Interesting speech

[kenny J]

Ladies and gentlemen, forty years ago almost to the day an important Presidential emissary was sent abroad by a beleaguered President of the United States. The United States was facing the prospect of nuclear war. These were the days of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Several emissaries went to our principal allies. One of them was a tough-minded former Secretary of State, Dean Acheson whose mission was to brief President De Gaulle and to solicit French support in what could be a nuclear war involving not just the United States and the Soviet Union but the entire NATO Alliance and the Warsaw Pact.

The former Secretary of State briefed the French President and then said to him at the end of the briefing, I would now like to show you the evidence, the photographs that we have of Soviet missiles armed with nuclear weapons. The French President responded by saying, I do not wish to see the photographs. The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me. Please tell him that France stands with America.

Would any foreign leader today react the same way to an American emissary who would go abroad and say that country X is armed with weapons of mass destruction which threaten the United States? There's food for thought in that question. Fifty-three years ago, almost the same month following the Soviet-sponsored assault by North Korea on South Korea, the Soviet Union boycotted a proposed resolution in the U.N. Security Council for a collective response to that act.

That left the Soviet Union alone in opposition, stamping it as a global pariah. In the last three weeks there were two votes on the subject of the Middle East in the General Assembly of the United Nations. In one of them the vote was 133 to four. In the other one the vote was 141 to 4, and the four included the United States, Israel, Marshall Islands and Micronesia.

All of our NATO allies voted with the majority including Great Britain, including the so-called new allies in Europe -- in fact almost all of the EU -- and Japan. I cite these events because I think they underline two very disturbing phenomena -- the loss of U.S. international credibility, the growing U.S. international isolation.

Zbigniew Brzezinski's remarks from the "New American Strategies for Security and Peace" conference

READ IT HERE: http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/...i-z-10-31.html

Has Zbigniew Brzezinski gone soft? Zbig was never a favorite among liberal Democrats. As the national security adviser in Jimmy Carter's White House, he was the lone, strutting hawk, the adventurously steely Cold Warrior in an administration that valued detente and arms control. Yet there he was, on Oct. 28, at a conference sponsored by the American Prospect, arousing stormy applause from a crowd of liberal Democrats with a rigorous, passionate speech that slammed President Bush's foreign policy and celebrated what seemed to be liberal principles.

He bemoaned what he called Bush's "paranoiac view of the world," which has resulted in "two very disturbing phenomena—the loss of U.S. international credibility [and] the growing U.S. international isolation."

He called for "a return to fundamentals" in U.S. foreign policy, including the construction of genuine alliances, "particularly with Europe, which does share our values and interests even if it disagrees with us on specific policies."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2090817/



LAST NIGHT

A DISCUSSION ABOUT AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE with
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, Former National Security Adviser
and
REUEL MARC GERECHT
Former Middle Eastern Specialist, CIA
American Enterprise Institute

http://www.charlierose.com/index.shtm

[cecilVA]

In the last three weeks there were two votes on the subject of the Middle East in the General Assembly of the United Nations. In one of them the vote was 133 to four. In the other one the vote was 141 to 4, and the four included the United States, Israel, Marshall Islands and Micronesia.

I'm not certain, but I think the US and Israel voted against these because the wording didn't place any blame or recognition of terrorist attacks on the Palestinians. That is a vote I support being alone on.

As far as the speeches go, thats great that these big wigs have their opinions. But if our reputation is so bad and we are in the wrong, then why as the German Chancellor stepped down as leader of his political party? Why does the French Prime Minister have horrible approval ratings? Why was a petition recently signed by nearly a million Syrians demanding governmental reforms for more freedom?

[kenny J]

But if our reputation is so bad and we are in the wrong, then why as the German Chancellor stepped down as leader of his political party? Why does the French Prime Minister have horrible approval ratings? Why was a petition recently signed by nearly a million Syrians demanding governmental reforms for more freedom?

cecil,

Perhaps because these events have nothing to do with the US policy in IRAQ and have more to do with internal economic/social issues. With respect to Schroeder, I think he's had significant resistence from the left wing of his party for his health care changes and cuts to the welfare state... Also consider German chancellors don't always lead their own party.

Are you suggesting that these events are connected to the US and it's credibility somehow?

back to you,

ken
PS Sadly it would seem that the world sees us differently than you and I do: The Biggest Threat To Peace
Which country really poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003? TIME asks for readers' views http://www.time.com/time/europe/gdml/peace2003.html

North Korea - 6.7 %
Iraq - 6.3 %
The United States - 86.9 %

[cecilVA]

Actually I was trying to provide some examples (quick ones mind you) of actually actions in countries vs. some pundit saying his opinion about something. As they say actions speak louder than words. My best example is the one in Syria. I find it pretty unlikely that Syrian citizens would have taken pro-democracy actions such as these prior to the American presence in Iraq. Same goes for Iran and Libya with their weapons programs disclosures. Now let also say these are all complicated foreign policy issues and I'm vastly oversimplifiing (sp?) them. But I use it as an example to show effects of our foreign policy. Will every country follow us all the time? No, and they shouldn't. They are independent countries. Now the Cuban Missile Crisis example used in that one speech is a bad one IMO. Those were different times (Cold War, Europe depended on the US for protection against the USSR) and different world leaders.

I would prefer pursuing a strategy and welcoming coalition assistance but not catering to it. This is a military example but case in point: Kosovo Air War. US forces totally submitted to any French wish during the air campaign. All NATO partners were able to approve/disapprove of OUR targets. You had politicians getting tactically involved in a military operation. The point I'm trying to make our foreign policy should keep our interests first and those of our allies next. Hopefully they aren't any State Dept guys on here, cuz they will probably rip me to shreds ;)

[cecilVA]

PS Sadly it would seem that the world sees us differently than you and I do: The Biggest Threat To Peace

First of all, I think the idea of World Peace is absolutely ridiculous. Sure it would be great. But IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. As long as we are human and have the capacity to do horrible things in the name of power, there will always be war. So with that said, since that poll was done in Europe I really don't give a flying flip what they think about us. Which leads me to ask why I'm even debating this?

Now try this, do that same poll in Iraq and see what happens.

[kenny J]

cecil,

I'm pretty sure I understood your point, but it was diverent from the POINT of our ALLIES having decreased TRUST in our intentions TODAY. The interconnected nature of the MODERN world calls for more enlightened solutions than those of our fore fathers... Unilateralism mean FAILURE in the long run...

Syrian citizens have LONG taken pro-democracy actions and have paid the price just like those in the MONARCY that is Saudi Arabia-OUR closest "friends" in the region.
Same was true for many IRAQI citizens, there have always been pro-democracy actions...

Besides, if we went to IRAQ for DEMOCRACY why are we then supporting(selling weapons to) an Islamic MONARCY?(Saudi Arabia is also where MOST of the 9/11 terrorists and Guantanamo bay 'internees' are from)

IMO, the assertion that Libya's choice was a result of GULF WAR 2 are tell tail signs of MARKETING the idea of a domino effect in the region. That is a rather ridiculous assertion ALL things considered... I mean at the base do you really believe Libya JUST NOW realized America can attack a country and take it over if it wants to?

AS for me the only solution is BINDING INTERNATIONAL LAW... JUST as the foundation of this FINE nation is the RULE of law... WIthout LAW to allowing actions AGAINST dictators why would anyone not try to be one. LAWS should be the basis for INTERVENTION... It's as true for DRUG dealers as it is for dicators...

ken

[cecilVA]

Wow a lot of things to respond to, let me try to hit all of them.

-"Unilateralism mean FAILURE in the long run" I don't need to quote all the countries that helped us in Iraq to show this argument won't fly. Not having the support of Russia, Germany, and France is irrelevant.

-You speak of BINDING international law. Isn't that what the UN is for? How many resolutions did Saddam violate? If a law is violated you take action until you see results. Embargo after embargo had no effect. you break the law, you pay the price. Plain and simple.

- Our resolve as a nation was not taken seriously under Clinton.How many terrorist attacks did we endure with little to no retaliation? USS Cole, african embassies, Khobar Towers. What a couple cruise missles? Terrorists realized you could attack us and we wouldn't fight back, Osama Bin Laden knew that and exploited it. Only Bush called his bluff.

-Supporting democracy in Iraq and monarchy in Saudi Arabia are two different things. Yes terrorists came from that country but they are a friendly government who happens to be the largest exporter of oil in the world. I personally have my issues with Saudi Arabia but that is a different thread.

-Pro democracy actions. Yes those have always been around. It is a reasonable assumption that will be taken a little more seriously now that a pro american democracy is being established in the Middle East.

Hmm thats all I got for now, must take a break and regroup ;)

[kenny J]

I don't need to quote all the countries that helped us in Iraq to show this argument won't fly. Not having the support of Russia, Germany, and France is irrelevant.

cecil,

HOW can you possibly say that...You must be joking. There are 34 other countries in IRAQ and all together their contribution is a total of approximately 22,000 troops in Iraq, America has almost 200,000. There are over 1000 employees of Dyncorp in IRAQ which is far more than most of those countries "contributed". Therefore it is relevant that almost half of the G-8 countries didn't support this WAR.

Countries with support on the ground in IRAQ:

Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Thailand, the Philippines, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine and the United Kingdom

You speak of BINDING international law. Isn't that what the UN is for? How many resolutions did Saddam violate? If a law is violated you take action until you see results. Embargo after embargo had no effect. you break the law, you pay the price. Plain and simple.

Actually it so far appears that Saddam had no WMD, so it's possible that the UN sanctions worked... HOWEVER the binding interantional law I was speaking of is the ICC, (http://www.un.org/law/icc/general/overview.htm) which American interests have consistantly blocked time after time...

- Our resolve as a nation was not taken seriously under Clinton.How many terrorist attacks did we endure with little to no retaliation? USS Cole, african embassies, Khobar Towers. What a couple cruise missles? Terrorists realized you could attack us and we wouldn't fight back, Osama Bin Laden knew that and exploited it. Only Bush called his bluff.

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. First of ALL, retaliation is not justice and second retaliation creates MORE terrorism NOT less. EVERY innocent person that DIES creates a FAMILY that hates AMERICA... AGAIN there is a reason that "retaliation" is not an option HERE inside this NATION. If someone killed me, is MY brother allowed to BOMB the friends and families of the person that killed me? Imagine what the US would become.

BY turning our back and intentionally weakening the ICC we are creating the problem of LAWLESSNESS that MAINTAINS terrorism and dictatorship as viable. TAKE their MONEY throw them in JAIL and you have no more MARTYRS. The cycle of violence and REVENGE doesn't offer an end... A LEGAL basis for the world would...

Supporting democracy in Iraq and monarchy in Saudi Arabia are two different things. Yes terrorists came from that country but they are a friendly government who happens to be the largest exporter of oil in the world.

So OIL is the reason the US TOLLERATE'S ZERO religious freedoms and bigger attrocities in Saudi Arabia? WHY then did we consider SADDAM a dangerous madman? I mean they don't even have THEATERS in Saudi Arabia let alone elections... I wonder if it because SADDAM was the SAUDI enemy?

I mean according to the CIA's own numbers IRAQ spent about 1.3 billion where as the Saudi's spend $18.3 billion on their military... Yet now WE have "control" of their OIL or should I say we will once we create a PUPPET government. Since left to their own devices the IRAQI's WILL elect an islamic militant. SO they will not be allowed a REAL democratic election in my opinion.

Pro democracy actions. Yes those have always been around. It is a reasonable assumption that will be taken a little more seriously now that a pro american democracy is being established in the Middle East.

No what we have guaranteed is that my grand kids will be enduring TERRORIST attacks from islamic militants... Since you cannot FORCE democratic values on people and expect them to accept them... Especially when you took their county by FORCE... UNJUSTIFIED force lead only to REVENGE...

Just my views,

ken