![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]") |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
 Posted - August 15 2002 : 6:48:42 PM
|
Poll Question:
By [sort of] request: If the Presidential election were held today, who would you vote for? (Non-US citizens, put yourself in our place ... whaddaya think?)
|
|
|
report to moderator
|
|
|
Christie
Pioneer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 02 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - August 16 2002 : 2:38:40 PM
|
Rich,
That's a tough question to ponder. I have to admit I was very nervous when W took office because I didn't feel he had the skills for foreign policy let alone running the country - then Sept. 11 comes along. Contrary to Anth., I think he's been o.k. so far, but my husband and I feel Dick Cheney has been doing a lot of the driving so far.
It was interesting last night with Forrest Sawyer (MS-NBC?) as there was a story on European allies who are starting to backlash against the U.S. They specifically mention England where a lot of citizens feel Tony Blair is Bush's lapdog. Apparently George Michael made a music video showing that much. I'd like to hear Huggy's opinion on this.
For the future, who knows what will come? I haven't read much as to whom the Dems are positioning for office, but then again I tend to avoid politics like the plague.
Christie
|
report to moderator  |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - August 19 2002 : 04:15:01 AM
|
quote:
It was interesting last night with Forrest Sawyer (MS-NBC?) as there was a story on European allies who are starting to backlash against the U.S. They specifically mention England where a lot of citizens feel Tony Blair is Bush's lapdog. Apparently George Michael made a music video showing that much. I'd like to hear Huggy's opinion on this.
Hmmm, ok, this isn't quite as straightforward as it may appear. First of all, the last three prime ministers I can remember have been criticised for being 'in bed with the Yanks' as we would say it here. That even includes Margaret Thatcher! This is all part of being allies with a superpower. Tony Blair is probably coming in for a little more criticism than others mainly I think because there are many who disagree with how this 'war against terrorism' is being waged, and who is doing the directing of it, and also George Bush Jr does not appear to be an overly popular president over here (the same as George Bush Sr).
As far as George Michaels video goes.....there hasn't been anywhere NEAR the fuss made of it over here as in the US! It is just one mans opinion expressed in a satirical music video....anyone who has spent time in England (especially those who have see the British tabloid press) will know that it is open season all year on anyone! It is however an opinion that is shared by others. One other reason that it has not caused such a stir over here is that the British do not view their Prime Minister with quite the same 'reverence' that Americans appear to view their President.
In short, the British have a big thing against being told what to do! This is a major reason for much of the anti-Europe sentiment here as we have discussed on the board before. So, any situation where we PERCEIVE that we are being told what to do (regardless of who is dictating and whether it is the right thing or not!) is likely to stir up emotions!
Does that shed any light??!
HM
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Christina
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 27 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - August 19 2002 : 1:19:08 PM
|
Rich --
entered my little answer "The Democratic Challenger" but I ain't gonna say no more! 
Ever since some of my political opinions almost started a fist fight at my book club, I'm staying outta the political arena!
Christina
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Christie
Pioneer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 02 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - August 19 2002 : 5:32:09 PM
|
Huggy,
Thanks for the insight. Some of your comments really gave me a laugh because are countries are so similar in thought. For instance:
quote:
One other reason that it has not caused such a stir over here is that the British do not view their Prime Minister with quite the same 'reverence' that Americans appear to view their President.
I think you need to move across the "Pond" and live in the states for awhile because I would never think we hold "reverence" over our President. When Bill Clinton first took office, Rush Limbaugh (a popular political commentator at the time) actually started a count-down until he left office! IMHO, I think Americans are like all children in a family - we can bad mouth a sibling all we want but as soon as an outsider says the wrong thing - look out, even if we may be in agreement. I do agree there are some Presidents held in high esteem like Washington, Lincoln, and Kennedy, but at the same time many of us know their shortcomings. This is especially true with Kennedy.
As to your other comment:
quote:
In short, the British have a big thing against being told what to do!
I think that perfectly describes Americans. Heck, nobody wants to be told what to do. If you look back in our history, it can take years before we get involved with conflicts that occur elsewhere in the world. Perfect examples are WWI & WWII. Even Nathaniel sums it up best "You do what you want with your own scalp. Do not be tellin' us what to do with ours." I personally believe that Sept. 11 caught Americans so off-guard because we think terrorism happens everywhere else in the World except the U.S. In the broadcast I mentioned with Forrest Sawyer, a British journalist stated that several thousand people in the British Isles had been killed by the I.R.A. over the years, knowing money that funded them had come out of N.Y. and Boston. However, England isn't bombing those cities even though the terrorism in Ireland and England continues. My point is, we were so flabbergasted by what happened we expected everyone else to rally around us. I think many countries have, but the weight falls on the shoulders of the U.S. to continue the vigilance against terrorism on our home soil. Hoo boy, you should hear the complaints of Americans at the airports being searched when in reality other countries have been taking those measures for years!
Okay, I'm sorry I spouted off on this one. I guess Lainey didn't call it "Lion's Den" for nothing. Thanks again for your reply.
Christie
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - August 20 2002 : 3:18:29 PM
|
quote:
Huggy,
Thanks for the insight. Some of your comments really gave me a laugh because are countries are so similar in thought. For instance:
quote:
One other reason that it has not caused such a stir over here is that the British do not view their Prime Minister with quite the same 'reverence' that Americans appear to view their President.
I think you need to move across the "Pond" and live in the states for awhile because I would never think we hold "reverence" over our President. When Bill Clinton first took office, Rush Limbaugh (a popular political commentator at the time) actually started a count-down until he left office! IMHO, I think Americans are like all children in a family - we can bad mouth a sibling all we want but as soon as an outsider says the wrong thing - look out, even if we may be in agreement. I do agree there are some Presidents held in high esteem like Washington, Lincoln, and Kennedy, but at the same time many of us know their shortcomings. This is especially true with Kennedy.
As to your other comment:
quote:
In short, the British have a big thing against being told what to do!
I think that perfectly describes Americans. Heck, nobody wants to be told what to do. If you look back in our history, it can take years before we get involved with conflicts that occur elsewhere in the world. Perfect examples are WWI & WWII. Even Nathaniel sums it up best "You do what you want with your own scalp. Do not be tellin' us what to do with ours." I personally believe that Sept. 11 caught Americans so off-guard because we think terrorism happens everywhere else in the World except the U.S. In the broadcast I mentioned with Forrest Sawyer, a British journalist stated that several thousand people in the British Isles had been killed by the I.R.A. over the years, knowing money that funded them had come out of N.Y. and Boston. However, England isn't bombing those cities even though the terrorism in Ireland and England continues. My point is, we were so flabbergasted by what happened we expected everyone else to rally around us. I think many countries have, but the weight falls on the shoulders of the U.S. to continue the vigilance against terrorism on our home soil. Hoo boy, you should hear the complaints of Americans at the airports being searched when in reality other countries have been taking those measures for years!
Okay, I'm sorry I spouted off on this one. I guess Lainey didn't call it "Lion's Den" for nothing. Thanks again for your reply.
Christie
Christie, I read your response with interest! Firstly, don't think for a minute that I believe that everyone holds the US president in awe! The difference is, as you have said, it is NOT ok for outsiders to criticise - here, in England, we don't seem to care much who knocks the Prime Minister!
I am glad that you mentioned the IRA...this subject was touched on some time ago, but not really covered in detail. And you are absolutely correct, England has been under terrorist attack for decades, the IRA receiving vast sums of money from the USA. Perhaps one of the positives that will come out of 9/11 is that American citizens will become more informed about world affairs. I must admit that it shocked me t |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Christie
Pioneer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 02 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - August 23 2002 : 02:28:07 AM
|
Huggy,
You hit the nail on the head when you stated:
quote:
I must admit that it shocked me to realise, as the NY tragedy unfolded, how many of my American friends, had so little understanding of the bigger picture. Many of them had no idea which countries were US allies, and their suppositions of who might be responsible quite frankly made my jaw drop!
Unfortunately, a good deal of Americans don't know very much when it comes to international politics. I hate to make assumptions, but my one guess is we're practically our own continent meaning traveling 200 miles here just takes us through a few states, not a few countries. On top of that, a number of Americans take the windshield bus tour of Europe when they travel. It gives a sense of other countries in a pretty little package rather than really understanding how people live. I admit, because I hate to fly I have yet to go anywhere outside the U.S. with the exception of a Canadian highway.
I was looking online for different articles about American knowledge of international politics. I know I've read some reports that state exactly what you mentioned, but I couldn't find them. However, I think you'd be amused (as I'm ashamed) as to two articles I did find in conjuction with U.S. History. Enjoy.
U.S. History Again Stumps Senior Class
http://www.edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=36naep.h21
Don't Know Much About History. Why Not?
By Johnathan Zimmerman
http://www.edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=41zimmerman.h21
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - August 23 2002 : 05:50:33 AM
|
These are interesting articles Christie, and to be honest, I have some sympathy with the students....I disliked history immensely as a student, and gave it up at the first opportunity. In recent years, I have suddenly found a great interest in British and world history, and I find the majority of books I am reading these days are historical biographies.
What irritates me so much is that, with a great teacher, history can be such a wonderfully exciting subject for students...a teacher who can bring history to life should be worth their weight in gold! It is not about dates, or the past, history should be about humanity...its strengths and weakness, glories and failures....its lessons.
My favourite era, the one I read the most books about..is modern history, in particular WWII. For me, this particular time seems to show the very best and the very worst of mankind, and there is no movie or novel that could be more exciting or heart stopping or shocking as this time in history. I just recently finished a book on Colditz (not brilliantly written, but the stories more than make up for it), and I was actually going to post about it, in particular, some fascinating information about the adherence to the Geneva Convention by the Germans based at Colditz throughout most of the war. I have now got my head stuck in Stalingrad by Antony Beevor, an award winning book, about the events leading upto and during this turning point of WWII. Not bad for a formerly uninspired history student!
I think though that this is where movies like Braveheart, LOTM, Saving Private Ryan, All Quiet On The Western Front, Gettysburg, The Patriot, Elizabeth, Lonesome Dove and many more...are wonderful tools to spark the interest in history. They all have their historical inaccuracies to a greater or lesser degree, but if they inspire someone to learn more about a particular event or period of time, then they have had a real, positive effect.
Whoa..major sidetrack...what were we talking about again?!! 
HM
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Christie
Pioneer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 02 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - August 23 2002 : 7:13:16 PM
|
Unfortunately the topic is dense Americans who know nothing about international politics  I've always loved history and prefer it to current events. What's ironic is history tends to come full circle. For example, many Americans (myself included) didn't know a thing about the Taliban extreme until Sept. 11. Then reports come out and we learn the Taliban movement was funded by the U.S. in the early 1980's to help defeat the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. No wonder generals like Patton studied military history because it all somehow comes back to us!
Um, actually I'm wrong... I think the original topic who would we vote for Prez. Sorry Rich!
Edited by - Christie on August 23 2002 7:15:58 PM |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - August 24 2002 : 6:53:27 PM
|
quote:
For example, many Americans (myself included) didn't know a thing about the Taliban extreme until Sept. 11. Then reports come out and we learn the Taliban movement was funded by the U.S. in the early 1980's to help defeat the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Hi Christie,
Though this is not entirely wrong, I feel you are taking a bit of a shortcut here. No such thing as Taliban existed at the time of the Soviet Afghan war. The US supported many Mujaheddin groups to fight the Russians. Some of those groups were definitely Islamic fundamentalists, but others were certainly not. Islamic extremism is actually not very natural for Afghans. A big mistake of the US was channeling their funds through the Pakistani intelligence service (ISI) who had their own plans for securing their neighbour state and creating a friendly docile Islamic neighbour state. Therefore they channelled most money to extreme Islamic groups like those from Hekmatyar.
After Soviet withdrawal in 1989 and the fall of the Soviet backed regime in 1992 the Mujaheddin groups fell out amongst themselves, and civil war was the result.
The Taliban (even though some of their leadership came from veterans of the Soviet Afghan war, most prominently Mullah Omar) was actually a product of this civil war, and of the continuing chaos and the power of rogue warlords and did not appear until 1994. The Taliban actually do not come so much from the ranks of the Mujaheddin, though, but from the refugee camps and the religious schools in Pakistan.
If the US has ever courted the Taliban, it was at the time, that there was a chance for an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. As far as I know those attempts ended somewhere in 1998, due to Taliban pigheadedness and pressure from US human rights and feminist groups.
And now I have taken you even further from the topic which we started out with 
Ilse
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - September 27 2002 : 8:05:20 PM
|
George W. Bush Hates America: Political Prisoners and the Post-9/11 Police State
Posted on Monday, August 26 @ 19:58:44 EDT by JohnBrown
Submitted by sv3n
by Ted Rall, Yahoo News [US]
Thu Aug 22,12:01 PM ET
NEW YORK--The United States is a nation of laws. The police arrest suspects they reasonably believe to have broken the law, not citizens who happen to disagree with the government's politics. Cops don't go after people preemptively because they might commit a crime someday. In America, people are considered innocent until they're proven guilty in a court of law. They enjoy the right to a fair trial by a jury of their peers as quickly as possible. And of course they're entitled to the counsel of an attorney.
These fundamental rights, taught in every civics class, define what it means to be American. When other countries fill their prisons with political dissidents, we wonder aloud what it must be like to live in such lawless places. When we watch films like "Midnight Express," in which an American drug smuggler rots in a Turkish prison, we shake our heads not at the sentence--after all, he's guilty--but at the lead character's railroading through the court system and the abuse he suffers at the hands of his guards.
Before September 11, no patriotic American would have disputed the last two paragraphs. Sadly, legal guarantees that every American considered a sacred birthright have been shredded virtually overnight, and many people don't seem to care. Just as a World Trade Center built over the course of five years was destroyed in under two hours, a presidential impostor has used a phony "war on terror" to systematically unraveled two centuries of basic jurisprudence in less than a year.
George W. Bush may not have read Gibbon but he possesses the morals and cunning of a gangster; in a country still stunned by last fall's attacks, that seems to be enough.
The "war on terror," we're told, requires new tactics. Law enforcement--which somehow now includes the military, CIA, FBI and NSA--needs stronger tools. Terrorists are sneakier and smarter than your garden-variety mafia don. So now they're no longer "accused terrorists" but rather "enemy combatants." Who cares if these "enemy combatants" are American citizens? They can be held forever, or to be more precise, until the federal government "defeats terrorism." And while they're awaiting that distant day, Bush's "detainees"--not prisoners, since his first decisive victory has been in his jihad against the English language--don't get to see a lawyer. This works out well because Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld--who has anointed himself judge, jury and executioner--won't offer them a chance to prove their innocence in court.
For the Bushies, see, guilt and innocence aren't the point. The detainees aren't in prison for what they've done. They're there because of what they might do, for whom they know--for what they think. They are political prisoners.
Americans have watched with aggressive disinterest as images of 564 captured Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters squatting in their Guantánamo dog pens fill their living room screens. Human rights activists warn that these inmates, who hail from 38 countries, are being abused. At Camp Delta in July and August, three men tried to hang themselves and another slashed his wrist with a plastic razor. According to the Army, Guantánamo internees have staged hunger strikes to protest the conditions of their captivity. Others are being forcibly medicated with antidepressants and anti-psychotic drugs.
Even worse than the day-to-day torture is the interminable legal limbo. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled July 31 that "the military base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, is outside the sovereign territory of the United States." So Guantánamo isn't the U.S., which means that the prisoners can't seek redress in American courts. But it isn't Cuba either. The POWs can go to the World Court in The Hague, n |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - September 27 2002 : 8:53:20 PM
|
WAR CRY
Thu Sep 26,10:02 PM ET
By Ted Rall
The Case for Regime Change
NEW YORK--Making the case for United Nations ( news - web sites) intervention against the United States, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami ( news - web sites) told the organization yesterday that military action will be "unavoidable" unless the U.S. agrees to destroy its weapons of mass destruction.
In a much-anticipated speech to a special session of the U.N. General Assembly held in Brussels, Khatami launched a blistering attack against American leader George W. Bush, accusing him of defying U.N. resolutions and using his country's wealth to line the pockets of wealthy cronies at a time when the people of his country make do without such basic social programs as national health insurance.
"Nearly two years ago, the civilized world watched as this evil and corrupt dictator subverted the world's oldest representative democracy in an illegal coup d'état," said Khatami. "Since then the Bush regime has continued America's systematic repression of ethnic and religious minorities and threatened international peace and security throughout the world. Thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. Basic civil rights have been violated. This rogue state has flouted the international community on legal, economic and environmental issues. It has even ignored the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war by denying that its illegal invasion of Afghanistan ( news - web sites)--which has had a destabilizing influence throughout Central Asia--was a war at all."
Khatami said the U.S. possesses the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, weapons "that, when first developed, were used immediately to kill half a million innocent civilians just months after acquiring them. No nation that has committed nuclear genocide can be entrusted with weapons of mass destruction."
"Bush has invaded Afghanistan and is now threatening Iraq. We cannot stand by and do nothing while danger gathers. We can't for this tyrant to strike first. We have an obligation to act pre-emptively to protect the world from this evildoer," Khatami said.
As delegates punctuated his words with bursts of applause, Khatami noted that U.S. intelligence agencies had helped establish and fund the world's most virulent terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, and the Taliban regime that harbored them. "The U.S. created the Islamist extremists who attacked its people on September 11, 2001," he stated, "and Bush's illegitimate junta cynically exploited those attacks to repress political dissidents, make sweetheart deals with politically-connected corporations and revive 19th century-style colonial imperialism."
Khatami asked the U.N. to set a deadline for Bush to step down in favor of president-in-exile Al Gore ( news - web sites), the legitimate winner of the 2000 election, the results of which were subverted through widespread voting irregularities and intimidation. "We favor not regime change, but rather restoration and liberation," he said. In addition, Khatami said, the U.S. must dismantle its weapons of mass destruction, guarantee basic human rights to all citizens and agree to abide by international law or "face the consequences."
Most observers agree that those "consequences" would likely include a prolonged bombing campaign targeting major U.S. cities and military installations, followed by a ground invasion led by European forces. "Civilian casualties would likely be substantial," said a French military analyst. "But the American people must be liberated from tyranny."
Khatami's charges, which were detailed in a dossier prepared by French President Jacques Chirac, were dismissed by a representative of the American strongman as "lies, half-truths and misguided beliefs, motivated by the desire to control a country with oil, natural gas and other natural resources." National Security |
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
 Posted - September 28 2002 : 07:18:14 AM
|
| Me thinks Ted Rall lives in another world ... |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - September 28 2002 : 7:24:45 PM
|
Anth: I got more. Enjoy! Oh, and this all comes from the American media BTW.
IS IT TIME TO INVADE ... GERMANY?
Thu Sep 26,10:02 PM ET
By Richard Reeves
WASHINGTON -- The United States, as you may have noticed, is in the business of "regime change," a kind of sacred duty to eliminate leaders of other countries who are not with us -- which means, according to President Bush ( news - web sites), they are against us.
That decided, the question becomes, Do we take the time and inconvenience of doing things such as going to the United Nations ( news - web sites) and organizing multinational coalitions? Or should we just move unilaterally and get rid of people who we don't like or who just won't do what they're told?
I am speaking of Germany, of course, which is a more complicated problem than, say, Iraq. Regime change in Iraq is just getting rid of Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites) and finding the Thomas Jefferson of Baghdad. In Germany, we may have to get rid of tens of millions of voters who defied our warnings and re-elected Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and his Social Democrats.
Schroeder and his ilk were returned to power in Berlin after (perhaps because) he said the United States must be nuts to want to invade Iraq -- and good Germans should have nothing to with that. The Bush administration responded with its usual superpower humility and grace by having Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld refuse to meet with German officials. In fact, Rumsfeld, meeting with other North Atlantic Treaty Organization defense ministers in Warsaw, proclaimed that if the alliance did not support American demands for a rapid deployment force based in Europe, then NATO ( news - web sites) would become "irrelevant."
Who would that force be used against rapidly? Maybe Germany, huh? National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice ( news - web sites) has declared that Schroeder's campaign (and his voters) "poisoned" American-German relations. If that leads to cruise missiles over Berlin, we would be careful, I'm sure, to try to avoid collateral damage to the property and persons of Germans who had the sense to vote Christian Democrat last week.
"Irrelevant" is a big word these days in Washington. The United Nations is irrelevant if it does not do things our way. Al Gore ( news - web sites), the fellow who got more votes than Bush in the last American election, was officially declared irrelevant by presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer ( news - web sites) because the former vice president said the war drums along the Potomac were too loud. Also irrelevant, I have been told, are suggestions that Saddam Hussein may not have been involved in the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington.
Truth be told, Schroeder is a pretty slippery guy who stayed in office, barely, with some clever American-bashing. But politics is politics. And democracy is democracy, even if one does not always like what voters do.
The irony here is that the Social Democrats' campaign is the model of the campaign being run now by President Bush's Republicans. With German unemployment of roughly 10 percent and economic growth near zero, it seemed that the country's voters were on the verge of changing their own regime, throwing out Schroeder in favor of Christian Democrat Edmund Stoiber. But Schroeder, rather cynically, cranked up the anti-Americanism usually under the European surface to divert attention from the country's growing economic problems during his stewardship.
Republicans are running the same campaign in the midterm congressional elections, with the only difference being that they are pushing for war in Iraq to divert attention from lesser economic problems and greater corporate corruption problems in the United States. Front-page headlines in last Wednesday's Washington Post included these:
"Poverty Rises, Income Falls," on top of a paragraph directing readers inside the paper.
"In President's Speeches, Iraq Dominates, Economy Fa |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - September 28 2002 : 7:32:13 PM
|
New York Times, 25 September
No More Bratwurst!
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON — They rule their world ruthlessly and insolently, deciding who will get a cold shoulder, who will get locked out of the power clique and who will get withering glares until they grovel and obey the arbitrary dictates of the leaders.
We could be talking about the middle-school alpha girls, smug cheerleaders with names like Darcy, Brittany and Whitney.
But, no, we're talking about the ostensibly mature and seasoned leaders of the Western world, a slender former cheerleader named W. and his high-hatting clique — Condi, Rummy and Cheney.
I used to think the Bush hawks suffered from testosterone poisoning, always throwing sharp elbows and cartoonishly chesty my-way-or-the-highway talk around the world, when a less belligerent tone would be classier and more effective.
But now we have the spectacle of the 70-year-old Rummy acting like a 16-year-old Heather, vixen-slapping those lower in the global hierarchy, trying to dominate and silence the beta countries with less money and fewer designer weapons.
At a meeting of NATO defense ministers this week in Warsaw, the Pentagon chief snubbed his German counterpart, Peter Struck, refusing to meet with him, only deigning to shake his hand at a cocktail party.
Echoing Condi's peevishness, Rummy announced that the campaign of Gerhard Schröder, who eked out a victory by running against the Bush push to invade Iraq, "had the effect of poisoning a relationship."
In their eagerness to apply adolescent torture methods, Bush hawks seem to have forgotten history: Do we really want to punish the Germans for being pacifists? Once those guys get rolling in the other direction, they don't really know how to put the brakes on.
Mr. Schröder behaved like a good beta, trying to align himself with the American alphas, by dumping his embarrassing friends, the justice minister who linked Mr. Bush's tactics to Hitler's, and the parliamentary floor leader who compared W. to Augustus, the Roman emperor who subdued the Germanic tribes.
Mr. Struck and the German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, were eager wannabes. Mr. Struck offered more German troops for Afghanistan and Mr. Fischer apologized to Colin Powell, the administration's gamma girl, the careful listener who'd always rather build relationships than run roughshod over them.
Gerhard will have to go through way more of a shame spiral. He can forget about getting Germany a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. And no more bratwurst on White House menus.
The State Department wanted the petulant president to make nice with the Germans. But W. was, like, enjoying his hissy fit, refusing to make the customary call to congratulate Mr. Schröder.
As with alpha girls, the president makes leadership all about him. He thinks there are only two places to be: with him on Iraq or with the terrorists.
After all, Germany is not Saudi Arabia — they have elections over there. And surely the Bushes have heard of candidates saying whatever it takes, and placating various special interests, to win an election — and then mending fences afterward. Three words: Bob Jones University. All pols know today's adversary is tomorrow's ally.
Maybe the Bush policy on Empire & Pre-emption allows us to decide not only who can run a country, but what are the proper issues for other nations' election debates.
Bush senior was a master of personal diplomacy, taking heads of state out on his cigarette boat, to Orioles games and to the Air and Space Museum to see the movie "To Fly."
He was a foreign policy realist who used socializing, gossiping, notes and phone calls to lubricate relations with other leaders.
But W., who was always the Roman candle and hatchet man in the family, has turned his father's good manners upside down — consulting sparingly, leaving poor Tony Blair to make the case against his foes for him, and treating policy disagreements as pe |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bea
Keeper of the Western Door
Canada
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
|
 Posted - September 28 2002 : 11:41:28 PM
|
Wow, Ilse!
Very interesting articles..I will need to take a closer look to digest all this. I find some of it rather scary. So Germany and NATO become irrelevant because they don't support an Iraq invasion????? I guess Canada will suffer the same fate then.. Food for thought though: To this date nobbody has let Germany forget about World War 2..I know because my dad happens to be German and yes lives there too! Having lived through a war he certainly does not want to see another one. I am sure many Germans felt the same way thus the voted again for Schroeder..
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bea
Keeper of the Western Door
Canada
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 28 2002 : 11:49:53 PM
|
Another article from CBC:
Chirac opposes new UN resolution aimed at
Iraq
Last Updated Sat, 28 Sep 2002 10:27:38
PARIS - French President Jacques Chirac is rejecting
U.S. and British efforts to win his support for a draft
UN resolution demanding disarmament in Iraq.
INDEPTH: Iraq
In spite of intensive lobbying in Paris, Chirac told U.S.
President George W. Bush that he still opposes the
new resolution that would automatically allow force to
be used if Iraq fails to co-operate with UN demands.
Chirac says he first
supports the return of
weapons inspectors to Iraq
and only then would he
support force if Iraq failed
to comply.
The U.S.-British delegation
moves to the capitals of
the other permanent members of the Security Council,
Russia and China, over the weekend.
Those countries also oppose the proposed resolution.
The U.S. wants Baghdad to provide inspectors with a
security force and access to any facility, including
eight that are considered presidential sites.
It also wants Iraqi acceptance of the demands within
seven days of UN approval and a declaration within 30
days of any remaining weapons of mass destruction
the Iraqis may have.
Iraq has said it will not accept those terms.
Written by CBC News Online staff |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - September 29 2002 : 8:25:52 PM
|
Rall, Dowd, Reeves ... no wonder we're confused, Ilse!
Bea, before you get too scared, keep in mind these aren't factual articles but op pieces from political commentators - aka ideologues. Dowd is known as a Gore Harpie & has a well deserved reputation for ignoring fact, penning vicious cat-clawing pieces, & pretty much saying anything she finds suitable to her 'cause' without backing it up.
Rall (political cartoonist-turned author) reminds me of the sterotypical college brat who thinks he's so much wiser than all previous generations & has profoundly illuminated issues for us unsuspecting, uncaring, non-thinking, racist Americans ... (never mind he's in his mid-thirties & well past the age of such growing pains). His constant theme is hatred for GW Bush, republicans, white America, capitalism (from which he's benefited enormously), & valid elections (from which he's benefited enormously). The classic "I'm a guilty white boy" he plays the old & tired class/race warfare cards whenever possible. He might be amusing but he's unreliable & not above cheap shots. The sort that Stalin referred to as 'useful idiots.' (Was the US REALLY going to invade WWII France as an enemy occupier? Did America REALLY "attack" Afghanistan just for oil? Had nothing to do with 9/11? Are Americans REALLY slaughtering thousands of innocent Afghan civilians & thank God Rall was there to tell us so?)
Reeves is predictably anti-Bush admin while he repeats the same old-same old mantras.
Nothing new here. Same old-same old.
Reeves:
"The United States, as you may have noticed, is in the business of "regime change," a kind of sacred duty to eliminate leaders of other countries who are not with us -- which means, according to President Bush ( news - web sites), they are against us.
That decided, the question becomes, Do we take the time and inconvenience of doing things such as going to the United Nations ( news - web sites) and organizing multinational coalitions? Or should we just move unilaterally and get rid of people who we don't like or who just won't do what they're told?
I am speaking of Germany, of course, which is a more complicated problem than, say, Iraq. Regime change in Iraq is just getting rid of Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites) and finding the Thomas Jefferson of Baghdad. In Germany, we may have to get rid of tens of millions of voters who defied our warnings and re-elected Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and his Social Democrats."
Regime change? I can talk up a storm on US arrogance, but regime change? Who has the United States "eliminated"? The Taliban? That wasn't a regime change, that was a military response to a brutal attack upon civilians. Venezuela? There was some finger-crossing but no interference. Iraq? Hussein's still the head honcho there. Ah! Germany, he suggests! Is that crying 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre or what? Displeasure over an issue hardly constitutes regime change.
Come on, Richard Reeves, that is patently dishonest.
"In Germany, we may have to get rid of tens of millions of voters who defied our warnings and re-elected Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and his Social Democrats."
And a little sick.
Rall's claim regarding Guatanamo Bay;
"Americans have watched with aggressive disinterest as images of 564 captured Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters squatting in their Guantánamo dog pens fill their living room screens. Human rights activists warn that these inmates, who hail from 38 countries, are being abused. At Camp Delta in July and August, three men tried to hang themselves and another slashed his wrist with a plastic razor. According to the Army, Guantánamo internees have staged hunger strikes to protest the conditions of their captivity. Others are being forcibly medicated with antidepressants and anti-psychotic drugs.
Even worse than the day-to-day torture is the interminable legal limbo."
Day-to-day torture? Dog pens? Abuse? Is it so simply because Rall wishes us to believe it |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 01 2002 : 7:07:04 PM
|
quote:
Rall, Dowd, Reeves ... no wonder we're confused, Ilse!
Yep  The next round of editorials I might do, will come from the complete opposite of the political spectrum. Wouldn't want to "unconfuse" things.
Okay, some remarks.
The one on Iran (role reversal), I thought was pretty funny, though somewhat off the wall, agreed (hi Rich!). But! Today my newspaper made a quick reference to a Wall Street Journal columnist (Ledeen) apparently making the case for liberating Iran as well, and Syria and Saudi Arabia, but Iran first (apparently, because there were few direct quotes from the piece, and I couldn't retrieve it without becoming a paying subscriber to the Journal). Like huh? The job in Afghanistan is at best half finished, the one in Iraq not even started? Didn't we need the Saudi military bases for that job btw?
Guantanamo Bay: No evidence, I think, to conclude mistreatment, much less torture of those held there. However, the lack of an official or legal status of these people is very problematic, as it is in the case of those held within the US on vague grounds. At the very least it does nothing for the credibility of the coalition in those areas of the world where the West is already despised. Rall's question on the POW status of our guys being respected is a justified one in my opinion.
Is there a new resolution necessary for war on Iraq? No, there isn't. There's a pile of resolutions already available, all ignored by the Iraq regime. Everybody knows their latest "gesture" is a trick and worth nothing. I am glad the US government chose to follow the UN path, and they are absolutely right in telling the UN what a joke they are becoming by letting Iraq get away with that. An attack on Iraq could be justified on those grounds. No doubt nobody will cry seeing that regime go. But!
- There is still no obvious connection between Iraq/Al Qaida/911
- Civilian casualties (yes, the coalition will try to avoid them, but yes, there will probably be many).
- Who do they think they are going to replace this regime with? Is there a credible alternative to Saddam Hussein around there? Will they be any different from the current regime? With other words, is there a longer term strategy? There's a lesson to be learned from Afghanistan here.
- How credible is it to condemn Iraq for not living up to UN resolutions, while Israel has been doing the same for over 30 years without being really contested?
Germany: This could have been a big farce, but isn't right now. The fact is that in recent polls among the German population 80% were against a war on Iraq. This is way higher than in any EU-nation and certainly does have it's grounds in history. It's easy to claim that Schroeder used some clever America-bashing to win the elections, but it is a bit more complicated than that. Had Stoiber won, he would have to deal with those polls right now. Germany not being asked to cough up troops? They're coughing up troops for Afghanistan. They've also said they would gladly cough up troops for peacekeeping in Iraq. What they don't want to do is cough up troops for a pre-emptive strike.
All in all, I find the responses of the US government in the case of the German elections somewhat unprofessional, even though the Hitler comparisons were rather disgusting.
In any case the friction won't last; neither country can afford that.
quote:
We need a new definition for this war ... War On Terror doesn't quite do it. Some call it Jihad
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - October 02 2002 : 10:38:02 AM
|
Ah, Ilse! I'm trying so hard to 'privatize' my life & YOU keep baiting me
back to the arena ...
Good post ...
quote:
Today my newspaper made a quick reference to a Wall Street Journal
columnist (Ledeen) apparently making the case for liberating Iran as well,
and Syria and Saudi Arabia, but Iran first (apparently, because there were
few direct quotes from the piece, and I couldn't retrieve it without
becoming a paying subscriber to the Journal). Like huh? The job in
Afghanistan is at best half finished, the one in Iraq not even started? Didn
t we need the Saudi military bases for that job btw?
Here's where global politics get both interesting & complicated. It's so easy for people to point fingers at certain countries & declare the need for 'liberation' or smashing without discerning the
cultural/political/religious/economic dynamics of those countries. Iran is particularly difficult to define, as far as its "hostilities" as its somewhat a three headed government. Though the extreme Islamist threat to the west did arise here in Khomeini's '79 Iran, there's much more to the story. For one thing, there is huge unrest among the younger people of Iran who have been demonstrating by the thousands against the Sharia State (unheard of in Iran) & demanding a move towards a democratic government. The big question for the west is will we support them? We DON'T want to go into Iran half-cocked. Syria has been pretty extreme in its anti-western sentiments for a long time, but ... so what. The entire world does not have to be in step with the west. The people of Syria sure don't
want 'liberation' as the vast majority shares the anti-west sentiment.
If/when pressured, Syria will do what Syria needs to do to survive. A lot of what happens in the middle eastern/central Asia regions depends upon the moves or restraints of Israel. It's popular now to point fingers at that region & condemn its "lack of democracies." That's arrogance. When have we, meaning the US & other western nations, ever tried or CARED to nurture or encourage democracy in any country in the middle east other than Israel? Now we condemn the people for not having or living according to these democratic
principles we failed to share? Who says they have to? What have we done to assist such a political philosophy to develop?
Saudi Arabia ... if ever there was an example of turning a pragmatic blind eye, this is it. For all the problems S Arabia presents it remains globally useful. Their willingness to adjust production & price of oil in the interest of stability for the world economic market can not be overlooked too easily. Unlike some regional nations, S Arabia does good business on the world market. And they know it ...
So - unless we're ready to declare the old ways of military prowess revived (as in mighty nations do as they see fit ... Rome?) we need to tread carefully.
quote:
Guantanamo Bay: No evidence, I think, to conclude mistreatment, much less torture of those held there. However, the lack of an official or legal status of these people is very problematic, as it is in the case of those held within the US on vague grounds.
I agree with this. We're stuck in some grey area of non-classification here & it doesn't do any favors for the coalition's diplomatic efforts elsewhere. Sooner or later an official designation will be necessary. Nonetheless, I'm sick of hearing about alleged abuses of these poor, innocent 'detainees' ... They're quite fo |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 03 2002 : 5:27:38 PM
|
quote:
Ah, Ilse! I'm trying so hard to 'privatize' my life & YOU keep baiting me
back to the arena ...
So sorry Lainey..... Maybe
Good points! Agreed, especially on Hussein.
Iran: Apparently 70% of the university students in Iran are in favour of normalizing relations with the US. President Khatami seems to be ready for this too. It's the religious conservatives who are stuck in old animosities.
Germany: Even though I think Schroeder played a legitimate hand here (it's campaigning after all), his "Alleingang" has done nothing for EU unity either. A bad thing in these times. He'll have to work hard to repair the damage.
quote:
So, while we await your editorial by Ann Coulter ()
Now, how did you guess she's on my list??? 
quote:
I'll quote Al Gore ...
When asked what he would have done differently regarding 9/11 & the Taliban, he said;
We would have gone in & said, 'There's a new sheriff in town. Now everybody calm down.'
Really ... he did. :)
Oh God! That's priceless
I suddenly get visions of McCloud riding his horse on the streets of New York....
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 09 2002 : 02:03:26 AM
|
Put me in for GW. It is refeshing to have someone who at least dosen't ooze impropriety the way the last occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania did.
Sgt. Duncan Munro
Capt. Graham's Coy
1/42nd Royal Highlanders
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 09 2002 : 09:33:44 AM
|
We didn't have half the problems we do now from that part world when it was under colonial rule. The Middle East and SW Asia ought to thank their god that they are dealing with the U.S. and U.K. of today and not 100 years ago. For if it was the case, the deainees at Gitmo would have something more serious to complain about than not having prayer mats (Just look at the way the Brits handled the mutineers of 1857, not a lick of trouble from them for almost another 100 years).
Sgt. Duncan Munro
Capt. Graham's Coy
1/42nd Royal Highlanders
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Scott Bubar
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 09 2002 : 9:09:02 PM
|
quote:
Oh God! That's priceless
I suddenly get visions of McCloud riding his horse on the streets of New York....
I can't think of McCloud without remembering Chester, limping along:
"Mr. Dillon, Mr. Dillon..."
Type-casting's a bitch, eh?
~~Aim small, miss small. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 11 2002 : 7:06:45 PM
|
Anthony, thank you for the positive feedback. I know that my ideas may be a bit 'dated' at times and especially paradox for a man of only 35 (in 2002), but I figured that this is an open forum and so long as personal attacks are not involved, any thought is welcome. Take care, I'll check back soon...
Your Humble Servant,
Sgt. Duncan Munro
Capt. Graham's Coy
1/42nd Royal Highlanders
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 22 2002 : 5:55:14 PM
|
Anth leaving????? I trust you will be back though  Have a safe journey.
Sgt, no worries here, mate. Sorry, still a bit in Australian mood, since visiting there this summer. Have you been there? The War Memorial museum in Canberra is an awesome and very moving place to see and spend time in.
Ilse
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!] |
© 1997-2025 - Mohican Press |
|
|
| Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.68 seconds |
 |
|
Presidential Poll
