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

[randomturn]

come on, france and germany aren't acting "to stop the war." they have absolutely no power to do so. bush has made absolutely clear from the very beginning that Iraq would disarm to american satisfaction or there would be war -- with or without the UN or allies. So then what are their real motives?

It is widely perceived in america now that -- in contrast to china and russia -- france and germany have strictly personal self-interest at stake rather than high morality: reelection for Shroeder and deification for Chirac. It is generally accepted as gospel that france's motives have been to use iraq to consolidate franco-german control over european foreign policy and leadership over the rest of europe in general (and they call america "imperialist"!). The french are enjoying themselves far too much. A lot of countries oppose the US policy, many for honest and fair reasons -- but the french are grandstanding on the world stage. The french are making themselves despised here, even by Americans like me who oppose the war as it currently stands.

the alliance is over, you will see. whatever the next crisis after Iraq, the US president won't even bother to call the french or germans. They have lost all their voice in american international affairs, (while Britain has greatly increased hers). And it will be a long day coming before the US goes before the UN. Why bother? How can you receive legitimacy from a group whose motives are so disingenuous? Yes, the bushies are terrible diplomats and terrible leaders -- but they made clear how important this was for them, and france and germany chose to play games with them anyway.

[ahenobarb]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Who were the counterbalances to the Romans or Mongols for example?

Romans had the Etruscans, the Samnites, Magna Graeca, Carthage, Alex the G's successor states, the Parthians, Sassanids, and on and on until 410 AD (or 1453 depending on your view). They were constantly counter balanced, the first several balances didn't hold. The Sassanids kept Rome on its toes in the East long enough for the barbs to do them in in the West.

Mongols came on too fast and unseen (few lived in inner Asia at the time) for any state to have time to consider counter-balancing. After their conquests, those states that remained provided an uncoordinated counter-balance. At least the kept them in check until the Khanates did themselves in.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian


Wow, and Americans are accused of arrogance?

Frankly, I'm glad you have no interest in living here, even if your "reasons" are either false or grand exaggerations.

-Arrian

See what I mean.....

[Agathon]

Let's look at the supposedly "lunatic" French side of the debate

1. The US bring Iraq at the top of world's problem out of the blue, for domestic poltical matters.

Perhaps not for domestic political matters, but it was certainly out of the blue. There is no demonstrated connection between Iraq and 911 nor is there a plausible case that Iraq would be involved with 911 like events in the future. In fact it looks like hawks in the administration (the deranged Wolfowitz, et al.) are merely using 911 as a pretext for a war they have long wanted.

How off base is this? Well..

Brezinski (an insider if there ever was one) argues in The Grand Chessboardthat some large scale threat or attack is precisely what is needed to galvanise domestic support that would be required for US operations to preserve it's global pre-eminence.

It is a matter of historical record that Perle, Wolfowitz, et al have been agitating for an invasion of Iraq for years. It is also a documented matter of fact that the "pre-emptive strikes" policy makes the preservation of US pre-eminence by military means official policy of the government of the United States.

Conclusion: there is ample reason, from its very own proponents, to think that this war is motivated by unilateralist impulses that are not in the interest of the rest of the world.

2. The US wants war. It says so to Europe, and expects everyone to accept.

I think it is clear that the dominant members of the current US administration have wanted this war for a very long time. That is a matter of historical record. It is also a matter of fact that the US has basically done this over the last few months. I think it is a reasonable inference to make that they expected the rest of the world to accept otherwise it makes their diplomatic strategy rather opaque (are they trying to divide Europe rather than get rid of Saddam? etc.).

So 2. is also likely to be true.

3. Given the high reluctance, the US goes to the UN to get a rubberstamp, to further their warmongering agenda. France accepts to draw 1441, rather than blocking the whole procedure altogether.

That's exactly why they went. They want regime change in Iraq and were prepared to make the case in terms of disarmament because they thought that the result (i.e. war would be the same). 1441 is a reasonable compromise. It puts pressure on Iraq to disarm whilst leaving options open. I don't think anyone could have a good reason to reject 1441.

4. The US can only agree to an unclear resolution with unclear (albeit serious) consequences. It has shown no willingness whatsoever to find a peaceful way.

It has shown no willingness whatever to find a peaceful way to disarming Iraq because it doesn't want disarmament, it wants regime change, which the UN cannot authorise. So this is also true.

5. The US send troops to the Gulf, and expect everyone to shut up.

This is also true. The attitude of the US has been, "how dare you object!"

6. France and Germany voice their opposition.

Again, true.

7. Britain, Italy and Spain, like the good vassals they are, side with the American big brother. The Bush admin ridicules, insults and call names its allies who have simply voicced their opposition.

Again all true.

8. It is true France answered too vividly, and should have seeked to calm the cowboys.

How could they have sought to calm the "cowboys" when the Bush administration has made it clear that there can ultimately be no compromise?

9. Powell brings "decisive proof" that Iraq is a threat to the est. These proofs are nothing more than some rag-tag intel, on par with the British files directly copied from a student's work.

Again, this is true. The so-called proofs have all been hopeless. And what's more, if the US did have proof it is in violation of the UN resolution by not giving it to the inspectors to check up (or it should do so if it is really committed to disarmament).

So either way you look at it they are sunk. Either they are giving up false information because they want war, or they are witholding information because they want war. Either way, they want war.

10. The US will do anything to have the UNSC approve the war, despite Blix saying the inspections are working.

Not anything, but certainly bribes, threats, etc.

11. The US do only want war, won't listen to anyone else, and are completely wrong.

I'm not sure that most people think that they are completely wrong. After all most people think Saddam is a bad guy. However, the US has in this case and in several others demonstrated contempt for international institutions when they don't serve its own interests. People who are committed to some kind of international rule of law and democracy either now or in the future have good reason to dislike the Bush policy.

And it is true that they seem unwilling to listen to any other opinions.


So what's the problem here. I don't think that there is anything radically unreasonable in any of these claims. Some of them could be interepreted in a radically over the top fashion, but literally they make a lot of sense given what has happened. I don't see how any of these are necessarily part of some extreme anti-American view of events.

[Arrian]

Social system: subjective. I don't agree.
Political system: It's a long way from perfect, to be sure, but I don't see perfection out there. To call it "a joke" is, at the very least, exaggeration.
Lack of press freedom: Bull.
Pressure to conform to militaristic jingoism: If you mean that people who want war vs. Iraq are trying to convince others to go along, yeah, of course they are. However, those who are anti-war are doing the same for their beliefs. The pro-war people are the ones running the government at this time, however, and thus they are calling the shots right now.
Crime: no argument here.

So, IMO, your characterization of America is deeply flawed, and displays either lack of understanding or deliberate mischaracterization. I suspect the latter. Accordingly, I'm pleased you have no desire to live here.

-Arrian

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian
Social system: subjective. I don't agree.
Policital system: It's a long way from perfect, to be sure, but I don't see perfection out there. To call it "a joke" is, at the very least, exaggeration.
Lack of press freedom: Bull.
Pressure to conform to militaristic jingoism: If you mean that people who want war vs. Iraq are trying to convince others to go along, yeah, of course they are. However, those who are anti-war are doing the same for their beliefs. The pro-war people are the ones running the government at this time, however, and thus they are calling the shots right now.
Crime: no argument here.

So, IMO, your characterization of America is deeply flawed, and displays either lack of understanding or deliberate mischaracterization. I suspect the latter. Accordingly, I'm pleased you have no desire to live here.

-Arrian

I don't see how the notion of a social system is subjective. A system that imprisons such a huge proportion of its population and a huger proportion of its black population and among other things cannot provide decent health care to its citizens cannot be anything but a failure.

Are pro-war or anti-war people being threatened with blacklisting in Canada? No.

Lack of press freedom. Look in the UN human development index, where this is measured. The US is, surpisingly for a country with such a stated committment to free speech, quite far down the list.

A political system in which a candidate's brother can disenfranchise thousands of legal voters and engage in other nefarious activities and where the winner is not decided by the simple expedient of counting the votes and in which less than half the population votes is a joke.

[Arrian]

UN human development index

I think I saw that list. IIRC, I had some objections to exactly how they calculated press freedom. That aside, I see contrary viewpoints ALL THE TIME in our press, and find it easy to fill in any gaps via the internet.

Re: social system: like I said, I disagree with you. I'm not claiming that we have it all figured out and everyone should be just like us. Never did. But neither do I think anyone else has it all figured out and we should emulate them. Your location says it all: left of Lenin. I'm no neo-con, but I'm a long way to the right of you.

Re: the last election. You choose to believe one side of the story. Clearly, you choose the side closer to your political beliefs. Understandable, most people tend to do that. IMO, the electoral college needs to go, and THAT was the root of the problem. Both sides acted terribly while wrangling over who won based on which recount rules. I guarantee that any State that had to go to recounts would have turned up all sorts of minor (statistically speaking) problems. We need to update our voting system, using modern equipment.

But I do not subscribe to the "Jeb cheated for George and stole the election" theory. Sorry.

Re: blacklisting people. I agree that current administration is going too far, but the backlash is underway. Enough people remember McCarthy. However, the Canada analogy is weak, for several reasons. First: Canada is neither leading the charge for or against war. Second, there aren't pro-war demonstrators in Canada as far as I know. Third, why would the government mess with people agreeing with it (anti-war, as most of Canada is anti-war, and so is the government)?

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Anyway, this is rather pointless.

I reacted to your post for two reasons:

1) you left debate behind and starting taking potshots at America in general, which pissed me off.
2) those potshots were mostly, IMO, bs.

[/end threadjack]

-Arrian

[ahenobarb]

Originally posted by Agathon

How off base is this? Well..

Brezinski (an insider if there ever was one) argues in The Grand Chessboardthat some large scale threat or attack is precisely what is needed to galvanise domestic support that would be required for US operations to preserve it's global pre-eminence.

It is a matter of historical record that Perle, Wolfowitz, et al have been agitating for an invasion of Iraq for years. It is also a documented matter of fact that the "pre-emptive strikes" policy makes the preservation of US pre-eminence by military means official policy of the government of the United States.

Conclusion: there is ample reason, from its very own proponents, to think that this war is motivated by unilateralist impulses that are not in the interest of the rest of the world.

Pretty off base, the last refuge of a half-a$$ed arguement is in a conspiracy theory. The fact is many members of the US foriegn policy establishment have believed that Saddam Hussein is a serious threat for years. They advocated removing him at the time of the 1991 Gulf War and have since conitnued to advocate his removal.

Also, what country would want leaders that advocate reducing the pre-eminence of their military. "Sir, we need a military that can allow others to defeat us from time to time -- it's only fair." As RAH once said, "the most expensive thing in the world is a second rank military -- good, but not good enough to win."

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by ahenobarb


Romans had the Etruscans, the Samnites, Magna Graeca, Carthage, Alex the G's successor states, the Parthians, Sassanids, and on and on until 410 AD (or 1453 depending on your view). They were constantly counter balanced, the first several balances didn't hold. The Sassanids kept Rome on its toes in the East long enough for the barbs to do them in in the West.

Now which of those didnt the Romans wipe out over the centuries that their empire stood? They're not really in the same league as the Soviet-US balance during the cold war.

[ahenobarb]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Now which of those didnt the Romans wipe out over the centuries that their empire stood? They're not really in the same league as the Soviet-US balance during the cold war.

Bipolar world orders are rare in international relations. The most heavily studied one during the Cold War occured in Ancient Greece during the Peloponessian War and the experiences there didn't bode well for the US (the doomsayers never quit). Athens a sea power (read US) squared off against the Spartans a land power (USSR) and the Spartans came off on top.

The point is, it is a fundamental rule of international relations that other states will do their upmost to oppose the more powerful state if possible. If they cannot they will accomodate the power.

Relative to Rome, all of those other nations tried to stop Rome when it appeared on their radar screen (Egypt didn't care about Rome when it was working over the Samnites). They all failed except Parthia and the Sassanids. Those empires were close matches for Rome in power. Rome couldn't project power into their territory for very long (and was unwilling to risk the rest of its empire to do so) and the same for the other side. Instead they toyed with each other by setting up opposing kings on the Armenian throne. Balance was eventually acheived.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by ahenobarb


Pretty off base, the last refuge of a half-a$$ed arguement is in a conspiracy theory. The fact is many members of the US foriegn policy establishment have believed that Saddam Hussein is a serious threat for years. They advocated removing him at the time of the 1991 Gulf War and have since conitnued to advocate his removal.

Also, what country would want leaders that advocate reducing the pre-eminence of their military. "Sir, we need a military that can allow others to defeat us from time to time -- it's only fair." As RAH once said, "the most expensive thing in the world is a second rank military -- good, but not good enough to win."

Well, it isn't a conspiracy theory or you don't understand what "conspiracy theory" means. In fact it is you who are providing the half a$$sed objections because it is clear that you aren't familar with the facts.

A "conspiracy theory" is a theory that fits the available evidence but makes wild and unsubstantiated claims about motive. In other words it deliberately ignores the methodological principle of Ockham's razor.

What I offered is nothing of the sort. I offered publicly available information from pro-war sources. I suggest you go check out the sources yourself. Zbigniew Brezinski is well thought of in Washington and his book The Grand Chessboard is widely respected. I suggest you read it. I don't think stating the well known and published opinions of a foreign policy guru counts as a conspiracy theory. Roughly, Brezinski's argument is that American hegemony is vital and that aggressive pursuit of American interests in Eurasia is justifiable in the face of alternatives (I disagree, but that's what he says).

As for the rest I suggest you look read some of the material published by Wolfowitz, Perle et al. It's not secret stuff. In fact it's the sort of thing one sees a lot if one reads foreign policy stuff. They seem to agree with Brezinski in broad outline although they are much more hawkish than he is.

Similarly, the "pre-emptive strikes" policy is also available online.

Perhaps looking before you leap would help.

[Ned]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Now which of those didnt the Romans wipe out over the centuries that their empire stood? They're not really in the same league as the Soviet-US balance during the cold war.

The Romans did not wipe out the Germans, Goths or the Arabs. The Persians were also a major thorn in their side. The exhaustive war between Persia and Rome in the early 600's paved the way for Arab conquest of both empires.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
A political system in which a candidate's brother can disenfranchise thousands of legal voters and engage in other nefarious activities and where the winner is not decided by the simple expedient of counting the votes and in which less than half the population votes is a joke.

For a Canadian to tell Americans that their system is a joke is sort of laughable.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by The Viceroy
I agree completely with oliverfa, Lonewolf .. we are Europeans, and we see our future as your allies !! Only France believe's its some kind of super-power .. although it never has been, and German history may explain why many of them don't support war.

As for Agathon's continuing belief in that polls should replace democracy .. I have to say I thought of you last night when the BBC News 24's latest opinion poll asking "Would you support a war on Iraq without UN backing" .. got 55% for war, 45% against ..

You see, as ive told you before, Polls are merely indicative, and do not represent the people. 2 million people marching in London is not a majority .. and considering each one of those 2 million people have a different shade of belief .. some don't want war at all, some hate the US for whatever reason, some hate society, some are old hat left wingers who hate blair .. and many many of them are people who simply don't want a war .. Nobody said there was a majority in favour of war , they said there isn't a majority against it either in any circumstance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The election of Tony Blair and the Spanish prime minister was representative, not indicative, and long may our systems ignore indicative polls, which only serve the questioners bias anyhow.

Was it not the Simpson's joke, that the news channels were trying to make opinion polls legally binding ??

and the opinion that polls = democracy is just that .. a joke.

excellent post