Europeans Leaders are redfining their foreign policies

[Geronimo]

I actually mostly agree with aggies assessment of the risk of invasion in the modern world. Even if the US was swept with a wave of pacifist isolationism such that we dismantled almost all our nukes and removed every last GI from overseas and renounced every defense treaty, I still can't see any of the wealthy countries we counted as allies being actually invaded.

Nonetheless, I'm not certain the risks, even of wars of territorial conquest, have entirely disappeared. We need to determine why Saddam thought it would be a good idea to invade Iran and kuwait in spite of obvious catastrophic economic consequences. Furthermore while I agree that visual media has done much to make war more difficult for populations to tolerate than ever before I wonder what effect, if any, this really has on the deliberations of unelected governments. Historically they have often been happy to laucnh such wars as distractions even more readily than democracies.

Maybe nobody would have the balls to invade the wealthy countries if we all let our guard down but are we sure the less prosperous and smaller countries would not break into war more frequently?

I want to see the US give up unilateral military intervention since the massive support of our allies in toppling the Taliban proves we don't really need it but I also think it would be unwise for either the US or it's allies to disarm (or to remain largely disarmed in the case of many of our allies).

[Ned]

If I were Bush, I would invite Chirac to the White House to see if they could bury the hatchet over past differences. Preferrably, this would happen as soon as we have a new Sec. of State. While I am sure there are a lot of hard (an hurt) feelings for Bush in Europe and for France here in the US, such a gesture would go a long way to fixing things for most Europeans who would fundamentally agree with the notion that Europe and the United States share a common enemy in terrorism and a common goal in bringing peace, prosperity, freedom and human rights to the world.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Geronimo
I actually mostly agree with aggies assessment of the risk of invasion in the modern world.

Why would you even go and do that when it's objectively wrong?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why would you even go and do that when it's objectively wrong?

He's not objectively wrong. Invasions used to be more common because it paid off economically for the ruling elite. Invasions now mean massive sanctions and policing costs as a matter of course. There simply won't be as many invasions as in the old days.

I agree with you however that risk of such wars can never really completely disappear and as far as aggie insists the risk can be zero he is ojectively wrong.

[Ned]

Remember the Falkland Islands war?

[alva]

The US failed in Vietnam because people could see what was going on.

Unless of-course, you can control the images.

[Ned]

In what way did the US fail in Vietnam?

[pchang]

Foreign Policy

We support everything that we think will benefit us.
We oppose everything else.

This is unversal and has remained constant since the development of nations.

[Ned]

pchang, I think the French operate the same way. They somehow believe that opposing the US benefits France.

[pchang]

Of course it does. France believes we are competitors on the world stage for influence and trade.

[Ned]

Originally posted by pchang
Of course it does. France believes we are competitors on the world stage for influence and trade.

How does French opposition to US foreign policy help French trade? This is not the 17th century where governments granted trade monopolies.

[pchang]

France sold to Iraq. This was money they got at the expense of the US. France sells to China. Again, this is money they get at the expense of the US because China is also gainst US foreign policy. I could go on.....

[Ned]

Originally posted by pchang
France sold to Iraq. This was money they got at the expense of the US. France sells to China. Again, this is money they get at the expense of the US because China is also gainst US foreign policy. I could go on.....

Why of course. Whereever the US has a trade embargo because of one reason or another, France is there to make a buck, especially in selling weapons to kill Americans or nuclear plants to enemies of Israel for obvious purposes.

(Which brings me back to why any Jew would support Kerry given his affection for France.)

[pchang]

Yes, but my point is that it is foolish for us to expect France or any other country to act otherwise.

[Ned]

Originally posted by pchang
Yes, but my point is that it is foolish for us to expect France or any other country to act otherwise.

Absolute bull.

Allies support each other. Enemies undermine each other.

France is an enemy of the United States and Israel, plain and simple.