Superb lecture on the US and Europe - HIGHLY recommended!

[agricola]

an article which contains some good points, but which assumes too much.

for instance, from the French perspective one has to recall that recent French administrations have been overshadowed by the spectre of De Gaulle. Like it or not, that element of French society is intensely proud, and has to deal with (to them) three occasions where their ally the United States has not responded to their requests for help in time - both World Wars and the Indochinese War. These conflicts in essence confirmed to the French that they could only really depend on themselves (hence the withdrawl from NATO, the French rush for an A-bomb, the way in which the EEC (now EU) was rigged to blatantly favour the French etc). In any case, the French are only following their national interest, just as the US is, and just as everyone else has been.

the German position is a bit different in that they do not feel that they need the US any more, now that Germany is reunified and she is surrounded (for the first time in her history) by friendly states. as a result she feels that the EU is the future for Germany, and she will go along with the federalization of the EU - which is fundamentally opposed (take the new members out) to the idea of US hegemony.

if left unchecked this could well develop into a situation in which the US is asked to leave Europe and, as a result of the split, Europe is moved closer together aligned against the interests of the United States. this would be bad for all parties.

i dont know if anyone remembers this here, but about ten years ago the BBC made a concept documentary-style drama about what life would be like in fifteen (i think) years time. they predicted a world divided between the EU and US; and the main reason for the divide was a bloody US campaign in the Middle East and the percieved lack of support from Europe. it wasnt a perfect match, but I have been thinking about that film recently and if they show it again I'll inform you - spooky stuff.

 

[Zander]

Show some initiative.

Or what...you'll regale us with more "sources" which rely on innuendo and false correlations?

Give me a break...

 

[Lebe]

.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[MPFreeman]

Thanks Preach

 

[riverdog]

if left unchecked this could well develop into a situation in which the US is asked to leave Europe

We may be asked to leave Germany, but IMO we're on good ground with both the UK and Spain. Leaving Germany to take up residency with one of the newer NATO members may not be all that bad. Do you really think we'll be asked to leave NATO? I seriously doubt it.

 

[trooper]

Where to begin? How about with "all players aren't equal." Imagine you are playing a game of Monopoly with your friends. The "rules" such as they are were long ago set and everyone more or less plays straight. Through foresight, boldness, allocation of resources, you started dominating the board. You have even given some of them your money to subsidize their stupid decisions and they resent you for it. Now your so-called friends decry that your position of success is "unfair" and you are "domineering" and "forcing your view of the world," and they propose en bloc that you can't acquire another property or build another hotel without their permission.

Well, I don't think it's about the US being the biggest kid on the block; nobody seriously doubts that. I also realize that with power comes responsibility.

I agree with you that enjoying wealth and power earned by smart playing is not unfair. But while the rules were indeed set long ago they changed over time to some extent. It is my take that after 2 world wars and half a century of cold war (with several long and bloody proxy wars) most countries agreed that military action should not be unilateral (except for a case of clear self defense) but rather approved by a body like the UN security council.
As a member of the UN, America has agreed to play by those altered rules and documented this by signing the UN charta. The US cannot at the same time enjoy the benefits of the membership (like the right to veto on the SC) and violate those rules.

Arguing that a rich, powerful country should not obey the rules others are bound by is like saying that a successful businessman with lots of wealth and influence and a low-wage worker should not be equal before the law. While the rich guy may really have earned his wealth and maybe contributed more to the community he has earned just that - his personal belongings and social position, not any kind of immunity.

What scares the Eurotrash so much is that Bush belives in GOD or any God for that. Also he has the mussle to back up his beleifs and that must scare the hell outa you guys on the otherside of the pond!

Yes, me guy on the other side of the pond is scared by the fact that the most powerful man on earth exercises this power the way he thinks his "God" wants him to. I don't want to offend any religious folks out there but I think international politics are way too important to be handled this way. Important decisions should be based on reasoning, not on faith. BTW Osama Bin Laden also believes in God and decides accordingly (and no, I'm not trying to put Bush in a line with Osama so save your flame, but I think you get my point).


Regards,

Trooper

 

[Boats]

Would that vaunted "reasoning" include threatening Saddam Hussein with "consequences" and then blanching at the prospect of giving him a finite time to comply?

The reason that the UN is viewed here contemptuously is it is so filled with contemptible personas. The very idea of the security council is idiotic for its required unanimity.

When France unilaterally intervenes in West and Central Africa why has it not sought UN approval? When the CSCE attempted to take on the Yugoslavian problem, they did not clear it through the UN, they went through NATO eventually.

The entire scheme of asking the UN for permission to use force is observed only when convenient--or when TotalFinalElf has one of the largest oil contracts in history with the most unsavory dictator in the Middle East.

The most salient point in that entire lecture was the following joke:

A Frenchman, a German and an American were all facing a firing squad in Africa and each was given a final wish.

The Frenchman asked to sing the Marseillaise, the German asked to give a lecture on the use of force and international law. The American said "Please, please shoot me first. I don't want to have to hear that lecture – or that song.

Yes Europe, please spare us the ineffectual caterwauling. Only countries without the ability to project their will resort to the salons of the UN to practice soveriegnty when it matters most. Usually they go to call on the United States to solve a problem somewhere. What tools do they ask us to use? Dollars and/or arms. I giess you got what you wanted. Don't resent the Sheriff when he doesn't listen to the thieves guild when they tell him how to do his job.

 

[Preacherman]

Trooper, you make some interesting points. I can see where you're coming from: having been born and raised in South Africa, with British parents, and now living in the USA, I guess I've got a fairly broad perspective. However, I have to say that I think Bush's and the US's perspectives on Iraq are completely defensible, and I subscribe to them. I wish that war could have been avoided, and I did not see a direct and immediate threat to the USA from Iraq: but I certainly could see a longer-term threat to the USA, as well as a shorter-term threat to the Israeli/Palestinian peace process, from Iraq and Syria in particular. The fact that France essentially rendered the UN Security Council impotent by threatening to veto any new resolution really made the war inevitable, IMHO.

I think that from now on, states such as Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, etc. will think VERY carefully before defying the US and its allies on any issue related to terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, etc. I note, too, that China has done as the US asked it to do and exerted pressure on North Korea to get down off its high horse and face reality (it's amazing what a three-day interruption in your oil supply for "technical reasons" can do to a national government that won't listen! ). Hopefully, with some co-operation like this, future wars can be rendered unnecessary. Let's hope and pray so.

 

[ahenry]

Outstanding analysis, thanks for posting it Preacherman.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Thanks for the post(s), Preacherman. This is, unfortunately, not the sort of analysis that we'll find in the Sunday paper.

And it would be great if some didn't start trying to create a "Moonie" Bush, a Hare Krishna Bush, or even a Baptist Bush. He's just a Bush, but with more guts than we've seen in a president in many decades.

 

[trooper]

Preacherman,

what bothers me is not the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. I approve of the liberation of the Iraqi people. I also realize that every war means casualties, both civilian and military. It's not this war as it is that bothers me but the way it was decided and prepared.

Maybe France and Germany should have argued more openly and not denounced the use of force right from the start, but on the other hand the US took a similarly rigid position during the whole process. The Bush administration said right from the beginning: "We'll go to war and there's not a damn thing you can do about it, so join us or **** off."

That's not the way to gather allies around one. If you compare it to the great diplomatic effort the US showed prior to the first gulf war you see a huge difference. Also, back then there were a number of Arab countries involved that gave the coalition credibility in the middle east, contrary to today's situation.

BTW, where do I come from, then?


Boats,

both France and Germany were already preparing plans to continue the weapons inspector's work and enforce the inspections with massive numbers of UN-led troops, but the US declined.

As for French interventions in Africa, you can't really compare an operation to evacuate a couple French citizens from a civil war region with the invasion of a country while intending to destroy its military forces and occupy it.


Regards,

Trooper

 

[0007]

french moves

Trooper,

you need to find an additional source for what the french are doing in africa. Suggest you take a look at the last couple of issue of Soldier of Fortune mag. But the short version is they are NOT just rescuing a couple of french citizens and then leaving.

 

[JohnBT]

"That's not the way to gather allies around one."

Sure it is. Our allies joined us, didn't they?

As for the others? Quite a few countries appear to have taken the position that their oil and weapons contracts with Iraq were of primary importance and used various clever excuses to avoid taking any meaningful action.

John

 

[OKC .45 ACP]

Thank you

Thank you, Preacherman, for posting that lecture. It was excellent.

Bob

 

[trooper]

"That's not the way to gather allies around one."

Sure it is. Our allies joined us, didn't they?

Yeah... countries like Rwanda... or Morocco...

If you want to build a coalition that enjoys real, broad support among civilized nations other than UK and Australia you cannot simply cast your position in stone and say "Take it or leave it", you have to negotiate.

I know what's coming now... this doesn't necessarily mean you have to give up or alter your opinion. It does, however, mean that you have to gather other's opinions together with your own and find the common things in it.

My take on the situation is that most of this disagreement could have been spared if France and Germany would have taken a more open position towards the use of force, and if the US wouldn't have insisted on war on its own terms.


Regards,

Trooper

 

[JohnBT]

We did not insist on war - it was visited upon us.

Civilized nations is it? Who is civilized and who is not is all in the eye of the beholder. A large number of U.S. citizens came here to get away from so-called civilized nations.

Your friends are where you find them.

As far as gathering the opinions of others...what if they are wrong?

John