Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ANALYSIS: An Even-Handed Look at American, European Relations

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Oncle Boris


    Basically, the economic interests of Britain got intertwined with those of America. Between 1900 and 1939, America increasingly became an important investing force in British colonies, surpassing Britain itself in some.

    When Britain (and France, Netherlands) could not hold their colonies anymore, somehow America had to protect their economic interests (and those of its allies, if Marshall was to work), out of fear that nationalist movements would install communism. This is what I define as neo-imperialism, the large scale trade of weapons and funding of affiliated right-wing military guerillas.
    Wouldn't the same thing by the Soviets, but of left-wing groups, also be neoimperialism?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Ned
      Thanks Spiffor.

      And, you can take it to the bank, what I am saying is what many Americans are saying and feeling. There is a huge anti-French and anti-European opinion here mainly because of the fallout from Iraq.

      It is one thing to disagree with a course of action. It is another to openly oppose American policy under circumstances where we have declared our vital national interests to be at stake -- even if Europe disagrees that they are.

      It is one thing to disagree with policies of an American president. It is another to ridicule him.

      We assume that Europe and France are on the side of peace, stability and democracy. We should be working together to make the world a better place for every inhabitant on this planet. But frankly, the European attitude about Saddam Hussein is hardly comprehensible. There is little doubt that had France gotten its way from 1990 on, that Saddam Hussein would have been in power today, not only in Iraq, but also in Kuwait and probably in Saudi Arabia and the entire Persian Gulf. Tell me I'm wrong about this. Tell me how this dictatorial madman was a benefit to mankind. Explain to me why eliminating his regime was not good for the world.
      You're wrong, Ned.

      The thing about Saddam is pure bull****. We had a huge "coalition of the willing", which INCLUDED France and Germany, when we went into Kuwait.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Oncle Boris
        This whole thing about WW2 is silly. When facing an enemy like the Nazis, you would be hard-pressed to be on the side of the bad guys.

        I don't see why America's involvement 60 years ago should dictate how we view post-WW2 foreign policy.
        It's the idea that America has bailed Europe out twice in the past century, and so Europe "owes us one". I'm not supporting them, just explaining.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Kucinich


          You're wrong, Ned.

          The thing about Saddam is pure bull****. We had a huge "coalition of the willing", which INCLUDED France and Germany, when we went into Kuwait.
          After the Nov. Resolution authorizing force if Saddam did not pull out of Kuwait by Jan. 15, France did its best to negotiate a way out for Saddam.

          It is true, though, that France did participate in Desert Storm.
          http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

          Comment


          • Yes. French Foreign Legion acted effeciently taking out the city of... (?) and didn't lose a single soldier in it, thanks to their fast action, high training and courage methods of fighting.
            In da butt.
            "Do not worry if others do not understand you. Instead worry if you do not understand others." - Confucius
            THE UNDEFEATED SUPERCITIZEN w:4 t:2 l:1 (DON'T ASK!)
            "God is dead" - Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" - God.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by notyoueither


              I was filing it under flights of fancy while I hit the submit button, but... the possibility exists that they will become unwilling to send troops outside of the hemisphere for any reason at all. If that happens there is then a large vacuum. Someone will fill that vacuum. Will they be better or worse than the Yanks?
              I'd say the possibility of that is so remote as to not even be worth considering.

              But, to play along for just a little while:
              If that came to pass, I doubt it would be a sudden, radical shift. The US would slowly wind down and make it clear that they no longer intended to get involved outside of their hemisphere (it just sounds extremely odd to even say that). At that point, I think it's more than likely that Europe as a whole or individual countries would start to ramp up their militaries. Like it or not, Europe can free ride on the US right now to a point simply because just about anything that is of a really compelling interest for the US is very likely to be of interest for Europe as well, and vice versa. Which really gets us back to where we were in the first place.
              "The French caused the war [Persian Gulf war, 1991]" - Ned
              "you people who bash Bush have no appreciation for one of the great presidents in our history." - Ned
              "I wish I had gay sex in the boy scouts" - Dissident

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Ned


                After the Nov. Resolution authorizing force if Saddam did not pull out of Kuwait by Jan. 15, France did its best to negotiate a way out for Saddam.

                It is true, though, that France did participate in Desert Storm.
                You're point being? Saddam was given a strict deadline to move out or else. Not a single shot was fired until that deadline passed. In the meantime, every major party, including the US, tried to use diplomatic means to avert a war. They didn't work, so everyone went in swinging, including, as you say, France.

                You're just inventing an issue here.
                "The French caused the war [Persian Gulf war, 1991]" - Ned
                "you people who bash Bush have no appreciation for one of the great presidents in our history." - Ned
                "I wish I had gay sex in the boy scouts" - Dissident

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Ned


                  After the Nov. Resolution authorizing force if Saddam did not pull out of Kuwait by Jan. 15, France did its best to negotiate a way out for Saddam.

                  It is true, though, that France did participate in Desert Storm.
                  You're picking the wrong war to justify the current Iraq adventure. Kosovo would be a better point of attack for you.
                  I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
                  For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Spiffor

                    Typical American dumbism

                    I am amazed to see how many Americans consider the non-use of force as being a sign of weakness. Truly shows too many of your folks are hardly more elaborate than cowboys
                    No, Spiffor. The problem is that if one goes in with a guarantee never to use force, you end up conceding a lot to get peace, which only incents greater demands the next time.

                    French "diplomacy" is like the Romans paying Atilla tribute. Where did that lead?
                    http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

                    Comment


                    • As to the French efforts prior to Gulf War I, IIRC, they did everything in their power to get Bush to stand down. Bush did not. But Saddam thought the French could broker a deal in the final hours and stayed in Kuwait.

                      The French caused the war.
                      http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Ned


                        No, Spiffor. The problem is that if one goes in with a guarantee never to use force, you end up conceding a lot to get peace, which only incents greater demands the next time.

                        French "diplomacy" is like the Romans paying Atilla tribute. Where did that lead?
                        Ned, Saddam would never have had anything close to be a nuclear weapon. The rest is insignificant to French security.
                        In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Kucinich

                          Wouldn't the same thing by the Soviets, but of left-wing groups, also be neoimperialism?
                          Yes, but in a much lesser scale - I had a huge debate on this with Imran two weeks ago.

                          Basically, the USSR filled - or tried to - natural vacuums, i.e. Eastern Europe and Northeastern Asia (Korea, Manchukuo).

                          Their main goal was to improve their economy and stability in their own sphere of influence, which was continental. OTOH, the goal of America was to protect the West's sphere of influence, which was pretty much the rest of the world, given its colonial past.

                          Which means that for prestige issues, the USSR did help some communist guerillas (like in Angola) or managed some oddball invasions (Afghanistan), but never as massively as America, with their intervention in Vietnam, and their absolute control over South America.

                          Simply said, the West had everything to lose from national communist movements, while the USSR could only gain some 'bonus points' from it. In turn, it explains why America was much more competent in defending its own vital interests, than was the USSR in 'possibly' dismantling them (which were not as important for their survival).
                          In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Oncle Boris


                            Ned, Saddam would never have had anything close to be a nuclear weapon. The rest is insignificant to French security.
                            The problem, Oncle, is that the French twice intervened in negotiations between the United States and Saddam and somehow managed to convince Saddam that there was hope when there was none.
                            http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ned
                              The problem, Oncle, is that the French twice intervened in negotiations between the United States and Saddam and somehow managed to convince Saddam that there was hope when there was none.
                              What's wrong with this? And BTW, there was hope, until the world realized Bush's aggressive and silly nature.
                              In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.

                              Comment


                              • Saddam would never have had anything close to be a nuclear weapon.


                                Never say never.

                                the USSR did help some communist guerillas (like in Angola) or managed some oddball invasions (Afghanistan), but never as massively as America, with their intervention in Vietnam, and their absolute control over South America.


                                Why is America's interferance in its 'sphere' (South America) worse than Soviet interferance in its 'sphere' (Eastern Europe)?
                                “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                                - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X