> Behalf Of John D. Giorgis > > Yeah, I guess that would be a "No," as in Europe has scant foreign policy > credibility for the US to take their opinions seriously.
John, foreign policy is a set much greater than the set of military power. Just because some nations and governments don't automatically follow what the US says doesn't mean they don't have any credibility. Maybe they don't in your eyes, but then when were you elected leader? Hell, not even Bush was elected properly by the US citizenry, let alone the rest of us. The US should be taking note of what other nations think. Try and think of it as a broader form of democracy than is possible in the one nation. As it is, there is plenty of opposition from within the States to some of these plans, so why shouldn't the rest of the world be able to comment and criticise these actions too? Or does G W Bush somehow have a papal like infallibility to world events? Not everything the US wants is ALWAYS right. Never has been, never will be. And as the Brin says, the more people get to look at a problem, the better the resolution will be. True, other nations will be looking at these problems, in some ways, through their own needs and aspirations. But when much of the world, especially arguably the most civilised and humanistic parts of the world, are all saying much the same thing and regardless of each nation's individual viewpoints, don't you think the US should take note? It is up to the US to GAIN support, not do everything by itself. Convince us all of the rightness of your case. Maybe modify it if necessary (it's called compromise) if it means you end up with greater support along the way. > This is > especially true, given that Europe is currently advocating the same sorts > of tired policies that have failed for the past 50 years, that failed to > keep Iraq from getting within weeks of having the bombs, that have failed > to get Hussein to reveal his stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons > aimed at Israel, nearby nations, and US troops, and have failed to present > a credible alternative for freedom-loving nations to protect themselves > from large-scale terrorism. > Is there any PROOF that Iraq is behind the 11 September terror? If so, put it before the world. If not, don't include it in your list of grievances. As for the weapons stockpiles, yes, these are UN requirements that haven't been met. Some way must be found to restore the verification teams on which, coincidentally, there were a lot of Europeans and Australians involved, too. Patently the embargoes have NOT worked, nor the no fly zones. I think those policies also fall into the category of "tired policies that have failed". Again, I see no call for the US to go it alone. > > The US will confront the axis of evil, and in particular invade Iraq for > one particular reason - the world will be safer, freer, and overall better > off without Saddam Hussein - from Americans to Israelis to the Iraqis > themselves. The "Axis of Evil" is nothing more than a Bush PR stunt. It has zero validity outside of US Republican circles. The world will also be safer and better off with effective controls on greenhouse emissions, and greater sharing of resources and provision of food and medical care across nations to all people who need them. And it will be far cheaper, too, than the massive US military buildup. I may or may not agree with you, but I see no case justifying a US invasion. Now, it would be a completely different matter if a UN sponsored, multi-lateral excision of Saddam was to happen for crimes against humanity, for example. Maybe waiting for the outcome of the current Milosevic trial would be a good idea to see if perhaps that can provide a case precedent? As it is, there are UN requirements for weapons verification. I'm sure Bush will try and use these as justification, at least in part. But again, that should, MUST, be UN action, not US. Maybe even allowing US troops to come under UN command, for once. > I would have loved for the liberation of Iraq to be a triumphant > moment for > NATO and collective action Liberation? A US attack is NOT liberation; it is an invasion. It may be done for the best of reasons but it still an invasion. Now, before you start, D-Day 1944 was the start of a liberation, as was the retaking of Kuwait. In both cases there were clear and compelling moral reasons, namely the illegal invasions by other powers, that called for military action to liberate areas. As I see it, however, you could claim that Germany and Austria were invaded in 1945 (not liberated), while the rest of Europe WAS liberated. Again, like Kuwait where allied forces invaded Iraqi territory, it was effectively the eradication of the original invading power that occurred. However, in Kuwait's case a PR requirement (the neat 100 hour war) overrode the strategic requirement. At present, so long as Iraq stays within its borders there are NO grounds for an invasion by US or any other forces. There is no government in exile to call for liberation. It reeks of GW trying to finish off his dad's mistake in stopping the armies before they deposed Saddam. And where dad basically tricked the Shi'ites and Kurds into suicidal action against a fully functional Iraqi army. Now, if Bush and co actually fess up to contemplating an invasion to remove Saddam Hussein, that is one thing. For them to talk of a LIBERATION is quite another. And, once Iraq is invaded and Saddam captured or killed, what then? What sort of government is going to be set up? Is an occupying force going to be needed? If so, who's going to be on it? What is going to be done about rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure? How long is that going to take and where will the money come from? Is the US going to do ALL of that or just blow Saddam away and then depart? Is Iraq going to be any friendlier to the West, let alone the US, after all of that? Occupying armies, even if they entered as liberators, very quickly lose local support. Remember Somalia? - but given that the Europeans are hardly even > capable of operating a significant military presence in Iraq, and even > worse, are now content to let the War on Terrorism rest until another > couple thousand Americans are killed As Jeroen has said, the US has had one huge external terrorist attack. Europe has had decades of intermittent terrorism, some internal and some external. More people have been killed by terrorists in Ireland and Britain since 1969 than were killed on 11 September, and an awful lot of the money for the Irish terrorism came from the US. Germany has suffered from terrorist attacks by palestineans, quite apart from Munich in '72. If anything, it was only when the US was hit that the US decided to do much about terrorism, so why should the Europeans feel any extra sympathy for the US? It's fortunate, and a sign of the maturity of Europe that they have been so prepared to stand by the US after September even when the US did much, much less to stand by them over the last few decades. - the US is thankfully long past the > point of letting Europeans veto American foreign policy. > By veto do you mean that noone else should have any say in what the US does? Sorry to break it to you, but we all live on this one little planet and we all have to learn to cooperate. Have you got any brothers or sisters? Well, the US has brothers and sisters - they're called nations. > The Europeans can choose to do the right thing and fight for freedom. If > not the Americans will stick to their convictions anyways. 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. And if that means the > Europeans will think that we no longer care what they think? > > Well, then they're probably right. > The more the US acts like that, the less the rest of the world will respect it. Moral advantage requires respect before anything else. > Ba'atha Delenda Est. > So, Syria is next on the list, is it? Brett
