Braindead and Beaujolais

Fred wrote, “Now America knows what Israel has gone through…”.
ww1.sundayherald.com/137707

Before answering IYBF’s question let me say/repeat a few things: I speak here as an individual, not as a German, for the Germans or for the German government (or anyone else for that matter).
Furthermore I feel that the blame is now put on countries which refuse or limit the aid ala “it’s your fault if the Iraqis continue to suffer”.
That is IMHO highly hypocritical and only the COWs are to blame - they started the war and hence bare full responsibility, not anyone else.
As such it is my opinion that they have to bring up the cash and put their resources and soldiers at risk.
The US claimed to be able to do it alone and later to have had the world behind him (something like 40 countries I believe) yet suddenly ‘that world’ can’t help them and they (have to) turn to others.

Ok, I don’t want to drift into ranting, but for me it is just not acceptable to ‘blame’ someone who objected already in the first place and then ask those to risk their live for your cause.
As well we should not forget that e.g. Germany and France have offered help - under UN mandate though. A point conveniently overlooked and as such the US is to blame further if they do not accept this arrangement.
You want help you can get it - but not according to your rules - and it’s the US to consider what is the higher price too pay.
If the US can’t accept that then I personally support those who refuse to object for the time being.

I don’t think there is such a risk, at least it’s not very high. The Bush administration will go on with their plan, no matter what. That’s what they proclaimed and I believe they will follow this for the time being.
The casualties are still low compared to other wars though the number of injured soldiers is much higher and less reported - yet I don’t think the US will just pull out from one day to the next, not because of that alone at least.
It would be a big “loss of face” for Bush and the US as a whole, beaten by some ‘guerillas’ and the ‘war on terror’ would be lost (not that this was ever a valid reason in Iraq’s case IMO).
The possibility is there of course, perhaps even more likely if the democrats win the next election but I judge it (the possibility) as very low even then.

I don’t think they are very dangerous even they would pull out. Iraq would be in turmoil for a while but what will happen next can only be speculation.
Most likely fundamentalist will seize power, perhaps splitting Iraq. Worst case scenario would be Saddam reappearing and getting into power again.
Iraq’s ‘condition’ might not have the effect on the region the US claimed it would, only the threat by the presence of the US forces there does. IMHO.

Even Iraq would be successfully democratized I don’t think it would last for long - unless you make sure it will remain this way. That would however make it a ‘puppet government’ and the whole idea of democracy in the ME becomes highly hypocritical and a big farce.

I don’t think it causes greater danger than before, and Iraq itself did not pose much danger during the past few years IMHO (containment and all …).

Yes it is. But that does not mean the US should be allowed to bully other countries and put the blame on them.

As said above the US can get what it wants but it’s the US who has to give up some power in return.
If they really do care about the well-being of the Iraqis this should be an easy decision to make but do not just throw the ball to others blaming them instead for the expected consequences.

Sure, it is an obstacle in the sense of the delays it causes.

Duh, I just read IYBF’s latest post. If I would have seen it earlier I wouldn’t have responded like the above or not responded at all.

But in fact I do think the US handling of the whole thing ‘sucks’, right from the beginning and the US refusal to get the help, albeit on the terms of others, also sucks. Big time.
But continue blaming all the others for what can only be considered the consequences of your (the USG’s) actions based on your lousy intelligence and your poor post-war planning.

Rascal:

I completely agree that Germany and France should not be asked to help. I would disagree though that the reasons they are not giving are “ideological” or “ethical” and that either nation really cares about the UN. This was a French attempt to set up a stronger position for itself and the way it sought to do so was in opposition to the United States. This is nothing high-minded or lofty so spare me that. France pulled a fast one and got its balls caught in the drawer. Germany is moving fast to pull it out and quite rightly so. That is why I was so shocked that Berlin would act this way in the very beginning. Germany has struck me as eminently practical. After all, there are all those pensioners to take care of…

[quote=“Rascal”]Before answering IYBF’s question let me say/repeat a few things: I speak here as an individual, not as a German, for the Germans or for the German government (or anyone else for that matter).
Furthermore I feel that the blame is now put on countries which refuse or limit the aid ala “it’s your fault if the Iraqis continue to suffer”.
That is IMHO highly hypocritical and only the COWs are to blame - they started the war and hence bare full responsibility, not anyone else.[/quote]

So, who is responsible for the 12 years of hardships suffered by the Iraqi people under the UNSC resolutions and who is responsible for the suffering of the innocent Iraqis due to the maintenance of the oil-for-food sanctions? Who is responsible for all of the deaths caused by Saddam prior to his ouster?

Just like we fronted the cash and risked our soldiers in Europe, eh? Oh, but… hey! We didn’t start that war :wink:

stop right there. I do not “blame” or even hold Europe responsible for what has happened to Iraq.

However, this does not mean that they have no responsibility for what will happen - whether or not they caused the current situation.

Rascal downplays the likelihood of the US pulling out. I hope he is right. i hope the US is so enlightened. Clearly, though, the media will continue to emphasise the body count and political pressure will be brought to bear on the administration by the opposition. Who knows what will happen?

Conclusion: If I was a European leader, i would be seeking to keep the US there until there was a more stable Iraq. (I would also be aware that “my public” does not support me giving active support to do this.)

Rascal downlays the danger of the situation if Iraq does pull out.

[quote=“Rascal”]Iraq would be in turmoil for a while but what will happen next can only be speculation.
Most likely fundamentalist will seize power, perhaps splitting Iraq.[/quote]

Well… not exactly a low-risk outcome!

The rascal had some worries about democratisation. These are fair and reasonable - but no excuse not to try!

Yes it is. But that does not mean the US should be allowed to bully other countries and put the blame on them.[/quote]

Try and see around the blame game. I never brought blame into it. I simply said that is it not the sensible thing for the governments to do? Is it not the best way to ensure that Iraq gets rebuilt and stabilised as quickly as possible? Does a multi-lateral effort not give the best chance of success? And is that not precisely the view of many european Governments? And is it not out of step with the view of their citizens? And is does Rascal indeed support the citizen’s view rather than the Governments?

I am convinced that the answer to all the above questions is “Yes.”

And to fred - this is not a question of should the Germans and French be cajoled into this. It is simply that they should be willing to do this out of their own self interest and out of interest for the Iraqi people.

Rascal - you continue to frame the discussion in terms of blame - the US blames us… we don’t have to do this.

Of course, you don’t have to do it.

My observation is: it would be the RIGHT thing to do. To argue otherwise, you should show that it is not in your own self interest. To employ an argument that amounts to “It’s their mess and they should clear it up” quite simply fails the test of a hard-headed, reasonable and responsible policy. It takes us back to the schoolyard.

Finally, I accept that you and the european public do not share this view. I suspect that Governments are a little more reasonable and do share my view. I would expect, therefore, to see some multilateral deal cut and for the European governments to show some leadership to bring guys like you “on-board.”

On an international level, the issue was never simply Saddam but rather Russia, France and Germany trying to use multilateralism to negate America

How dyall likes my new avatar? It is courtesy of Alien who believed that it best exemplified my personality. SQUEEEEEEEAL OOIIIIINNNKKKK.

frederick

Nice avatar, fred… when pigs fly!

Yes, an unhappy, long in the tooth, flying pig

Does it matter in the context of this dicussion? It hardly relates to the current situation.
The US is responsible for this war and the consequences. Period.

But ‘we’ didn’t invite you in. :smiling_imp:

Right, we didn’t cause it but we will be responsible, even though we told the one who caused it not to do start it in the first place.
What kind of argument is that? Personally I hold the US responsible for any consequences of this war, no one else.

If I downplay this care to explain why? Do you have any indication that it is likely / going to happen?

IMO I didn’t ‘downplay’ anything; you asked my opinion and I speculated. Not sure what merit this actually has … !?

Well, then define ‘risk’ more clearly. For whom, what …

I never said you shouldn’t try, I just object(ed) against the way it’s done.
Using force from outside is IMHO less likely to succeed than if it would come from the inside.

You said Europeans would be responsible, as such they would be too blame for the consequences (beside the COWs).

Yes (I think I admitted to that before).

Sure - How about you would have considered this BEFORE starting this war?

Play semantics and claim it was multi-lateral, I can’t really argue against that - but then go and ask Palau and Micronesia to give the cash and soldiers instead of France and Germany. Hold them responsible, they wanted to be in the game.

I believe they support such effort under UN mandate. So here is ‘our’ offer - take it or leave it.

The same could be said about the current view of Americans who are slowly learning the truth.

I ‘support’ my view which might (or might not) be equal to anyone elses view, citizens or governments.
And please remember, I always said I would support action taken under UN(SC) mandate, something which was also stated by certain governments.

Fine, your are entitled to your opinion and even the answer would be ‘yes’ to all, what would it prove?

[quote]Rascal - you continue to frame the discussion in terms of blame - the US blames us… we don’t have to do this.

Of course, you don’t have to do it.

My observation is: it would be the RIGHT thing to do. To argue otherwise, you should show that it is not in your own self interest. To employ an argument that amounts to “It’s their mess and they should clear it up” quite simply fails the test of a hard-headed, reasonable and responsible policy. It takes us back to the schoolyard. [/quote]
I say again: help was offered under certain terms and conditions and the US refused it, so I would suggest you stop accusing others of not wanting to help, it’s the US how wants -surprise, surprise - do it once more their way only.

Rascal:

I agree France and Germany should not be asked (what can you give anyway?) but please do not keep bringing up the fact that France and Germany offered to help but under certain conditions.

The conditions were such that the offer was not a serious one. France is paying for the consequences of its narcissism and Germany is waking up to the fact that Paris is like that Fatal Attraction woman. Keep waking up. It’s about time. NATO can be put back together and will continue to keep the peace in Eastern Europe and on Europe’s southern periphery and just in time too BUT without France.

Why do you think that France is so keen on developing its own european defense force? Because it knows that it is out and out good with the Americans for a generation at least. Now it is trying to drag Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg along for the ride but if Germany gets off (as it looks to be doing so) then France is fucked and fucked good and good I am happy to see them pay the price for their incredibly immoral actions.

Why not? Because you don’t like the UN to get on top of things? In this case it’s the US who is blocking the help and if fast help and the well-being of the Iraqis is really your concern than that would be a small price to pay, wouldn’t it!?
Why do you care what France gains or doesn’t - the Iraqis would benefit and you should be happy about that.

Its simple, Rascal. The US doesn’t agree with the Euro plan for fast-tracking Iraqi sovereignty… and from reports published, neither do the Iraqis.

This is going to take time to do the right way.

Right Rascal:

You keep telling yourself that. It’s all about America’s drive to be No. 1 When Berlin puts the UN in charge of its security, then I will really believe that Germany is serious about the UN. Until then… well don’t make me laugh.

Anyway, this is a moot issue now since the military, political and economic leaders of Germany have said Schroeder’s little dance with Paris cannot continue. We are already seeing Germany bend over as far backwards as it can to help the US in Afghanistan to save face over not helping in Iraq and the distance between Germany and France should continue to grow in the coming years. As to this European defense force. Not necessarily a bad idea. But why give France anything at all?

Must Germany help? Certainly not. It stated quite clearly that it did not approve of the action. Was its disproval based on moral and ethical reasons? Certainly not. And the UN had nothing whatsoever to do with this. Should Germany help? Yes, as should all nations but who in life does what they should? So continue helping in Afghanistan. I think it would be too difficult for Schroeder to climb off his horse now. Ditto for George W. So that’s that. But I think that this might have been just the vaccination Berlin needed to get rid of any ideas it had about cozying up with the French. The vaccination might hurt when you get it (a jab in the arm) but the benefits are long term. Let’s call it the anti-French booster shot. Berlin will not look to Paris to try to put together a common foreign policy for at least 20 years after this little fiasco.

The longer this Iraq thing plays out, I think the focus will also shift from America’s new cowboy imperialism to the day to day slog to make things better for Iraq and its citizens. Germans tend to be quite idealistic (both good and bad obviously) and will be willing to help when they see that people are in trouble. Germans will no longer read about an infallible, omnipotent America bent on controlling the world (bit of projection going on here no doubt) and see that their fears of a unshackled America were greatly exaggerated. The future of Washington-Berlin relations is now on the upswing. Thank God.

So, it’s that simple. Then of course you have something to show that the Iraqis like the current US lead course, do you? Let’s see it I say!

Not necessarily the right way, the US way:unamused:

Well Rascal:

You will have a bit of trouble getting the US to hand over to the UN. Ummm. Remember most of its staff packed its bags and fled you know outside the country to return AFTER the Americans have stabilized things. hahahahaha Good ole UN. When the going gets tough… I mean if the five-star hotels aren’t even safe, how are these world leaders supposed to help?!

Quel horror!

All the arguments about the degree to which Rascal downplayed the risks of the US going alone are outside the main argument. I have already given reasons which might make the US pull out too soon. Let’s get to the kernel of the argument:

[quote=“Rascal”]Right, we didn’t cause it but we will be responsible, even though we told the one who caused it not to do start it in the first place.
What kind of argument is that?[/quote]

Well, surely European governments cannot be held responsible for the state that Iraq is in because of the war. However, they are still bound by the requirement to act responsibly now. Failure to act responsibly from this point on would make them partially responsible for the way events develop. This is surely the case. You can’t just wash your hands of the whole situation, even if you did not cause it.

Now, this does not mean that it would be irresponsible NOT to send troops to help. That is not necessarily a logical conclusion to draw. However, it does mean that IF the justification for not sending troops is simply: “This is America’s mess, they must clear it up” then that justification is irresponsible.

As I have said, I do not accuse the European governments of having this view. However, the public and Rascal (according to him) DO have this view:

I would say the Europeans have just the right view on things.[/quote]

However, you cannot hold the US solely responsible for any action/inaction on the part of other governments now, can you? Again, I do not accuse European governments of this. I do see the attitude of their public (as endorsed by Rascal) as irresponsible.

Yes (I think I admitted to that before).[/quote]

Then, why would you let an argument with the US stand in the way of rebuilding Iraq? Remember, again, you endorsed THIS VIEW:

[quote=“Rascal”][quote]More than half of the Europeans surveyed said they opposed sending European peacekeepers to Iraq…
I would say the Europeans have just the right view on things.[/quote]

Inconsistent?

Sure - How about you would have considered this BEFORE starting this war?[/quote]

Absolutely. But this is now AFTER the war. You continue to fight old battles here. You cannot get out of the mindset of blaming the US for everything that has gone wrong. Fine. But in doing so, you paralyse your own response to the current situation. Remember, you said:

Stop, Rascal. Can’t you see that my argument does not require that we cover this ground. I can stipulate all sorts of things such as “It was not multi-lateral” or even “The US is to blame for the current situation in Iraq.” But that does not alter the fact that everyone now still has the duty to act in the best interests of Iraq.

A principled foreign policy does not consist of sticking two fingers up at the US, just because you blame them. Yet again,

I DO NOT BELIEVE THE EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS HAVE THIS VIEW.

I do, however, have concrete evidence that their public, and you Rascal, indeed hold this view. Remember, you said:

I would say the Europeans have just the right view on things.[/quote][/quote]

Yet, again, you are unable to get around the “blame” argument. You refuse to see that there is any way in which, now, the European governments could be held responsible. In other words, there is no way that they can now behave badly or behave well.

What a moral vaccuum!!!

I disagree. They have the duty to behave responsibly and, in my opinion that means convincing their public that Rascal’s views are irresponsible.

[quote]“The French plan which would somehow try to transfer sovereignty to an unelected people just isn’t workable,” U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told reporters

Underscoring his determination not to hand over authority in Iraq until the country has stabilized further, Bush met with [b]two members of Iraq’s Governing Council, who said it was too early for full Iraqi self-government.

“We are ready to be patient, we don’t want to rush,” Iraqi public works minister Nisreen Berwari said.

Electricity Minister Ayham Sameraei told reporters as he and Berwari met Bush in the Oval office, “If the Iraqi people and the Americans help us for the next year and a half … we will have (a) different Iraq.”[/b]

lastsuperpower.net/news/News … 09-23.5817
[/quote]

I don’t hold the US responsible for what other governments do or not do, I hold the US responsible for the consequences of the US lead war, solely. Nothing else I have said.

[quote]Then, why would you let an argument with the US stand in the way of rebuilding Iraq? Remember, again, you endorsed THIS VIEW:

[quote=“Rascal”]
More than half of the Europeans surveyed said they opposed sending European peacekeepers to Iraq…
I would say the Europeans have just the right view on things. [/quote]
Inconsistent? [/quote]
No, because I highlighted a particular statement in bold and my response was to that.
You have misquoted me here / manipulated my response.

See, you are trying to make others feel guilty and put the blame on them.
I gave you two options already: 1. Ask the other COWs. and/or 2. Give power to the UN.

There is the help you desire, no matter the public opinion.

[quote]What a moral vaccuum!!!

I disagree. They have the duty to behave responsibly and, in my opinion that means convincing their public that Rascal’s views are irresponsible.[/quote]
Yeah, thanks for failing to address the issue that it’s (once again) the US who isn’t listening and backing off a bit to allow others to provide the help.
This is school-yard play - the bully not giving in to settle the argument because he may ‘loose face’.