Bush Hopes to Mend Fences With Allies during trip to Europe

[dmcowen674]

6-1-2004 Bush Hopes to Mend Fences With Allies

WASHINGTON - President Bush is looking at his upcoming trips to Europe and an international economic summit in Georgia as opportunities to mend fences with allies over Iraq and to promote the spread of democracy in the Middle East.

"It's important for our partners to understand that I don't view it as American democracy, "I will remind them that the Articles of Confederation was a rather bumpy period for American democracy," he said, referring to America's formative period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and thank you GWB very much for destroying all that hard work over 225 years ago :roll:

 

[Infohawk]

I think it's unlikely GWB will be able to get Europe to help him. His administration berated the Europe and the UN (which was something founded by the US and the Europeans). It might happened if he took responsibility and apologized for ostracizing nations that had a valid (if not correct) viewpoint regarding his fabricated war. If his past behavior is predictive, he won't do it though.

Whether or not someone is for the war or not, John Kerry has a lot better chance of mending fences than GWB does.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I think it's unlikely GWB will be able to get Europe to help him. His administration berated the Europe and the UN (which was something founded by the US and the Europeans). It might happened if he took responsibility and apologized for ostracizing nations that had a valid (if not correct) viewpoint regarding his fabricated war. If his past behavior is predictive, he won't do it though.

Whether or not someone is for the war or not, John Kerry has a lot better chance of mending fences than GWB does.

Exactly, it is time bush and this country said sorry for
this

 

[Infohawk]

Ozoned, I think you are doing what other people, like CADkindaGUY, would call UN-bashing. Personally, I don't believe in so-called bashing.

That said, the subject is mending fences with Europe. Bringing up UN problems won't help help Bush mend fences with Europe.

 

[dbk]

Get ready for massive protests a la WTO and G8

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I think it's unlikely GWB will be able to get Europe to help him. His administration berated the Europe and the UN (which was something founded by the US and the Europeans). It might happened if he took responsibility and apologized for ostracizing nations that had a valid (if not correct) viewpoint regarding his fabricated war. If his past behavior is predictive, he won't do it though.

Whether or not someone is for the war or not, John Kerry has a lot better chance of mending fences than GWB does.

The UN is so corrupt they might as well dissolve it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Well, mending fences isn't exactly the way I'd frame it since this hasn't exactly been a oneway issue. Both sides need to mend the fence that has been "damaged". I don't buy the notion that it was all "Bush's fault" since it took the other side to be stubborn for the so-called fence to be damaged. As Ozoned pointed out there may have been a few reasons that some European countries resisted and tried to halt action against Saddam. Just because they didn't agree with us doesn't mean that the "relationship damage" was one-sided.

CkG

 

[AcidicFury]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Well, mending fences isn't exactly the way I'd frame it since this hasn't exactly been a oneway issue. Both sides need to mend the fence that has been "damaged". I don't buy the notion that it was all "Bush's fault" since it took the other side to be stubborn for the so-called fence to be damaged. As Ozoned pointed out there may have been a few reasons that some European countries resisted and tried to halt action against Saddam. Just because they didn't agree with us doesn't mean that the "relationship damage" was one-sided.

CkG

It doesn't matter though. In order for war to be justified internationally, the US needs the UN as a sanctioning body. The other countries did not see justification (and later found out there was NO justification), so they wanted to see more conclusive evidence about our intelligence.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Well, mending fences isn't exactly the way I'd frame it since this hasn't exactly been a oneway issue. Both sides need to mend the fence that has been "damaged". I don't buy the notion that it was all "Bush's fault" since it took the other side to be stubborn for the so-called fence to be damaged. As Ozoned pointed out there may have been a few reasons that some European countries resisted and tried to halt action against Saddam. Just because they didn't agree with us doesn't mean that the "relationship damage" was one-sided.

CkG

I think you are overlooking that Europe doesn't need the US as much as the US needs Europe right now. Bush wants help with Iraq. Sure, Europe likes having good relations with the US but they don't have some war they need help with right now. If he goes in there with your attitude, it's not going to succeed.

It sounds like you don't really feel it's necessary to mend fences deep down. I guess GWB disagrees with you.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Personally, I don't believe in so-called bashing.

I noticed that in these threads

in these threads

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Operation Iraqi Sodomy

That said, the subject is mending fences with Europe.

Europe (the part that counts) needs to do the bigger share of the mending.

 

[Infohawk]

Ozoned. Sorry you misunderstood. I don't believe in CkG's definition of bashing. I don't believe CkG's complaint that bashing is bad. I think bashing is just criticism. CkG doesn't like bashing / criticism when it's agaist Kerry. I enjoy all so-called bashing because in politics we need to criticize to figure out which candidate is best.

CkG is being inconsistent; I am not. I don't complain about so-called Kerry bashing. It's legitimate to criticize candidates.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Ozoned. Sorry you misunderstood. I don't believe in CkG's definition of bashing. I don't believe CkG's complaint that bashing is bad. I think bashing is just criticism. CkG doesn't like bashing / criticism when it's agaist Kerry. I enjoy all so-called bashing because in politics we need to criticize to figure out which candidate is best.

CkG is being inconsistent; I am not. I don't complain about so-called Kerry bashing. It's legitimate to criticize candidates.

*sigh* still trying to beat the headless drum i see.

You still fail to understand the "bashing" issue. I suggest you re-read the multiple threads I've tried to educate you on it.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: AcidicFury

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Well, mending fences isn't exactly the way I'd frame it since this hasn't exactly been a oneway issue. Both sides need to mend the fence that has been "damaged". I don't buy the notion that it was all "Bush's fault" since it took the other side to be stubborn for the so-called fence to be damaged. As Ozoned pointed out there may have been a few reasons that some European countries resisted and tried to halt action against Saddam. Just because they didn't agree with us doesn't mean that the "relationship damage" was one-sided.

CkG

It doesn't matter though. In order for war to be justified internationally, the US needs the UN as a sanctioning body. The other countries did not see justification (and later found out there was NO justification), so they wanted to see more conclusive evidence about our intelligence.

No, the UN doesn't have to sanction something for it to be "justified". The other countries may have had their own agendas regarding Iraq as Ozoned pointed out. BTW - are you forgetting that much of the intel came from the "international" community and more specifically the UN? Have you forgotten that we were even dealing with Iraq because the UN had many many resolutions regarding Saddam telling him to follow a specific path?

CkG

 

[wkabel23]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: AcidicFury

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Well, mending fences isn't exactly the way I'd frame it since this hasn't exactly been a oneway issue. Both sides need to mend the fence that has been "damaged". I don't buy the notion that it was all "Bush's fault" since it took the other side to be stubborn for the so-called fence to be damaged. As Ozoned pointed out there may have been a few reasons that some European countries resisted and tried to halt action against Saddam. Just because they didn't agree with us doesn't mean that the "relationship damage" was one-sided.

CkG

It doesn't matter though. In order for war to be justified internationally, the US needs the UN as a sanctioning body. The other countries did not see justification (and later found out there was NO justification), so they wanted to see more conclusive evidence about our intelligence.

No, the UN doesn't have to sanction something for it to be "justified". The other countries may have had their own agendas regarding Iraq as Ozoned pointed out. BTW - are you forgetting that much of the intel came from the "international" community and more specifically the UN? Have you forgotten that we were even dealing with Iraq because the UN had many many resolutions regarding Saddam telling him to follow a specific path?

CkG

Yes, but it is always good to have international support going into a war.

Also, I thought we were dealing with Iraq because they had WMD's and ties to Al-Qaeda. If we're going after someone for U.N. violations I'd like to see more support from other nations. Obviously, that wasn't the case.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Well, mending fences isn't exactly the way I'd frame it since this hasn't exactly been a oneway issue. Both sides need to mend the fence that has been "damaged". I don't buy the notion that it was all "Bush's fault" since it took the other side to be stubborn for the so-called fence to be damaged. As Ozoned pointed out there may have been a few reasons that some European countries resisted and tried to halt action against Saddam. Just because they didn't agree with us doesn't mean that the "relationship damage" was one-sided.

CkG

I think you are overlooking that Europe doesn't need the US as much as the US needs Europe right now. Bush wants help with Iraq. Sure, Europe likes having good relations with the US but they don't have some war they need help with right now. If he goes in there with your attitude, it's not going to succeed.

It sounds like you don't really feel it's necessary to mend fences deep down. I guess GWB disagrees with you.

Europe doesn't need the US as much as we need them? Huh? We don't need help with this war no matter what your opinion is. Sure we'd like it if they would have or will help but that doesn't mean we "need" them so we can "win". If Bush goes in there with my attitude and tells them that they now have another chance to help a country they tried to ignore he might succeed but like I said - it's a two way issue - the "damage" wasn't one sided.

No, you're wrong. I desire a strong relationship with other nations - but I don't buy the argument that it is a one-way issue. I think you "guess" wrong - I'm quite certain GWB doesn't disagree with me.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: wkabel23
Yes, but it is always good to have international support going into a war.

Also, I thought we were dealing with Iraq because they had WMD's and ties to Al-Qaeda. If we're going after someone for U.N. violations I'd like to see more support from other nations. Obviously, that wasn't the case.

Exactly. While it may be "better" to have "more" - it doesn't make it any more or less "justified".

There is much more to the Saddam/Iraq situation that WMDs and terrorism as I've stated many times. Sure, I would have liked to see the French, Germans, and Russians supporting the removal of Saddam, but obviously that wasn't the case as they chose to actively oppose us removing him. Just because they didn't support it - doesn't mean we have to go grovel to them now. They chose their course and we chose ours. Mutual ground will be sought to strengthen relations but it is not only us who have to "give".

CkG

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: wkabel23

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: AcidicFury

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Well, mending fences isn't exactly the way I'd frame it since this hasn't exactly been a oneway issue. Both sides need to mend the fence that has been "damaged". I don't buy the notion that it was all "Bush's fault" since it took the other side to be stubborn for the so-called fence to be damaged. As Ozoned pointed out there may have been a few reasons that some European countries resisted and tried to halt action against Saddam. Just because they didn't agree with us doesn't mean that the "relationship damage" was one-sided.

CkG

It doesn't matter though. In order for war to be justified internationally, the US needs the UN as a sanctioning body. The other countries did not see justification (and later found out there was NO justification), so they wanted to see more conclusive evidence about our intelligence.

No, the UN doesn't have to sanction something for it to be "justified". The other countries may have had their own agendas regarding Iraq as Ozoned pointed out. BTW - are you forgetting that much of the intel came from the "international" community and more specifically the UN? Have you forgotten that we were even dealing with Iraq because the UN had many many resolutions regarding Saddam telling him to follow a specific path?

CkG

Yes, but it is always good to have international support going into a war.

Also, I thought we were dealing with Iraq because they had WMD's and ties to Al-Qaeda. If we're going after someone for U.N. violations I'd like to see more support from other nations. Obviously, that wasn't the case.

Here is the reason for Iraq war if you want to read it again wkabel23
Reasons

Its was about mending fences that Some other countries don't want mended for now obvious reasons.

 

[Infohawk]

Europe doesn't need the US as much as we need them? Huh? We don't need help with this war no matter what your opinion is. Sure we'd like it if they would have or will help but that doesn't mean we "need" them so we can "win". If Bush goes in there with my attitude and tells them that they now have another chance to help a country they tried to ignore he might succeed but like I said - it's a two way issue - the "damage" wasn't one sided.

No, you're wrong. I desire a strong relationship with other nations - but I don't buy the argument that it is a one-way issue. I think you "guess" wrong - I'm quite certain GWB doesn't disagree with me.

CkG

"We don't need help with this war no matter what your opinion is."
"The no matter what your opinion is" part of that sentence was completely unecessary. I wasn't suggesting my opinion was authority for my statement. I'm not sure where you got that from. Anyway, if the US doesn't need Europe, why has the administration been trying to build a coalition of the willing and by getting their support for UN measures?

" that doesn't mean we "need" them so we can "win"."
Did I say we needed "them" so we can win? No. I didn't suggest there was a causal link between Euro-help and the US. Stop building strawmen arguments (named logical fallacy).

"I'm quite certain GWB doesn't disagree with me."
Really, how are you so sure? Bush is reaching out to Europe. He's flying there. He's making the phone calls. These are the reported facts. If you were President, it sounds like you would be waiting for their calls. To an objective observer and to the reporters Bush is reaching out, not the other way around. That suggests he wants to make more of an effort and doesn't really agree with your half-way mentality.

What country did Europe try to ignore? Iraq? The US? Please explain? Last I checked "Old Europe" was trying to resolve the problem peacefully before the war started. This isn't ignoring Iraq.

 

[naddicott]

Here is the reason for Iraq war if you want to read it again wkabel23
Reasons

Its was about mending fences that Some other countries don't want mended for now obvious reasons.

Yikes, that's an embarrassing link to read! Most of those "whereas" points have turned out to be flat out wrong. I didn't realize the non-existent (or at least unproven to this point) Iraq / Al-Quaeda link was among the reasons for the authorization. The administration doesn't even try to sell that one anymore.

I know many senators thought they were signing onto a "we really mean it" sort of deal to strengthen the negotiating position of the US/UN in pursuing non-war options, but having their signatures on all those statements that make the sketchy and tenuous conclusions of the intelligence community sound like "home run" facts... very embarassing.

When our Allies saw our "evidence" and weren't convinced, I can't see how one can blame them. They were quite right to not be convinced as the evidence wasn't a slam dunk and hasn't held up to the reality on the ground. Rather than re-evaluating our intelligence (and potentially gathering new intel), we assassinated the character of the inspectors at the time (Blix's report was pretty accurate it turns out), accused our allies of being "bought" by Saddam (real dipolmatic), and deprived the French in particular their right to associate their country's name with deep fried potato products in American fast food restaurants.

It's time to heal the wounds if our allies will let us. And for goodness' sakes, let "French Fries" be "French" again. (Having to say "Super Size Freedom Fries" takes too long)

Somehow I don't think Bush will come back with too much. The Europeans who fought us over authorizing war have a rare "I told you so" opportunity, and they don't have good reason to let the issue drop just yet - especially not for a President whose attack machine unleashed a fair amount of rude insults after talks broke down.

 

[Format C:]

Bush ought to grow a set and give "The Europe" and the U.N. the finger, kick the U.N.'s ass out of New York and turn the building into a homeless shelter. Send the thieving bastards to France and let 'em have their grand old circle jerk there.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Europe doesn't need the US as much as we need them? Huh? We don't need help with this war no matter what your opinion is. Sure we'd like it if they would have or will help but that doesn't mean we "need" them so we can "win". If Bush goes in there with my attitude and tells them that they now have another chance to help a country they tried to ignore he might succeed but like I said - it's a two way issue - the "damage" wasn't one sided.

No, you're wrong. I desire a strong relationship with other nations - but I don't buy the argument that it is a one-way issue. I think you "guess" wrong - I'm quite certain GWB doesn't disagree with me.

CkG

"We don't need help with this war no matter what your opinion is."
"The no matter what your opinion is" part of that sentence was completely unecessary. I wasn't suggesting my opinion was authority for my statement. I'm not sure where you got that from. Anyway, if the US doesn't need Europe, why has the administration been trying to build a coalition of the willing and by getting their support for UN measures?

" that doesn't mean we "need" them so we can "win"."
Did I say we needed "them" so we can win? No. I didn't suggest there was a causal link between Euro-help and the US. Stop building strawmen arguments (named logical fallacy).

"I'm quite certain GWB doesn't disagree with me."
Really, how are you so sure? Bush is reaching out to Europe. He's flying there. He's making the phone calls. These are the reported facts. If you were President, it sounds like you would be waiting for their calls. To an objective observer and to the reporters Bush is reaching out, not the other way around. That suggests he wants to make more of an effort and doesn't really agree with your half-way mentality.

What country did Europe try to ignore? Iraq? The US? Please explain? Last I checked "Old Europe" was trying to resolve the problem peacefully before the war started. This isn't ignoring Iraq.

The Admin has been trying to get more people involved from the start. Some just don't seem to want to be a part.
No, I didn't say you said that. I SAID IT. We don't need them to "win". We don't "need" them for anything else either. Sure, we'd like to have them as it's a freindlier planet when we agree - but I think your claim that we "need" them more than they need us is more than a bit misguided.

No, I wouldn't be waiting by the phone. I'd be doing what I thought was neccessary diplomacy wise - but like I said it isn't a one-sided issue. So I suggest YOU quit trying to build strawman arguments with what I post.
No where did I say we didn't need to do anything - but I did say we weren't the only ones who needed to "give". I suggest you try to actually read what I post instead of jumping to conclusions.
Last time I checked those who have been accused of being in bed with Saddam in the oil for fools program were also some of the ones most actively against our action there. Hmmm....
Yes, they were ignoring Iraq by allowing Saddam to run afoul of the UN resolutions for so long. We were part of that and then we woke up and realized that he needed to be dealt with once and for all if he didn't uphold his end. He didn't - we removed him. "peacefully" pfffttt - you mean by filtering oil-for-food money? You really think talking nice to Saddam was going to make him comply? He had 12+ years to comply. He didn't - we removed him.

Now again. mending fences is not a one-way issue. Europe is going to have to "give" on this too - we aren't going to "grovel" or anything of the sort(atleast Bush isn't and shouldn't). Europe had it's chance to be a part, and they now will again have a chance. Time will tell how much they want the fence to be mended.

CkG

 

[Czar]

it sounds more like a recrutement tour for Bush's chu chu train of a forced mid east democracy because its running out of fuel

 

[Format C:]

Originally posted by: Czar
it sounds more like a recrutement tour for Bush's chu chu train of a forced mid east democracy because its running out of fuel

Maybe its more like... the train is about to leave the station and if you want onboard you'd better be gettin' your ticket quick 'cause its gunna be a one way trip.