Bush's 'Democracy'

Many people have taken issue with me posting the fruits of my research on here, because it has basically criticised American foreign policy ever since Wilsonian theory. Because I’m not American apparently I shouldn’t comment. Well I take issue with some of Bush’s actions regarding
Europe (I’m in Europe, I’m allowed, yay!). Going into Iraq Bush had support from Britain’s, Spain’s and Italy’s governments. He praised their leaders for taking the ‘correct’ descision in following America’s. In these countries anti-war sentiment was at around 80%, i.e. a vast majority of people opposed the descision of their governments. Elected leaders, leaders put in office by the people of the most stable democracies in the world ignored their own citizens. Not one referendum was called, the people of these countries were never consulted about whether they wanted their youth to go to war. Bush called these countries ‘New Europe’. He praised the government’s democratic abilities and strong leaderships. Germany and France (along with most other non-ex-Soviet nations) opposed the Iraq war. They were labelled ‘Old Europe’. I take issue with this. The phrase ‘Old Europe’ used to refer to the imperialistic, non-progessive monarchies of Europe- the systems which drove the forefathers to America. Now it apparently means ‘nations which follow the will of the people’. The governments of those who opposed Bush’s illegal war no doubt saw the views of their citizens as important, after all is a democracy not about representing the ‘people’? When 80-90% of citizens were opposed to war the governments stood up and represented their views. That is democracy at its best, yet Bush seemed to not only value misrepresentation more highly but went on to berate and slander the governments which do their democratic duties prior to Iraq. I suppose his take on democracy was to be expected considering the way he came to power.

I’m not overly familiar with the workings of British, Spanish or Italian governments, but I do know they aren’t direct democracies – the people of those countries don’t vote directly on issues. If the citizens were so opposed to aiding the effort in Iraq, they can vote their leaders out of office. Some would argue this is what the Spanish did. At any rate though, the voters don’t get to vote directly on important issues generally - they vote indirectly by voting for their leaders.

Also, opinion polls shouldn’t be given much weight - although I realize you’re using them precisely because no vote was held.

[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
Because I’m not American apparently I shouldn’t comment. Well I take issue with some of Bush’s actions regarding Europe (I’m in Europe, I’m allowed, yay!). [/quote]

You’re allowed to comment on whatever the hell you want to comment on. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

I’d like to hear a Brit explain to the Bushies here about how Tony Blair is on the brink of impeachment, for suppporting Bush’s war on Iraq, even though British intelligence said Iraq was not a threat. Blair’s career is basically over, it’s just a matter of time.

And Blair’s Conservative rival (Blair is not a Conservative) who will replace Blair, is not a Bush ass-kisser. So when Blair goes, so will Bush’s support in the UK.

I don’t think people in the USA have a clue how much Dubya is HATED by the citizens in the UK, and how Tony Blair is really the main cornerstone of Bush’s support there. Once Blair goes, so does Bush’s toe-hold of support.

[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
The governments of those who opposed Bush’s[/quote] illegal[quote] war no doubt saw the views of their citizens as important, after all is a democracy not about representing the ‘people’?
[/quote]

I was taking you seriously until you said “illegal.” Just makes you sound ignorant.

BTW I think there isn’t reason you shouldn’t post, unless you were refering to things only Americans could know (I don’t recall seeing you here). So this isn’t saying that you shouln’t post, I was merely expressing an opinion.

John,

The people in Europe who opposed this war are entitled to their opinion.

They apparently forget the 20th century and the history of brutual dictators.

They apparently think more of lucrative contracts than they do about principle.

We know the underlying inferiority complex that some of these people possess regarding the United States.

We know some countries are angling to gain political/economic asendency in the E.U.

We see the recent kidnapping of French journalists, and we this reinforces our knowledge that appeasement NEVER, EVER works.

Many of us love Tony Blair and support him fully. We know there are many in England and elsewhere that are able to think beyond today. We are greatly indebted to the people who put their lives and political careers on the line.

It showed courage. The English in particular have honored the alliance. There will always be people like you John, who run and hide when danger approaches. You won’t be quoted in the future. When you die, people won’t remember.

History remembers Winston Churchill. We Americans have a special kinship with him. He was half-American. Many of us are at least partially English.

We remember that he was ridiculed before your House of Commons for the entire decade of the 30’s. We remember the JohnGuillicks (Neville Chamberlin’s, Stanley Baldwin’s, etc…) laughing at him, and calling him a “war-monger.” “Oh, Winston’s past it…” “Poor Winston…” “Just like his father…” Poor Winston, indeed. His legacy speaks for itself.

Hussein needed to be confronted and removed. Think Germany circa 1937.

The parallels are there for all to see. Hitler and Hussein. Lucky for you, there are people in our two countries that know their history and have the courage to act upon it.

Have a good one!!!

JeffR

P.S. Don’t use Lumpy as an example of popular thought in the United States. He is a defeatist and apologist who wields no real influence.

Jeff, do you think you could tone down the fluff and cheerleading a bit?

You’ve glossed over about a dozen huge areas, that are certainly open for very wide interpretation, as if it was all decided fact.

There is more than one way to fight terrorism. Using methods other than troops does not equate to appeasement. The appeasement angle and the Hitler angle are way too overused around here.

Bush failed to sell the cause. There it is. Black and white. The US had a sales job to do, and it failed. Either the sales job wasn’t truly tackled, wasn’t given time to succeed or it was massively bungled.

Don’t you understand that rallying allies is one of the jobs of the administration? You can piss and moan about other countries turning their backs, but that is simply making excuses for poor performance.

Let’s start sacking up and taking the heat for failing to achieve some objectives around here… that’s what it means to be in charge. You set objectives, you find ways to achieve them.

People who are voting should listen to both candidates, see what objectives they are laying out for the nation, and judge who has the ability to achieve those objectives.

Sometimes taxes go up, other times they go down. Sometimes government gets bigger and sometimes it gets smaller. It’s okay for the “other” side to win once and a while. It’s natural… it’s healthy.

End rant.

JeffR’s quote:
We see the recent kidnapping of French journalists, and we this reinforces our knowledge that appeasement NEVER, EVER works.

Sorry, I don’t know how to do the fancy grey thing. Anyway, you are I’m sure aware that the demand of the hostage takers is for France to repeal their headscarf ban (which did outlaw other things…) which a lot of people saw as a direct insult to the Muslim world. We’ll see what they do about it, right now it looks like they will hold fast, but in either case it seems a bit odd to me to use the word appeasement in reference to the kidnappings. Just my .02 though.

Bob423,

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

Let me explain this in some more detail. I don’t think it would be a stretch to say that there were people who heard France declare publically before the U.N. that they would veto any use of force against Iraq. I don’t think it takes a sophisticated mind to figure out that that means Hussein would not be confronted militarily by the French. Hussein showed numerous times that the only way he could be effectively controlled was through direct military threat/action. See Kuwait and the in/out of the weapons inspections. The other long term approach was the oil for food embargo. This appears to have been a disaster on so many levels. It is a developing story and I don’t want to print innuendo. However, it appears that there was some dirty dealing between the French government/U.N. regarding some of the profits.

To say they would veto the use of force (the only proven way to curtail his evil actions) is tantamount to appeasement.

History has shown repeatedly that criminals/terrorists are far more likely to take hostages if they think they can gain some gain from the hostage’s nation/patron. Therefore, if you are an appeaser, you are a prime target for terrorists.

France appeased the dictator, the terrorists saw a prime target, and now the French are a target.

I can’t help wonder what would have happened if every member of the U.N. had stood firm from 1991 on. Imagine if the oil for food embargo would have been enforced strictly. Imagine if Saddam’s noncompliance with the WMD inspections would have been confronted in 1998 and not 2003 with a United World.

That scenario is the only one in which I can imagine not having had to fight this war. I contend that that would have been effective containment.

The last part is, unfortunately, speculation.

I look forward to discussing this with you further and welcome your views,

JeffR

I completely agree that appeasement just slaps a big target on your chest. It can be seen as simply as saying ‘yes’ to child when you shouldn’t have…then having to deal with a billion more requests…and tantrums later. Keeping this family analogy, it’s easy to imagine the difficulty that arises when one parent says yes and another says no. What is the kid supposed to think? It just makes things worse.
That being said, the only debate is to what qualifies as appeasement. To you and many others, France vetoing any use of force was seen as such, but they might not have looked on it so. They could have been making what was to them an important stand about how world issues should be dealt with. If that somehow played into someone else’s hand…well…they should consider that in the process. Did they? I can’t answer that.
You make an important point about solidarity and undermining though. Unless you find a group’s decision just too morally and ethically unsound to accept, you should support the group decision as best you can. If it is too much for you, then you should step back and work your ass off to show them that there is a better way. Allowing certain countries (that were picked 50 yrs ago!) to have veto power over the decisions of a group is just ridiculous to me. What makes them so special as to have better insight than everyone else? Yes, it’s possible that the entire group except them is making a mistake…but I think that more often than not they (‘they’ being anyone with veto power) hogtie the security council and make it ineffectual.
I wish people would just make decisions and get the hell to it. If you find out you’re wrong later, then admit it, and figure out a better solution. Be open to change and consensus (!!!, sorry, had to emphasize both those), but don’t blather over every little thing. Sure, you might want to add a bit more consensus building over wars than social programs (you can never give life back, so don’t be so eager to take it) but shit, sometimes I wish people would just give 'er. : )
Do you know who Pierre Trudeau is? He is one of our former PM’s who I unfortunately didn’t get to experience (too young). When there was a big crisis in Quebec, he told people he was going to send in the army. The army!?! No, we can’t do that, not to our own people, on our own soil. So what did he say right back to the journalists? ‘Just watch me.’ I love it! lol Was it the best decision? I don’t know, I haven’t done the research. But I’ve gotta respect it.
OK, I’ve rambled now…

John: Excellent post.

BostonB: You certainly have a point in reference to a certain style of democracy. But I see a problem with this. Many politicans in all countries do crimminal things and voting them out really adds up to nothing in terms of punishment. Is there really a significant difference in the dems or reps? No and I think the history of the last 6 or 7 decades shows it. This is obviously problematic.

In addition, you are missing one of the points John was making in the original post. Bush praised governments who went along with this war and agaist the majority of their population and chastized those who listened to the will of the people. Bush, like Kerry is a true elitest

JeffR: Yes the people of Europe forgot what happened right in their backyard and are just too stupid to realize it.

By the way, what contracts are the majority of Europeans waiting to profit from?

The inferiority complex you refer to is nothing more than rubbish that spews from the mouths of politicans and pundits. But the fact that the leaders of this country for many decades have been at the center of atrocities, government coups and destabalizations isn’t.

Comaring Nazi Germany to modern day Iraq is laughable. Sounds like something that bafoon Limbaugh would say.

Yeah, Hussein could only be contained by direct military action but we contained a superpower for decades w/o ever going to war with them. Aha,ha. You’ve got to be joking!

And speaking of NEVER,EVER Appeasing terrorists then why did we sell weapons to Iran in exchage for hostages?

While you tell John that he should feel lucky that we have brave people in two countries who know history and are willing to defend it, I say it is ignorant brainwashed people such as yourself who enable the depraved and weak men who run this country to get away with the atrocities that are commited in the name of America.

You know I use the word ‘illegal’ in the sense that the war was not condoned by the UN. I am a great believer in international law for the good of the planet, unfortunately I also recognise that it can pretty much be taken or left if you decide, which is exactly what the US did. If you think back a few years the US also ingored several international court and UN rulings regarding Nicaragua. Activites against Cuba were deemed illegal too. Now the US government is bitching that Britain, France and Germany have gone past the UN and into direct talks with Iran over WMD. Well the Iraq 2 conflict put the nail in the coffin of the UN and showed it has no actual powers, so no wonder European nations are simply ignoring it now, the US set the precedent!

BB: yup, we don’t get to vote directly and it is shit. Switzerland has a system whereby if a certain number of signatures are gathered proportional to the population the people can stop bills, introduce bills etc. We are left at the mercy of the government to declare a referendum, its complete wank. I know opinion polls are sketchy, but I don’t think I’m putting my head on a block when I say anti-war sentiment was the majority. No, the government here (UK)isn’t directly elected, it is elected based on ‘seats’ won in the houses of parliment but still, the party is chosen by the people to represent, which is exactly what Blair did not do. Just because he is in office it doesn’t mean he can run rough shod over public opinion (although apparently he can and it makes me sick. It then adds insult to injury that Bush condones his actions).

[quote]Lumpy wrote:
JohnGullick wrote:
Because I’m not American apparently I shouldn’t comment. Well I take issue with some of Bush’s actions regarding Europe (I’m in Europe, I’m allowed, yay!).

You’re allowed to comment on whatever the hell you want to comment on. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

I’d like to hear a Brit explain to the Bushies here about how Tony Blair is on the brink of impeachment, for suppporting Bush’s war on Iraq, even though British intelligence said Iraq was not a threat. Blair’s career is basically over, it’s just a matter of time.

And Blair’s Conservative rival (Blair is not a Conservative) who will replace Blair, is not a Bush ass-kisser. So when Blair goes, so will Bush’s support in the UK.

I don’t think people in the USA have a clue how much Dubya is HATED by the citizens in the UK, and how Tony Blair is really the main cornerstone of Bush’s support there. Once Blair goes, so does Bush’s toe-hold of support.
[/quote]

Yeah Blair is in some deep shite. There isn’t really anyone fit to replace him unfortunately, but hopefully somebody can come in and undo the idotic systems he trying to force through for hospitals and univerisities. Its amazing how he’s made New Labour into a better organised Liberal Democrat party outwardly, yet he’s advocating biometric ID cards and the like. Its annoying that the left seems to dragged down by the feeling it needs to constantly moniter its citizens, the ‘nanny state’. Luckily though the right has been mellowed over here a bit so we don’t see the flagrant ‘profit over people’ ideals of the US right, yet they still lean that way. The only party who actually seems sane is the Greens, but they just aren’t strong enough here. I don’t know about anyone else but I get the impression all the ideology has gone. Everyones forgotten what they’re striving for, which is to better society, create greater equality, increase living standards and destroy the gap between the ‘haves and have nots’, instead they go for winning another term and making some money.

I dont have time to read through all this dung right now but I find it interesting that mr gullick comes back on here every once in awhile, posts his hogwash, then leaves after he gets ripped apart…much like he did last time after me and BB tore him up like a virgin on prom night after his last post over imperialism.

Zeppelin,

I read through your post, twice.

I found such gems as selling “arms to Iran for hostages.” Is this some half-witted attempt to discuss Iran-Contra? Which hostages were we trying to free? When was that exactly.

Then this sentence, “Yeah, Hussein could only be contained by direct military action but we contained a superpower for decades w/o ever going to war with them.” I honestly don’t even know what you are trying to get at. The situations could not have possibly been more different. Thanks for acknowledging the obvious about Hussein. But the rest…???

I could not believe that you would write that last post.

I thought of responding, but realized the utter futility of it. You don’t have even basic frame of reference.

Worse, you actually are exhibiting an arrogance about your “points.” You write, " I say it is ignorant brainwashed people such as yourself who enable the depraved and weak men who run this country to get away with the atrocities that are commited in the name of America."

Please pick up a history of the United States written preferably within the last one-two years. Please read it carefully. When that has been completed, come on back. But, please don’t be aggressive in your ignorance. It makes it far worse.

I am sincerely hoping for you,

JeffR

Just one little word of advice, read a book before calling someone else ignorant.

Thanks,

JeffR

[quote]biltritewave wrote:
I dont have time to read through all this dung right now but I find it interesting that mr gullick comes back on here every once in awhile, posts his hogwash, then leaves after he gets ripped apart…much like he did last time after me and BB tore him up like a virgin on prom night after his last post over imperialism.
[/quote]

biltritewave,

I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but I actually think you are. Until now, the discussion in this thread has been more or less civilised (woohoo!). If you admit not to care to read it all, please do not comment on it in such an unsavory way. You may not agree with JohnGullick, but there is no reason to be rude.

Makkun

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I’m not overly familiar with the workings of British, Spanish or Italian governments, but I do know they aren’t direct democracies – the people of those countries don’t vote directly on issues. If the citizens were so opposed to aiding the effort in Iraq, they can vote their leaders out of office. Some would argue this is what the Spanish did. At any rate though, the voters don’t get to vote directly on important issues generally - they vote indirectly by voting for their leaders.

Also, opinion polls shouldn’t be given much weight - although I realize you’re using them precisely because no vote was held.[/quote]

BostonBarrister,

It has been argued that the last German general election in September 1992 was influenced strongly by the anti-war (anti-American?) stance of the incumbent Schroeder gouvernment - in favour of Schroeder. Surely, we all do not live in direct democracies anymore - representation is a feature of modern (and huge) states. And, to be honest, I never was a friend of plebiscits - they are too volatile and might only reflect a momentary mood. But I would argue that massive demonstrations and polls are an indicator how the population feels. And there have been indicators that many Europeans were simply not convinced by the Coalition’s arguments for the Iraq war.

Makkun

Jeff, I hate to break it to you, but have you ever heard the phrase… “the victor writes the history books”.

Consider the history of America if it was written by the Native Indians. I suspect it would consist of very different language than you are used to.

Howabout toning down the arrogance and thinking that there are other perspectives than your own, and they can also be correct. I know that goes against your cheerleader based polarized mindset, but give it a try some time and then come on back.

Don’t feel bad John you do a good sevice posting here. I know there are a people in England who have similar opinions to yourself. Your posts here have educated some of us about the types of silly ideas that are out there in other country’s.

If you don’t express your ideas and get feed back how can you grow? It’s not like the Saddam Fedayeen is going to come and tear your tongue with pliers, so feel free to speak your mind about the legality of the Saddam Hussien regime and how Bush was wrong to put an end to it because the French didn’t want to see him go.

It’s funny one of you should mention Quebec. Did you know that the person who started the quebec seperatist movement was Charles De Gaulle? That is how the French paid back the Canadians for their sacrifices at Normandy. A sacrifice that wouldn’t have been necessary if the French hadn’t refused to listen to their ally Great Britain.

Winston Churchill wrote, that even though Dunkirk was a defeat he was glad that he no longer had the sensibilities of an ally to worry about.

Some people place way too much importance on what the French have to say. Despite their history of being difficult bitches who will get their freinds into trouble.

John I would seriously question your assertion that %80-90 of the people of Britain opposed the Iraq war. Public opinion in the UK is never that unanimous. Tony Blair had the support of the Tories going into Iraq. Also if you look at this list:

At this time, 27 countries, in addition to the United States, have contributed a total of approximately 21,700 troops to ongoing stability operations in Iraq. These 27 are Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Georgia, El Salvador, Estonia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom.

you’ll see that the majority of countries in Europe supported the invasion.

So go ahead John and post as much of your Tripe as you want to.