Napoleon wrote:Grifman:
That article Neal quoted was, I think, written by an American. Just a clarification.
Yes, I knew that but he was speaking of foreign perceptions of the US, right?
As for your points:
- Proof for the WMD: They believed Saddam had WMD, yeah, but nobody had proof. This could also be seen when Powell gave his presentation to the UN which was shaky at best, IMHO.
They had as much proof as could be reasonably obtained given that EVERYONE believed that Sadaam had such weapons and was trying to hide them. The point isn't the level of proof though - it is that EVERY OTHER major Western power believed Sadaam had them. The point is that Bush didn't make this up - unless you want to believe that the UK, Germany, France, Italy intelligence were also in on the game. Changing to discussing the amount of proof is changing the argument - Homey don't play that game.
-Removing Saddam:
I definitely don't think it was wrong to remove Saddam. The reasons given for that however : WMD and Al Qaida support were pretty much non-existent as it turns out after the fact.
But again, EVERYONE said he had WMD so you can hardly blame the US for the intelligence failures of everyone else can you? Yes, US intelligence screwed up, both so did every other Western intelligence agency. Again, your point only holds if Bush used WMD as a pretext - but that doesn't hold unless you believe the UK, France, Germany, Italy were also lying.
If Bush had come out straight and said the human rights violation in Iraq pissed him off and he was going to save those Iraqis, hey, I'd have agreed with him. You could wonder then why he wouldn't invade any of the other countries with human rights violations, but still. Going after Iraq in the hunt for WMD and Al Qaida was bogus though.
Again, you ignore the fact already stated that EVERYONE thought he had WMD. Given that fact, you can't blame Bush for acting on that COMMONLY held position. Yes, Bush has tried to change the argument after the fact due to the lack of WMD, but that doesn't mean the initial decision to invade was wrong based upon the belief that he had WMD at the time. You can't argue that Bush was wrong unless you just don't think he should have invaded because of WMD. But I haven't seen you make that argument. You keep acting like Bush made this up but the evidence from both Clinton and other Western govts proves that point wrong.
-Bully Analogy
While the analogy might be weak concerning the Iraq war, it's more accurate on other subjects : The World Court,
Well, this is just a fundamental difference between American and the rest of the world. We oftentimes barely trust our own govt, much less a foreign based "semi" govt authority in which we have no say. Americans don't trust authority, especially foreign authority. We don't vote for the International Court, nor the people that choose it's members. That is just a core difference in national/international perspectives. Maybe Euros need to be more "sensitive" and understand the US outlook for once
the refusal to acknowledge international law in the treatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay (and yes, RM9, I know you don't agree with that, but that is MY opinion
).
Please point me to international law regarding the treatment of prisoners not working for any government but a terrorist organization. I don't think such international law exists. The Geneva convention deals with relations between states at war - Al Quaida is not a recognized state last time I checked.
- Spain, Indonesia, Arab World
Other countries should worry about what is thought about them as well. And yes, they might not care too much that people call them a terrorist state. And yes, it might seem odd to you that the USA has got to be sensitive then, but really...you've called that upon yourself. The USA is the land of the free, the USA takes the lead in fighting terrorism on the world. The other countries make either no or only half-hearted qualms about what they really are.
So can you explain to me in terms my simple American mind can understand why the Euros are so upset? Why they seem to think the US is the greatest threat to peace in the world - I mean that statement seems utterly ludicrous on the fact of it but that's what I hear.
So give me some beef here. What are all you Euros so ticked off about? I really don't honestly understand.
Should we be thankful for the US, and what it has done and is doing in the world? Yeah, definitely, but does that mean we shouldn't be allowed to at least voice our opinion on how the US does these things?
Sure you can speak, did I say otherwise? I just don't understand the Euro attitude. They bitch and moan when the US doesn't act, then they bitch and moan when the US does act. We can't seem to please you people, so why should we try?
I remember all the Euros pleading for the US to send troops to Bosnia, pleading with us to intervene in Kosovo. Most Americans I think thought why? - that's a European problem, why should we put our people at risk, let the Euros handle the problem in their backyard. But no we have to go bail them out again. It has to cut both ways and it doesn't seem that it does to many Americans.
-Threatening Nuclear Intervention
You haven't, and I think this point from the article is indeed a bit shaky. On the other hand, you could reason that the simple fact that you have nuclear weapons can be enough of a threat. (Not in Civilization though. Even when you told that damn Ghandhi that YOUR WORDS ARE BACKED BY NUCLEAR WEAPONS, he'd still invade you. No, not bitter
)
See this is what gets me. You all seemed to love living under the US nuclear umbrella during the Cold War. It certainly kept the Soviets at bay when the Euros couldn't/wouldn't maintain a large enough force to fight off a Soviet conventional invasion. Think about it - we pledged to defend Europe by putting the US at risk of a Soviet nuclear attack by saying an attack on Europe (no immediate threat to us) was the same as an attack on the US. We were willing to sacrifice OUR cities to save YOURS. Now you want to damn us for the same nuclear shield that saved your hides. This reveals the hypocrisy of Europe to me.
As for the Bosnia situation: there's no doubt that things went totally wrong there, but there were thousands of European soldiers already present before the US started deploying. Still, point taken.
European troops under a UN flag that did nothing. No offense but UN peacekeepers were worth less than nothing - they allowed the Serbs to murder hundreds if not thousands right outside their compound in Srebrenica. It was a travesty.
Grifman
