US prepared to go it alone - allies warned.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
You know better than they, of course, what they 'really' want;

I didn't just guess this or make it up, it comes from their own documents and interviews with former members of al Qaida and people who know Bin Laden. What they say on Al Jezeera is propaganda, and it is what you stated were their goals. I was merely pointing out that very few political organizations state all their goals publicly if they want to attract maximum support. You made a statement that was at best incomplete with all the assurance that you now blame me for having.

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
but even if you were right: It´s none of America´s business to determine how people on another continent want to govern themselves.

I'm not sure where this comment comes from. Are you referring to the U.S. taking the Taliban down? You can't be claiming that we determine how the Saudis govern themselves can you? If we were then things would be a lot different there.

You sound like David Floyd. Is there no exception to your rule that it's none of America's business how people on another continent govern themselves? Does this just apply to America? Are we still allowed to determine how the Canadians and Mexicans govern themselves? What about the Second World War? We came over to your continent and changed your government for you too. Would you be happier if the world had simply chased the Wehrmacht back to the borders of Grossdeutscheland (sp?) and left the Nazis in power? When someone declares or makes war on you your choices are limited. Targeting a government is a lot more humane than solving the problem like Hitler wanted to, by liquidating the people.

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
They wouldn´t attack you, if you wouldn´t constantly meddle in their affairs.

How are we constantly meddling in Saudi affairs? We deal with them in a proper state to state fashion. Just because an exile rebel group takes issue with it doesn't mean we should run away. We would be the most isolated nation on earth if we didn't deal with governments who have a few xenophobes in their population.

Every country uses it's foreign policy to influence other countries by definition, even yours. Was the boycott of South Africa meddling in South Africa's affairs? Of course. Was it moral? I think so. Is this sort of thing forbidden in your book? Who gets to decide what actions are worthy and what actions are not? Everyone has an opinion, but the outcomes are determined by every sort of power, economic, political, military, moral, etc. Your opinion or mine do not amount to much in the grand scheme, even when we couch it in absolute terms.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
NATO ceased being of any benefit to anyone onces the USSR collapsed into anarchy and has only survived due to its own beaurocratic inertia. Ending the archaic alliance will be a benefit to both sides.

This idea seems to be gaining a lot of momentum finally. NATO should have been dissolved ten years ago. I'm not against bi-lateral or multi-lateral defense agreements, but there is no reason to maintain such a complex and expensive political / command / defense system in the face of the potental threat from Ukraine or Kaliningrad, nor for the U.S. and Europe to be chained together on so many issues which effect us differently.

Perhaps now the Greeks will have a chance to show the Turks who is the boss.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Sikander
One could in theory say it as easily, but the fact that none of the Arab governments in the world are run by their clergy would make the statement a complete waste of time.

You are pulling at straws here. Saudi Arabia is a mulsim country, irrespective of whether or not it is run by the clergy.

They organized themselves in Afghanistan, Europe and the U.S. Europe and the U.S. have never knowingly allowed them to operate on their soil, and have made great efforts to arrest anyone who comes to their attention. Afghanistan not only allowed it, they invited it. Are you really this dense, or do you have some sort of obtuse point that I am missing here?

I wasn't refering to Afghanistan. Obviously Afghanistan was Al Quiada's main supporter - but they are gone now. Hadn't you noticed?

Bush is using tenuous Al Quaida links with Iraq to try and justify an invasion 'for the good of the free-world'. There are plenty of other targets which are more worthy of our attention first, including ones in our own countries.

This is sarcasm right?

Well done - you are learning....

It is meant to show that the policy of nation states is driven by self interest. It might put a cheerleader like Giancarlo into a tizzy, but I have no illusions about this and have not had any for decades.

I do not like that state of affairs but it does not make me 'angry'. What pisses me off is how Bush pretends to be all virtuous - the US is conducting this 'war on terror' for the good of mankind, whereas, in reality, it is just for his own cheap self-interest.

Oh, and I like your little left wing rant about capitalism and U.S. hegemony.

Our refusal to comdenm the politics and human rights abuses of countries like Saudi Arabia is all about capitalism. If Saudi Arabia was to become anti-US it would kill a lot of US business in the area. We tolerate corrupt regimes all over the world because we have business interests in their countries.

It's a lot simpler than all those conspiracy theories that are so fashionable on both extremes of the political spectrum. As a scientist you should be more aware of how difficult it is to run a conspiracy in a government as large as the U.S.

What are you drivelling on about? There is no conspiracy here and only you seem to claim there is one. On the home front, it is simple, and rather obnoxious, manipulation of the US public. Abroad it is about promoting American business interests above the interests of the world as a whole (whilst claiming to be virtuous).

You claimed to recognise that the US was driven by its own self interests, and a few paragraphs later shout 'conspiracy theory' at me for saying the same thing.

Get a grip on reality...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh

Bush is using tenuous Al Quaida links with Iraq to try and justify an invasion 'for the good of the free-world'. There are plenty of other targets which are more worthy of our attention first, including ones in our own countries.

I watched the State of the Union speech, and pay close attention to the news, but I haven't heard anything about Bush linking Iraq to al Qaida to justify action. He seems to be spending all of his time using it's defiance of the armistace and it's continuing to develop WMDs while starving it's own citizens as justification. No wonder your statement didn't make any sense to me. Where have you seen Bush using the tenuous linkage of Iraq and al Qaida?

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I do not like that state of affairs but it does not make me 'angry'. What pisses me off is how Bush pretends to be all virtuous - the US is conducting this 'war on terror' for the good of mankind, whereas, in reality, it is just for his own cheap self-interest.

As I stated before, he is not playing it safe politically, which would be cheap self-interest. He is taking a risk that his expansive foreign policy objectives will succeed when the prospects for success are not clear cut. The only reason that I can see for doing this is that he believes what he wants to do is the right thing. The safe and Clintonesque thing to do would be to declare victory and get out of Afghanistan pronto. He is using the popularity of the one war to give him leverage on the other (war warning), but it's quite clear that they are different things.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Our refusal to comdenm the politics and human rights abuses of countries like Saudi Arabia is all about capitalism. If Saudi Arabia was to become anti-US it would kill a lot of US business in the area. We tolerate corrupt regimes all over the world because we have business interests in their countries.

Not nearly as much as we tolerate corrupt regimes because:

1) They are the pervasive type of regimes in most of the world.

2) For balance of power / strategic considerations much like the ones that had both the U.S. and Britain allied with the Soviets during WWII.

The vast majority of U.S. business overseas is conducted with Europe, Japan and Canada. While the figures for arms sales in an oil rich region like the Persian gulf seem like a lot of money, they are tiny compared to the trade we have with the industrial democracies. This crap about our foreign policy being driven by robber baron extractive industries is nonsense. Since the cold war our foreign policy has been driven by larger strategic impulses, one of which is obviously securing oil supplies for ourselves and our European and Japanese allies, whose trade value to us is worth a good deal more than all of the oil in Arabia. This has been a pretty simple task, for the Arab states love to sell that oil. The main worries that led Jimmy Carter to form Central Command were that the USSR would attempt to take the oil fields by storm, and those worries were transferred to Iraq when it grabbed Kuwait. We didn't want to give that murdering bastard that much leverage over the world economy, and neither did a large part of the rest of the world.

I find it interesting that you are critical of U.S. threats to Saddam but seem to relish the idea of the U.S. invading Saudi Arabia and replacing it's government. Since 1979 Saddam is responsible for the deaths of more people than the Saudi regime has ever been in it's 50+ years of existence, and I doubt that they will ever catch up to him. I guess your feelings are either personal, or operate on a surrealpolitik level.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh

What are you drivelling on about? There is no conspiracy here and only you seem to claim there is one. On the home front, it is simple, and rather obnoxious, manipulation of the US public. Abroad it is about promoting American business interests above the interests of the world as a whole (whilst claiming to be virtuous).

You claimed to recognise that the US was driven by its own self interests, and a few paragraphs later shout 'conspiracy theory' at me for saying the same thing.

Get a grip on reality...

You are the one claiming that certain business interests are driving U.S. foreign policy. That smacks of a conspiracy. I don't think that there is a conspiracy, which is obvious from my post. U.S. foreign policy in this instance is driven by strategic factors as it usually is. It is the interests of the United States that I am talking about, not some businessman who sells sh!t to Saudi Arabia. A nice try to deflect the argument though.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Sikander
I watched the State of the Union speech, and pay close attention to the news, but I haven't heard anything about Bush linking Iraq to al Qaida to justify action. He seems to be spending all of his time using it's defiance of the armistace and it's continuing to develop WMDs while starving it's own citizens as justification. No wonder your statement didn't make any sense to me. Where have you seen Bush using the tenuous linkage of Iraq and al Qaida?

Riiiight.... so you think the 'axis of evil' speech had nothing to do with the new 'War on Terror' initiated by the Al Quaida attack?

As I stated before, he is not playing it safe politically, which would be cheap self-interest. He is taking a risk that his expansive foreign policy objectives will succeed when the prospects for success are not clear cut.

Oh come on - his high popularity levels are all because of the WTC attacks and the sucessful operation in Afghanistan. He is milking that for all it is worth.

The vast majority of U.S. business overseas is conducted with Europe, Japan and Canada. While the figures for arms sales in an oil rich region like the Persian gulf seem like a lot of money, they are tiny compared to the trade we have with the industrial democracies.

What do arms sales have to do with it? It is all about oil!

Since the cold war our foreign policy has been driven by larger strategic impulses, one of which is obviously securing oil supplies for ourselves and our European and Japanese allies, whose trade value to us is worth a good deal more than all of the oil in Arabia. This has been a pretty simple task, for the Arab states love to sell that oil.

I don't understand this bit. You say that the oil which we have 'secured' in the Arabia is worth more to us than all of the oil in Arabia.

If you are trying to say that the important business in the ME is the oil trade then obviously I agree with you, but you are reinforcing my argument here. The oil in the ME i(and the business generated by it) is the US objective - not the well being of the ME people, or the toppling of corrupt regimes.

The main worries that led Jimmy Carter to form Central Command were that the USSR would attempt to take the oil fields by storm, and those worries were transferred to Iraq when it grabbed Kuwait. We didn't want to give that murdering bastard that much leverage over the world economy, and neither did a large part of the rest of the world.

I agree with the first bit but I don't see why we would be happy to deal with the Saudis and not with Iraq. He seemed perfectly happy to sell his oil to the west. After all, Iraq and Saddam were our creation...

Or is all this just a matter of degree? You will happily trade with one bunch od corrupt, evil bastards but Saddam is just too naughty for you?

I find it interesting that you are critical of U.S. threats to Saddam but seem to relish the idea of the U.S. invading Saudi Arabia and replacing it's government. Since 1979 Saddam is responsible for the deaths of more people than the Saudi regime has ever been in it's 50+ years of existence, and I doubt that they will ever catch up to him. I guess your feelings are either personal, or operate on a surrealpolitik level.

I don't think we should invade Saudi Arabia , but I do think there should be some political pressure applied - or at least we should stop supporting their regime.

You are the one claiming that certain business interests are driving U.S. foreign policy.

And you agreed in this very post!

That smacks of a conspiracy.

Your word - not mine.

It is the interests of the United States that I am talking about, not some businessman who sells sh!t to Saudi Arabia. A nice try to deflect the argument though.

Ah - now I see your confusion US business is not interested in Saudi Arabia as a potential market - it is interested in it as a source of oil. there is a lot of money to be made in oil you know....

[Velociryx]

Roland:
"Other "own" things before the US of A was even around: Greek philosophy, roman law, renaissance art, enlightenment thinking... But I assume in the world according to US public school education, that was all done by a sort of proto-USA, and all that is really european is Hitler and Stalin ?


Interesting to me though, how all of your examples occur during times that the USA was not yet born. Since the founding of this country, about the two biggest things to come from Europe have been WWI and WWII. My apologies if that ruffles some Euro sensibilities, but that is the truth.

Not once has Europe had to get together and send troops over to our side of the pond to bail us out of a fire of our own making.

We've made the trip twice inside a fifty year span.

I can almost see the timeline in my head, and it'd look something like this:

1)The European members of Nato leave, USA is kicked out of its military bases on the Euro mainland

2)Some other goofy looking little man with a bad haircut decides that European Unification isn't happening quite fast enough, and comes up with a brilliant military plan to speed it along....you know....a little bombing, a little genocide tossed into the mix....the usual fare.

3)France surrenders almost at once....gotta keep with tradition.

4) Frantic calls are made to bring the USA into the fight to help stop the spread of madness (the US comes, but not before reminding everyone that if they had simply never been forced to leave, it likely would not have happened at all)

5)After much A$$ has been kicked and the dust settles, the revisionists start crowing about how it's all the US's fault for dissolving the Nato Alliance.

Tell me it ain't so.




-=Vel=-

[faded glory]

So true Velo


There making a huge mistake on Unification and challenging USA.


I guess its to be expected. We should probably let it slide into hell. I guaruntee you if ww3 breaks out in Europe. They will never see there independence again. It would be too much of a liability.


Also, i do think Russia and USA future are looking very bright!

[Velociryx]

Oh, I think our future with both Russia and the EU looks bright.

The fact is, that although we piss each other off now and again, we need each other.

What the world needs is MORE unity (especially among the industrialized nations) not less.

The *last thing* planet Earth needs is for the industrialized nations of the world to start splitting off into competing factions.

That can only have one eventual outcome, and I'm pretty sure we all know what it is.

We need each other....even tho people on both sides of the pond are loathe to admit that fact.

-=Vel=-

[faded glory]

Powell Says Bush Mulling All Iraq Options

By BARRY SCHWEID
.c The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (Feb. 6) - President Bush is considering ''a full range of options'' for removing Saddam Hussein as Iraq's president, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday.

''The United States might have to do it alone,'' Powell said at a House hearing.

Iraq is working on developing nuclear weapons, and its refusal to admit international arms inspectors prompted Bush to consider ''the most serious set of options that one might imagine,'' Powell said.

Bush has denounced Iraq for barring U.N. inspectors for more than three years and named the country as part of an ''axis of evil'' that includes Iran and North Korea.

''He is leaving no stone unturned as to what he might do'' if Saddam Hussein does not reverse course, Powell told the House International Relations Committee.

''The president is examining a full range of options,'' the secretary said. He declined to say whether Bush was considering a military assault on Iraq, or additional economic and diplomatic pressures.

Most Arab governments and some U.S. allies in Europe have cautioned Bush against a military assault on Iraq. They were nearly unanimous in supporting the anti-terrorism campaign against the Taliban and the al-Qaida terrorist network in Afghanistan as a response to the Sept. 11 attacks.

Arab leaders say Saddam has given the United States no similar provocation.

Nonetheless, ''We still believe Saddam Hussein should move on,'' Powell said. ''The people of Iraq deserve better leadership.''

Iraq has remained bent on developing nuclear weapons, Powell said, adding that U.S. intelligence had concluded Iraq was a year or more away from its goal.

At the hearing, Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., said, ''We simply cannot allow Iraq to develop nuclear weapons.'' Powell said Bush was considering ''the most serious set of options one might consider.''

''Regime change is something the United States might have to do alone,'' Powell said. ''How to do it? I would not like to go into the details of the options.''

In the past, Powell has suggested diplomatic, political and economic measures could be used to uproot terrorists and their government supporters. But at the hearing, he did not suggest these alternatives to the use of force.

Powell dismissed an Iraqi offer to hold talks with the United Nations, an overture conveyed through the Arab League and accepted by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Powell said Iraq had to accept the return of accept U.N. inspectors, and that there was nothing to discuss otherwise.

By contrast, Powell said the Bush administration was open to ''reasonable conversation'' with Iran.

Powell said the Untied States had a long-standing list of grievances with Iran, including its support for terrorism and trying to send weapons to the Palestinians.

Iran's ''latest provocation,'' he said, was ''meddling in Afghanistan'' and unsettling the fragile interim government in Kabul.

''Get out of the 'axis of evil' column and make a choice that we think your people want you to make and not the choice your nonelected government has been making in recent years,'' he said.

I dont know whats pissing the Euro's off more. Wether its the fact we just arent listening to them or it is that we arent consultating anybody.


Anyway....Im looking at the time frame. And I have to say.....60 days sounds about ripe for action. Depending on what Bush does, we will see.



Discuss

[Roland]

Velo:

Nice troll, but...

"Since the founding of this country, about the two biggest things to come from Europe have been WWI and WWII."

Industrialisation. The modern state. Abolition of slavery. Labour movement. Nationalism. Imperialism. WWI. WWII. Etc...

Get some balance.

"Not once has Europe had to get together and send troops over to our side of the pond to bail us out of a fire of our own making."

Lessee... you the US occupy most of the useful land in north america. You have only two neighbours, both of them much weaker than you. Yet you got into a war with Canada (+Brits), and with Mexico. After that was settled, you got into a war with yourself. Then you had to go into all those banana repiblics, and against Spain. Then you had to get into WWI for no reason other than some missionary zeal and nationalist lunacy.

Overall, you really show you're our offspring, just in a much more favourable geopolitical position.

"Tell me it ain't so."

It ain't so.
And what's this obsession with France ?

[Imran Siddiqui]

you the US occupy most of the useful land in north america. You have only two neighbours, both of them much weaker than you. Yet you got into a war with Canada (+Brits), and with Mexico. After that was settled, you got into a war with yourself. Then you had to go into all those banana repiblics, and against Spain. Then you had to get into WWI for no reason other than some missionary zeal and nationalist lunacy.

We like fightin'

[Roland]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

We like fightin'

Which part of "you really show you're our offspring" did you not understand ?

[Imran Siddiqui]

None of it.

Remember, I'm American. We invented fightin' and all that. You Euros just hug trees

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh

Riiiight.... so you think the 'axis of evil' speech had nothing to do with the new 'War on Terror' initiated by the Al Quaida attack?

Oh come on - his high popularity levels are all because of the WTC attacks and the sucessful operation in Afghanistan. He is milking that for all it is worth.

You are the man who can't take yes for an answer. As my previous two posts make clear I think Bush is using his popularity from the operations in Afghanistan to expand his foreign policy goals. Unlike you I think that this is a risky strategy politically, and I think he knows that, but is forging ahead because he can (see the comment about his current popularity above) and thinks that these foreign policy goals are worthwhile (see comment above about taking a political risk).

The Axis of Evil speech, which is better known as the State of the Union speech here, had something to do with the War on Terror, but also marked a new effort against some of our oldest foes. No one here (even in the press) seem to have missed that fact, nor does it seemed to have been missed by people in the Axis of Evil itself or in Europe.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
What do arms sales have to do with it? It is all about oil!

I mentioned arms sales because you seem to be laboring under the impression that U.S. business is driving this policy. Since we don't make money from oil sales, but spend it I mentioned this as the only truly significant business in the region which we turn a profit at.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh

I don't understand this bit. You say that the oil which we have 'secured' in the Arabia is worth more to us than all of the oil in Arabia.

If you are trying to say that the important business in the ME is the oil trade then obviously I agree with you, but you are reinforcing my argument here. The oil in the ME i(and the business generated by it) is the US objective - not the well being of the ME people, or the toppling of corrupt regimes.

No, I am saying that the trade that we depend upon is itself dependent upon the oil that we and our trading partners use. We are not making money from oil, quite the opposite. Nonetheless, if someone shuts off the spigot then all of the industrial economies will be devastated, and the effects in much of the rest of the world will be as bad or worse. Thus it isn't a question of increasing profits or greed as you seem to suggest, but of bare survival. We are not seeking to steal the oil in imperialist fashion, we are seeking to prevent Saddam from stealing it in imperialist fashion and then using his control over 60% of the world's proven reserves to hold ourselves and the rotw hostage.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I agree with the first bit but I don't see why we would be happy to deal with the Saudis and not with Iraq. He seemed perfectly happy to sell his oil to the west. After all, Iraq and Saddam were our creation...

Or is all this just a matter of degree? You will happily trade with one bunch od corrupt, evil bastards but Saddam is just too naughty for you?

Would you care to expand on your comment about us (and I'm not sure who you mean here) creating Saddam? Perhaps a link to a reputable source if you have one.

We are 'happy' to deal with the Saudis because even though culturally we have less in common with them than we do with the Iraqis, they have never sought to conquer their neighbors, and they have similar goals to ours vis a vis the oil business. They want the world economy to prosper because they prosper as well. We want the same thing. Saddam is responible for more deaths and misery than any regime in the region, and perhaps all the rest put together. Just concede the point, he's worse than the Saudis.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I don't think we should invade Saudi Arabia , but I do think there should be some political pressure applied - or at least we should stop supporting their regime.

We are supporting their regime from attack by an even worse regime next door. We have very little influence within Saudi Arabia itself, and thus cannot say who will run the country. If the regime is overthrown so be it. The Saudis are very resistant to pressure about their internal affairs, which you should know. They are also in a powerful position to resist such pressure should we decide to try that. We think a better use of our capital is to strive for the things that both nations benefit from. Feel free to launch an embargo on Saudi Arabia, or threaten military, political, or other economic action if they don't make the changes you feel necessary. See how far it will get you.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh

Ah - now I see your confusion US business is not interested in Saudi Arabia as a potential market - it is interested in it as a source of oil. there is a lot of money to be made in oil you know....

There is a lot more money to be made in other ways. Yes it seems like you understand me here, though I can't say that I understand what you're driving at. Perhaps because your feigned sarcastic stupidity is so close to the level of your determined ignorance that it is difficult to see where you don't know what you are talking about and where you are trying to be sarcastic. I was better off when I ignored you. You haven't made one serious point that caused me to reflect, nor have you managed to lay down a single fact that I didn't already know, or wasn't erroneous.

[Alexander's Horse]

Now both the British and the French Foreign Minister have rubbished Bush's state of the union speech.