The papers say, "Bush incompetent".

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Asher
And traditional diplomacy is the the art of saying "Nice doggy" until you can find a stick.

Unfortunately, most of the international weenies have not stick to find unless they borrow one from the USA.

[cia]

The deal is that Europe and generally liberals don't like leaders. They like spineless amoral political whores like Clinton who swing in the wind with popular opinion or when the price is right. The United States has a foreign policy which changes every 4 to 8 years so holding Bush responsible for what Clinton or any prior administration is unreasonable. The United States should do whatever we think is in our best interest and screw the rest of you.
France is acting unilaterally to oppose the US so maybe they should be forced to get a coalition before being allowed to veto. Oh, but they support your position so they are not held to the same rules. A leader is someone who is willing to do what they think is right regardless of popular sentiment, which is perhaps why none of you recognize that. Bush is a cowboy and dolt. That's how it's explained away. He won't do what you want so the name calling begins. I judge people by actions, not words. If he was the standard political animal he wouldn't commit political suicide by starting an unpopular war. Maybe there's your hint there's something different. I'm not even saying I support Bush, but I do recognize someone with principles and that's a pleasant change.

[chequita guevara]

His principle is the Peter princicple.

[Willem]

Originally posted by cia
I'm not even saying I support Bush, but I do recognize someone with principles and that's a pleasant change.

Principles without common sense to guide them is just a disaster waiting to happen.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

I've been saying for a while now that the Bush administration is incompetent when it comes to foreign policy. I don't see how this is a partisan issue: indeed I was hoping this would be a non-partisan thread, but it was threadjacked by pro-war forces

Portraying yourself as non-partisan after equating Rumsfeld with the Grand Dragon of the KKK is . That isn't the first time you've launched one of your ad hominem tirades only to later claim your goal was a non-partisan debate.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Agathon -

Portraying yourself as non-partisan after equating Rumsfeld with the Grand Dragon of the KKK is . That isn't the first time you've launched one of your ad hominem tirades only to later claim your goal was a non-partisan debate.

I think I'll actually dignify this with a response, since I didn't equate Rumsfeld with a Grand Dragon, I compared the two situations. That's different because "compare" does not mean "equate".

The issue of Bush's competence is a non-partisan issue. Those who are pro-war have ample reason, in my opinion, to wish that he'd managed this better, since judgements about his aims are distinct from judgements about the means he uses to achieve them.

[HazieDaVampire]

We mite not have this problem, had sombody not bothered creating the V8.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon

Only under Bush II. Madeleine Albright was much more skilled.

And Rommel was more skilled than Monty, yet look who won. Good tacticians and diplomats mean little when they are shackled to a lack of strategic direction, or a poor strategic direction. Madeleine Albright was part of the problem in the previous administration, her transient popularity in Europe notwithstanding.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Ah yes, the Hitler reference again.

Yes. Sorry about that. I guess it would be a lot easier for you folks if he didn't exist. Then you could continue to pretend that all men are nice guys that listen to reason. But the fact is, your pipe dream is based on so much smoke. Someday you will have to take off your rose colored glasses. I will try not to make referrence to evil men anymore so you can continue in your illusion if it makes you feel better.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Agathon
Shi, while I oppose the war, that's not really what this thread is about.

I've been saying for a while now that the Bush administration is incompetent when it comes to foreign policy. I don't see how this is a partisan issue: indeed I was hoping this would be a non-partisan thread, but it was threadjacked by pro-war forces .

I don't agree with Bush's policy aims but I think that he could have done a lot better than he has done. Here's a few examples of serious blunders.

1) The "Axis of Evil" speech. This has been the cause of a ratcheting up of tensions with North Korea and Iran when the US is not in a position to bring its full strength to bear upon them. He didn't have to say anything about this and would have been better served by shutting up until the US had dealt with Iraq and was in a stronger position. If international relations is to a large part a poker game, then he failed on this one.

2) Going to the UN and announcing that war would happen no matter what. As someone else said this is attempting to reconcile a fundamentally multilateralist organisation with a unilateralist policy. He would have been better off never going at all (we can say this with certainty now) or going and accepting compromises. Now he has the worst of both worlds.

3) Alienating his closest ally. Blair has worked really hard for Bush and has put his own political life on the line for Bush's Iraq policy. Then right at the point when Blair is at his weakest, Rumsfeld comes out and says that they don't need him anyway. Nice one.

In IR we all have to make compromises. Bush seems to think he doesn't. One result of this is that the US is going to find it difficult to rally international support for other things (like reconstructing Iraq) and drive its allies towards other powers (what if NATO disbands and the Europeans take up with Russia? - far fetched but not impossible). The US has allies because they are useful, alienating them is divesting yourself of useful assets.

Translation:

Do what Europe wants. We should pretend that evil is good so Europe will like us.

We will see what history says of Bush and Blair. Winston Chruchill was thought of as a devisive war hawk and alarmist as well. Why is it that Europe never learns from history? And why do you ridicule the US but then beg us for help when you are caught with your pants down? Blair is an example to you of a true leader as is Bush.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

I think I'll actually dignify this with a response, since I didn't equate Rumsfeld with a Grand Dragon, I compared the two situations. That's different because "compare" does not mean "equate".

You didn't compare situations, you "compared" Rumsfeld with the Grand Dragon of the KKK and offered nothing to support the comparison, i.e., ad hominem. People make comparisons to either show a similarity or distinction. Were you "comparing" Rumsfeld to the Grand Dragon to show a distinction between the two? Of course not. Then you complain about how you wanted a non-partisan debate and the "pro-war" side isn't accomodating your wishes...

[Lincoln]

I am a "pro-peace" person myself. I just believe that peace doesn't last very long if we all just sit around in a circle singing "I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony..." Peace comes with a price. Too bad that those who paid that price are not here engaging in this debate.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's different because "compare" does not mean "equate".

Yeah - he's like the Grand Dragon on holiday in Africa complaining about the ********.

And you're a philosophy prof?
*shakes head*

What you should have said is this:

All you compare is the honesty of a Grand Dragon with the honesty of Donald Rumsfeld.

Both are brutally honest.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by obiwan18

And you're a philosophy prof?
*shakes head*

What you should have said is this:

All you compare is the honesty of a Grand Dragon with the honesty of Donald Rumsfeld.

Both are brutally honest.

Jesus Christ - what is wrong with you? The comparison is betweeb people that have no tact. If you want to call this "brutal honesty" then go ahead - that just sounds to me like trying to change a vice into a virtue. That's the comparison - that's what I said. Why do you think it is clever to raise a person's own points as objections?

Saying "Donald Rumsfeld saying these sort of things is like the Grand Dragon saying those sort of things" doesn't mean Donald Rumsfeld is like the Grand Dragon in any other respect than that he has no tact.

If I were to equate them - I would say, "Morally speaking, the two cases are equivalent." Which I didn't say. That would be absurd - Rumsfeld is clearly the worse fellow.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Agathon -

You didn't compare situations, you "compared" Rumsfeld with the Grand Dragon of the KKK and offered nothing to support the comparison, i.e., ad hominem. People make comparisons to either show a similarity or distinction. Were you "comparing" Rumsfeld to the Grand Dragon to show a distinction between the two? Of course not. Then you complain about how you wanted a non-partisan debate and the "pro-war" side isn't accomodating your wishes...

Are you a sponsored idiot or is this free?

What is wrong with comparing two people who lack the normal human faculty of knowing what is appropriate to say at a certain time? Nothing. Was I drawing an inference? No. Was I illustrating a lack of tact? Yes.

Nothing I say implies that Donald Rumsfeld has any greater similarity to the Grand Dragon of the KKK than any other person who has no sense of tact.

I could draw a Venn diagram for you: "people who have no sense of tact". It would contain the GD, Donald Rumsfeld, Prince Phillip, Jerry Springer guests and millions of other people.

And it is already established that Rumsfeld has no sense of tact given his recent diplomatic gaffes. If you agree that the GD has no tact - case closed.

Yet another Berzerker fuss over nothing.

[Lincoln]

Settle down Agathon. We all know what you meant to say (I think)

A little advice: Don't tell anyone here you are a philosophy professor.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

Are you a sponsored idiot or is this free?

Neither, just non-partisan.

What is wrong with comparing two people who lack the normal human faculty of knowing what is appropriate to say at a certain time? Nothing. Was I drawing an inference? No. Was I illustrating a lack of tact? Yes.

BS, you didn't pick an evil person - the KKK Grand Dragon - out of the blue.

If you want to call this "brutal honesty" then go ahead - that just sounds to me like trying to change a vice into a virtue.

After what you've said, I can see why you consider honesty, brutal or not, to be a vice.

Nothing I say implies that Donald Rumsfeld has any greater similarity to the Grand Dragon of the KKK than any other person who has no sense of tact.

You have no sense of tact, why not compare yourself to Rumsfeld?

I could draw a Venn diagram for you: "people who have no sense of tact". It would contain the GD, Donald Rumsfeld, Prince Phillip, Jerry Springer guests and millions of other people.

And yet, strangely enough, you chose someone we'd all despise because you're so non-partisan.

And it is already established that Rumsfeld has no sense of tact given his recent diplomatic gaffes. If you agree that the GD has no tact - case closed.

I don't consider "tact" more important than honesty.

Yet another Berzerker fuss over nothing.

Just having fun exposing your BS.

[ThePantaloonDog]

This thread is going down the tubes.:

Anyway...

We will see what history says of Bush and Blair. Winston Chruchill was thought of as a devisive war hawk and alarmist as well. Why is it that Europe never learns from history? And why do you ridicule the US but then beg us for help when you are caught with your pants down? Blair is an example to you of a true leader as is Bush.

I think your comparision (or do you equate?!? if you equate I shan't have anything to do with this ridiculous argumen) of Bush with Churchill is correct in that both took/are taking big chances to try to resolve the big problem of their time but Chuchill handeled his allies much better. Churchill was extremly anti-communist but was able to put his behind him to beat a larger problem. Bush really hasn't done this, he's divided his allies on an issue (which I don't believe will actually ease or solve terroism) while seemingly forgetting that their is a larger "War on Terroism". Whatever you think of France's position on the War on Iraq we need France on the War on Terroism. Bush's policy may have made FRance and other allies less likely to aid us.

[DarthVeda]

oh wow... the three most liberal newspapers in the US... big fat hairy deal

[HolyWarrior]

[HolyWarrior]

Originally posted by Agathon
I guess that it's time for reputable news organisations to say what Agathon has been saying since he joined Apolyton.