![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
The main difference between the parties when it comes to foreign policy is that the Democrats are willing to smile and nod at the Europeans before ignoring them, whereas the Republicans are more straightforward in expressing their disdain.
I think he is right here.
I think that, as far as the war is concerned, whoever is in the presidential office is going to do essentially the same thing, but what he will say and how widely he will smile to Europeans is another matter. Paradoxically, this might have pushed me towards rooting for a Democratic president (to help Europe to mend its ways with the US and to soothen the scrape marks) precisely because his rhetoric would be, in a sense, counter to his actions. But I do not like politicking and do not like political hypocrisy. Plus, I happen to like the current presidential foreign team, starting with Wolfowitz and other neocons. I am indifferent to Bush, but not prticularly fond of Kerry either.
The result is: if I had been an American citizen, I would have been likely to vote for a Republican president this time.
I think he is right here.
I think that, as far as the war is concerned, whoever is in the presidential office is going to do essentially the same thing, but what he will say and how widely he will smile to Europeans is another matter. Paradoxically, this might have pushed me towards rooting for a Democratic president (to help Europe to mend its ways with the US and to soothen the scrape marks) precisely because his rhetoric would be, in a sense, counter to his actions. But I do not like politicking and do not like political hypocrisy. Plus, I happen to like the current presidential foreign team, starting with Wolfowitz and other neocons. I am indifferent to Bush, but not prticularly fond of Kerry either.
The result is: if I had been an American citizen, I would have been likely to vote for a Republican president this time.
?
Re: ?
Re: ?
Re: ?
This wikipedia page is written with an obvious slant, this one is more neutral. This article in Reason looks at his record from a somewhat unusual point, and this page from an anti-neocon source is remarkable in its way. There is plenty of more material online, of course; choose whatever is to your liking.
Disclaimer: I am not 100% with him on all issues, and obviously it would be rather difficult to find one with whom I would be. But I think his approach is honest.
Re: ?
Re: ?
Re: ?
This one. (-:
Re: ?
Re: ?
Cema: Choosing allies and friends properly, as well as foes.
Re: ?
Re: ?
two evils?" In case of WWII, they, no doubt, made the correct decision.
I am not so sure (in fact, I am sure in quite the opposite) about
these days.
Re: ?
In case of WWII, there was no choice: Germany declared war on the US soon after Japan attacked it. A better analogy might be the war with the "barbary pirates", as they are usually called, but I am not sufficiently familiar with that.
Re: ?
Re: ?
As for the time-tested allies, a friend in need etc.
Allies
A friend in need? What countries were the first line of defense when the USSR aimed thousands of ICBMs at the US? I guess that WAS the time "in need", wasn't it?! Poland? Bulgaria? Pakistan?
I think you are confusing a bunch of special interests who grabbed the helm while the people aren't looking with the US foreign policy.
Re: Allies
US European allies in this war (in alphabetical order): Albania, Britain, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Ukraine.
And, btw, not that it matters much now, but France was hardly US's most reliable ally during the Cold War. It actually left NATO in 1966 (http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org/article.php3?id_article=181) and didn't rejoin until 1993.
Re: Allies
Re: Allies
Here's my point:
1. Lots of European allies countries support US on the issue of war in Iraq. If you look at the list, you'll notice a variety of different countries, both in the "old" and in the "new" Europe. You'll also notice that some of the agree with US on the issue, while others simply decided that they can trust US on doing the right thing in this matter. All of them value their relationship with US too much not to offer help (even if it's just a gesture of help) when US asked for it
2. France has had problems aligning with US on many important issues over the last 50 years. The fact that they disagreed on this issue is hardly a huge surprise.
Re: Allies
If you insist, let's focus on the Iraq war.
Please add up GDPs and standing army sizes and quality for Germany, France, Belgium, and Spain, plus a few other countries in Europe and compare those numbers with the same totals for those of the "allies". That will show you, "lots" is a false friend of an international relations student.
Note how the government changed in Spain recently. Also, note the majority of Italians oppose the Iraq war, and a great number of Britons do too. Blair is in a precarious position at home because he joined the war against Iraq.
Essentially, in Europe only some Eastern European countries support the US invasion almost unquestionably. I am sure their loyalty will be rewarded.
Re: Allies
The goverment of each country is elected by the majority of the population. The majority decides what issues are important and how important they are to them by electing the goverment that represents it. So, whatever the opinion polls:
Spain supports the war.
UK supports the war.
Italy supports the war.
Now, what sort of reward to you think Spain, UK, Italy, Netherlands, and Denmark expect to get from the United States? I'm lost on this one.
And what sort of reward to you think the Czech Republic and Poland expects to get from the United States? Good relationship? No doubt. Preferred trade status? Better visa regime? I sure hope so.
If you look at "what ifs", please look at the results of the last German elections and how close the Social Democrats came to losing it. Had they lost it, Germany would have also supported the war. France and Belgium are the only two countries on your list where all major political forces oppose helping US in this war.
Re: Allies
Re: Allies
no subject
Neocons
I like it that their approach to issues is based, usually, on studying them with an open mind, but not without the ethical component. I think it is better than removing the ethics altogether, but also better than keeping the ethics and dropping the other part. The former is cynical, the latter naive, and neither works well in reality.
This is a vague and not 100% correct picture, of course. More a description of my feelings than thoughts of the subject.
Re: Neocons
Re: Neocons
what issues are you talking about?
Political and social ones. Some are interesting to me, some are important, some neither. For example, race relations (ethnic relations would be a better term, but historically it is called race relations) are interesting and relatively important, whereas affirmative action and the value of diversity are interesting but not important (to me). Foreign affairs are interesting, and those that deal with Israel (and Middle East in general), Russia, as well as the current war with islamist fanatics, these ones are important to me.
Far from a full list of issues, just examples.
What US national interest is best served by the neocon ideology?
I am not sure that national interests are served by an ideology. I do not look at it this way. I am separately looking at how people come to conclusions, and separately at what conclusions they come to. In case of the neocons, as I wrote before, I was originally more impressed by how, and then I found they often had a similar what.
Keep in mind, however, that I am not a neoconservative myself, simply because I am not a conservative, and then, of course, I am not a "thinker" or a pundit or whatever, do not write articles and do not get published. :-)
National interest is the best measure of any foreign policy.
Personal interest is the only measure I can apply.
One: Assuming we agree the US is at war now, there are many questions about how to define the war (is this a "war on terrorism" or a "war of civilizations" etc), what goals to pursue in this war, etc, etc. Two: positioning with respect to the sides in the Israeli-Arab conflict is important to me (separately from the previous issue).
It has been my impression that neocons have strong pro-Israeli leanings, and this is very much in line with my personal attitude. (Both in terms of what and how.) It has also been my impression that neocons tend to look at the present war between the US and the Islamic fanaticism as a big picture, the "strategic versus tactical" approach the Condoleezza advocated :-) , and this, again, looks like a sound position to me.
There are more issues in the foreign policy which are less interesting to me, so I do not know how close I am with the neocons on those issues.
Am I making wrong assumptions, maybe?
I have no idea what assumptions you are making.
The word "neocon" has recently become less precise than it used to be, and I am not sure we are talking about the same things here, but I hope so.
Re: Neocons
Re: Neocons