Iraq

[Dunadan]

I agree 100% with what Earniel said, and I'd add that the France/Germany alliance has been the driving force behing the EU for the past 30 years, so there's nothing new there.

Let's be clear:
- this war is not about WMDs: the evidence is pretty scant and even if it wasn't, there are many other countries which have more dangerous weapons and more actively hostile policies.
- this war is not about terrorism: the links between Iraq and Al-Qaida are tenuous at best and far more remote than a dozen other countries'.
- this war is not about liberating the poor, oppressed peoples of Iraq from a despotic dictator: we put him there in the first place. (However, this may be a positive outcome of the war, I accept)
- this war is not about enforcing UN resolutions: the US clearly doesn't give a stuff about the UN or international law.

The possibilities are that it's about one or more of:
- being seen to be kicking somebody's ass for 9/11 seeing as how we've completely failed to bring the perpetrators to justice
(- although that doesn't explain to me why the US reassigned thousands of staff off the hunt for the 9/11 terrorists onto the plans for invading Iraq in the middle of last year)
- securing oil supplies which are independent from Saudi control
- extending US hegemony in the Middle East
- revenge for the Gulf War.

Another worrying thing is the naivety of US politics. What do they think will happen after a successful invasion?
- you can't graft a democracy out of nowhere
- civil war in Iraq between the various factions, with the delicious prospect of the Iranians intervening on the side of the Shia muslims
- civil unrest in every Muslim country in the world, perhaps, say, leading to a coup in (nuke-enabled) Pakistan or (oil rich and bristling with armaments) Saudi Arabia

These old white men behind the throne in the White House are playing dice with the world.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Dunadan
- civil unrest in every Muslim country in the world, perhaps, say, leading to a coup in (nuke-enabled) Pakistan or (oil rich and bristling with armaments) Saudi Arabia

You have said a lot of misinformed things Dunadan, read the reports that have been released regarding specifics of what you blatantly have disregarded. Also, to call it revenge for the gulf war, gimme a break, if we were out for revenge, don't you think we would be invading Vietnam?

Your above statement is the furthest from the truth, especially when there is finally coherence amongst a number of Muslim countries who are siding with the US...

I would rebut much more of what was posted, however I need to get to work now

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Eärniel
But it seems to me you can't understand that some countries want to exhaust all other options before bringing out the big guns.

When are those options exhausted? When we've let a few of those weapons (that we have proved he has) slip through the line and kills thousands of people? Would that be exhaustive enough for those countries?

Originally posted by Eärniel
But this being bent on war without even justifiable evidence and without even thinking about the consequences it will bring in this world scares the hell out of me!

If we were so bent on war, like I said earlier, we would have invaded 6 months to a year ago. Also, please I urge you to read the reports that Colin Powell released on Feb. 5th, in addition Britain has released reports, Israel has released classified intelligence, and even the inspectors have released reports all of which contain the same answer, Iraq has things they should not have and are doing their best to hide them. How is all of that evidence not justifiable?

Believe me, the general consensus in America is to never go to war, and it was the consensus here until Feb. 5th when all of this information was released to the public, there are still some people who don't want to go to war. However, since then we now see why we must, and unfortunately so, stop Iraq before it is too late...

[Spock]

Dúnedain //a pat on the back and don't wear yourself out trying to be logical with some of these posters, they just don't get it. 'Tis a wonderful thing to be ingorant but most of us can't afford it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Oh for crying out loud, France and Germany are NOT Anti-American! Why is that that every one who doesn't agree with the Americans immediatly get's the label 'Anti-American'?

Have you been living under a rock all your life??? France hs always had anti-American feelings - toward culture, towards Americans. Was it because of Iraq that they ransacked McDonalds? No - it's because they think of McDonalds as being American culture and they are afraid it'll over run their so called culture. It's the same reason wanted to or actually did pass a law that requires all Frence websites to be in French and not English. Going over to France has never been a great picnic for Americans - unless you enjoy people being rude and obnoxious to you.

I am really, really getting sick of it. It's a grave misunderstanding and it is this sort of talk that will only cause more misunderstanding between America and the rest of the world. The world is NOT out to bring America to his knees. And Europe REALLY hasn't forgotten what the Americans did for us in the World Wars, whatever you may think. And neither have we forgotten what Hitler did. Our countries still bear the scars of that. But that doesn't mean we have to rush into battle as soon as someone cries 'Tyrant!'.

How is it a grave misunderstanding? Schroeder WAS elected on his anti-American rhetoric. And may I ask how we're RUSHING into war? If we were rushing we would have been at war in 1998 when Saddam Hussein kicked out the inspectors. Which, by the way - was the terms for the lifting sanction and the actual end of the Gulf War. Technically the Gulf ar has never ended because Hussein kicked out the UN inspectors.

It's true that France and Germany are large players in the EU. Isn't that logical? They're big countries, with large populations. And naturally they'll want to have a lot to say in Europe. I don't agree with some of the stuff they want either. But really! A new Europe.... jezus...

Tiny Belgium does NOT think that Germany and France will establish a new Europe. That's NOT why we are against this war! But it seems to me you can't understand that some countries want to exhaust all other options before bringing out the big guns.

You are naive aren't you?

Also there was NEVER a time before now that I was worried about 'the "arrogant" country across the Atlantic. But this being bent on war without even justifiable evidence and without even thinking about the consequences it will bring in this world scares the hell out of me!

Justifiable evidence? Can't you see what has happened to North Korea. You might want to take a look. The UN inspectors were there until just 5 months ago - and all that time they had a nuclear program. Now it jjust came out that they have a missile which can most likely hit the west coast of the US.

So how much evidence do you need??? Would a nuclear bomb lobbed over from Iraq at your doorstep be enough evidence?

As I said - I'm tired of hearing this "imminent threat" crap. It was never about imminent threat. It was about Saddam Hussein disarming - and EVERY report for Hans Blix to Colin Powell has said that Iraq refuses to comply.

The support for war in America rose drastically after Powell gave his presentation. I know your media would like to concentrate on the "peace marches" going on and make it seem as if the majority of Americans are against the war - but it might be news to you that the latest poll indicates that 69% are in support of taking out Hussein militarily.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dunadan
I agree 100% with what Earniel said, and I'd add that the France/Germany alliance has been the driving force behing the EU for the past 30 years, so there's nothing new there.

I agree there. Although as has been pointed out here - France left NATO during the height of the cold war. For one thing - they knew they would be protected even if they weren't a member. They enhoyed "protection without obligations." Now they're trying to block the protection of a fellow NATO member - who has been a TRUE NATO partner - not a fair weather friend.

Let's be clear:
- this war is not about WMDs: the evidence is pretty scant and even if it wasn't, there are many other countries which have more dangerous weapons and more actively hostile policies.

And how did they get to be dangerous? By INACTION. If UN inspectors do such a great job - then why is North Korea holding TWO nuclear bombs and has a missile which can hit the US west coast???

- this war is not about terrorism: the links between Iraq and Al-Qaida are tenuous at best and far more remote than a dozen other countries'.

You think with that argument that Saddam Hussein given the chance wouldn't support terrorism against the west? Also the required to comply with weapons inspections was never about terrorism - it was about him not having WMD - which everone, including Hans Blix - knows he has.

- this war is not about liberating the poor, oppressed peoples of Iraq from a despotic dictator: we put him there in the first place. (However, this may be a positive outcome of the war, I accept)

YOur right it's not - it's about making sure that Iraq can never become another North Korean situation. That he can't hold the Middle East hostage with his weapons in the future.

- this war is not about enforcing UN resolutions: the US clearly doesn't give a stuff about the UN or international law.

Oh we don't? Well if that's the case then I say screw it - lets go in there - and while we're at it - let's liberate Cuba. The UN is a mouth piece which has no back bone. Without the US - the UN is nothing - and that's the same for NATO. When ever there is a crisis in the world - the US is looked to support the operation militarily.

The possibilities are that it's about one or more of:
- being seen to be kicking somebody's ass for 9/11 seeing as how we've completely failed to bring the perpetrators to justice

Give me a break. As I said - everyone was pissed that America was taking military action against bin Laden when he blew up some our embassies. It took him to take down TWO 110 story buildings for people to wake up. Iraq is a preventive measure. We can't be REACTIVE anymore - or else our cities will be destroyed.

(- although that doesn't explain to me why the US reassigned thousands of staff off the hunt for the 9/11 terrorists onto the plans for invading Iraq in the middle of last year)

Osama bin Laden is only one man. Even if he was captured or killed - do you honestly think it would chnage anything??? In the beginning it might have - but now that he has taken down two major buildings - that has chnaged.

- securing oil supplies which are independent from Saudi control

It's amazing - again with the oil. No matter that France's only concerns aren't about war - but about what will happen to their billion dollars in contracts with Hussein. The only reason France and Germany are against the war - is because they're in bed with Hussein.

If it was about oil - then we'd support the lifting of sanctions just like France and Germany have wanted? Believe me - the American oil companies have LONG wanted the sancations lifted. It would also be A LOT cheaper to lift the sanctions than to go to war.

- extending US hegemony in the Middle East

That's a GOOD laugh.

- revenge for the Gulf War.

Revenge??? You must be watching Iraqi TV where Saddam Hussein declares that they won the war.

continued...

[jerseydevil]

Another worrying thing is the naivety of US politics. What do they think will happen after a successful invasion?
- you can't graft a democracy out of nowhere

Well it's amazing - little over 10 years - NO DEMOCRACY in Russia. Yes - democracy with WORK can flurish in the Middle East - and it's the ONLY way to stop terrorism.

- civil war in Iraq between the various factions, with the delicious prospect of the Iranians intervening on the side of the Shia muslims

Wow - same thing was said about Afganistan. A year later they're rebuilding and there are traffic jams in Khabul. Children are going to school.

- civil unrest in every Muslim country in the world, perhaps, say, leading to a coup in (nuke-enabled) Pakistan or (oil rich and bristling with armaments) Saudi Arabia

Same argument against going into Afganistan. We took out a much more well "respected" islamic government there. Everyone in the Middle East KNOWS that Hussein tortures nd kills his own people.

These old white men behind the throne in the White House are playing dice with the world.

At least they're facing up to an issue - not hiding there head in the sand hoping that when they have the guts to pull it back out that the problem will have miraculously disappeared.

Once war starts - France will join in. They don't want to be eft out of the planning for rebuilding Iraq. Basically they don't want to lose their Billions in contracts. Germany will lose out if they don't end up supporting the effort.

The funny thing is - the MAJORITY of Europe supports America's position. It's only the TWO countries which have fested intrerests there who are against it. Makes me wonder why no one likes to point that out, yet they have no problem accusing the US of doing it for economic reasons.

[Millane]

So how much evidence do you need??? Would a nuclear bomb lobbed over from Iraq at your doorstep be enough evidence?

ummm id prefer not to get into this debate but the US would never do such a thing would they... Are you saying that Japan should have immediately bombed the **** out of America after they got bombed...
the only solution is if Saddam gives up his office and even then it wouldnt surprise me if war went ahead... bombing gunna do no good because he'll have been in hiding for a few weeks now, and assasination wont work because even if they do kill a Saddam there is still another 100 out there who could be him... to me assasination would be like wheres wally when he is surrounded by other wally's...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Millane
ummm id prefer not to get into this debate but the US would never do such a thing would they...

I was asking how much evidence does Europe need to realise that Hussein is a threat. Is waiting until he has a nuclear bomb enough evidence? Or does he actually have to blow up London or another European city before Europe wakes up? Or maybe a nice VX bomb in Paris.

Are you saying that Japan should have immediately bombed the **** out of America after they got bombed...

Well they couldn't. But they did start the hostilities with America just like Osama Bin Ladin did and just like Hussein did when he attacked Kuwait.

the only solution is if Saddam gives up his office and even then it wouldnt surprise me if war went ahead... bombing gunna do no good because he'll have been in hiding for a few weeks now, and assasination wont work because even if they do kill a Saddam there is still another 100 out there who could be him... to me assasination would be like wheres wally when he is surrounded by other wally's...

That's true. He'll never give up Iraq peacefully and assinating him is out of the question based on US law.

[Sween]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
That's true. He'll never give up Iraq peacefully and assinating him is out of the question based on US law.

But starting a war against him is within US law even though no threat of attack has ever been made against you personally.

Its kinda like me beating someone up because they picked on my mate 12 years ago and you know they could be comming after me......oh err best plan is to send an army in.

Unlike the US we dont live in constant fear of attack sure we look for attack but if we start pre empting anything that may go wrong then oh dear we are gonna be in for heaps of trouble.

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
read the reports that have been released regarding specifics of what you blatantly have disregarded[/B]

I have. It's hardly earth shattering stuff. My point is that lots of other nations have far more WMDs and have threatened to use them. So why Iraq?

Originally posted by Dúnedain
... when there is finally coherence amongst a number of Muslim countries who are siding with the US

Ha ha ha! Yes, those wonderful democratic countries. No, D, the point is that civil unrest is likely right across the Arab world as a result of this war. Lots of these regimes are so precarious that it would take very little to topple them. The extremists are just sitting there praying for the US/UK to invade so they can spark the demos and riots.

Originally posted by Spock
'Tis a wonderful thing to be ingorant but most of us can't afford it.

Ignorance is cheap, you just have to believe everything you're fed via CNN, the BBC, etc.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
then why is North Korea holding TWO nuclear bombs and has a missile which can hit the US west coast???

So, aren't we invading the wrong country, then?

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Also the required to comply with weapons inspections was never about terrorism

Ah, so you agree that it's not about terrorism, then.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It took him to take down TWO 110 story buildings for people to wake up. Iraq is a preventive measure.

Oh, wait a minute, now it is about terrorism. Make up your mind, for goodness sake.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
If it was about oil - then we'd support the lifting of sanctions just like France and Germany have wanted? Believe me - the American oil companies have LONG wanted the sancations lifted. It would also be A LOT cheaper to lift the sanctions than to go to war..

No, no, no. The issue is oil which is free from Saudi control. The US oil companies simply loathe OPEC and this is a tremendous opportunity to restructure the global industry. Do you remember the 1970s? I do, and so does Exxon.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well it's amazing - little over 10 years - NO DEMOCRACY in Russia. Yes - democracy with WORK can flurish in the Middle East - and it's the ONLY way to stop terrorism.

Yes, of course, Russia hasn't suffered from terrorism at all in the last 10 years, has it? Oh, and by the way, the soviet system of governance already had the infrastructure for democracy: that's what the word "soviet" means, JD. Iraq? I don' think so.

Originally posted by jerseydevilsame thing was said about Afganistan

Not by me it wasn't. Again, the naivety that all these dang foreigners are the same. I don't deny that almost all Iraqis (and the rest of the world, for that matter) will welcome Saddam's demise. But your glib dismissal of the very serious issue of "what happens afterwards?" is both scary and, sadly, entirely in step with Bush/Blair.

Originally posted by jerseydevilSame argument against going into Afganistan.

You call that an argument? Hmm. Well, the "respected" Taliban regime was regarded by the vast majority of muslims as terribly oppressive and extremist. I agree that Hussein is similarly loathed, but the similarity stops there. Believe me, Musharraf is quaking in his boots right now.

Originally posted by jerseydevilAt least they're facing up to an issue - not hiding there head in the sand hoping that when they have the guts to pull it back out that the problem will have miraculously disappeared.

Oh, that is disingenuous in the extreme. Why the sudden interest in disarming the world? Funny, I didn't see George Bush Jr on any CND marches in the 80s. Is Donald Rumsfeld going to the front line to face up to Saddam in person? I think not.

What they are doing is sending a very clear message to the world: we will come and kick your ass, unless you've got a nuke, so hurry up and get one, dudes, or you're history. It's irresponsible, arrogant and spectacularly stupid.

d.

[jerseydevil]

Anti-Americanism in Europe deepens:
'New generation of U.S.-haters being created'
This anti-Americanism is believed to be much worse than what has gone before. Analysts warn that a whole generation of America-haters is being created, a European generation which they say believes Americans deliberately bomb civilians and kill Arab babies.

A Channel 4 television poll in the UK said the country that Britons regard as the biggest threat to peace today is not Iraq or North Korea -- it is the United States.

In recent debates in the UK Parliament, the anti-American undercurrent often means the vilification not of Iraq President Saddam Hussein -- but of U.S. President George W. Bush.

Anti-Americanism in Europe historically comes in waves. In the 1980s Europeans vilified then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan. Before that there were anti-Vietnam War protests against U.S. presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon.

Yet the new unipolar world in which America is the sole superpower reminds Europeans of their own weakness -- an irritation to many, including Russians protesting outside the U.S. Embassy in Moscow.

Whether in Moscow or Paris, it is the same.

Says Dominque Moisi of the French Institute of International relations: "Today's anti-Americanism in Europe is a combination of what America is doing -- preparing to go to war in Iraq -- and what America is: the country of the death penalty, the country -- in European eyes -- of arrogance."

Adds Manfred Guttamacher of Potsdam University in Germany: "We are on the brink of a fundamental rift between the United States and Europe which goes much deeper than the rifts that came up in the course of anti-American sentiments in the '60s or early '80s."

In the 20th century -- in the fight against Nazism and later the Cold War against communism -- a European-American political alliance emerged that many thought would last forever. That assumption looks somewhat less certain now.

As I said - anti-Americanism isn't anything new, but it is far worse than it has been.

[jerseydevil]

http://=http://www.guardian.co.uk/af...world by storm
...if America now attacks other countries suspected of harbouring terrorists, it will almost certainly do so alone, without the backing of the coalition that supported the action in Afghanistan. The reason is that America finds itself facing an ideological enemy that may turn out to be harder to defeat than militant Islam: that is to say, anti-Americanism, which is presently taking the world by storm.

Dead or alive, Bin Laden and Omar look like yesterday's men, unholy warriors who forced martyrdom on others while running for the hills themselves. Also, if the persistent rumours are to be believed, the fall of the terrorist axis in Afghanistan may well have prevented an Islamist coup against President Musharraf in Pakistan, led by the more Taliban-like elements in the armed forces and intelligence services - people like the terrifying General Hamid Gul.

...the lessons of the American action in Afghanistan are being learned. Jihad is no longer quite as cool an idea as it was last autumn. States under suspicion of giving succour to terrorism have suddenly been trying to behave with propriety, even going so far as to round up a few bad guys. Iran has accepted the legitimacy of the new Afghan government. Even Britain, a state which has been more tolerant of Islamist fanaticism than most, is beginning to see the difference between resisting "Islamophobia" and providing a safe haven for some of the worst people in the world.

America did, in Afghanistan, what had to be done and did it well. The bad news, however, is that none of these successes has won friends for the United States outside Afghanistan. In fact, the effectiveness of the American campaign may paradoxically have made the world hate America more than it did before.

Western critics of America's Afghan campaign are enraged because they have been shown to be wrong at every step: no, US forces weren't humiliated the way the Russians had been; and yes, the air strikes did work; and no, the Northern Alliance didn't massacre people in Kabul; and yes, the Taliban did crumble away like the hated tyrants they were, even in their southern strongholds; and no, it wasn't that difficult to get the militants out of their cave fortresses; and yes, the various factions succeeded in putting together a new government that is surprising people by functioning pretty well.

...those elements in the Arab and Muslim world who blame America for their own feelings of political impotence are feeling more impotent than ever. As always, anti-US radicalism feeds off the widespread anger over the plight of the Palestinians...

even if that settlement were arrived at tomorrow, anti-Americanism would probably not abate. It has become too useful a smokescreen for Muslim nations' many defects - their corruption, their incompetence, their oppression of their own citizens, their economic, scientific and cultural stagnation. America-hating has become a badge of identity, making possible a chest-beating, flag-burning rhetoric of word and deed that makes men feel good. It contains a strong streak of hypocrisy, hating most what it desires most, and elements of self-loathing ("we hate America because it has made of itself what we cannot make of ourselves").

What America is accused of - closed-mindedness, stereotyping, ignorance - is also what its accusers would see if they looked into a mirror.

These days there seem to be as many of these accusers outside the Muslim world as inside it. Anybody who has visited Britain and Europe, or followed the public conversation there during the past five months, will have been struck, even shocked, by the depth of anti-American feeling among large segments of the population, as well as the news media.

Western anti-Americanism is an altogether more petulant phenomenon than its Islamic counterpart, and, oddly, far more personalised. Muslim countries don't like America's power, its "arrogance", its success; in the non-American west, the main objection seems to be to American people. Night after night, I have found myself listening to Londoners' diatribes against the sheer weirdness of the American citizenry. The attacks on America are routinely discounted ("Americans only care about their own dead"). American patriotism, obesity, emotionality, self-centredness: these are the crucial issues.
[/quote]

[jerseydevil]

I'm not going to respond to all your message because I don't have enough time to discount all the stuff you've said. I will address some points though.

Originally posted by Dunadan
What they are doing is sending a very clear message to the world: we will come and kick your ass, unless you've got a nuke, so hurry up and get one, dudes, or you're history. It's irresponsible, arrogant and spectacularly stupid.

That is ridiculous. So the purpose for North Korea building nuclear weapons was???? We had no intentions of invading them. The only reason we went into South Korea 50 years ago was because North Korea launched a surprise attack on South Korea. It's been a stalemate since then - with each side respecting the border (except for North Korea shooting down a passenger jet and so forth- which interestingly enough - there was no worldwide outcry).

If a dictatorial regime wants to build nuclear weapons - taking action against Iraq is NOT going to give them anymore reason to obtain them. If we put up a force now - countries will think twice. If we do nothing, like what happened in North Korea, and they see that BY HAVING them that they can get their way - that WILKL encourage countries to want to obtain them. You have it backwards. With North Korea we did NOTHING - now we have a situation there.

Yes, of course, Russia hasn't suffered from terrorism at all in the last 10 years, has it? Oh, and by the way, the soviet system of governance already had the infrastructure for democracy: that's what the word "soviet" means, JD. Iraq? I don' think so.

Give me a break. Democracy in word only. If you think that the Soviet Union was a democracy - you really have your head up your a$$.

Oh, wait a minute, now it is about terrorism. Make up your mind, for goodness sake.

I should have stated this better - UN RESOLUTION 1441 was NOT about terrorism. It was about Saddam Hussein giving up his WMD - which he refuses to do and continues to lie about. If we just turn our back on him - then it WILL be about terrorism.

We have a choice - do nothing and have another NK or send a message to the terror regimes that they will NOT be permitted to hold the world hostage or develop these types of weapons.

[Earniel]

You are naive aren't you?

Maybe but between the two of us, who actually LIVES in Belgium?

Dúnedain //a pat on the back and don't wear yourself out trying to be logical with some of these posters, they just don't get it. 'Tis a wonderful thing to be ingorant but most of us can't afford it.

This is going to my last post in this thread. Since of today I have other RL matters to fret about than getting angry by this pointless debate. I come to entmoot to enjoy myself not to annoy myself.

So please do continue to find all the world anti-american without me and blast them all off the face of the planet.

Saluut en de kost.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Maybe but between the two of us, who actually LIVES in Belgium?

It's not like we live in a bubble- but it also goes the same for you guys when you bring up stuff about America. We LIVE here and I don't think any of you have even BEEN to America. That least I have been to Europe and seen it for myself.

So please do continue to find all the world anti-american without me and blast them all off the face of the planet.

Well if we were going to do that then we'd have to start with Europe.

You can't deny the fact that Schroeder was elected on his anti-American rhetoric. It has less to with policy than the fact that those governments just have a problem with the US being so strong.

I can deal with a difference of opinion - but France and Germany go WAY beyond that. What makes them right and us wrong? The US had a hard enough time even getting a coalition together when Iraq DID invade Kuwait. More countries SUPPORT America than don't.

[Elvellon]

Spok Wrote:
Dúnedain //a pat on the back and don't wear yourself out trying to be logical with some of these posters, they just don't get it. 'Tis a wonderful thing to be ingorant but most of us can't afford it.

Proof does not equate with assumptions or hints, it is based on facts. Logic Mr Spok, logic.

[Elvellon]

Have you been living under a rock all your life??? France hs always had anti-American feelings - toward culture, towards Americans. Was it because of Iraq that they ransacked McDonalds? No - it's because they think of McDonalds as being American culture and they are afraid it'll over run their so called culture. It's the same reason wanted to or actually did pass a law that requires all Frence websites to be in French and not English. Going over to France has never been a great picnic for Americans - unless you enjoy people being rude and obnoxious to you.

How many MacDonald’s were burned? One? Is that all? Now if they hated you, one would believe they would have burned a few more by now…

Yep, they see themselves as the epitome of Democratic values, something you don’t (or me) recognize they are, and they resent that. Doesn’t this sounds vaguely familiar

But you are wrong if you believe their attitude is mostly motivated by resentment because the US is were they believe France used to be, on the contrary, their attitude is motivated by were they want to be in the future.

They challenge the US because it is on their own national interest to do so, not because they hate you. That reminds me:
The problem here is a rather ironical one. Those Americans that accuse the French usually defend that, America should not be limited by what other states expect from them, even if they are allies. American policy should defend American interests, not the interests of non-voting non-Americans. Well then, what the French have been doing is precisely what these people defend for America; they defend their national interest, even if you don’t agree with it.
Now, the least one could expect is coherence. What is valid for us is necessarily valid for others, so you haven’t much base for an accusation here.
Personally I disagree with unilateralism, so I can criticize both American and French foreign policy.

How is it a grave misunderstanding? Schroeder WAS elected on his anti-American rhetoric. And may I ask how we're RUSHING into war? If we were rushing we would have been at war in 1998 when Saddam Hussein kicked out the inspectors. Which, by the way - was the terms for the lifting sanction and the actual end of the Gulf War. Technically the Gulf ar has never ended because Hussein kicked out the UN inspectors.

And

You can't deny the fact that Schroeder was elected on his anti-American rhetoric. It has less to with policy than the fact that those governments just have a problem with the US being so strong.

I can deal with a difference of opinion - but France and Germany go WAY beyond that. What makes them right and us wrong? The US had a hard enough time even getting a coalition together when Iraq DID invade Kuwait. More countries SUPPORT America than don't.

Nope, he was elected on his anti war rhetoric. There is a difference. Frankly, many Americans seem to have a misplaced concept of how their country is seen by everybody else. The German people don’t oppose the US stance against the Iraq because they hate you, but because they don’t agree with the necessity of the war itself.

It is not because you believe war is necessary that it becomes an undisputed fact. You are not seen as an infallible country, always doing the right thing. On this case many in Europe believe you are wrong, and we say it. It is simply a matter of defending one’s beliefs on a particular issue. Or should the Germans and other Europeans believe that your war stance is motivated by anti- Europeism?

It is the idea of war they oppose, not the US. And frankly I’m surprised that so many Americans fail to see this obvious fact.

In what sense do they go beyond different opinions?
A strong phrase, but no evidence is given.



About The Franco-German EU alliance.
Do you really think that most Europeans who care about politics aren’t aware of it?
Do you actually think that is a reason for supporting a war that you don’t believe in?
Even if you agree with their position on this, there is no compromise in accepting their views in other issues.

Justifiable evidence? Can't you see what has happened to North Korea. You might want to take a look. The UN inspectors were there until just 5 months ago - and all that time they had a nuclear program. Now it jjust came out that they have a missile which can most likely hit the west coast of the US.

Glad you touched this. So you don’t think there is a duality of stances here?
I don’t see anyone concerned with the North Korea danger, nor in Washington nor in Paris.
Yet, I don’t believe he is a lesser danger than Iraq. In fact I believe him to be much, much more dangerous…

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
How many MacDonald’s were burned? One? Is that all? Now if they hated you, one would believe they would have burned a few more by now…

If only it was just McDonalds. They've attacked our movies, amusement parks, our language being used on the internet.

Yep, they see themselves as the epitome of Democratic values, something you don’t (or me) recognize they are, and they resent that. Doesn’t this sounds vaguely familiar

Epitome of Democratic Values? France? That is funny.

But you are wrong if you believe their attitude is mostly motivated by resentment because the US is were they believe France used to be, on the contrary, their attitude is motivated by were they want to be in the future.

Well then - I guess what this will end up eventually causing is a breakdown of European-American relations. You can't replace a superpower without dethroning them - and that won't be easy.

They challenge the US because it is on their own national interest to do so, not because they hate you. That reminds me:
The problem here is a rather ironical one. Those Americans that accuse the French usually defend that, America should not be limited by what other states expect from them, even if they are allies. American policy should defend American interests, not the interests of non-voting non-Americans. Well then, what the French have been doing is precisely what these people defend for America; they defend their national interest, even if you don’t agree with it.
Now, the least one could expect is coherence. What is valid for us is necessarily valid for others, so you haven’t much base for an accusation here.
Personally I disagree with unilateralism, so I can criticize both American and French foreign policy.

I don't have a problem with France stepping up and saying that they oppose the war or even looking after their self interests. As I've said many times on the "anti-American" threads in respoinse to people problem of the US looking after it's self interest is that EVERY country puts it's interest first above others. That is whast France is doing - but it can't expect us to bend to their will and just ignore our interests. As it is, we've bent over backward to try to oppease the the world community. Come March most likely we will be going into Iraq - because as you say we VIEW it as OUR national interest. It may not coincide with France's and Germany's but they will have to deal with it the way they want to.

Nope, he was elected on his anti war rhetoric. There is a difference. Frankly, many Americans seem to have a misplaced concept of how their country is seen by everybody else. The German people don’t oppose the US stance against the Iraq because they hate you, but because they don’t agree with the necessity of the war itself.

They can oppose their own country going to war - but they didn'[t elect the US President. They don't have the interests of the US in their thoughts - so why should we have theirs?

It is not because you believe war is necessary that it becomes an undisputed fact. You are not seen as an infallible country, always doing the right thing. On this case many in Europe believe you are wrong, and we say it. It is simply a matter of defending one’s beliefs on a particular issue. Or should the Germans and other Europeans believe that your war stance is motivated by anti- Europeism?

Oh give me a break. Europe has consistantly treated us as a wayward child who should listen more to it's elders. This is from the SAME countries which GAVE us the Middle East problem and are now trying to lay the blame at America's feet. My dealing with some Bristish people - I too often felt I had to refrain from an outbrust everytime I had to hear the US referred to as "the colonies". Luckily my father doesn't have any business dealings with them and I don't have to keep quiet about the European arrogance.

[jerseydevil]

It is the idea of war they oppose, not the US. And frankly I’m surprised that so many Americans fail to see this obvious fact.

We see and hear the other things that Europeans say and do. For instance - I don't see Europeans being told not to "look" like tourists when they visit us. Believe me - walking through NY - I can generally pick the tourists. When I was at the Grand Canyon - I had to put up with hearing this French person tell everyone who she thought was non-American about how terrible we were as a country and people. The last straw was when she stopped a couple from India and started describing our "so called culture" to them with complete contempt and how the US had nothing to offer. At that point - after dealing with her all day - I gave her the finger. Rudeness is the only thing some Frenchmen understand. It was at OUR national park - she didn't have to be in OUR country if she hated it so much. I had come into concact with another obnoxious French person at the Statue of Liberty. Her and her daughter were pushing their way up the stairs to get up and were cutting and complaining.

Yesterday on Nightline, they had about the breakdown of French, German and American relations - they read an portion of a Frech travel guide for the US Northwest. It said the standard tourist things - then out of the blue it says "The Americans celebrate their national holidays with a sickening sense of patriotism and yet have no problems seeing Iraqi children die becuase of sanctions or have any desire to lift the embargo against Cuba." What does that have to do with travel to the American Northwest. And who the hell cares if we're patriotic - I LIKE being patriotic and I'm PROUD of our country. We don't throw political crap into travel books - and we bend over backward to make people feel welcome when they visit our country. Until recently we didn't have a lot of anti-European comedy skits like we do now and like the one's I have seen in Europe against Americans.

About The Franco-German EU alliance.
Do you really think that most Europeans who care about politics aren’t aware of it?

No - I believe most educated Europeans see the France-German block for what it is - a way of controlling Europe.

Do you actually think that is a reason for supporting a war that you don’t believe in?
Even if you agree with their position on this, there is no compromise in accepting their views in other issues.

They don't have to support the war - but they can't expect us to just go along with their opinions either or their interests.

Glad you touched this. So you don’t think there is a duality of stances here?
I don’t see anyone concerned with the North Korea danger, nor in Washington nor in Paris.
Yet, I don’t believe he is a lesser danger than Iraq. In fact I believe him to be much, much more dangerous…

You are VERY wrong here. It's just that now that North Korea has the weapons - a different tact has to be taken. You obviously don't get much US news if you think that we are unconcerned or that nothing is happening in the US concerning North Korea.

Thing about all this - is that Osama bin laden is laughing so hard at the moment. He is getting EXACTLY what he wants - the distruction of the west. If this fighting between our countries get's much worse - it will be the destrution of the alliance. Americans are increasingly becoming more and more anti-Europe. Schools around here have started to cancel their trips to France and Germany - not so much as anti-European feelings - but the anti-American feelings which are over there and the fear of how Americans will be treated.