I mentioned him because he is the most recent example and because he is the worst example...not because he is the ONLY example. All presidents from Carter through Bush practiced this ridiculous policy of treating American diplomacy as a prize to be won by foreign countries in exchange for doing what we want, instead of treating American diplomacy as a means to GET what we want.
You are a smart fella. I know this about you. And this is why I can be relatively sure that you are aware of our behavior during the Clinton years. The Pentagon's 1992 Planning Guidance (a very wise document) forecasted the future quite well. It argued that the U.S. would have to rely more on "coalition of the willing" and "should be postured to act independently." The expectation was that countries would go their own way after the Cold War and that it would be harder to forge international concensus. This argument would be proven correct throughout Clinton's terms.
- The U.S. and Britian were virtually alone in containing Saddam's Iraq nearly a decade after the Gulf War.
- The U.S. and its European allies could not get U.N. Security Council approval to act in Kosovo, so they used NATO to go to war.
The concept that outside powers might together decide to use force to strip a state of its right to govern took shape in 1991, when the U.S. forces occupied northern Iraq and established no-fly zones to protect the Kurds. It evolved further in 1994 when American diplomatic and military action removed the military junta in Haiti and restored to power the democratically elected president.
We learned lessons throughout the '90s. From the pain in the ass cooperation of our allies in Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia and the behaviors of the whimsical apathetic attitude of the UN, we learned that future wars should be fought in a way that reduced the necessity for seeking consensus with allies. This proved the case the next time the U.S. launched attacks after 9/11.
Ignorance is what fueled people to tag Bush as the soveriegn killer. Ignorance is what fueled people to complain about Bush's attitude towards the UN. And ignorance is what keeps people complaining about America's policiy to shun and dismiss obvious never-to-change enemies. For the ignorant of the country, Bush prescribed this new American policy. But they were and are still very wrong. Bush merely carried on the foriegn policies set before him. And these were policies born from the lessons the world (more specifically our own allies) taught us post Cold War.
You call him the worse. He didn't start any of this. Like most people who target in on blast, your problems are truly with our policies, which were shaped from reality's lessons.
Are Russian, Chinese, and Iranian interests automatically non-negotiable?
Depends on the subject matter. Iran's quest for nukes is non-negotiable. Even Obama isn;t budging on this. We can talk all day and make the world feel all warm inside, but in the end, Iran will only gain nukes if we allow it. Russia and China aren't looking to cause global disruption. And the fact that we conduct business with China quite openly suggests that we do negotiate. Hell, Bush negotiated with North Korea too. But Iran? It is a wolf in wolf's clothing. The Soviet Union pretended to power and threatened the course of the free world for 40 years. We are supposed to refuse the lesson and jump into another Cold War, but this time against religious freaks? All to satisfy negotiations and people's (who don't matter) perception of us? Iran's history tells us of their agenda for the region. A region that provides energy resource ot the world. A region that constantly threatens to bring the world to another global disaster.
No. This is non-negotiable. If they wish to give up their nuke quest to satisfy the fears of the entire Arab nation, Asia, and the West in exchange for less sanctions or a bucket of bananas, then we can negotiate. But they have one demand - nuclear capabilities.
Ahmadinejad has absolutely no control over whether or not Iran develops nukes, and he will have absolutely no control over when, where, and why they are used.
of course not. Its the same exoneration they give themselves every time aterrorist strikes. Some how, despite the prescribed culture of oppression and brutality throughout the region, they aren't responsible for their creations and rage within their populations. It's always the same. And if Iran gains nuclear capabilities and some dirty bomb goes off in Israel or Riyadh or India, Iran's President and govermnment will send condolensces and ensure the world that this was a tragedy orchestrated by some "rogue" of Islam. And the American hunt will be begin for the perpetrators while Middle Eastern governments sit back and do nothing.
The thing about China, Russia, or even North Korea is that they are accountable for their behaviors and at least understand where that line is drawn. North Korea may play with rockets and the ocean, but they are harmless. Religious nuts with big toys are far more dangerous than any enemy anybody could ever face because they are unpredictable and impractical.
Talks with Russia can be (and are) extremely useful, given the multitude of issues on which the US and Russia can cooperate or compromise.
Sure..like not doing Kosovo and Bosnia, which was in accordance to Russia's demands (Milosevich was an ally). In the end, cooperation and compromise got America what it wanted and Russia what it didn't want. Proving that some cooperation and compromise are meant for the every day citizen who needs to feel warm about relationship.
Nevertheless I'm sure he acknowledges (as you seem to have done) that the world will have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran.
Correction..the "U.S." has to live with it. We are the ones they turn to in order to prevent it and we will be who they all turn to in order to play watch dog. And in the end, we will be the ones expected to handle any distaster.
So when people complain about our unilateral path, I simply remind myself that we are the ones that ultimately deal with it anyway.
That's funny, I thought this was about pursuing American interests, rather than assessing blame.
It's in America's interests to force the world's organizations to take responsibility for it's duties. But they aren't held accountable are they? The U.S. always comes to hold their hands and flex muscle. Instead of assuming all blame for all things when others prove incapable, maybe its time blame should go where it belongs for a change.
