justone

Bush has proposed and enacted liberal ideas. It is widely reported that conservatives are disappointed in Reps. On other hand the idea that they would like somebody who puts liberalism in the platform, and they would hope he/she like Clinton would enact conservative ideas, like cutting welfare, is very shaky, at least.

I don’t know why Bush considered Medicare as an urgent necessity, why it had not been pre-planned years before, why he decided that we could afford, etc – I would like to stay on the topic.






It is the 4th time when you are avoiding simple questions. How would you talk to Putin and/or Medvedev and think that such answers of yours would suffice? We had agreed two times that ‘’The notion that Georgia is a democracy and Russia is not is overly simplistic. Both countries have democratic features. Both have other attributes, as well. ‘’All I asked you to take in the consideration the features and attributes in the present dynamics and give your opinion as of the present moment.
I have been saying that the notion that Georgia is a democracy and Russia is not is an overly simplistic lie. It is greatly misleading the American public. What are your objections if any?




It is very interesting. You suggest that Obama shouldn’t get involved where the POTUS should be involved. You are correct, everyone starting from Iran and finishing with France will be exploiting Obama.

One should run for the President in order to get involved.One cannot get experience by not getting involved.

Obama has already been involved for quite a while. Did you see liberal crowds in Europe rallying for THEIR candidate?

Unfortunately in reality Obama has been involved where he shouldn’t have been involved for quite a while. But again it has been not because of him, his principals or his will. He has been used and put up as a symbol, not as a person. He is no person.

But I am with you, - it is a very good advice of yours: Barack Hussein Obama, if you are elected, - just don’t touch anything..

donsutherland1

We don't disagree that President Bush has advocated and enacted liberal ideas. However, that does not mean that he has not pursued a neoconservative foreign policy. One good reference book on the origins of the neoconservative movement is John Ehrman's The Rise of Neoconservatism: Intellectuals and Foreign Affairs. The book notes that a number of neoconservatism's architects were disenchanted liberals from the 1960s.

This is very much on topic. It was intended to differentiate between domestic and foreign policy. In short, even as President Bush has pursued some liberal domestic politices (Medicare expansion was one, lack of spending restraint in general highlights that approach), he has pursued a neoconservative foreign policy.

I simply would not use the misleading jargon of defining one state as democratic and the other as non-democratic. Such terminology can only create barriers when it comes to substantive discussions.

Detailed negotiations are best left to senior foreign policy staff not the President. Whether the President is a Democrat or Republican makes little difference. A President can help break deadlocks. He/She can finalize agreements.

President Wilson's post-WW II negotiations at Versailles highlights the danger of a President's becoming involved in day-to-day negotiations. The outcome was a badly flawed treaty and, to add insult to injury, that treaty resulted after President Wilson had neglected major policy decisions in the U.S. for an extended period of time.

donsutherland1

My expression of a preferred foreign policy approach for the next President is not the same as my expecting the next President to take that approach. At this time, I have little reason to believe that either candidate will make a serious and sustained effort to improve the U.S.-Russia relationship. Certainly, neither of their policy papers/positions spells out such a priority. Whether or not the recent mini-conflict in the Caucasus leads to a reorientation of foreign policy priorities remains to be seen.

No disagreements on this. However, before decisions are carried out, adequate planning needs to be undertaken. That the military operation in Iraq was not budgeted (Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz told Congress that the U.S. would not know the costs involved) and the post-war stability operations (maintaining security, creating a framework for self-rule by the Iraqis, etc.) was poorly conceived, contributed greatly to the post-war violence that ultimately resulted. The troop surge helped alleviate that violence, but had sufficient planning been undertaken ahead of time, the troop surge would not have been necessary. Certainly, the kind of violence that broke out was foreseen by the 1999 Desert Crossing exercise.

I generally stay informed on foreign affairs matters--in part on account of my own interest and in part on account of my work.

I believe a strong military is important. The issue arises as to its proper role. I do not subscribe to the report's idea that the military can be used to "expand" spheres of democracy. Democracy is not a matter of simply replacing one set of rulers with another. Much more is involved.

I do not believe Russia seeks to "restore" the Soviet era. Russia will likely be more active in defining and defending its critical interests.

If you interpreted my comment as indicating I completely "blame" President Bush for the situation in Iraq, etc., that is not a correct interpretation. I note that he made a decision and some of the factors behind it. It should also be noted that Congress gave him sufficient support in its resolution concerning Iraq. Furthermore, when it came to the testimony prior to the decision to launch the war, Congress did not insist on receiving the specific information Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz declined to provide i.e., budgets, plans for post-war stabilization, etc. It did not challenge General Franks minimalist manpower strategy even as General Shinseki expressed real concerns and the 1999 Desert Crossing Exercise warned of a high probability of substantial civil unrest in Iraq. In short, President Bush does not bear all the responsibility. Indeed, rather than seeking to apportion blame, the nation's political leaders would do much better to learn where things went wrong, fix those areas, as well as know what went well and reinforce those areas.

justone

I will not read the book. Do those disenchanted liberals call themselves neocons? I bet they don’t. Did Clinton pursue a neoconservative foreign policy in Kosovo? What would he do after 9/11 and intelligence reports? Is Afgan a neoconservative foreign policy? All the above have the same feature of spreading liberal ideas by military and diplomacy (based on military power). I thought you read documents, not books.

It is away, unless you show dependence of foreign and domestic. Whatever policy he has persuaded domestically, he has persuaded liberal foreign policy of spreading democracy and ideals. Many conservative do not like his domestic policy, but still they support spreading democracy and ideals, by means of militarization, economic pressure, peaceful starvation, genocide, looting, free handing of condoms, etc, - in the same way as liberal do.
What substantive discussions? What I have been asking you about? Was it any kind of discussion at all?

You claimed that Osama shouldn’t get involved at all and only at the first term because of lack of experience which (experience) in your view should be gained by not been involved.
Now you reading me a lecture that the POTUS does not have drive his limousine by himself. I may stay polite and nice with you, but I see the 2nd thought you trying to hide very persistently. You think Putin wouldn’t crack you in a few, - when he is trained by the KGB? You make me laugh.

Is it a priority in foreign relations, do you want me to remind you your own considerations about Russia-ME-Iran? Did I ask about improvement? How good they are keeping the same neoconservative foreign policy? Who has a better chance of getting the Realistic approach? Who has a chance to change and slow down on spreading liberalism?

What MINI-conflict? Why then you have been posting so much and so dramatically on this MINI-conflict, - the one that could be a turning point of the geopolitical situation? The one which has caused the US to start another Cold war including reference to nuclear stand off- all in the name of democracy and freedom and support of new democracies, like Georgia? You make me laugh again. Did you let minidonsutherland1 to reply instead of you today?
It is the same as with intelligence. How can budget crawl through procedures of Congress etc? I expected Saddam to attack us when we were just unloading in the docks, - it was his only chance. Where would be your budget then? Do you understand that showing the budget and discussions to saddam, you would show him our military plans?

How come? I see only if we had the troop surge in the beginning as a reaction to the signs of democracy (peaceful demonstrations first months) then it would not have been necessary when it was too late. How would you do it with no troop surge at all? If I am not mistaken McCain had been suggesting it looong time ago. Why did you follow the lead of Kerry Edwards and Hillary Obama instead? Why do you still want to see Obama in training rather than Mccain in action?

Have more of Obama’s propaganda to spread? Show me the page.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...1999-04-29.pdf http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...1998-11-14.pdf


I don’t quite understand you. You still want "expand" spheres of democracy, but without military?
It is the name of the game your Obama has been playing – pointing fingers and blaming. What else can he use for his advantage? The media has been blaming Bush, you are blaming General Franks’ brilliant military plan, and nobody is saying the truth that the liberal idea of spreading democracy and liberalism itself has failed. Who did promise to General Frank that Iraqis were ready to embrace all the pleasures the democracy was bringing to them just in exchange for promise to use condoms?

donsutherland1

President Clinton was not a neoconservative. If anything, the military operations in Kosovo were liberal internationalist policies, as they were aimed at using force to address a humanitarian situation. Whomever was President following 9/11 would almost certainly have gone to war to topple the Taliban regime and its Al Qaeda allies. The Taliban's refusal to turn over the terrorists who had attacked the U.S. constituted an act of aggression.

Spreading democracy is not the issue. Seeking to encourage the spread of freedom is a worthy undertaking. However, precisely because democracy depends on legal, political, and economic institutions, among other factors, simple regime change does not bring about Western-style democracy.

My point was that Presidents are not day-to-day negotiators. It is best to leave those details to their senior foreign policy staff.

I made no comments about Prime Minister Putin. Despite his KGB background and specialized experience, even he left the minutiae of day-to-day negotiations to his foreign minister.

I've spent some time posting on the events concerning Russia for six reasons:

1. My terming the conflict a "mini-conflict" does not trivialize its importance.
2. The reality is that the conflict was not a large-scale war.
3. A number of my posts touch on the larger geopolitical and policy dimensions associated with the conflict.
4. Some of the details I posted e.g., from Interfax, are not widely reported (if at all) in the U.S. media.
5. The events highlight the reality that the world remains multi-polar and that there was no "end of history" in which one form of political arrangement permanently triumphed.
6. The background information pertinent to the conflict highlights the continuing relevance of national interests, as well as spheres of influence, and their historic orientation/perspective.

[quote]It is the same as with intelligence. How can budget crawl through procedures of Congress etc? I expected Saddam to attack us when we were just unloading in the docks, - it was his only chance. [/quote

There is a vast difference between appropriating funds and providing guidance to Congress as to what resources would be required to achieve victory. The 2002 National Intelligence Estimate did not express any degree of confidence that Iraq posed an imminent threat to attack the U.S. or U.S. interests.

Senator McCain deserves much credit for advocating the troop surge. My point was that had General Shinseki's comments about manpower and Desert Crossing's lessons been given adequate consideration, the U.S. would have had sufficient manpower to execute the military operation to drive Saddam Hussein from power and to assure a stable post-war environment.

There's nothing brilliant about a plan that failed to consider the high risk of ethnic conflict (noted in Dessert Crossing and an aspect of Iraq's history) that almost squandered the initial success from driving Saddam Hussein from power. Post-war stabilization is a crucial part of any military plan. The initial military phase was brilliant. The post-war phase was poorly conceived. That the architects of the troop surge were able to reverse the situation does not eliminate the reality of the poor planning that made the troop surge necessary.

justone

And what was used to impose liberal internationalist policies in Kosovo ? And what is it if not another failure of liberal internationalist policies and totalitarian lies.
It was not only about Taliban but it also was and is about installing democracy.

Who ever talks about simple regime change? Seeking to encourage the spread of freedom, economic pressure, peaceful starvation, peaceful looting, free handing of condoms, etc, - all with the idea of encouraging the spread of freedom and democracy is the subject.

Russians will choose the Cold war by Bush, rather than peaceful encouragement by Clinton at any time of the day. The financial and human loses in Russia during 8 years of encouragement -less -military can be compared to loses of the Civil War. Spreading democracy is exactly the issue.
My point was that Presidents are not day-to-day negotiators. It is best to leave those details to their senior foreign policy staff.


justone. Would Obama be good in duties of the POTUS related to foreign affairs? If to compare with Mccain?
Minidonsutherland1 : My point was that Presidents are not day-to-day negotiators. It is best to leave those details to their senior foreign policy staff.
justone: Should the POTUS be able to tell his limo driver where to go?
Minidonsutherland1: The POTUS shouldn’t drive the limo by himself, he has drivers.

And whom will Obama appoint to be his spiritual, sorry, senior advisers in foreign affairs?

Your cover up for Obama makes me laugh.

Who thinks you did? Anybody in the room? Neither I made any comments about Prime Minister. It is called red herring, - what you’re doing to cover up helplessness of Obama in any position.
Exactly! And 4. was a major thing of global importance, not only of “ the larger geopolitical and policy dimensions associated with the conflict.” You have recorded the establishment of a totalitarian regime in the US as an independent observer, when everyone piece of media and every politician lied openly and blatantly to Americans. This is the only logical development of liberalism, - to resort to Ghoebbels-Stalin type of propaganda. Did not I quote the symbol of liberalism Obama openly proclaiming that the truth did not matter? What ‘’Seeking to encourage the spread of freedom is a worthy undertaking’’ are you talking about when you, at the same time, are recording the final steps of cutting freedom of information, freedom of thoughts and ideas, installing ‘’ the truth does not matter’’ everywhere - from schools to colleges, from text books to media and movies, - right here in the US?

When it came to Obama, you pretended that "mini-conflict" was min-conflict, but now telling the truth you have blown your cover. You have to decide if the truth does matter for you.



Did you aver mention guidance in your statement I replied to? It is called shifting polls.
Please quote the report where it can confirm your exact wording ‘’the U.S. or U.S. interests.””
The US did have sufficient manpower to execute the military operation to drive Saddam Hussein. Then what in the world could make General Shinseki to make such an ungrounded comment. I can only conclude that he had been drinking too much a night before.
The US did have sufficient manpower to assure a stable post-war environment, if the US was not full of liberal idealism predicting that Iraqis were ready to embrace democracy in exchange for promise to use condoms.
What? Gen. Franks RETIRED in July 2003.

I still hope we will get back to discussing Georgia, that’s why I am avoiding to comment on the troop surge, saying only that the troop surge has been helpful only combined with reversal of the idea of democracy in Iraq. The only Q is – if to accept your points without comments - : ‘’Senator McCain deserves much credit for advocating the troop surge’’, - on other hand what does Obama deserve for pointing fingers and blaming liberal planners for the post-war Iraq and advocating both the immediate and long planned surge of American life loses in the operation “withdraw!withdraw!’ ?

P.S. It seems we were threatening to insulate Russia, but got ourselves isolated by EU. You see I was right Russia received everything it wanted without resorting to ritual diplomatic dances.

Bodhisattva

donsutherland1, are you Russian?

__________________