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

[HershOstropoler]

Monetary union, common defense. Of course, there is little the US can do about it, but the little it tries....

[DanS]

Monetary union, common defense

Your perceptions are really odd. We have always been encouraging on these matters.

You're looking for opposition where none exists.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Monetary union, common defense. Of course, there is little the US can do about it, but the little it tries....

huh?

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Ned
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.

Ned, when all that crap begun last year, Schroeder just said "We will not support...". Means, we'll neither participate in this war, nor will we pay the bill. Perhaps, because we overpaid the bill in Gulf War one, or hell knows for what reason. Mind you the difference between "we don't support" and "we oppose". The former means, you do it without us, and we won't disturb you. The latter means, we'll do everything we can to make it not happen. A big difference, you see.

In fact, the upcoming war in Iraq is a war of aggression. May be not for you, but for us it is, because we were not involved in Gulf War one. And as such it is against of our constitution.

Now came the overblown reaction from Washington. "Axis of Weasel", "Old Europe", "Germany along with Libya and Cuba" and so on, over several months. So do you wonder why we are pissed? And do you wonder why we now not only "don't support", but "oppose"? The public opinion about the US and their willing lackeys has reached a new low in the rest of Europe.

There were severe diplomatical mistakes, that's true, but they were at both sides of the Atlantic ocean. To blame it all at France and Germany, is a bit blue-eyed.

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.

Yes, so what?

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

See page 3 of this thread. Summary: we wouldn't care.

[HershOstropoler]

"Your perceptions are really odd. We have always been encouraging on these matters."

You are talking from lala-land. Do you really believe the superficial rhetoric of support?

[DanS]

Mind you the difference between "we don't support" and "we oppose".

That's a bit facile. When Godwin's Law is invoked, I would hardly call that "we don't support".

Do you really believe the superficial rhetoric of support?

Yep. Why would we oppose?

[HershOstropoler]

"Yep. Why would we oppose?"

Because an alternative reserve currency limits the games the Fed and the Treasury can play for financial interests.

Because a CDP could in effect limit US strategic options; a common foreign policy will have the same effect we know from the common trade policy - Washington can only a fraction of the games it was able to play before.

[Ned]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"The damage done to US-French and US-German relations is severe"

Both sides ****ed up diplomatically. But at the core of the dispute is one thing: If the Bushies had been content with disarming Iraq instead of being hellbent on having a war, we could have done without all the crap.

HO, this is one of the most stupid things you ever said. The only reason Saddam has allowed the inspectors to return and has been cooperating to a degree is the threat of force. Your statement seems to assume that Saddam would have been cooperative without the US threat.

The is more of the Alice in Wonderland thinking that Dominique de Villepin espoused last Friday. He said that inspections were working, in part, due to the presence of an allied force ringing his country. What he should have said is that only reason he has been cooperating is that force.

We know that if the inspections continue without a definite end, that the US and Britain will have to stand down. Saddam would then stop cooperating. What are we to do then. Put the forces back?

This could become a yo-yo, with the allied troops moving in and out of the region depending on Saddam.

Can't you see just how ludicrous this is?

[HershOstropoler]

"Your statement seems to assume that Saddam would have been cooperative without the US threat."

Think again, it does not.

[DanS]

Because an alternative reserve currency limits the games the Fed and the Treasury can play for financial interests.

While true, the benefit to having another stable currency outweighs any dings we take.

Because a CDP could in effect limit US strategic options

We're going to attack Europe now?

What US strategic options in the current situation would a CDP limit? Certainly nothing in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, or Afghanistan.

a common foreign policy will have the same effect

How would a common foreign policy stop the US from doing what it thinks it needs to do? You might be able to take the UK off the table, but the outcome would be no different.

[HershOstropoler]

"We're going to attack Europe now?"

Who knows.

"What US strategic options in the current situation would a CDP limit? Certainly nothing in Iraq, Iran"

Without a direct conflict? Denial of bases, counterbribing Turkey, putting pressure on the gulf states, etc.

[DuncanK]

HO,

I disagree. The US has interest in the improvements to the European economy. I think you are just foolishly assuming otherwise.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by DanS
That's a bit facile. When Godwin's Law is invoked, I would hardly call that "we don't support".

Godwin's Law was invoked by a dumbass minister, who was promptly removed from the list of ministers for the new government and thus, removed from power (when will Rumsfeld be fired for the comparison of Schroeder with Ghadafi and Fidel Castro?). This incident has absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq question.

[DanS]

This incident has absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq question.

Sure it does. And don't tell me that this sort of atmosphere wasn't encouraged by Schroeder.

The US was fully prepared for Germany to sit this one out. Indeed, Germany has been taking a low profile lately on the issue...

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by DuncanK
HO,

I disagree. The US has interest in the improvements to the European economy. I think you are just foolishly assuming otherwise.

On a global economic level, it is clear, but when you look at it at individual markets level, we are simply competing; example : Airbus.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


On a global economic level, it is clear, but when you look at it at individual markets level, we are simply competing; example : Airbus.

True, but I didn't know we were talking about individual markets.

[DAVOUT]

In the hypothetical case where lobbies would have a tiny influence on diplomatic matters, it would be relevant to consider some invidual markets.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by DanS
Sure it does. And don't tell me that this sort of atmosphere wasn't encouraged by Schroeder.

Schroeder is an idiot. I support his cause (opposing the war) without approving the methods he uses. At the moment, the chances for him to get reelected are very low and would be even lower, if he would give in to Americas blackmailing. Unfortunately, the next elections are only in 2006.

[DuncanK]

I guess it is easier to see mutual benefit from trade from a US perspective and harder from a European perspective. I don't think there is any evidence that the US follows a general policy of preventing unity in Europe though.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Ned, when all that crap begun last year, Schroeder just said "We will not support...". Means, we'll neither participate in this war, nor will we pay the bill. Perhaps, because we overpaid the bill in Gulf War one, or hell knows for what reason. Mind you the difference between "we don't support" and "we oppose". The former means, you do it without us, and we won't disturb you. The latter means, we'll do everything we can to make it not happen. A big difference, you see.

In fact, the upcoming war in Iraq is a war of aggression. May be not for you, but for us it is, because we were not involved in Gulf War one. And as such it is against of our constitution.

Now came the overblown reaction from Washington. "Axis of Weasel", "Old Europe", "Germany along with Libya and Cuba" and so on, over several months. So do you wonder why we are pissed? And do you wonder why we now not only "don't support", but "oppose"? The public opinion about the US and their willing lackeys has reached a new low in the rest of Europe.

Sir Ralph, I do not remember this subtlety. It seemed that the anti-US and anti-Bush rhetoric was a bit extreme. I even remember Bush being compared to Hitler by the German government.

Germany started the verbal conflict. Did the average German really expect there would be no backlash at all in the US?

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
In the hypothetical case where lobbies would have a tiny influence on diplomatic matters, it would be relevant to consider some invidual markets.

I don't think any lobbies in the US are against events in Europe that would improve your economy. They are only concerned with their specific industries. Generally the US likes to see economic improvements in the world. It means we can export more.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Ned
I even remember Bush being compared to Hitler by the German government.

As mentioned above, the statement of a pretty dumb minister in a pretty dumb interview can not be taken as official governmental note. If it were so, Rumsfeld would cause an international conflict every time he opens his mouth. And other than Rumsfeld, Hertha Däubler-Gmelin was removed from power.

[DanS]

Ralph: Long story short, he actively stoked anti-Americanism for electoral gain. That's a no-no.

[Harovan]

Agreed. Even though it was his only chance.

[Ned]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"Your statement seems to assume that Saddam would have been cooperative without the US threat."

Think again, it does not.

You forget that we have been around this block before with Saddam. We first tried to appease him by offering him partial removal of sanctions in exchange for partial disarmament. That did not change his behavior though. He still did not cooperate.

Clinton withdrew the inspectors and bombed Iraq for three days. He warned there woud be further severe consequences if Saddam did not offer to cooperate. Saddam made no such offer, and the inspectors stayed out of Iraq until the Bush initiative.

I have no idea how the Europeans would have gotten the inspectors back into Iraq without Bush's initiative. Clinton, who wanted disarmament, could not do it even with bombing.

As to "regime change," this has been US policy since 1991. It was endorsed by Clinton and later by Congress in 1998, IIRC.

[MBD]

It is worth noting, though, that she was not removed immediately after she said it, but remained in the cabinet and the government through the election, which implies a degree of official approval.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by DuncanK


I don't think any lobbies in the US are against events in Europe that would improve your economy. They are only concerned with their specific industries. Generally the US likes to see economic improvements in the world. It means we can export more.

That is global, and I would say theoretical. The prospect that 50% of the world market be conquered by Airbus cannot be appreciated by Boeing first, but also by the US Administration. Dont you recall that Clinton liked to introduce himself as a salesman of the US industry? It is almost impossible that this was not reflected in your foreign policy.

[Ned]

One thing that will change in the future is that France and Germany will no longer be consulted on international security issues. They were always the first to complain if the US decided to do something on security without first consulting them. Well if they really wanted closer cooperation with the US on security, they have really shot themselves in the foot.

I even believe this may have implications for cooperation on ME peace.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by MBD
It is worth noting, though, that she was not removed immediately after she said it, but remained in the cabinet and the government through the election, which implies a degree of official approval.

A question of a few days, then her term ended anyway. During this time the discussion went about if it was really an insult or not. IIRC it was

"To distract public attention from domestic problems by pointing at a foreign enemy is a well known ploy. [Among many others] even Hitler did this."

Now if you read with a bit of goodwill and insert the words I added in brackets (they are implicitly in the sense of this phrase anyway, which proves the word "even"), it's not that bad. It would mean, Bush did the same, many other governments did before him.

The biggest irony is in the fact, that by resorting to anti-Americanism to distract from domestic problems her own party did the same she was blaming Bush for.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
That is global, and I would say theoretical. The prospect that 50% of the world market be conquered by Airbus cannot be appreciated by Boeing first, but also by the US Administration. Dont you recall that Clinton liked to introduce himself as a salesman of the US industry? It is almost impossible that this was not reflected in your foreign policy.

Yeah, surely the US wants to be more competitive in the world market, but I don't think that it follows that we should like to see your economies do poorly. The size of your eocnomy has little to do with your competitiveness. If size matters it follows that the US should be the most competitive economy. In fact, we have the largest trade deficit.