posted
According to a Norwegian newspaper, Dagbladet , an ad was placed in Washington Post today, addressing G.W.Bush on the war in Iraq. The ad was placed by a group of “concerned Norwegian citizens”.
For those of you who don’t understand Norwegian (probably a few…), the newspaper article about this ad says:
“The campaign management of tellhim is concerned that this should not be seen as untimely meddling in US affairs. “We were afraid of alienating people, and put a lot of effort into the wording. Consequently, we emphasize that we are friends of the US, but that we disagree with the foreign policy being conducted”, says Torgeir Knag Fylkesnes to NTB.” (my translation)
posted
For those who don't wanna engage in Acrobatics, the ad reads:
Mr. President As friends of the United States, we respect your country’s strength, creativity and generosity. At this point in history however, we are compelled to speak out. Four out of five Norwegians oppose the U.S.-led war on Iraq and our government has failed to clearly express the majority opinion of its people. Mr. President – we urge you to change your foreign policy. To pursue a flawed and failed policy is a sign of weakness. We want the United States to be strong and creative enough to apologize to the Iraqi people for an unjust war, and to the Allies for having misled them. We want the USA to be generous enough to compensate the innocent victims of violence, looting and trauma inflicted by torture. We firmly believe that the quest for peace in Iraq is best led by the United Nations and a democratically-elected Iraqi government. Mr. President – your country can once again be a leading example of democracy and freedom, inspiring a world where terrorism can no longer breed. Your present policy only fosters resistance, more than ever, everywhere. Mr. President – the choice is yours.
posted
I think I have figured out what bothers me so much about articles regarding the foreign public's or the UN's opinion on American policy.
It's not that they have an opinion--they have a right to one--nor is it just that their opinion is different from Bush's or the American public's.
It's that they seem to think our policies should be based solely on what they like or don't, on what they think or don't think is effective.
As a matter of fact, I have largely come to agree with them--if not on the details, then on the generality that this war is a mistake and a bad thing. But it is not their likes or dislikes that make it so. In practice it may sometimes be true (as it seems to be now) that we need foreign support to get things done. There are going to be times, though, when we have to go against foreign opinion polls in order to do the right thing. If they take offense at that, they'll just have to take offense.
We are not always going to be able to rely on the goodwill of other nations. It is desirable to have them on our side. It is not always necessary, and it does not matter a whit to whether the cause is right or not. It's time we got used to that.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sara, it's not clear to me in this case that there is a middle ground of "informed by". Sooner or later, we were either going to have to decide to go to war or not, and I don't see any evidence that many other countries were going to budge or very many ways we could have persuaded them to. (Yes, that could be my ignorance talking--perhaps there were a dozen powerful countries that'd have supported the war for the right concessions, but I don't know what they might have been.)
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Furthermore, we're not just talking about "our policies." We're talking about our decision to invade other countries, and overthrow their government to replace it with one we like better. That's a decision that effects everyone.
Thus, they are correct to think their say should matter to some degree.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
THey suggest that the preferred way to handle Iraq is with a combination of the UN and a freely elected Iraqi government.
To make sure the Iraqi's have a freely elected government, it will require the UN to supervise those elections.
The UN refuses to enter the country until it is safe enough for them to do so.
So if we leave it to the UN, and the UN refuses to risk their lives, the Iraqi's will never recieve the freely elected government they deserve.
Doesn't seem much of a Norwegian plan, now, does it.
Sounds more like the US is loosing the war for hearts and souls, and the terrorists are winning it, world wide.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, at least we know Kerry will listen to them and maybe include them as part of his "Global Test" before making decisions.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes (although Kerry did explain that asking other countries is not what he referred to as his global test.)
This is why it is imperative that we elect Kerry. What the Norwegians are saying here is essentially that our foreign policy has no credibility abroad, and that we need to apologize and change course if we hope to regain credibility. Since Bush will not do that, it is impossible for him to regain the credibility to get any sort of decent coalition on anything in foreign affairs.
In short, they are suggesting that the world views Bush's policies as weak, and Kerry's as strong - although they cannot come out and say candidate names.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mabus, I'm still trying to understand. I read you as saying that you aren't bothered by other countries holding opinions about US foreign policy decisions, or even by their voicing such opinions, but that you are troubled by their demands that US foreign policy be "based solely on" the opinions voiced by other countries.
quote:It's that they seem to think our policies should be based solely on what they like or don't, on what they think or don't think is effective.
I don't see any other countries claiming this in voicing their opinions. I do see them voicing opinions, however. Where do you see other countries arguing that US foreign policy should be "based solely on" other countries' opinions?
[ October 12, 2004, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think any other country has suggested we do that. I do think that certain Democrats (evidently not Kerry, or at least that is what he says) are suggesting it. Perhaps I am misreading them, but I am not sure how sensitive we can be to the opinions of foreign countries without actually obeying them.
I could be misreading, but I don't see the point in bringing up the fact that we have lost the goodwill of other nations except to urge that we regain it, nor do I see any other way of regaining it except to do what we are being asked.
(I feel as though I am repeating myself, but my thinking is getting increasingly unclear. Until I have had some sleep, I think I should relegate myself to small-talk posts. I will get back to this topic when I feel up to it.)
posted
That is absolutely the reason why we should NOT elect Kerry. I don't believe we should NOT do what is best in the interests of the American People so that we "look good" by pandering to the World.
Worst logic ever.
America is to be judged by Americans. We hold ourselves to our OWN standards.
If the international community doesn't like what we're doing, tough.
The whole reason Sadaam was left in power after the First Gulf War was because we pandered to the Foreign wants.
I'm sorry to burst the bubble of the "Americans" who long for Canada, Germany or France on this soil, but it's not going to happen.
You want their views, then become them.
Kerry would be disatrous for this country in a NAFTA/Clinton sort of way.
Every other country has an agenda based around THEMSELVES and are not happy when we don't pander to it.
Clinton PANDERED to Kim Jong like a Jack@ss. He gave in to their demands even though they broke their agreement.
I fully expect Kerry to do the same and therefore fear him being in power.
You want to see a president start negotiating with terrorists? Kerry's track record along with the past Democratic President suggests that's the direction we're heading in and I'm against it.
Bill Clinton was a perfect example of how you want a president to NOT deal with terrorism. Kerry has not shown he is even equal to, let alone better than Clinton.
If Kerry is elected, I expect the terrorists will jump for joy. Let's hope the news agencies cover it.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the international community doesn't like what we're doing, tough.
And look how well that strategy is working...
How many more terror attacks must we endure before we realize that a key factor in developing a strong foreign policy is, well, foreigners?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it's a choice between a president who does what he feels is the right thing for America, even if it's an unpopular decision, and a president who stops before every action and says to himself, "But what would the Norwegians think?" . . . well, I know whom I would feel safer under. Yes, I'd prefer a president who gave a little more consideration to world opinion than Bush does. But the idea of having to pass a "Global Test" scares me even more. I don't want the security of my nation left to the whims of other nations, thank you anyway.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But again, both Kerry and Edwards have said the Global Test has nothing to do with asking foreign opinion on wars. It just has to do not invading countries until you have proof that that country is a threat.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm sorry to burst the bubble of the "Americans" who long for Canada, Germany or France on this soil, but it's not going to happen.
You want their views, then become them.
This is an example of posting that is insulting, as well as an inaccurate characterization.
(and prefacing it with, "This is just my opinion, but . . . " will not make it less so.)
People who favor Kerry are not un-American (certainly no more than people who favor Bush are), they are not disloyal, and they do not wish to turn America into France or Germany. They simply don't happen to agree with you about what is the best way to make America great.
quote: America is to be judged by Americans. We hold ourselves to our OWN standards.
As long as you attack other countries, kill people who are not Americans and send the UNO to hell, I guess we have the right to tell you what we think about it. Listening to someone, trying to understand their point of view isn't the same thing as "obeying theses darn foreigners", you know. Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But again, both Kerry and Edwards have said the Global Test has nothing to do with asking foreign opinion on wars.
Then why vote for Kerry? Sounds like he's going to irritate the rest of the world as much as Bush has.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apparently it is because we did listen to the UN for 8 ineffective years during Clinton. We did listen to the UN before Iraq, but we decide on our own policy.
And isn't THAT what the people here have a problem with.
We listened but didn't do what they wanted.
That is Kerry's stance. He wants their support and is willing to do what they want to get it.
He is willing to sell out America to make friends.
I find it Ironic that he wants to keep "US jobs from being outsourced" then wants to "oursource the reconstruction of Iraq" and allow "importing of pharmaceutical drugs"
The other countries have all said they will NOT send troops no matter what. But Kerry's plan is to get them to.
His plan is already flawed and he isn't even elected.
Also, remember what happens when you put NON-Americans in like Spain. They pull out.
And lest we forget, France and Vietnam.
"Please assist us Americans!" Then hand us the bag and leave.
President Bush is probably the strongest ally our troops can have in Iraq.
posted
"Also, remember what happens when you put NON-Americans in like Spain. They pull out."
Well, in all fairness, only non-Americans CAN pull out of an American war. When Americans pull out of an American war, the war is officially over. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you advocate pulling more outside troops into an American war we are already winning? (even though they have already killed Kerry's plan by saying "no".)
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, outside troops WOULD be a nice bonus. But that aside, I think the big unsaid variable is not whether Bush or Kerry would do better in the reconstruction of Iraq -- because, frankly, I think our options there are so narrow that they'll both wind up being identical in that regard -- but rather whether Bush is more likely than Kerry to invade additional countries before stabilizing the two we've already destabilized. As I think he is, Kerry seems like a smarter choice to me.
posted
I've begun to question whter Senator Kerry's akward way of phrasing that (the "Global Test" thing) was aimed more at his own supporters than at convincing other people. It's obvious what he meant, but it was also obvious that his opponents would jump right on it, prompting his supporters to leap to his defense, thus preventing more probing questions about what he actually plans to do in Iraq besides hope other nations will join in if we fire the President who's been giving them the finger.
That being said, I'll leap to his defense here, because I think the willfully incorrect interpretation of what he said hurts the important questions.
He said, first, that he, and likely no president, would ever give a foreign power a veto over U.S. military policy. Then he said tat, if he felt that he had to take pre-emptive action to protect the country, he would make sure that the American people were not misled into supporting him and that the action he took would be able to pass a global test.
It's a question of respect and of integrity. Let me draw an analogy to this forum. Some posters will make claims about things and later, upon inspecting these claims, it turns out that not only were those claims wrong, but that the poster didn't have a sufficient graps of the issue to even make those claims. That poster has failed the "forum test". There are other posters (I like to include myself in this list) who only make claims when they know that they can back them up, hopefully to the level of confidence that they set their claim at. It's not about not being wrong. It's about only saying things that you have adequate reason to believe are accurate.
No doubt many people here don't agree with my opinions or even interpretations of things. Quite of few of them probably don't necessarily like me. But I'm reasonable sure that, if I make a claim, they are pretty sure that I am going to be able to back this claim up. That's because, in the past when I have made claims, I have, as a rule, been able to back them up. This is what it means to pass the "Forum Test".
The same is true with American foreign policy. We presented a case to the world for our actions that was made on weak and/or fraudulent and/or manipulated evidence. We cried "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Just like the boy in the story, we did not respect the trust that other countries put in us and thus showed that we aren't worthy of them trusting us. We failed the "Global Test" and this has had many adverse consequences, not the least of which is squandering the sympathy the world felt towards us in response to 9/11, where even the French came out and said "Today, we are all Americans."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to have to call your bluff, Anna. What you said hurt me deeply. Please delete your post. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there is some information about the political scene in Norway that might be relevant here. A lot of people (including me) feel they are not being represented on foreign-policy issues by the Bondevik government. (In fact, I can't offhand think of an issue on which that cursed priest does represent me, but that's another matter.) You'll note that this ad got a lot more attention in Norwegian media (it's been in all four newspapers I've checked so far) than it did in the US. In other words, it might be helpful to view this as more of a publicity stunt in Norwegian politics, an attempt to focus attention on the area where comrade Bondevik is doing a bad job, than an attempt to sway US foreign policy. After all, since when does any sovereign state, let alone the only superpower, let its policies be dictated by private citizens of another state?
But I think they are also genuinely trying to give Bush some information that he may not have access to. Norway has sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan both, and our government supports the war in Iraq even if the people don't. Presumably, that is the picture Bush is getting through his foreign-policy aides. Now, it's true that he is quite justified in disregarding what Norwegians actually think of the war; still, the more accurate information he has, the better his decisions can be, right? Even on a fairly unimportant matter like this. Further, for Norwegians, it is quite annoying to be pointed to as part of 'the willing' when we are feeling rather more coerced.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: still, the more accurate information he has, the better his decisions can be, right?
this might be snarky, but since when did accurate information have any effect on bush's decisions? he makes his decisions based on faith in what is right, and has little time for science, facts, or (imho) reality.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
