Axis of Weasel!

[Kontiki]

notyoueither and Chris 62:

I'm not sure what you think you're arguing. The 1991 conflict was an offensive war on the part of everyone except Kuwait given that no other state was attacked by Iraq and that Kuwait was not a member of an explicit alliance. It is completely irrelevant if you think it was justified or not (and for the record, I think it was), it's still an offensive war. Don't confuse me with David Floyd or some others who think that offensive war is never justified - I simply never said or implied that.

Beyond that, the only formal alliance France and Germany have with the US is NATO, which is a defensive agreement - ie if one of the NATO states is attacked, it will be considered an attack against all NATO states. Since Iraq hasn't attacked a NATO country (and don't even get into the no-fly zones), there is no obligation for France, Germany, Canada, Belgium, or any other NATO states to engage Iraq in a war. While France may have sent troops in 1991, they were under no alliance obigations to do so, nor were they obligated by an alliance to even support the war. Remember, the original question posed by Chris was whether or not there is a point in maintaining an alliance with France and/or Germany given the differering aims of the countries. Since the only alliance that exists is a defensive one, I was wondering how the differering views on the current Iraq situation in any way compromise that alliance.

So, you guys can argue all you want about whether this is a continuation of the 1991 war, or more generally about whether or not Iraq should be attacked. It doesn't change the facts that:

A) All operations conducted by the US and whatever coalition existed/currently exists are offensive in nature.

B) Given A, no NATO country is under any obligation to support or participate in said conflict.

If you can't understand this, check out Ned's post as well. He seems to grasp it.

[Tripledoc]

To Kontiki

I agree with your statement.

Howver the neo-con perspective would be that the war against Iraq is a continuation of the War on Terror. Note that the US administration believes there is in fact alink between Al-Qauida and Iraq. The Nato countries invoked article five in the Nato treaty which says that any attack on one member country, in this case the US is an attack on all countires. This is even though the Al-Qauida don't represent a specific nation but is a privately run organisation.

Whether the US was a victim of aggresion is debatable, since the faomus neo-con Samuel Huntington has said that there has been a state of quasi-war between the Islamic Empire and the Anglo-American Empire since the late seventies. But for the sake of argument let's say the US was in fact a victim of aggresion.

By the same token Britain could, had they wished, have demanded invocation of said article in the war against IRA. Naturally they did not since human rights issues would put a damper on the British efforts to end the conflict where it to be an international concern.

As such I don't know whether the US is 'happy' that Nato is involved in the war on terror since being part of a treaty system binds you to certain basic issues concerning human rights - and democracy, which the NAto treaty says should be respected.

As such it would perhaps make sense to get Nato involved in the war against Iraq, because then attention would be taken away from the less than succesful war on terror towards the issue of peacekeeping and nationbuilding in Iraq. Typical spin-doctoring.

That is if there is at all any connection whatsoever between Iraq and the war on terror in the first place, but that does not really matter since the spin is that there is .

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
The Nato countries invoked article five in the Nato treaty which says that any attack on one member country, in this case the US is an attack on all countires.

That was thier choice. It wasn't as if we actually needed France and co to get the job done in Afghanistan.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

That was thier choice. It wasn't as if we actually needed France and co to get the job done in Afghanistan.

I agree - I don't think it was needed. In many ways the NATO allies have perhaps been more of a nuisance than a help. Seen from a neo-con perspective.

At the same token would the involvement of Nato in a war on Iraq not be a a source of irritaton to the US administration?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Seen from a neo-con perspective.

Actually you don't even need to go to the neo-con perspecvtive. You can start and end your search by looking at the gap in military capabilities between the US and most of Europe.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Actually you don't even need to go to the neo-con perspecvtive. You can start and end your search by looking at the gap in military capabilities between the US and most of Europe.

The exclusive focus on military capabilities IS the essence of the neo-con perspective.

They believe that fundamentally the basic yardstick of influence is how powerful the war-machine is.

That I don't understand because the issue is not to defeat one's enemies, which can always be done if enough effort is put into it. The problem as I percieve it is what to do with the vanquished after battle.

One also has to look at the long run perspective, in terms of global economic development.

[Ramo]

The real Axis of the Weasel is Sicily, Naples, and parts of Greece. Why?

A Norman, Robert Guiscard "the Weasel" conquered Sicily, Naples, and parts of Greece from the Byzantines and Arabs.

[chequita guevara]

[Ramo]

I bet that's why Robert didn't recognize the Pope as a feudal lord. If someone gave me the honorific of "the Weasel," I'd be pretty pissed off at him.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Guiscard never conquered parts of Greece, IIRC. Just Southern Italy (Apulia and Naples) and Sicily after the Pope had sent him there to kick the Byzantines out. After he had done what the Pope asked him to do, Guiscard ended his fighting days and set up the richest state in Europe (even richer than the Byzantine Empire) using Arab bureaucratic organization of Sicily.

[Ramo]

He did, it just wasn't as permanent as his conquests in Sicily and Naples (maybe it would be better described as a raid).

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by DanS


No, I think they were angry and it was just a reflex on their part. If it didn't have a kernel of truth, I'm sure the sophisticated French would have laughed and shrugged it off.

Rummie's message got through clearly. Germany and France aren't necessarily setting the pace among EU members on this issue and he pointed out that fact. Each NATO country appears to be going its own way based on perceived interests.

Interesting to see your interpratation .
There wasnt "anger" I wonder where you saw that.
The reply: we are good friends and allies and we disagree with you" is what you give to an erratic little child which has been "offended" (in that case the US )

That was an answer taken out of context. The question referred to the problems that the US was having in persuading 4 NATO countries to go along with supporting Turkey defensively. In that respect, they were "problem" countries--i.e., our problem.

Nope again. Rumsfield characterised France and Germany "problem countries".
in an announcement after berlin and paris made their own declarations
Again the little eratic child being offended and needing friends sydrome

Rumsflied is really cluless.
Germany and France ARE Europe
(or as close as it gets)

[Bereta_Eder]

You got some nice answers about eastern Europe so I wotn bother repeating the same

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Chris 62
It's not meant as a bash of them (but it is a really funny line), but the question remains, can the United States, France and Germany continue as allies when it's clear they have widely different world view and objectives?

Being an ally should not mean agreeing on everything - and outside The US, Bush's unilateralist foreign policy is viewed with alarm. We haven't seen anything like this since Britannia ruled the waves and cocked a snoot at everyone else. Sooner or later the US will realise they cannot go it alone. Iraq is being used to show this.

There is a real sense, which shows up often even on this forum, that Americans simply do not understand the world outside their borders. The European powers consider they have a superior understanding. Maybe, maybe not. They certainly have a different view of the Middle East and a lot more experience dealing with it.

Should they even try?

Yes they should. I think the differences between the US and Europe are exagerated. Its really ridiculous to expect Great Powers to just toe the US line. France never has.

A British ambassador to the US recently published his memoirs. It showed that behind closed doors the US and Britain constantly quarrelled and bickered for the entire Cold War. Healthy relationships are frank.

[DanS]

We haven't seen anything like this since Britannia ruled the waves and cocked a snoot at everyone else.

Histrionics.

The US hasn't acted unduly unilaterally in this administration. The biggest unilateral actions were quitting the Kyoto and ABM treaties. On the other hand, the war against terrorism has been a tour de force of multilateralism and now the Iraq war will be done multilaterally with a dozen or so countries at least. Even Korea is being done multilaterally.

Of course, I agree that it's worthwhile to have a good fight amongst ourselves now and then, although doing it publically makes it look like other motives are involved. France and Germany should have played fair and not have ambushed us. The German government has been hopeless.