At 12:22 13-9-01 -0700, John Giorgis wrote:
> >>> I can even imagine that the US will declare war on the country that
> >>> is behind this. But the way you put it, you do just want the US to
> >>> take revenge, you want to drag the whole world into war with you.
> >>
> >> Indeed we do.
> >
> > Great. We will remember that when the terrorists start attacking
> > European targets because of that. Since the US is dragging us into
> > this, I suppose that after the war the US will come this way to clean
> > up the mess?
>
>I'm going to avoid more than a casual mention of the fact that the US
>has gone into Europe on at least six separate occasions now to clean up
>European messes (WWI, WWII, the Cold War, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo,
>and Macedonia) and ask you a few simple questions.
Exactly what did you clean up here after the Cold War?
As for the war on the Balkan, I am going to avoid more than a casual
mention of the fact that the US at first did not even want to get involved
because it considered the war on the Balkan "a European problem".
>Do you think that the Netherlands should support the United States'
>retaliations against the States, Organizations, and Individuals
>responsible for the attacks of 9-11-01?
If it means offering support from, say, our Military Intelligence to find
the terrorists, then I would say I have no problem with it. If it means
sending troops and/or equipment to assist in a full-blown war, or to assist
in something that has nothing to do with justice but everything with
revenge, then the answer would be: no. No, because we should not be doing
your dirty work.
>Do you support the European governments of France, the UK, the
>Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Italy,
>Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Poland, the Czech Republic,
>Hungary and Iceland who all proclaimed yesterday that the attacks on the
>United States were an attack on each and every one of them?
No, I do not. What happened on Tuesday was a terrorist attack, not an act
of war. In war, you know who attacked you. Further, acts of war are carried
out by a nation's military. The US has not identified its attackers, and
the attack was not a military operation, so what happened is not an act of
war but an act of terrorism. This makes it a case for whatever organisation
in the US is responsible for dealing with terrorism; it is not a case for NATO.
Terrorist activities in other NATO countries have never been considered an
attack on all NATO members; I see no reason why we should suddenly change
our minds about that when the US becomes victim of terrorism.
>Do you seriously believe that the United States would ever abandon the
>defense of Europe in the near future?
If a full-blown war hits Western Europe, I think the US would eventually
assist us. This however only applies when NATO countries go to war; the war
on the Balkan has shown that we cannot rely 100% on the US to immediately
come and help Europe.
In the case of terrorist attacks in Europe, I am not sure whether or not
the US would use their military might to help Europe (although it would
probably offer the services of its Intelligence Agencies to find the
terrorists).
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
