Axis of Weasel!

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Chris 62
So have I.

What offensive war is being contemplated?

The current situation is a continuation of the Gulf war started by Iraq, 12 years later.

It seems you have lost sigth of that, perhaps you'd like to reconsider your postion in light of that fact?

Are you seriously asking these questions? I though you were some sort of historian/author. How can you not know what constitutes an offensive war and/or what NATO is all about? Just because you think a war is justified doesn't change whether it's offensive or defensive.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Are you seriously asking these questions? I though you were some sort of historian/author. How can you not know what constitutes an offensive war and/or what NATO is all about?

Saddam has not lived up to the terms of the cease fire. Not honouring the cease fire is ample reason to resume hostilities.

In short, there is a guy who is the dictator of a state. That guy has demonstrated (twice) that he is fully capable of starting wars. That guy has demonstrated he is more than willing to use chemical weapons on humans (enemy or not). That guy got beat up, but agreed to terms to save his regime. Since then he has not honoured those terms.

Now, the people who hauled most of the freight to defeat Saddam last time are demanding that he honour those terms. Either that, or they will finish the job. Are you shocked?

What do you think would have happened in 1920 should the Germans have reneged on the terms of the armistice of 1918?

[DanS]

Originally posted by paiktis22

BTW peeved wasnt the reaction I believe... more like "cool down there big fellow"

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.

and mainly a reaction to his characterization of France and Germany as "problem countries"

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.

[DinoDoc]

Since then he has not honoured those terms.

http://asia.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/01/25/sprj.india.iraq/

[DanielXY]

How unbelievable convienient that such stuff always is discovered just when you need it

[DinoDoc]

Is it our fault that the Indians didn't find this sooner?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The real Axis of the Weasel is Sicily, Naples, and parts of Greece. Why?

Nobody knows? Not even the historians?

Hmmmm, I stumped 'em.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by DanS
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.

France and Germany are the most democratic and progressive of the Nato/EU countries when it comes to the right of citizens, politically and socially.

The socalled percieved interests of countires like Italy - a quasi-fascist state, Britain and Denmark - both monarchies - are set down by the elite. I'll give you a rundown of the political economy of Denmark if you wish - but I'll promise you this - it ain't democratic.

I also seriously doubt whether any of the countries in the East - the 'New Europe' - are true democracies, yet. In a democracy minorities are not lawfully treated in an unequal manner. Nationalism still rears its ugly head in these countires which I suppose is only natural after so many years of communist repression of such feelings.

I for one still hopes that it is in fact Germany and France who are still the driving force behind the integration of Europe, because they are the only one's with constructive ideas it seems.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Are you seriously asking these questions? I though you were some sort of historian/author. How can you not know what constitutes an offensive war and/or what NATO is all about? Just because you think a war is justified doesn't change whether it's offensive or defensive.

I'm completly serious.

The first Gulf war NEVER ended.

If it did, where is the treaty?

The CEASE FIRE laid out VERY CLEARLY what Saddam had to do as compliance for an end to hostilities.

As of yet, he has failed to do this, so you CANNOT claim the United States is invoking a Offensive War, this simply is not true.
This is a continuation of a matter that has gone unresloved for a decade.

You may not like that. or even remember that the Gulf War never ended, but it IS the facts.

France and Germany, as well as any other disenters would do well to remember that fact, since both seem to have conviently forgotten.

[Harovan]

I have some questions to the thread starter.

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

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?

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?

[DanS]

The socalled percieved interests of countires like Italy - a quasi-fascist state, Britain and Denmark - both monarchies - are set down by the elite. I'll give you a rundown of the political economy of Denmark if you wish - but I'll promise you this - it ain't democratic.



You've got some strange opinions, but even if true, it just proves my point.

[oedo]

I don´t consider the axis between Germany and France as being very strong or even eternal.
France´s position results from economical interests, as far as I got it.
Germany is a different issue. the German position results from the experiences of wwII and from the interdiction of first strike wars which is written down in our constitution.

the reason why Rumsfeld describes Germany and France as a "problem" could be the fact, that both country´s leader´s voices are nearest to the majority of people´s voices all over Europe (including England).
Germany, however, has a very weak cancellor and France a pretty unpopular president.

[BeBMan]

Well, to be fair Schröder seems to do most of that also because of other reasons than pure pacifism. It helped him certainly in the last elections.

However, of course countries can make their own decisions about that issue. To come back to the initial question: Yes, over the long run it would be wise for US, Germany and France to be allied. There are a number of reasons for this, political, economical, cultural. But all sides will continue to have own interests in such an alliance (so has every country).

[oedo]

Originally posted by BeBro
Well, to be fair Schröder seems to do most of that also because of other reasons than pure pacifism. It helped him certainly in the last elections.

yes, he started out even worse on this issue. however the german diplomacy is miles away from where it could be with a more competent cancellor.
I dare the hypothesis that if Kohl still were our cancellor, the Iraq crisis would have been solved peacefully yet.

[BeBMan]

Hm, perhaps the tone between Washington and Berlin would be more peaceful but I don´t think Germany had/has the influence to solve a crisis of this dimension. If the US decides for an attack, there´s next to nothing we can do against it.