DescentBB

It was refreashing watching the new Secretary of State enter the headquarters building to the resounding cheers of her now fellow members. Condi gave a great speech (no tele-prompters) and set a "My door is always open" agenda.
What I found interesting was Dr. Kissenger's view on stlye as exhibited by Powell and Rice. Much has been ballyhoo'd by certain liberal nose bleed pundits how Ms. Rice's lock step mentality with Bush would not make for effective foreign relations policy making. How, since Powell did not aggree with Bush on all things that he (Powell) was a effective policy implimenter.
Untrue by Kissengers comments. Kissinger thought that precisely because Rice was on the same wavelength with Bush, when she meets with foreign leaders, they will know she is speaking for the president of our country. How can you as a leader of a country, discuss policy with someone who is not in aggreement with the leader of the country you want to do business with?
Mark my words, four years from now the same pundits who downplayed Rices credentials will be the ones saying she was the best Secretary of State ever and that they knew it before she was confirmed.

woodchip wrote: Mark my words, four years from now the same pundits who downplayed Rices credentials will be the ones saying she was the best Secretary of State ever and that they knew it before she was confirmed.

That'll be interesting!

The State Department is the "butt-kissing" section of the Federal Government. It's the diplomatic corps. It's the neutered facade that we project to other nations/peoples so they won't feel impotent in the face of American power.

With Dr. Rice in there the rest of world will realize that the charade is over. "We'll be nice to you if you'll be nice to us. I'm a nice lady. But if you mess with the USA, I will ask the Commander-In-Chief to send the US Military to invade your sissy region of the world. And we both know your military can't even stop our Boy Scouts".

I don't know if you noticed Woodchip, but most of the world doesn't care too much about what our president has to say. They were / are / will be much more impressed with a person such as Colin Powell than a puppet like Rice. I hope she does a good job, but I really don't know what she can do. The ridge in the American / World pipeline is very large, and keeping the same mentality that Bush has used up to this point won't win over any new people. It's like the NHL lockout right now, the players (foreign countries) have disagreements but are open to talk. The owners (Bush) want it their way and none other than that. If they don't get it, they lock the buildings and give the finger.

I hope my posts don't resemble Klub's in terms of pure idiocy. My posts do not sound like the mindless garbage he's spitting do they?

of all the people in the US administration, I kinda liked Powell.

Zuruck wrote:They were / are / will be much more impressed with a person such as Colin Powell than a puppet like Rice. I hope she does a good job, but I really don't know what she can do.

I agree with you do some degree, but I think callin Rice a puppet because she shares views with the President goes a bit far. I think team-member is a more accurate description.

Zuruck wrote:I don't know if you noticed Woodchip, but most of the world doesn't care too much about what our president has to say.

As if that were a damning indictment.
I'll bet their governments care very much what he has to say, and that's what really matters. One day, someone will have to explain to me why the opinion of an average Parisian citizen is superior to that of his American couterpart.

Zuruck wrote:I hope my posts don't resemble Klub's in terms of pure idiocy. My posts do not sound like the mindless garbage he's spitting do they?

Ummm ...

Zuruck, in the same post wrote:They were / are / will be much more impressed with a person such as Colin Powell than a puppet like Rice.

That assessment is right up there with "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!" and "BUSH IS A LIAR!!".

It's like the NHL lockout right now, the players (foreign countries) have disagreements but are open to talk. The owners (Bush) want it their way and none other than that. If they don't get it, they lock the buildings and give the finger.

Your analogy only works if there is a bunch of crazy bastards trying to kill the owners and destroy the NHL and the players are trying to talk the owners into not fighting back.

Pebkac wrote:

Zuruck wrote:I don't know if you noticed Woodchip, but most of the world doesn't care too much about what our president has to say.

As if that were a damning indictment. :roll:

Word.

It's funny. There must be some latent and perverse arrogance feeding the politics of the right wing. For example, how could anyone celebrate the fact that the rest of the world hates us, fears us, and distrusts us? I mean, some of you act like America is invinsible! We are hardly omnipotent.

Is it a good thing? Is it funny to be so despised? Is it just that some people don't realize the danger that America is in when no body trusts us?

I guess I can somewhat understand the "well, f*ck them" attitude. I mean, when I was fourteen, that was a common phrase of mine I used when I didn't want to take responsibility for my actions (or in-actions). It just seems so foolish to me now, as I get older.

In terms of Rice, she's a brilliant, hawkish Realist that, oddly enough, doesn't agree with Bush. She just acts that way. She's a Realist, not a Neo-Conservative. You can verify this by reading her publications.

On a side note, I am convinced that Bush and Rice are sexing each other. We'll just wait and see...

kufyit wrote:how could anyone celebrate the fact that the rest of the world hates us, fears us, and distrusts us?

Nobody celebrates it. We just recognize it as the inevitable consequence of being willing to wage war against a radical political/religious ideology. (Your response to this is typically to misquote me, ignoring the word "radical", and then pretend you've made a good point. You even seem to take pride in that...)

Is it just that some people don't realize the danger that America is in when no body trusts us?

"Nobody trusts us"? And you think Bush's rhetoric is over the top? Heh.

She's a Realist, not a Neo-Conservative. You can verify this by...

... noticing that she's not a Jew, which is what "neocon" is a buzzword for.

It's more like this, kufyit. Those of us who take that attitude aren't saying "F*** you" to the rest of the world. Instead, we feel that much of the world is either completely ignoring or understating certain fundamental problems, i.e. terrorism, that need prompt and decisive action. We feel that many countries are hypocritically decrying our efforts to solve these problems while they themselves do little to nothing about them. We feel that, since America is actually trying to solve said problems, we should at least be given a little benefit of the doubt, something that much of the world is unwilling to do. Combine that with a little bit of natural patriotism, and I think that about sums it up. I, for one, am unconcerned that much of the world thinks that Bush is incompetent; I trust him, and that's good enough for me.

Its quite simple. We don't need the rest of the world to like us to function. Worldviews dont have any effect on the average American's everyday life. When everything is said and done the world keeps hating us and we keep pressing forward.

Lothar wrote:Nobody celebrates it. We just recognize it as the inevitable consequence of being willing to wage war against a radical political/religious ideology. (Your response to this is typically to misquote me, ignoring the word "radical", and then pretend you've made a good point. You even seem to take pride in that...)

Wow. Lothar, remember our conversation you are referring to. It was my point that you and others were not taking enough care in your words. You were saying that Islam was the problem, I was saying that radical Islam is the problem. You even admitted later that you weren't careful enough to include the words 'radical'or 'extremist'. I haven;t misquoted you, Lothar, ever. The thread that so inflamed you were two of YOUR quotes, next to each other. I didn't edit them, I didn't comment, I didn't throw some sad personal comment. I just quoted you.

However, you seemed to have gotten my point all by yourself (hence the anger and defensiveness).

Is it just that some people don't realize the danger that America is in when no body trusts us?

"Nobody trusts us"? And you think Bush's rhetoric is over the top? Heh.

Do you think a lot of peole trust us, Lothar? Why don't you take out the countries we regularly supply arms to and ask that question again? Who trusts us, really?

Do you really think it's that over the top to say? I mean, what was I responding to in the first place? I was responding to your reply concerning the world and America. You say "Word" to the rest of the world not really approving of us- not approving implies not trusting. Then you say that I'm so over the top for saying the world doesn't trust America. Why? I really don't think that is too much of a stretch to say..

... noticing that she's not a Jew, which is what "neocon" is a buzzword for.

Again, wow. That's the most absurd thing I have ever heard you say. Congratulations. I'd bet you don't even know the difference between the two political philosophies. Buzzword for Jew? What are you talking about? They have nothing to do with each other man. Look it up.

I' give you a hint as to their fundamental difference: nation-building.

Does Rice really support nation building? There is very little evidence for that.

kufyit wrote:Lothar, remember our conversation you are referring to. It was my point that you and others were not taking enough care in your words.... The thread that so inflamed you were two of YOUR quotes, next to each other.

Your point is that I'm not careful enough. My point is that I was careful enough for most people, but that you and a few others have been so incredibly careless (sometimes intentionally so) in your reading that you've forced me to be overly explicit. That's not something to be proud of. That's something to be ashamed of -- you've intentionally, systematically misrepresented me so much that I've had to put extra effort in to writing my posts just to counter that misrepresentation.

What inflamed me was that you quoted something I said as evidence that I was insulting a whole religion, but you ignored both words like "as it exists in much of the world today", and multiple clarifications from later in the original thread.

The reason this still inflames me is that I know you're smart enough to understand what you're doing. I know you're smart enough to know what I originally meant. I know you're smart enough to understand those clarifications. Yet you continue to act as if I meant something entirely different than what I clearly meant. You continue to misrepresent me, and you pretend like it's a great victory for you when I state twice as explicitly what I originally meant jus to counter your misreading and your ignoring context. To quote myself again: "I think you need to be more careful with your selective quoting."

Do you think a lot of peole trust us, Lothar?

Did I say "a lot"? No. But saying "nobody" is over the top.

You say "Word" to the rest of the world not really approving of us- not approving implies not trusting.

Uh... the thing I said "word" to had nothing to do with approving or trusting. It was a discussion about the fact that Bush isn't very persuasive and people don't care what he has to say (re-read Zuruck's post), and Pekbac responded that it's not such a big deal that Bush doesn't persuade average citizens of other nations, because governments care what he has to say. I was agreeing with Pekbac -- individuals not caring what Bush has to say isn't a big deal.

Again, you misrepresent what I said. You turn it into a point on trust, when it was originally a point about persuasion. Don't be so proud of your ability to remove quotes from context.

... noticing that she's not a Jew, which is what "neocon" is a buzzword for.

Buzzword for Jew? What are you talking about?

What I'm talking about is the fact that the term "neocon" originated to refer to Republican Jews, specifically those who supported the nation of Israel. Because the term has been thrown around so much in the media, it's lost some of that meaning, but the original usage was always essentially a buzzword for "Jew" or "Zionist". Just look at the list of people who were called "neocons" a few years ago -- guys like Wolfowitz and Perle were always at the top of the list.

Because people didn't understand that's what "neocon" meant, they started using it to refer to pretty much everybody in the Bush administration, but if you find some of the older literature (like LaRouche '00 pamphlets) that talk about neocons, it's pretty clear they're referring to Republican Jews.

Since when did neo-con=jew?

Link

Jim Lobe, in the Asia times, wrote:As neo-con godfather, Irving Kristol once remarked, a neo-conservative is a "liberal who was mugged by reality". True to that description, neo-conservatives generally originated on the left side of the political spectrum and some times from the far left. Many neo-cons, such as Kristol himself, have Trotskyite roots that are still reflected in their polemical and organizational skills and ideological zeal.

Although a number of prominent Catholics are neo-conservatives, the movement remains predominantly Jewish, and the monthly journal that really defined neo-conservatism over the past 35 years, Commentary, is published by the American Jewish Committee. At the same time, however, neo-conservative attitudes have reflected a minority position within the US Jewish community as most Jews remain distinctly liberal in their political and foreign policy views.

Birdseye wrote:Since when did neo-con=jew?

that's what I'm wondering. I always figured neocon meant someone who was hardline christian right. Although I've heard that zionist = jew.

Heh! It Works. I just called the wife a Neo-con....great sex man!!

Just from a random non-American... I did get the impression Powell had some good old-fashioned common sense. Haven't seen much of Rice yet.

Yup i thought that too. He seems a guy so totally in control, unflappable. The best PR guy the US has had for donkeys years.

Yes, Powell is respected all over. Henceforth, that's why he was sent to the UN to try and get them to commit. They used his reputation as an honest military man to try and persuade people to join up. He is one of the very few that I respect in the Bush administration. Maybe it's because he is not part of the big oil industry that has taken over the white house. cheney, rice, bush, all of 'em.

Kufyit, Lothar... guys, if you're going to bash each other about the other thread... do it in the other thread, and spare the rest of us the reiteration.

Back to the topic at hand: in proclaiming itself the primary "defender of the free world" by heading so many military actions, the U.S. has really started to alienate itself from the support of a number of nations around the globe. This worries me greatly... I'm living in a country whose government seems to be making enemies (or at least losing allies) left and right, and whose people seem to be "thumbing their nose" at any who oppose them.

Yes, right now the U.S. is by far the strongest nation on the planet, and it has the military and economic force to back up that seeming arrogance. But will that still be the case in 10 years, when I'll hopefully be raising a family? Or 25 years, when my kids have grown up to draft-eligible age? What about 50 years from now, when I'm old and would like to live in peace? I hate to think what would happen if the U.S. continued its downward slide in regards to peaceful relationships with the rest of the world.

Now, I'm generally an optimist, so I not totally convinced that it's going to be that bad. I tend to hope the U.S. leadership will lighten up and try to ease international tensions, but with the current attitude (somewhat accurately illustrated earlier as "well, f*ck them") it doesn't look promising.

As Americans, we're not inherently smarter or wiser than the rest of the world. We generally have access to more information, but there's still not much to support the general "we're right, the rest of the world is clearly wrong" mindset around the country.

(Note: I know I'm exaggerating... I'm using some generalizations to try to make a point, so please don't post just to tell me that "it's not every country, just some of them". I'm well aware of that fact.)

Sirius wrote:Just from a random non-American... I did get the impression Powell had some good old-fashioned common sense. Haven't seen much of Rice yet.

Give her a chance. She's been on the job like what? One day?
As to being chummy with all the so called countries not supporting us. Define being "against America"? Have they stopped selling their goods here. Have they stopped importing our goods? I mean, other than vocalising their displeasure with our actions, what are the so called nations that hate us doing about it? Seems to me I was hearing the sound of French business's sucking up to us when public sentiment turned against french products. Let me know when "other countries" that are against us actually do something about it. Otherwise forgive me if I nod off at such anti-american discourse.

I think people are taking the "not getting a lot of support from France" angle a bit too seriously... you say it's a "downward slide in regards to peaceful relations", and others have said similar things.

But that's far from reality. There is a downward slide in the perceived agreement between the two nations, but no danger of going to war over it. I don't think there's *really* even a downward slide in terms of the amount of cooperation between the two nations -- it's just more evident now.

There's nothing wrong with a little "tough love" between us and France, or any other nation. There's nothing wrong, or inherently bad for America, with having a nice verbal argument and not having their support in Iraq. The idea that America is losing influence and losing peaceful relations with other nations is all hype.

You ask about 10 years, 25 years, and 50 years in the future. Well, what do you think it will look like in 10 years? Personally, I think France will still be as critical and uncooperative as it's ever been, but no worse. Many middle eastern nations will still hate us, but no worse than they do now. Relations should improve with Japan, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Russia, and China. I can't honestly think of a single nation outside of the middle east that I expect to actually, long-term, dislike America more, or cooperate with America less, than it did on 9/10.

9/11 created a temporary "everybody is on our side" illusion, and the Iraq war brought reality back into sharper focus than before... but fundamentally, relations haven't deteriorated in any great way with any of the major powers, and they've improved in great ways with many of the rising powers in other regions. That's why you see many of us responding with "f*** them" -- we know things are not particularly different from how they were years ago, and they won't be particularly different in the future, except that they'll improve in much of the middle east.

Foil wrote: Yes, right now the U.S. is by far the strongest nation on the planet, and it has the military and economic force to back up that seeming arrogance. But will that still be the case in 10 years, when I'll hopefully be raising a family? Or 25 years, when my kids have grown up to draft-eligible age? What about 50 years from now, when I'm old and would like to live in peace? I hate to think what would happen if the U.S. continued its downward slide in regards to peaceful relationships with the rest of the world.

Don't worry Foil, immigrants like me will rise up in society and take the reins. Our children will replace your children. According to another thread, we outscore your kids even before we get here. If you're not willing to fight to spread freedom and the American Way to other shores, then we will. And we will reap the rewards with or without your help.

Every hardworking immigrant who comes to America's shores knows about the inferior alternatives other nations offer. We are willing to die to get here, we sure as hell are willing to die to spread her ideas. Why else would a Catholic Mexican immigrant choose to roll his wounded body on top of a grenade in a Muslim land w/o a direct order? Is it to save his buddies in the unit, or is it really to save his family already living in the good 'ole USA?

And your point is?...

You basically said, "People from outside the United States appreciate the opportunities and freedoms we have, and are willing to die for them." Quite true, but how does that relate to the current discussion?

You also implied that I am "...not willing to fight to spread freedom...". Where are you getting this? Let me remind you that you know next to nothing about me; whether I'm immigrant or US-born, military-supportive or pacifist, or even whether I'm liberal or conservative.

If you'll actually read it, my post was just about my concern the recent negative trend in the international perception of the United States... which is not inherently a partisan issue.

(edited to stay on topic, per the moderator's announcement about responding to "trolls".)