US prepared to go it alone - allies warned.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
but believe me: No Euro in his senses would want to move to the States.

There is of course some europeans who love American Way of Life. And many european go to USA to earn more money they can earn in Europe, but lot of then go back some later to their own country.

[Natan]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I agree, but one could say the same thing about Sharon style Israeli Judaism.

Hate to burst your bubble, but Sharon's a secular man and Likud's a secular party.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


GDP doesn´t say much. GDP is distributed much more equally in Europe, so average people (not the Upper Class) live much better in Europe than in the States. This isn´t ideology, ask any Euro, or come over and find out.

Also, there are many more free things: Public health care is better, public schools are better, environment is better, much less crime. Also, we work less hours. All this doesn´t reflect in GDP, but believe me: No Euro in his senses would want to move to the States.

Exactly. And the funniest part is the U.S. government pisses most of its taxpayers money up against the wall buying armaments and maintaining a huge military machine instead of building schools and hospitals or giving tax cuts.

[Docfeelgood]

Now I git it!

Do as we say world, not as we do.



Ya know, "The United States of the Earth" does have a nice ring to it

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Docfeelgood

Ya know, "The United States of the Earth" does have a nice ring to it

[faded glory]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Exactly. And the funniest part is the U.S. government pisses most of its taxpayers money up against the wall buying armaments and maintaining a huge military machine instead of building schools and hospitals or giving tax cuts.

thats funny. Military expense is never mentioned on any polls. And the americans approved overwhelmingly with the Bush military pay hike.


Lets not get off on a tangem here about USA building Mechsuits and Drones that carry lasers. Thats why the bill was upped...pay and security.

[Alexander's Horse]

Did you choose that avatar or was it chosen for you?

[faded glory]

thread jack!


no it was meant as a spoof. The red letter "Always Praise Ye Fuhrer Faded Glory". It didnt show tho. but owel...I dont have a replacement. So you must live with it.

[Roland]

Velociryx:

"Europe DID their own thing once before....'member that little nutbag named Hitler?"

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 ?

At least some USAers definately give that impression.

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."

Agree mostly, but it could have been redesigned into something useful. But now we have a unilateral US and a Europe that does not dare to play its own weight. And Robbiboy whining about more toys. As for advantages for both sides, for the US as such, yes, for the military/econ/political establishment, one more reason to whine (and seek some extra pork).

Comrade Tribune:

"I think it is time for the US to consider if they really want to risk losing all their allies."

I think the fundies in the Bush admin have already answered that with a yes.

"I know that Chirac is not popular here in Austria...."

Well, I've been hating him since way before 1999. His stance towards the FN has been quite ambiguous, though. He finally came around to the exclude-them line, almost (or partly? not sure over that) split the RPR over that, then was royally pissed about Schüssel in Haider's ass, and had to fart his overinflated ego all over europe. Where's the pukey ?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Natan
Hate to burst your bubble, but Sharon's a secular man and Likud's a secular party.

So now you are claiming that Sharon and his Likud are not Jewish?

Now I have heard them all....

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Roland
Sikander:

"But we are not going to give France a blueprint of our operation months in advance, because we fear that they will turn it over to our enemies just like they did in Serbia."

Could you please explain what you are talking about ?

A French military man gave NATO's plans for airstrikes to the Serbs during their conflict with NATO. The French were not happy about the bombing campaign (neither was I btw), and they recently convicted this officer and sentenced him to two years in prison! Either he was following orders and was given leniency (but had to be prosecuted because of American insistence), or the French legal system is so weak that there is no crime which can get one a life sentence. Isn't betraying plans to the enemy a capital offense in most nations?

Originally posted by Roland
"Now the new regime is getting into position, and Iran has the same reasons for being the enemy of the new regime, except that #1 above is replaced with Shiia vs Secular."

Secular ? That's why there is pretty much a consensus to have some version of sharia law, and call it a muslim Republic, I assume ?

It was my impression that once the new government takes it's place that Afghanistan will revert to the extent possible to a it's old secular type of weak central government. The law may well be based upon the Sharia, but I don't think you will see the sorts of extremely fundamental interpretations, nor will the clergy play the role that they played under the Taliban or for that matter the role they play in Iran.

Originally posted by Roland

"One way that the hard liners think that they can increase their popularity is to foment an international crisis with the U.S."

And dubya is playing along. Brilliant.?

It's a dangerous game for both sides. The hardliners may not successfully play the nationalism card, and only increase the dissatisfaction with their rule. It's too early to tell what will happen.

Originally posted by Roland

"What better way to do that than to try to minimize or destroy the gains the U.S. has made in Afghanistan by undermining the new government and allowing Al Qaida to escape?"

Iran has an interest in a stable Afghanistan (and one that clamps down on the drug trade, especially), and in the Hazara minority. Every political faction has an interest in seeing the US out of the region sooner than later, and allowing the Taliban & co a hideout would be counterproductive. Some elements in Iran may look beyond their schism and support them, but that's far from the simplistic rants from Rumsie.?

I think that there is a hardline faction that is getting desperate and whose goals and aspirations are out of step with a vast majority of the Iranian people. Iran's interest and the interests of those who control the intelligence services may be two different things here.

Originally posted by Roland
"They start with an assumption popular with the tiny class of people who make up the members of the British press that the U.S. is run entirely by insane clowns..."

How can you blame us, after seeing Ronnie and dubya ?

Both of these men are portrayed in caricature in the European press, but both nonetheless have led the U.S. in wars which have been surprisingly successful. I note that the same class of people who said that we would live in a nuclear wasteland due to Reagan's policies, and that we would be bogged down in Afghanistan and crushed like fleas are the ones who most delight in this sort of cartoon vision of these leaders. Perhaps they think too highly of their own propoganda.

Originally posted by Roland

"but are perceived as a real obstacle to the overthrow of the secular regime in Saudi Arabia."

ROTFL. Secular ? What kind of freaky definition of "secular" do you use ? LOL.

In this case I am speaking of al Qaida's definition.

[Roland]

"A French military man gave NATO's plans for airstrikes to the Serbs during their conflict with NATO."

Was that the guy form NATO HQ who handed over some info on target selection ?

"The law may well be based upon the Sharia, but I don't think you will see the sorts of extremely fundamental interpretations, nor will the clergy play the role that they played under the Taliban or for that matter the role they play in Iran."

Well that is still far from secular. The clergy will play its role simply as part of the tribal structures, just like the church in the medieval states of the realm did in europe.

"I think that there is a hardline faction that is getting desperate and whose goals and aspirations are out of step with a vast majority of the Iranian people."

Out of step, yes. Desparate, I don't think so. They still have a relatively strong grip on security und judiciary, and the quasi-constitutional-court. How much they can shape policy (internal and external) though is another issue. On any account, any comment from Bush on this can only help the wrong side.

"Both of these men are portrayed in caricature in the European press, but both nonetheless have led the U.S. in wars which have been surprisingly successful."

Well the newspaper I usually read is very pro-US and even defends Bush. But for me, the problem is that he IS a caricature. A jokefigure. His rhetoric is wooden, when he has to think for himself about what to say, the result is abysmal, and he looks dumber in reality than any drawing could make him look. His phraseology makes me cringe. It is so dumb it almost hurts physically to listen ("smoking... holes... yeah, holes... did I mention holes? And smoke ?"). I don't know, did he fry out his brain with alcohol and cocaine ?

Btw, the issue who "runs" the US is a completely different one. After dubya's axis of evil bull you had all kinds of spin put on it from the realists (Powell etc) and the fundamentalists (Wolvowitz (sp?) etc). And I am sure nobody asked dubya for a detailed explanation of what he actually meant.

Btw2, we tend to treat all politicians that way. Dubya is an extreme case, but the mystic worship of the presidency is lost on us.

"In this case I am speaking of al Qaida's definition."

I doubt they would qualify the regime as secular. As corrupt and puppets of the infidels, maybe. I also doubt most islamists properly understand the concept of "secular".

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Iraq has a secular Arab government. One could as legitimately say that the stategic goals of the US are not the ones stated, but to replace muslim governance in the Arab world with secular governance, with of course the leadership of the US playing a prominent role. It is then a matter of perspective who the good guys are.

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. And who the good guys are is always a matter of perspective.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
As for attacking countries where Al Quaida are seen to operate freely, did the terrorists not mainly organise themselves in the US? It seems to me that the US and Saudi Arabia are the two primary 'hosting' countries for Al Quaida. Should Europe invade the US to 'wipe out terrorism'?

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?

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Why is there never any talk of invading Saudi Arabia? They have one of the most brutal fundamentalist governments in the world. OBL is a Saudi! Or how about Egypt, who sends hundreds of men to prison each year for the crime of being gay? Maybe we should invade Turkey for comitting genocide and ethnic cleansing against the Kurds? But wait.... they are our allies!

This is sarcasm right? 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. It does say something about your naivete that you are still so angry about it. Now you are going through the cynical phase of understanding the world. This may or may not pass for you, but remember that just because something or someone is selfish doesn't mean that it or they are always wrong. Taking a gun away from a murderer might be done for self-preservation, but it might also save the lives of others.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Anyone who thinks this is about 'world security' or human rights is amazingly naive. It is about the upcoming US mid-term elections and cheap campaigning. It is about reopening countries to American capitalism and global corporatism. It is about securing the US hegemony.

Well I congratulate you. This is very cynical. Of course you didn't come up with it, I saw the same line of conjecture on BBC. It is also very wrong. The President is not using this foreign policy initiative (warning Iran, Iraq and North Korea and preparing the world and the U.S. citizenry of potential conflict) to become popular, he is using his popularity to push his foreign policy goals to their logical maximum. He is taking a large political risk by doing so. Whether or not you agree with him at least give him credit for not sitting on his hands and coasting through the midterms on the successes he has already had in Afghanistan.

Oh, and I like your little left wing rant about capitalism and U.S. hegemony. Yea that's right. We are spending a billion dollars a day so that we can improve our trade position with Afghanistan. Talk about a long term investment! This has nothing to do with economics. Iran and Iraq sell oil and we want them to do so. North Korea sells weapons and we don't want them to do so. All three states have been in a low intensity conflict with the U.S. for at least a decade. All three states are developing / have WMDs, and those weapons will be / are aimed at the U.S. and it's allies.

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. Of course perhaps that just isn't as fun, or doesn't play to your paranoid fantasies like thinking that the U.S. is plotting the takeover of the world by any and all means.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Roland
"A French military man gave NATO's plans for airstrikes to the Serbs during their conflict with NATO."

Was that the guy form NATO HQ who handed over some info on target selection ?

I think we are thining of the same guy.

Originally posted by Roland
"I think that there is a hardline faction that is getting desperate and whose goals and aspirations are out of step with a vast majority of the Iranian people."

Out of step, yes. Desparate, I don't think so. They still have a relatively strong grip on security und judiciary, and the quasi-constitutional-court. How much they can shape policy (internal and external) though is another issue. On any account, any comment from Bush on this can only help the wrong side.

Well I find all of the arrests of parlementarians etc. to be rather desperate actions. If they didn't feel threatened they could just go along with the illusion of democracy. Unfortunately for them the people's elected representatives (pre-screened by the hardliners btw) are challenging their authority. Given how much the Iranian political system is already skewed to the advantage of the harliners I take this to mean that there is a huge majority of the population who oppose them.

Originally posted by Roland
"Both of these men are portrayed in caricature in the European press, but both nonetheless have led the U.S. in wars which have been surprisingly successful."

Well the newspaper I usually read is very pro-US and even defends Bush. But for me, the problem is that he IS a caricature. A jokefigure. His rhetoric is wooden, when he has to think for himself about what to say, the result is abysmal, and he looks dumber in reality than any drawing could make him look. His phraseology makes me cringe. It is so dumb it almost hurts physically to listen ("smoking... holes... yeah, holes... did I mention holes? And smoke ?"). I don't know, did he fry out his brain with alcohol and cocaine ?

Btw, the issue who "runs" the US is a completely different one. After dubya's axis of evil bull you had all kinds of spin put on it from the realists (Powell etc) and the fundamentalists (Wolvowitz (sp?) etc). And I am sure nobody asked dubya for a detailed explanation of what he actually meant.

Btw2, we tend to treat all politicians that way. Dubya is an extreme case, but the mystic worship of the presidency is lost on us.

I agree that the press definitely caricatures all presidents, and it's the U.S. press as well as the European. It only bothers me because the press is so completely ignorant of almost every aspect of economics, strategy, military affairs etc. They are in no position to judge policy in such a high office (I generalize here a bit). This is why they like to focus on appearances and style. At least they are comfortable with those subjects. I never once heard someone in the press mention how weak Clinton's foreign policy team was for instance. It was hard to miss for a news junky like me. They didn't know what they were doing, and there was no coherent leadership from Clinton himself. This was not mentioned by the press, while hours of Monica Lewinsky walking to her car were put on the air.

Btw, everyone who has a high school facility with the english language is tortured by Bush's delivery. It's terrible, and full of all sorts of holes. Part of his problem is his dyslexia, which doesn't AFAIK effect normal conversation but can wreak havoc on someone who spends hours learning lines on flash cards or reading them from a teleprompter. I didn't vote for him, but I do think he is a decent sort, and I like his team.

Originally posted by Roland
"In this case I am speaking of al Qaida's definition."

I doubt they would qualify the regime as secular. As corrupt and puppets of the infidels, maybe. I also doubt most islamists properly understand the concept of "secular".

Perhaps I don't either. What is your definition of a secular government?

[Roland]

"Unfortunately for them the people's elected representatives (pre-screened by the hardliners btw) are challenging their authority."

This is an older conflict. Iran has a wierd mix of fundamentalists, technocrats and democrats. What the fundies are afraid of is not so much the elected representatives, that is pretty much a stalemate as far as I can tell. But among the young generation there could be a revolution brewing. So while "the Iranian political system is already skewed to the advantage of the harliners", the elected officials are something between a safety velve and evolution.

"I never once heard someone in the press mention how weak Clinton's foreign policy team was for instance."

I always considered Albright an atrocity, and the lack of any coherent line in US foreign policy under Clinton was discussed in the papers here. Especially the sudden "let's bomb'em" turn during/after Rambouillet....

"Part of his problem is his dyslexia"

Well I wouldn't care about that. What has many people riled up is that he also comes across as quite arrogant. And the "Me are da greatesd" message invites ridicule of all kind...

"Perhaps I don't either. What is your definition of a secular government?"

A state that is confessionally neutral, either through separation of "church" and state, or by equal treatment of differing religions and "Weltanschauungen".