it would begin to appear - is that there was a concerted effort by the intelligence services to mislead him.

The same goes for the evidence of genocide that Clinton acted on.

Not true. Clinton was aware of the criticisms which had been levelled at accusations of previous genocides (Rwanda excepted) where the information was foun dearly on but mostly discounted as unrelaible for various reasons. When Kosovo occurred, Clinton made sure his research was done in a manner which addressed the concerns from previous similar investigations, so that his evidence was far stronger than it had ever been, and of a far more certain nature.

As I've pointed out, they didn't get much wrong. The media did, but the Administration openly admitted to not being certain of the fate of many people and feared the worst. So while the death-toll was lower than was perhaps expected, the US administration never claimed that it was orders of magnitude higher or anythng like that.

with the fire only being *proven* after the fact.

The more I read, the more I can see that the stance you're taking here is that they're both wrong. I've no problem agreeing with that Sand....but the evidence still lsuggests that Bush was more wrong. If you want to, consider CLinton's popularity as "least worst option".

Clinton could have just have easily found that the Kosovars had fled the Serbs *reputation* rather than their actual actions - along with the simple desire to get out of a warzone , and that the terrible stories were just rumours or exaggerations. Where would he be then?

Villified, like Bush currently is, for being wrong.

And the "just as easily" is actually incorrect. The US has had sufficient information to conclude that genocide has been taking place in every single occurrence that is considered genocide (or that has elements of genocide) since Lemkin coined the term. In virtually every case, bar Rwanda, the decision to delay was because people who didn't want to get involved cast doubts on the evidence - doubts that subsequently showed to be wrong case after case after case. With Kosovo, Clinton set out to find the evidence in a manner more certain than in any case before, and did so. The US had the best intelligence of any atrocities that it had ever had, giving it the certainty that something needed to be done far earlier, giving it the opportunity to prevent a far greater tragedy and it did so, and was proven right.

Am I still a nice guy for saying ill do what I clearly cant? Or am I fool for wasting everyones time, encouraging them to plan on a false pretence?

You can spin it either way, SAnd. I don't deny that Clinton used the Kyoto agreement to his benefit. But that doesn't mean that he didn't support it, nor that - had the opportunity arisen - that he wouldn't have manged to get it through the Senate.

We have the benefit of hindsight to know he failed, and - just like I said above - you're quite happy to villify him for that. Had he actually found a way to get it through the Senate, then I very much doubt you'd be writing about how shallow and insincere he was signing it when he knew at the time that he couldn't get it through the Senate.

Again, its the difference of being shown to have been right or wrong in hindsight. And again, its an unfair adcvantage that Bush Jnr has over Clinton, in that we can analyse the acitons of one with between four and twelve years of hindsight, whilst the other is very much involved in a single ongoing activity that pre-occupies our view of his presidency and where established fact is in horribly short supply.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Also what George Bush said about the Kyoto Treaty was that it was deeply flawed...

Which was complete misdirection.

From its very inception, it was acknowledged that the imposition of the Kyoto Agreements on emerging economies would not only stifle them, causing problems for the developing nations but create problems for the developed economies and nations in a knock-on effect as well.

Bush's complaint basically boiled down to the fact that Kyoto might give one of the emerging economies (China) a chance to become a bigger player a bit faster, rather than doing what he clearly thought was right which would be to ensure that China's economic development was effectively halted unless China bucked the international community and ignored its agreements.

Again, you can argue he was right or wrong, but it was a basic case of "why should we siffer a little pain when they aren't being asked to cruicify themselves at the same time". I don't think Kyoto was perfect...but I do think it was probably the best initial compromise that could be reached.

To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."

Which he has done by ensuring that the relevant scientific boards are stripped of their independant, dissenting voices, and are instead populated with pro-Admnistration flunkies who toe the party line. He has suppressed and even mis-represented scientific information which doesn't back his vision, and is increasingly seen as the biggest threat to US dominance in scientific research fields by the scientific community themselves.

So yeah...his administration was comitted to leadership alright. Unguided leadership which was going to do what they wanted, regardless of what the real experts said the impact was.

But you're right....signing up to an agreement which the experts back but which probably was never going to get ratified is a far more reprehensible action.

Or he could have taken an honest negotiating position and said, listen, I cant sell this crap - Youve got to give me something I can sell or I might as well not waste your time and my time.

He did. Thats why the Kyoto was reduced to its current form. It was made far less stringent as a sop to the Americans who said that the earlier proposals could never be sold. The US wanted more concessions, until it got to the point where the scientific community - again - pointed out that they had already given too many concessions to have any faith that Kyoto would be more than a symbolic start, adn taht further concessions would negate the purpose of the whole thing.

Clinton talked them down as far as he could...and then accepted that this was the best deal he could take home. Just like Collins negotiating with the British, he knew it was the best they could get, whilst not being good enough. Just like Collins, he took it home and tried to sell it.

Only he was too cowardly to be honest, and instead fled,

Yeah. Sure he fled. He should have run for an unconstitutional third term of office, but instead, he decided to obey the law of his nation and step down once his alotted time had been fulfilled.

Cowardly? Fled? Good lord Sand....have you lost that much objectivity?

I was responding to your point that Clinton was so great

Where have I ever said that Clinton was great. You asked why Clinton is more liked in general. I'm offering reasons. As I've said in the previous post, I'll quite happily agree that he was a lesser bad option if that type of wording mnakes you any happier? I'd condemn him less than Bush, but I wouldn't cast him as a saint. But the same reasons that I'm giving you will be more or less the underlying perceptions by most people who thought CLinton did ok (or better) and that Bush is a disgrace to his nation, his people, and his position.

His predeccessor was Bush Snr, who as I demonstrated, and you expertly ignored, actually ran a pretty damn good foreign policy in terms of accomplishing goals, maintaining stability in an era of unprecedented change and forging and maintaining a massive UN alliance to defeat Saddam.

Well, I eagerly await a post from you on the Reagan thread explaining to all the misguided souls there why Reagan was not responsible (or instrumental) in the fall of the Soviet empire, after which I'll accept your giving credit to Bush snr. on that front.

As for stopping Iraq. Great job. Applause. No question.

The Road to Basra, the encouragement to his own people to rise up against Saddam only to abandon them once they had done so, the resulting 10+ years of sanctions ending ultimately in the messy position we find ourselves in today because the end fo the Gulf War was so botched....they weren't such high points, but I'd be unfair to use hindsight like that, wouldn't I.

Now Im not saying Clinton was far worse than Bush Snr, or even Bush Jnr

Really? One apparenlty only had successes and one only failures going by what you;ve described Sand. So either you're presenting deliberately unbalanced picture, or thats exactly what you're saying.

So - tell me, of all the sins the Bush administration has committed, which one wasnt committed by the Clinton administration in some shape or form?

1) Going to war on uncertain pretenses which were subesquently shown to be wrong to a scale where it is almost unbelievable that there could be no level of either incompetence and/or deliberate misdirection.

2) Undermining the national scientific advisory system so that instead of advising based on scientific opinion, it is a group of lackeys who will say what is wanted

3) Passing of increasing sets of legislation which undermine the very principles that the nation was founded on, in the name of increasing security when - at best - they mostly only increase the sense of security./

4) The establishment of a culture whereby it is considered unamerican to as much as question the actions of your own govenrment, especially if you are in the media.

4) A culture of secrecy, where virtually every single piece of documentation which might be questionable in nature is sealed, as well as a requirement that they can only be unsealed with the permission of the person who sealed them himself - even after he ceases to be President.

5) Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and whatever other number of prisons which are suspect (here, we don't have the benefit of a decade of hindsight as with Haiti to know the result) which - at the very least - are highly objectionable on Human Rights grounds, but where the possibility of actually allowing the Human Rights groups access to make a more accurate finding is anathema.

I was going to list the abandonment of Afghanistan, but then I realised that - yes - that is somehwat on par with Somlia.

Enlighten me as to the rational reason, that Clinton was hailed as a god whereas Bush will be demonised as Satans chief servant upon the earth?

Ultimtely? Because the major conflicts that Clinton got involved in were eithyer genocidal or close to genocidal, and where the involvement was short, not costly in terms of lives, and relatively sucessful.

Bush, on the other hand, picked two major conlifcts which were of questionable necessity (with the second conflict appear more and more doubtful by the day in terms of its offered reasons), which have been massively costly, which have not produced significant successes, and which have been achieved hand in hand with some of the most questionable acts relative to Human Rights that the world has seen in a long time.

If theyre asked to leave, rather than just saying "feck this for a game of soldiers - youre on your own lads" then the resulting chaos would be on the hands of Iraqi provisional government. They after all are the provisional representitives of the Iraqis, and are accepted as such by the US.

So the US carries no blame for putting in place a bunch of people who couldn't be trusted to have the nation's best interests at heart after they were given control?

Bit hard to fail in their mission then, isn't it. Who cares if they've picked the wrong people. Thats not a flaw...but the wrong people doing what the wrong people would be expected to do....well, thats the fault of said people....

Which Somali government asked Clinton to leave Somalia by the way?

I've already said that when the US left Somalia, it was viewed by them as the least worst option - that as a result of their screwups they were now part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

If you want to argue that the US is now part of the problem in Iraq and that things would be better if they left, then please...go right ahead.

...

bonkey

...

How else am I to attempt to analyse the seeming paradox of varying opinions on presidents which followed the same basic views with regards to foreign policy?

Well you could start by stopping this continuous stream of comparing the failures of one with the successes of the other for a start.

I've admitted Clinton is far from perfect, but he did strike me as someone one listened to the experts and tried to do the right thing. Bush, the more I look at him, decides what is the right thing, and then finds the experts he needs to make the case, then when push comes to shove, insists he was misled by the people he chose to have in charge, but doesn't accept that even picking them was a mistake.

But if you still want to figure out who to attempt to analyse the seeming paradox, then consider this about that villain Clinton : I've criticised his bombing-campaign of former Yugoslavia in the not-too-distant past as no different than terrorism - an allegation that you soundly defended him against at the time, where you explained how right and just his actions were. On other issues, as well, in the past, you have firmly defended him from criticism. Maybe if you looked back at the light in which you cast him then, you might see how to begin to reconcile the two.

jc

Sand

You had to use 3 posts in succession there to respond, so perhaps youll forgive me if I pick and choose what I see as your main points and respond to those. If you feel Ive missed anything critical, let me know.

The more I read, the more I can see that the stance you're taking here is that they're both wrong. I've no problem agreeing with that Sand....but the evidence still lsuggests that Bush was more wrong. If you want to, consider CLinton's popularity as "least worst option".

Close - I believe the intervention in Kosovo was justifiable and correct, and I believe the same to be true of Iraq. But thats not the issue here ( there are plenty of thread to argue the rightness and wrongness of both cases already).

Bush is criticised for ignoring the UN Security Council - demonised in fact as a threat to world peace. Clinton also ignored the UN Security Council, with European support. Logically, if the sin is ignoring the UN Security Council, then Clinton must be as bad as Bush.

To say that Clinton was proven morally right in hindsight then implies that the end justifies the means. If this is the case, then logically Bush is also exonerated because at some point in the future he may be shown to be morally justified in ignoring the UN - if for example within the next few years Iraq develops as a fledging democracy with respect for all its minorities.

If you can justify your actions in the present by the insistence that you will be proven right at some point in the future....its the sort of precedent you have argued against in the past I think.

And again, the whole issue is not whether Bush was right to invade Iraq, but the fact that he did much as Clinton did - and yet hes demonised and Clinton loved. Wheres the rationality there?

Clinton talked them down as far as he could...and then accepted that this was the best deal he could take home. Just like Collins negotiating with the British, he knew it was the best they could get, whilst not being good enough. Just like Collins, he took it home and tried to sell it.

The deal was rejected 100% by the Senate even before Clinton signed it. The Senate saw it as that bad of a deal. The fact that Clinton signed it anyway indicates a victory for subjectivity over objectivty - the way we wish things were, as opposed to the way they are. Clinton never got it ratified. It was a lousy deal from the Senates point of view and he knew it. Did he ever even submit it to the Senate to get it ratified after he signed it?

What was the right thing for Bush to do - Not to call time on a treaty that would never get passed? Just leave it alone and hope everyone forgot about it? Bush was honest enough to make an unpopular decison. We criticise politicians all the time for not being honest and practical, for going for the easy populist measure rather than making the tough decisions - and yet we demonise them even when they do?

Whether the Kyoto deal was the best deal around or not, doesnt change the political reality that Clinton never got it ratified, and its highly unlikely that if Gore had won he would have got it passed either. A deal is only worth signing if you can deliver your end of it. bush didnt sign the deal, Clinton did. If we should be blaming anyone for failing to deliver on the Kyoto deal its Clinton.

Again - its hard to see the rationale behind the hatred of Bush regarding the Kyoto deal beyond shooting the messenger, which isnt all that rational.

Where have I ever said that Clinton was great.

No, but Clinton made great moves to improve US relations with the rest of the world, and did so to a level of success unimaginable when he came into office.

I'll accept your giving credit to Bush snr. on that front.

I didnt credit him with ending the cold war, but rather with maintaining stability in the era of unprecedented change which immediately followed it.

So the US carries no blame for putting in place a bunch of people who couldn't be trusted to have the nation's best interests at heart after they were given control?

No - Once power starts being handed back to the Iraqis the responsibility to use that power wisely also starts to be taken by the Iraqis themselves. As the Coalition have ( sensibly imo) agreed to consult the Provisional Govt on the role of their troops in Iraq, they will have to comply if the Provisionals ask them to leave - otherwise its just a sham.

I've already said that when the US left Somalia, it was viewed by them as the least worst option - that as a result of their screwups they were now part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

More correctly because of UN screwups - but it was a decision taken by Clinton, for Clintons benefit alone - abandoning the other UN partners who were still in Somalia, and the Somali people, to their fate. Shameless unilateralism wouldnt you say?

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Bush is criticised for ignoring the UN Security Council - demonised in fact as a threat to world peace. Clinton also ignored the UN Security Council, with European support. Logically, if the sin is ignoring the UN Security Council, then Clinton must be as bad as Bush.

Logically, perhaps, but I don't think you ever asked why Clinton is logically preferred to Bush. You asked why the people love him more.

Look at the outrage over the second Nice referendum. Logically this should translate into people voting against hte party who fscked them over and rode roughshod over the ideals of our law (whilst sticking to the letter of it). In reality, that ain't gonna happen. People will look back, and even many who were upset will be thinking "ah, yeah, but they've been ok since then, and really it was a bit of a storm in a teacup, and and and."

So surely we can at least agree that Clinton has the benefit of the mellowing effect of time which Bush doesn't have.

To say that Clinton was proven morally right in hindsight then implies that the end justifies the means.

Or, it implies that in this case the end justified the means. Why is that the case? Because it was categorically shown after the fact that the UN was in the wrong. Genocide was occurring in real-time, and speed was of the essence to prevent a much greater tragedy.

If this is the case, then logically Bush is also exonerated because at some point in the future he may be shown to be morally justified in ignoring the UN

Not true. Logically Bush should also be condemned because at some point in the future he may be shown to be not morally justified.

We can't base our judgements of today on what we might learn tomorrow. That was what an awful lot of the opposition to the officially-stated reasons for the war was based on - that while we might believe Saddam had WMDs, we didn't know he had them no matter what level of guff the politicans came out with.

Subsequently, it has been shown that, indeed, the officially-stated reasons were based on incorrect information, that there was no immediate threat, and that - at best - the war can only be justified on what were pitched as secondary issues which in no way explain the urgency.

Not only that, but the more time goes on, the more and more and more it looks like this is a completely botched job. If and when Dubya gets his blazing success, I'm sure many of the dissenters will quieten down...just as they did with Clinton.

If you can justify your actions in the present by the insistence that you will be proven right at some point in the future....its the sort of precedent you have argued against in the past I think.

Yes indeed. I have argued against it in the past as a poor reason to base anything on. I levelled that criticism at Clinton at the time. In hindsight, while I still believe that he was wrong to just defy the UN (and I still think his methods of freeing the nation were totally unacceptable), I believe that his defying the UN was the least wrong action he could take. There was no "right" action. After all, there was no UN resolution to go into Rwanda, but that doesn't stop you (or I) saying that the failure to go in there was one of the biggest failures (if not the biggest) of his entire Presidency.

The deal was rejected 100% by the Senate even before Clinton signed it.

Impossible. You cannot legally reject legislation that has not been presented to you, and it could not be presented until Clinton signed on board.

They may have said "we will never sign this", but when is the last time you took the word "never" seriously when it came out of a politicans mouth?

What was the right thing for Bush to do - Not to call time on a treaty that would never get passed?

The right thing for Bush to do may have been to reject Kyoto, if he had a realistic alternative. He doesn't.

His policies regarding science have been backed by hand-picked boards who are chosen to back a pre-made decision. Its that simple - its bad, bad, bad.

Maybe the US shouldn't have ratified Kyoto, but thats not the underlying problem. The underlying problem is that Clinton treated scientific issues with the respect they are due. He is not a scientist. He let the science advisors advise him. Bush decides what he wants, and finds the science advisors on that subject who will back him.

Bush was honest enough to make an unpopular decison.

Sand - look at what you'be just written, and then ask yourself how you can make that statement and still not know why Clinton was and is more popular.

We criticise politicians all the time for not being honest and practical, for going for the easy populist measure rather than making the tough decisions - and yet we demonise them even when they do?

Bush isn't demonised for throwing out Kyoto. Bush is demonised for throwing ot Kyoto and doing nothing seriously positive regarding the future of this planet in its place. In fact, every single thing he's doing in that respect is along the lines of "we need to use more of this stuff".

Whether the Kyoto deal was the best deal around or not, doesnt change the political reality that Clinton never got it ratified,

Nor does that change the political reality that Clinton wanted to get it ratified.

A deal is only worth signing if you can deliver your end of it.

Nice theory, but signing on board to something is only an expression of intent. After all, by your logic, the Irish could never sign treaties either, given that they need to be subsequently ratified by referendum. But we have done, and continue to do, and its the way things work.

Clintont intended to try and find a way to get it ratified. He failed. If he - subsequent to his Presidency - ceased to tour the world lecturing on the importance of ecological reform, I'd believe that your "populist" argument made sense, but he didn't, and it doesn't.

Furthermore, why did Congress not ratify it? Because they knew how much it would cost the nation, and consequently how unpopular that would make them. Now, this seems a bit of a contradiction. Clinton signed it - according to you - for the popular gains, and Congress refused to sign it - again - for the popular gains!

If we should be blaming anyone for failing to deliver on the Kyoto deal its Clinton.

Clinton tried and failed. Bush decided it wasn't worth trying because it didn't fit his vision of increasing the US' consumption of limited resources such as fossil fuels.

Again - its hard to see the rationale behind the hatred of Bush regarding the Kyoto deal beyond shooting the messenger, which isnt all that rational.

Its how Bush followed up on his message which makes the difference.

No - Once power starts being handed back to the Iraqis the responsibility to use that power wisely also starts to be taken by the Iraqis themselves.

As soon as its a democratically elected government, yes. At the moment, we have a US-installed dictatorship. The leaders were not chosen by the people, but by the US.

As the Coalition have ( sensibly imo) agreed to consult the Provisional Govt on the role of their troops in Iraq, they will have to comply if the Provisionals ask them to leave - otherwise its just a sham.

You did see the articles about the just-signed UN resolution where the US have refused to give the Iraqi intervention government veto over "sensitive" US military operations such as the siege of Fallujah.

So it would appear that the US have backed away from Colin Powell's statement that if they were asked to leave, then absolutely they would, no question.

Whats that you were saying about it being a sham were they to do what they've just done?

More correctly because of UN screwups - but it was a decision taken by Clinton, for Clintons benefit alone - abandoning the other UN partners who were still in Somalia, and the Somali people, to their fate. Shameless unilateralism wouldnt you say?

Sand - which part of "least worst option" are you trying to ignore? Are you saying that it would have been preferable to stay there and make the situation worse?

jc

radwa

people only like clinton because of what he did for the situation up the north. what about his own people??? where was he

...when 18 American soldiers were killed in Mogadishus, Somalia, and their bodies dragged through the streets? Bill Clinton retreated and did nothing.
...the first bombing of the WTC took place in 1993 and Bill Clinton did not do anything and stayed complicit.
...when two bombs detroyed two US Embassies in Africa and killed hundreds and Bill Clinton did nothing?
...when the US Cole was attacked and 17 US sailors were killed and Bill Clinton did nothing except talk?
...when Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shia in Iraq?
...when Bill Clinton shot 40+ tomahawks into Iraq? Didn't they worry about civilian casualties then?

on the other hand president bush, a great republican, conservative didn't hesitate on spreading democracy and freedom across afghanistan and now is doing it in iraq. when iraq is finished i hope he will go in and smash saudi-arabia or maybe even syria. the UN have proved to be a useless body. he doesn't base his actions on the decisions of other nations and is the only president i know who doesn't lie. he says something he means it, so come on folks let's get this pro-bush demo going!!!

i go into further details here http://freedom-is-not-free.now.nu

bonkey

Originally posted by radwa
president bush, a great republican, conservative didn't hesitate on spreading democracy and freedom across afghanistan

/me falls off his chair laughing.

There won't be elections in Afghanistan until October 2005 at best, so Bush has brought a sum total of absolutely no democracy whatsoever to Afghanistan at this point.

Not only that, but he has more-or-less entirely withdrawn US troops from Afghanistan (other than to hunt Al Qaeda, but to do nothing about the continuing trek towards democracy in the country) leaving an area around Kabul under the control of non-US NATO troops.

His chosen President has recently been in power-sharing discussions with the very same warlords who controlled Afghanistan under Al Qaeda, and who still control the vast majority of the country.

He has reneged on his promises of rebuilding the country, and the amount of money given to the Afghan nation compared to Iraq is pitiful, despite the country being in far, far worse shape.

A bit less of the GOP propaganda, and a bit more actual truth wouldn't go astray in your comments.....but it being an election year, who can really be surprised (although why you're trying to plug the guy on a predominantly-Irish site is beyond me).

jc

radwa

Originally posted by radwa
president bush, a great republican, conservative didn't hesitate on spreading democracy and freedom across afghanistan

are u blind, is that problem? do you not see men shaving their beards. women driving, people listening to music, watching tv. the IQ level of some people baffles me

ciaran

Sand

Logically, perhaps, but I don't think you ever asked why Clinton is logically preferred to Bush. You asked why the people love him more.

Well, to be more exact I questioned the logic underlying the fact that people love clinton more even though clinton is just as guilty of many of Bushes sins. Ive been arguing that logic does not define the hatred of Bush, rather hype does. If, as youve allowed, peoples reaction to the same great crime is not logically the same then hype must play a role.

So surely we can at least agree that Clinton has the benefit of the mellowing effect of time which Bush doesn't have.

Sure, but we have to recognise that both have/will visit as acting President when their deeds were/are fairly topical.

Why is that the case? Because it was categorically shown after the fact that the UN was in the wrong.

So its possible the UN can be wrong, and thus it is not a problem to ignore the UN as such - as they may be shown to be wrong in the future. I agree.

Genocide was occurring in real-time, and speed was of the essence to prevent a much greater tragedy.

4,500 kids were being killed a month by UN sanctions. Would you be open to the argument that the ending of those sanctions, which realistically required the removal of Saddam, morally justifed the means to taken to achieve their ending, which was causing far more of a genocide than Milosevic could even dream of in Kosovo? I would. Logically its the same case as Kosovo, yet no one seems to take it seriously.

Not true. Logically Bush should also be condemned because at some point in the future he may be shown to be not morally justified.

Of course, but we can only know this in hindsight, at some unspecified time in the future. As such, going by the Clinton doctrine we must hold off condemnation as Bush may be proven right in the future.

If and when Dubya gets his blazing success, I'm sure many of the dissenters will quieten down...just as they did with Clinton.

Which would imply their dissent is not motivated by principle but rather by popular perceptions/hype.

In hindsight, while I still believe that he was wrong to just defy the UN (and I still think his methods of freeing the nation were totally unacceptable), I believe that his defying the UN was the least wrong action he could take. There was no "right" action. After all, there was no UN resolution to go into Rwanda, but that doesn't stop you (or I) saying that the failure to go in there was one of the biggest failures (if not the biggest) of his entire Presidency.

Going to go a bit OT here. I think he took least wrong action, not because it involved going against the UN ( which is organised to defend the interests of States specifically rather than the interests of Human beings , and thus cannot claim any special moral high ground in my eyes ), but because it involved military action which almost always implies civillian deaths - it can be argued that whilst several hundred civillians died from the bombings, many many more would have died if the atrocities had been allowed to continue, not only in Kosovo but in other states when it became clear that regimes could get away with mass murder.

AFAIK the UN did finally go into Rwanda ( the French ) but it was far far far too late. The interests of State sovereignty always come out ahead of human rights in the UN.

Impossible. You cannot legally reject legislation that has not been presented to you, and it could not be presented until Clinton signed on board.

I can only tell you what I know from reading up on the Kyoto Treaty, it was rejected by the senate - I imagine they took some motion that they wouldnt ratify it or some such - even before Clinton signed it. I agree, its an unusual step but that should only have served to warn Clinton of the the problem with getting it ratified.

The right thing for Bush to do may have been to reject Kyoto, if he had a realistic alternative. He doesn't.

I think he did come up with an alternative - cutting the US green house emissions per economic unit by 18% or some such. Id imagine hes stuck to it as faithfully as the majority of Kyoto nations have stuck to their deals.

Sand - look at what you'be just written, and then ask yourself how you can make that statement and still not know why Clinton was and is more popular.

Yeah, but as I said there was a clear logical principle for rejecting kyoto - it was unworkable from a US perspective. Sure, it was unpopular, but logically it was the correct thing to do.

Nor does that change the political reality that Clinton wanted to get it ratified.

What you want is only realistically important as much as you can make it happen.

Nice theory, but signing on board to something is only an expression of intent. After all, by your logic, the Irish could never sign treaties either, given that they need to be subsequently ratified by referendum. But we have done, and continue to do, and its the way things work.

Irelands actually blessed int hat we ratify treaties by referendum. It means that our negotiators can argue that unless were given this, this or this they cant persuade us to pass the deal. And theyll be listened to. Clinton failed to do that.

Sand - which part of "least worst option" are you trying to ignore? Are you saying that it would have been preferable to stay there and make the situation worse?

It was the least worst option for Clinton, staying in would have made the situation worse for Clinton. It should have been up to the UN to determine if the operation was a failure - It was afterall their operation which US troops were supporting, and it was on US support that the UN was counting. This unilateral retreat from Somalia damaged the interests of the UN, of the Somalis, and indeed of the US. But it of course worked in Clintons favour. Much like bombing some factory worker in Sudan whenever domestic politics got a bit tiresome.

Magnolia_Fan

Why was there no protests against Sadam Hussein or against Al Queda?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

User45701

Originally posted by radwa
Originally posted by radwa
president bush, a great republican, conservative didn't hesitate on spreading democracy and freedom across afghanistan

are u blind, is that problem? do you not see men shaving their beards. women driving, people listening to music, watching tv. the IQ level of some people baffles me

ciaran

Well said.

Someone mentioned that bush didnt give enough money to afgan compared to money to iraq. mabe so i dont know if thats right or not. u also said that afgan needs more money cause there in worse shape. Mabe so but with or without US money Afgan is still better now than it was before us went in.

I would consider myself a supporter of bush he has done more good then bad in my view.