President v Congress

[Aileron]

You went a little far on that last post. Not everyone in the world is a clone of yourself mind you.

[MonteZuma]

I don't have any respect for half of the people on that list. Those aren't my picks. But I'm confident my !@#$%^&*umptions (and Dr Brain's) about the way the rest of the world thinks aren't that far off. I thought it was fairly obvious that most of the world doesn't like Bush much at all?

 

In any case, its a nebulous question with no single answer.

 

How do you measure respect?

[★ Dav]

juust shows what properganda can do really doesnt it. If he gets reelected i will have even more serious concerns about the average IQ of the USA population

[Aileron]

There is one thing you two don't understand. Bush is taking actions that are good for the US. I can see how the populations of France and Germany don't like his policy. The benefactor of his policy is the US; France and Germany become worse off due to balance of power.

 

However, Bush isn't elected by world opinion, he is elected by US opinion, and since he is catering to the US over everyone else, he is looking real good right now.

[MonteZuma]

The actions that Bush is taking aren't good for the US.

 

I don't think that Europe cares as much about the 'balance of power' as you think. Western Europe as a whole has never been more economically and politically secure ever.

 

I reckon Bush, Blair, Howard etc think that they are doing the right thing, albeit in an underhanded way. I also reckon that they are making a big mistake.

 

Monte.

[★ Dav]

much of the west european powe is in the EU, the eu is growing all the time and with it miletary and political power grows. I just hope that the uk doent support america in their next invation so mabye they wont do it. if the US do invaid i think they will need un supporting forces from europe tho tto make sure they do not destroy the infrestructure and law and order systems. Basiccally the un will need to be there to cleam up americas mess.

[Aileron]

No, Europe has always been balance of power. Balance of Power is what caused WWI - all the countries of Europe allied themselves in such a way that they were in two equal factions. The problem with this system is that it can lead to large scale conflict if somebody does something stupid. The benefits of this system is that it prevents one faction from dominating the other.

 

The EU is almost purely motivated by this. Since the collaspe of the USSR, the US has been the undesputed dominant power and could not help but dominate other countries merely by existing. Europe, motivated by balance of power, is consolidating to balance out the US.

 

France invented the term "real politik" - where a countries actions should be guided by what's best for a country and not by ideals. Thus, it is wise to assume that Western Europe is where this policy is done the most.

 

 

Guess what - this isn't wrong. If a leader of a country wants to do what he feels is right, he shouldn't us his people's power to do it. Ideally, countries should NOT be moral agents, and should probably do acts of evil just as often as acts of kindness. If you want an organization that constantly pursues acts of kindness, that is the role of organized religion.

 

That is why I support Bush and the Iraq war. There is some good - the Iraqi people being rid of a tyrant, and some evil, the US gets a new base of political support in the Middle East. Iraq benefits, the US benifits.

 

It seems that you feel that Bush is pursueing a sort of moral or personal agenda that runs contrary to US interests. I cannot disprove of you opinion, because God only knows Bush's true motives. However, I can see the benefit to the US if Al Jazera (spelling?) is now sending a pro-US message instead of an anti-US one.

 

 

 

Thus, US is not wrong in going into Iraq. However, neither is Europe for forming the EU. Both cases are of countries doing what is right for their people. In my opinion, the three best world leaders at this time are Vladymir Putin of Russia, George Bush of the United States, and Joc Chiroc of France. (Pardon my spelling if its wrong) All three are doing exactly what they should with their power.

[MonteZuma]

The conceptual basis of the European Union dates back to 1957 and the Treaties of Rome - at the height of the cold war. It had little to do with military or political power (thats why you have NATO) and everything to do with economics and trade. That focus still dominates today.

 

The only real power struggle going on with the EU is for economic power.

 

Fwiw, afaik, realpolitik was first used in Germany in 1859 - not France. Germany has been rebuilt since then - twice. Her economy and her politics are nothing like they were in 1859, so I'm not sure how relevant this is to modern and future Europe.

 

[RANT]Realpolitik is 'wrong'. We live on one big blue marble. National boundaries are articficial. The fortunate should help the unfortunate. Kindness is not the responsibility of religion. It is the responsibility of everyone.[/RANT]

 

Bush often pushes a moral agenda. Most leaders do. Take his stance on gay marriage for example. The argument that you will not accept is that your leader is making a mistake. Fair enough. Your en!@#$%^&*led to that opinion. I stand by mine.

 

Monte.

 

PS Putin and Chirac??? WTF?! LOL!

[★ Dav]

Ok granted about europe balancing power.

 

The main reason the EU exixts is for trade, its just like the OPEC group who collectivly control oil. It just happend that in thses groups the countries will act in some cases collectivly in the intrests of the group as a whole to maintain its stabili!@#$%^&*y and make sure that oone counter does not act in a way to damage another in the group.

 

Its just unfortunate that the UK didnt stand with the rest of then EU on the iraq issue.

[Aileron]

Putin is doing what is good for Russia; Chirac for France. All three of them do not do what is good for the world, rather what is good for their own countries, which is what leaders of countries are supposed to do.

 

 

Its complicated. I support Bush's opinions, but have come to the realization that if I were from another country I would be supporting someone else. I am judging the leaders by what they are doing for their countries.

 

If you are confused now, take this statement...I think Blair would be close to being the best, but actually is one of the worst. That is because Blair's policy is smart, very smart. His problem is that he doesn't apply enough political force to the critical points. Example: The reason Blair supported Bush in Iraq was to get the US to sign on to Kyoto. The strategy was very balanced and a very good politival decision. The problem is that Blair didn't see that the second part of that point got done.

 

 

Realpolitik was created before Germany existed. Technically, it was the Holy Roman Empire. I did phrase my statement wrong, it would have been better to say France was the first country to truly impliment it, for their action in the Thirty Years War. The only relevency in that point is to say that Europe is more interested in politics than any moral agenda.

 

 

Actually, realpolitik is necessary for the overall balance of the universe. When countries start acting truly charitable, the balance is upset and bad things happen. If a large country swopes in and saves a thrid world country from cultural and political extiction, they create a country that is unable to stand by itself politcally, culturally, and economically.

 

Yes, we live on on big marble. However, that marble is placed in the mortal universe. It is in the nature of all things in this universe that things will be created, grow, recede, then be destroyed. When a third world country stands on the abyss of cultural and economic destruction, the best thing a first world country can do is to push the dying nation into it. When a country dies, it creates room for a new nation to grow, the development of which will be better for the population in the end.

 

 

Don't expect the UK to agree with the EU. The UK and Russia are political outsiders of Europe. They are most likely going to position themselves in the middle ground between the US and EU. Dav, economic power generates political power, so the EU cannot help but go for both.

[★ Dav]

is agree with most of that there, however i feel that blair and bush have commited political sucide by going to war and no weapons have been found.

 

You also say the UK is a european outsider, i wouldnt say that as a few weeks ago germany france and the UK, the 3 largest EU powers were accused of forimg an elite group to govent the rest of the EU actions.

 

As i have said before the EU is mostly a trade group, nations have to obide by ciortain rules but can operate outside of the rest of the EUs wishes, as the UK did in !@#$%^&*isting iraq.

 

Poliotically !@#$%^&*isting iraq was a good move for relations with the US however it was a bad move for support within thye home nation, and that i believe makes the decition to go to war a very bad move.

[Aileron]

Well, it would have been a good move both ways if Blair got Bush to sign on for Kyoto.

 

I don't know if Bush commited political suicide in Iraq. Hussein was such a weak political target in the first place that Bush could justify the war on utilitarian grounds.

[★ Dav]

Well, it would have been a good move both ways if Blair got Bush to sign on for Kyoto.

 

I don't know if Bush commited political suicide in Iraq.  Hussein was such a weak political target in the first place that Bush could justify the war on utilitarian grounds.

thats true, and in the us the population suppoorted but with the govenment asmiting it may have been wrong on WMDs and other event it may cause people to lose trust and vote the other way. It will be interesting to see what happens in the election campaingn.

 

In the uk blair has damages his position significanty. He went to war with a large mahjority of the population against it, the hutton enquiry put alot more distrust in the govenment throughhout the population.

 

When it comes to the 2005 election i wont vote blaor and i dont think any of my friends will either.

 

The problem is he may still stay in power, the people thay stray from labor to vote lib dem or conservitive may spilt between the two, the regular labor voters who vote labor whatever will still vote and give labor a win as the split in the voters between lib dem and conservitive may cause neiter to have enough votes to take power.

[Aileron]

Yep.

 

The funny part is, as I said earlier, that Blair was close to being great. If he managed enough political force towards his real policy, he could have really helped the world and gotten his country close behind him.

 

 

Blair's plan was to exchange British support in Iraq for US support in Kyoto. If he had only expanded on that by convincing France and Germany to do the same thing and offer support in a few other similar conflicts, Bush would have no other political choice but to sign on to Kyoto.

 

It would have been a very balanced agreement, and Blair's public opinion would have skyrocketed for it. Unfortunately, Blair didn't apply enough political force to pull it off, and that is the difference between greatness and pathetic.

[★ Dav]

which is why he has committed political suicide, tye EU needs the US to sign keoto witout a doubt. The fall in public opinion is one based on ethics however, people see it as wrong to go to war without a just cause, in this case WMDs which havent been found. With this as the underling issue all other concerned such as kyoto become obsolete and to be honest i dont think kyoto is very widly known on in many nations populations.

 

It mabye was a good idea, it was also good that we were there to clean up americas mess after the law and porder brakdown, its just that with the main underling issue proving to be incorrect, the trush in blair had been diminished.