[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
Well if you don't know what was said, why did you say you knew?

I said I don't know exactly what was said behind closed doors. I do recall reading that all NATO members had endorsed US policy on Iraq. But as I have said several times, I'm basing this on my recollection of an article I read some months ago. Jeesh!

You know, these boards are a conversation. They aren't a court of law and I'm not on the witness stand. Nor am I obliged to footnote every remark. I notice, for example, that you do not. If you disagree with my comment, which was never stated to be anything more than it is, then go find a link yourself that contradicts it. Show me, for example, how Poland is being as obstructionist as, say, Germany. I bet you can't.

[Spliffdaddy]

I bet he can't either

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


You ask what you are missing after the Marshall Plan. I'd begin with the Berlin Blockade of 1948-49. Feeding West Berlin to save it from being starved out by Stalin was a huge and expensive effort, both in money, and in lives lost due to the hazardous flying involved. I know that Berlin hasn't forgotten it, but you seem to.

There were also a couple of other Berlin crises in the 1950s and early 1960s that placed the US in the position of risking nuclear war to defend the former capital of the country it defeated in World War II. Doesn't that count for something? Or how about the average of 300,000 US troops we have kept in Western Europe for 60 years. We are all thankful that they were never used, but I wonder what the cost in dollars was? Or lives? People don't recognize enough that a certain percentage of soldiers get killed even in peacetime. Military hardware and maneuvers are dangerous, the old large scale annual "Reforger" ones especially so.

The problem is Simey, that most people in Europe see a rather different picture then the one you are painting.

Without doubt everything you say is true, however you are failing to mention that the actions you describe were in the best interest of the US as well as being beneficial to Europe. If you remember the 1950s and the rather violent anti-communist message popular at that time in the US, you can't fail but agree that a German buffer zone against the "evils" of the encroaching Russian influence in eastern Europe was much in the interest of the US. The air-bridge to Berlin, while undoubtedly a good and noble thing, was also a political tool to send a message of "no further" to Moscow, don't you think? I am cynical enough to believe that under different political circumstances no flights into the beleaguered city would have taken place. That's not an accusation, just an educated guess based on what I've observed as being political reality in the past years - both from US and EU governments.

To ask for loyalty out of historical gratitude misses the point that a fair amount of people have short memories and see the historical benefactor as the current cynic.

The US of course has a different memory, mainly based onto the effort of the money and lifes they invested into the protection of the old enemy.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
The problem is Simey, that most people in Europe see a rather different picture then the one you are painting.

That's fine! And I think we are basically in agreement. What started the little history lesson was my comment that many people here in the US seem to be rather upset at what they perceive to be negative attitudes in Europe. Among them is a perception of ingratitude for what Americans by-and-large perceive to have been their sacrifice and contributions to the peace of Europe.

What I'm suggesting is indeed a gulf in perceptions between the US and western Europe. And I think it is one that has grown wider - which is why I posted the links to critical editorials by US liberals like Cohen. I don't think this is just a perception isolated in the right.

My problem is the tendency on your side of the pond (particularly the further left you go) to heap all of the blame for this rift on the US. That's not fair. If understanding is the goal, then we have to be honest enough to listen to each other equally.

[Timo]

Originally posted by Logic:
How about posting some facts rather than editorials. We have enough of opinions here to go with. Show us some facts that European nations support the US point of view.

e.g., U.S. Set to Demand That Allies Agree Iraq Is Defying U.N. in today's NYT.

The relevant paragraph:

In another sign of their irritation with American allies, aides to Mr. Bush said they were intensifying efforts to line up support elsewhere in Europe and would try to portray France and Germany as holdouts against a quick Security Council indictment of Iraq. Officials said today that support was forthcoming not only from Britain but also from Poland, Spain, Italy and others.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Timo:
e.g., U.S. Set to Demand That Allies Agree Iraq Is Defying U.N. in todays NYT.

The relevant paragraph:

Well, all I have read so far is that the US administration is trying to get support from other European countries ... till now, they have failed to point out, why such an action is necessary at this point in time.

[daimoni]

.

[Timo]

You are welcome to do your own research. I do not advocate this war, but the reasons others do are stated, e.g., here (in particular, the penultimate paragraph) in a letter to the Editor of the NYT:

Why We Know Iraq Is Lying
By CONDOLEEZZA RICE

WASHINGTON
Eleven weeks after the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution demanding ? yet again ? that Iraq disclose and disarm all its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, it is appropriate to ask, "Has Saddam Hussein finally decided to voluntarily disarm?" Unfortunately, the answer is a clear and resounding no.

There is no mystery to voluntary disarmament. Countries that decide to disarm lead inspectors to weapons and production sites, answer questions before they are asked, state publicly and often the intention to disarm and urge their citizens to cooperate. The world knows from examples set by South Africa, Ukraine and Kazakhstan what it looks like when a government decides that it will cooperatively give up its weapons of mass destruction. The critical common elements of these efforts include a high-level political commitment to disarm, national initiatives to dismantle weapons programs, and full cooperation and transparency.

In 1989 South Africa made the strategic decision to dismantle its covert nuclear weapons program. It destroyed its arsenal of seven weapons and later submitted to rigorous verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Inspectors were given complete access to all nuclear facilities (operating and defunct) and the people who worked there. They were also presented with thousands of documents detailing, for example, the daily operation of uranium enrichment facilities as well as the construction and dismantling of specific weapons.

Ukraine and Kazakhstan demonstrated a similar pattern of cooperation when they decided to rid themselves of the nuclear weapons, intercontinental ballistic missiles and heavy bombers inherited from the Soviet Union. With significant assistance from the United States ? warmly accepted by both countries ? disarmament was orderly, open and fast. Nuclear warheads were returned to Russia. Missile silos and heavy bombers were destroyed or dismantled ? once in a ceremony attended by the American and Russian defense chiefs. In one instance, Kazakhstan revealed the existence of a ton of highly enriched uranium and asked the United States to remove it, lest it fall into the wrong hands.

Iraq's behavior could not offer a starker contrast. Instead of a commitment to disarm, Iraq has a high-level political commitment to maintain and conceal its weapons, led by Saddam Hussein and his son Qusay, who controls the Special Security Organization, which runs Iraq's concealment activities. Instead of implementing national initiatives to disarm, Iraq maintains institutions whose sole purpose is to thwart the work of the inspectors. And instead of full cooperation and transparency, Iraq has filed a false declaration to the United Nations that amounts to a 12,200-page lie.

For example, the declaration fails to account for or explain Iraq's efforts to get uranium from abroad, its manufacture of specific fuel for ballistic missiles it claims not to have, and the gaps previously identified by the United Nations in Iraq's accounting for more than two tons of the raw materials needed to produce thousands of gallons of anthrax and other biological weapons.

Iraq's declaration even resorted to unabashed plagiarism, with lengthy passages of United Nations reports copied word-for-word (or edited to remove any criticism of Iraq) and presented as original text. Far from informing, the declaration is intended to cloud and confuse the true picture of Iraq's arsenal. It is a reflection of the regime's well-earned reputation for dishonesty and constitutes a material breach of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, which set up the current inspections program.

Unlike other nations that have voluntarily disarmed ? and in defiance of Resolution 1441 ? Iraq is not allowing inspectors "immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted access" to facilities and people involved in its weapons program. As a recent inspection at the home of an Iraqi nuclear scientist demonstrated, and other sources confirm, material and documents are still being moved around in farcical shell games. The regime has blocked free and unrestricted use of aerial reconnaissance.

The list of people involved with weapons of mass destruction programs, which the United Nations required Iraq to provide, ends with those who worked in 1991 ? even though the United Nations had previously established that the programs continued after that date. Interviews with scientists and weapons officials identified by inspectors have taken place only in the watchful presence of the regime's agents. Given the duplicitous record of the regime, its recent promises to do better can only be seen as an attempt to stall for time.

Last week's finding by inspectors of 12 chemical warheads not included in Iraq's declaration was particularly troubling. In the past, Iraq has filled this type of warhead with sarin ? a deadly nerve agent used by Japanese terrorists in 1995 to kill 12 Tokyo subway passengers and sicken thousands of others. Richard Butler, the former chief United Nations arms inspector, estimates that if a larger type of warhead that Iraq has made and used in the past were filled with VX (an even deadlier nerve agent) and launched at a major city, it could kill up to one million people. Iraq has also failed to provide United Nations inspectors with documentation of its claim to have destroyed its VX stockpiles.

Many questions remain about Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and arsenal ? and it is Iraq's obligation to provide answers. It is failing in spectacular fashion. By both its actions and its inactions, Iraq is proving not that it is a nation bent on disarmament, but that it is a nation with something to hide. Iraq is still treating inspections as a game. It should know that time is running out.


Condoleezza Rice is the national security adviser.

Obviously Rice is not an objective news source...but provide reasons she has. Instead of debating the existence of these reasons, we should debate the validity of them.

[OreoCookie]

Skimming through today's news, I found that in addition to Germany and France most importantly Russia and China won't support a unilateral conflict. Russia's foreign minister Ivanov said that his government want that the weapons inspectors continue their work in Iraq. China supports the French point of view.

France, Russia and China have permanent seats in the Security Council, so they could make use of their veto power.

Also Luxembourg and Belgium "... had blocked a decision to order NATO planners to start work on options submitted by the United States. " (Taken from cnn.com, http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...rap/index.html)

It doesn't sound like we are standing alone here ... rather that many important countries aren't convinced of the US's course of action. The support of Turkey is another crucial thing -- a war would stir up their problems with the Curds which want to found a Curdistan.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Timo:
You are welcome to do your own research. I do not advocate this war, but the reasons others do are stated, e.g., here (in particular, the penultimate paragraph) in a letter to the Editor of the NYT:

I think I already posted that (page 2? 1?).

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:It doesn't sound like we are standing alone here ... rather that many important countries aren't convinced of the US's course of action.

Ah yes. Make sure you tell the Poles, Italians, Spanish, etc. that they aren't important countries. That's bound to make them want to follow Franco-German leadership.

Imagine the howls if an American were to say that Europe isn't important.

BTW, China, France and Russia all said they would veto the last resolution. Patience, patience.

[Tsilou B.]

"War may never be considered unavoidable. ... Everything must be done to achieve the implementation of the (U.N.) resolution by peaceful means. That is the common position of France and Germany" (Gerhard Schroeder)

Why are they right? Read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2687857.stm

We have to think of the Iraqi people.

[daimoni]

.

[Timo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think I already posted that (page 2? 1?).

bah, you do move like an agent.

So, do you think Rice has a case? My impression is that the administration keeps its cards tight to the vest on Iraq, which is irritating from this "we're in a democracy" POV.

[Tsilou B.]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Originally posted by OreoCookie:It doesn't sound like we are standing alone here ... rather that many important countries aren't convinced of the US's course of action.

[B]Ah yes. Make sure you tell the Poles, Italians, Spanish, etc. that they aren't important countries. That's bound to make them want to follow Franco-German leadership.

Imagine the howls if an American were to say that Europe isn't important.

Where did OreoCookie say that Poland, Italy etc. weren't important? He said that MANY (and not all) important countries are not convinced of the US's course of action.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Timo:
bah, you do move like an agent.

So, do you think Rice has a case? My impression is that the administration keeps its cards tight to the vest on Iraq, which is irritating from this "we're in a democracy" POV.

I imagine that they have shared intelligence with at least some of our allies. I wonder if they have with France. There were some allegations during both the Kosovo conflict and in the last UN inspections of French intelligence handing over secrets to the enemy. I've never seen it substantiated, but it was alleged, for example, that the F-117 was shot down because of that. If true (and I have no way of verifying it), then I wonder if the US would pass on sensitive intelligence to France. Likewise Russia. They are allies, but the relationship isn't as close as it is between the US and Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. All of those countries routinely share intelligence with each other.

Still, all of the veto countries and the others in the Security Council know what is going on. They have intelligence capabilities too. Their objections are more political than they are based on serious doubt that Iraq has violated the Resolutions. They know it, we know it, we all know it.

Rice does have a point about the difference between real compliance with disarmament, and what Iraq has done. It is night and day.

As for making it public, obviously that would make life easier for all of us. The problem is always one of keeping sources secret. We've talked about this before. Especially if our sources are human, there may be lives at stake. But again, I don't have inside knowledge to know what the truth is.

[daimoni]

.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by daimoni:
I feel like these days we have less and less access to what is supposed to be an 'open, transparent government'.

I agree. But open and transparent secret intelligence is a contradiction. So, in many cases, is open and transparent diplomacy. Closed doors and tight lips are often necessary even though I agree that it is a paradox for a democracy.

[Timo]

Originally posted by Tsilou B.:
"War may never be considered unavoidable. ... Everything must be done to achieve the implementation of the (U.N.) resolution by peaceful means. That is the common position of France and Germany" (Gerhard Schroeder)

Why are they right? Read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2687857.stm

We have to think of the Iraqi people.

Look, it pains me to say this, but this article is premised on the word "could." If I'm not mistaken similar arguments were made against the invasion of Afganistan.

I want real arguments against the war: something along the lines that this war will not serve the now and future interests of the Iraqi people, not this kind of "killer bees are on the horizon" clap trap. The reason it pains me is that I'm on the left, and this kind of nagging journalism by "experts" defeats our credibility and our cause.

My take on this article is that humanitarian agencies want a cut on the action: they want a say in how to administer Iraq were war to come. However, they do not in anyway want to be associated with war-making. It's a difficult conundrum, but a solution to it is ill-served by being shrill.

[daimoni]

.

[D'Espice]

Let's face it, there are more important countries in Europe and there are less important countries in Europe. Spain, France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Sweden, Norway and the UK are more important then Poland, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria or Romania. That is, because those countries are - compared to western European standards as we call it in Europe - still poor and don't have any economical or military power yet. It's certainly a huge mistake though to underestimate these countries because they have been doing great over the past few years (everybody who's been to Poland or the Czech Republic like 10 years ago and today will certainly agree, it's like a totally new world they're living in now) and developed extremely fast to what will one day become powerful and thus important members of the European Union.

[Timo]

Originally posted by daimoni:
[B]Okay, I know you didn't ask me. And even if you did, I don't think I could articulate my case as well as Simey or you could. Especially when I'm supposed to be at work. Which is usally the case when I'm online.

-the dia take is always valuable IMHO-

My biggest gripe/frustration is what you just touched on. It makes it really hard to explain my feelings about this issue (and reasons behind them) to my friends/family who are so incensed about the way the administration comports themselves.

Yep, the secrecy is self-defeating to a point because of the suspicion it arouses. My problem with the administration is that if you're not with them, you're shut out: the way they treat allies and other interested onlookers is the way they treat domestic opponents. Sure, it makes for great realpolitik, but it's less ideal if our goals as a country include open debate with an educated electorate.

I feel like these days we have less and less access to what is supposed to be an 'open, transparent government'.

I wonder to what degree the press is culpable here. They're our only access to what's going on. Are they more or less shut out? Or, can we blame them for lazily regurgitating press releases? I think the great structural changes that have happend in (news) media in the last twenty years has complicated our access to information about what our government does.

So, unless I just unplug my brain and just accept everything we're told...

...as long as you keep buyin' the Doritos, my friend, keep buyin'...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Btw, have you ever heard of/read Paul Linebarger? Interesting guy. I'm trying to find is non-fiction works... but it's been hard.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.com/linebarg.htm

No, I hadn't heard of him. Thanks for the link, he sounds like he must have been an intersting guy. I have a friend at SAIS, by the way. It's a good school. Paul Wolfowitz was dean there until he joined the Bush Administration. The joke is that SFS (where I went) is where the Democrats go to when they are out of office, and SAIS is where the Republicans go. It's a big revolving door, but that's Washington.

[talisker]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Only the Australian Prime Minister is with the US. 70% of the Australian people only support action in Iraq if the UN gives the go-ahead. Even today as he was sending the troops off our PM was backtracking and saying he's urging the US to give the UN more time.

Of course that's crap, but...

Agreed... I was purely talking about countries whose leaders support the US position. If we're talking about what the actual citizens of individual countries want, then obviously no-one supports the US, probably not even the US (if that makes sense)

[Powerbook]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Germany is also allowing the US full use of its bases in Germany, and of course, Turkey just granted permission for US troops to deploy along the Iraqi border.

Not totally correct! Two days ago I read a special about the US-Turkey deal. US's plans included up to 250.000 troops etc. which the Turks declined. IIRC, US military has only been allowed for 15.000 troops.
Remember, Turkey has no real interest in changing the status quo - they can live very well with a weak Iraq (Turkey has always been their biggest economical trading pardner) and fear "nothing" more than a free Kurd country near their territory.
I also thought (not sure here) the use of german bases was allowed in a UN permitted scenario.

PB.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Powerbook:
Not totally correct! Two days ago I read a special about the US-Turkey deal. US's plans included up to 250.000 troops etc. which the Turks declined. IIRC, US military has only been allowed for 15.000 troops.
Remember, Turkey has no real interest in changing the status quo - they can live very well with a weak Iraq (Turkey has always been their biggest economical trading pardner) and fear "nothing" more than a free Kurd country near their territory.

PB.

The last figure I saw was 80,000 US troops, which is a lot and in fact more than the total number of US troops stationed in Germany. 15,000 is roughly a combat division sans corps support units. I can't think the US ever asked for 250,000. That's more than the US deployed to the entire Gulf War and the US armed forces are quite a bit smaller now than then.

Turkey obviously has an interest in keeping the numbers low (or keeing the public numbers low?). They have an even greater interest in not letting things go to heck right over their border in a Kurdish part of Iraq. Somehow, if the baloon goes up western troops will eventually have to be stationed in that part of Iraq. Otherwise there will be a huge refugee flow. Someone has to go in to maintain order and distribute humanitarian aid. Maybe they will be American, maybe they will be Turkish. My crystal ball isn't good enough to tell.

[Powerbook]

Originally posted by dillerX:

The war will happen. France & Germany will go along kickin' and screaming like babies just like they did in the Gulf War. And even if they don't. Who the **** actually cares anyway. I mean that in the nicest way possible.

Plain wrong.
France was like many others included in the alliance.
Germany paid more money than any other country for that war. Former chancellor Kohl gave 7 billion dollars.

Saudi Arabia & Turkey will let the US use their bases. They just won't make a big public deal about it. It's time these countries living in the 19th century get with the rest of the world in the 21st. Welcome to life in the 2000's Middle East.

Partly wrong. See about Turkey in the other post. And didn't you notice the problems with Saudi-Arabia after 9/11? The US found new gulf allies and built bases outside SA.

PB.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Powerbook:
And didn't you notice the problems with Saudi-Arabia after 9/11? The US found new gulf allies and built bases outside SA.

PB.

Yes. But the Saudis have still granted use of air bases and the command center.

[Powerbook]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I imagine that they have shared intelligence with at least some of our allies. I wonder if they have with France. There were some allegations during both the Kosovo conflict and in the last UN inspections of French intelligence handing over secrets to the enemy. I've never seen it substantiated, but it was alleged, for example, that the F-117 was shot down because of that. If true (and I have no way of verifying it), then I wonder if the US would pass on sensitive intelligence to France. Likewise Russia. They are allies, but the relationship isn't as close as it is between the US and Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. All of those countries routinely share intelligence with each other.

Hmmmm!
I highly doubt France doing that. Remember the spy ship incident? It was a russian ship, they were suspected to send NATO's troop movements to the Serbs. And the shot down F-117 has been picked up by Russians.

PB.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Powerbook:
Hmmmm!
I highly doubt France doing that. Remember the spy ship incident? It was a russian ship, they were suspected to send NATO's troop movements to the Serbs. And the shot down F-117 has been picked up by Russians.

PB.

I could be wrong on the details, but I do recall some accusations regarding advance warnings given to Iraqi intelligence about inspectors and possibly warning when NATO aircraft were taking off. But it has been several years so I could be in error and anyway, i don't remember anything more than mutterings.

Regardless: my point is that there isn't the level of trust between the US and France as there is, say, between the US and the UK.

[davesimondotcom]

France doesn't want the U.S. to act "unilaterally" until they need their bailed out again.

Q: How many Frenchmen does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None. They wait until all is dark then call on the U.S. to fix the problem.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
France doesn't want the U.S. to act "unilaterally" until they need their bailed out again.

Q: How many Frenchmen does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None. They wait until all is dark then call on the U.S. to fix the problem.

You have no idea about the French, do you?

I'm also getting increasingly concerned about the fact that it appears to be ok on this board to insult the French, almost as a matter of policy. Is that because there are very few French people on here? Or is it just jingoism on your part?

[scottiB]

I agree. It is disturbing.

[pooka]

Originally posted by Mastrap:


You have no idea about the French, do you?

I'm also getting increasingly concerned about the fact that it appears to be ok on this board to insult the French, almost as a matter of policy. Is that because there are very few French people on here? Or is it just jingoism on your part?

Uhhhh, how can you even suggest it's jingoism? It's not a belief but common ****ing knowledge that the French suck. It's not like everyone started ragging on them in the last few months.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Mastrap:


You have no idea about the French, do you?

I'm also getting increasingly concerned about the fact that it appears to be ok on this board to insult the French, almost as a matter of policy. Is that because there are very few French people on here? Or is it just jingoism on your part?

I hope you aren't including me in this. If I criticize the French it is on a policy level. I don't have anything against French people. They can't help being onion-wearing, garlic-smelling . . .





Kidding!

[voodoo]

Originally posted by pooka:
Uhhhh, how can you even suggest it's jingoism? It's not a belief but common ****ing knowledge that the French suck. It's not like everyone started ragging on them in the last few months.

You are kidding right?

Yeah, you must be, so I'll just put a

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I hope you aren't including me in this. If I criticize the French it is on a policy level. I don't have anything against French people. They can't help being onion-wearing, garlic-smelling . . .





Kidding!

You know my comment wasn't directed against you, right? Right

[Timo]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
You know my comment wasn't directed against you, right? Right

quit pickin' on me Mastrap!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[Mastrap]

::wanders off muttering, shaking his stick at Timo::

[Hash]

Guys, calm down, about that Drumsfled, oops, Rumsfled, oops..anyway, he is plain idiot anyway. Dont take seriously anythings he says (no one does)