Whatever is wrong with #1: Old Europe

[Provost Harrison]

Stew, answer the man and stop picking fault with a silly typo. If you consider yourself to be such an eloquent arguer, rebuff and demonstrate your point. So far you've just emitted a childish 'nyer nyer' in UR's direction, which may impress young children in the playground but cuts no ice with grown adults.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We're the continent that has been war-torn for centuries, have experienced some of the worst atrocities seen by man and we're now venerable and wise, having learnt that fighting is not the answer and able to behave in a dignified, civilised manner.

This was also supposed to be the case during the 'Belle Epoch' (1890-1914), and that didn't end up being very dignified and civilized.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Boddington's

Sorry bods, but your arguements are extremly poor. I recommend you dont enter debates you can't even propose a semi-arguement in.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Japher


The history of the Europeans is one long war, of course, but how can we say they have learned from it? s(sarcasm).

The history of humankind is full of war- Europe is hardly an object lesson in warfare. The United States hardly came to spread from sea to shining sea without waging war (officially or unofficially) against Native Americans and Mexicans and the British Empire and the Spanish Empire.

In the Caribbean and Central America there has been American armed intervention in Nicaragua (invaded more than once), Panama, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Honduras, and Guatemala. The Polk and Monroe Doctrines effectively decreed that the Western Hemisphere was an American hegemony.

In 1965, for instance, the United States used 23 000 troops to suppress a nationalist force of 4 000 rebels in the Dominican Republic. So few medals, so many troops...

One might ask- what has America learned from these wars/armed interventions? Pick an enemy that's smaller than you, and a country that has assets you'd like to exploit- fruit, coffee, tobacco, sugar, a canal...

[Felch]

There's nothing wrong with Old Europe. And honestly, taking an anti-war stance in this case is the morally upright position. The problem is that your (Old Europe's) anti-war stance is both based on selfish factors (French and Russian oil deals with the Hussein regime) and that it is disruptive to our war plans (by derailing a UNSC rubber stamp). This means that we are both irritated and feel vindicated in attacking you. If there were no Euros to be made for French oil companies, the US might just take this as a simple "No thanks, we won't involve ourselves." Instead this is perceived as a diplomatic backstab by our oldest ally.

I'm not going to bull**** - the US is in this for immoral reasons. However, that's entirely our business, and if Europe feels like pestering us over it, be prepared for us to respond similarly. No one ever said it was easy to make the right decision, and I think Old Europe is realizing that now. There will be consequences for not helping out the great power of the day, and it's your choice if you feel like paying that price.

[Ned]

The difference between old Europe and the new is the French still remember that we had carriers and marines offshore while their troops were massacred at Dein Bien Phu in '54, and we forced them to give up the Suez Canal in '56.

I believe they have long memories. This is payback.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Ned
The difference between old Europe and the new is the French still remember that we had carriers and marines offshore while their troops were massacred at Dein Bien Phu in '54, and we forced them to give up the Suez Canal in '56.

I believe they have long memories. This is payback.

I wish the Brits had longer memories, too. Though I recently found one blogger with a great line:

Iraq's not our business, Saddam's weapons can't reach us, and if the Iraqis hate their regime it's up to them to change it.

Quite.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


I wish the Brits had longer memories, too. Though I recently found one blogger with a great line:

Iraq's not our business, Saddam's weapons can't reach us, and if the Iraqis hate their regime it's up to them to change it.

Quite.

This is my point: that the US, historically, has had no problem with this line of reasoning. Europe, 1914-1917, was the staging ground for something that was "not our war"; it was so again from 1939-1941, even as war was being waged by a recognizeable madman. Suez was our allies' problem but not ours, and it was tough titties when they lost. The Cold War was our war, but Budepest '56 and Prague '68 were not our battles. And let's add one more: the Kurdish uprising of 1991, which we said was our battle...but then we changed our minds and decided that they were on their own.

Let's face it: the US loves realpolitik; the only thing we have a right to say to France and Germany right now is, "hey, we understand; been there, done that."

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
The difference between old Europe and the new is the French still remember that we had carriers and marines offshore while their troops were massacred at Dein Bien Phu in '54, and we forced them to give up the Suez Canal in '56.

I believe they have long memories. This is payback.

I learned these 2 events were crushing defeats for the inept French military. If we needed anything there, it was your strategists rather than your material. Our strategists really sucked during all the WW2 and postwar period

(ah, I can't resist to ridicule Dien Bien Phu here, completely off topic) :
Basically, the French generals wanted to hit strongly the Viet military before the upcoming peace negociations, to raise France's bargaining power. Highest technology weapons were used in Dien Bien Phu by the French military, while the Viets only had obsolete Soviet and Chinese weapons.

Dien Bien Phu is at the bottom of several hills, and the French established their defenses there : an airport, several bunkers, and a greatly organized base. All material was brought quickly via air. However, the strategists made their usual fatal mistake again, i.e they underestimated the enemy. They were convinced the Viets will dash to the bunkers, to be massacred by well-protected and well-armed French soldiers.

The Viet general brought cannons with his army, at great expanse of civilian life (it is hard to transport cannons on foot in the jungle). He calmly placed the cannons on the hills in several days, without the French considering the threat. Once the cannons were in place, they simply fired, and cut the supply lines of the bunkers, while destroying the vital airport.
Despite a very superior technology, a very superior mobility, and a better training of the troops, France suffered a humiliating defeat at Dien Bien Phu, because of the sheer incompetence of the leadership. Of course, France's bargaining power in the following negociations crumbled.

Funny fact is : had the French understood the threat sooner, they could have packed up everything and fly to another front, while most of the Viet army was stuck in this useless patch of land. Had the French army made this smart move, the decolonization of Vietnam might have been veeery different.

[Spiffor]

I think the whole differentiation between "Old Europe" and "New Europe" is an absurd rhetorics just intended to divide Europe between Friend and foes in the eye of the avaerage American.

Basically, this division comes out of the blue just after 8 countries show their disagreement with France and Germany. So what. It's not the first time a disagreement happens between European countries, and it's not the last time (duh). It doesn't mean there is a deep rift.

The only valid point of "old" vs "new" Europe is the emergence of new powers in the European decision making process. While the European dynamics was solely the role of France and Germany in the past, Spain, Italy and Britain now don't want to be marginalized anymore. It is very likely the French-German couple loosens enough to accept these players into the definition of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (all these States have played a demonstration of force), and the power struggle will be back to normal, i.e big countries vs. small countries.

As soon as the war will be over, the whole "Old Europe - New Europe" rhetorics will be thrown into the trashcan, which it deserves.

[Solly]

Because, Rich and Snapcase, Eastern Europe was created in 1989 wasn't it?

The US has the oldest written constitution, one of the oldest political systems.

I don't even see the relevance of the thread title. He sounds a bit confused.

[Spiffor]

Snapcase :

I think your description in the first post is absurd, since all European countries acknowledge the role of force, and use it from time to time. It is a common misconception in America (and a conseption many Europeans would love to believe) that European countries are now promoting peace in all circumstances. It is wrong : Britain has followed the US in every bloodspilling adventure it went into, Spain and Italy are now unconditionally backing whatever cowboy Bush says about Iraq, and everyone except Germany think force must be used at some point against Saddam (yes, France is not surrendering, it is considering all diplomatic options have not been exhausted yet)

True, our many wars play some role in our globally more peaceful approach to international relations : our loathe for war is deep rooted in the values of the people (and as such influences a bit the decisions taken by our leaders). However our countries as a whole didn't reach this alleged enlightenment.

The Americans sure do not loathe war as much as we do, and in fact many seem to enjoy the idea of war, since America is on the good side of the smart bomb. the cause is rather an active and organized building of anti-war sentiment after WW2 in Europe than a natural evolution after WW2.

If the EU fails to unite European people under a great goal of permanent peace in Europe, war might slowly become an option again in the minds of Europeans. There is a risk war will be seen as an ordinary tool of politics if we don't care about it.

[DAVOUT]

The European civilization is not yet declining. What is completely new in its long history is the state of peace between the main powers, and this state is much appreciated. Another fundamental element is that Europe is not presently threatened by a conventional agression. It is therefore absolutely reasonnable, acknowledging the unconventional threat of terrorism, to think twice before deciding which will be the more appropriate answer. We are just at a moment where it is not clear that a conventional war is this answer.
And the operations in Afghanistan did not make the subject clearer.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
The European civilization is not yet declining. What is completely new in its long history is the state of peace between the main powers, and this state is much appreciated. Another fundamental element is that Europe is not presently threatened by a conventional agression. It is therefore absolutely reasonnable, acknowledging the unconventional threat of terrorism, to think twice before deciding which will be the more appropriate answer. We are just at a moment where it is not clear that a conventional war is this answer.
And the operations in Afghanistan did not make the subject clearer.

Length of the period of peace between the great powers following the Council of Vienna: 56 years.

# of years between Franco-Prussian war and WW1: 41.

# of years since WW2: 58.

Not all that unusual, though this is now the longest period of relative peace in modern European history.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
The difference between old Europe and the new is the French still remember that we had carriers and marines offshore while their troops were massacred at Dein Bien Phu in '54, and we forced them to give up the Suez Canal in '56.

I believe they have long memories. This is payback.

Oh, Ned what a daft notion. Suez was fought on the one side by Nasser's Egypt, and on the other by Great Britain AND Israel AND France.

Where's the payback from Great Britain and Israel? Are you suggesting that Israel and Great Britain have 'state' amnesia, or short term memory loss?

The British Empire lost far more than the French did to the Americans, both directly and indirectly- remember how the United States refused to share in the nuclear arms projects post-war, yet was quite happy to have British ingenuity help build the atom bomb during the war?

How about the United States moving into the markets that the British used to supply in Central and South America, post World War I? or the United States harbouring people who fund and organise Noraid, an organisation with links to known terrorist organisations in the United Kingdom? Or again, how about Reagan ordering an invasion of a member of the British Commonwealth without informing either the head of the Commonwealth or the British Prime Minister beforehand? Or Jeane Kirkpatrick's vociferous support for Argentina at the United Nations before and after the Falklands War?

I'd say Great Britain has a lot more to pay back than France, and yet is a very vocal supporter of George Bush Mk.II (new and not improved!).