We tend to look the other way concerning that working with the rest of the world stuff when comes to our own interests concerning oil. Even more with Bush the war monger. Witness the fact that we are still making noises like we're going to attack when the inspectors in Bagdad have found nothing. If we do and still find no proof it will truly be a low point in american history for future historians. I suppose SDW and the rest have found a way to rationalize and live with that. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
there were two pundits: one very intelligent from Georgetown and one ideologue ex defense department administrator, Babbin.
this latter guy said quite firmly what people like finboy and scott have said, that Europe is irrelevent.
the problem is is that he is thinking about immediate terms, about their economic impact and their military power as it stands right now.
the other fellow was very smart and well spoken and seemed to think that we should at least pay homage to the idea that there is a process of legitimization of what is legal that depends upon more than simply one government-with-a-lot-of-gun's idea of the law . . . in other words, that if we pretend to care about legality and justice then we should acknowledge that the process of establishing a legal standard is not merely out of political/economic "relevence" or, out of might.
Babbin even went so far as to blame Blix for not looking hard enough . . . .
He just doesn't get it: the world wants proof
let me repeat:
The WORLD wants proof!!!
if we have let it out of the bag . . . I think that if this proof is established, then even France, Russia, China, Greece, Germany . . . not to mention Arab countries, would back action . . . I am pretty sure of it
There appears more and more to be reasons why we are doing whatever we can to make it a solo go in Iraq . . . which would justify all of the anti-Americanistic ideas that it is soley out of material interests...ie: oil and strategic position . . .
prove them wrong, GWB, by letting the cat out of the bag . . . or is it like Schrodinger's cat: it is nonexistent unless we physically know it is there?!?!
this latter guy said quite firmly what people like finboy and scott have said, that Europe is irrelevent.
...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't remember making such a blanket statement.
Militarily Europe is irrelevant. It has no ability to project real power even with in Europe. Europe can't even police it's own continent and needs the US to do it for them. Europe plays a token role and that's about it. Excepting the UK and adding in Canada.
Diplomatically I think they are too. But mostly because they are more concerned with meaningless feel good agreement that go unenforced rather than improving the world. Europe has a hard time taking a stand and not moving from it.
Economically Europe is also irrelevant. Their economy is stagnant and will be overrun by asia in the future.
That covers just about everything ... oops . But there's a special relationship between the democracies of the world. In that sense Europe is not irrelevant.
Also I find it very telling that the person you agreed with on the show was the "smart" and "intelligent" one and the other was not.
h, for the halcyon days of a year ago, when we fretted about why Arabs hate us. Now the question is: Why does everybody hate us?
The European edition of Time magazine has been conducting a poll on its Web site: "Which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?" With 318,000 votes cast so far, the responses are: North Korea, 7 percent; Iraq, 8 percent; the United States, 84 percent.
O.K., it's just an Internet poll and not worth the pixels it's not printed on. Sure, the Poles and Portuguese may still dance with us. But if there were an extra spot on the axis of evil, the world would vote us in. Somehow, in a year's time, we've become Iraq.
John le Carré put it this way in a (representatively venomous) essay this month in The Times of London: "America has entered one of its periods of historic madness, but this is the worst I can remember."
So what should we make of this? Does it matter that we've somehow morphed in public perceptions from the world's only superpower to the world's super-rogue state?
Of course it matters.
The macho notion that we'll do what we choose and if the world doesn't like it, it can go [insert expletive here] is both ludicrous and dangerous. We mustn't become slaves to foreign opinion, but neither should we glibly dismiss it as we prepare to launch a war that will hugely aggravate this distemper ? which will nurture more terrorism.
One example: In 1991 the U.S. leaned on Saudi Arabia to let us keep military bases there after the gulf war. We ignored its concerns about public opinion because the bases would improve our security.
Wrong. In fact the bases radicalized many young Saudis, and persuaded Osama bin Laden to turn his sights on the U.S. What seemed a shrewd move to improve our security ended up undermining our friends and strengthening our enemies.
Moreover, while the lack of allied support won't prevent us from getting into a war with Iraq, it may prevent us from getting out. The U.S. sees its role as the globe's SWAT team, but after we have ousted Saddam and whistled for the cleanup crew it's not clear that the allies will want to help. Nor will they pay the bill for this Iraq war as they did the last one. Each time Don Rumsfeld insults Europe, it costs us another $20 billion.
It's also possible that if all your friends say you're making a mistake, they're not mendacious back-stabbers but simply right. As Kipling said: "trust yourself when all men doubt you / But make allowance for their doubting too."
In fairness, I also have to say that President Bush is right that we must reserve the option of invading countries unilaterally. Think back to 1993, when we let European passivity, particularly by John Major and François Mitterrand, block military strikes in Yugoslavia until tens of thousands of people had been killed. In retrospect we should have ignored the Europeans and unilaterally attacked Serbia to stop the genocide. Ditto in Rwanda. But in Iraq there is no such urgency.
Of course the anti-Americanism is unfair. It's particularly irritating coming from the French, who pandered shamelessly to Baghdad during the 1990's to get oil-for-food contracts, thus undermining containment and creating today's crisis.
Yes, the French can be exasperating. Years ago I worked for a summer on a French farm, and my boss constantly denounced the English as penible ? tiresome ? so one day I asked why. "Because they fought us at Waterloo!" he stormed, arms flailing. "If Napoleon had been left alone, he could have created a common market 150 years ago. It was penible of them to resist!"
But just because the French can be penible doesn't mean they are always wrong. The French and Germans have a real argument against invading Iraq ? that containment and deterrence are better than invasion. While it's fair to disagree, it's puerile to refuse to listen.
The most sensible suggestion for confronting anti-Americanism comes from one prominent American official: "It really depends on how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us."
That was George W. Bush in the second presidential debate. He was dead right ? back then.
here's a defector on from the right that says that the war will cause further isolation of the US. . . and, as he puts it, set up the card tables in front of the Universities of Muslim nations
Chris Mathews: [quote]
We've got to recognize that when we march into Iraq, we're setting up the card tables in front of every university in the Arab world, the Islamic world, to recruit for al-Qaida. Why don't we just go set up the card tables ourselves, right now? Sign them up to commit suicide. And you never hear anybody talking about this. It would be helpful if there were someone telling the president, well, yes, there is this danger from Iraq, but there's almost a certitude of inflaming the world against us if we intervene. <hr></blockquote>
and more: [quote] Unity is the most important thing on the road to stamping out terror. You need global rules of law and order, and they have to be enforced. Start with that principle. Certain arms agreements have to be enforced. There has to be respect for multilateral action. Then you use all that force to stop certain things from happening.
You don't say, like the Bush crowd, "I got this guy over here and I don't like him and I'm gonna get him, whether you back me or not." That's like what's-his-name, the guy who shot the kids in the subway? <hr></blockquote>
and more:
[quote] Well, the right-wing policy with regard to Israel -- the people who don't want to deal with Arafat, who don't want a Palestinian state -- the whole sort of right-wing view is consistent with the view toward Iraq. It's the same policy and the same people. The conservative media world, the Bill Kristols, they're all saying, "Don't deal with Arafat, and push regime change in Iraq." It's all the same policy, and that's the policy that's destroying this administration.
And then what? On to Iran, on to Syria? If you talk to the conservatives who come on my show, they want to squeeze Iran and Syria, maybe Lebanon too. And I don't know how much of this is the president's policy himself. You don't know whether he's thought through how this is going to affect the Middle East. I mean, they contend we're going to be received as liberators, not aggressors or colonizers. Well, how do they know? I mean, somebody honest like Ken Pollack will say, "You know, we don't really know." We're taking on a billion people. A battle for Baghdad could ignite a war with Islam. I think people in the Muslim world are going to see this as the Second Crusades. Every geography book in the world is going to say "American-occupied Iraq" over the map of Iraq. That's going to be the most glaring indignity the Arabs have ever faced. Every school in the Arab world will be a madrass school. <hr></blockquote>
Comments
[quote] Two Arabs are chatting. One of them has his
wallet out and is flipping through pictures. Proudly,
he pulls two out to show his friend.
"This is my oldest son. He's a martyr. And
here is my second son. He's a martyr, too."
There's a pause, and the second Arab says wistfully,
"Ah, they blow up so fast, don't they? <hr></blockquote>
there were two pundits: one very intelligent from Georgetown and one ideologue ex defense department administrator, Babbin.
this latter guy said quite firmly what people like finboy and scott have said, that Europe is irrelevent.
the problem is is that he is thinking about immediate terms, about their economic impact and their military power as it stands right now.
the other fellow was very smart and well spoken and seemed to think that we should at least pay homage to the idea that there is a process of legitimization of what is legal that depends upon more than simply one government-with-a-lot-of-gun's idea of the law . . . in other words, that if we pretend to care about legality and justice then we should acknowledge that the process of establishing a legal standard is not merely out of political/economic "relevence" or, out of might.
Babbin even went so far as to blame Blix for not looking hard enough . . . .
He just doesn't get it: the world wants proof
let me repeat:
The WORLD wants proof!!!
if we have let it out of the bag . . . I think that if this proof is established, then even France, Russia, China, Greece, Germany . . . not to mention Arab countries, would back action . . . I am pretty sure of it
There appears more and more to be reasons why we are doing whatever we can to make it a solo go in Iraq . . . which would justify all of the anti-Americanistic ideas that it is soley out of material interests...ie: oil and strategic position . . .
prove them wrong, GWB, by letting the cat out of the bag . . . or is it like Schrodinger's cat: it is nonexistent unless we physically know it is there?!?!
[ 01-21-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
<strong>...
this latter guy said quite firmly what people like finboy and scott have said, that Europe is irrelevent.
...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't remember making such a blanket statement.
Militarily Europe is irrelevant. It has no ability to project real power even with in Europe. Europe can't even police it's own continent and needs the US to do it for them. Europe plays a token role and that's about it. Excepting the UK and adding in Canada.
Diplomatically I think they are too. But mostly because they are more concerned with meaningless feel good agreement that go unenforced rather than improving the world. Europe has a hard time taking a stand and not moving from it.
Economically Europe is also irrelevant. Their economy is stagnant and will be overrun by asia in the future.
That covers just about everything ... oops
Also I find it very telling that the person you agreed with on the show was the "smart" and "intelligent" one and the other was not.
[ 01-21-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
<strong>
IAlso I find it very telling that the person you agreed with on the show was the "smart" and "intelligent" one and the other was not.
</strong><hr></blockquote>well, that goes without saying . . . or well perhaps it should have
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
h, for the halcyon days of a year ago, when we fretted about why Arabs hate us. Now the question is: Why does everybody hate us?
The European edition of Time magazine has been conducting a poll on its Web site: "Which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?" With 318,000 votes cast so far, the responses are: North Korea, 7 percent; Iraq, 8 percent; the United States, 84 percent.
O.K., it's just an Internet poll and not worth the pixels it's not printed on. Sure, the Poles and Portuguese may still dance with us. But if there were an extra spot on the axis of evil, the world would vote us in. Somehow, in a year's time, we've become Iraq.
John le Carré put it this way in a (representatively venomous) essay this month in The Times of London: "America has entered one of its periods of historic madness, but this is the worst I can remember."
So what should we make of this? Does it matter that we've somehow morphed in public perceptions from the world's only superpower to the world's super-rogue state?
Of course it matters.
The macho notion that we'll do what we choose and if the world doesn't like it, it can go [insert expletive here] is both ludicrous and dangerous. We mustn't become slaves to foreign opinion, but neither should we glibly dismiss it as we prepare to launch a war that will hugely aggravate this distemper ? which will nurture more terrorism.
One example: In 1991 the U.S. leaned on Saudi Arabia to let us keep military bases there after the gulf war. We ignored its concerns about public opinion because the bases would improve our security.
Wrong. In fact the bases radicalized many young Saudis, and persuaded Osama bin Laden to turn his sights on the U.S. What seemed a shrewd move to improve our security ended up undermining our friends and strengthening our enemies.
Moreover, while the lack of allied support won't prevent us from getting into a war with Iraq, it may prevent us from getting out. The U.S. sees its role as the globe's SWAT team, but after we have ousted Saddam and whistled for the cleanup crew it's not clear that the allies will want to help. Nor will they pay the bill for this Iraq war as they did the last one. Each time Don Rumsfeld insults Europe, it costs us another $20 billion.
It's also possible that if all your friends say you're making a mistake, they're not mendacious back-stabbers but simply right. As Kipling said: "trust yourself when all men doubt you / But make allowance for their doubting too."
In fairness, I also have to say that President Bush is right that we must reserve the option of invading countries unilaterally. Think back to 1993, when we let European passivity, particularly by John Major and François Mitterrand, block military strikes in Yugoslavia until tens of thousands of people had been killed. In retrospect we should have ignored the Europeans and unilaterally attacked Serbia to stop the genocide. Ditto in Rwanda. But in Iraq there is no such urgency.
Of course the anti-Americanism is unfair. It's particularly irritating coming from the French, who pandered shamelessly to Baghdad during the 1990's to get oil-for-food contracts, thus undermining containment and creating today's crisis.
Yes, the French can be exasperating. Years ago I worked for a summer on a French farm, and my boss constantly denounced the English as penible ? tiresome ? so one day I asked why. "Because they fought us at Waterloo!" he stormed, arms flailing. "If Napoleon had been left alone, he could have created a common market 150 years ago. It was penible of them to resist!"
But just because the French can be penible doesn't mean they are always wrong. The French and Germans have a real argument against invading Iraq ? that containment and deterrence are better than invasion. While it's fair to disagree, it's puerile to refuse to listen.
The most sensible suggestion for confronting anti-Americanism comes from one prominent American official: "It really depends on how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us."
That was George W. Bush in the second presidential debate. He was dead right ? back then.
<hr></blockquote>
Chris Mathews: [quote]
We've got to recognize that when we march into Iraq, we're setting up the card tables in front of every university in the Arab world, the Islamic world, to recruit for al-Qaida. Why don't we just go set up the card tables ourselves, right now? Sign them up to commit suicide. And you never hear anybody talking about this. It would be helpful if there were someone telling the president, well, yes, there is this danger from Iraq, but there's almost a certitude of inflaming the world against us if we intervene. <hr></blockquote>
and more: [quote] Unity is the most important thing on the road to stamping out terror. You need global rules of law and order, and they have to be enforced. Start with that principle. Certain arms agreements have to be enforced. There has to be respect for multilateral action. Then you use all that force to stop certain things from happening.
You don't say, like the Bush crowd, "I got this guy over here and I don't like him and I'm gonna get him, whether you back me or not." That's like what's-his-name, the guy who shot the kids in the subway? <hr></blockquote>
and more:
[quote] Well, the right-wing policy with regard to Israel -- the people who don't want to deal with Arafat, who don't want a Palestinian state -- the whole sort of right-wing view is consistent with the view toward Iraq. It's the same policy and the same people. The conservative media world, the Bill Kristols, they're all saying, "Don't deal with Arafat, and push regime change in Iraq." It's all the same policy, and that's the policy that's destroying this administration.
And then what? On to Iran, on to Syria? If you talk to the conservatives who come on my show, they want to squeeze Iran and Syria, maybe Lebanon too. And I don't know how much of this is the president's policy himself. You don't know whether he's thought through how this is going to affect the Middle East. I mean, they contend we're going to be received as liberators, not aggressors or colonizers. Well, how do they know? I mean, somebody honest like Ken Pollack will say, "You know, we don't really know." We're taking on a billion people. A battle for Baghdad could ignite a war with Islam. I think people in the Muslim world are going to see this as the Second Crusades. Every geography book in the world is going to say "American-occupied Iraq" over the map of Iraq. That's going to be the most glaring indignity the Arabs have ever faced. Every school in the Arab world will be a madrass school. <hr></blockquote>