Europe-US Split ... Ramifications May Last For Years

[Drake Tungsten]

You call Iraq "an open and shut case". Most Europeans don't agree with you.

Most Europeans are wrong then. The case for military action in Iraq is about as clear-cut as you are ever going to find short of self-defense and far more justified than NATO's little adventure in Kosovo. I guess the French and Germans don't have a problem with US power when we're doing them a favor...

while bemoaning the fact that you don't see eye-to-eye.

I'm not bemoaning the fact that we don't see eye-to-eye; I'm bemoaning the fact that Old Europe stabbed America in the back while we're trying to take out a piece of **** like Hussein.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
They don't have to fight. They don't have to send units.

They also do not need to stand in the way and throw a huge hissy fit over it..

It is the US taxpayer that is paying the bills to keep the lid on Saddam. Should they have to do that forever before they say, pfft... strike three, you're out?

And like it or not, the US administration links Saddam to their current crusade in the aftermath of 9/11. You may not see it. I may not see it, clearly. However, they see a link. It was a very large miscalculation on the part of the French and Germans to have got in front of that train. And it certainly is not something anyone who wanted to be considered an ally would do.

The US asked for UN approval. The French, the Russians, the Germans and the Chinese all have seats on the UNSC. They all have to have something to say about it. That's their job. You're asking them to abstain or be silent just because the US wants something?

Not having an unnecessary war is incredibly important to the European public. By your logic, the US admin should keep its mouth shut and not go to war so as not to endanger the friendship.

The fact is that they see things differently. And they both have the right and the responsibility to play it as they see it, while at the same time trying to work towards a common goal. I've seen little to no movement on either side, so they're both to blame.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

You call Iraq "an open and shut case". Most Europeans don't agree with you.

Most Europeans are wrong then. The case for military action in Iraq is about as clear-cut as you are ever going to find short of self-defense and far more justified than NATO's little adventure in Kosovo. I guess the French and Germans don't have a problem with US power when we're doing them a favor...

"They're wrong and I'm right, so it's their fault we're having a fight".

[Drake Tungsten]

Defend Europe all you want, Kitty. Anyone who's paying attention can see who screwed over who in this whole deal...

America compromised by going to the UN for approval. America compromised by giving the French their second resolution. America compromised by not going into Iraq after Blix's first report. What has France done to compromise with us? Good luck trying to find an example...

[Kropotkin]

The use of the phrase "old Europe" is a sign of the infamous american hybris. Since the birth of the american nation there has been in their self image as the worlds last hope, a priore a little bit better than the "old world". Sometimes it's portrayed in biblical word, sometimes it's not. It has always been a obstruction to more objective analysis in the history of american international politics.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger


The US asked for UN approval. The French, the Russians, the Germans and the Chinese all have seats on the UNSC. They all have to have something to say about it. That's their job. You're asking them to abstain or be silent just because the US wants something?

Not having an unnecessary war is incredibly important to the European public. By your logic, the US admin should keep its mouth shut and not go to war so as not to endanger the friendship.

The fact is that they see things differently. And they both have the right and the responsibility to play it as they see it, while at the same time trying to work towards a common goal. I've seen little to no movement on either side, so they're both to blame.

Sorry, but the hew and cry from day one of the Saddam debate from hither and yon was to go through the UN. Fine, Bush said on Powell's advice, let's give the UN a chance.

Bit him in the ass, it did. I doubt any US administration in the near or distant furture will forget the lesson.

Bottom line, the US is in a struggle with elements of the Muslim world. They will do various things in the next 5 to 10 or 20 years. I severely doubt they will submit another such issue to the UN. There goes whatever influence the French ever had a hope of having in events upcoming.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
America compromised by going to the UN for approval. America compromised by giving the French their second resolution. America compromised by not going into Iraq after Blix's first report. What has France done to compromise with us? Good luck trying to find an example...

The US was legally required to get UN approval. The US is legally required to get a 2nd resolution. The US was legally required to not go to war after the first Blix report.

Compromise, my ass.

[notyoueither]

How is that, HershOstropoler?

The US can do nothing without UN approval? Did they have approval for Vietnam? The Cuban Missile Crisis? Grenada? Panama?

[Drake Tungsten]

The US was legally required to get UN approval. The US is legally required to get a 2nd resolution. The US was legally required to not go to war after the first Blix report.

Compromise, my ass.

Give me a break. You act as if the US has to follow international law, which should be obviously false to a person with your legal background.

The US doesn't have to get a UN resolution authorizing force, as Kosovo showed. If the US really wants to, they can justify an attack based on 1441, so a second resolution is not necessary. And America could've declared Iraq in material breach of 1441 anytime after Blix first reported non-compliance, legally paving the way for war.

America has been compromising its ass off to try and get international support, but that's all going to stop real damn soon. I hope Old Europe is ready to reap what it has sown...

[monkspider]

This is just another silly anti-Europe/anti-USA thread. One side attacks the other and so on and so forth into acrimonious stalemate. The sooner we come to realize what we have in common is more important rather than what seperates us, the better. That goes for the rest of the world too.

[HershOstropoler]

NYE:

"The US can do nothing without UN approval?"

1. Can do and must not do can diverge.

2. Who said "nothing"?

Grenada - violation. Panama - IIRC there was a clause in the Canal Treaty. Vietnam - The south was attacked.

DT:

"You act as if the US has to follow international law"

Of course it has to. If US violations of international become even more blatant, you'll get a nice backlash.

"The US doesn't have to get a UN resolution authorizing force, as Kosovo showed."

A one time violation without a new opinio iuris is not sufficient for desuetudo.

"If the US really wants to, they can justify an attack based on 1441"

How so? Where does 1441 say "The US may attack Iraq at her plesaure" ?

"And America could've declared Iraq in material breach of 1441"

Not your business, the SC has to decide that.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by monkspider
This is just another silly anti-Europe/anti-USA thread. One side attacks the other and so on and so forth into acrimonious stalemate. The sooner we come to realize what we have in common is more important rather than what seperates us, the better. That goes for the rest of the world too.

Unfortunately that is not the hand that is being dealt, MS. Europe and the US seem determined to sail seperate courses.

Europe (or some of Europe) is upset that the US will not submit to multilateral arrangements such as courts and environment treaties. The US is upset that Europe (or some of Europe) is obstructing their foreign policy and war aims.

The view from Canada is not pleasant at all. It all seems to be going to hell. This thread is not about ant- anything though. It is about discussing the rift and its consequences.

[monkspider]

You're right that there is a rift NYE, and it will get much larger before it will get smaller, at least, if things follow their present course. There is no hand that has been dealt, nothing is written in stone.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
NYE:

"The US can do nothing without UN approval?"

1. Can do and must not do can diverge.

2. Who said "nothing"? You're strawmanning again.

Grenada - violation. Panama - IIRC there was a clause in the Canal Treaty. Vietnam - The south was attacked.

I'll ignore the 'strawmanning'. I owe you one, at least.

Let me try it another way. What are the consequences for the US legally if they invade Iraq?

What were the consequences for the USSR when they invaded Afghanistan? North Vietnam when they invaded South Vietnam? Argentina when they invaded the Falklands, or the British when they took them back? Just about any country, with very few exceptions, when they invaded another? Legally, that is. There are no legal consequences. True?

For there to be consequences, there would have to be a UNSC resolution, true? I don't see the prospects of a condemnation of the US passing without veto as being very high. Do you?

[HershOstropoler]

"What are the consequences for the US legally if they invade Iraq?"

Without SC resolution? The war is an illegal war of aggression, then. Consequences: All UN members are entitled to take repressalia against the US, responsible US leaders are criminally liable in the Nuremberg/Tokyo tradition.

Of course enforcement of those consequences is highly unlikely. But there are legal consequences. And lack of enforcement does not necessarily render a law void.

The real consequences are the cost to the US' diplomatic standing in the world. In EU2 terms, it gets close to "hated throughout the world".