Two world maps: The mission and the popular vote.

[Hans de Vries]

-- 2000: --- The neocon mission -----
http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html
-- 2008: The world's popular vote --
http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/results

The Start, June 3, 1997: The statement of principles.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Signed by people like Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, I. Lewis Libby, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz
The bold "vision" including obstruction of international justice:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/globaljun1400.htm

The International Criminal Court inevitably will complicate the exercise of American
geopolitical leadership. Congress should strive to maximize the chances that the
International Criminal Court will wither and collapse...

...we suggested a policy of “three noes” toward the tribunal, then advanced by
Project board member John Bolton.

• No financial support, directly or indirectly;
• No collaboration; and
• No further negotiations to “improve” the tribunal.

Confusing global leadership with waging wars:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American
interests and ideals. The challenge for the coming century is to preserve and enhance
this “American peace.”
...
..., we need to:
ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:

• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in
critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”

Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber are apparently the last resort to extend this grant mission
further into the 21st century with McCain's vision of the 100 year war against radical Islam.
(when still straight talking in public)

McCain: I think the transcendent issue of the Twenty First Century is the Struggle against
radical Islamic extremism. (at 9 min 50sec)Reporter: President Bush has talking about us staying in Iraq for 50 years...
McCain: Maybe a hundred ! (years.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tihd3W-YaSc&feature=related (at 1 min 10sec)McCain: We are in a Greater Struggle that is going to be with us for the rest of the Century.

McCain: This is a tough war we are in. It's not going to be over right away. There's gonna
be other Wars! I'm sorry to tell you. There's going to be other Wars!

McCain: These young people which are in this crowd, my friends, I'm going to ask you to serve
(in the military)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tihd3W-YaSc&feature=related (at 4 min 10sec)

​

Regards, Hans

 

[Hurkyl]

Er... did you have something to say?

 

[Hans de Vries]

Er... did you have something to say?

The New American century was a neo conservative think tank which laid the base for the Bush
politics of the last eight years.

The global verdict is in the second link: http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/resultsRegards, Hans.

 

[Hans de Vries]

But it's not all that negative. I'm sure the world would love to welcome and embrace the US again. Regards, Hans

 

[jal]

Cough cough ... All of the above ... was before TSHTF.

 

[Hans de Vries]

Cough cough ... All of the above ... was before TSHTF.

They wrote the letter below immediately after TSHTF. They must have had a crystal ballhttp://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We write to endorse your admirable commitment to “lead the world to victory” in the war against terrorism. We fully support your call for “a broad and sustained campaign” against the “terrorist organizations and those who harbor and support them.” We agree with Secretary of State Powell that the United States must find and punish the perpetrators of the horrific attack of September 11, and we must, as he said, “go after terrorism wherever we find it in the world” and “get it by its branch and root.” We agree with the Secretary of State that U.S. policy must aim not only at finding the people responsible for this incident, but must also target those “other groups out there that mean us no good” and “that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies.”

In order to carry out this “first war of the 21st century” successfully, and in order, as you have said, to do future “generations a favor by coming together and whipping terrorism,” we believe the following steps are necessary parts of a comprehensive strategy.

Osama bin Laden

We agree that a key goal, but by no means the only goal, of the current war on terrorism should be to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and to destroy his network of associates. To this end, we support the necessary military action in Afghanistan and the provision of substantial financial and military assistance to the anti-Taliban forces in that country.

Iraq

We agree with Secretary of State Powell’s recent statement that Saddam Hussein “is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth….” It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a “safe zone” in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.

Hezbollah

Hezbollah is one of the leading terrorist organizations in the world. It is suspected of having been involved in the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Africa, and implicated in the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. Hezbollah clearly falls in the category cited by Secretary Powell of groups “that mean us no good” and “that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies.” Therefore, any war against terrorism must target Hezbollah. We believe the administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah and its operations. Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority

Israel has been and remains America’s staunchest ally against international terrorism, especially in the Middle East. The United States should fully support our fellow democracy in its fight against terrorism. We should insist that the Palestinian Authority put a stop to terrorism emanating from territories under its control and imprison those planning terrorist attacks against Israel. Until the Palestinian Authority moves against terror, the United States should provide it no further assistance.

U.S. Defense Budget

A serious and victorious war on terrorism will require a large increase in defense spending. Fighting this war may well require the United States to engage a well-armed foe, and will also require that we remain capable of defending our interests elsewhere in the world. We urge that there be no hesitation in requesting whatever funds for defense are needed to allow us to win this war.

There is, of course, much more that will have to be done. Diplomatic efforts will be required to enlist other nations’ aid in this war on terrorism. Economic and financial tools at our disposal will have to be used. There are other actions of a military nature that may well be needed. However, in our judgement the steps outlined above constitute the minimum necessary if this war is to be fought effectively and brought to a successful conclusion. Our purpose in writing is to assure you of our support as you do what must be done to lead the nation to victory in this fight.

Point for point:

-The war with Iraq began in 2003 (takes longer then planned)
-The war with Hezbollah was in 2006 (bad planning also, they had to send more missiles halfway)
-The policy against the Palestinian Authority was put in place.
-The US defense budget... You can call that effective lobbying...Regards, Hans

 

[Hurkyl]

But again, I don't see what your point is. You appear to be just doing an info dump -- and a discussion forum isn't the appropriate place for that.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hans, obviously you have a point, you just need to explain what it is.

It is interesting that it comes down to approximately 40% of the US, against the world. One would think this might start to sink in.

 

[Hans de Vries]

But again, I don't see what your point is. You appear to be just doing an info dump -- and a discussion forum isn't the appropriate place for that.

Why would this not be a subject for discussion? I ran into this stuff lately and felt a need
in sharing it. If it's an info dump then you presume that everybody agrees and there's no
discussion needed. I don't feel that's the case. Regards, Hans

 

[Hurkyl]

It is interesting that it comes down to approximately 40% of the US, against the world. One would think this might start to sink in.

I have no idea how accurate or precise this poll is supposed to be. Do you have any information regarding that?

Why would this not be a subject for discussion?

I never said it wasn't. What I'm saying is that you should start it, rather than fishing for reactions from others.

 

[Hans de Vries]

Hans, obviously you have a point, you just need to explain what it is.

It is interesting that it comes down to approximately 40% of the US, against the world. One would think this might start to sink in.

If it sinks in enough to keep it at 40% for the coming days then that's a big relieve
Hopefully the rest follows.


Regards, Hans

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have no idea how accurate or precise this poll is supposed to be. Do you have any information regarding that?

The overwhelming popularity of Obama internationally has been widely reported by the media for months. His crowd of 200,000 in Germany is a good example. They were literally having a giant party and waiving American flags. When was the last time that 200,000 Germans were seen waiving American flags; never?

 

[Hans de Vries]

I have no idea how accurate or precise this poll is supposed to be. Do you have any information regarding that?

it's certainly not scientific, but profesional polls show 90% like results for Obama in Western
European countries, so it seems indicative.

Results for each country must come from people who's IP-number is registered in that
particular country. It's not so easy for individuals to influence results in other countries.
In principle they should keep the IP-number to inhibit more than one vote, otherwise
somebody can vote again after trowing away the cookie.

I never said it wasn't. What I'm saying is that you should start it, rather than fishing for reactions from others.

Point taken.


Regards, Hans

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If it sinks in enough to keep it at 40% for the coming days then that's a big relieve
Hopefully the rest follows.


Regards, Hans

Well, no matter what happens, you can be sure that many of us have never tried harder to elect the right man. Also, for us [my wife and I] and many Americans, sending Obama money has become as ordinary an event as making the house payment.

 

[Hans de Vries]

Well, no matter what happens, you can be sure that many of us have never tried harder to elect the right man. Also, for us [my wife and I] and many Americans, sending Obama money has become as ordinary an event as making the house payment.

I lived in the San Francisco Bay area from 1998 to 2007 and there's a good change I'll
go back to the US. So a significant part of me is actually American... It's a personal thing.

When I went to the US it was overwhelmingly popular. I would like that to return and
I believe it will.Regards, Hans

 

[russ_watters]

The global verdict is in the second link: http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/results

It is interesting that it comes down to approximately 40% of the US, against the world. One would think this might start to sink in.

All that proves is that the world's interests are not aligned with the US's. Not only should that be unsurprising, but also, I don't care who they want to be President. It doesn't matter.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, no matter what happens, you can be sure that many of us have never tried harder to elect the right man.

What the heck does that mean? Every election year, many people are fanatically supportive of their chosen candidate and those people always think their candidate is "the right man" (except when he's Hillary, of course).

Also, for us [my wife and I] and many Americans, sending Obama money has become as ordinary an event as making the house payment.

One thing that I'm a little surprised hasn't gotten a lot of press is that issue. Democrats are passionate, more passionate than Republicans. And because of that, they give more money. That is probably the big difference maker in this election.

 

[Astronuc]

All that proves is that the world's interests are not aligned with the US's.

Quite the contrary. It proves that the interests of the majorities of the US and of the world, such as justice, peace, prosperity (particularly for the majority), are aligned.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I do think that electing Obama will be an improvement but I can't imagine that it will be anywhere near an end to the U.S. messing around in the affairs of other countries in underhanded ways. That stuff certainly didn't start with the Bush administration.

The U.S. pushing around other people around the world for our own selfish reasons, past and future, is the biggest threat to the future safety of Americans in the 21st century... we should not let our guard down even if Obama is elected.

⚛​

 

[rootX]

I would like to know the correlation between how good a US president was and how much popularity he had outside US ..

 

[russ_watters]

Quite the contrary. It proves that the interests of the majorities of the US and of the world, such as justice, peace, prosperity (particularly for the majority), are aligned.

Oh please, Astronuc, that is such self rightous BS. People who want Obama want peace and prosperity, people who want McCain want war and recession, blah, blah, blah. Get off your high horse.

It should be obvious what the real reason that foreiners support Obama: it is strictly a matter of isolationist vs interventionalist foreign policy. It has nothing to do with wanting what's best for the US.

 

[rootX]

The U.S. pushing around other people around the world for our own selfish reasons, past and future, is the biggest threat to the future safety of Americans in the 21st century...

It's just a nation with ordinary people with self interests and greed. It just happened to emerge as a super power one time and would die away sooner or later (like all other past super - powers) .. and I guess Americans themselves would bring its fall.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I would like to know the correlation between how good a US president was and how much popularity he had outside US ..

Awww, it's simple! You just take the Gross Domestic Presidential Gooditude Index and cross-reference those figures with the Global Longitudinal Popularosity Metric... :tongue2:

But seriously, you're right... I would really like to see some analysis on that front too. I'm surprised that I haven't seen a news story like that what with all the making hay about Obama being a celebrity. The only one I happen to have read about is Teddy Roosevelt, who was very popular in Europe, I guess.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Oh please, Astronuc, that is such self rightous BS. People who want Obama want peace and prosperity, people who want McCain want war and recession, blah, blah, blah. Get off your high horse.

It should be obvious what the real reason that foreiners support Obama: it is strictly a matter of isolationist vs interventionalist foreign policy. It has nothing to do with wanting what's best for the US.

I would say that it's a matter of wanting the U.S. to be a responsible and law-abiding member of the community of nations. Recent behavior of this country has sought to gird selfish and myopic domestic interests at the expense of our national honor and at the expense of ending some international conventions of war that have been in place since WWII (not to mention at the literal financial expense of future generations of Americans.) Many people at the McCain end of the political spectrum act quite ready to flush those sorts of things down the toilet again; in that sense, their interest in peace and prosperity is limited.

Whether that sort of thing is unrelated to what's best for the U.S., I think it would be very short-sighted to say it is not.

⚛​

 

[rootX]

Awww, it's simple! You just take the Gross Domestic Presidential Gooditude Index and cross-reference those figures with the Global Longitudinal Popularosity Metric... :tongue2:

But seriously, you're right... I would really like to see some analysis on that front too. I'm surprised that I haven't seen a news story like that what with all the making hay about Obama being a celebrity. The only one I happen to have read about is Teddy Roosevelt, who was very popular in Europe, I guess.

⚛​

I think Bush wasn't popular outside US during the second elections. If Teddy Roosevelt was a good president and Bush was infact unpopular during the last elections, then it seems reasonable to assume that Barack would also be a good one if elected.

 

[LowlyPion]

I would say that it's a matter of wanting the U.S. to be a responsible and law-abiding member of the community of nations. Recent behavior of this country has sought to gird selfish and myopic domestic interests at the expense of our national honor and at the expense of ending some international conventions of war that have been in place since WWII (not to mention at the literal financial expense of future generations of Americans.) Many people at the McCain end of the political spectrum act quite ready to flush those sorts of things down the toilet again; in that sense, their interest in peace and prosperity is limited.

Whether that sort of thing is unrelated to what's best for the U.S., I think it would be very short-sighted to say it is not.

I would agree with that.

Who knows maybe we would have fewer threats from terrorism if we behaved in a way that didn't push others to such extremes that terrorism is the only tactic available to them. (It doesn't mean that we seek to appease, but maybe if we looked for ways that everyone could win ... that alone would represent a departure from current policy.)

 

[Hurkyl]

I would agree with that.

Who knows maybe we would have fewer threats from terrorism if we behaved in a way that didn't push others to such extremes that terrorism is the only tactic available to them. (It doesn't mean that we seek to appease, but maybe if we looked for ways that everyone could win ... that alone would represent a departure from current policy.)

Why do you think that would be a departure? If you're in a situation where you don't know a way where everyone can win, you still have to take action, even if you would prefer a way where everyone wins.

"Why can't we all just get along" is a beautiful sentiment -- but strict adherence to such a philosophy cripples you when faced with a situation where you can't manage to get along with someone. (Or getting along comes with too high of a price) I wholeheartedly reject criticism of any action simply because "not everybody wins".

 

[OmCheeto]

My oh my. Subscribe or unsubscribe?

Nation's not behaving like 3 year old's is a relatively new concept.
Once America stops acting like one, the other 50 or so nations that still do will gain a socio-political-economic advantage.

Fortunately North America is one of the few continents that can once again become self sustainably isolationist, and watch the rest of the world tear itself apart, as it has in the past.

gads. what have I just spoken. perhaps I should just unsubscribe.

 

[LowlyPion]

Why do you think that would be a departure? If you're in a situation where you don't know a way where everyone can win, you still have to take action, even if you would prefer a way where everyone wins.

Unfortunately we have been under a fairly incompetent regime in government these last number of years. From turning surpluses to deficits, to foreign military adventures that didn't call for the kind of remedies that they have dished out, I just happen to think that a more thoughtful approach to issues would be a welcome relief.

Given McCain's painfully erratic performances and his choice of this running mate that is more a bad joke than any leader above the pay grade of the PTA, they certainly don't offer much hope of being able to accomplish much of anything but feed further division at a time that seems to me to require a more united approach..

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I wholeheartedly reject criticism of any action simply because "not everybody wins".

How about criticism of an action because everybody loses? I think it's a pretty safe bet to say that everyone in the world lost a measure of security by the U.S. setting a precedent for preemptive war, particularly upon such a petty and meager basis as the Iraq War was founded. (Okay, not technically everyone in the world, obviously not the people in areas where there are already ongoing wars that are unlawful by international law like Darfur or the Congo. But you get what I mean, a loss of security for a good 90% of the people in the world or more, Americans included.)

It certainly didn't work out very well for the citizens of Georgia. In terms of Realpolitik the Iraq War was carte blanche for the Russian action in Georgia. (And Kosovo didn't help either, of course... the point is that by pulling slimy things like this we make ourselves completely unable to take the moral high ground on the international stage.)

You don't have to be pushing a "why can't we all just get along" unicorns-rainbows-and-puppies agenda to say it's craven, stupid, and selfish to dismantle or chip away at more than a century's worth of restraint and hard-won agreement in the way that nations should treat each other. As far as I'm concerned Bush engaging in preemptive warfare was an act that tore up and threw away part of what several of my ancestors fought for, and one died for, in WWI and WWII. The last act of preemptive warfare before the Iraq War by a major Western power was Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland.

❬*ping* goes the Godwin counter. But, that's genuinely the penultimate case of preemptive war by many people's reckoning.❭

⚛​

 

[Hurkyl]

You don't have to be pushing a "why can't we all just get along" unicorns-rainbows-and-puppies agenda to say it's craven, stupid, and selfish to dismantle or chip away at more than a century's worth of restraint and hard-won agreement in the way that nations should treat each other.

You're right, you don't. But so what? People do, and I reject it when they do.



Incidentally, a biased one-sided condemnation like yours suffers from one of the same major flaws as the unicorns-rainbows-and-puppies agenda -- it's biased and one-sided.

(Incidentally, the "bias" is that you consider only the drawbacks and not the benefits. The "one-sidedness" is that you don't evaluate any of the alternatives)

Knowing all the drawbacks of one choice of action doesn't tell anyone anything useful.
Knowing all of the benefits and the drawbacks of one choice of action doesn't tell anyone anything useful.
It's only when you know the benefits and drawbacks of several choices of action (including the choice of inaction) that you know something useful.

And it's this point that lies at the core of by beef with criticisms of the war in Iraq -- it's rare to see someone criticising the war actually make an attempt to evaluate what benefits it had... and it's almost entirely unheard of to see them fairly evaluate the other courses of action! But the criticism has no weight unless it has both of those aspects to it.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

And it's this point that lies at the core of by beef with criticisms of the war in Iraq -- it's rare to see someone criticising the war actually make an attempt to evaluate what benefits it had... and it's almost entirely unheard of to see them fairly evaluate the other courses of action! But the criticism has no weight unless it has both of those aspects to it.

Other courses of action... that would accomplish the elimination of Iraqi WMDs that did not exist in the first place? I'm actually quite curious as to what you would consider an alternative course of action. The alternative I'm talking about is of course not starting a preemptive war against a country that had no intention of and had made no preparations for military action against the United States.

As far as allocation of military resources, the obvious alternative that would have happened would have been finishing the job in Afghanistan.

It appears to me that you're taking a circumspect and veiled approach to saying "But we had to do something!" as though there was some actual problem that invading Iraq attempted to solve or some other vital and urgent danger that was being dealt with by that course of action.

But there wasn't. At all. It was an empty exercise that at best addressed the welfare of a few egos at the cost of the things I listed above and five thousand American lives plus somewhere between fifty thousand and five hundred thousand Iraqi lives, depending on whose estimate you use. (And a material number of Coalition troops as well, of course.)

As far as evaluating any theoretical benefits from the Iraq War, I'd be willing to entertain that at a point of maybe fifteen or twenty years after we pull out of there, whenever that is. At the moment any benefits are of the "we were welcomed as liberators!" entirely ephemeral sort, about as real as unicorns.

If Iraq is a prosperous and stable democracy two decades after we leave instead of a war-torn factionalized haven for terrorists (like what Afghanistan is right now, for example), I would concede some benefit to the war... though that would still mean we've given carte blanche to any country for a preemptive war as long as they promise and double-pinky-swear that they're trying super-duper hard to build prosperous and stable democracies too (Remember George Bush swearing "I am not a nation builder" during the 2k race? Yeah.) and maybe fake a little intelligence information like we or Nazi Germany did. That's quite a big price which will very likely cost more lives and misery than the Iraq War could have ever saved or benefited.

⚛​

 

[Hurkyl]

It appears to me that you're taking a circumspect and veiled approach to saying "But we had to do something!"

No, I'm not -- I consider that an equally fallacious argument.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

No, I'm not -- I consider that an equally fallacious argument.

So... you don't believe that we had to do something, you just think it's fallacious for me to point out that we didn't have to do anything?

Simply because I don't tally up ephemeral and potentially temporary benefits of invading Iraq does not make any of my criticisms of starting the war fallacies. You might call it an "incomplete criticism" or something but a fallacy is flawed reasoning. You haven't attempted to point out any flaws in reasoning, all you've tried to do is categorically dismiss what I'm saying by labeling it as "one-sided". (And when I asked what the alternatives are, what the other side is, you've declined to respond.)

It occurs to me that perhaps you are extrapolating my criticism of the initial invasion into some viewpoint on how the situation should be resolved. Making such an extrapolation, when I haven't said anything about how the situation should be resolved, would be fallacious.

⚛​

 

[Hurkyl]

So... you don't believe that we had to do something, you just think it's fallacious for me to point out that we didn't have to do anything?

Those are unrelated. An argument consisting essentially of nothing but "we had to do something!" is equally bad as an argument consisting essentially of nothing but "Why can't we all just get along?"

I haven't evaluated your argument beyond observing that it isn't of the latter form; to do so would be irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make.