US Congress vs "Old Europe"
Although I've been labeled a "non thinking pseudo patriot" (or something like that) I do think this backlash embargo against Europe is bullshit. So they don't agree? They're too buddy buddy with Sadam to do anything about him? Taking it to this level is just dumb IMO.
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2753669.stm"; target="_blank">Congress lashes out at 'old Europe'</a> liberal approved BBC web site
[quote]US lawmakers are threatening to take retaliatory action against France, Belgium and Germany for their opposition to US policy towards Iraq.
Anger with the French and German stand has led some US congressmen to call for a trade boycott of French products and the withdrawal of some US troops from Germany.
....<hr></blockquote>
[ 02-12-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2753669.stm"; target="_blank">Congress lashes out at 'old Europe'</a> liberal approved BBC web site
[quote]US lawmakers are threatening to take retaliatory action against France, Belgium and Germany for their opposition to US policy towards Iraq.
Anger with the French and German stand has led some US congressmen to call for a trade boycott of French products and the withdrawal of some US troops from Germany.
....<hr></blockquote>
[ 02-12-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
Comments
Hyperbole?!?
probably . . .
I hope so . . .
Meanwhile the inspectors, who are not supposed to be finding weapons, but be presented with proof of destruction of previously declared weapons and materials, are not only NOT finding the weapons and materials destroyed, but are finding current weapons that are in clear violation of U.N. accords.
France, Germany and Belgium should enforce the U.N. resolutions and the NATO accord. If they don't care to help in the small ways (not like they can really help as fully as us with the actual fighting, especially the cowardly French) then what is the point of them being an ally?
I'm not saying that countries can't have disagreements. However it isn't as if there isn't any history here. If this were 1990 and we were declaring that Saddam might attack Kuwait and wanted to stop them preemptively, I could understand the reticence. But this is after the fact and he has been given 12 years to come clean.
Nick
An economic boycott is stupid. It would only hurt both sides and the rift isn't so bad that we have need to take such steps. If people want to do it on their own that is fine although I still think it is a bit silly. But it is not something that Congress should be seriously contemplating.
NATO needs a broader review of purpose. The purported new aims were to make it an anti-terrorist organization. But it isn't equiped to do that and a lot of those functions are more likely to be carried out by police services anyway. It still has some value but again, the end of the Cold War has left it as far less meaningful.
However, NATO still exists as a cooperative group for the defense of member states. If Turkey feels it is threatened by potential actions of Iraq, and France and Germany refuse to aid them, then they have essentially ignored the reason for NATO's existence. So, pulling the troops out, that were going to leave anyway and implying it is partly in response to those countries refusal to aid a fellow member, would make a statement, possibly a statement worth making.
<strong>Pretty much agree with ColanderOfDeath post. Econimic actions against these countries would be stupid, but pulling out troops make sense. Economically and strategically, it no longer makes sense for the US to maintain nearly the level of troops in Europe. So, it would be an economic savings to reduce and redeploy the troops.
However, NATO still exists as a cooperative group for the defense of member states. If Turkey feels it is threatened by potential actions of Iraq, and France and Germany refuse to aid them, then they have essentially ignored the reason for NATO's existence. So, pulling the troops out, that were going to leave anyway and implying it is partly in response to those countries refusal to aid a fellow member, would make a statement, possibly a statement worth making.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The important word is potential. France Germany and Belgium want a NATO resolution before reinforcing Turkey forces.
<a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0209.clark.html"; target="_blank">http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0209.clark.html</a>;
Its a bit long, but makes some good points about why its not good to play cowboy by yourself too often.
[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: cowerd ]</p>
__________________ <hr></blockquote>
Except the problem is that France, Germany, and Belgium VETOED the NATO resolution.
Until they can get over WWII and grow a set of balls each I say we sit them out of the world stage.
[quote] The United States has the opportunity to use the power of the international institutions it established to triumph over terrorists who threaten not just the United States, but the world. What a tragedy it will be if we walk away from our own efforts, and from 60 years of post-World War II experience, to tackle the problem of terror without using fully the instruments of international law and persuasion that we ourselves created. <hr></blockquote>
There was great cooperation between US and old europe in the last decade (Iraq, kosovo, afghanistan). It will be sad that a temporary crisis between governements make degenerate the good relationships between the citizens of both continents. We remove FSC from AI because it's sucked, it would be sad if the world become a giant FSC forum.
<strong>
Except the problem is that France, Germany, and Belgium VETOED the NATO resolution.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My mistake, i meant UNO resolution. Sorry for the confusion.
<strong>It's no coincidence that these three nations border each other.
Until they can get over WWII and grow a set of balls each I say we sit them out of the world stage.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well it's true that these countries did not live WW2, the same way than some others countries. Anyway we where not alone to suffer. But i do not think that these countries lived WW2 exactly in the same way. Germany looks more than Japon : they have the same denial to be implied in outside conflicts, even if Germany tend to be more implied in foreign conflicts than in the past.
<strong>I think that the General pointed out an important element of the diplomatic crisis :
There was great cooperation between US and old europe in the last decade (Iraq, kosovo, afghanistan). It will be sad that a temporary crisis between governements make degenerate the good relationships between the citizens of both continents. We remove FSC from AI because it's sucked, it would be sad if the world become a giant FSC forum.
Well, NATO went into Yugoslavia without a UN mandate. That was more akin to going in and disarming Iraq than defending Turkey. In the current NATO crisis, France and Germany are refusing to support/allow NATO to defend a member state, but in Yugo they were attacking a dangerous regime. So, the won't help defend an ally and member of Nato, but when it suits them they will support bombing a country that posed no immediate threat to outside nations. Seems they only grow balls when it suits them.
[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: Tulkas ]</p>
<strong>
However, NATO still exists as a cooperative group for the defense of member states. If Turkey feels it is threatened by potential actions of Iraq, and France and Germany refuse to aid them, then they have essentially ignored the reason for NATO's existence.</strong><hr></blockquote>
NATO is a defence organisation. It was never the intention of it to protect a country if it initiates a war. The idea of a defence organisation is not to have a back up if your military adventures into another country backfires. Then it would be a organisation of attack.
If we tried to invade Sweden and they striked back on Copenhagen I would not expect NATO to come to our aid. Nor should they.
Two more points:
-Hussein doesn´t control the part of Iraq that boarders Turkey
-Turkey routinely sent their own army into Iraq to fight the kurds.
For what purpose? All of the requested items are purely defensive. Is Turkey not entitled to all measures it views necessary for its own defense? As a NATO member do these 3 countries not have a binding obligation to support Turkey's defense? Does Turkey's defense matter only at certain times or should it not always have immediate importance? Should France give up its defensive weapons because they send the a message that France will be defended to anyone who might attack it which is the wrong message to send at anytime?
The whole assertion that this sends the wrong message to Iraq is flawed. The message sent in deploying Patriot Missiles, AWACs and biounits etc is utterly trivial in comparison to both messages sent by the massive offensive capabilities being brought to bear regionally by the US and secondly the message sent by the UN resolution which threatened Serious Consequences (understood by all to be war) if Iraq did not end its material breach and begin compliance and cooperation immediately. Can you honestly say with a straight face that Iraq is not disarming because they feel the situation is hopeless because some Patriot missiles are being sent to Turkey? I mean really. Iraq is not disarming because they don't want to disarm and if Saddam is staying up at night worring about NATO weapons you can be damn sure he is worried about aircraft carriers and marines and not patriot missiles in Turkey.
Furthermore the complete destruction of the concept of the use of force threat can be blamed on France and Germany. For better or worse threatening military force can and does work sometimes. Threatening to use force is not the same as using force. If these two had stuck by and presented a unified front that appeared resolved to the question then there would have been a high probability of success with a peaceful tact to the situation. I still doubt that it would have made a difference but we'll never get to know. By openly stating repeating opposition to the use of force the French and to a lesser (no veto) extent the Germans have blunted the threat to Iraq and made it far easier for Saddam to continue playing games. If the French really were never willing to use force they should never have agreed to 1441 because it was an If->Then statement were the Then is War and the If was Saddam's non-compliance which any two bit idiot could have foreseen was extremely likely to happen.
[quote]There was great cooperation between US and old europe in the last decade (Iraq, kosovo, afghanistan). <hr></blockquote>
As you will recall Belgium refused to give Britain weapons, I believe that it was artillery shells as they requested during the buildup for the first gulf war.
Likewise Belgium played a small role militarily. France's was a bit larger. Germany IIRC went through an uncertain period because they were not even sure if they could deploy troops overseas by German law though this question seems to now have been resolved in the affirmative. However it was an open question at the time and I'm not sure if they participated or not.
As far as Rumsfeld's old Europe comment, it was ill advised and unnecessarily abrasive and divisive. Nevertheless the point has some validity and the context is important. The question which spurred that comment was framed such that the reporter worded how the US responded to opposition from European govts premised on the equating of France and Germany to Europe. As has been pointed out, a variety of other European govts such as Spain, Italy, Poland, Britain and several others have back the US govts position. Rumsfeld was correct in so far as many other European govt do support the US position.
Much as it may pain Germany and France to admit it their powers are also diluted now. Europe is a bigger place and that makes them a smaller part of their neighborhood even if they are still the biggest kids on the block along with the UK. Furthermore, their militaries are weaker than ever, their populations are stagnant, their economies have sustained lower growth and growth potential and their cultural influence is decreasing. They are mature countries who are very stable, and good countries on the whole. But they are countries whose prominence figures to have been greater during the 20th century than the 21st. Countries like China and perhaps India, maybe Russia are the ones who will emerge as the most important countries of the new century in all likelihood. Moreover the growth potential economically for Europe is in Central and Eastern Europe more so than the west. I'm sorry if this makes those countries or their citizens feel jealous of the US or other countries but it is reality.
While Europe was largely behind Kosovo, I'm sure you'll also recall that that was not a UN sanctioned military action. It was never brought before the Security Council for a vote because everyone knew that the Russians would have vetoed any action. Of course, most Europeans didn't have any qualms with working outside of an international body on that issue because they agreed with it. They're certainly entitled to disagree with the US position on the Iraq problem but the contention that any action must take place under the auspices of the UN rings a bit hollow considering what happened a mere four years ago. For that matter, count up all of the other military actions between countries or civil wars since the UN was founded.
[quote]Until they can get over WWII and grow a set of balls each I say we sit them out of the world stage<hr></blockquote>
Personally I don't particularly blame Germany. Firstly, they didnt join the Security Council till a month ago so they didn't vote for 1441 in the first place. So no hypocrisy there in not supported the consequences spelled out in it. Secondly they do have a legitimate strain of pacifism which is very strong. They have basically been peacekeepers in a few places in the last decade and have fought no wars since WWII. This really is not such a bad thing. And it has understandable historical roots in what went down with the first two world wars. I think it is fine if Germany wants nothing to do with attacking anyone else in particular a preemptive attack, UN mandate or not. But if that is to be their solution to every problem, I'm not sure that they belong on the Security Council.
The one think I do blame Schroeder for is the politicizing of the Iraq issue basically to get himself reelected. That was a little bit sleazy. And worse yet he employed some anti-American rhethoric, perpetuating the cowboy stereotype in the process. Of course the Germans are ready to lynch him for their economy anyway so I wouldnt worry too much about him. His days are numbered.
I have no idea what the **** the Belgians are doing. Surely there are some waffles that need to be toasted or something else they can do that would be more productive.
The French are trying to play both sides as usual. And to some extent the French are in a tough position politically because their people are strongly anti-war. But even still they are playing games, grandstanding as usual. This is typical French politics, they love to pretend that they matter and act as if they are independent from the US and then capitulate in the end. I doubt that this time will be any different. Of course the funny part is that by trying so hard to pretend that they are important they have pushed the US away from the UN which is the one body where they still enjoy parity with important countries like Britian, China, Russia and the US. Additionally I have no problem blaming France in general for ****ing things up since French and British colonialism is responsible more so than anything else the West has done IMO for how bass ackwards much of the Middle East and Africa is. Look at the troublespots in the world and see how many of them are impoverished. formerly colonies which became warzones after spin offs. Isreal Palestine. India Pakistan. Afghanstian. Congo, hey, something to blame the Belgians for! Nigeria. Ivory Coast. It goes on and on. I suppose since I am blaming the French I have to give the British their due share of the blame as well.
[quote]It will be sad that a temporary crisis between governements make degenerate the good relationships between the citizens of both continents. We remove FSC from AI because it's sucked, it would be sad if the world become a giant FSC forum.<hr></blockquote>
I'm not convinced it is temporary. Now that Europe finally has relative peace (thanks in large part to the US) the Europeans have increasingly idealistic notions about solving world events in concert with what I think can fairly be termed a strong liberal agenda. Europeans talk openly of ending world hunger, AIDS, world peace etc; we Americans including a lot of the American left have basically given up on the idealized liberal agenda for better or worse.
Meanwhile the US population as a whole has gotten more conservative. And 9/11 has changed the international equation, at least for this decade. I'm not sure if Europeans, besides Blair, fully appreciate that yet. There is an increasing fundamental difference on the issue of force and morality. Moreover you can see in the issues of the role of the security council, international criminal court, Kyoto etc that there is also a fundamental difference in the role in which international bodies ought to play in the world and in which international law may apply to non-govt entities. While the US does support international mechanisms, it is primarily in terms of intergovernmental relations rather than applying to corporations or individuals which we (we as in the majority of Americans) tend to view as the domain of a nation's laws. Europe tends to see these increasingly as international issues which ought to be controlled by international bodies.
No but that doesn't mean that some of his henchmen can't get to the Turkish border and raise trouble. But the closeness to the border is mostly irrelevant anyway. He has missiles which besides violating UN limits on their range can also reach Turkey. He may only have a few dozen or just a few, or maybe more depending on who you believe but he does have at least some that can attack Turkey.
A war against Iraq is a nonsense ! The only reason of all this is because Bush wants to control oil in this region !
Well, Saddam is a dictator, but I think he's not alone and not the worst.
Should I say North Korea ? Why can't I hear anything about US invading NK ?
And there's no Al Qaeda in Iraq... In fact Ben Laden hates Saddam...
US people should stop watching their Bush-TV propaganda and start thinking !
[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: Niconono ]</p>
- for most US people, the war with Iraq is one of the battle related to 9/11: the war continue, and his allies has to help them.
- for most european people, the war with iraq is not related to 9/11, the war against terrorism almost stop with the aghanistan war, even if there is terrorist all around the world. But most europeans people think that the conventional war related to 9/11 is finish, and thus it's not defense but attack.
For nearly the first time of history , a new concept is born, preemptive war : destroying a threat before it appear : it has never been deal with it before. If you want to make a paralellar (for what it worth) minority report from Spielberg ask some good questions about preemptive actions.
what about Israel in the same area ? People are dying each day for nothing...
stupid deaths for stupid peoples.
Sorry to say this but Saddam is not the worst.
How many countrie are killing their prisonners ?
And do you know who they are ?