There go the Europeans again

[Elind]

Dutch troops are expected to withdraw by March 15, after the country's parliament opposed any further extension of the deployment mandate, the Lib Dems said.

The new Ukrainian government is expected to reduce the size of its 1,600-strong military force, and Poland is cutting its contingent from 2,400 troops to 1,700. Hungary withdrew its 300 soldiers last month.

Portugal announced in November that it would not maintain its 120-strong police contingent in Iraq next month.

Italy and Romania have also indicated that they may pull out after the elections, the Lib Dems said.

I suppose they say that IF a few WMDs had been found they would now be adding forces to help Iraq? Bull.

Remind me never to count on Europeans in a pinch; and I trust the Iraqis will also remember a few years from now when same hypocrits try to send their salesmen back.

[Silicon]

Hey,

Don't demean poland!


http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_debate_poland.jpg


http://www.youforgotpoland.com/prez.jpg

http://www.youforgotpoland.com/ship.jpg

http://www.youforgotpoland.com/forget_about_it.jpg



http://www.youforgotpoland.com/

[Elind]

Originally posted by Silicon
Hey,

Don't demean poland!



Wasn't on the list was it?

[KelvinG]

Ah, I wouldn't worry too much about countries pulling out troops. After all, Bush announced that combat operations had ended in Iraq long ago.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Ah, I wouldn't worry too much about countries pulling out troops. After all, Bush announced that combat operations had ended in Iraq long ago.

So it will be easy to show a link quoting him saying precisely that, right?

[Mrick]

Originally posted by Silicon
Hey,

Don't demean poland!

http://www.youforgotpoland.com/

:-) - That was pretty funny. Thanks.

Mrick

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
So it will be easy to show a link quoting him saying precisely that, right?

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/20203.htm

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by KelvinG
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/20203.htm

Perhaps I was not clear.

Do you have a link showing he said precisely that?

[Elind]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Perhaps I was not clear.

Do you have a link showing he said precisely that?

I don't really think it matters. Bush did say something to the effect that major combat was over, and that was true in a military sense.

You are just being baited on this issue, which is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Elind
I don't really think it matters. Bush did say something to the effect that major combat was over, and that was true in a military sense.

You are just being baited on this issue, which is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

So, your interpretation of a banner constitutes evidence. That, coupled with some vague but uncited memory of something to that effect possibly being intimated at some stage under some circumstances. Allegedly.

Funny, around these here parts we call that putting words into someone's mouth.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Jocko
So, your interpretation of a banner constitutes evidence. That, coupled with some vague but uncited memory of something to that effect possibly being intimated at some stage under some circumstances. Allegedly.

Funny, around these here parts we call that putting words into someone's mouth.

I think you're responding to a quote about a quote and have yourself turned the wrong way. I suggest starting at the top in this case.

[Hutch]

From the US Today Archives of 30 April 2003. While not proof that President Bush said those exact words, it does indicate that the thought was there.

The White House has asked TV networks to carry Bush's remarks at 9 p.m. ET. He'll speak from the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln as it heads toward San Diego. The carrier has been deployed since July 20, 2002. Bush will sleep on the ship and fly ashore Friday before it docks. (Related item: President's jet plans are nixed.)

The president will describe "what was at stake, what has been accomplished" in Iraq "so we can all join together in saying thanks to the men and women of our armed forces who helped achieve this remarkable success," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

Bush will say "major combat operations" have ended, Fleischer said, but "there are pockets of resistance, there continue to be Iraqis who shoot at America's armed forces." Fleischer said he could not predict "when, from a formal legal sense, hostilities will be deemed to be over."


Edited to add: Ah, I see, it would appear that we are debating the use of the word "major", as in 'major combat operations' (which Bush did say) vs. 'combat operations', which he did not.

I will leave it to the rest to dance on the head of this pin.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Hutch
From the US Today Archives of 30 April 2003. While not proof that President Bush said those exact words, it does indicate that the thought was there.

Thanks for the clarification. The thought and the meaning seem quite clear, now and then, so perhaps this little slanging diversion can now be put to rest?

[Darat]

Just glad the UK isn't part of this imaginary country called "Europe".

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Elind
I suppose they say that IF a few WMDs had been found they would now be adding forces to help Iraq? Bull.

Remind me never to count on Europeans in a pinch; and I trust the Iraqis will also remember a few years from now when same hypocrits try to send their salesmen back.

The Europeans did the job they signed up for, but the fact is they were fed a pack of likes about the reasons for the war. Now America has re-elected the retard who took them into Iraq on false pretences, and Bush voters arrogantly proclaim they couldn't care less about Europe's opinion on the matter, can you really blame them for packing up and going home?

[Eleatic Stranger]

So, a month ago I told my girlfriend that we should go to the beach for the weekend. "Come on," I said, "It'll be fun! We'll sleep in, wade around in the surf, and eat horribly unhealthy food while wearing very little in the sun! The trip isn't that long, and it's well worth the effort!"

"That doesn't sound like a bad idea," she said, "but isn't the beach 1,000 miles away, and isn't it a mine field?"

"No!" I said "That's ludicrous nonsense. Don't you trust me?"

"Well," she said "I suppose I'll go, just for a little".

So we got in the car and started driving. Now, the first day or so she was mostly quiet and helped me out, but the second day was something different. "Didn't you say it was a short trip?" she asked, "Didn't you say we'd get there hours ago?"

"Don't worry," I said, "The turnoff is right ahead."
"OK," she said, "but I'm having my doubts about this."

Three days of driving later she really started getting on my nerves.

"Why aren't we there yet?" she complained, "The weekend is over and I have work I need to do. Can we turn around and go back? I'm wearing clothes that haven't been washed in days!"

"Now now," I told her, "You committed yourself to this and we have to see it through. Don't get faint hearted! The beach is only a few miles away, and once we get there we'll have a great weekend."

When we finally arrived at the beach it turned out to be covered in mines. "Wow," I said, "I didn't expect that."

"What are you talking about?" She yelled, "Everyone including me told you that!"

"Let's not be revisionist about this dear," I said, calming her down, "Everyone thought the beach would be nice -- no one had any idea about these mines. Now, put on your protective gear and let's get to work digging out these mines and clearing the beach."

And now, just today, she's announced she wants to go home -- and we're only days away from having the nice holiday we planned to!

I'm starting to think I should break up with her - she's just not reliable.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
The Europeans did the job they signed up for, but the fact is they were fed a pack of likes about the reasons for the war. Now America has re-elected the retard who took them into Iraq on false pretences, and Bush voters arrogantly proclaim they couldn't care less about Europe's opinion on the matter, can you really blame them for packing up and going home?

Bull. They (some of them) did the absolute minimum they could get away with. They believed the same info that the US did and they have no regard for larger issues, no concern for "petty" things like encouraging democracy, are perfectly happy to live with any dictatorships as long as it's profitable, and in the end behave like prissy little brats, like you.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Darat
Just glad the UK isn't part of this imaginary country called "Europe". Me too.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Eleatic Stranger
So, a month ago I told my girlfriend that we should go to the beach for the weekend. "Come on," I said, "It'll be fun! We'll sleep in, wade around in the surf, and eat horribly unhealthy food while wearing very little in the sun! The trip isn't that long, and it's well worth the effort!"............



Childish analogy and typical of those who can't face realities if they get difficult.

[Eleatic Stranger]

So, Elind, because you were fooled by what were, frankly, dubious claims by the current administration then everybody was fooled. And because you think by means of slogans ("bringing democracy!") instead of carefully considered plans, so does everyone else. And because some of those other people (ie, the vast majority of the rest of the world) is now refusing to subsidize your delusions to even the limited extent that they used to they're now cowardly jerks?

Your world must be a wonderful, brightly colored place.

[geni]

Originally posted by Elind
Remind me never to count on Europeans in a pinch; and I trust the Iraqis will also remember a few years from now when same hypocrits try to send their salesmen back.

You don't appear to be in a pinch you existance as a nation isn't threataned and neither is your status as a super power. A few thousand troops either way doesn't really matter.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Elind
Bull. They (some of them) did the absolute minimum they could get away with. They believed the same info that the US did and they have no regard for larger issues, no concern for "petty" things like encouraging democracy, are perfectly happy to live with any dictatorships as long as it's profitable, and in the end behave like prissy little brats, like you.

The "absolute minimum they could get away with"!!!???

Get away with what? Avoiding a spanking from big bad uncle sam for not playing war?

And I wouldnt talk too loud about being "happy to live with any dictatorships as long as it's profitable" you stupid yankee imperialst pig!

[Elind]

Originally posted by geni
You don't appear to be in a pinch you existance as a nation isn't threataned and neither is your status as a super power. A few thousand troops either way doesn't really matter. I guess you make my point. To these people it's all trivia and they don't give a damn.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
The "absolute minimum they could get away with"!!!???

Get away with what? Avoiding a spanking from big bad uncle sam for not playing war?

And I wouldnt talk too loud about being "happy to live with any dictatorships as long as it's profitable" you stupid yankee imperialst pig!

:D You show your hand too easily. That's precisely the point I was making about attitudes, although in the case of Britain (with some obvious exceptions), they have always had more balls and brains than most over there.

[geni]

Originally posted by Elind
I guess you make my point. To these people it's all trivia and they don't give a damn.

Well of course it is. You are trying to occupy an area which Britian manged to occupy and set up a reasonably stable state on it's own. You have a much larger population and manufactoring base than Britian had at that point. At the same time Britan was still recovering fromn world war one and trying to occupy a fair size empire. Trivial is quite a good description.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Eleatic Stranger
So, Elind, because you were fooled by what were, frankly, dubious claims by the current administration then everybody was fooled. And because you think by means of slogans ("bringing democracy!") instead of carefully considered plans, so does everyone else. And because some of those other people (ie, the vast majority of the rest of the world) is now refusing to subsidize your delusions to even the limited extent that they used to they're now cowardly jerks?

Your world must be a wonderful, brightly colored place.

And I thought you were the one with fantasy colored glasses.

Ask a few Iraqis what they think of you and those who turn tail with you. You might be surprised at what you hear. We will all have to face what history concludes in the not too distant future. I happen to think that you will have nothing to take pride in since all you seem to wish for is to see the USA fail. IF that should happen however, it would be in no small measure due to the spinelessness of so many who would not be free today but for the US; but that is ancient history to children these days, is it not?

[AWPrime]

But, no matter what happens be it good or bad, the allies will always remember that they were lied to by the US.


I have said that no WMD stockpiles would be found and I was proven right and I am not the only one.


If only the US had the guts to use the humitarian reason as sole reason......

[Elind]

Originally posted by AWPrime
But, no matter what happens be it good or bad, the allies will always remember that they were lied to by the US.


I have said that no WMD stockpiles would be found and I was proven right and I am not the only one.


If only the US had the guts to use the humitarian reason as sole reason......

?? You can call it lies and ignore all the other issues if it helps your excuses to do nothing, and you can pretend you have no humanitarian obligations to help decent Iraqis gain freedom just because you don't like the USA; and I can call you spineless.

Seems fair doesn't it?

[Elind]

Originally posted by geni
Well of course it is. You are trying to occupy an area which Britian manged to occupy and set up a reasonably stable state on it's own.

All of the West were responsible for "creating" Iraq, and responsible for the mess that followed, which I also think implies a responsibility to make corrections, however late they are, and in whatever circumstances they became possible. But to whitewash it all by describing pre war Iraq as a "reasonably stable state" is putting your head in the sand. Try asking hundreds of thousands dead Iraqis, Iraninans or Kuwaitis what they think of that "stable" state and then ask yourself what you think of your world view, regardless of what you think of the US.



You have a much larger population and manufactoring base than Britian had at that point. At the same time Britan was still recovering fromn world war one and trying to occupy a fair size empire. Trivial is quite a good description.

?? I don't get the relevance today.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Elind
You have a much larger population and manufactoring base than Britian had at that point. At the same time Britan was still recovering fromn world war one and trying to occupy a fair size empire. Trivial is quite a good description.

?? I don't get the relevance today. [/B]
The relevance is that we haven't accomplished today what Britain was able to do some time ago with much less. What are we doing whining about needing other countries to help when we don't actually care what they think?

[geni]

Originally posted by Elind
All of the West were responsible for "creating" Iraq, and responsible for the mess that followed, which I also think implies a responsibility to make corrections, however late they are, and in whatever circumstances they became possible. But to whitewash it all by describing pre war Iraq as a "reasonably stable state" is putting your head in the sand. Try asking hundreds of thousands dead Iraqis, Iraninans or Kuwaitis what they think of that "stable" state and then ask yourself what you think of your world view, regardless of what you think of the US.

The country was stable for 26 years after we left. That was a peroid that covered WW2 and the creation of Israel.



?? I don't get the relevance today.

What you are trying to do is triva. At worst it is a forien adventure gone wrong. Big deal. See what happened to Italy in Etheopia (although the italian would probably rather you didn't), Britian in afganistan or France in most of it's empire. None of these destoryed the county involved any yet you describe this as a pinch.

[geni]

Originally posted by Elind
?? You can call it lies and ignore all the other issues if it helps your excuses to do nothing, and you can pretend you have no humanitarian obligations to help decent Iraqis gain freedom just because you don't like the USA; and I can call you spineless.

Seems fair doesn't it?

Humanitarian obligations? Better send some troops to the DRC then. People are getting eaten there. The troops can join the French ones who are trying to keep the some kind of order there.

[H3LL]

Remembering the unwavering support the UK had from the USA during the Suez crisis, I'm amazed that they are still in Iraq.

Americans have short memories. It seems the Europeans do not.

As some Americans seem to think that Europeans all sat down supping tea or wine while they sorted out those nasty Germans and Japanese all alone, maybe they think it's time their rhetoric matched reality.

[Elind]

Originally posted by kimiko
The relevance is that we haven't accomplished today what Britain was able to do some time ago with much less. What are we doing whining about needing other countries to help when we don't actually care what they think?

That's not a relevant response, with respect.

Britain may have been the major player a long time ago, but it was hardly alone in formulating the borders in the Middle East. Secondly what it did then has no relevance to what is being done today, except that today is a consequence of yesterday.

I don't think we, I, are whining. We are telling it like it is, and it's not pretty. We do care what others think, but the objective is not love of Europeans, which will never be achieved. The objective is for Europeans to recognize that they can't live in ivory towers anymore and hope the bad guys won't see them, and that they can't do squat on their own if they think they want to influence change in the world without the US. Of course many opinions expressed here have no desire to influence anything and are happy to keep doing business as usual. They know that if things ever got really bad, they can always count on the US to save their asses regardless.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by H3LL
Americans have short memories. It seems the Europeans do not.

As some Americans seem to think that Europeans all sat down supping tea or wine while they sorted out those nasty Germans and Japanese all alone, maybe they think it's time their rhetoric matched reality.

What I seem to remember from history - and correct me if I'm wrong - is that those nasty Germans WERE Europeans. WWII was still largely an inter-European war we had to step in to end. For the second time. Europe couldn't figure out how to live together peacefully until American GI's made them.

Do Europeans have longer memories than Americans? Perhaps, but they seem amazingly selective memories.

[geni]

Originally posted by Elind
That's not a relevant response, with respect.

Britain may have been the major player a long time ago, but it was hardly alone in formulating the borders in the Middle East. Secondly what it did then has no relevance to what is being done today, except that today is a consequence of yesterday.

I has a lot of relivance since Britan forumalted and carried out a sucessful exit startergy that left a reasonably stable state in it's wake


I don't think we, I, are whining. We are telling it like it is, and it's not pretty.

Let just say since I have a reasonable knowlage of human history I find the above very amusing


We do care what others think, but the objective is not love of Europeans, which will never be achieved. The objective is for Europeans to recognize that they can't live in ivory towers anymore and hope the bad guys won't see them,


We aren't. However invading Iraq has nothing to do with this.


and that they can't do squat on their own if they think they want to influence change in the world without the US.


See DRC for why this opion is dead wrong. I seem to recall something about Sierra leone and Ivory Coast as well. There doesn't seem to be much US involvement in these cases.


Of course many opinions expressed here have no desire to influence anything and are happy to keep doing business as usual. They know that if things ever got really bad, they can always count on the US to save their asses regardless.

Really? Right now it is extreamly questionable whether the US has the militry capacity to do anything much.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Do Europeans have longer memories than Americans? Perhaps, but they seem amazingly selective memories.

As do you.

Maybe you have forgotten that Hitlers Germany declared war on America. Maybe you feel it would have been appropriate to ignore this but were just stepping in to help out.

So kind.

[Elind]

Originally posted by geni
I has a lot of relivance since Britan forumalted and carried out a sucessful exit startergy that left a reasonably stable state in it's wake. Let just say since I have a reasonable knowlage of human history I find the above very amusing
.

Ther's that "Reasonably stable" again. And you call that a knowledge of history? Amusing? Perhaps it is.






We aren't. However invading Iraq has nothing to do with this.


Has nothing to do with ...? It has everything to do with correcting some earlier screwups, unless you happen to be one of those who think democracy has no ground among Arabs and Muslims?


See DRC for why this opion is dead wrong. I seem to recall something about Sierra leone and Ivory Coast as well. There doesn't seem to be much US involvement in these cases.

You compare a few minor police actions within what are civil wars with the last two Gulf wars, or Afghanistan, or even the Balkans (the latter did have the support, mostly, that was called for, but again, could not have been accomplished without the USA).? That is not flattering to your sense of proportion.




Really? Right now it is extreamly questionable whether the US has the militry capacity to do anything much.

Tell us again about your knowledge of things historical, and military. I'm not sure I read it right.

No one denies the costs or the pressures it, Iraq, imposes but if you think that is all there is you are simply ignorant. Tell us instead why those listed Europeans claimed to have agreed to support the effort, but provided piddling numbers of forces (mostly not armed) and even then needed to rely on the US to transport much of them. I think it's shameful.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by geni
Really? Right now it is extreamly questionable whether the US has the militry capacity to do anything much.

The US has 12 aircraft carrier groups. None of them is tied down in Iraq. Yes, we are about at the limit of what we can commit for long-term occupation of a country with ground troops. But in terms of raw firepower, we've still got a lot available, and more importantly, globally deployable. Europe has no comparable ability to project the military strength it has. Hell, they couldn't even handle a festering military problem in their own back yard (Yugoslavia). Where is France's JDAM? Where is Germany's? They don't exist.

There's a reason that the US military was the most significant first-responder to the Tsunami disaster, and bore most of the logistic load in providing aid to remote locations. Europe was hardly on the scene (the French aircraft carrier didn't arrive until several weeks after the disaster, compared to only a few days for a US carrier). The Canadian military wasn't on the scene at ALL, because they didn't even have the capability to transport response teams to the region, even by plane.

When European military forces can take a genuine lead in solving a major crisis, ANY major crisis (even humanitarian), I'll consider them to be grownups who don't need an adult US to make sure they don't get in trouble. Right now, most of the continent is spoiled and resentful adolescents who resent their own growing and self-imposed irrelevance.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Elind
I don't think we, I, are whining. We are telling it like it is, and it's not pretty. We do care what others think, but the objective is not love of Europeans, which will never be achieved. The objective is for Europeans to recognize that they can't live in ivory towers anymore and hope the bad guys won't see them, and that they can't do squat on their own if they think they want to influence change in the world without the US. Of course many opinions expressed here have no desire to influence anything and are happy to keep doing business as usual. They know that if things ever got really bad, they can always count on the US to save their asses regardless.
No, we do not care what they think. We care only that they agree with what we think, otherwise, they are labeled spineless/appeasers/etc. Likewise, they have objectives beyond earning the love of the US; it is far more intelligent for them to sit back and let the US handle the entire Iraq situation since we have an apparent agenda in the region, and won't wait for others to join before acting. Saves them money and lives.

Europeans do not live in ivory towers; there are still many alive who witnessed WWII. We, on the other hand, have lived blissfully protected by two oceans and peaceful neighbors, and have not had disputes with aggressive ethnicities on the same landmass within the collective memory.

Not acting was not a problem, as Saddamy didn't have the capability to do anything to them anyway. In fact, the only thing I see any cooperative European country as having gotten out of their support is dead troops and a terrorist train attack. Hardly worthwhile.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Do Europeans have longer memories than Americans? Perhaps, but they seem amazingly selective memories.

Originally posted by H3LL
As do you.

Maybe you have forgotten that Hitlers Germany declared war on America. Maybe you feel it would have been appropriate to ignore this but were just stepping in to help out.

So kind.

I don't think you did too well in modern history class, did you? Hitler didn't declare war on the US, according to the movies I've seen :p .

That the US could and should have gotten involved earlier is certainly a hindsight truth, but in terms of selective memory issues, you do prove the earlier point admirably; or perhaps it's simply ignorance?

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
What I seem to remember from history - and correct me if I'm wrong - is that those nasty Germans WERE Europeans. WWII was still largely an inter-European war we had to step in to end. For the second time. Europe couldn't figure out how to live together peacefully until American GI's made them.
Of course, we didn't bother until our hand was forced. It may have started in Europe, but it truly was a world war. As Churchill said, "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities."

I disagree with the sentiment that America straightened the Euros out. It really diminishes the sacrifices of countless Allies and Soviets.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by H3LL
Maybe you have forgotten that Hitlers Germany declared war on America. Maybe you feel it would have been appropriate to ignore this but were just stepping in to help out.

Germany declared war on the US well after the start of WWII, at a point in time when it had become clear that we were going to war with them whether or not they declared war on us. Had we left Europe alone completely (see: lend-lease), Germany might not have declared war on us. I have to say I'm quite glad we stepped in, it was the only morally acceptable choice and also in our strategic interests, but let's be clear about this: WWII still started as an inter-European war, not a trans-atlantic one.

[geni]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
[B]The US has 12 aircraft carrier groups. None of them is tied down in Iraq. Yes, we are about at the limit of what we can commit for long-term occupation of a country with ground troops. But in terms of raw firepower, we've still got a lot available, and more importantly, globally deployable. Europe has no comparable ability to project the military strength it has. Hell, they couldn't even handle a festering military problem in their own back yard (Yugoslavia). Where is France's JDAM? Where is Germany's? They don't exist.

Or to put it another way you have 12 floating target. Look at what happened in the Millenium Challenge 02 and that was against a projected second rate oponet.


There's a reason that the US military was the most significant first-responder to the Tsunami disaster, and bore most of the logistic load in providing aid to remote locations. Europe was hardly on the scene (the French aircraft carrier didn't arrive until several weeks after the disaster, compared to only a few days for a US carrier). The Canadian military wasn't on the scene at ALL, because they didn't even have the capability to transport response teams to the region, even by plane.


You can have all the transports in the world but you don't have the troops to fill them.


When European military forces can take a genuine lead in solving a major crisis, ANY major crisis (even humanitarian), I'll consider them to be grownups who don't need an adult US to make sure they don't get in trouble. Right now, most of the continent is spoiled and resentful adolescents who resent their own growing and self-imposed irrelevance.

Been there seen it done it ruled most of the world decided it was a bad idea and it is best to leave other countries alone (unless they invite you in which case go there but spend as little time as posibe otherwise you will end up with both sides shooting you).

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Elind
Has nothing to do with ...? It has everything to do with correcting some earlier screwups, unless you happen to be one of those who think democracy has no ground among Arabs and Muslims?
The state of Iraq in 2003 had little to do with Britain and everything to do with the coup Saddam took power in decades previously. Coups happen in many places and are primarily the responsibility of those who partake in them.

Arabs and Muslims don't necessarily have to be led by the hand to democracy.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by kimiko
Of course, we didn't bother until our hand was forced. It may have started in Europe, but it truly was a world war. As Churchill said, "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities."

Yes indeed. It took us longer than it should have to do the right thing, but we did, and we finished the job once and for all. I've got another quote for you, though I can't give you the original author: "France has always been there for the U.S. when they needed us."

I disagree with the sentiment that America straightened the Euros out. It really diminishes the sacrifices of countless Allies and Soviets.

The Soviets who died in WWII were indeed integral to stopping Hitler, but what they also died protecting, the Soviet Union, didn't help straighten out Europe. It plunged half of Europe into decades of oppression and misery. As for other allies, sure, we weren't alone in the fight, and England deserves at least as much credit for Hitler's defeat as the US. But it was still the US, not Britain, which was primarily responsible for the reconstruction of Europe after the war, and that reconstruction effort is what ensured that we didn't have to come back again in 50 years to repeat the process.

[Elind]

Originally posted by kimiko
No, we do not care what they think. We care only that they agree with what we think, otherwise, they are labeled spineless/appeasers/etc. Likewise, they have objectives beyond earning the love of the US; it is far more intelligent for them to sit back and let the US handle the entire Iraq situation since we have an apparent agenda in the region, and won't wait for others to join before acting. Saves them money and lives.

Europeans do not live in ivory towers; there are still many alive who witnessed WWII. We, on the other hand, have lived blissfully protected by two oceans and peaceful neighbors, and have not had disputes with aggressive ethnicities on the same landmass within the collective memory.

Not acting was not a problem, as Saddamy didn't have the capability to do anything to them anyway. In fact, the only thing I see any cooperative European country as having gotten out of their support is dead troops and a terrorist train attack. Hardly worthwhile.

Valid points, depending on one's view of where the word is going. There's the cynic (perhaps what I meant by ivory tower) and there's the idealist (like Bush, religion and all) and there's the realist.

In my case I'll play the latter. I haven't the slightest doubt that once the apologist in Europe got Saddam off the hook, he would have restarted what he once had and was not found now. That type of subhuman nature never changes. I also have no doubt that with the resources he had, there would have been more wars in the future, and we would inevitably face those same weapons again, whether directly or via his guests, like Zarqawi. Some people believe in waiting 'till the worst happens. In Saddams case the worst had already happened many time to hundreds of thousands of people and while he was not the only despot on the planet, he had more potential resources than any other.

Again, some like to focus on their next 6 week vacation, some take a longer view.

[Elind]

Originally posted by kimiko
The state of Iraq in 2003 had little to do with Britain and everything to do with the coup Saddam took power in decades previously. Coups happen in many places and are primarily the responsibility of those who partake in them.

Arabs and Muslims don't necessarily have to be led by the hand to democracy.

Leading by the hand hasn't gotten them there yet, has it?

The state of Iraq had everything to do with Britain, because anyone less pompous than colonial Britain would have created three countries, or at least states in that area, who might possibly have learned to live in peace by now.

What do you think preceded Saddam? A democracy?

[Elind]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Germany declared war on the US well after the start of WWII, at a point in time when it had become clear that we were going to war with them whether or not they declared war on us. Had we left Europe alone completely (see: lend-lease), Germany might not have declared war on us. I have to say I'm quite glad we stepped in, it was the only morally acceptable choice and also in our strategic interests, but let's be clear about this: WWII still started as an inter-European war, not a trans-atlantic one.

Perhaps you can clarify the dates for us. I don't recall the exact "formal" declaration dates, but it was Pear Harbor that brought the US in, essentially automatically against Germany, since they were allied with Japan.

[geni]

Originally posted by Elind

Ther's that "Reasonably stable" again. And you call that a knowledge of history? Amusing? Perhaps it is.

Say hello to the British understament


Has nothing to do with ...? It has everything to do with correcting some earlier screwups, unless you happen to be one of those who think democracy has no ground among Arabs and Muslims?


Scewups? We left Iraq as a nice stabe nation that should have drifted towards democracy.



You compare a few minor police actions within what are civil wars with the last two Gulf wars,


DRC is a civil war? would you mind telling all the other countries involved that becuase it would make things a heck of a lot more peaceful if was a civil war. In case you didn't notice the most recent civill war in the DRC was the biggest in african history. The total death total was ~2.3 million. What should I compare that to?


or Afghanistan, or even the Balkans (the latter did have the support, mostly, that was called for, but again, could not have been accomplished without the USA).? That is not flattering to your sense of proportion.


Afganistan was won by the locals. The balkans was largly a bombing campain and yes you have the best and largest force of bombers in the world



Tell us again about your knowledge of things historical, and military. I'm not sure I read it right.

No one denies the costs or the pressures it, Iraq, imposes but if you think that is all there is you are simply ignorant. Tell us instead why those listed Europeans claimed to have agreed to support the effort, but provided piddling numbers of forces (mostly not armed) and even then needed to rely on the US to transport much of them. I think it's shameful. [/B]

Nah just realpolitic. You have to admire it objectively. France which stuck solidly to it's principles said no and took a lot of flack for it. These countries said yes sent a token force so that bush could talk about coiltion building then left. They did exactly what they commited themselves to doing.

Apart form anything else only one of the coutries you listed has a significant militry force anyway.

What do they gain by staying? If they want to use thier forces for humanitarian purposes then there is no shortage of other places they can send them. If all else fails they can do what spain did and send them to afaganistan

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by geni
Or to put it another way you have 12 floating target. Look at what happened in the Millenium Challenge 02 at that was against a project second rate oponet.

Judging by the ACTUAL history of the last decade, not just wargames, aircraft carriers have played a central role in both military operations AND humanitarian relief worldwide. You can pooh-pooh them all you want, but we've still got them, we put them to good use, and they've proven their effectiveness. China is looking to buy a fleet of Russian bombers with the express purpose of trying to counter our aircraft carrier threat, because they know how real and powerful it is.

You can have all the transports in the world but you don't have the troops to fill them.

Sure we do. We've got a LOT more troops. There's a difference between what we can deploy on an ongoing basis and what we can deploy in a true crisis where we shift our economy to a war-time footing. But we've already got tens of thousands of troops sitting in Europe, and we can move them anywhere we want, if the need becomes large enough. Europe, on the other hand, has plenty of troops but with the possible exception of the UK, can't move large numbers anywhere even if the crisis endangers their very existence. Hell, they had to rely on Russian military transport to move the small contingents they've got in Afghanistan.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
I've got another quote for you, though I can't give you the original author: "France has always been there for the U.S. when they needed us."

But it was still the US, not Britain, which was primarily responsible for the reconstruction of Europe after the war, and that reconstruction effort is what ensured that we didn't have to come back again in 50 years to repeat the process.
We wouldn't exist as a nation without France, our original supporters against the British. We've hated each since then though. Maybe they've just been collecting on their investment ever since? :p Sorry, I just can't get behind kicking the French for their military. I grew up painting figures for my dad's wargaming- mostly Napoleonics and the Seven Years War, so I have a deep respect for the French.

I have wondered before if a "nation-building" expenditure like the Marshall Plan would pass today. I doubt it, but perhaps the ancestral and cultural affinity of many Americans to Europeans would win out and it would. Of course, the only reason we had the money to do such a thing when they didn't is because we hadn't been fighting as long. Coupled with wartime government control of a large, unbombed manufacturing base and ample resources, no European country was in the position to do the same.

Edited for garbage phrasing

[geni]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Yes indeed. It took us longer than it should have to do the right thing, but we did, and we finished the job once and for all. I've got another quote for you, though I can't give you the original author: "France has always been there for the U.S. when they needed us."


They were also there for you when you needed them. Your little war of independace pretty much bancrupted france.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Elind
Perhaps you can clarify the dates for us. I don't recall the exact "formal" declaration dates, but it was Pear Harbor that brought the US in, essentially automatically against Germany, since they were allied with Japan.

Yes, that's basically correct. Pearl Harbor was Dec. 7, 1941. We declared war on Japan on Dec. 8, and Germany declared war on the US Dec. 11.

http://www.qt.org/worldwar/timeline/

[geni]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Judging by the ACTUAL history of the last decade, not just wargames, aircraft carriers have played a central role in both military operations AND humanitarian relief worldwide. You can pooh-pooh them all you want, but we've still got them, we put them to good use, and they've proven their effectiveness. China is looking to buy a fleet of Russian bombers with the express purpose of trying to counter our aircraft carrier threat, because they know how real and powerful it is.


In the last decade you have not put your aircraft carriers up against a real oponent. Against someone like Iraq they work fine because the enermy can't hit back. After WW1 battleships were pretty much obsulete didn't stop Britian from finding uses for them from time to time.


Sure we do. We've got a LOT more troops. There's a difference between what we can deploy on an ongoing basis and what we can deploy in a true crisis where we shift our economy to a war-time footing. But we've already got tens of thousands of troops sitting in Europe, and we can move them anywhere we want, if the need becomes large enough. Europe, on the other hand, has plenty of troops but with the possible exception of the UK, can't move large numbers anywhere even if the crisis endangers their very existence. Hell, they had to rely on Russian military transport to move the small contingents they've got in Afghanistan.

So? Anything that endgers our existance is going to on our boarders and we are quite cpaerble of moving troops there.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Elind
Leading by the hand hasn't gotten them there yet, has it?

The state of Iraq had everything to do with Britain, because anyone less pompous than colonial Britain would have created three countries, or at least states in that area, who might possibly have learned to live in peace by now.

What do you think preceded Saddam? A democracy?
And yet we are determined to do exactly that.

Britain was no different from any other country- drawing lines in ways that were suitable to themselves first. We aren't trying to give the three major groups autonomy right now are we?

We are perfectly content to leave nations in decidedly undemocratic conditions, so we have no room to criticize the relatively stable nations they left in their wake. Maybe we should get on the Kuwaitis about letting their women vote?

[H3LL]

Originally posted by Elind
I don't think you did too well in modern history class, did you? Hitler didn't declare war on the US, according to the movies I've seen.


You freely admit that your knowledge of history is from movies?

How sad.

T-Rex didn't live with humans, BTW. Even though it's in a movie.

I'll leave you to your Barney videos while I get back to my books. (They're collections of paper with words on them, just in case you didn't know. Some have pictures).

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by geni
They were also there for you when you needed them. Your little war of independace pretty much bancrupted france.

Again with the selective memory thing. France was an enemy of the colonies before it was ever a friend (they had this little thing we call the French and Indian war). They didn't get involved until two years after the declaration of independence, when it appeared that the rebel colonies might stand a chance. And while the Marquis de Lafayette may have been driven by noble purpose (he was not ordered to go, but decided on his own), but the king of France had no love for such independent thinking as independence and absence of monarchy (go figure). The king's motivation was revenge against England (their eternal enemy) for the French defeats in the seven years war.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by geni
So? Anything that endgers our existance is going to on our boarders and we are quite cpaerble of moving troops there.

... he says, trying not to notice the ballistic missile and nuclear weapons program being developed by mullahs who believe that women's hair must be covered because it emits rays that drive men wild.

Don't like Iran as an example? How about Afghanistan? Didn't take a Taliban battalion on our doorstep to cause 3000 American deaths and half a trillion dollars in economic damage. What would Paris have done if they had been the ones hit? Economic sanctions? A new Maginot line, perhaps? Force projection matters, my dear friend.

[geni]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
... he says, trying not to notice the ballistic missile and nuclear weapons program being developed by mullahs who believe that women's hair must be covered because it emits rays that drive men wild.

Do these belife make them nuke proof? In the short term do these belifes make them Israel proof or bomb proof?


Don't like Iran as an example? How about Afghanistan? Didn't take a Taliban battalion on our doorstep to cause 3000 American deaths and half a trillion dollars in economic damage. What would Paris have done if they had been the ones hit? Economic sanctions? A new Maginot line, perhaps? Force projection matters, my dear friend.

you rather destoryed your own argument there. America has loads of force porjection capabiltiy but for some reason that didn't stop it from getting hit.

[geni]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Again with the selective memory thing. France was an enemy of the colonies before it was ever a friend (they had this little thing we call the French and Indian war). They didn't get involved until two years after the declaration of independence, when it appeared that the rebel colonies might stand a chance. And while the Marquis de Lafayette may have been driven by noble purpose (he was not ordered to go, but decided on his own), but the king of France had no love for such independent thinking as independence and absence of monarchy (go figure). The king's motivation was revenge against England (their eternal enemy) for the French defeats in the seven years war.

Since when did you expect countries have such pure motives?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by geni
you rather destoryed your own argument there. America has loads of force porjection capabiltiy but for some reason that didn't stop it from getting hit.

I didn't destroy my argument, I'm just able to construct thought processes that involve more than one connection. No, force projection didn't stop us from getting hit. But you miss a MUCH bigger point: it DID stop us from getting hit again. The Taliban will never again be able to host terrorist training camps to organize our enemies against us. Why? Because of force projection. Had we not been able to go into Afghanistan, is there really any doubt but that Al Quaeda would have struck again on US soil by now?

[geni]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
I didn't destroy my argument, I'm just able to construct thought processes that involve more than one connection. No, force projection didn't stop us from getting hit. But you miss a MUCH bigger point: it DID stop us from getting hit again.

Prove it


The Taliban will never again be able to host terrorist training camps to organize our enemies against us. Why? Because of force projection. Had we not been able to go into Afghanistan, is there really any doubt but that Al Quaeda would have struck again on US soil by now? [/B]

Of course there is.

[Elind]

Originally posted by geni

We left Iraq as a nice stabe nation that should have drifted towards democracy.





You live in lala land buddy.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by geni
Prove it

Prove that Hitler wouldn't have been satisfied with Poland.

Your skeptical disbelief in the threats we face is nice and convenient for you, since it means you don't have to do any of the heavy lifting of actually thinking things through. But for those of us who live in the real world, who have to deal with likelyhoods in the absence of certainty, who have to weigh risks, this kind of thinking doesn't cut it. And you never answered the question: what could Europe have possibly done in response had the 9/11 attackers struck Paris, or Berlin? Could they have toppled the Taliban? No, they could not. All they could have done is asked the US to do it for them. And we would have. Because we're better than them, and I don't just mean militarily.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Prove that Hitler wouldn't have been satisfied with Poland.

Your skeptical disbelief in the threats we face is nice and convenient for you, since it means you don't have to do any of the heavy lifting of actually thinking things through. But for those of us who live in the real world, who have to deal with likelyhoods in the absence of certainty, who have to weigh risks, this kind of thinking doesn't cut it. And you never answered the question: what could Europe have possibly done in response had the 9/11 attackers struck Paris, or Berlin? Could they have toppled the Taliban? No, they could not. All they could have done is asked the US to do it for them. And we would have. Because we're better than them, and I don't just mean militarily.

And still this thread is about how we're not giving a hand. If you can and want to do everything on your own, then stop whining.

[Elind]

Originally posted by bjornart
And still this thread is about how we're not giving a hand. If you can and want to do everything on your own, then stop whining.

This thread is about how you (I presume you are one) pretend to pay lip service to the principles at hand with minimal effort, then cut and run as soon as the going gets a little difficult.

This thread is about your kind who like to lecture others on civilized behaviour, yet advocate acceptance of uncivilized governments or groups.

This thread is about your kind who object to all the things you are incapable of doing yourselves, and unwilling typically follows from incapable.

We are not whining my scandinavian friend, we are criticizing, and you seem to have trouble dealing with that.

[geni]

Originally posted by Elind
You live in lala land buddy.

Iraq gained it's indipendace from britian (Ok technicaly britans mandate from the leuge of nations ran out) in 1932. The regeam only fell apart due to regonal instabilty.

[geni]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Prove that Hitler wouldn't have been satisfied with Poland.

Easy he went on to declare war on other people who didn't declare war on him.



Your skeptical disbelief in the threats we face is nice and convenient for you, since it means you don't have to do any of the heavy lifting of actually thinking things through. But for those of us who live in the real world, who have to deal with likelyhoods in the absence of certainty, who have to weigh risks, this kind of thinking doesn't cut it. And you never answered the question: what could Europe have possibly done in response had the 9/11 attackers struck Paris, or Berlin? Could they have toppled the Taliban?

Dead easy. The taliban were always unstable just send a few million to the warlords who ready run the place to get them to change sides and end of problem.



No, they could not. All they could have done is asked the US to do it for them. And we would have. Because we're better than them, and I don't just mean militarily.

Congratualations you have finaly caught up with where Britan was a couple of centries ago. Hang onto that arogence it will make it some much eayer to justify casual racism against non us citersens (it worked for Britan anyway).

[Elind]

Originally posted by geni
Iraq gained it's indipendace from britian (Ok technicaly britans mandate from the leuge of nations ran out) in 1932. The regeam only fell apart due to regonal instabilty.

This is relevant to this? Your explanation are still in lala land.

quote:Originally posted by geni

We left Iraq as a nice stabe nation that should have drifted towards democracy.

[geni]

Originally posted by Elind
This is relevant to this? Your explanation are still in lala land.


Big hint the place was stable this is what is know as a historical fact you may not like this fact but if you havew a problem with reality this is your problem.

[Elind]

Originally posted by geni
Big hint the place was stable this is what is know as a historical fact you may not like this fact but if you havew a problem with reality this is your problem.

I find it interesting, if not frustrating, that we seem to keep talking about different realities. You think a country that kills it's own by the tens (hundreds) of thousands, invades it's neighbors repeatedly and threatens them constantly represents "stability".

You think that this state would have eventually moved to democracy on its own account. If that isn't lala land I don't know what is.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by geni
Easy he went on to declare war on other people who didn't declare war on him.

I agree, though this is hardly proof. Similarly, Al Quaeda was already at war with us, had been for some time on 9/11, and had promised they would destroy us. So why again would you think that they wouldn't strike again?

Dead easy. The taliban were always unstable just send a few million to the warlords who ready run the place to get them to change sides and end of problem.

Hah! That's pretty damned laughable. What would stop Saudi Arabia and Pakistan from secretly sending a few million to support the Taliban? No, it is not that easy. Particularly if you care about actually reforming the country to actually ensure it doesn't host terrorist training camps again, rather than just trade one group of Al Quaeda hosts for another. Paying off a country to be your friend doesn't end the problem - it never has.

Congratualations you have finaly caught up with where Britan was a couple of centries ago. Hang onto that arogence it will make it some much eayer to justify casual racism against non us citersens (it worked for Britan anyway).

Funny thing: the racism I see isn't from Americans, its from Europeans who think that Arabs either can't or don't deserve to live with the freedoms they themselves cherish. Sorry, but I'm not about to feel guilty about YOUR country's failings. Oh, and citizenship isn't race - but I guess that's also a mongrel U.S. concept that Europeans have a history of showing disdain for.

[geni]

Originally posted by Elind
I find it interesting, if not frustrating, that we seem to keep talking about different realities. You think a country that kills it's own by the tens (hundreds) of thousands, invades it's neighbors repeatedly and threatens them constantly represents "stability".

By that time the country had been through rather a lot of regeame changes


You think that this state would have eventually moved to democracy on its own account. If that isn't lala land I don't know what is. [/B]

Why not we did or are Arabs some lesser race who can't manage to set up a democracy on their own?

[geni]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
I agree, though this is hardly proof. Similarly, Al Quaeda was already at war with us, had been for some time on 9/11, and had promised they would destroy us. So why again would you think that they wouldn't strike again?

Because in the past they haven't hit you very often



Hah! That's pretty damned laughable. What would stop Saudi Arabia and Pakistan from secretly sending a few million to support the Taliban? No, it is not that easy. Particularly if you care about actually reforming the country to actually ensure it doesn't host terrorist training camps again, rather than just trade one group of Al Quaeda hosts for another. Paying off a country to be your friend doesn't end the problem - it never has.


The fact that both those countries would rather not piss off a major market. Incerdenty tradeing one group of against another is exactly what you did.



Funny thing: the racism I see isn't from Americans, its from Europeans who think that Arabs either can't or don't deserve to live with the freedoms they themselves cherish. Sorry, but I'm not about to feel guilty about YOUR country's failings. Oh, and citizenship isn't race - but I guess that's also a mongrel U.S. concept that Europeans have a history of showing disdain for.

Beliving your country is the better than any other county leads to raceism. It is how we britian managed to sell the idea of empire to the working classes (who for obvious reasons were not exactly going to be too please about some upper class twit telling them to go go an fight battles with people on ther other side of the planet.

Incerdently when it comes to countries supporting democray in arabs states I think think there can be no better example than that arab country that has had a long relationship with the US. Saudi arabia. A becon of democracy and libety in the reigon and not at all run by an alince of a monarcy and a bunch of relgius extreamists.

[Elind]

Originally posted by geni
By that time the country had been through rather a lot of regeame changes

Duhh! And that makes for stability, or are we moving into apology mode now?



Why not we did or are Arabs some lesser race who can't manage to set up a democracy on their own?



:confused: For one, none have yet, for another they are not a "race", for another no dictatorship ever has done so willingly, but you seem to think outside help is unethical.

Next you will be saying that Nazi Germany should have been left alone to mellow back into a democracy, by the time of our great granchildren presumably.

This is funny.:hit:

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by geni
The fact that both those countries would rather not piss off a major market. Incerdenty tradeing one group of against another is exactly what you did.

Oil in fungible. They could give a damn about who they sell it to, someone's still going to buy it, and Europe's still got to buy oil from someone. You think shuffling around who buys from who is going to make any fundamental changes? Hardly. Europe doesn't even have the testicular fortitude to threaten (let alone enact) Iran with sanctions for their violations of the NPT. And China is getting mighty thirsty. You think China wouldn't buy from Europe's enemies? They're buying from a genocidal regime even as we write.

And no, incidentally, that's not exactly what we did. That was only a part of what we did. We also sent in troop to organize and lead them, and we also gave them a HUGE amount of air support. That air support was crucial to our victory, and without it the war would have taken years, if victory cam at all, and the perpetual violence would hardly prevent the establishment of more terrorist camps. Short of nuclear attack, Europe is militarily incapable of military victory, or even significant action, in a place like Afghanistan without the US. You may protest that it's only a third-rate power, but that's going to be where violence emerges from in the coming century, not from first-rate powers. And Europe is impotent to take even them on.

Beliving your country is the better than any other county leads to raceism.

Sure, in countries where your nationality is equivalent to your race. Again, it escapes me why you think I should feel bad about YOUR country's failings.

Incerdently when it comes to countries supporting democray in arabs states I think think there can be no better example than that arab country that has had a long relationship with the US. Saudi arabia. A becon of democracy and libety in the reigon and not at all run by an alince of a monarcy and a bunch of relgius extreamists.

Indeed, they have turned out to be a major threat to us. And we're changing our attitute towards them accordingly, and putting pressure on them to reform. You think it's somehow a coincidence that Saudi Arabia is getting ready for their first municipal elections ever? You can run your mouth off all you want about the mistakes we've made, but where are Europe's successes in promoting democratic reform in the middle east? Oh, that's right, you don't have any - unless you want to count Israel (which most of Europe seems rather determined to disavow). Hell, are there even any European efforts?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by geni
Why not we did or are Arabs some lesser race who can't manage to set up a democracy on their own?

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the world works. This isn't about them not being able to manage. It's about their society having roadblocks that prevent the emergence of democracy, roadblocks that western countries never had to contend with.

In Iraq, there's this little thing sometimes refered to as the curse of oil. When a country is rich in natural resources, it can survive on those resources without having to actually develop an economy. If the government controls those resources, then it can survive on income from those resources, and it does not need to form a tax basis among its people. Unlike even traditional monarchies in Europe, this means that the government is not accountable to its own population in any real sense: it can oppress them, it can kill large numbers of them, it can simply let them stagnate and wallow in economic misery, and there will still be plenty of money for buying weapons to protect the regime against it's own people. It doesn't even need the industrial infrastructure or workforce to produce those weapons. Democratic reforms in the face of despots with control of significant oil is almost impossible without external help (I can't think of a single example, can you?). And that's got nothing to do with race, but basic geopolotical realities.

In Afghanistan, the problem was external interference. The US is not guiltless in this, but neither are we the major culprits. That blame lies mostly with the Soviets, followed by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, who flooded the country with weapons (again, no native industrial capacity to speak of) that ensured that the local populations had little say over their own fate.

In both those cases, the problem that prevented democratic reforms were unsurmountable from the inside, and were roadblocks that the west never had to contend with. Similarly I would argue that China is likely to undergo slow democratic reforms because they HAVE had to create their own economic capacity, and so are in a way accountable to their own citizenry, though still insufficiently at the moment.

[geni]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Oil in fungible. They could give a damn about who they sell it to, someone's still going to buy it, and Europe's still got to buy oil from someone. You think shuffling around who buys from who is going to make any fundamental changes? Hardly. Europe doesn't even have the testicular fortitude to threaten (let alone enact) Iran with sanctions for their violations of the NPT. And China is getting mighty thirsty. You think China wouldn't buy from Europe's enemies? They're buying from a genocidal regime even as we write.

So? Saudi Arabia really does not like bin larden very much remeber objective is to get rid of the ruling family there (the catch is what he wants to replace it with).


And no, incidentally, that's not exactly what we did. That was only a part of what we did. We also sent in troop to organize and lead them, and we also gave them a HUGE amount of air support. That air support was crucial to our victory, and without it the war would have taken years, if victory cam at all, and the perpetual violence would hardly prevent the establishment of more terrorist camps.


And this differes from the current situation how?


Short of nuclear attack, Europe is militarily incapable of military victory, or even significant action, in a place like Afghanistan without the US. You may protest that it's only a third-rate power, but that's going to be where violence emerges from in the coming century, not from first-rate powers. And Europe is impotent to take even them on.


Evidence? It wouldn't be easy (it doesn't help that afganistan is slightly landlocked) but given time there are a number of european countries that would be quite caperble of carrying out a sucessful invasion (assuming those stinger missiles are time expired if not we are definetly looking at a US style play the locals off against each other operation.)


Sure, in countries where your nationality is equivalent to your race. Again, it escapes me why you think I should feel bad about YOUR country's failings.


Failings? No my country is the best.


Indeed, they have turned out to be a major threat to us. And we're changing our attitute towards them accordingly, and putting pressure on them to reform. You think it's somehow a coincidence that Saudi Arabia is getting ready for their first municipal elections ever?


I'll await your next thread complaining about token actions from saudi arabia


You can run your mouth off all you want about the mistakes we've made, but where are Europe's successes in promoting democratic reform in the middle east? Oh, that's right, you don't have any - unless you want to count Israel (which most of Europe seems rather determined to disavow). Hell, are there even any European efforts? [/B]

You may not recall this but back in about 1956 the US told europe to leave the region alone (well Britan and France to be exact but germany was still divided back then).

[geni]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
[B]You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the world works. This isn't about them not being able to manage. It's about their society having roadblocks that prevent the emergence of democracy, roadblocks that western countries never had to contend with.

In Iraq, there's this little thing sometimes refered to as the curse of oil. When a country is rich in natural resources, it can survive on those resources without having to actually develop an economy. If the government controls those resources, then it can survive on income from those resources, and it does not need to form a tax basis among its people. Unlike even traditional monarchies in Europe, this means that the government is not accountable to its own population in any real sense: it can oppress them, it can kill large numbers of them, it can simply let them stagnate and wallow in economic misery, and there will still be plenty of money for buying weapons to protect the regime against it's own people. It doesn't even need the industrial infrastructure or workforce to produce those weapons. Democratic reforms in the face of despots with control of significant oil is almost impossible without external help (I can't think of a single example, can you?). And that's got nothing to do with race, but basic geopolotical realities.

The counter example is Iran. Ironic really the one country in the middle east that is moving towards demorcay and it has to be one of the most dangerious



In Afghanistan, the problem was external interference. The US is not guiltless in this, but neither are we the major culprits. That blame lies mostly with the Soviets, followed by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, who flooded the country with weapons (again, no native industrial capacity to speak of) that ensured that the local populations had little say over their own fate.

Not really that place has been at war for pretty much for ever.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by geni
So? Saudi Arabia really does not like bin larden very much remeber objective is to get rid of the ruling family there (the catch is what he wants to replace it with).

I keep hearing this claim, but I see no real evidence that he actually wants to overthrow them, rather than just change their behavior. There are literally thousands of members of the royal family. Not a single one has ever been targeted by terrorists. Maybe he's not quite the threat to them that the crown prince likes to pretend he is.

And this differes from the current situation how?

Boy, you really haven't been paying attention, have you. Afghanistan has had nation-wide elections, and is moving towards democracy. The warlords are being sidelined by a moderate, pro-western government which has the support of the populace. And Afghan troops continue to work with us to root out Taliban and Al Quaeda remnants. The general level of violence is far less in Afghanistan now than it was under the Taliban, even before our invasion. They have no strongholds left in Afghanistan. That's how the current situation is different.

Evidence? It wouldn't be easy (it doesn't help that afganistan is slightly landlocked) but given time there are a number of european countries that would be quite caperble of carrying out a sucessful invasion (assuming those stinger missiles are time expired if not we are definetly looking at a US style play the locals off against each other operation.)

They have no equivalent of the JDAM, one of the most important pieces of military hardware used in Afghanistan and a key part of our success. They have very little spy satellite capabilites (also a key ingredient for an air war) or military communications satellites to run their operations. They couldn't run an air campaign on their own even next door in Yugoslavia, why would they be any more capable thousands of miles further away? And they had to rely on Russian military transport to get the few troops they DO have in Afghanistan into theater. Why do you think the European military provided so much less relief work in the wake of the recent tsunami? Unlike Iraq, that was certainly not something their public had a hard time supporting. Rather, they simply don't have anywhere near our capability to move equipment and supplies around the world.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by geni
The counter example is Iran. Ironic really the one country in the middle east that is moving towards demorcay and it has to be one of the most dangerious

Depends what you mean by moving towards democracy. The people certainly want democracy, and despise the mullahs. But the actual political situation has not moved towards democracy at all. Elections are still a farce, with only pre-approved candidates allowed to run. And even those who win elections are still impotent, with the unelected Guardian Council able (and willing) to stop any attempts at reform. Advocates of reform are still routinely arrested, tortured, and killed. The mullahs have managed to hang on, despite the popular desire for democracy, precisely because of oil. Which was my point. So I'm not sure how you arrived at the delusion that Iran was somehow a counterexample.