US prepared to go it alone - allies warned.

red_jon · February 4, 2002, 20:03

http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story...644563,00.html

Basically the gist of it seems to be that the US is demanding that either other NATO members increase their military spending or theres trouble of some kind.

Quote:

Richard Perle, a senior Republican foreign policy adviser, told the conference in Munich: "Never has the United States been more unified, never has it been more purposeful, never has it been more willing, if necessary, to act alone.

United we stand? Does this phrase apply to all the allies or just the US?

Quote:

"If we have to choose between protecting ourselves against terrorism and a long list of friends and allies, we will protect ourselves against terrorism."

Slipery slope?

Quote:

Mr Wolfowitz, one of the leading hawks in the Bush administration, made it clear the US would act whether or not all its allies agreed. The war against terrorism would need "flexible coalitions", he said.

I never like the word 'coalition' - it suggest a lack of democratic process...

Quote:

European politicians expressed deep concern about the US warnings.

I'm not surprised! Is the US justified with this?

David Floyd · February 4, 2002, 20:05

Justified in running around bombing people? No, I think not.

Justified in doing whatever we want regardless of what other's think? Sure, we don't need anyone's permission by any means.

red_jon · February 4, 2002, 20:06

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Justified in running around bombing people? No, I think not.

Justified in doing whatever we want regardless of what other's think? Sure, we don't need anyone's permission by any means.

That's the point - the US is pushing other countries into doing things - do we need US permission?

David Floyd · February 4, 2002, 20:07

Certainly not. National sovereignty, of course.

Djugashvili · February 4, 2002, 20:07

Hopefully international pressure will cause the US to cease its phony 'war'.

H Tower · February 4, 2002, 20:17

and this is new??

seriously, the US has had a "go it alone" policy since sept 11. if we can bully other nations to help us out, goody, if they decide to help out on their own, even better. if they don't help us, oh well, we can do it ourselves.

bush is a frigging moron

Kyle · February 4, 2002, 20:25

Quote:

Originally posted by red_jon

That's the point - the US is pushing other countries into doing things - do we need US permission?

Of course not. But there are consequences for everything.

But at this point in time, those (negative) consequences could be greater for Europe than the US.

Fighting terrorism has become the US' strategic mission. When the world finally realizes this is a long term thing and not just a straight reaction to 9-11, these types of topics will lessen.

red_jon · February 4, 2002, 20:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Kyle
Fighting terrorism has become the US' strategic mission. When the world finally realizes this is a long term thing and not just a straight reaction to 9-11, these types of topics will lessen.

Oh goody, the new Cold War...

Kyle · February 4, 2002, 20:37

Quote:

Originally posted by red_jon

Oh goody, the new Cold War...

Sorry, how can anyone see an attempt to eliminate terrorism as a bad thing?

Grrr · February 4, 2002, 20:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Kyle

Quote:

Originally posted by red_jon
Oh goody, the new Cold War...

Sorry, how can anyone see an attempt to eliminate terrorism as a bad thing?

Disposing of Terrorists is OK.
Disposing of "Terrorists" is not!

General Ludd · February 4, 2002, 20:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Kyle

Sorry, how can anyone see an attempt to eliminate terrorism as a bad thing?

Terrorism will NEVER be stoped through war.

Edit: Infact, it will probably just breed more - and wars always involve some form of terrorism themselves, anyways.

red_jon · February 4, 2002, 20:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Kyle
Sorry, how can anyone see an attempt to eliminate terrorism as a bad thing?

It is not eliminating terrorism. No-one can ever seriously expect to do so without creating a 1984-esque world. The US government is using it as an excuse to increase military spending, limit civil rights and push the right-wing agenda.

What's wrong is that the US is trying to make Europe do the same.

Grrr · February 4, 2002, 20:57

It is all wrong to kill innocent "terrorists". And for the sake of that, GWB is actually making an arogant pig of himself. I mean, seriously, increasing the military spending and capitolisation of the US, and by being a globalist pig, GWB is going to get it one of these days! Once he has wiped out the Irani, Iraqi, Afgan and whatnot "terrorists" then the anti-globalist terrorists will be in major provocation against the US, and lead their own terrorist attacks.

Down with George Bush!

Kyle · February 4, 2002, 21:11

Quote:

Originally posted by red_jon

The US government is using it as an excuse to increase military spending, limit civil rights and push the right-wing agenda.

US military spending has been increasing for years, I disagree about the civil rights remark, and some people see pushing a right-wing agenda as a good thing. Especially since it's a Republican administration.

Quote:

What's wrong is that the US is trying to make Europe do the same.

Again, this isn't something new. I just saw that European members of NATO are pushing the US to share technology. If they were spending more money on defense/research, they wouldn't need to. And Europe does the same thing, trying to push it's left wing agenda on us. Right or wrong, it's going to happen.

Andrew1999 · February 4, 2002, 21:31

Can anybody over at the White House besides Powell even read a map? Afghanistan is completely landlocked. Iraq is almost landlocked. We need friends and allies just to get to them, much less do anything about it. Or do we just invade everybody between us and the target? And I'm sure South Korea really appreciates that we're willing to devastate their country to put an end to the Evil Ones to their north. I wonder if we even thought about consulting with them before we put their peace process in a Cuisinart.

Kyle · February 4, 2002, 21:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Andrew1999
Can anybody over at the White House besides Powell even read a map? Afghanistan is completely landlocked. Iraq is almost landlocked. We need friends and allies just to get to them, much less do anything about it. Or do we just invade everybody between us and the target?

When they say unilateralist action, they mean the US conducting military operations on it's own. The opposite being like the Gulf War, where several nations actually did the fighting. Rights of passage and base usage is (would) already set up before hand.

David Floyd · February 4, 2002, 21:43

Sovereign nations can obviously refuse to let us use our bases in their territory for war-making purposes. Just a quick point

Velociryx · February 4, 2002, 21:52

"You're either with us, or against us."
-Quote from G. W. Bush

Clearly, that's his whole strategy, David.

If anybody so much as THINKS about denying the USA access to reach one of their targets, they'll be put on the $hit list, along with North Korea, Iraq, and Iran.

THAT is a terrifying thought, but in light of this latest bit, it certainly seems to be the case.

Gettin' downright spooky....

-=Vel=-

Alexander's Horse · February 4, 2002, 21:59

This is crazy stuff. Why offend your allies?

Guynemer · February 4, 2002, 23:01

This is hardly surprising. The Bush administration was hellbent on going it alone long before 9-11 ever happened. Remember the various international treaties and agreements that he refused to sign? The SDI-or-bust crusade? He's just applying his old attitude to the new situation.

Grrr · February 4, 2002, 23:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
THAT is a terrifying thought, but in light of this latest bit, it certainly seems to be the case.

Isn't this the war against terror?

faded glory · February 4, 2002, 23:11

Go Bush

Comrade Tribune · February 4, 2002, 23:13

The Guardian: 'Mr Rumsfeld also said the US has "any number of reports" that Iran has been contributing to instability inside Afghanistan by arming Afghan factions.'

Reports from Santa Claus that must be. The Iranian government was an enemy of the Taliban from day one, and has always tried to topple them.

Sikander · February 4, 2002, 23:13

Settle down people, your fears are overblown. Refusal to allow the U.S. to use a base will not put you on the same list as Iraq etc. The U.S. will not be going to war willy nilly around the world, and we will not be dragging our allies into any such stupidity either.

The U.S. will probably take out the government of Iraq, use the old carrot and stick on Iran and continue to let North Korea stew in it's own communist juices.

What Bush's statements mean is that we are not going to go to our NATO allies and ask for permission to act, and we may not even give warning of action. Obviously if some of our allies are going to help us they will be in the loop. But we are not going to give France a blueprint of our operation months in advance, because we fear that they will turn it over to our enemies just like they did in Serbia. Ditto with Greece, there are too many anti-Americans there to trust them with information that they don't need. What Bush is saying is that our allies do not get a veto on our unilateral activities.

The "If you are not with us you are against us." phrase is not aimed at bullying our allies, but prodding countries who may be sitting on the fence to choose whether they would like to have Al Qaida as an enemy or the U.S. We won't allow a country to allow itself to be used as a base for our enemies. If a state complains that they cannot take care of the Al Qaida problem within their borders, then we will help them. If they refuse, then we will consider them enemies for willfully allowing us to be attacked from land nominally under their control.

Alexander's Horse · February 4, 2002, 23:14

The U.S. won't get very far without its allies.

Making yourself into a rogue state for nothing is very silly.

Imran Siddiqui · February 4, 2002, 23:15

Well it is obvious that the 'War on Terrorism' from this point won't be an overt war. It'll be a covert war, using the CIA and elite military troops. So it isn't like we'll be invading new countries or anything unless they ask us to get involved.

Natan · February 4, 2002, 23:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
The Guardian: 'Mr Rumsfeld also said the US has "any number of reports" that Iran has been contributing to instability inside Afghanistan by arming Afghan factions.'

Reports from Santa Claus that must be. The Iranian government was an enemy of the Taliban from day one, and has always tried to topple them.

Sure, they opposed Taliban Wahabi fundamnetalism with its anti-Shi'ite fanaticism, but the Iranian regime has always had the spread of Shi'ite Islamic fundamentalism as one of its major goals; there are large numbers of Shi'ite Muslims in Afghanistan in regions bordering Iran, and many of them speak some form of Farsi. Iran is accused of trying to foment trouble between these shi'ites and the new government, as well as of allowing Al-Qaida terrorists to flee back to Saudi Arabia and elsewhere through Bandar Abbas.

Comrade Tribune · February 4, 2002, 23:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Sikander
We won't allow a country to allow itself to be used as a base for our enemies. If a state complains that they cannot take care of the Al Qaida problem within their borders, then we will help them. If they refuse, then we will consider them enemies for willfully allowing us to be attacked from land nominally under their control.

The problem is if you say a country has an 'AlQuaida Problem', and they deny, and it´s your word against theirs, you expect the entire world to believe you without proof.

Comrade Tribune · February 4, 2002, 23:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Natan
...but the Iranian regime has always had the spread of Shi'ite Islamic fundamentalism as one of its major goals; there are large numbers of Shi'ite Muslims in Afghanistan in regions bordering Iran, and many of them speak some form of Farsi. Iran is accused of trying to foment trouble between these shi'ites and the new government, as well as of allowing Al-Qaida terrorists to flee back to Saudi Arabia and elsewhere through Bandar Abbas.

1- Spreading their religion is not terrorism. Where´s the problem?

2- Disagreement with the new Afghani government is not a crime, either.

3- Accusing Iran of helping people to escape to Saudi Arabia doesn´t make sense. If Saudi-Arabia really harbours terrorists, why do the US not threaten Saudi-Arabia? Try some other reason?

Sikander · February 4, 2002, 23:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
The Guardian: 'Mr Rumsfeld also said the US has "any number of reports" that Iran has been contributing to instability inside Afghanistan by arming Afghan factions.'

Reports from Santa Claus that must be. The Iranian government was an enemy of the Taliban from day one, and has always tried to topple them.

Yes they were enemies of the Taliban, because of two things.

1) Shiia vs Sunni
2) Iran trying to foment rebellion in the ethnically Iranian parts of Afghanistan, especially around Herat.

The fact that the Taliban is no more gives your statement no meaning whatsoever.

Now the new regime is getting into position, and Iran has the same reasons for being the enemy of the new regime, except that #1 above is replaced with Shiia vs Secular. So they are trying to cause problems for the new government by supporting irredentists in the border region.

Iran is also undergoing a domestic political crisis. The popular elected government is being pushed aside by the unpopular hard liners, which is making the country increasingly unstable. One way that the hard liners think that they can increase their popularity is to foment an international crisis with the U.S. What better way to do that than to try to minimize or destroy the gains the U.S. has made in Afghanistan by undermining the new government and allowing Al Qaida to escape?

The U.S. isn't going to allow Iran to thwart us so easily. All we are doing right now is informing the Iranian people (and possibly some of the elected government) of the things that it's hardliners are doing, and that we aren't going to put up with it.

You should really try to do more than read slanted crap like The Guardian if you want to have any idea what's really going on. Then perhaps you could post reasoned arguments with facts to back them up rather than empty trolls like this.