Article

2003-02-24 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2003-02-24 12:33 pm|| || Front Page|| [11136 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 TAG: Thank you for your insight into the current German-French entente. I had never thought of that angle. It's disturbing to me as an American that we might have botched our diplomacy that badly.

You zeroed right in on the weakest part of my argument. Invading Iraq only makes sense if you think that maintaining a successful, secular, relatively democratic state in the Arab world would act as a catalyst for change in the rest of the Middle East. It is truly a revolutionary strategy in that its ultimate goal is to initiate revolutionary change amongst the Arabs. It is a very risky strategy. But as I pointed out above, the alternatives are even more dangerous.

I think that in your reply to my first post is the very seed of the current American-European discord. As you say, it takes a "knife" at the throat of someone like Saddam Hussein to get him to cooperate. What Joe Six Pack in the US doesn't understand is why that knife is almost always made in the USA. I understand that the French are corrupt and the Germans are limited by their Constitution and that the rest of the EU just doesn't have the raw GDP to project power outside their borders. All that being true, you could do a lot together. As an informed observer, I don't see a lot going on to that end. Yes, every few years there is a Multilateral Force or a Euro-Corps or French-German Rapid Reponse Force. Then it just disappears. It never gets exercised. It never gets deployed. So intellectually, I feel the same way that the American Joe Six Pack feels in his gut. When are our allies going to share the risk? As much as Americans are portrayed as go-it-alone cowboys in the popular press, we are team players in real life. We glory in the history and myths of our WWII and Cold War alliances. The question is, when will continental Europe join the team?

Posted by 11A5S 2003-02-24 18:49:55|| 2003-02-24 18:49:55|| Front Page Top

#2 The Bush-Rumsfeld-Powell (BRP) clique's pathological irresolution has certainly filtered onto American field troops. Sy Hersh has already signalled that he is going to douse Afghanistan mythohistory with the facts on the Konduz atrocity, wherein the Oval Office allowed Pakistani fighters to fly from a surrounded salient, to safety with their Taleban/al-Qaeda beneficiaries. BRP also: exhonerated Saud King al-Fahd's Islamo-fascist son - Crown Prince Abdul-Aziz, from his brazen complicity with al-Qaeda terrorism, and used State Department resources to attempt a sandbag of the 911 lawsuit; offered Mullah Omar a halt of U.S. troops, which were approaching the Afghanistan theater, in exchange for Osama bin Laden, as if that would stop operation of the genocide camps; ordered (unsuccessfully) Northern Alliance troops to withhold capture of Kabul, pending State Department diplomacy, directed at creating a broad-base government of Afghanistan, which would have included Taliban; ordered the Northern Alliance to conclude armistice agreements with crypto-Taliban parties, notwithstanding the folly of facilitating an armed peace with animals who had instructed 50,000 jihadis in the production and use of WMD; sent Treasury Secretary O'Neill to Pakistan, after the election in NWFP of the MMA, a neo-Taliban party with direct ties to al-Qaeda, to give assurances of American aid continuity; setting up American troops for slaughter in Afghanistan, by denying the jihadi policies of the MMA, and allowing the Mushareff government to funnel 8.4% of American aid to the terrorist government; guaranteed for the Saudi government a consultative - if not directive - role in a post-Saddam Iraq (Prince Bandar at the Bush ranch); adopted a policy of buying allies in the Iraq theater, rather than admit that the general populace has been brainwashed by genocidal clerics; allowed the Holyland (al-Haramain) Foundation to finance an Islamo-fascist primary and secondary school system, on American soil; subsidizes American jihadism of the Muslim Students Association, notwithstanding that the MSA's mother groups Jamaat-i-Islami/Islamic Society of North America, invited Osama bin Laden to their 1998 convention in Pakistan.

Notwithstanding certain bought and paid for elites, Muslims are at war with America, while the BRP clique believes that the real enemy is only a small group of terrorists who don't understand that they are part of the common-children-of-Abraham. When American soldiers start dying in a conflict that should have been over by October 11, 2001, Americans will finally subject their anti-secular/pro-Wahabi government to the scrutiny it deserves.

Posted by Anon 2003-02-24 19:15:03|| 2003-02-24 19:15:03|| Front Page Top

#3 11A5S, I fully agree with you. For me the whole transatlantic rift is a result of a diplomatic screw up on both sides.
Alliances are not formed out of gratitude, they are formed out of necessity. Believe me, the Kuwaitis may be very grateful that the U.S. liberated them but once the Iraqi threat is eliminated, don't count on them.
The U.S.-European partnership was (and hopefully is) based on more than "you save my ass and I pay and shut up". It's based on common values, on a similar view on freedom, democracy, free trade, cultural heritage.
Lately the U.S. has reduced this partnership to a "we lead, you follow, period" thing. Europeans (and UN) were never left in any doubt: Be with us or face irrelevance. Thats still better than the Soviet way that read: Be with us or be occupied. But the idea is that of a superpower bullying its allies at will. At least Europeans see it that way.
The U.S. never let anyone in doubt that attacking Iraq was the only option, all that UN talk was only good to allow for the necessary deployment time. Days before resolution 1441 was passed the US said it wont be of much use anyway, days before the Iraqis delivered their 12000 pages report the US said it was a bunch of lies (without having read it; ok it was a bunch of lies but they could have waited), days before Blix reported for the first time the US called his report rather irrelevant etc. So they created the impression that war was always the only (and long planned option) the U.S. were ready to pursue.
What if the U.S. had proposed their allies a different procedure? Like: "Hey guys, we all know that Saddam will only comply with a knife at his throat? So lets get the knife there and if everything fails then lets cut his throat. The Europeans would have hoped that Saddam would understand, the Americans would have hoped that he would not. In the end both sides would have agreed on cutting the throat.
I don't think that Schroeder had any ideas about the box of worms he opened when he tried to save his re-election by pleasing the peace loving Germans. Had the U.S. just looked the other way the whole think would have died down.
But you can call the French anything but irrelevant. And thats what Rumsfeld did with his remarks about "Old Europe" not mattering anymore. So Chirac took great care to tell us all that France still matters. And now the Germans are tied to the French. They can't go against the only "friend" they have right now. And thats a result of failed U.S. diplomacy that never offered Schroeder a decent retreat. And now the U.S. cornered Chirac even more. That much that he in a Napoleonic fit may feel compelled to use his veto even if he rather preferred to sign on 5 minutes before an attack (I guess that was his original plan, the French always have an exit strategy). All that French bashing will lead to nothing but more calamity.
The French are no cowards, no traitors. They just like to play with the big boys. So give them the idea that they actually do and they won't spoil the match.
I can understand how Joe Six Pack feels. But I also know how Hans Bierkrug and Jacques Winebottle feel.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-02-24 19:38:23|| 2003-02-24 19:38:23|| Front Page Top

#4 TGA asks, "So why did we send them to Iraq if we don't allow them to do their job?"

We sent the inspectors into Iraq to verify Iraqi disarmament. Iraq hasn't disarmed so there is nothing to verify. What is the purpose of continuing to verify something that hasn't happened?

Posted by Pink & Fluffy 2003-02-24 20:00:00|| 2003-02-24 20:00:00|| Front Page Top

#5 TAG:

Time for me to sign off. Your insight into European politics is priceless. You've left me with much to think about.

Thanks mostly for having an argument with me without resorting to red herrings and ad hominen attacks. That's the only way to truly learn.

Posted by 11A5S 2003-02-24 20:06:05|| 2003-02-24 20:06:05|| Front Page Top

#6 Typical Tory speak. They have no imagination and they fear the end of the world is about to happen as soon as even the smallest change is made to the current state of affairs. So it is better to keep a murderous madman in business, just because he is in business for a long time. This attitude caused them to give in to Hitler's demands in Munich : who knew what would happen if they confronted Hitler ? Or worse yet, when they confronted him and toppled his regime. Who would prevent Germany from falling into chaos then ?

Posted by Peter 2003-02-24 03:51:26|| 2003-02-24 03:51:26|| Front Page Top

#7 That's a bit harsh toward the Tories, Peter. Don't forget Churchill was a Tory, and Maggie T. Hardly change-fearing scaredycats. And don't forget parliament as a whole was overwhelmingly supportive of appeasement until it was too late to realise the mistake. This time the Tories are more supportive of Blair than his own party.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-02-24 07:52:50|| 2003-02-24 07:52:50|| Front Page Top

#8 Bulldog, I don't consider Churchill or Thatcher to be typical Tory leaders. Churchill hasn't even been a Tory for his entire carreer, as he was almost completely out of step with the party. And Thatcher was way too bold and revolutionary to be a typical Tory. Major, Heath, Chamberlain, Balfour and the like, those were real Tories : decent people, but often quite clueless.

Posted by Peter 2003-02-24 13:38:43|| 2003-02-24 13:38:43|| Front Page Top

#9 To compare Munich 1938 appeasement politics with the situation today doesn't cut it. Nazi Germany 1938 was already the most powerful state in Europe, bullying the others. A clear and present danger. Frankly Hitler was disappointed with Munich. He already wanted to start the war back then. The outcome wouldn't have been much different. Ok you may argue that Hitler gained one more year for building up his military but so did the allies who in March 1939 (when Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia) had no more illusions about "peace in our time".
The outcome of "preemptive strikes" are more than uncertain. Lets assume the UK and France had led a preemptive strike against Germany in 1938, what could have happened? The German Wehrmacht might have defeated the invaders and Germany could have emerged as a superpower later. Or the allies could have succeeded and a weakend Germany would have been an easy prey for Stalin a few years later. Maybe all Europe would have followed.
Speculations, of course. We will never know. My point is that preemptive military action does not necessarily change history the way you want.
And Iraq? You can't compare Iraq 2003 with Germany 1938, not the same league. A superpower like the US can't be threatened seriously by a country like Iraq. If Iraq attacked the US with chemical and/or biological weapons in the morning (and its not clear how and why it should do that) it would be a big crater by noontime.
US nuclear weapons deterred a nuclear power as big as the Soviet Union, why should Iraq be any bolder?
You may argue that Iraq may give its weapons to terrorists who could strike the US. Possible, but not very likely. Somebody would trace the attack back to Iraq and then its high noon again.
If the joint intelligence community of the West couldn't make the connection Saddam-Osama (they couldn't even fake it) then there probably isn't any.
I don't say that Iraq is no danger. It must be contained. We face many dangers. Iraq is not the biggest of them. But it is a danger we think we can eliminate easily. Others we can't (at least not easily). But eliminating that danger will probably just create new ones.
I question the positive "domino effect" that the occupation of Iraq is supposed to have on other Arab nations. I rather see a renewed race for nuclear arms in order to be "safe" from an US attack. Won't make the world any safer.
That's the whole story.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-02-24 13:47:07|| 2003-02-24 13:47:07|| Front Page Top

#10 TGA:

I disagree with your analysis of the Hitler situation and the comparison. Germany was not the most powerful state in Europe at the time, and Hitler desperately needed the Czech industry and armaments for his military.

I feel France was more powerful than Germany, but very poorly led. If either England or France had had a better grip on using their superior armor, things might have been very different.

Finally, even if Iraq is not the most powerful country in the Middle East, their posession of WMDs, their location in an area of such strategic importance, and Saddam's demonstrated agression in lashing out at his neighbors and his own people are ample reason for me to support pre-emptive military action.

Saddam is quite capable, or will be quite capable very soon, of devastating the petroleum production in the entire area with a few well-placed nukes or other WMDs. It's effect on the world economy would be utterly destructive.

All the more reason we need to explore other sources for energy (our own domestic sources of petroleum and developing alternative fuels) so we can pull out and let the Arabs butcher each other as they like to do. But we're unfortunately not ready for that day yet.

And in the meantime, I would appreciate if every time heating oil goes up a nickel the left would stop looking at the Strategic Reserve as their personal Rainy Day Fund and Short-Term Vote Grabber.

Posted by Dar Steckelberg 2003-02-24 15:45:14|| 2003-02-24 15:45:14|| Front Page Top

#11 True German Ally, I disagree with you wholeheartedly. You say that if Iraq attacked the US even with clandestine means, then Iraq would be a crater by noon. But don't you think such a scenario would be far worse than a war with Saddam right now? I thought this is what we are trying to prevent. And do you honestly think Iraq can be dealt with the same methods the Soviet Union was dealt with? Do you think Saddam understands the concept of mutually-assured destruction? Do you think he cares? Given the way he cares about his people, the world is no different to him. Remember that technology will only get better with time, it will become more widely available, and attacks will only get easier to carry out. Also you say Iraq is not the biggest danger we face. Can you point out which ones are bigger? And please don't say N.Korea because it is not. N.Korea is an open and shut case. Your vision that Saddam should be left alone is by far the biggest threat to world peace. It would send a signal to any tom-dick-and-harry country that it is ok to pursue WMD programs, after all, there are many customers out there and this could prove very profitable. It is time to set the precedent. Don't be fooled that Europe is somehow the moral leader of the world. It is not. Europe is more corrupt than you can ever imagine.

Posted by RW 2003-02-24 15:56:16|| 2003-02-24 15:56:16|| Front Page Top

#12 Historical comparisons always suck. The danger never lies in what you know and fear but in what you have no idea of.
The French felt safe behind their Maginot Line. But the Germans made a joke out of it by attacking France from neutral Belgium. Foul play, right? Well dictators don't play by the rules, too bad.
We know what Saddam is capable of if we let him. We don't know what he actually would do. But would Hitler have stopped after Poland?
Yet I think we have been too focused on the "pre-emptive" thing. Iraq is not an example for it. Iraq attacked Kuweit, was driven back by an international coalition with UN backing and signed a ceasefire (read: CEASEFIRE) with the coalition. And accepting UN resolution 687 was an essential part of these ceasefire agreements. It's worth re-reading this resolution.
http://www.unog.ch/uncc/resolutio/res0687.pdf
Breaking a ceasefire is about the same as re-declaring war. The First Gulf War has never ended, it just took a break.
The UN simply isn't doing its job. If it allows that a country can break the resolutions of the Security Council at will (and these resolutions spared Iraq the fate of US occupation in 1991) and responds by negotiating for 12 years and probably another 12 years it renders itself ridiculous and obsolete. If the Iraq resolutions are not enforced then the UN better call them "friendly recommendations, please disregard if they bother you".
The US could have done a far better diplomatic job regarding Europe but France and Germany need to know that they put the future of the UN in jeopardy, not the US.
Re North Korea. I believe that it is indeed dangerous as it is led by a dictator without any morale (actually someone who needs a straightjacket). I don't know if we can keep NKor from selling their nukes (that will depend on China's protection) but I guess we can prevent others from buying.

Posted by Morally Not Corrupt European 2003-02-24 16:42:28|| 2003-02-24 16:42:28|| Front Page Top

#13 True German Ally,

I think that your analysis fails, not because as you rightly point out, Saddam Hussein is no Adolf Hitler, but because the Middle East is 2003 is not Europe in 1938-9. The Middle East (and the Arab world in particular) consists of a number of weak state actors. None of them are strong enough to take on the US or even the EU (as you again point out correctly). Over the years, they have found that they could achieve their foreign policy goal through intermediaries such as terrorists. Since the first plane hijackings in the 1960's, Arab governments have successfully manipulated much stronger countries. Using terrorists provided deniability. Unless you were stupid like Ghadaffi and used your own intelligence agents, you would not have to face any retribution.

The problem with most terror groups is that they are one trick ponies. They have a specialty, and once their tactics are understood, they can be shut down fairly quickly. That was the situation until Osama bin Laden came along.

OBL set up his terror network on an investment banking model. Investment banks have two main business functions. Getting funds and investing funds. Any actor, state or otherwise, who wants to use Al Qaeda to achieve some policy goal, can proffer a donation to the cause. Any terror group can bring their "business plan" to OBL and get funding. OBL is a literal broker of terror. Al Qaeda's effectiveness is an order of magnitude higher than the old system whereby states sponsored individual terror groups. Plus deniability is greater since there is an extra layer between the person desiring the action done and the person performing the deed.

Terrorism wasn't too much of a problem when its goals were limited to getting the US out of Lebanon or getting the Europeans to reduce their level of support to Israel. On the other hand, the Islamists goals are unlimited. Some of OBL's stated goals are the political reunification of all of Dar al Islam, $30 trillion in reparations from the West and oil at $140 per barrel. Another goal stated by some of his followers is world domination (I've never seen this attributed to OBL in print). All of this would be somewhat laughable if it wasn't for the Islamists willingness to use weapons of mass destruction.

The Islamists, using Al Qaeda as their cut out, have already launched a WMD attack on the US. As to their ability to get more WMD, let me ask you this: If Al Qaeda easily infiltrated the West with sleeper cells, how many do you think there are in Pakistan? In Saudi Arabia? Ok, let's say that they can't get a hold of the Pakistani nukes. What's to stop them from buying a surplus 707, filling it with fuel bladders and crashing it into a football game in Cologne? There are many desert airstrips where just such a plan could be executed. How many tens of thousands would die?

Hitler hesitated to use his WMDs (nerve gasses) in WWII. He never used terror bombing on the scale that the allies did later in the war. Stalin never risked nuclear war. We now know that the Islamists have no such compunctions. This is not Munich. This is not the Cold War. It is much more dangerous.

So is Iraq the main investor in Al Qaeda? Probably not by a long shot. I personally think that most of the funding comes from reactionary Gulf oil sheikhs. But it is a beach head into enemy territory.

I don't think that we (and when I say we, I mean the West) have any choice but to start intervening decisively in the the Arab world. Iraq is just a beginning. I really don't know if we can straighten out the Arab world by invading Iraq. I don't even know if tempermentally, Americans can succeed at this kind of thing. But I do know this. If we wait, the Islamists will get through with another WMD. The American response this time will probably be genocidal. I would rather risk being bogged down in Middle East for a generation than wait passively for death on that scale.

Posted by 11A5S 2003-02-24 17:03:53|| 2003-02-24 17:03:53|| Front Page Top

#14 The nightmare scenario is 10-15 years time where all the Middle East countries and other wackos (eg Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, etc) have say 50 nuclear weapons each. Then a terrorist uses a nuclear weapon to blow up a major western city. What would the west do? All the countries would deny having anything to do with it.

The September 11th attack demonstrates that there are people who would carry out such an attack. Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't work very well when you don't know who is behind the attack.

I think President Bush's current actions are all designed to avoid that scenario - or at least delay it - and provide options if that scenario did arise. Hence the missile defense shield and other weapons development.

Posted by A 2003-02-24 17:52:53|| 2003-02-24 17:52:53|| Front Page Top

#15 11A5S, you make some very valid points here. But then you kinda refute them yourself. After Afghanistan Al Quaeda didn't go out of business. Nor will it after Iraq. It will just get more followers.
I agree with you that the radical Islamists are the real danger. But as you say they don't even need biological or chemical weapons to cause mass murder. And they have way too many places where they can get them. I believe the dire state of Russian WMD facilities are a much higher threat to US security than the elusive stockpile Saddam drives around in his country.
Sorry but I believe that OBL may be the strongest supporter of an Iraq invasion. And may it be the bloodiest one possible. Thousands of new Al Quaeda members guaranteed.
Iraq a beach head into enemy territory? Sounds nice but I think the US forces will soon be trapped in that beachhead. The Shiites in the South will be the first ones to act against them. And as we have learnt the American public doesn't accept thousands of body bags shipped home.
How many pre-emptive strikes can the US lead? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Syria? Pakistan? We will be faced with a hydra that replaces every head we chop off. Or rather produces two heads for each slain.
I never said that we should leave Saddam alone. The US forces in the Gulf are a very good thing. They should not be withdrawn without having achieved their goal: Disarming Saddam. But the inspectors have just been in place for 2 months. They did find and destroy a lot in the years they were there before they left in 1998. So why did we send them to Iraq if we don't allow them to do their job? Why do many of them say that US intelligence provide them with "rubbish info"? What will we lose if we let them search for a year, with the imminent threat of an attack if Saddam doesn't cooperate? Of course this will cost but it will cost a fraction of what a war (and the clean up) would. As long as the US military is in place Saddam is contained. And who knows how long he can bear the pressure.
I make a caveat though: If he does not comply, he must be dealt with. Some people need a knife at their throat to do as they are told. The knife is in place now. From now on we can really put Saddam to test. The Samoud missiles will be the first of these tests. If he doesn't destroy them as ordered that means that he doesn't believe he will and must be attacked. Why? Because if he doesnt crack under imminent danger he will never. And then time has truely run out for him.
The rift between the US and Old Europe is not so much about Iraq, its about the way the US has treated allies. Why did Germany who has backed the US for the last 50 years suddenly throw a fit? When Schroeder said that Germany won't participate in an Iraq war the U.S. should have quietly said: Ok, your choice, sorry for that. Please don't stand in the way either, ok? Instead the U.S. thought it could get Germany back on the "right track" by bashing it and let emotions run high. And then, when Germany appeared to be rather desperate and isolated the French saw their chance to finally get their lost political influence in Europe back. Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" remark accomplished what de Gaulle in the Elysee Treaty didn't achieve: Weaken Germany's transatlantic ties. Schroeder is just a weak populist politician, but Chirac is a corrupt heavyweight. US diplomatic blunder made his day. He was deeply discredited in France before, now even the French opposition applauds. And Villepin gets the clapping in the Security Council.
Only an united front of free, democratic countries will be able tackle the threats that lie before us. US unilateralism will not.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-02-24 18:02:16|| 2003-02-24 18:02:16|| Front Page Top

#16 TGA raises good points. His analysis is mostly clear-headed, unlike most of the knee-jerk oppositionists. However, he writes:
Sorry but I believe that OBL may be the strongest supporter of an Iraq invasion. And may it be the bloodiest one possible. Thousands of new Al Quaeda members guaranteed.
I can see why people are so eager to believe this. It's intuitive, it makes sense to them. The conventional wisdom thinks: Attack a muslim country = create more resentment, fear, and hatred = more terrorists. Unfortunately, such analyses neglect a wide range of other factors.

From what we know, Al Qaida's most successful recruiting angles were, 1) easy access, just come to Afghanistan - we've got the full protection of the Taliban and deep funding pouring in from all over the Ummah; and, most importantly, 2) guaranteed victory over the weak Americans. We know that they spun all of the events of the '90's as victories for themselves: Somalia, stopping in Kuwait during Gulf War I was seen by them as evidence of U.S. weakness, the Cole bombing, the bombings in Khobar bombing, the Embassy bombings and the ineffective Tomahawk response was their biggest recruiting coup. The list is actually much longer and older and includes the Iranian embassy, Lebannon and countless other events. Afghanistan was the first major setback they couldn't spin as victory.

Before Afghanistan, people said that such an attack would create more terrorists. So far that hasn't been seen and I think that it could be argued that the surviving terror cells were in place long before. Has hatred increased? Maybe, although I believe that most of that too was in place long before 9/11. But has hatred increased in Afghanistan? I suspect that the opposite has occurred and will occur in Iraq. The "seething anger", lingers in builds in the decaying and failed states like Pakistan and Saudi.

I've already gone on too long but I want to mention one more thing: The bases in S.Arabia and the sanctions on Iraq were a major source of hatred and terror recruiting for over a decade. If we end those after the battle, then we have removed one major root cause and positioned ourselves better to address another one: Saudi, Syrian, and Iranian funding.

One last thing: The most recent Al Qaida tapes (Osama?) called Saddam and infidel but urged muslims to oppose the invasion. I do not think this is some sort of clever reverse psychology.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-02-24 20:51:08|| 2003-02-24 20:51:08|| Front Page Top

#17 TAG you give Chirac & Schroeder way too much credit. It seems they are the ones that crossed the line and screwed it up. It is Schroeder who made Bush into a whack job during the elections, for his own benefit no less. Remember the Hitler comparison?? You expected the Americans to let that die down??? Rumsfeld's comments were made after it was already apparent that old Europe would obstruct everything the US put forward at the UN. Besides, Chiraq's recent tirade against E.Europe gave Rumsfeld's comments legitimacy. Rumsfeld couldn't have asked for anything more.
But to put it succinctly, we all know why the rift exists between Europe and the US, and it really doesn't have to do with WMD or Europe's moral high ground: the US wants regime change which threatens old Europe's lucrative contracts. It's funny how the 3 countries who have the most invested in Iraq are the ones throwing the worst fits. It's tough when you have to choose between your economic well being and a valued friend.

Posted by RW 2003-02-24 21:14:44|| 2003-02-24 21:14:44|| Front Page Top

#18 RW, I seriously doubt that the German government would have put its (until then) excellent relations with the US in jeopardy because of some ecomonic assets Germany has in Iraq (far overated btw). Don't you think that Germany has way more economic interests in the US??? Its true, Schroeder started this during his campaign. American presidents do know about what is said during campaigns (and quickly forgotten afterwards), right? The Hitler comparison was not made by Schroeder but by one of his ministers in a small labor union meeting. The woman said: "Bush wants to attack to divert from his economic problems. Thats not a new strategy. Hitler did that already." That was an extremely stupid remark immediately rebuked by everyone (and the minister was sacked a few days later). The Wite House reacted to that story before it was even printed in any major newspaper, before the minister even had a chance to deny it (she still denies it although I don't doubt that she said it indeed). So that very stupid remark was obviously very welcomed by the White House and used to corner Schroeder (who fully apologized immediately) even further. The White House believed Schroeder would lose the elections so it didn't bother with Schroeder anymore. Thats just a little detail but it shows how things were deliberately screwed up. And there is a funny thing. Rumsfeld later said, that Libya, Cuba and Germany were the only nations that didn't pledge any help for the Iraq war. When the Germans vented their anger at this rather odd comparison with "rogue states" Rumsfeld said: "Oh but I didn't compare Germany with Libya and Cuba." The German minister used a similar (wrong) analogy. It's like: "This guy does this. That evil guy does the same thing. Oh but I don't compare the two."
A high ranking ChrÃ©tien aide called Bush a "moron". Did that "poison" the relationship betwen the U.S. and Canada? No, she got sacked, ChrÃ©tien says "Oh no I don't believe Bush is a moron. He is a good friend of mine." Matter closed.
Before the rift between Germany and the U.S. Chirac was rather quiet, right? He seized the occasion.
I don't believe that the Europeans hold the moral high ground. We all helped Saddam. In the 80s the U.S., Germany and France alike provided him with the deadly toys we now fear so much.
The rift between America and Europe has multiple reasons. But if you tell old friends: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists" you are heading for disaster. Thats the reasoning of a dictator silencing critical voices. What would you say if your best friend told you: "Believe everything I say, share any opinion I have, follow me in everything I do?" Wouldn't you say: "Hey thats not what friends are for. Thats what lackeys do."
Good friends will try to prevent their friend from committing an (assumed) mistake. They may be right or wrong, but if you don't give them the choice, then you won't have any good friends. You will have people who follow you along to milk you.
Good friends are allowed to make mistakes, right? I mean, on both sides. But they should still be friends.
A last thing: In Gulf War 2003 the U.S. pays good friend Turkey billions for its help. In Gulf War 1991 Germany paid the U.S. billions (16% of the total war costs). Notice the difference? The Eastern European states can offer all their solidarity to the US. A wonderful thing if thats all you are required to offer.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-02-24 22:12:35|| 2003-02-24 22:12:35|| Front Page Top

#19 "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists"
This comment pertained I believe to the war on terrorism and not on Iraq. It is being construed to mean "be with us in everything we do" and is just a part of the ammunition that is being used against the US, in the manner that you use it yourself even.
The impression I get is that there is no reason for someone to be so obstructionist, like Chiraq, without there being some clandestine reason behind it. (I tend to think it is economic in nature, but you say otherwise, so who knows) One last thing to note: with all this pathological hatred around the world directed at the US and not at Europe, you'd think Europe would be a little understanding of the urgency in the American position. Unless of course, you believe that 9-11 was the American's own fault. And then it all makes sense.

Posted by RW 2003-02-24 23:09:27|| 2003-02-24 23:09:27|| Front Page Top

#20 Bush did not specify. He did not say "Either you fight terrorism like we do or you are with them". And he said that phrase in the same speech that coined the "axis of evil" (of States supporting terrorism) America was going to fight. Connect the dots...
But even if he didn't MEAN it as harsh and final as it sounded Bush has done everything not to let Europeans know.
The hatred is largely directed against the US because the US is the only superpower. As the saying goes: "The higher the monkey climbs the more people see its ass."
Europe gets less of Arab hatred because its far less uniform. America may be the prime target but Europe is far from being much safer. We share the same "corrupt" Western values, right?
Chirac has many reasons and certainly economic ones as well. But he would have gone with the crowd eventually. But now its personal, you know. French pride is hurt, French hegemonial dreams were stirred by Germany's alienation from the US. De Gaulle's policy was to assert France leadership in Europe (with Germany as junior partner). Then Germany's economy got too strong and France had to bury its dreams. After the German reunification France even feared a reversal of the roles. But the reunification didn't strengthen Germany's economy, it weakened it. And Germany has not been able to dominate Eastern Europe the way the French feared.
With Germany falling from US grace plus a dismal German economic performance Chirac sees France back on the road to French grandeur in Europe. He has the nukes, he has the veto, and now he has Germany without much choice but to follow Chirac. If the U.S. manages to gently steer Germany back on the right track (without Rumsfeld's backstabbing) Chirac's bubble will burst.
Chirac has a problem, too. Voting with the U.S. in the Security Council (or lets say voting too early with the U.S.) would be seen as a betrayal of the renewed French-German entente. Which would leave Jacques in a mess. No respect in the U.S. AND in Germany.
Rumsfeld should have left the Europeans to Powell...
And no, I don't believe that 9-11 was America's own fault. I may be an European but I'm not an idiot. And I don't believe in conspiracy theories either.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-02-24 23:51:35|| 2003-02-24 23:51:35|| Front Page Top

#21 All in all...the damage has been done. If both the French and the Americans started to dig a tunnel under the atlantic they would not meet in the centre but keep digging past each other.
If the French don't dump Chiraq, that will be the end of my relationship with all things French. (I like giving people second chances) On the other hand, I do sincerely hope that the Germans come thru this diplomatically unscathed, perhaps as the future peace broker between France & the US. We shall see.

Posted by RW 2003-02-25 00:50:17|| 2003-02-25 00:50:17|| Front Page Top

#22 "I don't say that Iraq is no danger. It must be contained."
That is like saying"Dilution is the solution for pollution".While it may "contain" pollution it does nothing to fix the problem.The best way to fix a pollution problem is elliminate the source.

We did tell them,GWB flat said"If you are not with us get out of the way.

Posted by raptor 2003-02-25 09:38:37|| 2003-02-25 09:38:37|| Front Page Top

09:38 raptor
08:38 raptor
08:17 raptor
00:50 RW
23:58 True German Ally
23:51 Rex Mundi
23:51 True German Ally
23:41 Rex Mundi
23:09 RW
22:53 frank martin
22:46 Fred
22:32 Alaska Paul
22:24 Alaska Paul
22:17 Alaska Paul
22:12 True German Ally
22:07 Anon
22:04 Steve White
21:44 Anonymous
21:39 Anonymous
21:29 Anonymous
21:22 Chuck
21:14 RW
21:14 Drew
21:08 Denny