Article

2003-04-18 Europe

Paul Wolfowitz response to German foreign minister Mr. Fischer

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 Anonymous 2003-04-18 12:30 am|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I guess many things that were written ten years ago are re-read in a different light today. It's not necessarily the right reading now. I don't think that America and Europe have ever been closer together than the days after 9/11.
I'm still wondering how we could lose that so fast.
You can rest assured that I understand the US view much better than most people in Europe. And I share your view about being suspicious about the French. I just read a book from Emmanuel Todd: "Apres l'empire" (After the Empire). It's most interesting indeed because you'll find all your worries realized in there. Todd sees the "decline of the American Empire" due to a "parasite US economy depending on capital import" and leading "petty wars" to affirm itself. And he sees a strong Europe (with a Franco-German leadership backed up by Russia) that could seriously challenge the USA.
What the French (apart from the enlightening economical BS) don't understand: Most Europeans (and certainly not the Germans) DONT want to challenge the US (they see no point in this). The Germans still are very pro-American, Eastern Europe certainly still sees Russia as a threat that might come back. What most Europeans want is a prosperous continent. They will be happy with number two.
But "changing coalitions of the willing" will not be a fair substitute for 50 year old alliances. Schroeder certainly made capital mistakes but no one covered himself with diplomatic glory.
I think Powell could have handled the UN much better without the continuing interference from the Pentagon. Powell knew that he would only get the UN to agree if he played by UN rules. That meant sticking to the WMD issue. Had Bush not said that the US would go it alone, had the word "regime change" not jeopardized the WMD issue all the time the Security Council would have been more inclined to word 1441 in a clearer way.
But because everyone knew that the US would go for war and regime change anyway the UN tried the tactics of delay (which helped Saddam). So every destroyed cardboard missile was hailed as a success and Blix could go rambling about "significant progress".
"Saving face" is an Asian concept. But the UN had to save its face, too, after it became evident that the US would ignore it if it didn't vote the US way. Had Bush kept silent about what he would do in case the UN refused a mandate... I think he would have gotten it.
Because the fact that Iraq had not complied by March was obvious.

Posted by True German Ally 4/18/2003 6:50:49 PM|| 4/18/2003 6:50:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 I don't like to have these issues reduced to a judgement of personal credibility but, given the lack of witnesses, we have little choice in this case. Hmmm, lessee, Wolfowitz is a mean looking little brute, to be sure. Nevertheless, unlike Joshka Fischer, he never belonged to a totalitarian political party, he was not a fellow-traveler of the Baader-Meinhof gang, and he has never been arrested for beating people up or setting them on fire. My vote therefore has to go to Wolfy. As a violent authoritarian thug, Fischer is probably just jealous of all the firepower Wolfowitz can influence if not actually command.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2003-04-18 01:27:03|| [www.nuclearspace.com] 2003-04-18 01:27:03|| Front Page Top

#3 Herr Fischer later commented "My remarks were an homage to the comments made by Sid Blumenthal after his testimony to the Clinton grand jury."

Posted by snellenr 2003-04-18 01:34:43|| 2003-04-18 01:34:43|| Front Page Top

#4 Joschka Fisher looks he could be the villian in a Batman movie.

Posted by g wiz 2003-04-18 07:27:33|| 2003-04-18 07:27:33|| Front Page Top

#5 Funny you should say that g wiz, every single time I see Fischer on the news, I am immediately reminded of the evil floating villain in Dune...it comes to mind every single time. Eewww.

Posted by Anon 2003-04-18 11:19:06|| 2003-04-18 11:19:06|| Front Page Top

#6 Ah ha! The third weasel! Very good guys! Putin and De Villepin actually LOOK like weasels. It puzzled me that Schroeder didn't. Joschka baby, you're gonna be the subject of a lot more cartoons.

Posted by Scott 2003-04-18 11:49:45|| 2003-04-18 11:49:45|| Front Page Top

#7 They (Germans) need a better liar. How about that Ex-Info Minister from Iraq? He can really tell a whopper with a straight face. Or maybe Clinton? Now there was a liar!

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2003-04-18 12:14:36|| 2003-04-18 12:14:36|| Front Page Top

#8 Cyber sarge---Clinton is already slated to be our new ambassador to France, hah hah....

Posted by Alaska Paul 2003-04-18 13:02:37|| 2003-04-18 13:02:37|| Front Page Top

#9 Not that I'm a big fan of Mr Fischer... but a few points.
First of all, how "private" is a meeting when you have "official notes"? A private meeting is not a confident one.
Then Mr Wolfowitz, in his letter to the editor, quotes Fischer incorrectly. The Spiegel interview published by the NYT reads as follows: "...when Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in Washington roughly outlined for me what he thought the answer to international terrorism had to be.... His view was that the US had to liberate a whole string of countries from their terrorist rulers, if necessary by force. Ultimately a new world order would come out of this - more democracy, peace, stability, and security for people.
Frankly, Fischer's view is an interpretation of what Wolfowitz said (what exactly he said we don't know). That's not a lie, that maybe a misinterpretation. Fischer uses the "if necessary" (by military force), Wolfowitz uses "tailored to each individual case" (including military action). If Fischer "roughly outlines" what Wolfowitz meant, there is nothing like a blatant lie here. (And isn't that actually the policy of the United States? Why does Wolfowitz protest so much now?)
Wolfowitz (and the whole Pentagon) hold a deep grunt against Fischer since he very openly challenged Donald Rumsfeld over the war in Munich, February 2003 ("you did not convince me"). And of course Wolfowitz' retort doesn't come out of the blue: Fischer is in the discussion to become the first "foreign minister" of the newly expanded EU in 2004. His chances should not be underestimated.
A last thing: Wolfowitz is under very critical scrutiny in Germany (and Europe). Since the Iraq crisis broke people are rereading his old statements from his draft of the "Defense Planning Guidance" (1992). I quote the passage that has many Europeans thinking about what the USA is really up to.

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.
There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."

I just invite US Rantburgers to imagine a bit what these lines mean to France or Germany. If you treat allies like rivals that have to be stopped dead (and that was 1992) then you shouldn't be that surprised if these allies view the United States with a new mistrust.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-04-18 13:57:36|| 2003-04-18 13:57:36|| Front Page Top

#10 "we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe,"

We endeavour to prevent a hostile power from dominating western europe - that was the grand strategic basis of what we did in WW1, WW2, and the cold war. In other words, except for the period of isolationism in the 20' and 30's it has been US policy since 1917. Its why we still have troops in Germany and a membership in NATO. It doesnt mean we plan to invade democracies, or even to discourage integration of the EU - although clearly EU expansion is more in the US interest than an smaller but more integrated EU superstate. Deterring potential competitors is clearly directed at China - we may not be thrilled about EU defense initiatives, and may even discourage them, but we're hardly "deterring" them.

I'll leave it to Wolfie to clarify both his statement and how it may have been distorted, and his expectations of confidentiality. The implication of what Fischer says - the US strategy is to invade a string of countries - is wrong - Iraq is sui generis - the strategies for further spread of democracy is peaceful with Iraq as a model, as wolfie has stated several times. Clearly however we cannot rule out use of force against a country that harbors AQ or similar terrorists as Afghanistan did, and clearly the imminent acquisition of nuclear weapons by a state that is hostile, totalitarian, and tied to terrorists will be a matter of concern for us.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-04-18 14:55:02|| 2003-04-18 14:55:02|| Front Page Top

#11 I would also point out that the US policy of preventing a hostile power from dominating western europe is the logical extension of the British policy of preventing any single power from dominating continental western europe - a policy that goes back from the triple alliance, to the Franco-Prussian war, to the balancing against Russia through the 19thc, to the Napoleonic wars and the opposition to Louis XIV, and before that to the opposition to the Hapsburg drive for mastery. Wolfie's statement is simply an extension of a geopolitical vision that goes back to Elizabeth the First. The US roots of this kind of geopolitical thinking go back to Admiral Mahan, and are found in both Kissinger, Brezinski etc. Obviously it needs fine-tuning in the post cold war world - which was still young in '92.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-04-18 15:01:17|| 2003-04-18 15:01:17|| Front Page Top

#12 " goes back to Elizabeth the First"

ie: from Wolsey to Woolsey.

(couldnt resist that:)

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-04-18 15:02:57|| 2003-04-18 15:02:57|| Front Page Top

#13 TGA: It can also be said the such a guidline was right on the money in predicting such aspirations of potential rivals. Truth is there is nothing really new here...nations have always sought to take the best advantage to better ones positioin or to solidify positions of strength. Of course, since it was Wolfowitz ( and it could have been anyone high up in the current Bush administration) it is immediately seized on as something ominous and sinister. And if you look at the actions of a nation like France, I can say there's plenty of mistrust to go around.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2003-04-18 15:05:33|| 2003-04-18 15:05:33|| Front Page Top

#14 " would also point out that the US policy of preventing a hostile power from dominating western europe is the logical extension of the British policy of preventing any single power from dominating continental western europe "

and which arguably was the reason that De Gaulle was always adamant to keep the UK out of EEC/EU -his goal of a united European state (as the only way to preserve French power) was, though peaceful and democratic, the heir of the dreams of Louis XIV and Napoleon.

Arguably this was the German dilemna in the pre-1914 period. As Europe declined, a European power could maintain itself as a true great power
only by dominating all Europe - but that in turn would threaten the maritime powers. The maritime powers defeated European unity in 1918 and 1945. From 1945 to 1989 this fact was forgotten as Western Europe and the US faced the threat rom the Soviet Union.

The question now is whether Western Europe has declined enough relative to the US, or whether the US trusts the European polity enough, for the US to tolerate a European super state (as we once tolerated being weaker than the British empire) I would only note that the US faced a certain unenthusiam from France over Iraq in 1990 (though France did not openly side with Russia) and faced difficulties with France over the Balkans, Kosovo and Rwanda in the 1990's. So the anxiety with a French led super state did not all start with Wolfie, by any means.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-04-18 15:18:32|| 2003-04-18 15:18:32|| Front Page Top

#15 liberalhawk: Fischer never mentions the word "invasion", he says "liberate countries from their terrorist rulers" (which can be achieved by many means). Didn't Woolsey say that now Iraq is "free" all dictators in the region should tremble?

Does a democratic free Europe not have the right to peacefully unite and pursue a common policy? But this automatically makes Europe a rival in the eyes of the U.S. Did it never occur to the neoconservative thinktanks that the U.S. and a democratic "United States of Europe" acting together as the big stabilizing factor in the world would be the best that could happen? No, America sees European unification as a threat and therefore tries to keep Europe weak and split. The "Old and New Europe" only exists in Rumsfeld's strategy.
If I read Rantburg comment there is something that pops up over and over: This country is irrelevant, that country is irrelevant. Countries like Germany with 80 million inhabitants and the third biggest economy in the world are NOT irrelevant even if they don't march into another war every year. Rumsfeld does more to European unification than you may imagine. It's exactly what European think: We will only matter if we unite. We won't be pushed around like this anymore. But then the "mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role" kick in.
Yet if our unification can't be done WITH the blessing of the United States it will be done AGAINST it. But most Europeans would rather have it with the United States. But if the U.S. intend to obstruct that process which is in the very legitimate interest of Europe, the idea of what an ally is and what you can expect from an ally will be redefined.

Kissinger once said jokingly: If I want to call Europe, which number do I call? The truth is that the U.S. prefers that this one number will never exist. But it might exist soon. And it could be the number of Mr Fischer. I'd prefer a different one. But harsh U.S. reactions to a election campaign it should have rather ignored pushed Schroeder over the limit. Better be careful, Mr Wolfowitz. The EU foreign minister the U.S. tries to prevent might be exactly the one Europeans might be tempted to agree upon.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-04-18 15:57:08|| 2003-04-18 15:57:08|| Front Page Top

#16 TGA "His view was that the US had to liberate a whole string of countries from their terrorist rulers, if necessary by force" maybe this is a language problem, but that sounds to me like the "if necessary" applies to the whole string of countries, and will be applied if other methods dont work, regardless of changes in those country's behavior - I think wolfie rightly considered that "rough outline" a distortion of what he said.

Should we accept a united democratic europe as a partner. A fully united EU would have a greater population and GNP than the US. I cant think of any situation in world history where a number one power enthusiastically agreed to become a number 2 power. that some in the US contemplate this with satisfaction is a sign of what a unique power the US is. After all, we have no guarantee that such a Europe will remain either democratic or benign into the indefinite future. I think we should watch and wait, and i dont think we under obligation to encourage it.

Rummy's statement about the "old europe" was made in response to claims that the US had no support for its policy on Iraq - when you hold yourself out as speaking authoritatively because you represent a group, you can expect people to point out members of the group you dont represent. I certainly dont think Germany is irrelevant - this place does generate a certain number of well, rants. However I dont think US resentment is only that Germany refrained from joining in this war, but from a pattern of behavior and coordination aimed at heading off US policy in this case.

I also note that we are seeing (at least over here) signs of just the opposite phenomenon of the reaction you talk about - we see nervousness among some French politicians that Chirac went too far, we see Germany eager to take a more cooperative approach independent of France, we see an assertive Britain, we see Spain, Italy, Denmark, Netherlands and the Eastern Europeans rushing to offer peace-keeping assistance in Iraq without waiting for France, Germany, or the UNSC.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-04-18 16:22:14|| 2003-04-18 16:22:14|| Front Page Top

#17 --But Europe wants the United States not being above international treaties and the United Nations.--

Europe will not get what it wants. We know what these are designed to do. No way, no how will we be ruled by france. At this point in time and for the near future, Americans will not vote to give up sovereignty to the UN. Only we can protect ourselves. Neither the UN nor Europe has our best interests at heart.

--That will guarantee that the French won't get any more free rides--

Somehow I don't see that. You guys can't even break france's ag subsidies. And what about the fishing subsidy? This was posted last Oct by freedomandwhisky:

" We are the masters now
It looks as though EU plans could result in the Scottish fishing industry being wiped out at a cost of 20,000 jobs. In an earlier report in Tuesday's Daily Mail, I read that EU proposals for deep-sea fishing off our North-West coast would give France 80% of the quota, another 18% split between Ireland and Spain leaving 2% for Scottish fishermen. And Scottish taxpayers would have to fund the policing of this arrangement which covers areas that are entirely within UK territorial waters. Will our politicians do anything about this? Of course not.

Mark my words. It's only a matter of time before the EU lays claim to North Sea oil."

france will always be up to its' old tricks. As far as I'm concerned, you don't need 1500 amendments to a constitution. And if you let france rule, you're going to go the way of the USSR. Every day france is in charge, you list more to the left. My greatest fear is that the US will, once again, have to settle Europe. You are being colonized because your elitist attitudes will not allow you to assimilate those you feel beneath you. Check out last week's election. Islamization of france and Denmark, slowly and surely. Western values are slowly disappearing. france has lost its' soul.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-04-18 18:49:00|| 2003-04-18 18:49:00|| Front Page Top

#18 TGA - of course all dictators should tremble - because the example of what the Iraqi people will build will serve as an example to the people of other countries. Or at least it can as easily be read that way as that they should tremble at the power of the 3rd infantry division.

In any case Woolsey holds no official position in the US govt. If we were to quote every out of power SD or even CDU politician who has said something "impolitic" Im sure we could come up with something much uglier.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-04-18 16:35:07|| 2003-04-18 16:35:07|| Front Page Top

#19 TGA - this from the Times of London

"Mr Blair was visiting the Chancellorâs home town of Hanover, en route to the Athens European Union summit. Herr SchrÃ¶der was extravagantly grateful: for him it might indicate the beginning of the end of diplomatic isolation.

Yet behind the bonhomie, Mr Blair had a unsentimental mission: to drive a wedge into the so-called anti-war axis of Germany, France and Russia, by setting out the natural areas of agreement between London and Berlin. Mr Blair found himself preaching to the converted: Herr SchrÃ¶der made plain that he no longer wanted to be lumped in an anti-war or anti-American camp. The open question after the meeting was how far the Chancellor is willing to exchange London for Paris in any future realignment within Europe.

Before the visit German officials tried to give the impression that Berlin and Downing Street could form a joint bridge between America and France and Russia. "

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-04-18 16:40:44|| 2003-04-18 16:40:44|| Front Page Top

#20 liberalhawk - you see that because Europe does not want that confrontation with the U.S. But Europe wants the United States not being above international treaties and the United Nations.

And it's the Germans who invented the "realpolitik" after all. And the Germans do not want to exchange Paris for London or viceversa, they rather have London in the EU boat. That will guarantee that the French won't get any more free rides and nobody is afraid of German superpower. It's the Germans who want a fine balance in Europe because they know what happens when one nation wants to dominate the continent.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-04-18 16:49:36|| 2003-04-18 16:49:36|| Front Page Top

#21 Not being above the UN.

again - theres the connection with 9/11 (which i know most in Europe dont take seriously in the context of Iraq) We may be number one, dominant in GNP, military etc - but we still feel vulnerable. Its one thing to be constrained by an international body when its a question of stopping genocide in Kosovo - its quite another when we see our security at risk. The UN was created by the World War 2 victors (largely at US instigation, IIUC) because they saw it as ADDING to their security. It is not reasonable to expect the number one power to see its security endangered, and strategies to assure its security blocked, by the actions of an international organization acting at the behest of powers that offer no real alternative, and appear to be acting in bad faith. Most Americans, and even many neo-cons, where willing to go to the UN in fall of 2002, and saw UNSC 1441 (as Powell interpretated it) as a reasonable expression of international law and the UN. What we saw in the months after was France, Germany, and Russia acting in complete disregard of UNSC 1441, and putting the US in the position of choosing between its security (which included concerns about WMD, terrorism, AND regional change)and compliance with the UNSC. That is why "unilateral" action was ultimately supported by internationalists like Powell and Blair. If the international law and the UNSC are to be used simply to balance US power, and if EU integration is to be pursued simply to balance US power, the US can hardly be blamed for taking a policy of hostility towards EU integration, and of taking a view towards the UN of whatever we can get away with.

The test will come in the next few months - on the part of both sides - what will the axis do wrt Iraq - will it cynically hold up the end of sanctions? will it insist on predominant UN control as a way of asserting Franco-Russian control over Iraq - will it unreasonably object to any Iraqi leadership that appears to "pro-US" on the other hand - will the US impose particular leaders on Iraq - will the US accept some political role for the UN - will the US be willing to "share" reconstruction and oil contracts with the axis, if the axis ceases obstruction, or will the US continue to punish the Axis - will the US attempt to punish the axis in other areas even if the axis becomes less obstructionist. Will the axis attempt to punish the "willing" especially the Eastern Europeans. Will the US show its respect for international law by holding the Iraqi case unique, and pursuing different strategies in respect to Iran, Syria, and elsewhere. Will the axis take seriously US concerns about WMD, terrorism and interference in Iraq from Syria and Iran, and propose effective actions. Will the French and Germans attempt to develop European institutions, especially in the area of defense policy, that weaken the Atlantic connection, and pressure the rest of Europe to accept them.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-04-18 17:17:45|| 2003-04-18 17:17:45|| Front Page Top

#22 This is assuming of course the EU stays whole in the future. I hate to break it to you TGA but not everyone in eastern Europe is enthusiastic about joining the EU. Should something go terribly wrong, and you're looking at another reason for a war in Europe. In addition, I can't see how this "one size fits all" mentality of the EU will suit the weaker economies.

Posted by RW 2003-04-18 17:17:49|| 2003-04-18 17:17:49|| Front Page Top

#23 Congratulations Fred. It was better than TV.
The exchange between liberalhawk and TrueGermanAlly was as enlightening and entertaining as anything I read in 3 years following Slate. (without the incumbent whining) I don't know your reasons for starting the 'burg, (I'm sure it wasn't the money) but whatever they were, I have just seen them intellectually justified.
There are policymakers in the beltway (and probably Berlin) who would be edified reading the above.

Posted by Scott 2003-04-18 18:05:56|| 2003-04-18 18:05:56|| Front Page Top

#24 TGA, I just read your response, and didn't go further/farther, whatever. To me, all Wolfie was talking about in 1992 was stability. We know that's what *the world* wants, as it has proven the past couple of months. (As I type tongue-in-cheek.)

Then I read Scott's and I don't think I'll measure up to LH, oh, well!

Posted by Anonymous 2003-04-18 18:18:39|| 2003-04-18 18:18:39|| Front Page Top

#25 I guess many things that were written ten years ago are re-read in a different light today. It's not necessarily the right reading now. I don't think that America and Europe have ever been closer together than the days after 9/11.
I'm still wondering how we could lose that so fast.
You can rest assured that I understand the US view much better than most people in Europe. And I share your view about being suspicious about the French. I just read a book from Emmanuel Todd: "Apres l'empire" (After the Empire). It's most interesting indeed because you'll find all your worries realized in there. Todd sees the "decline of the American Empire" due to a "parasite US economy depending on capital import" and leading "petty wars" to affirm itself. And he sees a strong Europe (with a Franco-German leadership backed up by Russia) that could seriously challenge the USA.
What the French (apart from the enlightening economical BS) don't understand: Most Europeans (and certainly not the Germans) DONT want to challenge the US (they see no point in this). The Germans still are very pro-American, Eastern Europe certainly still sees Russia as a threat that might come back. What most Europeans want is a prosperous continent. They will be happy with number two.
But "changing coalitions of the willing" will not be a fair substitute for 50 year old alliances. Schroeder certainly made capital mistakes but no one covered himself with diplomatic glory.
I think Powell could have handled the UN much better without the continuing interference from the Pentagon. Powell knew that he would only get the UN to agree if he played by UN rules. That meant sticking to the WMD issue. Had Bush not said that the US would go it alone, had the word "regime change" not jeopardized the WMD issue all the time the Security Council would have been more inclined to word 1441 in a clearer way.
But because everyone knew that the US would go for war and regime change anyway the UN tried the tactics of delay (which helped Saddam). So every destroyed cardboard missile was hailed as a success and Blix could go rambling about "significant progress".
"Saving face" is an Asian concept. But the UN had to save its face, too, after it became evident that the US would ignore it if it didn't vote the US way. Had Bush kept silent about what he would do in case the UN refused a mandate... I think he would have gotten it.
Because the fact that Iraq had not complied by March was obvious.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-04-18 18:50:49|| 2003-04-18 18:50:49|| Front Page Top

#26 Anon 11:19 a.m.-
The evil floating villain in Dune was the Baron Harkonnen, a really fat dude. The Harkonnens were the arch rivals of the Atraides, though had some blood relations via the manipulations of the Bene Gesseret witches.

Phew! All the detailed commentary above needed some O.T. relief.

Posted by Craig 2003-04-18 21:13:51|| 2003-04-18 21:13:51|| Front Page Top

#27 "But Europe wants the United States not being above international treaties and the United Nations."

I'm English, and I initially thought the US was being obstructionist as regards the UN (and by extension, the ICC, Kyoto etc). (I was naive then, this is before 9/11)

Then I read a DenBeste article which explained it all very clearly to me.

The United States has a constitution. It is relatively clear, and has been adjusted over the years since its inception (it does not have 1500 amendments). This constitution is not up for discussion with foreign powers, and the idea that a morally bankrupt organisation such as the UN, (examples; Libya - heading up the human rights commission, Iraq - disarmament!, any number of African kleptocracies having the same voice as democratic nations) should be able to dictate conditions to the United States which are contrary to the constitution is ridiculous.

TGA said "What most Europeans want is a prosperous continent" - that's fine, but what the ruling elites want is something else. Anyone who thinks that the Eastern European countries want to get into the EU to have their new found freedoms given away to Brussels/Paris is missing the plot.

Posted by Tony 2003-04-19 06:44:37|| 2003-04-19 06:44:37|| Front Page Top

#28 What Wolfie said could have come from any Government official from any where in the world.

"the idea of what an ally is and what you can expect from an ally will be redefined"

I think France and to a degree Germany"redefined" the defintion of an ally already.I all for a NAFTA type aggrement,it would sure put the screws to France's power play.

Posted by raptor 2003-04-19 08:03:57|| 2003-04-19 08:03:57|| Front Page Top

09:54 PD
09:27 PD
09:18 Anonymous
13:12 Ptah
09:57 raptor
08:47 raptor
08:03 raptor
06:44 Tony
04:35 Ben
01:42 Phil B
01:33 Scott
01:24 Phil B
01:15 Brew
01:07 Brew
22:42 Dishman
22:24 snellenr
21:37 Craig
21:15 anon1
21:13 Craig
20:48 Old Grouch
20:43 Douglas De Bono
20:41 anon1
20:16 anon1
20:13 Old Patriot