« Porsche: October U.S. Sales Disappointing | Main | Wolffsohn: Why Europe’s best Muslims are leaving Europe »

Comments

> Außenpolitik unter Carter [...] Abbruch der diplomatischen Beziehungen mit einem
> Verbündeten (Taiwan) und Aufbau selbiger mit einem potentiellen Gegner (China)

Der amerikanische Präsident, der als erster diplomatische Beziehungen mit der Volksrepublik China aufnahm, war die liberale Taube Richard Nixon. Hab ja schon immer gewußt, dass der ein verkappter Kommunist war!

Und an der diplomatischen Nichtanerkennung Taiwans hat bis heute kein US-Präsident gerüttelt. Weder Reagan, noch George Bush, noch George W. Bush haben offizielle diplomatische Beziehungen mit Taiwan aufgenommen.

Aber lasst euch nicht von Fakten aufhalten...

The hideous article aside (the Spiegel one, not yours) I can't help but feel that a lot of energy in the current Liberal vs. Neocon argument (I will call it that for simplification, might as well go with war/anti-war etc.) gets wasted by way too much finger pointing. "See, if you hadn't done that and if you had done that,...and now take a look at the mess we're in...." and the hard to resist "See, I told you so". In my view we should start looking forward and simply accept the fact that both sides had their fair share of misdoings in the past. Mostly because it was simply in their, or their voters', in the economies', or their supporter's best interest at the time.

Clinton failed miserably in the 90s in acknowledging the threat of Islamic Terrorism and doing something about it. Reagan as well as Carter before him and Bush sen. after him had their little adventures. Arming the Mujahideen, the whole Iran-Contra deal come to mind. And this is where I think we should start looking at those mistakes and finally learn something from them.

You correctly point out that no one in their right mind would want to go back to a "Unser Hurensohn" ("Our son of a bitch") policy. So I guess we should start thinking about a different way of setting things in order. Because at the moment I don't see either the Liberals or the Neocons as having any concepts that don't involve some sort of a "Our son of a bitch" element. Uzbekistan plays (or played) a more or less important role in the fight against the Taliban. The Germans (or maybe Europe as a whole) are/is in bed with Russia and China for gas supplies and econimic reasons respectively. China plays a major factor in the rest of the world's inability to interfere in Sudan/Darfur. But are we really willing to pay three times the price for our iPods because we are not able to manufacture them in China any longer due to some political quarry? (oversimplified I admit, but I hope you get what I'm aiming at)

Herein lies the true challenge ahead of us. Finding a way to balance our own interests with our ideals about freedom and wellbeing worldwide. I think the core values that both sides are trying to pursue are not that far from each other. Again, I will refrain from finger pointing because both sides have at numerous times abandoned those values in order to pursue different goals or interests.
I hope this wasn't too off topic, but the discussed article in question is so badly done that I didn't really see the need to just post a comment of affirmation. Although I will admit that I do enjoy to read Fukuyama from time to time. He might be an opportunist but at least he openly admits that he was wrong to a certain degree.

Stagger

"Und an der diplomatischen Nichtanerkennung Taiwans hat bis heute kein US-Präsident gerüttelt. Weder Reagan, noch George Bush, noch George W. Bush haben offizielle diplomatische Beziehungen mit Taiwan aufgenommen."

So what? Diplomacy is a multi-faceted thing:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/hl808.cfm

"Our policy is based on the principle that there must be no use of force by China against Taiwan. We deny the right of Beijing to impose its rule on the free Taiwanese people. All issues regarding Taiwan's future must be resolved peacefully and must be agreeable to the people of Taiwan. If China violates these principles and attacks Taiwan, then the United States will respond appropriately in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act. America will help Taiwan defend itself."

And of course the chi-comms are all pissed over continued US arms sales to Taiwan and a US carrier fleet always in the neighborhood.

Americans defending foreign nations from communists? Unthinkable. //sarc

Your talking points are kind of light and off topic.

Buckeye, I was just poking fun at the fact the author considered it important to take a swing at Carter. After all, his presidency ended more than 25 years ago. It's especially funny to single him out for critizism when, regarding the critizised matter, he's basically done exactly the same thing as several presidents before and all presidents after him.

"After all, his presidency ended more than 25 years ago."

Yeah, and we are still in the process of cleaning up his mess. Carter was and remains one of the few great failures in American history.

SL2

"After all, his presidency ended more than 25 years ago."

As beimami mentions, Carter's failures vibrates across time. His status as a former ex-president is even worse. From intervening in Clinton's dealing with North Korea to not just mocking and insulting the current President, but America in general.

His vileness doesn't stop at the US border though. I know some immigrants from Venzuala in Madrid who believe Carter received a cool $1 million for his blessing on the "fair" election Chaveza won-- despite his goon squads shooting people in poll stations in oppostion areas.

Carter deserves the scorn. He has earned it.

SL2... I'm going to reiterate what beimami and Buck have said here. We are concerned about Carter 25 years after his presidency because he keeps interjecting himself into today's politics. If he would butt out and realise that he is a FORMER president, we wouldn't be slamming him.

The realists hold that morality should never be taken in consideration in foreign politics. They seek 'stability' by negotiation with enemies, even with mullahs who call their country the Great Satan and want to destroy it. The Taliban 'stabilized' Afghanistan, while sheltering al Qeada. The realists paved the Path to 9/11.

The neocons think that the terrorist sponsoring dictatorships in the Middle East should be toppled by the Forward Strategy of Freedom. They tried to install democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, in the false hope that the rest of the Middle East would follow. A reversed domino theory, if you like. The people, however, voted largely for islamist parties.

The realists and the multiculturalists think it's wrong for the West to fight wars in it's own interest. The neocons have the will to fight, but not the will to win. They too think we should fight mostly on behalf of other people. See: objectivestandard.

To win the war on islamofascism (terrorism is just a means, not the enemy) we should make war on Iran and force it to unconditional surrender by destructive military force. An air war in combination with a siege is a proper way to go about it.
Destroying the nuclear installations is not enough. Neither is toppling the regime and liberating the people. The whole nation must be brought down to its knees.
After an exemplary defeat of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan must hand over all terrorists and sponsors and cease all spreading of islamism, or else.

Bush's mistake was not that he went to war. His mistake was that he did so halfheartedly. As for spreading liberty and democracy: after islamism is defeated it can be proper to secure the peace by helping the Middle East to build free and prosperous countries. But only after the war is won. Only when Germany and Japan were defeated as a nation, democracy and (more important) a constitutional republic had a chance to succeed.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

May 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31