What the Eurotwits would like George W. Bush to say

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Willem


I repeat:

Funny how when the discussion turns to the ramifications of an US invasion, that all the American posters remain silent.

Are you prepared to accept the possibility of having to send US troops to prop up the Pakistani government if the fundamentalist there revolt? Are you prepared to wage war against them if they win and get their hands on nuclear weapons that are ready to fly? Are you prepared to accept a global economic upheaval if Muslims all over the Middle East riot in the streets and disrupt the oil trade? Are you prepared to send in troops to bolster regimes like Saudi Arabi in order to ensure that the supplies aren't disrupted? Are you prepared for the inevitable demands for a Kurdish homeland that will arise after Saddam is gone? Are you prepared to send in troops to Turkey when the Kurdish population ther join thier Iraqi counterparts? Have you even considered these possibilities? Wouldn't it be much more prudent to accept these possibilities only as a last resort?

These things are all (remotely) possible right now. Invading Iraq won't significantly change that one way or the other, because Iraq has very little to do with any of these situations (with the possible exception of the Kurdish question). Even if the Kurds get wild, the Turks are more than a match for them, and they know it.

Do your thoughts run like this all the time? Do you worry about getting hit by a bus whenever you cross the street? There is always a risk, and if you remain on your own block you would never have to confront it. But is it worth it?

[Spiffor]

Thanks for the answer Vel and Ravagon.

I have some questions for Americans who think in terms of conquest vs. appeasement :
How are French, German or Russian policies (AFAIK, Russia is opposed to the war as well) appeasement policies ?
What are the demands France, Russia and Germany gave into ?
Do you think France and Russia give in to Iraq for the sake of giving in to a weakened power ? Do you think France and Germany are driven by fear of losing thousands ?
Do you assimilate any attempt to resolve a crisis through diplomacy with appeasement ?
And last but not least : do you know France and Russia will back an attack on Iraq if it is proven that diplomacy doesn't work, war being the last resort ?

[Spiffor]

Just to fuel the debate, here is some information I've just read in Libération (my translation). I don't intend to prove anything with this, just to give some info.

The stance of the 15 members

United States : Iraq continues to develop WMD and doesn't cooperate with the inspectors. Considers that a military intervention is possible without any new UN resolution.

France : Inspectors need time to disarm Saddam. War can only be the last resort, within UN regulation.

Russia : favorable to a diplomatic solution, but it could change its stance if Iraq doesn't cooperate.

China : favors a peaceful solution

Great Britain : Supports the US. Favors a second UN resolution, but would participate to a military intervention without the agreement of the UN.

Germany : against the war, and will not participate to an attack.
Angola : Favorable to the inspections
Bulgaria : Ready to support the US in the use of force
Cameroon : favors further inspections
Chile : favors the inspections, but waits for Powell presentation to determine its stance.
Spain : wholly supports Bush
Guinea : in favor of the inspections
Mexico : favors the inspections, but could back an intervention within the UN
Pakistan : favorable to the inspections
Syria : Iraq is cooperating, and the international comunity should end the embargo.

[Tripledoc]

The Bulgarian government would perhaps be happy with the destabilization of Turkey.
The Spanish government needs to draw away attention from their inability to come up with a solution to the Basque problem.
Mexico is an oil producing country. Self explanatory.

[Sikander]

Here's an interesting article on U.S. anti-Europeanism:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16059

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Sikander
Here's an interesting article on U.S. anti-Europeanism:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16059

I think it's an interesting approach. Although, if you look at the media, not to mention poly, you would get the impression that Europeans talk about the US all the time. That's not the case. The typical reaction here to a US-related topic is "de narrischn Ami", ~"those crazy americans", and that's about it.

Power-envy plays close to no role in most europeans' sentiment towards the US; I at least have no desire for the EU to bomb or invade third world countries. With the inability to bomb or invade those that have nukes.

The source of american anti-europeanism? I guess Tocqueville's quote explains it. Especially the rightwing nutjobs have to diss europe to keep the existential myth of the american utopia, and then they are pissed that they don't get admired by Europeans.

[Spiffor]

Very interesting arcticle Sikander. I think it'll help me understand the roots of anti-European posts in the future. thx

[TheStinger]

Whilst I am in favour of the removal of Saddam by force if neccessary, I don't think the anti-war people are appeasers.

I also think it suits both American anti-Euros and Euro anti-americans to simplify the arguments by calling Bush stupid or saying that all europeans are cowards

[Spiffor]

And to react on the arcticle : HO is right, the European anti-Americanism is nearly no driven by envy. You can sense envy in the traditional French anti-Americanism (after all, the brute cowboys replaced us in the mission to civilize the world ), but the new emergence of antiamericanism in Europe has nothing to do with envy ; it has rather to do with the sheer arrogance your undisputed superpower shows to the world.

Antiamericanism is new in Europe, except in France. In Germany, if you were antiamerican six years ago, you couldn't hope to win an election (I'm talking about six years ago, because my antiamericanism shocked almost all Germans I got to know at the time), Germans were still in the idea the US was a partner and a friend, rather than a gun-toting rival.
Not so much time ago, it wasn't shameful, in France, to be pro-American, and antiamericanism was rather a feat of the old generation, while pro-americanism was widely spread within the youth (I was looked like some strange beast in junior high when I claimed I was anti-American ; at the time, I didn't find any youngster who agreed with me)

I think the recent emergence of antiamericanism in Europe closely follows the emergence of antiamericanism in the whole world. America is hated pretty much everywhere in the world.

Maybe Americans would be wise to wonder why.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler

I think it's an interesting approach. Although, if you look at the media, not to mention poly, you would get the impression that Europeans talk about the US all the time. That's not the case. The typical reaction here to a US-related topic is "de narrischn Ami", ~"those crazy americans", and that's about it.

The same is true here. I never get into conversations with people about transatlantic relations with people here, though there are occasional bits on the news. On the net it's different, because we are all mixing together wherever we are from, and the different viewpoints are there for all to see.

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Power-envy plays close to no role in most europeans' sentiment towards the US; I at least have no desire for the EU to bomb or invade third world countries. With the inability to bomb or invade those that have nukes.

The guy who wrote the article sees it differently. I think that to the extent that this exists, it does so mainly in former great powers such as France.

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
The source of american anti-europeanism? I guess Tocqueville's quote explains it. Especially the rightwing nutjobs have to diss europe to keep the existential myth of the american utopia, and then they are pissed that they don't get admired by Europeans.

You are giving way too much credence to that bit Roland. It was written over 150 years ago, when many of the ancestors of current Americans were still in Europe. And it's not even an explanation of anything, it is merely an observation. I understand it fits into your view of things, but it really doesn't ring completely true to me. Sure, there are plenty of loud Americans who fit that bill, just as there are plenty of brainless Euro-lefties who rant negative twaddle about the U.S. (among a vast number of subjects). Given the choice, I'd have to choose the over-confident Americans to the overly pessimistic Euros. I have seen confident people do the seemingly impossible, while pessimists tend to screw up even the simplest of things, or more likely never try to do anything.

[Velociryx]

Morning all....on my way to work, but good comments and posts this morning....'twill take some time to read and respond (and read Sik's article), but I'll start with responding to Spiff:

Rav nailed it better than I. It's true that right now, Iraq poses no direct threat to the US or to Europe.

But he has said (loudly, and repeatedly) that he's looking to go nuclear.

If and when he does, two things change. First, at that point, he IS a threat to the US and Europe, and second, it's too late to do anything about it, either diplomatically or via traditional military means.

At the core of appeasement is giving the other guy what he wants, WHEN the other guy is a known regional bully, and WHEN it is known that he'd like to become more than "just" a regional bully.

In this case, Saddam wants to a) Circumvent US imposed sanctions, and b) time.

Sell him stuff (France), and you give him "a", and do nothing, or let the process drag on for years (UN, 10 years of useless "resolutions" all of which has been ignored, and a demonstrated European respons (France and Germany) to continue trying more of the same), and you give him "b".

Thus, he's getting both of the things he wants.

If we d*ck around long enough, we will slap a thrown-togethr nuke on a missile, and then, of course, the world will turn on a dime, and start screaming "why didn't the US do something about this before somebody set them up the bomb?"

-=Vel=-

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Sikander

You are giving way too much credence to that bit Roland. It was written over 150 years ago, when many of the ancestors of current Americans were still in Europe. And it's not even an explanation of anything, it is merely an observation. I understand it fits into your view of things, but it really doesn't ring completely true to me.

It still is an excellent description of american nationalism. Of course, to americans most of what we consider rampant bizarre nationalism sounds perfectly normal.

"Given the choice, I'd have to choose the over-confident Americans to the overly pessimistic Euros."

I prefer simple realism.

[Spiffor]

Erm, what was the point Roland ?

[HershOstropoler]

No point. Just a copy and paste that suddenly got posted.

Epostulatio praecox, I assume.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler

I prefer simple realism.

Unfortunately realism takes effort and an education, and there aren't many of the powerful who have a reason to support that when they can simply manipulate the masses with emotional propoganda. Auto-didactic realists are greatly outnumbered by the readily outraged majority.

[HershOstropoler]

I'd suppose that the loss of realism among the political elites is worse than among voters.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
I'd suppose that the loss of realism among the political elites is worse than among voters.

It's hard to tell a lot of times whether people in power actually believe what they say, or are merely playing to the crowd. Once the crowd gets ahold of an idea, even the elites can't stop it, which is the (often) awful power of propoganda. As a tool it is very hard to calibrate.

[Velociryx]

Excellent article indeed, Sik! I found his observations about both anti-americanism and anti-europeanism to be spot on. The imagery he evoked in his piece is, IMO, the *exact* charicture that a healthy hunk of Americans see Europe with.

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

I repeat:

Funny how when the discussion turns to the ramifications of an US invasion, that all the American posters remain silent.

Terribly sorry for being off-line when you steered the discussion this way, Willem.

America is hated pretty much everywhere in the world.

Maybe Americans would be wise to wonder why.

Clearly. In the same vein, consider that the hatred thrown our way (particularly by our supposed friends & allies) will not be easily forgotten.

So the real challenge is to repair the damage on both sides of the pond. The efforts thus far by our politicians have been uninspiring.

-Arrian

[Willem]

Originally posted by Sikander


Well it sure worked much better in WW2 than it has tended to throughout history. You picked a bad example, and with so many good ones to choose from.

Well it worked much better in the sense that there was more death and destruction than in any other conflict in the history of warfare yes. What exactly is your point?

[Velociryx]

Welcome back, Arrian!

And Willem....the *point* is that the powers defeated in WWII were rebuilt, and became among the strongest economic powers in the world today. Has it somehow escaped your attention that Germany and Japan are economic powerhouses today and that this is *because of* the successful post-war rebuilding and restructuring that occured.

One need only to look at Germany's condition after WWI, and the dire straits they were left in after that conflict (which, btw, gave rise to the conflict of WWII) to see the marked difference.

I could be wrong....but I believe that was the point.

-=Vel=-

[Willem]

Originally posted by Sikander


Since when do states comport their foreign policy as though it were a judicial matter? Why did Canada declare war on Germany without solid proof that the Germans in fact did not attack Poland in self defense? Was your Grandfather demanding that the British prove that the Germans invaded without provocation? Or did Canadians back then have more common sense than you do, and consider the sources of their information as well as its content?

I suspect my "father" was to concerned whether his homeland, The Netherlands, was to be next on the list. I guess his fears would have been justified.

People living then weren't foolish enough to even think that Hitler was an innocent victim of the Polish, he had already been making his intentions clear for some time. Poland just provided the ultimate confirmation.

Did the allied forces question whether Kuwait had somehow provoked Iraq? Your argument is quite silly frankly.

[Velociryx]

Actually Willem....the argument is a pretty good one.

Not one that you want to hear, apparently....but it raises a valid point nonetheless.

-=Vel=-

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Welcome back, Arrian!

And Willem....the *point* is that the powers defeated in WWII were rebuilt, and became among the strongest economic powers in the world today. Has it somehow escaped your attention that Germany and Japan are economic powerhouses today and that this is *because of* the successful post-war rebuilding and restructuring that occured.

One need only to look at Germany's condition after WWI, and the dire straits they were left in after that conflict (which, btw, gave rise to the conflict of WWII) to see the marked difference.

I could be wrong....but I believe that was the point.

-=Vel=-

Sorry, you'll have to qoute, I forget what that "point" was.

As for Japan and Germany, don't forget that they were both economic powerhouses before they were destroyed. I'd say claiming that they became succesful post-war nations because of the Marshall Plan is a little off-base. They already had the skills and know-how in order to rebound afterwards, with alot of US help of course. It just would have taken them longer without assistance, just like Germany was able to recover from the economic havoc that the Versailles Treaty brought about.

[Velociryx]

Yes yes...no doubt that the in-house expertise was critical to their rapid recovery...but no less critical than the massive infusion of capital that made the recovery possible. You have already said in your own post that it would have taken longer without that capital, and in fact, far, FAR longer, given the extent of the devastation. So yes....without the Marshall plan, the recovery of those two nations would have been a) slowed to a scale measured in generations, and b) quite likely led to yet another European war (kinna like it did the last time).

Thus....it can be fairly measured as a post-war success. No new Euro war, and a rapid recovery. I'd call that....pretty successful.

-=Vel=-

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Actually Willem....the argument is a pretty good one.

Not one that you want to hear, apparently....but it raises a valid point nonetheless.

-=Vel=-

No I agree to a certain extent, though I also think it's irrelevant in this case. Saddam hasn't attacked anyone for a long time, nor has he shown any inclination to do so since Kuwait. The comparison to the invasion of Poland just doesn't apply IMO. Hitler had already annexed Austria and Chechoslovokia (sp?), so his intentions at that time were quite clear, and he had been rattling his sabres for some time. Not so with present day Iraq.

[Sava]

Saddam comparisons to Hitler are stupid.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Arrian
Clearly. In the same vein, consider that the hatred thrown our way (particularly by our supposed friends & allies) will not be easily forgotten.

So the real challenge is to repair the damage on both sides of the pond. The efforts thus far by our politicians have been uninspiring.

Agreed. While I will never be pro-American (anti-americanism is a key element of my identity since my pre-teen days), I hope that all this mud and hatred stops at some point. I'm not referring to the hatred towards the states and the policies, but the growing hatred between peoples.

(I mean, it IS normal for us Euros to hate the US when it doesn't ratify Kyoto ; it is much less normal to insult or brawl with American people )

[Velociryx]

Saddam has made no bones about the fact that he WANTS to take his country nuclear.

Why do you suppose that is? Do you think he has it in his mind to build lots of nuclear power plants to provide electricity for his people?

And IF we give him the time he needs to do it, do you REALLY believe he won't make regular use of, or threaten his neighbors WITH his newfound big stick?

If you sincerely believe that, then you are turning a blind eye to his track record and recent Iraqi history.

Yeah....let's wait till he's got nukes before we decide to do anything.

Rather akin to waiting till the guy with the funny moustache had built his country into a powerhouse and armed it to the teeth, no? Do you not see the same general dynamic at work there?

-=Vel=-

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Thus....it can be fairly measured as a post-war success. No new Euro war, and a rapid recovery. I'd call that....pretty successful.

-=Vel=-

I agree, but is the US prepared to institute a form of the Marshall Plan for post-invasion Iraq? We hear alot about invasion, but there's been zero discussion as to what will happen afterwards.

Frankly, I don't think that Bush has even thought that far ahead, he certainly hasn't indicated so. How exactly will he insure that Iraq doesn't splinter into Kurd/Sunni/Shiite factions, and all the civil chaos that will ensue. We don't know, he hasn't mentioned a word about it.