Axis of Weasel!

[MarkG]

are now fully willing to ... enforce resolutions already in place.

does that go for every UN resolution?

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
1 - What do you think, do the United States grant France and Germany the right to have an own opinion in their foreign policy?

Of course they should.
BUT, be CONSISTANT.
If France had no intention of honoring resolution 1440, they SHOULD NOT have signed it.
THAT is just dishonesty.

2 - If 1 is yes, why are the US so pissed? If 1 is no, why should France and Germany at free will continue this de facto state of vassalization?

It might help if they stopped playing games with vicious thugs, and ADMITTED the REAL reason behind their sudden (in France's case) reluctance to act, namely their strong financial ties to Saddam Hussein.

3 - In either case, even if France and Germany insist not to participate in the war the US intend to start (heck, or to continue, where's the difference), why can't the US just get over it and say ok, we'll do it without you, instead to use the usual methods of mudflinging and pressure trying to force their opinion to the 2 countries? Mind you, that even though this war may be a continuation of the first Gulf War, it's does not oblige the NATO allies to participate, since no NATO country was attacked. Participation is at free will, right?

Somewhere, you have to start questioning whether you want allies who won't help you, because of their own reasons, which is fine.
I believe there should be no such alliance, but it's the French duplicity that's at the heart of the matter.
Germany has been consistant, and I accept this, France has not.
Add to it that France has a LONG history of dubious links to the most horific dictators, as well as a habit of acting unilaterally (such as when it sends forces to former colonies when it choses, and consults nobody), the word that springs to mind is hypocrissy.

Kon tiki
No matter how you try to spin it, the first gulf war WAS NOT an aggressive war on the allies part, Iraq invaded a neighbor, who asked for UN help, and they got it.
The proof is that Iraq was not occupied, nor was Saddam punished for his actions, the only stipulation was he give up aggressive weapons, and renouce aggression, he has done neither.
I can't understand why you cannot grasp that.

Horse
There comes a time when you have to admit that talk is useless, all the sanctions and inspectors in the world are pointless if Saddam doesn't fear NOT to comply, and it's clear he's unaffraid.
Also, "the world" at large, especially Europe, has a rather...dubious record of dealing with the middle-east, as well as world problems, expecting the US to listen to that well spring is not going to be very fruitful.

Italian author Oriana Fallaci sums up the postion of many (not all) people in the United States in reguards to Europe and the war on terror, and she is no US puppet.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20021023-18874592.htm

Mark
We are talking SECURITY council resolutions, just to clarify, BEFORE you try to sneak in the racist agenda of the general assembly.

[Japher]

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.

This is a blatantly arrogant statement you are trying to make. If it was not for the "Maybe, maybe not" statement I would be really ticked on such an assumption.

I agree that I, personally, do not understand the world outside my borders anymore than does some French guy who has never been to America. These truths are so factual that it has to work the same way for everyone, not just the Americans.

European powers that consider they have a superior understanding of the world outside are being very ignorant of their short comings.

You even state that they have more experience dealing with them, this I am not so sure of... Yet, I am aware that Europe does do more buisness with the Middle East. This however, may skew their opinion of them and blur their judgement.

Just to reiterate: If what you say is true than the "European Powers" need to stop assuming things and stop lying about their real interests with the Middle East. If they really knew more about the world outside their borders than they should know that no Yankee Texan is going to believe these lies when the truth is so blatantly obvious. They should also know, that when you tell a Texan, "Well, I guess you'll just have to do yourself" that he will, and in the end those who did not stand beside us will now be considered against us.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
We haven't seen anything like this since Britannia ruled the waves and cocked a snoot at everyone else.

Didn't see any slavery/piracy then eithier (except in USA)

BTW these are both on the rise again.

[Japher]

Didn't see any slavery/piracy then eithier (except in USA)

Yeah, we just call it professional sports.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Of course they should.
BUT, be CONSISTANT.
If France had no intention of honoring resolution 1440, they SHOULD NOT have signed it.
THAT is just dishonesty.

Just a tiny correction. Resolution 1440 was in response to the Moscow hostage situation and condemned all forms of terrorism. So what you are saying is that France supports terrorism.

I think you mean resolution 1441 concerning Iraq.

I hope my correction is taken in good humour, as it was intended.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Japher
You even state that they have more experience dealing with them [presumably Arabs], this I am not so sure of... Yet, I am aware that Europe does do more buisness with the Middle East. This however, may skew their opinion of them and blur their judgement.

That is a contradictory argument. The Europeans are damned because you are not sure they understand the Arabs, yet should they really understand the Arabs they are damned too by guilt of association.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


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.



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.

Certainly nations have different interests, and have a right to take different positions based on those interests. Some in the US are immature in this regard - both folks on the right who are outraged that our allies sometimes disagee, and those on the left who seem to think that the disagreement of our allies means we cannot act. These immaturities feed on each other.


We can certainly act without French and German approval, and it need not mean the end of our alliance with them. We will move on and work with them in areas where out interests converge.

There is a certain additional anger expressed by Sec. Powell right now because there is a sense that he was betrayed. Both in the large sense - he had been making the case within the admin that if only the US was multilateralist and went through the UN the allies would come along - recent French/German statements seem to indicate that no matter what we do or how long we wait they will not come around, they will always find an excuse to oppose the use of force to remove Saddam - they confirm what Rumsfield and the neo-cons have been saying and make Powell look like a fool - and the way they did it was particularly humiliating - at a UNSC meeting not ostensibly about Iraq they blindsided Powell with a veto threat.

[Ned]

Originally posted by 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.

This is Chris's reply

Kon tiki
No matter how you try to spin it, the first gulf war WAS NOT an aggressive war on the allies part, Iraq invaded a neighbor, who asked for UN help, and they got it.
The proof is that Iraq was not occupied, nor was Saddam punished for his actions, the only stipulation was he give up aggressive weapons, and renouce aggression, he has done neither.
I can't understand why you cannot grasp that.

The words each of you are using are different. Kontiki says "offensive." Chris says "aggressive."

Clearly, the Gulf War was and this war will be "offensive." But, in no sense of the word are either "aggressive" in the usual meaning of that word. Aggression means attacking for purpose of acquiring territory - right? Aggression cannot mean coming to the aid of a country, such as Kuwait, which was attacked. If this were the case, England and France would both be guilty of the crime of aggressive war for coming to the aid of Poland in '39.

[Kontiki]

Chris

Originally posted by Ned
The words each of you are using are different. Kontiki says "offensive." Chris says "aggressive."

Clearly, the Gulf War was and this war will be "offensive." But, in no sense of the word are either "aggressive" in the usual meaning of that word. Aggression means attacking for purpose of acquiring territory - right? Aggression cannot mean coming to the aid of a country, such as Kuwait, which was attacked. If this were the case, England and France would both be guilty of the crime of aggressive war for coming to the aid of Poland in '39.

This is precisely my point. Nowhere did I say "aggressive", only "offensive". Since the NATO alliance is defensive, no NATO country is obligated to take part in or endorse an offensive war. What I can't understand is why you keep ignoring this fact. Keep hammering away at why this war/the 1991 war/the continuation thereof is justified/necessary/morally right - it doesn't even begin to address my point. There is no spin, no opinion - why can't you grasp this?

[Alexander's Horse]

The trouble with saying we don't need country x or y is that you never know when you might need them.

I think the Bush administration has been quite reckless in saying publicly since 9/11 they would go it alone. The Franco German position is partly a reaction to that.

You've really screwed up your diplomacy when you've driven Germany and France into each other's arms, lol.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Chris
This is precisely my point. Nowhere did I say "aggressive", only "offensive". Since the NATO alliance is defensive, no NATO country is obligated to take part in or endorse an offensive war. What I can't understand is why you keep ignoring this fact. Keep hammering away at why this war/the 1991 war/the continuation thereof is justified/necessary/morally right - it doesn't even begin to address my point. There is no spin, no opinion - why can't you grasp this?

Again, pushing back an aggressor is not OFFENSIVE, it's defensive, as in removing the enemy.

The war NEVER ended, this is still a continuation of those events, so the NATO ARE still bound under their previous agreements, just because a decade passed doesn't absolve you of your responsibility.

Horse
Bush is the UNITED STATES president, he spaeks to Americans first and foremost.

I found comments that they didn't like Bush be cause he points while making speeches EXTREMLY childish on some European's part.

[chequita guevara]

Is Kuwait still occupied, Chris? How can this be a continuation of Desert Storm then?

[Bereta_Eder]

US did not "throw Germany and France in each others arms".

The alliance was very old and very strong long before Iraq or 11 September.

[Chris 62]

Show me a peace treaty Che.