Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

Journal pudge's Journal: Internationalism 42

Journal by pudge on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @09:53AM

Kerry seems to pride himself on being an internationalist. His spokesman Richard Holbrooke called him an internationalist the other day on the news.

Does an internationalist sneer at countries helping the U.S., by calling these "nations you can buy on eBay" the "coalition of the bribed"?

Is it internationalist for fellow internationalist and ardent supporter Jimmy Carter to describe our allies -- who are actually putting lives and resources on the line -- as "a handful of tiny countries supposedly helping us in Iraq"?

Is it alienating our allies for Bush to assert our own interests, but not for Carter and Kerry to impugn the allies who help us?

And is it internationalist to preach economic protectionism? Do our allies abroad appreciate it when Kerry bashes companies that hire their workers, who turn around and buy our products, and says he wants to increase barriers to those companies?

I am just not sure what an internationalist is anymore!

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Internationalism

Load All Comments

Search 42 Comments Log In/Create an Account

Comments Filter:

Sense of proportion here... (Score:1)

by brevity ( 155464 ) writes:

Right, it totally doesn't matter that Bush *actually* cobbled together a fig-leaf coalition of small countries that are mostly not helping in Iraq.

It's that Kerry & Co. might point this out in public, embarassing Dear Leader.

Stop tormenting us with this nonsensical Republican talking point. In the rest of the world, Kerry is not exactly the first politician that comes to mind when one considers the USA's current planetary-scale image problem.
- Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)
  
  by pudge ( 3605 ) * writes:
  
  Right, it totally doesn't matter that Bush *actually* cobbled together a fig-leaf coalition of small countries that are mostly not helping in Iraq. It's that Kerry & Co. might point this out in public, embarassing Dear Leader.
  
  I don't give a damn about some embarassment. I give a damn about him saying he wants to work with the world, and then taking a big dump on the ones who are already working with us.
  
  And you apparently agree with taking a dump on the people who are helping us. Sure, Tonga is not
  - Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)
    
    by pokeyburro ( 472024 ) writes:
    
    Speaking with my moderate hat on....
    
    Kerry does strike me as more likely than Bush to seek international coalitions, all things being equal. This is despite Bush having built an actual coalition for Iraq and Afghanistan, and despite Bush backing multilateral talks with North Korea while Kerry favors bilateral talks. (Which I still find strange.) In the limit, multilateralism seems more in line with what I know of Kerry's character than what I know of Bush's character. (Again, the NK issue seems counteri
- - Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:1)
    
    by brevity ( 155464 ) writes:
    
    Please -- I do not "hate" George W. Bush, nor should it matter to you if I did. Address what I'm saying, not what you think my motives are. Personally, I'm *seriously* concerned about the direction of your country.
    
    Why would one think insulting those who have put their own resources on the line is an effective international policy? Do you get it?
    
    How is anybody supposed to criticize Bush's failure at coalition-building then?
    
    Are Bush's failures simply off-limits, because they are so precarious?
    
    There co
    - Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)
      
      by pudge ( 3605 ) * writes:
      
      How is anybody supposed to criticize Bush's failure at coalition-building then?
      
      By directing the attacks on who failed to come along instead of who did come along.
      
      I hear you ... the criticism is valid and must be allowed to be made. But do you hear me, that there is a wrong way to go about it?
      
      There could be no greater insult than lying to one's allies.
      
      Whatever. Our intel was the same as Britain's was the same as Italy's, etc. The UN Security Council unanimously voted in October 2002 that Hussein wa
      - Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:1)
        
        by FroMan ( 111520 ) writes:
        
        Bah, how do I get to have fun if you cover all my points?
        
        Well said.
      - Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:1)
        
        by baldass_newbie ( 136609 ) writes:
        
        You can't reason with a liberal.
        So stop trying.
        
        Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)
        
        by pokeyburro ( 472024 ) writes:
        
        I suspect your comment will be modded down soon enough. But just to be clear, you can reason with some liberals. Probably most of them. In any case, everyone must try to reason, on both sides. Things have gotten politically ugly this year because so many are so willing to write off the opposition as deluded or insane.
        
        Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)
        
        by pudge ( 3605 ) * writes:
        
        I often have very reasonable and enlightening conversations with liberals. I dunno if I would call brevity a liberal, but whatever, I think he is reasonable.
        
        Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:1)
        
        by baldass_newbie ( 136609 ) writes:
        
        I'm sure it happens, but I have seen a complete lack of discourse on the part of the Left since, oh, well, November 2000.
        And it's not just the hardcore liberals, either. On a train ride, a guy I talk to moderately frequently and get along with okay starts talking about 'zionist conspiracies' tied to Bush.
        I can't bide that crap.
        You won't to argue over Bush's policies? Fine. But between that nonsense, Halliburton, Bush's IQ, etc. it's pretty sad what the Left has become.
        
        What's really sad is all of this an
        
        left and right. (Score:1)
        
        by brevity ( 155464 ) writes:
        
        Re: the lack of discourse, a lot of left-wingers feel the same way about the right. To many of us, supporting Bush is just incomprehensible. So you get a lot of people on the left assuming that Bush supporters are ignorant morons.
        
        At one point I just decided I had to figure out how the other side could be so convinced, so I started reading sites like Pudge's blog.
        
        If you're disappointed in the left, you should see how I feel about it. We don't know how to communicate ideas to people who don't already agree.
        
        Re:left and right. (Score:2)
        
        by pudge ( 3605 ) * writes:
        
        Nowadays both the left and the right claim Orwell, but his loyalty was to truth and justice first.
        
        Eh, only a liberal would say that. ;-)
        
        Re:left and right. (Score:2)
        
        by baldass_newbie ( 136609 ) writes:
        
        You got that right.
        By the end, Orwell was stridently anti-Socialist.
        
        Looking at Socialism's results in Germany, Ukrania, Zimbabwe and Cambodia, I am surprised how many people still support that political philosophy [house.gov].
        
        Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:1)
        
        by brevity ( 155464 ) writes:
        
        By American standards, I am pretty liberal. But thanks.
        
        Your journal helps me see there is another side to these issues.
      - Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)
        
        by thing12 ( 45050 ) writes:
        
        By directing the attacks on who failed to come along instead of who did come along.
        But that would imply that it's the fault of the rest that they were not convinced [or bribed or bought on eBay ;-)]. It's not so much a criticism of those countries that did come along as it is of Bush for not being able to convince the rest.
        
        Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)
        
        by pudge ( 3605 ) * writes:
        
        But that would imply that it's the fault of the rest that they were not convinced [or bribed or bought on eBay ;-)]. It's not so much a criticism of those countries that did come along as it is of Bush for not being able to convince the rest.
        
        I didn't mean directing the attacks on those countries as though they are to blame: yes, the point is that they should criticize Bush for who he did not bring in, instead of who he did bring in.
      - Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:1)
        
        by brevity ( 155464 ) writes:
        
        But do you hear me, that there is a wrong way to go about it?
        
        Not really. The whole premise is just wrong. Kerry hasn't been insulting anyone, neither are other nations quaking with indignation.
        
        Mostly, Kerry has stuck to simple statements of fact. (Robert Scheer is the one who said "nations one can buy on eBay" [thenation.com], which is the only really insulting quote I could find.) Saying that a nation's military contribution is small in absolute terms isn't an insult. If you were to say that about Canada in Afghanistan
        
        Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)
        
        by althalus ( 520424 ) writes:
        
        Not really. The whole premise is just wrong. Kerry hasn't been insulting anyone, neither are other nations quaking with indignation.
        
        Well, they aren't happy. One recent quote:
        
        "It is sad that a senator with 20 years of experience does not recognize Polish contribution. This is immoral," Kwasniewski told FACTS in an interview commenting on the US Presidential Debate.
        
        "It is sad that a senator with 20 years of experience underestimates Polish sacrifice, this is sad."
        
        The Polish President added however
        
        Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:1)
        
        by brevity ( 155464 ) writes:
        
        You have a point on this. I wasn't aware of some of these quotes.
        
        Nevertheless, I think Kerry is closer to the truth than Bush's depiction. Even if there's no nice way to say it, I'd rather he say it.
        
        My response to Pudge below has more info.
        
        Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)
        
        by pudge ( 3605 ) * writes:
        
        Not really. The whole premise is just wrong. Kerry hasn't been insulting anyone
        
        Um. Uh. Huh? John Kerry called the Coalition of the Willing [dmregister.com], "some trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted." That's not insulting?
        
        The main point here is that Kerry says because Bush has alienated our allies, he can no longer bring them in to help us. But that ignores the fact that they are already helping us in many ways apart from Iraq, and that he is alienating the allies
        
        Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:1)
        
        by brevity ( 155464 ) writes:
        
        re: "bribed, coerced, bought..." -- I either forgot that or hadn't seen this quote. You do have a point that this might anger some nations. (On the other hand, many of these nations' populations, like Spain and Poland, had or currently have a majority against their government on involvement in Iraq. They might describe their own government's actions in similar terms.)
        
        I still think Kerry is mostly right about the coalition, but I suppose it would be better if he'd found a nicer way to say it. I would have o
        
        Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)
        
        by pudge ( 3605 ) * writes:
        
        Poland's not exactly a plus for Bush, IMO.
        
        Bush never mentioned Poland in regard to it being a plus or minus, but as a simple fact. Kerry said Poland was not there on the ground for the invasion, and Bush noted that they were. Kerry impugned Poland's contributions, and Bush said that was inappropriate. That's all that Bush said about Poland.
        
        I don't know any details about Polish politics, so I can only assume there was a mix of motives.
        
        As every nation has.
        
        Poland -- Bush's touted ally -- calls him a
    - Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)
      
      by robi2106 ( 464558 ) writes:
      
      Heh... news flash. The MidEast never liked us to begine with, and never will. Even if we completely follow the UN and abandon Israel to fight the PLO/Hamas/et. al. and even if we remove all our troops from Saudi Arabia which has Mecca (one of Osama's initial issues against us)... Even if we do that, they would still hate is because we used to support Israel, and we used to have troops in Saudi Arabia. And because we are (incorrectly) associated with the Catholic's and European's Crusades.
      
      This is a peop
      - Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)
        
        by cascadefx ( 174894 ) * writes:
        
        I personally believe that the Mid-East will remain the ass end of the world until it is nuked to Kingdom Come for this very reason.
        
        How wonderfully progressive of you. So is your hate racial or geographical?
        
        By that, I mean, do you just hate Muslims in the Mideast or worldwide?
        
        Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)
        
        by robi2106 ( 464558 ) writes:
        
        So is your hate racial or geographical? By that, I mean, do you just hate Muslims in the Mideast or worldwide?
        
        Wheeeeeeee Conclusion jumping and ad hominem [wikipedia.org] attacking!!! Everyone get in on the action!
        
        Not what I said and you know it. Do I say we should attack and nuke them? No. Did I say who would do the nuking? No. Did I say that I supported whoever did the nuking? No. Did you read between the lines of my post? Yes. Where is the hate you reference?
        
        Here is what I did mean (but probably didn't d
    - Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)
      
      by cascadefx ( 174894 ) * writes:
      
      Poland's pull-out is especially interesting given Bush's bizarre fixation with it in the debates.
      
      From Bush's assertions, you would have thought everything was hunky dorey, exactly at a time when Poland's leader was telling Bush to go f*ck himself.
      
      Maybe diplomacy is too much of that "hard work."
      
      The criticisms of the coalition come due to its laughable trumpeting of being larger than that of the Gulf War Part 1: Rumble in Rhiad, by both Bush and his cronies...
      
      Nations like Angola, Costa Rica, Colombia, Ice
      - Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)
        
        by (trb001) ( 224998 ) writes:
        
        Poland isn't pulling out! They are planning troop reduction to begin next year, along with a full pull out by the end of 2005, which coincides with the resolution for Iraq to have held elections and become sovereign. They're on the record as saying "It's easier to send more troops than withdraw them", and so they're planning on pulling out in unison with Iraq's establishment of its own police/military force. This is not happening, say, tomorrow.
        
        --trb
      - Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)
        
        by Cyberdyne ( 104305 ) * writes:
        
        From Bush's assertions, you would have thought everything was hunky dorey, exactly at a time when Poland's leader was telling Bush to go f*ck himself.
        More accurately, one of them (their President) announces that their troops will leave in just over a year's time - and is then seen chewing on his foot for failing to discuss this with their Prime Minister first.
        Gulf War Part 1: Rumble in Rhiad
        Eh? "Rhiad"? The liberation of Wales from the UK government? Were you thinking of Riyadh, the major Saudi city w
        
        Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)
        
        by robi2106 ( 464558 ) writes:
        
        ummm ouch? Looks like you live in the UK and win. :-)
        
        I regularly listen to the BBC when it is broadcast on PRI in "the status" and I frequently read bbc.co.uk so I am kept moderately appraised of politics in BGR. But I haven't picked up on all that. Thanks for the news update!
        
        jason
      - Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:1)
        
        by FroMan ( 111520 ) writes:
        
        Consider that no other man in the HISTORY of the world has had 6 to 10
        million people protest against him and his actions. Bush holds that
        sole distinction.
        
        Possbiley related to dissentors being murdered in other parts of the
        world. Usually it only takes a few before the rest of the population
        gets the idea protesting a leader buys you a six by two foot plot of
        land and you are covered with dirt and other bodies.
        
        As robi (I think it is above) pointed out, the middle east is the armpit
        of the world. Oppression
      - Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)
        
        by pudge ( 3605 ) * writes:
        
        From Bush's assertions, you would have thought everything was hunky dorey, exactly at a time when Poland's leader was telling Bush to go f*ck himself.
        
        I think you are overemphasizing what Bush said, and what Poland did.
        
        Bush was not trying to say everything is hunky dory. The quip about "you forgot Poland" was in response to Kerry saying we went in with troops from only three countries. And earlier in the debate when he mentioned Poland, it was in response to Kerry's denigration of our allies there. May
Simply put... (Score:2)

by On Lawn ( 1073 ) writes:

Internationalist is someone who ... well ... dang you got me.

All I know is that the answer to that question lies in this comparison...

Bush is to Kerry that Jose Maria Anzar is to Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.

Bush and Anzar are not internationalists and Kerry and Zapatero are. Zapatero immediately signed to the EU constitution even though it held many provisions that were not endorsed by Anzar. Zapatero pulled troops from Iraq immediately in response to terrorist demands. Zapatero was put into Spain to qu
- Re:Simply put... (Score:1)
  
  by jesuitninja ( 811631 ) writes:
  
  Well, actually Zapatero didn't pulled troops from Iraq in response to terrorrist demands, but because he based his election campaign on this, the war being very impopular in Spain. Terrorrists haven't demanded anything after the Madrid attack.
  - Re:Simply put... (Score:2)
    
    by On Lawn ( 1073 ) writes:
    
    From what I remember he wasn't going to remove them until June 30th, and was going to float a UN resolution that, if passed, would have kept the troops in there.
Well sadly the fact of the matter is this... (Score:1)

by ellem ( 147712 ) * writes:

if you are not aligned with the USA you are either "The Bad Guys" or so horribly irrelevant globe makers must continually be reminded to put your country on the model.

The USA is it. If we pulled out of the UN today the entire thing would collapse. We are the only member of any importance. Just how many troops do you think France has anyway? The USA is the money, the brains and the brawn behind the UN. Nothing useful happens there unless the US says so.

If Kerry thinks restoring us to the world communi
- Re:Well sadly the fact of the matter is this... (Score:1)
  
  by FroMan ( 111520 ) writes:
  
  I don't think I would quite say that your country is irrelevant if you
  are not with the US.
  
  It is a sovereignty issue.
  
  No nation should be compelled to work against its own self interest, as
  each nation should be entirely sovereign within its own borders.
  However, it also become responsible for the actions that it permits to
  occur within its own borders, especially if they affect another nation.
  
  In certain circumstances it makes sense for a small nation to join a
  composite of other nations (giving up a certain a
  - Re:Well sadly the fact of the matter is this... (Score:1)
    
    by ellem ( 147712 ) * writes:
    
    Well sure I _could have_ outlined a sane response like yours but alas, I am running for Ugliest American Ever. *In other news: France Surrenders*
- Re:Well sadly the fact of the matter is this... (Score:2)
  
  by cascadefx ( 174894 ) * writes:
  
  So, 9/11, where we were attacked by a terrorist network and 15 of the 19 hijackers were from our "ally" Saudi Arabia and the WORLD shared our grief and offered support, taught us that we should piss on that same WORLD and invade a country that wasn't a threat had no nuclear capabilities while posturing that we were coming after Iran and North Korea next.
  
  Hmm... good strategy.
  - Re:Well sadly the fact of the matter is this... (Score:1)
    
    by ellem ( 147712 ) * writes:
    
    *sigh*
    
    Iraq is important. Not for oil, not for profit, but for location. It will be a lot easier to "negotiate" with "diplomacy" with 100,000 US Troops in the dead center of the Middle East.
    
    Oh and Korea? Well last time we were really fighting "Communists" (read Russia) this time... just N Korea. They will walk on our backs and make our TVs like another group of people of Asian descent you might recall.
  - Re:Well sadly the fact of the matter is this... (Score:2)
    
    by pudge ( 3605 ) * writes:
    
    So, 9/11, where we were attacked by a terrorist network and 15 of the 19 hijackers were from our "ally" Saudi Arabia and the WORLD shared our grief and offered support, taught us that we should piss on that same WORLD and invade a country that wasn't a threat had no nuclear capabilities while posturing that we were coming after Iran and North Korea next.
    
    Who pissed on the world? I don't understand the logic. France didn't want us to go into Iraq, and we did. OK ... how did we piss on them? Every time o
Re: (Score:2)

by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:

Comment removed based on user account deletion

There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.

"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds

Internationalism More Login

Internationalism

Sense of proportion here... (Score:1)

Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)

Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)

Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:1)

Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)

Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:1)

Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:1)

Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)

Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)

Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:1)

left and right. (Score:1)

Re:left and right. (Score:2)

Re:left and right. (Score:2)

Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:1)

Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)

Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)

Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:1)

Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)

Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:1)

Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)

Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:1)

Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)

Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)

Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)

Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)

Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)

Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)

Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)

Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)

Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:1)

Re:Sense of proportion here... (Score:2)

Simply put... (Score:2)

Re:Simply put... (Score:1)

Re:Simply put... (Score:2)

Well sadly the fact of the matter is this... (Score:1)

Re:Well sadly the fact of the matter is this... (Score:1)

Re:Well sadly the fact of the matter is this... (Score:1)

Re:Well sadly the fact of the matter is this... (Score:2)

Re:Well sadly the fact of the matter is this... (Score:1)

Re:Well sadly the fact of the matter is this... (Score:2)

Re: (Score:2)

Slashdot Top Deals