What the Eurotwits would like George W. Bush to say

[Willem]

Originally posted by Kramerman


This quote is often misused, in my opinion. I remember Bush saying this about terrorism, and that is all. He never said this about anything else.

"Actions speak louder than words!"

PS Maybe you see this as a harmless statement, but many people percieve it as a threat. Witness North Korea!

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Spiffor

We in Europe know better than anyone what appeasement politics led to. Our very ground was destroyed by the following all-out war. Our people, military and civilians alike were slaughtered by the same war. Our mindset and all of our recent history is rooted in this war, which we know could have been far less terrible if France and Britain took action before it was too late.

I know this was intended for someone else but I'd like to answer it too if I may...
Your statement above could just as easily refer to WW1. The most terrible conflict in history. A European war into which the US was drawn against their will, losing American lives defending Europeans.
At the conclusion Germany, against US wishes, loses territory and is effectively saddled with the harshest reparations ever effected. In other words after the worst conflict in human history Europe dealt with the losers in the same way that they'd dealt with the losers in all of their previous wars, albeit on a larger scale.
Europe then disarms and enters a "New age of Peace and Enlightenment".
The league of Nations is set up - largely pushed by the US but it then fails being the proverbial paper tiger.
15 years later, suffering the effects of a crippled economy, Germany elects the extremist Nazi government that would lead to the second WW. The extremist government establishes itself as an autocracy. Europe does nothing. The Nazi's rearm - against the treaties Germany signed after WW1. Europe again does nothing. The demands begin and again Europe does nothing or accedes - finally beginning to rearm only too late. Again the fighting breaks out and again the US intervenes, losing many American lives defending and liberating Europeans.
At the end of this war, now having set a new record as the most costly in history, the US has learned valuable lessons regarding paper treaties, disarming and ignoring potential threats. The USSR lurks on the horizon as a potential threat and so US occupation forces remain in Europe, even as newly-constituted European governments once again begin disarming, relying on paper treaties and good intentions to keep the USSR at bay.
At US urging the UN is set up and becomes more than just a paper tiger this time, demonstrating resolve in Korea with the aid of US muscle.
Finally, after much US urging, European governments begin rearming in the 'late '60s and early 70s when the cold war heats up and just as the strategic balance has become critical. This remains in effect until the thawing of relations and eventual dissolution of the USSR in the early '90's.

In short - and from the US point of view - Europe seems to be intent on repeating its past mistakes over and over again - only failing in this after active US opposition.
In short - to answer your query about appeasement and diplomacy - from the US perspective?
If Europe has learned the folly of the above from past experiences then thats a secret they're keeping well hidden.

(btw, I'm strongly convinced France and Germany do not take an appeasement approach, simply because they don't consider Iraq as a threat to appease ; the whole "Iraq is a threat to all of us " rethoric is completely alien to me in the European media)

That, I think is the whole root of the problem, from the US point of view. Europe yet again seems to want to ignore a potential problem and hope it goes away. Iraq is certainly not a threat to either the US or Europe (unless they do begin actively arming terrorists I suppose) but its against the US mindset to believe that it will stay that way. Just as it seems to be in character for the European mindset to believe the same.
Ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads can reach almost anywhere on the face of the planet. Iraq doesn't have either but has dmonstrated a clear desire for both.
The US looks to a future where they have both and wishes to prevent it from happening.
Europe seems to be, again, hoping it goes away by itself.

Similarly for the growing situation in NK right now...

[MattHiggs]

Eurotwit or Eurocom, surprisingly, doesn't offend me.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Oh, I got it....but apparently answering in kind isn't so effective....

-=Vel=-

I wasn't so bright this morning. Forgive me...

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Ya know, Roland, this whole cross-pond who bashes who more crapfest just won't work as well if we keep agreeing with each other.

I'm very sorry for this inconvenience.

"There's generally a range of policy option between outright appeasement and half-assed invasion"

I know I shouldn't agree, but... the whole appeasement crap is getting just too silly. Under that logic, Truman was appeasing Stalin, and Bush is appeasing the dear leader Kim. I'd call that containment though. The comparison with Hitler is so stupid it almost hurts physically.

The one real appeasement problem that I see currently is Pakistan. Guess who's leading the asscrawling there....

rav:

"A European war into which the US was drawn against their will, losing American lives defending Europeans."

A european war in which the US intervened for no apparant reason after a hysteric propaganda campaign, only to get out soon after and leave an extremely unstable situation behind.

Hmm... how does that compare to what we can expect in the middle east?

[ravagon]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
rav:

"A European war into which the US was drawn against their will, losing American lives defending Europeans."

A european war in which the US intervened for no apparant reason after a hysteric propaganda campaign, only to get out soon after and leave an extremely unstable situation behind.

Hmm... how does that compare to what we can expect in the middle east?

Can't comment on the propaganda campaign (and I think its a little harsh to call the Lusitania "incident" propaganda - even though it may've been used as such afterwards) as I don't know too much about it other than that they didn't come in until they felt they had no other choice.
After WW1 though the US made the attempt to ensure that it wasn't leaving behind an unstable situation.
Wilson vehemently opposed the implementation of such harsh reparations on the defeated Central Powers and wanted to give the League of Nations real muscle to try and prevent a recurrence.
Unfortunately he failed in both of these - not, I hasten to add, that he had any particular foresight into the future WW2 - nor was the US of such prominance at that time that they were able to impose order by force.
The important point though is that the US, post WW2, didn't repeat what they felt was the mistake they made after WW1 - retreating into isolation.
When they've intervened on a large scale ever since they haven't just left a mess behind - they built up Japan and the FRG post WW2 as buffers against the SU - economically as well as militarily, then the RoK after that conflict.
Vietnam they lost (effectively) so could hardly clean up afterwards and they stayed behind after Gulf War 1 too (and took the occasional bit of stick for it into the bargain ).
Into the bargain they used their new-found influence over the moderate Arab States to help bring about a solution to the Arab-Israeli mess - recall the PLO supporting Saddam during his brief Kuwaiti occupation?
Its hardly resolved even a decade later but the PLO isno longer hunted as a terrorist organization and governs a semi-autonomous territory in the approximate location they were supposed to occupy.
It may not be much progress but its progress nonetheless.

[HershOstropoler]

"I think its a little harsh to call the Lusitania "incident" propaganda - even though it may've been used as such afterwards"

Using the Lusitania was part of the propaganda, but also a general evil germans - good democratic allies (I suppose including the czar until 1917) campaign. A cynic could also point to the US loans made to the allies as a motive....

"Wilson vehemently opposed the implementation of such harsh reparations on the defeated Central Powers"

Not very vehemently. But I won't start another Wilson debate.

"they built up Japan and the FRG post WW2 as buffers against the SU - economically as well as militarily, then the RoK after that conflict."

Yes, but do you really think that with the current political system of the US, anything like the Marshall plan or NATO would be remotely possible?

[ravagon]

I'll leave the rest alone too - starting to split hairs a tad - but ...

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Yes, but do you really think that with the current political system of the US, anything like the Marshall plan or NATO would be remotely possible?

With the current bad PR (that's what I term it and I'm sticking with it ) the US government gets? Probably not. In relation to Iraq anyway. The thing is though that Iraq isn't a clear and present danger (to the US and Europe anyway) and hence they can't implement a solution of such magnitude. Its a future problem the US is trying to solve in the present.
When Nato was brought into being there was an obvious present threat. The Marshall plan an obvious and present need.
I regard US current policy more as going after the root of a problem before it grows too much more than anything else. From an American Govt POV anyway.

[HershOstropoler]

Well the original point was "leave an extremely unstable situation behind". To avoid that, the US has to either install a puppet dictator who will get either toppled or starts to cut the strings, so it's back to the starting line. Or the US has to stay at least 10 years and put in a lot of effort to create a somewhat decent state there.

What will happen? That's not a matter of "bad PR", but of the extreme shorttermism and special interest whoring.

[ravagon]

Afghanistan?
Not the best example of an ideal outcome mind you but then the situation is rather different.
They tried to set up a puppet interim government taking into account the different religious and ethnic sects for a period to lead to democratic (not necessarily the best form of govt for the country) elections after a period.
The same structure in Iraq would be more effective - assuming they could keep the country together - as with sole power concentrated in Saddam, his removal wouldn't leave a fractious civil war behind.

[HershOstropoler]

In Afghanistan, bribing the warlords was the easy (and right) way to victory. The problem is that this leaves the country as a confederation of fiefdoms. And the US is already disengaging from Afghanistan. It does not contribute to ISAF, for example.

In Iraq the US would have to occupy the country, unless it really wants to rely on the Kurds, the Tikritis and co, and some shiite clans to run the country. Unlike Afghanistan, I do not think this would hold together even as a lose confederacy.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Willem


Vel you should know better, one nation conquering another is hardly a new approach. And it worked real well in the last two world wars didn't it?

Well it sure worked much better in WW2 than it has tended to throughout history. You picked a bad example, and with so many good ones to choose from.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Look, I'm sure all here can agree that Saddam is a real ****er and we all like his regime to end. However when it comes to the current situation we have to remember that it didn't arise from the US et al. reacting against something he did, this is the US acting. The former group of weapons inspectors left in, what was it? -97, -98? More or less 'voluntary' as the regime didn't cooperate fully. What happend then? Nothing. OK so it was another man in charge in the land of the brave but did the policy really change as soon as Bush got into office? No, not really. Then came that incident at WTC and everything changed for the US, not in the ME. Countries that wasn't attacked might not at all se Iraq as a bigger threat than the US did before that. And why should they?

You are wrong about the intention to deal with Iraq stemming from 911. Bush ran on it during the campaign of 2000. Damn, and such a great case of hypocrisy. Too bad it's bullsh!t.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
(snipped)

Britan was not well liked during their Imperialist phase either, (and check out Hollywood movies these days, after Nazis and Soviets are gone Brits are the main baddies for their past crimes ) and there were good reasons for it too, but what did post-colonial Britan do as a difference while getting out of colonies was making sure that every country had democrtic process in place when they got out. As a consequence there is no general bad feelings towards UK today in those places even though many are in civil wars or such... but they are fighting it out amongst themselves not having one powerful country sponsoring one side and making them win, which is what US did since WWII. So Brits seem to have learnt their lesson and that is what US needs to do, especially if it is true (what some here claim) that we can all get along without ME oil. But that directly opposes the US involment policies. On the other hand what I would propose is that US starts leaving democracies behind instead of propping leaders that suit their short term interests like Saddam was at the beginning.

Bushes idea of a democratic Iraq is cool, but can he deliver, and what happens if an pro-Iran and anti-US party wins? And that is very likely.

To call the U.S. a colonial power for its actions during the Cold War is stretching the real meaning of the term too far, though it is quite in keeping with its (communist) propoganda meaning. The U.S. actions during the Cold War in a vast majority of cases had nothing to do with enriching itself, expanding its glory, or Christianizing the natives (though a nod to the propoganda used to expand democracy and capitalism might be a weak modern analog). It was a fairly straightforward attempt to line up more power on our side of the philisophical divide in a pretty desperate conflict. Both sides drew some incorrect conclusions from WW2 (and some correct ones), assuming for instance that conquest and absolute victory / defeat would be the norm. Add to this the ideological conflict that reminded both sides of the bad old days a few years before, and raise the stakes to everything on the table and in your pocket due to nuclear weapons, and you have the Cold War in a nutshell. Imperialism it was not.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Willem


Oh really? Why then did Bush jump on the war wagon immediately after securing Afghanistan? Why is he constantly repeating the mantra that "Saddam must be disarmed" even when there's been no proof that he even has anything? He doesn't want to listen to anyone, except for his lap dog Blair. He won't even consider any other viewpoint. Hell, even Stormin Norman has come out and said that there's currently no basis for a war.

And it certainly didn't take very long before American troops were on the ground in Afghanistan. Not that I'm criticizing, I feel that was warranted. But the current position on Iraq isn't, at least not yet. If the inspectors find proof that he has WOMD, then it will be. But not until then.

Whatever happened to the American concept of innocent until proven guilty?

Since when do states comport their foreign policy as though it were a judicial matter? Why did Canada declare war on Germany without solid proof that the Germans in fact did not attack Poland in self defense? Was your Grandfather demanding that the British prove that the Germans invaded without provocation? Or did Canadians back then have more common sense than you do, and consider the sources of their information as well as its content?