Chrenkoff, Bush, Yalta and Iraq - a mixed bag.
DaveVH
which he calls Bush an idealist realist.
Here's a response of sorts. Comments welcome, of course.
Bush's Yalta speech shows the problem with the idea of "realist idealism" in
foreign policy. Realism and idealism are hard to reconcile, and the fact
that somebody's even trying shows there's now a division in the right's
thinking. In fact, Bush turns out to be an idealist, rather than an
idealist realist.
To be an idealist realist, you first need two rule books.
The first, the idealist's rule book, is a moral or ethical code. It explains
when you should act, and was, for example, applied to Iraq in order to
justify the invasion on moral grounds. The idealist's rule book says that
the goal of middle east foreign policy is democratisation and the defeat of
tyranny - clearly a virtuous aim.
The second, the realist's rule book, is more of a code of practice. It
explains that there are instances when you cannot act - for example, when
your enemy is stronger than you are, or you're engaged elsewhere, or when
peace is seen as more important than war.
Taken to its logical conclusion, the second rule book says in passing that
you may as well do business with tyrants you can't defeat, and at the very
least maintain relations. There are examples of this in the foreign policy
of some European states. For US foreign policy it means, for example, that
you can't invade China with a view to regime change because it would cost
too much in blood and money and the consequences are too difficult to
foresee.
Bush's Yalta speech was an attempt to apply the first rule book and abandon
the second. Far from being realist idealist, it was simply idealist. In
the middle east, his position is that moral or ethical standards trump
realism and justify the invasion of Iraq, since democracy and the overthrow
of tyranny is the goal. Looking back to 1943 and the meeting between
Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, his speech applied the same principles.
It has divided the American right. Some of them see the Yalta settlement as
a realistic bargain at the end of a long exhausting war; by the time they
reached Berlin, the allied forces would be exhausted, the principal enemy
(Hitler) would have been defeated, and the nuclear bomb was not yet an
option if the west decided to take on Stalin's men.
Others, with shorter memories and preoccupied with the question "what are we
doing in Iraq?", remain intellectually wedded to the neo-conservative moral
case for attacking Iraq - a case which was emphasised after the realist case
based on the danger from weapons of mass destruction had to be abandoned.
Hence the Yalta controversy preoccupies the American right because it
provides a mirror in which to view the uncertainties surrounding current
thinking on US foreign policy. Philosophically, Bush's foreign policy has
always raised distinct practical problems, but the realist approach has
hitherto provided solutions.
Now those practical problems are rather more concrete and difficult to
contend with. Intellectually, there doesn't seem any way out. How can an
idealist who believes Yalta was a mistake tolerate friendly relations with
oppressive and undemocratic Saudi Arabia? How can the President share a
platform with Putin when Putin's democratic Russia is faltering?
The right's dilemma is made more acute if one remembers how it responds to
questions about conditions in Iraq. "Look at the car bombs and the
corruption, and then tell me where is the democracy?". Until now, the
answer to that complaint has been simple: "Bringing democracy to a country
as big as Iraq takes time. Don't be so impatient." But in 1985, one might
have said "Look at the oppression in Poland and the rest of the eastern
bloc, and tell me whether or not your policy of containment which sprang
from Yalta will bring democracy". To which the reply might have been
"Bringing democracy to a country as big as Poland takes time. Don't be so
impatient".
So Bush has taken yet another step away from realist doctrine. The further
away he gets, the more likely he will be to run into opposition from his own
party, and from state department staff who've been around since before the
Berlin Wall fell. Where he'll end up on his intellectual odyssey is
anyone's guess.
Incidentally, if you're curious, here's what Chrenkoff said about Yalta in
February:
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005_02_13_chrenkoff_archive.html
abelard
typed:
this is a more direct link...
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/02/yalta-60-years-later.html
(note the hash signs at the end of his items)
i'm not entirely sure where you are going.....
you talk of rule books....yet after a degree of understanding you stop
referring to rule books (in fact the rule books run out and you are on
your own)
thus every decision is taking on its own merits.....
(a lack of such maturity seems to be at the heart of many of the problems
of the dork tendency)
my observation is that most people are idealistic in their youth....and
eventually trade in that idealism for (cowardly) 'realism' later....
(this is how many older people justify their lack of standards)
the real problem is maintaining idealism while realism grows.....
only such people are fit to lead or take decisions effecting others....
imv george seeks to make that difficult combination.....it is always
somewhat in tension, at least when situations really matter....
a second section....
if you pay attention to a particular politician's speech you must realise
that some part is often rhetoric to encourage the weak to 'sacrifice'
and acts of idealism....
to encourage acts that are not always going to keep people safely
wrapped up under cotton wool.....
you do not protect your freedom....soon enuf you will lose it.....
regards....
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,382,521 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DaveVH
abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
news:e82c815tfm1ad2a76...@4ax.com...
Thanks for the illuminating comments.
DaveVH
hummingbird <VXWXCU...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:nm3c819khs10cb8sl...@4ax.com...> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
> >Somebody (Abe, I think) posted an excerpt from one of Chrenkoff's posts,
in
> >which he calls Bush an idealist realist.
>
>
> IMV if Bush is one thing more than anything else, he's an 'imperial
> opportunist' - seizing an opportunity to expand the American sphere
> of influence when it arose. Past American leaders have usually done
> the same but what has made Bush more crude this time is that there's
> no Soviet Union around to say no.
>
> Justifying his invasion of Iraq on moral grounds or any other grounds
> belies that his real aim was plain old fashioned imperialism but he
> didn't realise it would be so difficult.
I disagree entirely, of course, but you knew that already. Thanks for your
comments nonetheless.
DaveVH
> On Sat, 14 May 2005 19:18:40 +0000 (UTC), "DaveVH"
> <ddd...@vvvvvvvv.com>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
> >hummingbird <VXWXCU...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
> >news:nm3c819khs10cb8sl...@4ax.com...
>
> >> On Sat, 14 May 2005 10:33:19 +0000 (UTC), "DaveVH"
> >> <ddd...@vvvvvvvv.com>
> >> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
> >>
> >> >Somebody (Abe, I think) posted an excerpt from one of Chrenkoff's
posts,
> >in
> >> >which he calls Bush an idealist realist.
> >>
> >> Most people, not just leaders, could be described this way.
> >>
> >> IMV if Bush is one thing more than anything else, he's an 'imperial
> >> opportunist' - seizing an opportunity to expand the American sphere
> >> of influence when it arose. Past American leaders have usually done
> >> the same but what has made Bush more crude this time is that there's
> >> no Soviet Union around to say no.
> >>
> >> Justifying his invasion of Iraq on moral grounds or any other grounds
> >> belies that his real aim was plain old fashioned imperialism but he
> >> didn't realise it would be so difficult.
> >
> >I disagree entirely, of course, but you knew that already. Thanks for
your
> >comments nonetheless.
>
> Which has now stamped on the gas pedal to spread its global influence?
>
> We should not allow ourselves to be fooled by heart-wrenching speeches
> about spreading freedom and democracy across the world. That is 100%
> bullshit.
> Follow Bush's actions, not his words. Follow the truth, not his lies.
Surprisingly, Hummingbird wants to have an argument about Bush's alleged
imperialism.
DaveVH
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 08:05:49 +0000 (UTC), "DaveVH"
> <ddd...@vvvvvvvv.com>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
> >hummingbird <VXWXCU...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>
You always have been keen on empty platitudes.
>
> Not surprisingly, an issue which you avoid
I don't debate points at the whim of conspiracy theorists. Sometimes I
entertain myself (and occasionally others) by taking them seriously so as to
expose their lunacy, and sometimes I can't be bothered. On usenet I have
the luxury of choosing when and how I do that, a luxury which anybody else
is entitled to indulge in also.
> by describing him as an
> idealist or realist, which takes the focus a way from reality.
A "reality" sadly lacking supporting facts. Or reason. Or reality.
>
> --
> "I have a horrible feeling that we are sinking into a police state"
> George Churchill-Coleman, former head Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist
squad.
abelard
<VXWXCU...@spammotel.com>
typed:
>We should not allow ourselves to be fooled by heart-wrenching speeches
>about spreading freedom and democracy across the world. That is 100%
>bullshit.
there goes your on/off 'logic' again....
>Follow Bush's actions, not his words. Follow the truth, not his lies.
actions are actions....they are not motives.
there goes your crap 'logic' again....
regards...sort of.
DaveVH
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 11:13:09 +0000 (UTC), "DaveVH"
> <ddd...@vvvvvvvv.com>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
> >hummingbird <VXWXCU...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> What do you disagree with? That America is an imperial empire?
> >> >> Which has now stamped on the gas pedal to spread its global
influence?
> >> >>
> >> >> We should not allow ourselves to be fooled by heart-wrenching
speeches
> >> >> about spreading freedom and democracy across the world. That is 100%
> >> >> bullshit.
> >> >> Follow Bush's actions, not his words. Follow the truth, not his
lies.
> >> >
> >> >Surprisingly, Hummingbird wants to have an argument about Bush's
alleged
> >> >imperialism.
> >>
> >> Alleged? Actions speak louder than words...
> >
> >You always have been keen on empty platitudes.
>
Results 1 - 100 of about 182,000 for "actions speak louder than words"
182,000? That's a lot of Google hits even for one of your clichés.
>you've got an empty head incapable of sorting out
> truth from years of propaganda and deception which oozes out of every
> orifice of our western govts and compliant media.
>
> >> Not surprisingly, an issue which you avoid
> >
> >I don't debate points at the whim of conspiracy theorists. Sometimes I
> >entertain myself (and occasionally others) by taking them seriously so as
to
> >expose their lunacy, and sometimes I can't be bothered. On usenet I have
> >the luxury of choosing when and how I do that, a luxury which anybody
else
> >is entitled to indulge in also.
>
> If you doubt that America is an imperial empire, you could try
> Amazon.com for a growing range of books on the subject.
Results 1 - 66 of about 414 for +"growing range of books".
Not bad, only 414.
> Then
> check out PNAC. Then you can call everybody a conspiracy theorist,
> while the rest of us rotfl and dismiss you as an uninformed sheep.
Who are the "rest of us"? Name names.
>
> Few informed people are still in denial, but you're not informed
> are you? Years of propaganda has seen to that.
>
> America's imperialism may or may not be a good thing; there are
> pros/cons, but that's another debate...
>
> >> by describing him as an
> >> idealist or realist, which takes the focus a way from reality.
> >
> >A "reality" sadly lacking supporting facts. Or reason. Or reality.
>
> You're an idiot. Listen up and learn. Fact:
Results 1 - 100 of about 203,000 for +"listen and learn".
>
> American foreign policy strategy is designed around spreading its
> tinfoil hats across the globe to achieve and maintain
> global domination in the tinfoil hat market. It's been doing this for
decades. When it meets
> an obstacle (eg a woollen bobble-hat), it finds a way of removing it
> using one of many tools in its toolbag - ie scissors, carving
> knife, knitting needle, darning mushroom, unravelling and finally military
> intervention by way of enforced beret removal, raising the price of wool
or
> straight hat-theft if it thinks it can win a fight.
Now that's certainly something I can subscribe to.
>
<mercy snip>
>
> No amount of realism or idealism changes the underlying aims of US
> foreign policy, only the way in which it is applied on a case by case
> basis. It's important to understand the difference. One is strategy,
> the other is tactical.
>
> For your education, check out the sheer number of US interventions
> in the internal affairs of other nations since 1945, none of which
> were a threat to American security. Check out who is behind so many
> laws passed in the UK for many years.
>
> Check out who is behind the
> introduction of RFID passports and ID Cards in the UK right now.
There are so many possibilities. The Jews? The Freemasons? The Vatican?
>
> In many areas of policy, there is hardly a new law or regulation in
> the UK which didn't start life in Washington or was not mandated
> by Washington -- words of a BBC political journalist.
Made suitably vague by the qualifier "many areas of policy" so as to appeal
to the conspiracy theorists. Which areas of policy, and which laws or
regulations does he mean?
>
> And you think that is not imperialism? Get real.
Results 1 - 100 of about 2,240,000 for "get real".
Greg Hennessy
wrote:
[snip]
ROTFL! Funniest skewering of buzzy's empty blather I've read in ages.
--
Contains minor peril
abelard
<VXWXCU...@spammotel.com>
typed:
>On Sun, 15 May 2005 17:42:43 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>On Sun, 15 May 2005 00:16:51 +0100, hummingbird
>><VXWXCU...@spammotel.com>
>
>>>We should not allow ourselves to be fooled by heart-wrenching speeches
>>>about spreading freedom and democracy across the world. That is 100%
>>>bullshit.
>>
>>there goes your on/off 'logic' again....
>
>There's no logic involved,
i noticed...
DaveVH
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 16:11:18 +0000 (UTC), "DaveVH"
> <ddd...@vvvvvvvv.com>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
> >hummingbird <VXWXCU...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> >> What do you disagree with? That America is an imperial empire?
> >> >> >> Which has now stamped on the gas pedal to spread its global
> >influence?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> We should not allow ourselves to be fooled by heart-wrenching
> >speeches
> >> >> >> about spreading freedom and democracy across the world. That is
100%
> >> >> >> bullshit.
> >> >> >> Follow Bush's actions, not his words. Follow the truth, not his
> >lies.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Surprisingly, Hummingbird wants to have an argument about Bush's
> >alleged
> >> >> >imperialism.
> >> >>
> >> >> Alleged? Actions speak louder than words...
> >> >
> >> >You always have been keen on empty platitudes.
> >>
> >> How would you know,
> >
> >Results 1 - 100 of about 182,000 for "actions speak louder than words"
> >
> >182,000? That's a lot of Google hits even for one of your clichés.
>
Like I said, I'm simply not entertaining the specious assertions you pass
off as a "debate" at this present time. It's the Sabbath, humping-berk, a
day when I rest and mock the afflicted.
>
> >>you've got an empty head incapable of sorting out
> >> truth from years of propaganda and deception which oozes out of every
> >> orifice of our western govts and compliant media.
> >>
> >> >> Not surprisingly, an issue which you avoid
> >> >
> >> >I don't debate points at the whim of conspiracy theorists. Sometimes
I
> >> >entertain myself (and occasionally others) by taking them seriously so
as
> >to
> >> >expose their lunacy, and sometimes I can't be bothered. On usenet I
have
> >> >the luxury of choosing when and how I do that, a luxury which anybody
> >else
> >> >is entitled to indulge in also.
> >>
> >> If you doubt that America is an imperial empire, you could try
> >> Amazon.com for a growing range of books on the subject.
> >
> >Results 1 - 66 of about 414 for +"growing range of books".
> >
> >Not bad, only 414.
>
> Google hits for "not bad" = 3,360,000 - WOW!
Poor humping-berk doesn't even notice when the terms of debate have shifted
and he has to meet his opponent on their ground. I noticed you started
using abe's trademark "binned unread" too.
>
> But you still have no debate.
> Maybe further down...I'll go and look...
>
> >> Then
> >> check out PNAC. Then you can call everybody a conspiracy theorist,
> >> while the rest of us rotfl and dismiss you as an uninformed sheep.
> >
> >Who are the "rest of us"? Name names.
Oh the tin-foil hat brigade? I think I'll survive their dismissal.
Somehow.
>
> The same people you referred to earlier.
> Google hits for "name names" = 304,000 - WOW
>
> What was that you were saying above....
"Poor humping-berk doesn't even notice when the terms of debate have shifted
and he has to meet his opponent on their ground. I noticed you started
using abe's trademark "binned unread" too."
>
> >> Few informed people are still in denial, but you're not informed
> >> are you? Years of propaganda has seen to that.
> >>
> >> America's imperialism may or may not be a good thing; there are
> >> pros/cons, but that's another debate...
> >>
> >> >> by describing him as an
> >> >> idealist or realist, which takes the focus a way from reality.
> >> >
> >> >A "reality" sadly lacking supporting facts. Or reason. Or reality.
> >>
> >> You're an idiot. Listen up and learn. Fact:
> >
> >Results 1 - 100 of about 203,000 for +"listen and learn".
>
> Wow. You haven't forgotten how to use Google yet.
>
> Still no debate...I'll keep looking.
>
> >> American foreign policy strategy is designed around spreading its
> >> tinfoil hats across the globe to achieve and maintain
> >> global domination in the tinfoil hat market. It's been doing this for
> >decades. When it meets
> >> an obstacle (eg a woollen bobble-hat), it finds a way of removing it
> >> using one of many tools in its toolbag - ie scissors, carving
> >> knife, knitting needle, darning mushroom, unravelling and finally
military
> >> intervention by way of enforced beret removal, raising the price of
wool
> >or
> >> straight hat-theft if it thinks it can win a fight.
> >
> >Now that's certainly something I can subscribe to.
>
> I'm sure you can. Woolen bobble hats and knitting needles are just the
> sort of thing to keep sheep like your goodself occupied. Maybe
> you can play a tune with the needles?
>
> ><mercy snip>
> >
> >>
> >> No amount of realism or idealism changes the underlying aims of US
> >> foreign policy, only the way in which it is applied on a case by case
> >> basis. It's important to understand the difference. One is strategy,
> >> the other is tactical.
> >>
> >> For your education, check out the sheer number of US interventions
> >> in the internal affairs of other nations since 1945, none of which
> >> were a threat to American security. Check out who is behind so many
> >> laws passed in the UK for many years.
> >>
> >> Check out who is behind the
> >> introduction of RFID passports and ID Cards in the UK right now.
> >
> >There are so many possibilities. The Jews? The Freemasons? The
Vatican?
>
> Well quite. You are incapable of thinking. Never mind, the adults of
> this world will look after you.
>
> >> In many areas of policy, there is hardly a new law or regulation in
> >> the UK which didn't start life in Washington or was not mandated
> >> by Washington -- words of a BBC political journalist.
> >
> >Made suitably vague by the qualifier "many areas of policy" so as to
appeal
> >to the conspiracy theorists. Which areas of policy, and which laws or
> >regulations does he mean?
>
> Sure, he was commenting just for conspiracy theorists. Joker.
Which areas of policy, and which laws or regulations does he (or she) mean?
>
> >> And you think that is not imperialism? Get real.
> >
> >Results 1 - 100 of about 2,240,000 for "get real".
>
> Well you beat me for Google hits above --> 3,360,000.
>
> You should take Google's lists and read them before you go to bed.
> You're an idiot with nothing of value to say. Keep going bah-bah
> and leave the real world to others.
Results 1 - 100 of about 2,230,000 for hummingbird.
You seem to be a cliché.
DaveVH
> >> >> In many areas of policy, there is hardly a new law or regulation in
> >> >> the UK which didn't start life in Washington or was not mandated
> >> >> by Washington -- words of a BBC political journalist.
> >> >
> >> >Made suitably vague by the qualifier "many areas of policy" so as to
> >appeal
> >> >to the conspiracy theorists. Which areas of policy, and which laws or
> >> >regulations does he mean?
> >>
> >> Sure, he was commenting just for conspiracy theorists. Joker.
> >
> >Which areas of policy, and which laws or regulations does he (or she)
mean?
>
> It was one of those "Week in Politics" progs on a recent Saturday
> morning. Why should I waste time searching the BBC website for the
> details now.
Why? Because otherwise someone might call bullshit on you or the BBC
correspondent?