Another one bites the dust

[IDBillzFan]

Care to cite something that says we have no intelligence? We seem to know where to blow up #2s fairly consistently....I don't know where it is but some article I think linked form here made a comment about al-Qaeda basically feeling compromised and having not reliable means of communication anymore that they feel safe with...I wouldn't assume capturing and interrogating al-Qeda is basically our primary and sole source of intelligence...

Relax, Francis. Like I mentioned: I just heard some military talking head on the radio a few weeks ago. If it makes you feel better, let's say you're right and I'm wrong and the next time you see me being conversational with a casual reference to something I heard, just tell yourself I'm wrong and you're right and it'll save you the effort of having to respond to my comment.

[OCinBuffalo]

It's not that simple. TheNewBils makes a good point; Bush's administration absolutely pissed off friends and enemies alike with their 'My way and !@#$ you' attitude and there is no doubt that contributed to the level of backlash on issues like torture and Gitmo. There's no reason to be arrogant when you are the lone superpower, all that does is undermine our global authority by making others resentful and fearful. The US has been able to do anything it wanted for decades without raising this level of animosity because we were smarter diplomatically. And in a world where China, Russia, Indian, Brazil, etc. are finally getting their acts together, the US is going to have to be more conciliatory, not less if we want to continue to hold the role as global leader.

This assumes they weren't resentful and fearful prior to Bush doing anything.

 

This is fantasy.

 

All that happened is: the winning of the Cold War euphoria wore off, and suddenly we became a "we wish we weren't so weak, so let's hate on the US, and demand that they recognize us as relevant!" target. That, and the weakest of Russia's surrogates, client states, and largest customers, have been falling, one by one, ever since. The easy ones like Poland and the rest of eastern bloc went first. Now, we are seeing the harder ones go, like Egypt, and soon, Syria, but not without a fight.

 

The only thing the weakness you propose will do: weaken us. We've seen this time and again in history. It's far past time we learned form it.

 

I didn't say be uncompromising. Certainly negotiation has to be part of the plan. But, if we are going to be negotiating, why they hell wouldn't we want to be doing it from a position of strength? See Ronald Reagan.

[GG]

It's not that simple. TheNewBils makes a good point; Bush's administration absolutely pissed off friends and enemies alike with their 'My way and !@#$ you' attitude and there is no doubt that contributed to the level of backlash on issues like torture and Gitmo. There's no reason to be arrogant when you are the lone superpower, all that does is undermine our global authority by making others resentful and fearful. The US has been able to do anything it wanted for decades without raising this level of animosity because we were smarter diplomatically. And in a world where China, Russia, Indian, Brazil, etc. are finally getting their acts together, the US is going to have to be more conciliatory, not less if we want to continue to hold the role as global leader.

 

Part of it, maybe. But let's take a look at the axis that was aligned against Bush - it was led primarily by Chirac & Schroeder, who we learned subsequently had alterior motives to stonewall the united push against Saddam, and it snowballed from there. Add in Putin's behind the scenes maneuvers and Bushies were outflanked on the issue that quickly devolved into No Blood for Oil. Yet when Volcker's report on Oil for Food came out in 2005, there was a clear implication that the main reason for France's, Germany's & Russia's recalcitrance was .... oil, and not any grand humanitarian things.