Axis of Weasel!

[Japher]

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.

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.

It is a two sided coin my friend.

A contradictory argument for a contradictory statement.

You started the ambiguity, I just took it a step further. If European Arrogance is that thick then, in the American fashion, we will one up ya with even thicker arrogance. Showing that the Europeans must not understand the world outside their boarders.

You can't just say anything you want these days and expect the whole world to nod in agreement.

The Europeans are damned if they called the US a bunch of ignorant fools, and they will be damned if they side with their associations in the Arab world over the US.

Sad...but true.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Chris 62
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.

Yes, Chris, you're doing a fantastic job of repeating the same mantra over and over again. Once again, you don't need to convince me that Iraq was in the wrong in invading Kuwait and that the coalition was justified in militarily expelling them. However, assisting another country that was attacked, without yourself being attacked, and in absence of a defensive treaty (even then it's debatable), constitutes an OFFENSIVE operation. Perhaps you should look up "offensive" and "defensive" in the dictionary.

Please show me how a member of NATO was attacked, thereby obligating other NATO countries to come to its aid. Please show me how NATO in general was obligated to take part in the Gulf war, or where NATO (other than individual member states) committed itself to the Gulf War. You mentioned NATO agreements in relation to the Gulf War - what are they, exactly? Please show me where France and Germany (or any other member of the 1991 coalition) signed a formal alliance binding them together to A) drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait and/or B) enforce the terms of resolution 687.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Japher
The Europeans are damned if they called the US a bunch of ignorant fools, and they will be damned if they side with their associations in the Arab world over the US.

I have never seen any European question the intelligence of any American. That is excempting your President of course. But I never thought the American people subscribed to the monarchial idea that "l'etat c'est moi".

[Chris 62]

We were talking UN, and it's interesting how you care not about Iraq, it's merely an "inconvence", isn't it?

The Gulf War NEVER ENDED.

Get over it, no matter how many times you say differently, you will NEVER get past that, nor is it an OFFENSIVE war to destroy an agressor nation.

[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.

If this idea is prolific in Europe then I am sure that Europeans are questioning the American intelligence.

I am the state? No, but, we are our state. We hold strongly to that, it's called patriotism and comes with pride, something which Europeans seem to despise in the US. Had we subscribed to "l'etat c'est moi" we never would have faltered at the UN with the matter of Iraq, yet then again their would have been no cold war. (I think Patton subscribed to that line of thought)

As for G.W., I won't defend his intellegence. At least he has a cabinet full of advisors that hopefully are more intellegent then he appears.

[Ned]

Regardless of the offensive-defensive dichotomy, clearly the Gulf War was not about the defense of a NATO country. Since it was not, France and Germany were not under any treaty obligations to assist anyone in rolling back Saddam.

Kuwait was similar in this respect to Vietnam. We clealy were helping to defend Vietnam. But since Vietnam was not part of NATO, none of our European allies had to help us. And, indeed, they did not - especially not France, who had just gotten itself out of that mess.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Japher


I am the state? No, but, we are our state. We hold strongly to that, it's called patriotism and comes with pride, something which Europeans seem to despise in the US. Had we subscribed to "l'etat c'est moi" we never would have faltered at the UN with the matter of Iraq, yet then again their would have been no cold war. (I think Patton subscribed to that line of thought)

Patriotism is the love of one's country, not the state. The state and the country are two entirely different things.

Patton, if the movie portrays him correctly, is a character I have the greatest admiration for, because he was truthful. But he admitted that the modern world had no use for one like him and vice versa.

[Japher]

definition of a "state":
a: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign b : the political organization of such a body of people c : a government or politically organized society having a particular character

Sounds like a country to me?

Am I wrong?

[Kontiki]

Chris, read Ned's post. He understands what I'm saying, you clearly do not. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference if the 1991 war ended or not (and BTW, I never said differently), what the UN involvement was, or what my position vis-a-vis Iraq is (and I have no idea why you think I don't "care" about Iraq, nor why I think it is an "inconvenience") - the fact of all of this is nothing that's happening currently or that happened in 1991 invoked the NATO alliance, therefore no NATO member is obligated to support a renewed attack against Iraq.

You're the one pissing and moaning about France's (and Germany's) position and how their differing views call the alliance into question, but without anything actually countering the alliance in any way at all, it is a stupid point.

[DanS]

New scores in...

Axis of Weasel
Germany = 83 m people
France = 60 m (wavering)
Greece = 11 m
Belgium = 10 m
Austria = 8 m
Total Axis of Weasel = 172 m people

Allies
United Kingdom = 60 million people
Italy = 58 m
Spain = 40 m
Poland = 39 m
Czech Republic = 10 m
Portugal = 10 m
Hungary = 10 m
Denmark = 5 m
Total Allies = 232 m people

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1042491323610&p=1012571727092

[Main_Brain]

Russia

[chequita guevara]

Yeah, but Italy and the UK could switch sides at any time. Italy's not known for stable governments and Britain's Blair could well go the way of Maggie and her Poll Taxes.

[Kontiki]

This thread just won't die, will it? When I checked this morning, it was the last thread on page 3, and now its up and running again. Amazing.

[oedo]

Originally posted by Ned
But since Vietnam was not part of NATO, none of our European allies had to help us. And, indeed, they did not - especially not France, who had just gotten itself out of that mess.

so did George W. Bush.

[DanS]

Russia

This is all about intra-EU rivalry. And so far it looks like Germany and France aren't choosing the winning side.