</strong><hr></blockquote>Bonjour, my little "Old European" friend
This one just for you: "See that the President, the Cabinet and staff are informed. If cut out of the information flow, their decisions may be poor, not made, or not confidently or persuasively implemented." - Donald Rumsfeld
<strong>Some experts. We won our war despite the complete mismanagement of the Johnson Administration. By the end of the Nixon Administration, the war, by all measures, was won. Then came the Ford Administration with its self-perceived trembling legitimacy plus the democratically controlled House and Senate who threw our hard-won victory away.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Clearly, you've never seen the video of footage of the Saigon embassy being evacuated by helicopter during Nixon's administration. Nixon didn't win the war. Nixon had a policy of 'vietnamization', which was basically pull out the U.S. troops and let the Vietnamese fight their own battle.
<strong>Something like this?</strong><hr></blockquote>
An anti-US website?
[quote]<strong>And who imposed that system upon you? the french?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Way to dodge the question yet again!
Immanuel:
Don't even try, it's not worth it. New sponsors appeasement because that's the new global policy idea in Europe. They don't have to worry about it because they aren't going to be the ones who have to clean up the mess when it all goes sour.
--
powerdoc:
[quote]<strong>However the management of post WW2 by US and his allies was fine, Roosevelt learn the lessons of the failure of post WW1, and managed to avoid a new one.
Roosevelt was a great man, and manage the best of the twenty centuries US foreign policy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Point of fact: Harry Truman is the president who ended the war (in two mushroom clouds) and the president behind post-war rebuilding (thought it continued after his term).
[quote]<strong>Europe is not perfect, but with her help no war is possible between friendly countries.</strong><hr></blockquote>
...within Europe, not the world. The EU isn't going to change the world to a peaceful place.
I think the debate is between "containment" and "prevention," not appeasement per se.
I general, I feel like this and other threads around here are at best tangential to the basic issues of this Iraq thing. Seems kind of pointless to argue about whatever we're arguing about in here at this point when there such a lack of focus to the debate.
<strong>It's just dishonest to use the term 'appeasement' in this situation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What's a better term to use for a foreign policy whose aims are to back down from enforcing international law against a mass-murdering madman?
I'm open to new terms.
Buon brings in "containment" and "prevention" (which are essentially synonymous). Containment is something you do to an enemy that you are on equal footing with or at least could pose a real danger to you. It was our policy with Soviet Russia and I suppose in Europe's very weakened military state that's how it views any nation of reasonable military power. You can treat the symptoms, we can cure the disease.
If your goal is merely to keep yourself safe then no worries, mate, the US will happily provide you with that as it has for years. We can keep Saddam from attacking others, sure, but can we keep him from murdering his own en masse? Can we "contain" him without policies that murder his people en masse? Europe has had 12 years to enact such a plan and she seems more interested in internal affaris while hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die. Now when the US comes to do what it thinks is right a shrill scream comes that we must have peace even if there isn't peace for the Iraqi civilian today (since I don't consider dying of easily-preventable disease and malnutrition "peace").
I'm just so sick with the left wing media only talking about anti-war all the time. Case in point I live in central texas, austin to be exact ok so about a 1,000 people downtown protesting -that got a lot of press- and now about 20-30,000 people in katy, Tx demonstrating their support for america. The Polls say it across the world too, and averages out to be 59% for action 41% for containing, without a UN resoulation its 55%, 35%, 10% both. Sheesh people think of the benefits if Saddam was out of there, and the future generation of irag, could grow out of its strife with the rest of the world. These ani-war people its so sad, about 75% of them it seems is purely political, if it was a democrat in the office, it'd be completely different. All the media seems to be about is making it too difficult. Fortunately tho through all this, it seems like the system is working, with america's constant pressure, with/without war iraq is going to be looked at by the people of the world with a magnifying glass. Also it seems these anti-war mongers are waging a totally different type of war, one of which is disgusting, a PR war.
...within Europe, not the world. The EU isn't going to change the world to a peaceful place.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course i meant within Europe, i don't see how it can bring peace to the whole world.
This was an euro-centrist thought
[quote] Point of fact: Harry Truman is the president who ended the war (in two mushroom clouds) and the president behind post-war rebuilding (thought it continued after his term). <hr></blockquote>
yes, Truman did a good job too. . But i think that he was in the line of Roosevelt. I read some interview of Roosevelt : i find him impressive.
As far as I can tell it wasn't the islamist that tipped the vote. It was the secular guys. The president was in favor of the vote. Strange huh?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Where do you get your information from?
"The parliament vote was 264-250 in favor, with 19 abstentions. But speaker Bulent Arinc nullified the decision because it was four short of the required majority." - AP
The Turks need the US very much more than the other way around. But maybe they don?t: if this is a real change in orientation for the Turks. Joining forces with the Islamacist forces outside Turkey will be a setback to Turkey?s security, both militarily and economically, not to speak of their social development. US reaction to this will probably wait ?til the next elections to see whether the Islamacists are really that entrenched in that country.
Turkey has been forgiven many sins for its co-operation. If the Islamacists think that now that Turkey has modern military hardware they can go about and solve their Kurdish problem militarily, they?ll get a rude awakening.
<strong>I understand that the government as such is quite embarrassed by the "No thank you" vote. They were all for it, it is just that many of its own members voted against it reflecting people's opinion (apparently 80% of the population is against the U.S. attacking Iraq), which is maybe as it should be.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
They were not. Otherwise, inter-party disciple would have been excised. Obviously it was not.
<strong>No, not really. But I guess you won't be reading that story in "USA Today".
- T.I.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like many other ?British? media outlet, The Guardian is an Arabist media outlet, catering to the large Muslim population there. Basically, you?re reading the anglicized version of al-jazeera.
What's a better term to use for a foreign policy whose aims are to back down from enforcing international law against a mass-murdering madman? </strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Like many other ?British? media outlet, The Guardian is an Arabist media outlet, catering to the large Muslim population there. Basically, you?re reading the anglicized version of al-jazeera.</strong><hr></blockquote>I really wonder where you get all that from, zKillah. And even if that were the case, it would take nothing away from the story, anti-American as it may appear.
For what it's worth, the story appeared in today's "Observer", a U.K. Sunday paper.
Well now at least half of the human shields have found out what most of us already concluded for them. They got pissed because iraqi officials (or less corretly a Iraqi humanitarian organisation) told them where to stand and what to shield. And it wasn´t care centers or hospitals but oil producing facilities and the like. And now they are going home.
Good choice.
[ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: Anders the White ]</p>
Howso? Europe has threatened Saddam with the "severest consequences" (UN Resolution 1154, March 1998) and now "serious consquences" (UN Resolution 1441, November 2002). They are obligated to show full compliance and even today they have not answered all of Blix's questions, although they've had 4 months to do so.
You can say you don't want war, but to call that a straw man is intellectually dishonest.
Comments
Happy to see your special guest star apparence here from time to time.
<strong>And then there is <a href="http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905936,00.html"; target="_blank">Stuff like this.</a></strong><hr></blockquote>Now that does really surprise me. Not.
- T.I.
<strong>Nice sig TI.
</strong><hr></blockquote>Bonjour, my little "Old European" friend
This one just for you: "See that the President, the Cabinet and staff are informed. If cut out of the information flow, their decisions may be poor, not made, or not confidently or persuasively implemented." - Donald Rumsfeld
- T.I.
<strong>Some experts. We won our war despite the complete mismanagement of the Johnson Administration. By the end of the Nixon Administration, the war, by all measures, was won. Then came the Ford Administration with its self-perceived trembling legitimacy plus the democratically controlled House and Senate who threw our hard-won victory away.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Clearly, you've never seen the video of footage of the Saigon embassy being evacuated by helicopter during Nixon's administration. Nixon didn't win the war. Nixon had a policy of 'vietnamization', which was basically pull out the U.S. troops and let the Vietnamese fight their own battle.
<strong>Something like this?</strong><hr></blockquote>
An anti-US website?
[quote]<strong>And who imposed that system upon you? the french?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Way to dodge the question yet again!
Immanuel:
Don't even try, it's not worth it. New sponsors appeasement because that's the new global policy idea in Europe. They don't have to worry about it because they aren't going to be the ones who have to clean up the mess when it all goes sour.
--
powerdoc:
[quote]<strong>However the management of post WW2 by US and his allies was fine, Roosevelt learn the lessons of the failure of post WW1, and managed to avoid a new one.
Roosevelt was a great man, and manage the best of the twenty centuries US foreign policy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Point of fact: Harry Truman is the president who ended the war (in two mushroom clouds) and the president behind post-war rebuilding (thought it continued after his term).
[quote]<strong>Europe is not perfect, but with her help no war is possible between friendly countries.</strong><hr></blockquote>
...within Europe, not the world. The EU isn't going to change the world to a peaceful place.
<strong>...New sponsors appeasement because that's the new global policy idea in Europe.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's just dishonest to use the term 'appeasement' in this situation.
STRAW-MAN.
You use the term because it's easy to attack, not accurate. Try making accurate accusations instead.
I general, I feel like this and other threads around here are at best tangential to the basic issues of this Iraq thing. Seems kind of pointless to argue about whatever we're arguing about in here at this point when there such a lack of focus to the debate.
<strong>It's just dishonest to use the term 'appeasement' in this situation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What's a better term to use for a foreign policy whose aims are to back down from enforcing international law against a mass-murdering madman?
I'm open to new terms.
Buon brings in "containment" and "prevention" (which are essentially synonymous). Containment is something you do to an enemy that you are on equal footing with or at least could pose a real danger to you. It was our policy with Soviet Russia and I suppose in Europe's very weakened military state that's how it views any nation of reasonable military power. You can treat the symptoms, we can cure the disease.
If your goal is merely to keep yourself safe then no worries, mate, the US will happily provide you with that as it has for years. We can keep Saddam from attacking others, sure, but can we keep him from murdering his own en masse? Can we "contain" him without policies that murder his people en masse? Europe has had 12 years to enact such a plan and she seems more interested in internal affaris while hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die. Now when the US comes to do what it thinks is right a shrill scream comes that we must have peace even if there isn't peace for the Iraqi civilian today (since I don't consider dying of easily-preventable disease and malnutrition "peace").
<strong>
...within Europe, not the world. The EU isn't going to change the world to a peaceful place.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course i meant within Europe, i don't see how it can bring peace to the whole world.
This was an euro-centrist thought
[quote] Point of fact: Harry Truman is the president who ended the war (in two mushroom clouds) and the president behind post-war rebuilding (thought it continued after his term). <hr></blockquote>
yes, Truman did a good job too.
[ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>
<strong>
As far as I can tell it wasn't the islamist that tipped the vote. It was the secular guys. The president was in favor of the vote. Strange huh?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Where do you get your information from?
"The parliament vote was 264-250 in favor, with 19 abstentions. But speaker Bulent Arinc nullified the decision because it was four short of the required majority." - AP
The Turks need the US very much more than the other way around. But maybe they don?t: if this is a real change in orientation for the Turks. Joining forces with the Islamacist forces outside Turkey will be a setback to Turkey?s security, both militarily and economically, not to speak of their social development. US reaction to this will probably wait ?til the next elections to see whether the Islamacists are really that entrenched in that country.
Turkey has been forgiven many sins for its co-operation. If the Islamacists think that now that Turkey has modern military hardware they can go about and solve their Kurdish problem militarily, they?ll get a rude awakening.
<strong>An anti-US website?</strong><hr></blockquote>No, not really. But I guess you won't be reading that story in "USA Today".
- T.I.
<strong>I understand that the government as such is quite embarrassed by the "No thank you" vote. They were all for it, it is just that many of its own members voted against it reflecting people's opinion (apparently 80% of the population is against the U.S. attacking Iraq), which is maybe as it should be.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
They were not. Otherwise, inter-party disciple would have been excised. Obviously it was not.
<strong>No, not really. But I guess you won't be reading that story in "USA Today".
- T.I.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like many other ?British? media outlet, The Guardian is an Arabist media outlet, catering to the large Muslim population there. Basically, you?re reading the anglicized version of al-jazeera.
[ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: zKillah ]</p>
<strong>
What's a better term to use for a foreign policy whose aims are to back down from enforcing international law against a mass-murdering madman? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Straw-man....
<strong>but why was the Vietnam war fought in the first place? Thats a much more important question.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why do you think? Why do you think Russia sent troops to Soviet satellites to keep them Soviet satellites?
<strong>Like many other ?British? media outlet, The Guardian is an Arabist media outlet, catering to the large Muslim population there. Basically, you?re reading the anglicized version of al-jazeera.</strong><hr></blockquote>I really wonder where you get all that from, zKillah. And even if that were the case, it would take nothing away from the story, anti-American as it may appear.
For what it's worth, the story appeared in today's "Observer", a U.K. Sunday paper.
- T.I.
Good choice.
[ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: Anders the White ]</p>
<strong>Straw-man....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Howso? Europe has threatened Saddam with the "severest consequences" (UN Resolution 1154, March 1998) and now "serious consquences" (UN Resolution 1441, November 2002). They are obligated to show full compliance and even today they have not answered all of Blix's questions, although they've had 4 months to do so.
You can say you don't want war, but to call that a straw man is intellectually dishonest.