About GWB

[Schorsch]

There was a re-election in Germany in 2002 and Gerhard Schröder got a good part of votes because he was categorically against a german participation in your Iraq adventure. And why would he want to join you given the more than shaky "evidences"?

And then did everything he could to allow the USA the more efficient destruction of Iraq like protecting US bases (while the GIs went head-banging to Iraq) and giving B-52s passing rights. By normal standards, Germany did participate in the Iraq war.

Most Western strategists agreed on the general necessity to "do something in Middle East". Most opponents did not dispute the removal of Sadam Hussein, but rather the risks connected to it (and were ultimately right). That this kind of war was nothing compatible to the general public is another thing.

Costa Rica joint the Coallition? They don't even have an army.

[Pipe]

There was a re-election in Germany in 2002 and Gerhard Schröder got a good part of votes because he was categorically against a german participation in your Iraq adventure. And why would he want to join you given the more than shaky "evidences"?

And then did everything he could to allow the USA the more efficient destruction of Iraq like protecting US bases (while the GIs went head-banging to Iraq) and giving B-52s passing rights. By normal standards, Germany did participate in the Iraq war.

Most Western strategists agreed on the general necessity to "do something in Middle East". Most opponents did not dispute the removal of Sadam Hussein, but rather the risks connected to it (and were ultimately right). That this kind of war was nothing compatible to the general public is another thing.

Costa Rica joint the Coallition? They don't even have an army.

Funny, isn´t it?!

I think even you are able to grasp the ironing.

Pipe

[Pipe]

I don´t want to discuss Saddam. Just remember that he was your dear ally. As so many that you later on wanted or still want to have removed. A very tricky policy .............. maybe we can call it hipocrisy.

Allies by heart like Stalin and Hitler allies from September 1st 1939 to June 22nd 1941 or the USA and the Soviet Union from the December 11th 1941 to late 1945.
Understand geopolitics?

Two develish dictators playing opportunity games over territory gains and regional influences ? Stalin abandoned and played for a fool by the British? Two nations under attack from the same source joining forces to get rid of the evil?

Hardly comparable.

Like the self-proclaimed world´s leading democracy with a dictator against Iran (US in bed with Saddam)?
Like the self-proclaimed world´s leading democracy with tribal scumbags against USSR (US in bed with the Taliban)?
Like the self-proclaimed world´s leading democracy with south-vietnamese scumbags against north-vietnamese scumbags?
Like the self-proclaimed world´s leading democracy with a pakistani general who went to power in a coup d´etat?
Like the self-proclaimed world´s leading democracy with Saudi Arabia, a totalitarian islamic regime without any considerations for basic human rights?

That´s hipocrisy in my book.

Now, do YOU understand geopolitics?

Pipe

[Schorsch]

I don´t want to discuss Saddam. Just remember that he was your dear ally. As so many that you later on wanted or still want to have removed. A very tricky policy .............. maybe we can call it hipocrisy.

Allies by heart like Stalin and Hitler allies from September 1st 1939 to June 22nd 1941 or the USA and the Soviet Union from the December 11th 1941 to late 1945.
Understand geopolitics?

Two develish dictators playing opportunity games over territory gains and regional influences ? Stalin abandoned and played for a fool by the British? Two nations under attack from the same source joining forces to get rid of the evil?

Hardly comparable.

Like the self-proclaimed world´s leading democracy with a dictator against Iran (US in bed with Saddam)?
Like the self-proclaimed world´s leading democracy with tribal scumbags against USSR (US in bed with the Taliban)?
Like the self-proclaimed world´s leading democracy with south-vietnamese scumbags against north-vietnamese scumbags?
Like the self-proclaimed world´s leading democracy with a pakistani general who went to power in a coup d´etat?
Like the self-proclaimed world´s leading democracy with Saudi Arabia, a totalitarian islamic regime without any considerations for basic human rights?

That´s hipocrisy in my book.

Now, do YOU understand geopolitics?

Pipe

I think I do.
All examples show that foreign policy is opportunistic at first. That American politicians stress their democratic mission is their way of selling it to their people. The Iranians say it is for the islamic revolution. The Soviets said it was anti-imperialistic. I am surprised you are trying to prove something that nobody ever disputed. Thinking that morality is a key consideration in foreign policy is flawed thinking and that was basically my question when I asked you about your understanding of geopolitics.

[tds]

All examples show that foreign policy is opportunistic at first. That American politicians stress their democratic mission is their way of selling it to their people. The Iranians say it is for the islamic revolution. The Soviets said it was anti-imperialistic. I am surprised you are trying to prove something that nobody ever disputed. Thinking that morality is a key consideration in foreign policy is flawed thinking and that was basically my question when I asked you about your understanding of geopolitics.

None of that makes criticising policy on moral grounds inappropriate. Even if the moral justifications are purely for public consumption, loudly pointing out the hypocrisy may help to make the public less of a bunch of suckers in future. The real point is the irony of the situation, and and the hubris of our leaders (who implement these Machiavellian policies - far too sophisticated for the mere electorate - which turn out to be catastrophes!).

Personally, my opinion is that the West's interests coincide with the approximately moral policies far more often than our governments pursue them - promoting democracy even where this may result in less-than-ideal governments, not backing tyrants for short-term tactical advantage... Now, that's debateable, of course. You might argue that not arming Saddam against the revolutionary regime in Iran, or not arming the Taliban to bog down the Soviets in Afghanistan, would have been mistakes. But if we have those arguments, it's not because either side is too dumb to understand geopolitics.

[Pipe]

I think I do.
All examples show that foreign policy is opportunistic at first. That American politicians stress their democratic mission is their way of selling it to their people. The Iranians say it is for the islamic revolution. The Soviets said it was anti-imperialistic. I am surprised you are trying to prove something that nobody ever disputed. Thinking that morality is a key consideration in foreign policy is flawed thinking and that was basically my question when I asked you about your understanding of geopolitics.

Schorsch,

I got enough brains left to see all your points. But that doesn´t mean I endorse that, that I like it, that I get along with it, and it means much less that we all have to relax in our conformity. Imagine your ancestors with your limited thinking line, the same you accuse others of, you´d never work with Airbus because nobody would´ve EVER invented a flying machine. And that´s just an example.

Me? I´d still have daily appointments in Bautzen in a little political paradox called "GDR".

Political hypocrisy must be accused wherever, whenever it happens. It´s only possible because people go conform with it, get lethargic, get numb. And that´s a good part reason for many problems we have to face today. Iraq, GWB, WMD or not, climatic changes .................... it´s only a small dose of what we have messed up.

You think you´re smart by having "discovered" what politics are about? Think again, the conformity you show above makes you part of the problem rather than the solution.

You´ll stop thinking I´m an incurable idealist in the moment you hug your first kid!

Pipe

[Dmmoore]

I agree with Pipes comments.

The reality of world politics precludes most of what could be considered moral positions considering the U.S.'s reported position on world politics.

The U.S. supports many governments that do not conform to democratic principals. So does every country, that does not make it right. I would much rather the U.S. begin a process of continuous urging governments to prepare their people for government using democratic principles.

After Iraq, it should be apparent to everyone (including GWB) that a democracy / republic can not be achieved overnight. Even good democracies have problems with corruption at the electoral level. How many dead people voted in Chicago elections is only one well publicized example. A country needs to attain a level of individual responsibility before the democratic process has a chance at success. How many countries are democracies / republic's in name only? I look at Singapore as an example of a successful democracy (I'm using democracy interchangeably with republic which is really more accurate). Since Singapore's inception the same families have been elected to office again and again. It isn't that anything illegal is going on however the families in power have used extreme legal measures to protect their positions. Singapore is what it is today largely because of what these families have done for the people that elect them.

In short, a democratic state is not easy to set up and run unless a group of people can be found that are forward thinking enough to lead the democratic process while not making it obvious that the same process is making them wealthy.