Europe-US Split ... Ramifications May Last For Years

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
It really doesn't matter much. There are, what, some 70,000 left here, most of which are absent most of the time anyway (in Yugoslavia/Afghanistan/Gulf region etc) and this way can't raise our economy significantly.

Obviously the German economy will not collapse if the US troops pull out entirely, but some quick calculations indicate that we're talking about 14 billion USD year for the German economy. Thats not insignificant by any means.

EDIT: I found some other numbers that said that NATO costs us 90bn USD/yr. Since 70% of that force is stationed in Germany that would be something around 60bn USD (Of course not all of that money would flow directly into the German economy).

The big cut already was in the early nineties, when the occupation of Germany ended and the US forces were reduced from several hundred thousands to the mentioned 70,000 NATO contingent. Mind you, that time it was Germany, who asked the US forces to leave. So the economical drawback couldn't really hurt much.

What 'occupation of Germany' was that?

What concerns the upcoming complete withdrawal of the US forces... well, you are overestimating our interest. It's not that we're saying "Holy ****, now that will hurt us severely!" . Neither will we dance in the streets. The reaction most likely will be "So the Americans pull their forces out. And what else did happen?"

Just like to point out that as of this time there are no official plans to withdraw the troops from Germany http://idsnews.com/story.php?id=14716.

Hopefully, the other Germans will feel just as you do.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Thanks for caring so much for me . What I didn't mention is, that my hypothetical mum wanted to force me to have my dinner at McDonalds.

Seriously, consumer level boycotts are so silly. Did you buy French wine and German cars so far (if at all) because you like France and Germany? Hardly. You, or let's say most customers, bought them because they're good. Now let's assume you and a few of your fellows really boycott them in the future. This will mean, you at free will switch to second tier products. The company you attack won't be harmed much, they will either sell more cars in other countries, or they have to fire a couple of workers. Perhaps a few from unrentable Chrysler? Which brings to me another question. Would you buy a Chrysler?

I own a Dodge Dakota. I love my truck!

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Trajanus


That's right, and in the ancient Greek plays, hybris always led to a downfall

Hybris? Is that some kind of tropical flower?

[Harovan]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Obviously the German economy will not collapse if the US troops pull out entirely, but some quick calculations indicate that we're talking about 14 billion USD year for the German economy. Thats not insignificant by any means.

I'd like to see that "quick calculation".

What 'occupation of Germany' was that?

That was a rhetorical question, right?

Just like to point out that as of this time there are no official plans to withdraw the troops from Germany http://idsnews.com/story.php?id=14716.

May be there are no official plans, indeed.

Hopefully, the other Germans will feel just as you do.

A quick poll among my colleagues (I'm at work) varied between "thank god" and "who cares". My opinion is the latter. Workers of factories, that support the US army, may see that different. But they are not that many.

[DanS]

This split on Iraq predated Bush for a while. Clinton just didn't have the balls to push it.

And it certainly is not something anyone who wanted to be considered an ally would do.

That's precisely right. France wants to stand up to the US and create a counterbalance to our power. Guess what? That's not what allies do to each other.

Bush made clear that he believed that this was a vital interest of the United States and a clear threat against the United States. Allies don't fly into Africa to rally opposition to your policies on it.

Overall, the US is in no danger of becoming hated throughout the world. The coalition for this operation is quite large, with or without the UN. The UN is largely irrelevant for the US (not for the UK, perhaps). Perhaps some icing on the cake.

[Lancer]

Dan, I don't see how this, or anything, could "help France counterbalance our power."

I think it's the oil deal.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by DanS
Overall, the US is in no danger of becoming hated throughout the world. The coalition for this operation is quite large, with or without the UN.

Don't forget, that even in most countries, that support the US, the vast majority of citizens is against that war. No government, that calls itself democratic, can afford to ignore the public opinion on the long run. Look at your best ally UK at the time. And it's not governments, but people, who'll feel hatred.

[DanS]

Believe it or not, Lancer. That's the way they look at it.

I think we should punish France for working against us on what we believe to be a threat against the US and on what is clearly not a French vital interest. Don't know how, but we should be working up a list...

Look at your best ally UK at the time. And it's not governments, but people, who'll feel hatred.

Opposition is not hatred. Even anti-Americanism isn't hatred. Don't read too much into it.

[Lancer]

...checking it twice...

[Lancer]

Dan, are you personally boycotting French goods?

[DanS]

That's the problem. Don't think I buy too many French goods in the first place.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by DanS
Believe it or not, Lancer. That's the way they look at it.

I think we should punish France for working against us on what we believe to be a threat against the US. Don't know how, but we should be working up a list...

Punishment is a totally new concept in peace time. It will be quite difficult to enforce anyway since the US are tied by the free and fair trade principles; and within (?) those principles, they have not been so kind generally (business is business ...). Therefore, may I ask what kind of punishment, other that of an economic nature, you have in mind?

[Lancer]

Yes, I have the same problem.

[DanS]

Therefore, may I ask what kind of punishment, other that of an economic nature, you have in mind?

That's the problem. We don't have a good list. Snub their ambassador at dinner parties?

Expelling a couple of intelligence officers would be fun. Cutting off any pending military tech transfer would perhaps be useful. Make France persona non grata in Baghdad once the war goes down. Hmmm... Pretty weak, I have to admit.

[Harovan]

DanS: I'm not mixing opposition with hatred. But ignorance of public opinion by the government may create it, after a time.

[Lancer]

Cutting them out of 'the rebuilding', and the free trips to the gas station is just the thing.

Maybe we'll sell them some full price oil...if they have dollars.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by DanS
Therefore, may I ask what kind of punishment, other that of an economic nature, you have in mind?


Expelling a couple of intelligence officers would be fun. Cutting off any pending military tech transfer would perhaps be useful.

We are so pleased when you have fun that it will not be a real punisment for us.

As for the military tech transfer, two details :
- anything regarding our observation satellites would have been made difficult under any circumstances;
- anytime the international situation becomes really serious (as in the Cuba missiles crisis), and you will find us by your side from the first instant, you will change your mind, and do your best for our catching up.

[Harovan]

I thought it was not about oil? Anyway, Iraq is not the only place that has it, you know. You might as well be sitting on your prey and nobody wants to buy it.

[DanS]

But ignorance of public opinion by the government may create it, after a time.

I doubt it. I'm more worried about any practical implications.

anytime the international situation becomes really serious

This is something you need to realize. This is serious for us. It certainly is serious for Bush. He made this crystal clear. And what is France doing? It's in Africa trying to drum up opposition against us.

[Lancer]

SR, you'll buy it, so will I. It will be cheap too.

[Drake Tungsten]

Make France persona non grata in Baghdad once the war goes down.

I like that one. We should also try our best to make sure that France and Germany lose their leadership position in the EU. Try to make "New Europe" along with Britain, Spain and Italy the driving force in the EU. Maybe we can even sneak the Turks in to really piss the Germans off...

[DuncanK]

I can't speak about the otherside, but in the US the Republicans will not forget this soon. They are the ones that support the war for the most part. And I think that a Democrat will be elected next term and make them pay the taxes for it. As much as they would like to see social programs cut to pay for it, I don't see it happening. So, to them this Euro action looks like a cheap, backstabing way of not helping their allies pay the cost of fighting terrorism. The next time they get power they are not likely to be friendly to Europe. On the other, hand the Democrats aren't likely to hold a grudge.

On the trade issue. I think trade will definitely suffer. I expect to see the sale of German cars in the US decrease.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by DanS

I think we should punish France for working against us on what we believe to be a threat against the US and on what is clearly not a French vital interest.

Funny. I'd rather see that silly war as a severe threat against the security of the entire West, and cannot see a vital US interest in it, apart from strategic control over oil reserves (which you all deny) or some feelgood exercise for the chickenhawks.

"This is serious for us. It certainly is serious for Bush."

So if Chirac were stupid instead of cycnical, and Bush cynical instead of stupid, you'd side with Chirac?

DT:

"We should also try our best to make sure that France and Germany lose their leadership position in the EU."

[DAVOUT]

[SIZE=1]
It certainly is serious for Bush.

And what is France doing? It's in Africa trying to drum up opposition against us.

I did not get you were joking !

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither
They don't have to fight. They don't have to send units.

They also do not need to stand in the way and throw a huge hissy fit over it..

It is the US taxpayer that is paying the bills to keep the lid on Saddam. Should they have to do that forever before they say, pfft... strike three, you're out?

And like it or not, the US administration links Saddam to their current crusade in the aftermath of 9/11. You may not see it. I may not see it, clearly. However, they see a link. It was a very large miscalculation on the part of the French and Germans to have got in front of that train. And it certainly is not something anyone who wanted to be considered an ally would do.

NYE, This captures the essence of the problem. On its face, it does not appear that French and German vital interests are involved in maintaining Saddam in power. However, the US has stated that US (and even UK) vital interests are involved. Under these circumstances, one should at a minimum expect allies to defer to the judgment of their ally even if they disagreed with the policy.

Henry Kissinger said as much Saturday in an interview. He said that the current situation will call for a fundamental reexamination of our alliances. He also expects there to be a period of very cool relations between the US and France and Germany.

Rumsfeld is already talking about redeploying our army out of Germany.

[DanS]

DAVOUT: I wasn't.

So if Chirac were stupid instead of cycnical, and Bush cynical instead of stupid, you'd side with Chirac?

Roland: That has nothing to do with it. The US believes this is in its vital national interests. It's not in France's vital national interests either way. Given this, why would France actively work against us? Allies don't do this sort of thing.

[HershOstropoler]

Dan:

"The US believes this is in its vital national interests."

Which less than 20 % on this side of the pond can even remotely understand. And I'm not talking about disarming Iraq, but about the Bush admin being hellbent on regime change, war or/and occupation.

What is the vital US interest in that?

"It's not in France's vital national interests either way."

That the US does not claim a right to at its pleasure, in violation of the UN charter, dispose of governments could be seen as a vital french interest. At least easier to understand than the supposed vital interest of the US.

[HershOstropoler]

"Allies don't do this sort of thing."

Oh please. The US is working against the EU whereever it can, now I just need to see the EU as our vital interest.

Also, Allies consider each other's opinions. The Bush admin has refused even to hear, not to mention listen.

[Spec]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler

The real consequences are the cost to the US' diplomatic standing in the world. In EU2 terms, it gets close to "hated throughout the world".

They already are...........

[DanS]

The US is working against the EU whereever it can

Where is that?