Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 07 Sep '10 01:21
    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/transcript/nbc-news-defending-saddam-hussein
  2. 07 Sep '10 01:37
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/transcript/nbc-news-defending-saddam-hussein
    Yep, I heard that he was going to reduce the number of countries he invaded every year. In addition, I heard that instead of killing cities of Kurds he was going to only kill off certain villages.

    He will be missed. :'(
  3. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    07 Sep '10 02:09
    I haven't read the link but there is a potential 'nostalgia topic' here.

    That first year of G.W. Bush - before 9/11 - was very odd in terms of foreign policy. Does anybody remember it that way? His administration seemed to be roaming the world kicking sand in the faces of states that had seemed to have been moving towards some more moderate position.

    He ignored the relatively moderate signals and actions coming out of Iran and seemed to deliberately strengthen the hardliners' hand.

    Iraq had got rid of its WMDs and was clearly seeking to come out of the cold after a decade of sanctions.

    There was some hope on the North Korean peninsular - as fraught as the 'promises' might have been. Unprescedented thawing of relations had occurred.

    Then there was some rather out of the blue brinkmanship stuff about defending Taiwan that seemed calculated to irk the Chinese at a time when relations seemed to have been on the up.

    These four elements of progress - concerning four states that were most certainly warts-and-all packages, I'll admit - that emerged in the late 1990s, under the previous U.S. administration, all seemed to be quite deliberately undermined - as if the strategy was for the Bush administration to create conflict so as to then define itself in those terms.

    And then there was 9/11. And the events of that first year were seemingly forgotten.

    Anyone else remember that?
  4. 07 Sep '10 03:25
    Originally posted by FMF
    I haven't read the link but there is a potential 'nostalgia topic' here.

    That first year of G.W. Bush - before 9/11 - was very odd in terms of foreign policy. Does anybody remember it that way? His administration seemed to be roaming the world kicking sand in the faces of states that had seemed to have been moving towards some more moderate position.

    He ig ...[text shortened]... And the events of that first year were seemingly forgotten.

    Anyone else remember that?
    i remember that North Korea hoodwinked Clinton's administration into thinking they were dropping their nuke program, when instead they were burying it, as subsequent news indicated.

    it seems Iran proposed a "Grand Bargain" of normalization with Bush's administration, early on. given their behavior recently on the nukes issue (hidden plants and all), what chance do you think existed that Iran wasn't just trying to pull a fast one, like NK did?
  5. 07 Sep '10 03:26
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil

    "Axis of evil" is a term initially used by the former United States President George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002 and often repeated throughout his presidency, describing governments that he accused of helping terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction. Bush labeled Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the axis of evil.
  6. 07 Sep '10 03:29
    Originally posted by FMF
    I haven't read the link but there is a potential 'nostalgia topic' here.

    That first year of G.W. Bush - before 9/11 - was very odd in terms of foreign policy. Does anybody remember it that way? His administration seemed to be roaming the world kicking sand in the faces of states that had seemed to have been moving towards some more moderate position.

    He ig ...[text shortened]... And the events of that first year were seemingly forgotten.

    Anyone else remember that?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush%27s_first_term_as_President_of_the_United_States

    Bush also undertook bold actions by expressing U.S. support for the defense of Taiwan following the stand-off in March 2001 with the People's Republic of China over the crash of a Chinese air force jet and the detention of U.S. personnel.
  7. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    07 Sep '10 06:38 / 1 edit
    Yes. I am well aware of the spin the Bush White House put on its policy of repudiating every piece of painstaking progress that had been made on those seemingly intractable issues in this complicated world. The meat his base wanted tossed to them, of course, was of this red and raw 'with us or against us' kind. At least you remember the strange period I am referring to. Later, the "axis of evil" was embarrassingly simplistic and probably counterproductive. I don't think that whole State Of The Union Speech was one of America's finest hours. As I said, quite clearly the strategy even well before that was for the Bush administration to seek out and maybe even stir conflict rather than continue the hard slog of inch by inch progress needed to solve deep seated conflicts, so as to then be able to define itself in terms of the conflict - a stance that 9/11 served better than any crisis could ever serve.
  8. 07 Sep '10 16:01 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    Yes. I am well aware of the spin the Bush White House put on its policy of repudiating every piece of painstaking progress that had been made on those seemingly intractable issues in this complicated world. The meat his base wanted tossed to them, of course, was of this red and raw 'with us or against us' kind. At least you remember the strange period I am refer terms of the conflict - a stance that 9/11 served better than any crisis could ever serve.
    "Spin" would be saying "we were making progress with NK during the Clinton administration, Bush came along and hosed it up".

    when what really happened was that the Clinton administration stupidly handed out aid to NK based on their faux compliance with nonproliferation measures. probably too eager to tout their foreign policy chops.

    one wonders if the Clinton administration didn't know about NK's subterfuge, but just kept it under wraps to make themselves look good or to avoid NK troops going over the border, a foreign policy nightmare for the legacy of whoever held the White House at the time. Bush made his Axis of Evil speech a year after taking office. did the US just happen to turn up evidence of NK duplicity in that year, or did the Clinton administration know about it and just not say anything publicly?
  9. 07 Sep '10 16:02
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations#North_Korea_policy_under_George_W._Bush

    George W. Bush announced his opposition to the Agreed Framework during his presidential candidacy. Following his inauguration in January 2001, the new administration began a review of its policy toward North Korea. At the conclusion of that review, the administration announced on June 6, 2001, that it had decided to pursue continued dialogue with North Korea on the full range of issues of concern to the administration, including North Korea's conventional force posture, missile development and export programs, human rights practices, and humanitarian issues. As of that time, the Light Water Reactors (LWRs) promised in the Agreed Framework had not been delivered.[6] In 2002, the administration asserted that North Korea was developing a uranium enrichment program for nuclear weapons purposes. U.S.-DPRK tensions mounted when Bush categorized North Korea as part of the "Axis of Evil" in his 2002 State of the Union address.

    When U.S.-DPRK direct dialogue resumed in October 2002, this uranium-enrichment program was high on the U.S. agenda. North Korean officials acknowledged to a U.S. delegation, headed by Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James A. Kelly, the existence of the uranium enrichment program. Such a program violated North Korea's obligations under the NPT and its commitments in the 1992 North-South Denuclearization Declaration and the 1994 Agreed Framework. The U.S. side stated that North Korea would have to terminate the program before any further progress could be made in U.S.-DPRK relations. The U.S. side also claimed that if this program was verifiably eliminated, the U.S. would be prepared to work with DPRK on the development of a fundamentally new relationship. In November 2002, the members of KEDO agreed to suspend heavy fuel oil shipments to North Korea pending a resolution of the nuclear dispute.
  10. 07 Sep '10 16:04
    i remember reading in Newsweek or Time (which are increasingly converging in outlook) op-ed column not long ago just that sort of spin.

    'everything was going so well with NK/US relations til Bush came along and messed it up with his cowboyism and Axis of Evil speech. no wonder the Euros stopped liking us.'
  11. 07 Sep '10 16:05
    well, DUH, it was going well, no incentive for the North Koreans NOT to go along publicly! free oil AND a nuclear WMD program! nice!
  12. 08 Sep '10 02:49
    The attack on Iraq was not only a disaster but also an act of lunacy.
    Bush and Blair lied about the 'weapons of mass destruction' in order to justify the war, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Iraqis,and thus destoyed the one Middle East regime which could effectively keep the more fanatical Shi'ite brand of muslimism under control.
  13. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    08 Sep '10 03:19 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    "Spin" would be saying "we were making progress with NK during the Clinton administration, Bush came along and hosed it up".

    when what really happened was that the Clinton administration stupidly handed out aid to NK based on their faux compliance with nonproliferation measures. probably too eager to tout their foreign policy chops.

    one wonders if year, or did the Clinton administration know about it and just not say anything publicly?
    Well look at the situation now in NK - of course there was subterfuge but engagement can change the dynamic within a duplicitous dictatorship. Missed opportunity. Look at the situation in Iraq - 100's of thousands dead - give it five or 10 years and there'll be another strongarm leader in there again, perhaps one who looks to Tehran. Look at Iran. I know you're more from the PlayStation School Of Thought, and it's not your forte to take any kind of nuanced view of anything, but it's a complicated world and painstaking progress had been made on these seemingly intractable issues. Do you think if the U.S. had engaged with the "duplicitous Cubans" starting in the 1960s, anything, little steps, gestures, lopsided concessions, and the like, that Cuba would still be a one party state now? Your answer is presumably yes. 'Don't engage! Don't engage! They are hoodwinking us, they are hoodwinking us, and we do not realize!' Meanwhile, Cuba has seen off eleven U.S. presidents, all of whom have tried to hoodwink the American people into believing that the U.S. policy towards Cuba has been triumphant.
  14. Standard member MacSwain
    Who is John Galt?
    08 Sep '10 18:00
    Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
    The attack on Iraq was not only a disaster but also an act of lunacy.
    Bush and Blair lied about the 'weapons of mass destruction' in order to justify the war, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Iraqis,and thus destoyed the one Middle East regime which could effectively keep the more fanatical Shi'ite brand of muslimism under control.
    United Nations lied to Bush, Blair, et al
  15. Standard member MacSwain
    Who is John Galt?
    08 Sep '10 18:23
    Originally posted by FMF
    Well look at the situation now in NK - of course there was subterfuge but engagement can change the dynamic within a duplicitous dictatorship. Missed opportunity. Look at the situation in Iraq - 100's of thousands dead - give it five or 10 years and there'll be another strongarm leader in there again, perhaps one who looks to Tehran. Look at Iran. I know you're ...[text shortened]... American people into believing that the U.S. policy towards Cuba has been triumphant.
    First: While Zeeblebot may not try to be the ‘wordsmith’ you seem to enjoy for it’s own sake, his views are as (sic) nuanced as your own.

    Second: It's quaranteed, ‘Little steps, gestures and lopsided concessions’ to Cuba by the US would have resulted in Castro installing nuclear missiles 90 miles from the US coast.

    Third: I fully agree with your prediction another strong-arm leader will emerge in Iraq. I believe this to be the reason they have not yet formed a government. They know when the US leaves, anyone in charge will be beheaded immediately. This will also occur in Afghanistan when the US leaves. It is the type of governance with which they are most comfortable, as it fits perfectly with their tribal culture.