A lot of conservatives like to pooh-pooh international opinion. “Who cares what the French think?” they say, “what does it matter what our allies say about us?”. And aesthetically it may not matter at all. But especially in the post-Cold War era, America is the leader of the world. What we say matters, what we do reverberates across the globe. We are not on an island of our own.
Americans have clearly recognized that under George W. Bush, our nation lacks respect. That means if we want to do anything, forget building coalitions of the willing or otherwise. This arrogance predated the 9/11 and the Iraq War, but those two events along with a whipped opposition party gave the right a free hand to trash our good name. Now when our chief diplomat meets others around the world, our word is useless.
The words of the United States ought to mean something. It isn’t all bluster and acting like a petulant child. Under presidents of all parties, we’ve been the “shining beacon on the hill”. That’s gone now. I just hope it can come back someday.
yea, me too. I mean, NOBODY wants to come to this country anymore! We can’t give OUT citizenship here.
And you’re right, our words should mean something. Unlike the bad old days (”well now, Yasser, you know, you PROMISED to stop blowing up innocent israelis if they gave you back your land remember? At Wye River, right before you got the nobel prize?” or “I never had sexual relations with that girl….” or “Sure, the UN troops will definately protect you muslims in Sbrenecia….” )
Just like spoiled children the leftists are. “I hate you, I hate you, I hate you! All the other kids get to have intifadhas! ”
When Bush said we are “staying in Iraq until the job is done”, do you think he meant it? If so, why are so many liberals suggesting that we go bck on our word?
Stop trolling. You’ve been warned. Disagree all you want, but the trolling is ridiculous.
When wingers try to make jokes…
well now, Yasser, you know, you PROMISED to stop blowing up innocent israelis if they gave you back your land remember?…
The Israelis never did give back the land. (See UN Resolution 242, of which Israel is still in violation. It was a compromise of UN Resolution 194, which the Israelis ignored two decades earlier.) Also, most of the violence being done against Israel is by groups which were never under Arafat’s control: Hamas, which Israel nurtured into power as a fundie antagonist to the largely secular and increasingly politically savvy PLO. Islamic Jihad is based in Syria, and has financial support from Hamas, Syria, and possibly Iran. Hezbollah was born out of the illegal and brutal Israeli invasion and occupation of Southern Lebanon.
Long story short: if Israel has wanted the kind of peace that flows from justice, they would have negotiated with Arafat’s PLO decades ago. Instead, they’ve stuck to the script of Arthur Balfour:
“Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-old traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who know inhabit that ancient land.”
In other words, Arabs have no rights that a Jewish (white) nation is bound to respect. Or, more to the point, the words of Rabbi Yaacov Perin (in his eulogy for mass Arab killer Baruch Goldstein):
“One million Arabs are not worth one Jewish fingernail.”
This is what our tax dollars are supporting.
Thats a crappy threat OW. I didn’t see anything wrong in what Pedro said. Besides, your statement was BS. A. We had and have a coalition. B There are times when the world appeases (Like Spain) and we need to do the job - if the job is going to get done - alone.
I’d rather do the right thing with a small coalition than the wrong thing with a bunch of appeasers.
Dugger
Damn, too much “necessarily” in that first sentence. Teach me to comment this early in the morning.
Alex - What you’re saying isn’t necessarily wrong, but I don’t think negotiating with Arafat’s PLO was necessarily going to get them anywhere…time and again, Arafat seemed to be attempting to play both sides of the coin and all it did was make him look untrustworthy. How could anybody negotiate with him if that was the persona he chose to cultivate?
There seems to be bad timing all around. Sharon started out being just as much a part of the problem as Arafat, and then slowly mellowed after Arafat died. Sharon and Abbas might have been a good match to broker some kind of peace, but then Sharon’s stroke occurred. And the increasing discontent with America (and de facto Israel) because of the Iraqi occupation allowed Hamas to get a stronger political stranglehold, which cut down Abbas and also emboldened the right-wing Iranians to usher in Ahmedinajad’s rule…which meant that Olmert had to get tougher with his neighbors…which led to Hezbollah’s ill-conceived boldness…which leads us back here to the new war.
The scary thing is that I don’t Syria’s really made its move yet.
Um Dugger, I think you missed something there. The coalition you keep touting is an example of the world appeasing us. Or billing us.
The Survey Says…
We are not getting anywhere. A CBS NY Times poll says what people say. George Bush might want to listen. Or not.
People say:
The war between Israel and its enemies will never end.
That war may widen.
Somebody else besides us should fix it.
Peacekeep…
Spain didn’t appease anyone. They voted out an incompetent government that was covering up the true nature of the attacks. The Spanish people, like the rest of the world, correctly assessed the problem of Iraq not being one of terrorism, but one of internal ethnic conflict. (Boy, you conservatives never trust democracy unless it fits your war agenda, do you?)
That’s the reason we’ve lost Iraq, you know. It’s not resolve, or cock size, or whatever other emotional characteristic is the GOP talking point of the day. We lost Iraq because the idiots in charge (and their enablers, like you, Dugger) never understood the war we’d gotten ourselves into.
What TomY says. By the way, is NR still saying we’re winning? It’s hard to keep up with flip-flopping winger opinion these days.
Oliver, while what you say has merit to it, not everything the U.S. does has to be based on consensus or result in the U.S. sitting on the fence refusing to take sides. Sometimes we have to do what is right regardless of world opinion and regardless of the consequences.
Even if not spoken, the fact remains that there is a good deal of anti-semitism around the world, particularly in the underbelly of old Europe and the UN (and spare me the bullshit that anti-semitism doesn’t mean anti-Jew). If we don’t stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself and be secure, no one will.
and spare me the bullshit that anti-semitism doesn t mean anti-Jew
This isn’t bullshit, and nobody says that anti-Semitism isn’t anti-Jew. The thing is, by definition the word Semite does not apply exclusively to Jews, it applies to people besides Jews as well.
If you want to accuse somebody of being “anti-Jew,” then do so. But it’s become de rigeur to misuse “anti-Semite” as meaning somebody who hates Jews, without considering that not all Semites are Jews. It would be akin to saying that a man who doesn’t care for French people is “anti-Europe.”
And beyond that, the term gets flung about far too easily against people who may have nothing against Jews as a people, or Judaism as a faith (indeed, I’ve seen it tossed at Jewish people before), but may have issues with the political and military policies of Israel. It’s a nice, simple defense against anybody who dares say that Israel might be fallible or possibly even wrong on even the smallest of issues…oh, you must just hate Jews.
“Sometimes we have to do what is right regardless of world opinion and regardless of the consequences.”
Explain to me how invading Iraq without provocation was the right thing to do, but intervening in Darfur or Rwanda is not.
duros, while I believe that it was right to go into Iraq, the fact that we have not intervened in Darfur or Rwanda is a crime.