Sad but I guess over the past two years, I too have come to the conclusion that Europe is really not going to be of any use whatsoever in any of the conflicts of the future.
[quote]But, in the broader sense vis-
ups, I should have posted my new topic “What is wrong with EU…” here. But I did not see it then. Probably to much in my rant to see clearly after my wife said “you see, I told you Bush is right and German governement is wrong”. :fume:
Good lackeys are hard to find.
So what then did you think of Bush’s speech last night to the EU, particularly the part of Lebanon needing an Sryian enema? I would think even the French would hold the hose on that one. At least for a while.
Well if the French are willing to hold the hose on that one for a while it is only for the following reasons:
-
America will take all responsibility whether for troop deployments or playing the bad guy in international organizations which the French will secretly encourage in their talks with us while triangulating with the Syrian leadership behind our back.
-
If they believe that it will make America look bad in the Arab world and thus further their efforts to reduce our influence there.
-
Will be inevitable so they immediately jumped onto the bandwagon to be seen as leading something that would happen anyway with or without them. They will take all credit if it turns out well and will put all blame on the US even if it does turn out well. Something will be wrong and it will be America’s fault.
-
There is a good opportunity to be made selling weapons to all sides of the conflict.
I liked the part where he assumed an air of high moral dudgeon and demanded that Syria end its occupation of Lebanon. That’s the sort of high farce that court jesters thrive on.
Spook:
I know exactly what you mean. How could Chirac say that with a straight face when he has been responsible for so much of what has gone wrong in that part of the world. Incredible. What chutzpah!
[quote=“fred smith”]Spook:
I know exactly what you mean. How could Chirac say that with a straight face when he has been responsible for so much of what has gone wrong in that part of the world. Incredible. What chutzpah![/quote]
You may have misunderstood spook’s point here, fred. I think what he was calling a farce was the notion that rhetoric and speeches are likely to have an effect on Syria’s behaviour. I think spook was calling on the US and France to step up and actually do something about the problem, rather than simply denouncing it at a press conference.
Oh sorry Hobbes. I guess you are right. I just assumed that Spook would be against military action because he is always banging on about how the US was wrong to invade Iraq, but now that he has decided to support an invasion of Syria by the US and France, well hell, sign me up. It’s what I have been calling for all along. Glad to see that when it comes down to the crucial issues of freedom and democracy that even old disagreements can give way to the bright light of common sense approaches. Fantastic. Like Nike, I say let’s just do it.
My point is three-fold.
a) People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
b) The world is full of charlatans like Chirac but America has a bumper crop of its own that’s more than enough to deal with right now.
c) France never did and never will have the ‘right stuff’ to be America’s lackey. Get over it and stop wasting bandwidth with self-indulgent temper tantrums.
Spook:
I couldn’t agree more. Glass is very fragile. No one should even think about playing with stones near it!
I know what you mean about Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean. You would think sometimes wouldn’t you that they were in fact French or at least French wannabes.
Well, I don’t know about you but I am greatly heartened by the French and their willingness to as you say stand up to the plate and take the evil dictatorship of Assad down thereby freeing two countries: Lebanon and Syria in the process.
Isn’t it great when we all work together like this. I truly believe that 2005 will be a good year for all of us, so nice to have allies.
And last but not least:
d) Americans who allow themselves to be convinced by Banana Republicans that Syria is a U.S. national security priority rather than China’s rapid military-industrial ascent and North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction are chumps on the road to national extinction.
I agree again Spook:
We should once again raise the issue of EU sales of arms to China and demand that they desist from changing their policy. We should also ensure that North Korea is bottled up as we have before taking on Syria. Quite right! I agree with nearly everything that you have said today!
I don’t know if Syria/Lebanon is even a new issue…I figure it was always on the Iraqi map, just have to unfold the page. 
Like I said, in jest, but not, in another thread, Iraq needs a clear path to the sea. Can’t go through Kuwait, how about west?
[quote=“spook”]
d) Americans who allow themselves to be convinced by Banana Republicans that Syria is a U.S. national security priority rather than China’s rapid military-industrial ascent and North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction are chumps on the road to national extinction.[/quote]
So what do you suggest the US do about Red China?
Europe will fall apart within the next 20 years, you mark my words. Who knows, we might even get another war out of it.
Goodness, why would you think that?
What is the conflict going to be over–agricultural subsidies? References to Christianity in the EU constitution? Differing reactions to a Russian re-invasion of Ukraine? The great powers taking sides in the ethnic hatred between Flemings and Walloons? A new directive requiring Brits to drive on the right? What?
"By pressing ahead to war two years ago without the evidence to back its case and without waiting for UN inspectors to complete their work, the Bush administration inadvertently created a rupture in the international system of alliances that has proved disastrous… . . .
The net effect of Operation Iraqi Freedom has not been to make U.S. enemies tremble in the face of American power. Instead, it has made them more aware of the limits of that power. . . .
Administration hawks may think they’re cleverly lining up support for tougher action on Iran by letting diplomacy run its course and fail. If so, they could be in for a nasty surprise. . .
All over the world, new bonds of trade and strategic cooperation are being forged around the U.S. China has not only begun to displace the U.S. as the dominant player in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation organization (APEC), it is fast emerging as the major trading partner to some of Latin America’s largest economies. The European decision to lift its arms embargo may reflect an awareness of the strategic significance of Beijing’s emergence as an economic power
Guess what spook? china was set to do so before we invaded Iraq. Nothing has changed in that regard. Do you think that the Iraq war has sped up their economic development or given them a competitive edge over us?
As to our alliances with “Europe” the French foreign minister Vedrine was quoted as calling the US a hyperpuissance back in the mid-1990s which would have been oh 8 years before we invaded Iraq at least. So guess what? that alliance was going the way of the French as soon as the Russians stopped being an overriding concern.
What is your point? Do you have one?
Let’s just do Syria today!
the iraq and afghan wars how shown how completely useless international alliances are. many of our allies will not be there when we need them. in fact, many of our supposed allies are actively cheering for our failure.
before iraq and afghanistan, people questioned whether we could beat the taliban in rough mountain terrain. people said iraq would be different this time because of horrific casualties when engaged in urban warfare.
in both cases we completely obliterated the opponent much quicker than even the optimists expected. the same people crying quagmire during the SECOND DAY of the iraq war then turned around and complained that we were beating the iraqis TOO badly.
now nobody questions whether the us can win a war, only whether it can keep the peace. seems like the perception of american military power has only improved in the last few years.
keep those goalposts moving…
what in the world is that supposed to mean? what’s the nasty surprise? that diplomacy will succeed?
sounds to me like the author is suggesting that diplomacy is bound to fail. in which case the us actions vis-a-vis iraq seems the right choice all along.
[quote]All over the world, new bonds of trade and strategic cooperation are being forged around the U.S. China has not only begun to displace the U.S. as the dominant player in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation organization (APEC), it is fast emerging as the major trading partner to some of Latin America’s largest economies. The European decision to lift its arms embargo may reflect an awareness of the strategic significance of Beijing’s emergence as an economic power