| JuryFury.com
Now Every 15th of the Month ! Online School of Politics |
|||
| Areas of Interest THE USA American Foreign Policy US House and Senate US Presidents State & Local Politics Regional Politics Politics of China The British Commonwealth Indian Subcontinent Middle East The European Union Africa Latin America ASEAN NATO United Nations The Non-aligned Movement Eastern Europe New Nations of the 20th Century General Topics Constitutional Law Human Rights Nuclear Disarmament & Treaties International Warfare Environmental Law Peace Treaties Economic & Social Alliances International Organizations Journalism & Media Racism and Democracy Women in the Workplace Family Law Courts and Practices The Judicial System Higher Education Education and Government Health Care & Insurance Rights of the Disabled Copyright & Working Online Legal Representation Legal Insurance Pornography Domestic Violence Religion & Law Workers Rights Employers Rights Prison & Life after Social Organizations Welfare & Poverty Taxation and Democracy Third World Aid Programs Space Exploration Alternative Energy Petroleum Industry & Cars Nuclear Power Programs for the Arts Sports Education Policing the Internet Privacy and freedom Immigration Food and Regulation War on Drugs War on Pharmaceuticals Public Housing Pollution and Control Sexual Harrassment Discrimination Electoral Process Consumers Rights Investors Rights Abortion Death Penalty Social Security Gender & Sexuality Grassroots Organization ACLU World Watch Oxfam UNICEF United Negro Fund Ford Foundation (suggestions welcome at our chatsite) Law of the Economy Join I-Traderschool, our sister magazine, for debates and news. |
Bush Administration
Can World Opinion of the US be changed? A group discussion On Feb. 5, 2004 Cristopher Marquis, Foreign Desk Reporter for the New York Times, wrote an article titled Image Abroad Will Take Years to Repair, Official Testifies . Cherrie Lynn Lipsett posted the link to Juryfury Chat. It was discussed as follows: Cherrie Lynn Lipsett wrote: "I think the idea offered by the US Congress, including Republicans, to form a liaison in the White House to create a program to increase U.S. opinion worldwide is not only excellent but absolutely necessary. I have spoken often on the low opinion of the U.S. around the world now. WE MUST START DOING SOMETHING TO CORRECT THAT OPINION NOW... It will take decades of effort on the part of the US to overcome our negative opinion around the world. Correction of the negative opinion of the U.S. around the world will do more to contain the spread of terrorism (against the U.S.) than all the conventional battles against terrorism. Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups are recruiting more agents than we are capturing. Only a no-holes barred program (starting with the White House) to change the opinion of the United States around the world will curb the terrorism problem. I urge the White House to consider this option." In response to Cherrie’s article Sophia Barkat wrote: "I think that the International Opinion of the US can change overnight if Bush is gone, and the US leaves Iraq, and the Israeli occupation of Palestine is reverted. I myself feel like I am living in a cage as long as Ashcroft, Bush and Chenney are on the loose. If they are put away people like me can really start believing that the "system works". I just read that 1/3rd of all Americans polled want Bush impeached. I'm not big believer in online polls as a good indicator of anything, but it gives some false hope that change is near. The key is to elect the best Democrat in the upcoming elections. Democrats generally have better standing with labor unions and civil liberties groups, and tend to be more for social emancipation than the Republicans, I'm sorry to say. There are always exceptions. Senator McKain is an exception, as are those Republicans standing up to Bush's ridiculous budget and Rumsfeld's open eneded defense spending proposal. The Democrats also have some party revamping to do. The Liebermanns and such should be encouraged to switch party affiliation, for one. And they are also knee deep in lobby group money, which they need to change. I don't see how the International Opinion will be accomplished if John Kerry gets elected, however. For one he voted for the War in both Afghanistan and Iraq and also for the Patriot Act. He also declared he'd be running on his wife's late husband's money. What does that tell you about his standards? Also he apparently accepted the most lobby money in the last 15 years as a Senator. Reformist? I doubt it. Courageous? Nah... I have serious doubts he will last a debate with George Bush, funny how that sounds...for how will they differ? Edwards is a better man, but I am not sure he can enforce change in US foreign policy, though I think he is a welcome change from Bush or Kerry. Dean or Kucinich could really revamp the image the world has of the US. They have grassroots campaigns unlike Kerry's. People trust them. But alas, American voters have forgotten these two hard-hitters can take Bush in the debates. Kucinich has done poorly in primaries because he doesn't have the money to run advertisements that Kerry has. Also have you noticed how CNN – crooks news network -- has been rallying behind John Kerry now. CNN is a totally right-wing network, no doubt and this could be a favor to it's corporate advertisers. Bush has raised $130 million from big business and lobbies. Individual contributions to Bush's campaign for 2004 have been above $2,000 and mostly above $2,000,(See Opensecrets.org) and the same is true for Kerry, while Dean and Kucinich have raised mainly by grassroots contributions of less than $200 per person. Now is the time to work at the grassroots level to get people to vote for the right people. That can change America and also world opinion. I don’t know what little committees would accomplish without formally changing the way things are done, however." In response to Sophia and Cherrie’s posts, Gana (ganavk@yahoo.com) wrote: "I very much doubt that international opinion of the US can change overnight even if all of these things happen. It is also nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats being in power. It is the US policy over a long period of time that created this opinion and it is going to take lots of effort on US's part to change this opinion. If US leaves Iraq now, world's opinion of US is going to get worse and not better. US have to complete the task of an earlier election and transition the power to an elected government made up of Iraqi people and get out of there as soon as possible. I also don't know how much it will really impact the World's opinion of US if Israel releases the occupied land back to Palestine. It seems that Palestinians are not still ready to give a chance to peace especially considering the recent suicide bombings and as long as this continues world is not going to overtly support the Palestinians. I think one of the main problem with US policy when you look at it from world's point of view is blatant hypocrisy of it all. Just compare the way US is handling Iraq and the way they are handling North Korea. US just needed someone to say 'WMD exists in Iraq' so that they can attack a sovereign country but almost everyone is aware that North Korea is far ahead in the nuclear game and it is very near to non nuclear Japan and South Korea. US is not doing anything about it being a 'policeman' of the world." To round up the discussion, Cherrie posted a final rebuttal : Gana is right that getting rid of the Bush II Administration will not cure the perception problem the U.S. has around the world. However, it is also true that this Bush Administration has polarized (just as it has done within the U.S.) the perceptions of the U.S. around the world. That is this Administration has verified in many world leaders minds the justification for negativity and concerns about the US’s intentions and plans in the world. Many world leaders have decided during this Bush Administration that they are definitely against us as Bush II told them they had to decide in his "You are either for us or against us" speech. However, this under ebb of negativity concerning the U.S. and its intentions in the world did not start during the Bush II Administration. I disagree with Gana’s statement that the negative view of the U.S. has grown equally under Democratic and Republican Administrations. Most of the things done in foreign policy that has come back to haunt us now were done under Republican Administrations. The in between Democratic Administrations have just tread water. I offer as evidence of this opinion the following: In the 1950s http://www.workmall.com/, Mossadeq nationalized the petroleum industry in Iran. The petroleum industry was a monopoly run by a British company owned by the British government. The British had no oil reserves and neither did any of their colonies. They got control of a major oil field in Iran for their supply of oil. (my article, which I am way behind on, "A short history of the Middle East as it pertains to the United States or how we got from there to here" goes into great detail on this incident. Also I suggest reading All the Shah’s Men). The British came up with two plans to overthrow Mossadeq’s regime in Iran so as to get back "their" oil field. The British went to Truman (a Democrat) (even then we were being used by the British to do their dirty work so we were the bully of the world) to help them overthrow Mossadeq. Truman turned them down saying we don’t know anything about that part of the world (Middle East) and therefore, we don’t know what the long-term effects will be of an overthrow of the government. Besides the CIA is not and will not became a covert organization to overthrow governments. Eisenhower (A Republican) won the presidential election in 1952. The British went to Eisenhower and his power brokers two weeks after the election (they didn’t even wait for him to get inaugurated) and told his power backers (the forebears of the present day what we now call the Neocons or the 21st Century Project Group.), two of which were John Dulles ( Eisenhower’s Secretary of State) and Tom Dulles ( brother of John Dulles and head of the CIA under Eisenhower) that Iran under Mossadeq was ripe for communist take over. A BALD FACE LIE AND THE BRITISH KNEW IT! The British also knew that the Eisenhower backers were paranoid about both communism and the Soviet Union, which is why the British approached them with the imminent threat of a communist takeover of Iran. (The first time our CIA, a relatively new organization at this time, and our leaders were duped by a friendly foreign country with their hyped up security reports to get us to do their dirty work). Our intelligence community has to get better at intelligence collection. Our intelligence community and leaders must quit depending on the intelligence of foreign countries who of course put their interests first. TRUST BUT VERIFY SHOULD RULE THE DAY WITH FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE! NEVER SHOULD ANY OF OUR PRESIDENTS USE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AS A REASON FOR GOING TO WAR OR DOING ANYTHING! There has been so many instances of our country’s leaders being duped by foreign intelligence from our so called friends especially Britain and Israel. If we are indeed the world’s military power this has got to stop! TRUST BUT VERIFY SHOULD BE THE MOTO OF THE CIA ON FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE GIVEN TO US BY OTHER NATIONS!) On to my thoughts. Due to the supposed threat of a communist takeover of Iran the Eisenhower Administration through the CIA (the undercover agent who headed the ground-operations in Iran was a Kermit Roosevelt) overthrew Mossadeq on August 19, 1953 and put the Shah of Iran into power. This incident is the start of all our problems with Iran and the start of all other countries in the Middle East mistrust of the United States. The same Dulles Brothers started the Vietnam war due to the Gulf Of Tonkinese incident where one of our ships was supposedly fired upon. A fact of interest: The Dulles brothers were good friends Prescott Bush, the father of Bush I and grandfather of Bush II. 2. John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, didn’t send our military to help in the Bay of Pigs operation. Note: George Hubert Walker (who Bush I and Bush II are named after. George Hubert Walker’s daughter married Prescott Bush) had a brother who owned a sugar operation in Cuba. This sugar operation along with other American interests in Cuba was nationalized by Castro when he came to power. Why were we so mad at Cuba? Was it Communism or was it the take over of American companies especially the sugar operation of the Walker brother? If that is what our foreign policy is all about then is this how we justify doing what was best for the national security interests of the people of the United States? Indeed it is to protect the interests of wealthy industrialists in the U.S. What about the Democrats? Did the Republicans have one view on this and the Democrats another? Or did the U.S. policy for Cuba during the Eisenhower Administration push Cuba to hook up with the Soviet Union and allow the Soviet Union to put the missiles in Cuba? Kennedy also settled the Cuban missile crisis by negotiating to take our missiles out of Asia if the Soviet Union would take its missiles out of Cuba. John F. Kennedy tried to negotiate, have a dialogue rather than the first reaction being to bully and fight. Which the Neocons of those days hated John F. Kennedy for. Who actually ordered the killing of Kennedy and why? Although Lyndon B. Johnson was a Democrat he was from Texas and a part of that day "Neocon group", as we call them today. That is why John F. Kennedy picked Lyndon Johnson as his running-mate as he probably couldn’t have been elected without having one of these powerful Neocons on the ticket. Johnson got us bogged down in Vietnam, yes. But he didn’t cause any other problems that we are paying for today. Richard Nixon (Republican) actually did some good in world affairs and caused no big new problems which we are paying for today. Nixon was trying to socialize with the world (China). He was trying to send us down a similar path in world affairs as was Kennedy. One of dialogue and negotiating. Who actually wanted Nixon out? Was the discovery of the Watergate break in just coincidence? Or did the Neocons of the day turn on one of their own because of his policy on foreign affairs? Jimmy Carter a Democrat treaded water on the international scene and didn’t cause any new long term problems on the international front. Ronald Reagan was a Republican and again a President who had as a running-mate a Neocon so he could get elected. It was during his Administration that the U.S. became a buddy with Saddam Hussein. Now that is a long-term problem which is hitting us in the face today. Bush I (Republican) caused the Gulf War. The Bush I Administration knew Saddam Hussein was thinking about invading Kuwait. The State Department of the Bush I Administration said these things right before Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, "The United States does not get into border disputes in the Middle East". The United States Ambassador to Iraq (April Gillispe) said to Saddam Hussein when he went to visit her before his invasion of Kuwait, "We don’t care what you do in the region." This is the main recent incident that has caused the United States much disfavor and dislike and suspicion around the world. Most countries feel the United States could have stopped Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait but instead of stopping him the Bush I Administration encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait. As you can see it has been the aggressive nature of most Republican Administrations that has caused all our problems in the world. The two presidents who tried to follow a different course than the Neocons wanted (Kennedy & Nixon) -- who tried to cooperation have a dialoguue and negotiation to solve the problems of the world -- were killed or had to leave office to keep from being impeached. I and my two friends (ah something we all agree on! That is very seldom!) are in favor of the European way or view that is stated in "Paradise and Power" (or our interpretation of what is said) (also a good read-only 100 pages). That is "old Europe" (as defined by Rummy) is in what has been termed by British diplomat Robert Cooper "Post Modern phase". Europe has moved to peace, to unification in economics, social affairs, etc. No one can ever imagine them going to war against each other again. Europe believes in a world where countries subordinate their country’s interest to the whole (in their case the E.U.). The countries of Europe believe in political engagement, diplomacy, negotiation, forging economic ties and patience. Where I believe Kennedy and Nixon wanted to lead the United States. The United States is impatient, and quick on the trigger. There are basically two worlds now. The peaceful world of Europe called the post-modern world and the rest of the world that lives still by the laws of the jungle as per the actions of the United States who is the super power in the world and therefore selects to some extent the path that the world goes down. Rule by military power and bullying when necessary is the path of the Neocons. The United States is not for one thing in an economic position to go down this path! The United States must strive to raise the world up to the level of the E.U. through initiation of the rule of law around the world and equal rights for all under the law. We must help countries get their economies going and get jobs for their people so as to produce stable, viable societies through out the world. In these ways we will stop terrorism, hatred and mistrust of the U.S. in its tracks. Terrorism can not be stopped militarily! This is not like our fight against communism which as an ideology and economic system which the Soviet Union was trying to spread around the world and which the west did not want. The rest of the West and most of the U.S. knows Islam or fundamentalist Islam or Arab terrorists are not trying to take over the world and instill their beliefs through out the world. They just want us out of the Middle East and to quit interfering in their affairs. The rest of the west will not unite behind us to fight terrorism (Islamic terrorism) as they do not perceive it as the same type of threat as communism was to the west. The United States must realize this! The United States must realize that globalization means we are interconnected with the rest of the world. That the whole world is now our neighbors. We can not win if we are the bully in the neighborhood that all neighbors hate especially when we economically are dependent on these neighbors. We can only win if the whole world wins. If all do well. These thoughts are the thoughts "we" want the United States leaders to think about. It is "our’ opinion that the world needs to be in the "post modern world" – where the E.U. is now. It is also our opinion that as the only superpower in the world it is the responsibility of the United States to lift the world up, to lead the world to where Europe is. Not to keep the world in this uncivilized, antiquated, barbaric laws of the jungle society. Other regions of the world are trying to follow in the path of the E.U. in our opinion. One we want to mention is the Middle East and the federation of Arab nations. We are in a world of globalization. We are in a world of extreme interdependence. It is important that the United States, as the only super power in the world, realize this. That all countries and peoples of the planet are interconnected-that military power does not rule the world any more. A country that is not as equally well placed economically as militarily can be brought down through economic means. The United States must realize that interconnectedness means all are our neighbors and we must rule as the only super power through a sense of cooperation, dialogue, negotiation and compromise. Not through the power of a military and bullying not through the laws of the jungle. About the Author(s): See under Our Contributors to find out about the Author(s) of this article. |
Yahoo! World News Headlines Our Winners Club Our Contributors Research Links Legal Advice ALL Awards & Internships Become an Activist Join an Organization Get Volunteerism Alert Write Letters to a local Politician Start your own Group Applied Politics Projects Suggest a Project Start your Yahoo Groups Get Internship Credit Funding for Projects Encourage Discussion Join Juryfury Chat Promote Juryfury.com Join online discussion Groups Be In the Spotlight Let us Interview you : Authors of political books Activists Journalists Lawyers Law Enforcement Politicians Politican Scientists Be A Columnist Get Internship Credit Write twice a Month Get Heard Start a Yahoo Group Advertise with Us Books (Free) Political Our Staff & Contributors Our Magazines Quietpoly.com I-Traderschool Juryfury.com The Company Our Address: QuietPoly Inc. 240 W. Saunders. Dr. (#146) Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Tel (928) 214-7365 quietpoly@yahoo.com |
|