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

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kucinich

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.

And your point is? The Gulf War was specifically not to remove Saddam, it was to liberate Kuwait. France didn't want to actually topple Saddam's regime, but your statement that they wouldn't have liberated Kuwait is ludicrous.

France was trying to find a way to negotiate a "middle ground" for Saddam. Bush would have none of it, and repeatedly said so. He wanted full compliance with the UN resolutions -- a complete evacuation of Kuwait.

In interviews later, including with the senior people captured last year, it appears that Saddam did not pull out of Kuwait because he though France could broker a last minute deal.

Ditto, last year's war.

Now, the question becomes, where did he twice get the impression that the French would be able to do a deal to save his ass?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by notyoueither
i think you are mistaken on a few points.

First, all that has to happen is that enough American boys fill enough body bags, and some pol comes along and says that it doesn't have to be that way. He or she could win.

Then you could see the US out of Europe, the ME and everywhere else outside of the Western Hemisphere in very short order. What requires them to stay?

Second, that radical shift would be just that. It would be the result of a single election if accompanied by support in Congress. What stops the first and second cases from happening are elections and the will of the American people. However, for how much longer will they want to bleed in the face of foreign powers who are quite happy to trade? This is not 1964, we are no longer involved in a struggle with an ideological antithisis for life or death of our way of life.

Woah.....have you been infected by Ned? Seriously, you've always seemed to be quite rational - what's getting into you? As a preface, I'm trying not to make any value judgements as to whether or not the US should police the world or whether Europe (or anyone else) should free ride on the US. I'm just saying that they can because the US will not just stop intervening in areas where it feels its interests are threatened.

No Republican or Democrat in the US is going to stop using the long reach of the US military for matters they deem important. Of course the US public is squeamish of large numbers of casualties - that's kind of why the US makes sure that it picks and chooses it's fights so as to minimize the chance of that. All that could conceivably change is that conflict X gets overlooked in favor of conflict Y. I think it's pretty clear that the US would never (at least in the foreseeable future) extridite itself from all conflicts, especially given the sheer size of it's global interests.

[Ned]

K, we really out to pull our troops and bases completely out of Europe. I see no reason for them to be there as Europe can adequately defend itself from Russia if push comes to shove.

[ErikM]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Ditto. I'm not totally against shaping Europe to be the new Soviet Union and American opponent in a new Cold War.

That's quite redundant. USA already shapes up as a new Soviet Union quite nicely

[DinoDoc]

That's a lie. We're much better at what we do than they were.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
We assume that Europe and France are on the side of peace, stability and democracy.

Unfortunately, we are also on the side of greed and self-interest, like any other country, including yours. Our diplomacy only favors democracy when it can afford it power-wise. For example, there are very brutal regimes in Africa we protect because they are our clients, and we fear them to escape our influence, should the regime die (Gabon is an especially apalling example)

We should be working together to make the world a better place for every inhabitant on this planet.

I wish too. But as long as particular interests go in the way of this common ideal, we'll have quibbles as stupid as the Iraqi one.

But frankly, the European attitude about Saddam Hussein is hardly comprehensible.

Well, just as there were mixed reasons for the US to go to war, there were mixed reasons for "old Europe" to be so strongly for the peace.
1. Iraq was one of our clients. It was not an extremely important point until the positions became clearly polarized, because the spoils of war were bargainable. Once the divide became obvious, our diplomats certainly didn't want a "winner takes all" situation where the US would be winner, and old Europe became loser.

2. Chirac ambitions to create a multipolar world, where the US ceases to be the undisputed leader. Despite being a pathetic weasel, Chirac wants to leave a trace in history books like De Gaulle did (De Gaulle may have flaws, but he was the epitome of a non-weasel leader). His delusions of grandeur make him want to lead Europe, and to lead the pro-multipolar front.

3. There was (and still is) a power struggle in Europe. France and Germany intend to keep being the "motor of Europe", whereas other countries now want to have a full say in establishing the European vision. Italy and Spain willingly opposed Chirac's january stance on Iraq in order to show he could not bully them. "New Europe" aimed mostly at telling France to stop bullying, just like France hated to be bullied by the US.
Within the EU, the war in Iraq could be a starting point of the common Foreign Policy, a leap that is needed to make the EU a pole of the multipolar world. This is one of the reasons for Chirac to "go for peace".

4. In fall 2002, when the US and French positions weren't too polarized (to the point they both made the compromise of res 1441), the French believed the WMD problem could be solved by diplomacy. The American insistance to solve it through war without trying to find other solutions made the French diplomacy, as well as the public opinion, extremely cold to the American proposals. Yet, in early January (before the joint Chirac-Schröder declaration), Chirac seemed not to have made up his mind.

5. France and Europe in general is sick of war. We Europeans hate war with a passion. To us, war is a catastrophe, not an ordinary political tool like Americans seem to believe. For this reason, any anti-war stance was sure to be popular, while any pro-war stance is sure to be impopular. Also, it was much, much easier for an anti-war policy to claim the moral high ground than for a pro-war policy.

Tell me how this dictatorial madman was a benefit to mankind. Explain to me why eliminating his regime was not good for the world.

This murderous despot (I wouldn't call him a "madman", because I think he knew damn well what he was doing) was good for our petty interests. He was also better than the fundie alternative. Lastly, he was better than utter chaos, civil war and destruction. We the French, diplomats and population alike, really feared a humanitarian catastrophe, and terrible massacres. The quite easy fall of Baghdad was granted as great news, because we definitely feared this war would lead to a new Stalingrad.

[ErikM]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
-- That's quite redundant. USA already shapes up as a new Soviet Union quite nicely.

That's a lie. We're much better at what we do than they were.

All the more reason to be concerned.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Unfortunately, we are also on the side of greed and self-interest, like any other country, including yours. Our diplomacy only favors democracy when it can afford it power-wise. For example, there are very brutal regimes in Africa we protect because they are our clients, and we fear them to escape our influence, should the regime die (Gabon is an especially apalling example)

We should be working together to make the world a better place for every inhabitant on this planet.

I wish too. But as long as particular interests go in the way of this common ideal, we'll have quibbles as stupid as the Iraqi one.

But frankly, the European attitude about Saddam Hussein is hardly comprehensible.

Well, just as there were mixed reasons for the US to go to war, there were mixed reasons for "old Europe" to be so strongly for the peace.
1. Iraq was one of our clients. It was not an extremely important point until the positions became clearly polarized, because the spoils of war were bargainable. Once the divide became obvious, our diplomats certainly didn't want a "winner takes all" situation where the US would be winner, and old Europe became loser.

2. Chirac ambitions to create a multipolar world, where the US ceases to be the undisputed leader. Despite being a pathetic weasel, Chirac wants to leave a trace in history books like De Gaulle did (De Gaulle may have flaws, but he was the epitome of a non-weasel leader). His delusions of grandeur make him want to lead Europe, and to lead the pro-multipolar front.

3. There was (and still is) a power struggle in Europe. France and Germany intend to keep being the "motor of Europe", whereas other countries now want to have a full say in establishing the European vision. Italy and Spain willingly opposed Chirac's january stance on Iraq in order to show he could not bully them. "New Europe" aimed mostly at telling France to stop bullying, just like France hated to be bullied by the US.
Within the EU, the war in Iraq could be a starting point of the common Foreign Policy, a leap that is needed to make the EU a pole of the multipolar world. This is one of the reasons for Chirac to "go for peace".

4. In fall 2002, when the US and French positions weren't too polarized (to the point they both made the compromise of res 1441), the French believed the WMD problem could be solved by diplomacy. The American insistance to solve it through war without trying to find other solutions made the French diplomacy, as well as the public opinion, extremely cold to the American proposals. Yet, in early January (before the joint Chirac-Schröder declaration), Chirac seemed not to have made up his mind.

5. France and Europe in general is sick of war. We Europeans hate war with a passion. To us, war is a catastrophe, not an ordinary political tool like Americans seem to believe. For this reason, any anti-war stance was sure to be popular, while any pro-war stance is sure to be impopular. Also, it was much, much easier for an anti-war policy to claim the moral high ground than for a pro-war policy.


This murderous despot (I wouldn't call him a "madman", because I think he knew damn well what he was doing) was good for our petty interests. He was also better than the fundie alternative. Lastly, he was better than utter chaos, civil war and destruction. We the French, diplomats and population alike, really feared a humanitarian catastrophe, and terrible massacres. The quite easy fall of Baghdad was granted as great news, because we definitely feared this war would lead to a new Stalingrad.

Good post

Chircac

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Chirac ambitions to create a multipolar world, where the US ceases to be the undisputed leader. Despite being a pathetic weasel, Chirac wants to leave a trace in history books like De Gaulle did

He may be a pathetic weasel, but he definitely thinks in the right direction.

Vive la France!

[Gatekeeper]

Bah. What humanity needs to get its collective *ss together is a common enemy. Where's the Anti-Christ when you need him or her? Where's Satan? Where are the Four Horsemen? Sheesh. So they're not around. Never were. Well, there's life among the stars, damnit. Where's those ID4 aliens when you need them? Or the Klingons? Or the Borg? Or the Goa'uld? I mean, c'mon, is it asking the Almighty too much to have a common enemy so as to unite humanity? A cop-out, you say? Well ... OK, yeah ... that's just it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Are you trying to make a point that US foreign policy was not really any worse than the Soviet one? I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment, but it is hardly a compliment to the US policymakers

When you are in such a conflict, you have to do things that you normally wouldn't. Such as in WW2, we bombed civilians in Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. Normally we wouldn't, but in that situation, it was called for.

Of course, in the end, our system was better . Yes, I am one who believes the ends justify the means.

Of course you gave nuclear secrets to allies. Don't you know about Israel and Britain? At worse, the US may have decided simply 'not to hinder' Pakistan and that would have been sufficient.

Israel gained a nuclear program through their own spying and research. The US didn't help them at all. And Britain only got the bomb because they were helping with the Manhatten Project, not because we decided to give it to them after WW2.

We very much tried to hinder Pakistan. We threatened to remove aid many times and when it actually happened, it was automatic to take away economic aid. We had knowledge that they were trying to acquire uranium in the 80s, and we held back an order of 15 F-15's to Pakistan (which they already paid for) in response. IIRC, those F-15s are still in the US, and the money was not returned to Pakistan.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Dresden [...] was called for.

Thank you. The only reason why I didn't put you on ignore immediately is because you are usually smarter than that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In a total war, you need to wage war agains the populace as well, in order to try to get the government to surrender and prevent even more bloodshed than simply firebombing a city. It didn't work in Germany, but it did in Japan.

If Germany surrendered after Dresden and other firebombing, then wouldn't most of us say it was justified?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
In a total war, you need to wage war agains the populace as well, in order to try to get the government to surrender and prevent even more bloodshed than simply firebombing a city. It didn't work in Germany, but it did in Japan.

Wonderful!
You'll allow me to say that Sept. 11 was called for, then? And I hope you'll see no problem in me saying the plane-attack on a nuclear plant that same day, if it had been successful, was a perfectly understandable act of war.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You'll allow me to say that Sept. 11 was called for, then? And I hope you'll see no problem in me saying the plane-attack on a nuclear plant that same day, if it had been successful, was a perfectly understandable act of war.

Only if you symphatize with Al Queda's aims . If so, then yes, you'd have a point.