At 01:27 22-2-02 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: >Well, let's see - Europe doesn't finance adequate military capabilities,
There are at least two reasons for that. First, Europe is not one nation, but a collection of nations with individual budgets. The United States of Europe does not (yet) exist and therefore has no unified defense budget. Second, Europe's defense is aimed at defending itself, not at waging war all over the globe. As a result of that, we do not need to have the massive military spending of the US. And that, in turn, leaves us with money to spend on other important things like Public Health Care and Social Security. >Europe has not been victims of a major terrorist attack, The difference here is that in the US it happened in one big blow, while in Europe it was spread out over at least four decades. From roughly the 1960's through the 1980's several European countries lived in fear because a bomb could be going off anywhere anytime. In countries like Spain and the UK, terrorism is still continueing. So, despite the horror of the September 11 attacks, please do not make it look as if the US is the only one who has suffered from terrorism. For you, it has been several months; for Europe, it has been several decades. >and most importantly, most of Europe outside the UK has spent the past >10 years trying to undermine the sanctions on Iraq that will prevent it >from deveoping weapons of mass destruction. We did? How? Other than suggesting lifting the sanctions to help the Iraqi population? Facts, please, not rhetoric. >I would have hoped that above all the moralists in Europe (even if the >general populace was a bit more circumspect) would have showed a >fraction of the concern for the Iraqis as they showed for Kosovars and >Bosnians and Croats (in terms of advocating US military action). We have shown concern for the Iraqi population. The difference is that on our side of the ocean, the belief is that the Iraqis would be helped by lifting the sanctions against Iraq, rather than plunging them into yet another war. >Indeed, I would have loved for the liberation of Iraq to be a triumphant >moment for NATO and collective action - but given that the Europeans are >hardly even capable of operating a significant military presence in Iraq, Which, without doubt, will not stop the US from asking (if not insisting, if not demanding) other countries (including the Europe) to join the next war against Iraq. >the US is thankfully long past the point of letting Europeans veto >American foreign policy. Can you give examples of this happening? AFAIK, nobody can veto an other country's foreign policy; they can protest it, but they cannot veto it. Actually, the only time we hear the word "veto" on the news here, it is when the US vetoes yet another UN Resolution. >There's too much at stake with the future of Western Civlization >hanging in the balance to be deterred by the waverings of the timd. We prefer to think of ourselves as "careful", not "timid". >And if that means the Europeans will think that we no longer >care what they think? > >Well, then they're probably right. We did not really have the impression that the US cared about what we think, anyway. We are more under the impression that the US wants to rule the world and expects other countries to follow without asking questions. Jeroen _________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com Tom's Photo Gallery: http://tom.vanbaardwijk.com
