What's up with Germany, France and Belgium?

[Cat]

A European coalition cannot be formed even now, so a direct confrontation is well nigh impossible. First and foremost Europe itself should be internally strenghtened and be made capable of acting and reachting as one body. Russia could be a very good partner for this, but don't forget the Maghreb counttries too. Japan is quite difficult, as it is one of the major import/export partners of America and does not share the European culture.

One major element of blocking America consists in stenghtening their rivals in economical - political sense. If the Middle-East could unite behind a leader, or leading country it could provide a much stronger opposition to the USA in certain matters. I also see possibilities in the military emancipation of Europe. A Pan-european army would make NATO even more irrelevant than it already is. Europe shou focus more on the development of an African Union through counselling and diplomatical aid. Much is to be gained from a solid Africa as partner.
Since religion in Europe does not play any fundamental role anymore, it can have an emancipatin and liberating role from religious fundamentalism and dogmatism in the Islamic cultures. This would constitute a valid couterpole to Bush's pseudo religious-talk of good, evil and god.

The American propaganda machine, the unilateral news US most citizens recieve, must be closely watched and corrected. American internal opposition should be helped and supported: socialists, environmentalists, anti-globalists etc. As an answer to the amiricanization of culture, alternatives should be stressed, valorized and distributed, also in America itself.

International treatises and organizations must be given more power to control states like the USA. Alternatives to the existing structures must be sought for, e.g. a Mediterranean Local Council, wherein Europe, the Middle-East and Africa could partecipate 10 years from now, or an Eurasiatic league, EU plus Russia.

American global influence (military, cultural, economical) could be roughly reduced to 75% of what it is now within ten years and 50% within 25.

In the field of scientific research, technological innovation and industrial production the EU can outperform the US, if and only if they can unite their efforts.

"Usque tandem abutere patientia nostra, america?"

 

[toast]

they could be scared because attacking Iraq will piss off a lot of muslim extremists and will increase the chance of a terrorist attack on Europe.

Or on the US.

EDIT: Iraq is only Middle Est who never supported terrorism by state financial help, unlike Syria, Jordany, Iran, Israel/Palestine (obviously), Lebanon etc.

I'm thinking of adding a line in my signature that would quote Morgenthau: "International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power".

 

[Cat]

Iraq is only Middle Est who never supported terrorism by state financial help, unlike Syria, Jordany, Iran, Israel/Palestine (obviously), Lebanon etc.

So that is why the US attack them, aha!

 

[mdnky]

Originally posted by toast
Iraq is only Middle Est who never supported terrorism by state financial help, unlike Syria, Jordany, Iran, Israel/Palestine (obviously), Lebanon etc.

It depends on your defination of terrorism. In reality, they have sponsored terrorism but do not admit to it.

The Iraq GIS (General Intelligence Service) has been a known sponsor of WMD and terrorism.


Here's an interesting document, Iraq is around pg19.

 

[dafuser]

Originally posted by fryke
Okay, okay, okay. But how do we solve the America-Problem?

I have given it much thought, but I think a European/Russian/Japanese alliance alone is not enough. The USA have gone too far already and must be stopped immediately. What good is the UN if it can't be used to stop the USA from going to war all over the world, choosing its targets depending on where their money lies?

Something must be done about the America-Problem. To cite an old Roman: "Ceterum censeo, americam esse delendam."

The UN already has a problem if they think giving Saddam more time will change anything. He has done nothing for the last 10+ years to indicate his willingness to get rid of WMD. I guess you could ask the Kurds if they think Saddam has no WMD.

When diplomacy fails ( and 10+ years should be enough to prove it has failed), what option should the UN try next? Mayby asking Saddam "Please, pretty please stop gassing your own people. Please, pretty please don't use WMD against Iran". Oh thats right, Saddam already did that. So I guess we know he has at least chemical and biological WMD. Do you want to wager he has or is working on obtaining atomic weapons?

War is a last resort, lives are lost on both sides. When diplomacy fails, war is a tool used to achieve what diplomacy cannot. There are times when options have run out and this appears to be one of those times.

 

[toast]

He has done nothing for the last 10+ years to indicate his willingness to get rid of WMD.

Neither has your own country since SALT agreements !

War is a last resort, lives are lost on both sides. When diplomacy fails, war is a tool used to achieve what diplomacy cannot. There are times when options have run out and this appears to be one of those times.

Your total ignorance of international relations combined to your belliquous 'hawk' behavior blinds you completely on the topic. War and diplomacy never reach same objectives !

Diplomacy is a long-term solution which perenizes peaceful choices and introduces cooperation between two countries.
War is a short-term solution which envenimates defiant choices and introduces adversity between two countries.

To you it may seem war can achieve what diplomacy cannot because you're somewhere where the consequences of war may affect you only at a smaller scale.
How easy is it to say "war is a tool used to achieve what diplomacy cannot" when you know war won't take place in your own country ! Imagine Texas bombed to understand what I mean. What tool is that than bombs and gas ?

Hey American people, one of the greatest diplomats of whole history was born in your country, why don't you read what he wrote for God's sake ?

Henry Kissinger, "Diplomacy"

 

[Satcomer]

Originally posted by Cat
The American propaganda machine, the unilateral news US most citizens receive, must be closely watched and corrected. American internal opposition should be helped and supported: socialists, environmentalists, anti-globalists etc. As an answer to the Americanization of culture, alternatives should be stressed, valorized and distributed, also in America itself.

So you seem to think every American is a brain washed evil being that needs your "expert" advice to counteract. Sorry to disappoint you but I may hold a different view than you. Like you, I don't like war. Unlike you, I don't call for the destruction of your country just because "you" have a different political view than me.

I have some combat experience and believe me when I say your position is as dangerous to democracy as what you rail against.

 

[Satcomer]

Originally posted by toast
Hey American people, one of the greatest diplomats of whole history was born in your country, why don't you read what he wrote for God's sake ?

Henry Kissinger, "Diplomacy"

IMHO that is wrong. He could not hold a candle to Benjamin Franklin.

 

[toast]

IMHO that is wrong. He could not hold a candle to Benjamin Franklin.

Don't be mad at me, but, are you joking or not ?
Above comparison makes very little sense IMHO, for those two did not live in the same time epriod, hence not in the same world.

Comparing them would be like comparing Confucius and Martin Luther King based on the fact both had a philosphy about how to live happy on Earth.

Kissinger still makes sens today because realism (as opposed to liberalism or institutionnalism for instance) in internatl relations still makes some sense. For example, you can compare Morgenthau and Nye, Kissinger and Brzezinski, Wilson and Kofi Annan at the extreme. But comparisons over bigger time periods is quite (I say quite because I know many counter-examples are around) risky.

 

[Satcomer]

Originally posted by toast
Don't be mad at me, but, are you joking or not ?
Above comparison makes very little sense IMHO, for those two did not live in the same time period, hence not in the same world.

Comparing them would be like comparing Confucius and Martin Luther King based on the fact both had a philosophy about how to live happy on Earth.

Kissinger still makes sens today because realism (as opposed to liberalism or institutionnalism for instance) in internatl relations still makes some sense. For example, you can compare Morgenthau and Nye, Kissinger and Brzezinski, Wilson and Kofi Annan at the extreme. But comparisons over bigger time periods is quite (I say quite because I know many counter-examples are around) risky.

No I was not joking. You called Kissinger the greatest and he was not. Look up something called the Nixon Administration! His diplomacy was sketchy at best.

On the other hand, Franklin talked a King out of his money to help some back water colonists. He convinced a king to finance the war to get back an old enemy of his. It cost that king his crown and country. Now that is diplomacy. He was called "Ambassador Electric" for more than his electric experiments.

 

[hulkaros]

...is TOTALLY wrong!

You know what? All these mad governments in out troubled earth should let THEIR presidents and staff kick each other inside a box ring or something... They all are crazy and NOT good or evil!

If THEY had the REAL guts THEY should be the ones that had a REAL fight inside a ring or something...

War at ANY level: Weapons-based or psychological-based is ALL wrong...

If governments of this planet think that they MUST have wars again and again THEM and THEM alone should kick each other and not put soldiers, families, et al fight THEIR wars... They all DO wrong by sending innocent people to fight THEIR wars because simply THEY lack the guts... I guess we are all suckers for voting them (or not) in the first place: You know what? If people really don't like the wars of those foolish governments when they will give the order of attacking other countries ALL SOLDIERS should NOT obey: What? They gonna kill them all? Their own soldiers? But then again I forget: Those soldiers in the first place they lack the guts: They prefer to kill other people just for money or egoism (we are the good ones and you are the bad ones --then again Iraq has its own Holy War to declare against the US et al pigs).

A rant of mine or not, I simply say that governments know that they do the wrong thing by executing wars and they simply doing so because they lack the REAL weapons: Clear and pure minds and souls... Them all are rotten inside them methinks!

Although I don't like George Michael I think his video clip which shows Bush, Blair et al, it sums governments of this troubled planet SO damn accurate that it is SO damn scary

The one who wins a war is the one that he doesn't have to live a war in the first place cause when you live a war (you, yourself and not someone else) you know how REALLY wrong is firsthand... VERY small scale example of war: You fight with your bare hands someone who is VERY strong, maybe stronger than you... In the end even if you beat him giving him black eyes, blood all over his face and stuff, still you have your fists and body feel too much pain AND you have to clean your clothes and soul from this mess! And who knows even if you beat your opponent you may still go to the hospital for a week or more

As for the ones who seem to believe that when we done talking we should start acting this is plain wrong: When you THINK that you done talking, talk some more... Or you know what? Maybe DON'T talk at all! Sometimes, silence gives better results than talking...

You know what? I must follow my own above advice

 

[Cat]

So you seem to think every American is a brain washed evil being that needs your "expert" advice to counteract.

I did not say that. I read several American newspapers in the last weeks and was amazed at the narrow-mindedness and intrinsic nationalism that I saw there. It did not say Americans were evil, I even argued that good and evil are the wrong categories, but I did stress that America is going down a dark and dangeroes path if it will not admith 'truth's' other thatn its own. I did not say the US needed my advice, maybe the should heed the words of the UN or deal with the EU on a more eqal basis. I advocated pluralism, not antagonism. Noadvantage is found in simply contradicting each other, but only in comparing different opinions.

Sorry to disappoint you but I may hold a different view than you. Like you, I don't like war.

That is fine with me! I don't try to impose my opinion on you.

Unlike you, I don't call for the destruction of your country just because "you" have a different political view than me.

Huh? I did not call for distruction... The fact that America needs more perspective to overcome its nationalism and avoid becoming outright fascistic is not a call for distruction. It is an invitation to try to look at more sides than just yours, to revise your opinions instead of turning them into dogma's, to avoid holding your view absolutely true, because you lack information on alternatives. It may involve some change, but is certainly not a call for distruction!

I have some combat experience and believe me when I say your position is as dangerous to democracy as what you rail against.

Again, read my previous post closely. I stressed the importance of respecting international treaties to stop America from becoming an arrogant bully. I did not say "all Americans are evil, so they must be brainwached and obey me". I said that American nationalist propaganda should be corrected by informing yourself on other argumets than theirs.
American internal opposition should be helped and supported because e.g. in the CIA book of facts, you can see there is no internal pressure group whatsoever even listed... strange... while 12% of the population lives under the poverty line ...
As an answer to the Americanization of culture in Europe, alternatives should be stressed, not imposed, valorized and distributed, also in America itself, to avoid unilateralism. Listening to your voice only can innflict serious damage to your critical, rational thinking. America seems not to accept anything beyond itself as just, right and true. This is also a characteristic of totalitarian regimes... don't fall into their same errors!

 

[Satcomer]

Originally posted by Cat
I did not say that. I read several American newspapers in the last weeks and was amazed at the narrow-mindedness and intrinsic nationalism that I saw there.

Please post those examples your talking about. It's not that I believe you, it's just I haven't seen them myself.

Originally posted by Cat
It is an invitation to try to look at more sides than just yours, to revise your opinions instead of turning them into dogma's, to avoid holding your view absolutely true, because you lack information on alternatives. It may involve some change, but is certainly not a call for distruction!

To let you know- I DO NOT WANT WAR!

Originally posted by Cat
As an answer to the Americanization of culture in Europe, alternatives should be stressed, not imposed, valorized and distributed, also in America itself, to avoid unilateralism. Listening to your voice only can innflict serious damage to your critical, rational thinking. America seems not to accept anything beyond itself as just, right and true. This is also a characteristic of totalitarian regimes... don't fall into their same errors!

In case you missed it, I said. I DO NOT WANT WAR! What about that response do you find wrong?

I hate to be critical but you have made some pretty serious personal attacks against me. Calling me names because I disagree with the way you perceive all Americans is serious in my eyes. To give you a clue Bush is not all America. I feel you just hate all of America because you have brought up that all of America wants to press it's culture on the rest of the world is wrong! Also, just because you hate Bush don't hate all Americans. The only thing Americans want in the rest of this world is Democracy.


A good many of Americans will exercise their vote in the coming year. So see what happens. However, I am still proud to be American and that I have a chance to debate you on these subjects. Just remember you also live in a country with a similar freedom to partake in this debate.

 

[fryke]

Satcomer: The last thing you quoted wasn't directed at you, I guess... It was an answer on how to solve the America-Problem we see outside of America. Although it doesn't yet solve it, it points out some interesting points about the problem itself...

 

[Cat]

I hate to be critical but you have made some pretty serious personal attacks against me. Calling me names because I disagree with the way you perceive all Americans is serious in my eyes. To give you a clue Bush is not all America. I feel you just hate all of America because you have brought up that all of America wants to press it's culture on the rest of the world is wrong! Also, just because you hate Bush don't hate all Americans. The only thing Americans want in the rest of this world is Democracy.

I did not call you names or made any personal attack. Why do you feel personally insulted? It was not my intention to insult anyone, but to give my opinion and the reasons I have for holding it. As I posted in another thread, I'm not at all interested in brainless mud-slinging.

I do not hate america, I resent the american attitude, because of its carelessness to what others want and think, and the conviction they have the 'Truth'. I'm happy to hear Bush is not all America, unfortuantely the current American government seems to be all-Bush. Again I do not hate Bush, I disagree with his policies and actions. Hate is too personal a feeling to be applied to 'America' at large or someone you only know from tv and newspapers. It's very nice that America wants democracy around the globe, but I disagree with the methods involved. Bombing civilians is quite baffling as way of bringing about democracy...

In case you missed it, I said. I DO NOT WANT WAR! What about that response do you find wrong?

I agree with your response! But I would like to hear your reasons for it. As with the opposite view, if someone wants war, I can only agree or disagree fully and really on the basis of reasons given to hold it...

 

[themacko]

Well this has turned into a bit of a flame-war. I apologize if my uninformed statement/question offended anyone from Belgium (Toast), France or Germany ... well maybe not France .

I can totally understand the anti-war movement. I personally wouldn't like to see us go to war with Iraq. We should have taken care of Saddam the first time back in '93.

What I was questioning, was why did those three aformentioned countries block aid to Turkey, a NATO member, when Turkey was in direct line of fire? After reading through your posts I know understand better the situation but I still feel that those three countries are blocking NATO from doing it's job.

No biggie. Bush is pretty determined to get rid of Saddam and I'm sure it will happen with or without the full support of NATO. Oh well.

 

[toast]

Hello themacko (BTW nice website you have),

Originally posted by themacko
I apologize if my uninformed statement/question offended anyone from Belgium (Toast), France or Germany ... well maybe not France .

I'm French and live South-East of France, very near the Alps, about three hours from chevy's place.

Turkey was in direct line of fire?

What fire ? Who said Saddam was going to attack if not the US administration ?

Bush is pretty determined to get rid of Saddam and I'm sure it will happen with or without the full support of NATO. Oh well.

George W. Bush cannot attack Saddam Hussein directly w/out NATO support and w/out full UNO support.

Satcomer, I've read your very valuable answer. But still, even if Kissinger's acts weren't the greatest, I can assure you his theory is some of the best I know.

 

[themacko]

From what I understand is Turkey is within range of Iraq's missiles, that's all I mean by 'direct line of fire.' I don't think Saddam would bother with Turkey if it were not for NATO (pushed by the U.S.) sending in weapons inspectors and stuff.

And sorry Toast I thought you were from Belgium, must have been someone else. Nevertheless, sorry for being kinda rude as it wasn't my intent. I'm really a friendly guy.

 

[mrfluffy]

Originally posted by dafuser
Please, pretty please don't use WMD against Iran". Oh thats right, Saddam already did that. So I guess we know he has at least chemical and biological WMD. Do you want to wager he has or is working on obtaining atomic weapons?

we (britain and america) told him to attack iran, even set him up to do it.

we also sold him the chemical and biological weapons

yes he will want a nuke or 2 cos america is gonna attack iraq, he could rightly argue they're a defensive weapon.

for the record i think we should go to war, but i mean a real war no bombing, just invasion, thousands of british and america casualties and eventually removing the dictator from power and replacing him with a real democracy. maybe we'll learn that way not to fuck with other countries.

 

[fryke]

Let me get that straight. You want to invade Iraq, replace the dictator with a 'real' democracy and thus learn how NOT to f*ck with other countries?

Isn't that a bit like slapping a child and saying: "See? It hurts the child. Gotta learn not to slap it."