End of iraq war discussion - let's discuss the fundamentals

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Hi,
We will not agree on Iraq /images/graemlins/grin.gif

We discussed at a party here how Bush could get reelected as none of the participants even could have considered voting for him if they were US citizens (broad range of right- and left-wingers).

We discussed further and our conclusion was that perspective on foreign policy in the European population and the US population differs completely. The Europeans view foreign policy as some method of finding international compromise and cooperation while Americans see foreign policy as a tool to protect national interest.

Right or wrong?

[twowords]

I think both Europe and the States look for their own national interest but US has the power and solidairty to use more tools to furthur its own interest. Europe must rely more on cooperation to furthur its interests. America has power, which is very tempted to utilise I think and it loses sight of the value of cooperation.

Also note that the US population is deeply divided over foreign policy (read: Iraq War, aggression, UN, etc). Please don't lump me and the whole of the US with the neocons hawks!

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
I think both Europe and the States look for their own national interest but US has the power and solidairty to use more tools to furthur its own interest.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that most foreign departments look for own national interest. I speak about the sentiment in the population.

[ QUOTE ]
Europe must rely more on cooperation to furthur its interests.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
America has power, which is very tempted to utilise I think and it loses sight of the value of cooperation.

[/ QUOTE ]
It makes the mistake of overvaluing it's own power. Experts assume that the Chinese GDP in some decades will exceed the US. China also has built a international network which soon will outpower the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Also note that the US population is deeply divided over foreign policy (read: Iraq War, aggression, UN, etc). Please don't lump me and the whole of the US with the neocons hawks!

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe you. All Americans are neocons hawks /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ACPlayer]

It makes the mistake of overvaluing it's own power

A common arrogant mistake usually leading to the erosion and end of the power. Economic power is already being transferred to China/India etc. Military power may well follow if the economic engine sputters.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The Europeans view foreign policy as some method of finding international compromise and cooperation while Americans see foreign policy as a tool to protect national interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

My view is that Europe tends to think more can be achieved with diplomacy, than actually can. Call it a naivete of sorts, if you will.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Economic power is already being transferred to China/India etc. Military power may well follow if the economic engine sputters.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is actually a very serious consideration, and while we are not so in jeopardy yet, we should look to the future in this regard. Anyway let's not to hijack this thread but I thought you raised a very important point.

[BadBoyBenny]

I think the Europeans culure has a stronger influence of moral relativism, which leads them to be more tolerant of rogue regimes. I think that Europeans claiming that they care more about international compromise than their national (or at least regional) interests are not being honest. They see diplomacy as a more effective tool in acheiving their national interests.

The Americans have a more religious what's right is right mentality that leads them to more interventionism. The Americans often combine this interventionist attitude with a notion of American execptionalism and self righteousness. I think American exceptionalism is still taught implicitly in the history classes of our public school system (I'm interested in how other countries' citizens view their history progams).

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]

The Americans have a more religious what's right is right mentality that leads them to more interventionism. The Americans often combine this interventionist attitude with a notion of American execptionalism and self righteousness. I think American exceptionalism is still taught implicitly in the history classes of our public school system (I'm interested in how other countries' citizens view their history progams).

[/ QUOTE ]
Please elaborate on exceptionalism. I don't know the exact meaning of this.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Please don't lump me and the whole of the US with the neocons hawks!

[/ QUOTE ]

And all the moderate Republicans who voted for the war, and all the moderate Democrats who voted for the war, and all the liberal democrats who voted for the war...........

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Please elaborate on exceptionalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

The U.S. maintains that it is one of a kind; that there is no other country like it anywhere, in any aspect; that it's an exceptional country, a unique country, with unique people, unique culture, etc.

Most countries' nationalism is based upon such notions of exceptionalism but the United States is the undisputed champion of the practice.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please elaborate on exceptionalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

The U.S. maintains that it is one of a kind; that there is no other country like it anywhere, in any aspect; that it's an exceptional country, a unique country, with unique people, unique culture, etc.

Most countries' nationalism is based upon such notions of exceptionalism but the United States is the undisputed champion of the practice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Francois might disagree with you.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The Europeans view foreign policy as some method of finding international compromise and cooperation while Americans see foreign policy as a tool to protect national interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon now, please. How silly is this statement? The EU doesn't act in it's self interest? And yes the EU does influence foreign policy of it's members and potential members.

[ACPlayer]

I suspect that the orginal poster was talking about the methods to maintain the self interest. It is certainly true that at the moment US is the only country willing to go it alone and abandon all semblance of dialog in order to maintain this self interest -- whether it is Kyoto, Steel Tarriffs, Iraq, etc.

But perhaps he should elaborate.

[Chris Alger]

The myth of exceptionalism is a dominant barrier to rational attitudes and discourse in the U.S., especially about our relations with other peoples and countries. One can trace it to the Puritan determination to create a "City on a Hill" (J. Winthrop's phrase, famously reiterated by Reagan), a theme which has dominated popular rhetoric ever since. Large percentages of Americans believe the U.S. is the "most free," "most democratic," "most generous," that its economy represents some sort of historical terminus (a theme that has been popular here for over a century), the zenith of human endeavor, and so on.

The effect has been the inculcation of a strong and extreme social taboo against principled self-criticism, evidence of which is ubiquitous yet unacknowledged, as the taboo requires. In fact, the corollary myth is that Americans beat up on themselves too much, that the country is wracked by a "liberal" penchant for self-flagellation, manifested in a media constantly on the warpath against power, privilege, tradition and wealth.

Accordingly, almost all official rhetoric and mainstream (respectable, polite, responsible) discussion is bounded by a series of assumptions that are rarely challenged and constantly reitrated, sometimes explicitly, sometimes by omission of considering the contrary view or other subtleties. These include:

1. Other countries and leaders commit crimes and atrocities, we, at most, make mistakes.
2. The interests of other countries are confined to the elites that run them. U.S. interests are, at least eventually, the interests of all.
3. Other countries are dominated by elites and special interests. U.S. leaders take their cue from an informed electorate participated in a vibrant, hotly contested democratic process.
4. Principled criticism of the U.S. or U.S. policy (as opposed to a pragmatic, cost-benefit arguments that incorporate assumptions about noble motives) is presumptively suspect, dishonorable, irresponsible, etc.

These are time-worn propaganda modes that one sees elsewhere, perhaps everywhere from time to time, but Americans pay them special reverence. Hence the hysterical complaints, unique to the U.S., that the mainstream liberals "always blame America first" (ambassador Kirkpatrick at a former GOP convention) when in fact they virtually never blame "America" at all, or the common criticism that this or that thing is "un-American," as if this were argument, or our patholgoical historical amnesia (ask any American who Saddam's most important allies were during the 1980's and expect less than 10% to correctly include the U.S.)

Given these cultural strictures, which are mainstream media have essentially adopted as sort of code of conduct, you can imagine how hard it is to read or carry on an intelligent conversation here. Everything is polluted by cliche and buzzwords like "war on terror," "collateral damage", "liberation," "freedom" and so forth. We can't even agree on the terms of discussion. It also explains how some of the posters maintain their contradictions and say the unbelievably ignorant and mean things that they do.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
It is certainly true that at the moment US is the only country willing to go it alone and abandon all semblance of dialog in order to maintain this self interest -- whether it is Kyoto, Steel Tarriffs, Iraq, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US is also the only country capable of doing so at the moment.

[Felix_Nietsche]

"The Europeans view foreign policy as some method of finding international compromise and cooperation while Americans see foreign policy as a tool to protect national interest."
************************************************** ***
I partially agree....but for anyone to claim the Europeans are not pursuing their national interests in foreign policy would be silly. E.g. The French were making a lot of money from Iraq during the oil-for-palaces program. The French violated the sanctions all to make $$$. So did the Russians by selling military equipment to Iraq.

My perceptions are:
Europeans tend to be SILENTLY (sometimes not so silently) arrogant towards Americans. Typically Europeans think themselves smarter and more sophisticated than the Americans. In their view the Americans are over-reacting to the 911 attacks and American use of their military are signs of American 'cowboy' tactics. I find it amusing that many Europeans think that calling someone a 'Cowboy' is an insult. You can call me a cowboy and I won't feel insulted. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

My view is the Europeans are under-estimating the threat of Islamic Fascists and they under estimate American anger over 911. Historically the events over the last few years remind me of Hitler and Neville Chamberlain. Today old Europe is playing the role of 'appeasers' and Bush43 is playing the role of 'Winston Churchill'. Before WW2 Churchill was the voice of the minority. Today Bush43 is the voice of the minority.

I think many Europeans are suffering from the same myopia that afflicted them in 1938. Anyway, it will probably take another 25 years to know the long term affects from the invasion of Iraq.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]

My view is that Europe tends to think more can be achieved with diplomacy, than actually can. Call it a naivete of sorts, if you will.

[/ QUOTE ]

conversly (or is it obversly?) i believe that the U.S. thinks that we may acheive more through the use of force than we actually can.

Personally i like the OP's point: europeans, in my experience, simply have a greater understanding of multinationalism and international cooperation- they have no choice but to experience that- thrir countries are much smaler than the U.S. and they are much closer to the rest of the world, geographicly speaking. it seems to follow that they would be thus more likely inclined to diplomacy than war as a tool of statesmanship, and that their nation's intrests are much more dependant on coexistance with the intrests of other nations than the U.S. is. (and the memory of two world wars is likely more on the forefront of their national conciuousness than it is in the U.S.)


^^--that's all speculation- i really hadn't thought about this subject much till right now...

[Cyrus]

So you are pretty much excused for all the nonsense you post today... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Europeans tend to be SILENTLY arrogant towards Americans.

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
Today Bush43 is playing the role of 'Winston Churchill'.

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
It will probably take another 25 years to know the long term affects from the invasion of Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually chuckled loudly at that last one. (I want so much to know the long term effects next month! /images/graemlins/grin.gif)

[tolbiny]

Comparing Bush 43 to churchill is pretty bogus, and the general characterization of "the rest of europe" as being appeasers is very misleading without historical perspective.
Churchill had the task of leading a small country with few natural resources of their own, and whose empire had been weakening for the past 30 years, and whose military was unprepared for a large scale war, against the most technologically advanced military in the world- being led by a dictator who was bent on war.
Bush on the other hand "led" the most technologically advanced and most powerfull nation (both militarily and economiclly) in the world against a few thousand fanatics with no real chance of "winning" but who could present a ocntinual problem for the US.

As for the role of europeans as "appeasers", Chamberlain essentially had no choice but to make concessions to Hitler. Neither France nor England had the military capability to stop him at the time and both desired a stalling procedure to get their war machines in gear. Secondly there was no desire within the general population to fight another war- they had lost a generation of men only 20 years before essentially because of political posturing. Chamberlain's hands were effectively tied.
On the other hand Iraq was not actually a threat to any country outside of the middle east, and not even a serious threat to any of them. Weapons inspectors had been doing their job and though there had clearly been violations, none of them were dangerous to us or our allies. More like the ego driven posturing of a fading dictator.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
Europeans tend to be SILENTLY (sometimes not so silently) arrogant towards Americans. Typically Europeans think themselves smarter and more sophisticated than the Americans.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really need to back up wacky claims like this with facts/ polls, even anecdotal evidence... this is a truly paranoid statement.

besides even if they are arrogant and think they're smarter than americans, how do toyu know they're not like that to EVERYONE? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Felix_Nietsche]

I prefaced that statement that it was MY PERCEPTION.

My perceptions are based on people I have met in Europe and what I see in the news... I've been lecture twice by Frenchies about why the USA has such a terrible foreign policy. And they initiated the subject of politics...not me. It was as if they were looking for an American tourist so they could vent...

As for citing a poll, I can't imagine anyone paying for a poll to measure a country's arrogance toward another country.

[BadBoyBenny]

A lot has been written on the subject. It means different things to different Americans. The strength of their beliefs varies, but most Americans believe in it to some degree. Part of the reason is our education system, which tends to highlight the great things Americans have done while glossing over the bad things we have done.

Summary (http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/american-exceptionalism.htm)

Slideshow (http://web.pdx.edu/~tothm/pluralism/AMEXCEPT/)

Excerpt (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/americanexceptionalism.htm)

Part of the rationale is the unique nature of our country's founding.

[ QUOTE ]
in Democracy in America, Tocqueville identified five values crucial to America's success as a democratic republic: (1) liberty (2) egalitarianism, (3) individualism, (4)populism and (5) laissez-faire

[/ QUOTE ]

Part of it has been caused by WWII and Post WWII history, where Americans have seen themselves as the defenders of the free world.

Part of it comes from having the world's most powerful military and economy.

[BadBoyBenny]

This is part of it. There are other countries like China and recently Putin's Russia that do what they want regardless of international opinion. The US does seem to be the only Western Democracy doing so at the moment though.

[ACPlayer]

I refer you to Chris' excelllent take on American "exceptionalism".

Other countries presently going it alone include N. Korea and Iran. I guess we keep good company.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
My view is that Europe tends to think more can be achieved with diplomacy, than actually can. Call it a naivete of sorts, if you will.


[/ QUOTE ]

No its like this, we spent 500 years sailing the world, murdering, pillaging, enslaving people and we finally realised all it got us is a lot of enemies and we didn't have the people to police it all. So eventually we had to give it all back before the house of cards collapsed on us, not dissimilar to the USA's fate if they keep up the wars on everyone who farts downwind of them.

Mack

[ACPlayer]

One has to realize that the American culture and history is in its adolescence. Hence the testosterone driven response to external stimulli.

Unfortunately the flip side is that the European society is geriatric in its thinking.

Wouuld you rather have a 18 year pope or a 78 year old pope?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
My view is that Europe tends to think more can be achieved with diplomacy, than actually can. Call it a naivete of sorts, if you will.
------------------------------------------------------------
No its like this, we spent 500 years sailing the world, murdering, pillaging, enslaving people and we finally realised all it got us is a lot of enemies and we didn't have the people to police it all. So eventually we had to give it all back before the house of cards collapsed on us, not dissimilar to the USA's fate if they keep up the wars on everyone who farts downwind of them.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, Mack, I usually agree with you, and I hope Europe has learned much as you say, but...throughout much of the 20th century Europe was still a region torn by recurrent internal bloody wars and battles. So whatever Europe learned over those 500 years didn't prevent that.

Also, much of Europe still seems to have an appeasement sort of mindset (now, towards Islamic terrorists)--as if the lessons of the fruits of appeasement have never been fully absorbed.

I think diplomacy and negotiation are great--to a point--but still cannot solve all serious problems. Also, I think evil must sometimes be squarely confronted (and I do not say this in a religious sense).

What some people do to each other is evil; the political systems some countries have in place have evil effects (North Korea, Iran); and some philosophies are essentially evil in their outward effects (the philosophies of the Islamic terrorists, for example). I believe such problems generally increase if not confronted, and often cannot be solved or largely mitigated through mere diplomacy or negotiation.

As to your last point, I agree the USA may get into trouble if it gets involved in too many fights.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Europeans tend to be SILENTLY (sometimes not so silently) arrogant towards Americans. Typically Europeans think themselves smarter and more sophisticated than the Americans.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really need to back up wacky claims like this with facts/ polls, even anecdotal evidence... this is a truly paranoid statement.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think to be fair to Felix that there is a lot of anti-American snobbery (which I mean to be something separate from anti-US foreign policy, and also from out-and-out anti-US racism, as a lot of these people are have strong friendships ith indivdual Americans, and yet have a conception of some sort of theoretical typical American they wouldn't approve of) in Europe. I'm not sure if it's the dominant attitude; it would depend where exactly you're talking about. There is a lot more of it in the UK than you might think.

On the other hand, the poster that made the jibe about "Francois" is simply wrong; however arrogant you may view the French as there simply isn't anything like the dominance of US-style exceptionalism in France. A lot of thing may think France is the best place in the world and be inordinately proud of French culture, but not in the pseudo-religious beacon-to-the-world sense you often get in American discourse.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, Mack, I usually agree with you, and I hope Europe has learned much as you say, but...throughout much of the 20th century Europe was still a region torn by recurrent internal bloody wars and battles. So whatever Europe learned over those 500 years didn't prevent that.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree we have to fight facism and hatred, Saddam included but come on, there were no weapons of mass destruction, all we ask is a little honesty.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, much of Europe still seems to have an appeasement sort of mindset (now, towards Islamic terrorists)--as if the lessons of the fruits of appeasement have never been fully absorbed.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm undecided on this, Bin Laden is also against appeasement, right?

[ QUOTE ]
I think diplomacy and negotiation are great--to a point--but still cannot solve all serious problems. Also, I think evil must sometimes be squarely confronted (and I do not say this in a religious sense).


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but i think this is a religious ideal that even non-religious people like myself aspire to, the fight between good and evil in the mythological sense. No doubt much good is done, but there is always a price, often a high one.

[ QUOTE ]
As to your last point, I agree the USA may get into trouble if it gets involved in too many fights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I genuinely hope it never happens.

Regards Mack

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouuld you rather have a 18 year pope or a 78 year old pope?

[/ QUOTE ]

No pope is my answer, but I believe the new pope is over 70 no?

Mack

[ACPlayer]

Get rid of the pope, the imams, the rabbi's, the priest -- let Cyrus and Zeno compete for the job as the beacon for humanity.

Peace shall prevail, sexual activity will increase and be more varied life will finally be what it is supposed to be about and best of all we won't quibble endlessly on this forum.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Europeans view foreign policy as some method of finding international compromise and cooperation while Americans see foreign policy as a tool to protect national interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon now, please. How silly is this statement? The EU doesn't act in it's self interest? And yes the EU does influence foreign policy of it's members and potential members.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not as silly as it might seem. Remember I speak about the population. In several European countries it was the population which forced the government to declare its resistance to the war. For most countries it would be in their national interest to join the US (yet they did not), in Germany and France they have national pride for this.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect that the orginal poster was talking about the methods to maintain the self interest.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I am not of methods, I am speaking about popular sentiment. I think most Europeans see foreign policy as a moral issue.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
You can call me a cowboy and I won't feel insulted. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Cowboy! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Today old Europe is playing the role of 'appeasers' and Bush43 is playing the role of 'Winston Churchill'. Before WW2 Churchill was the voice of the minority. Today Bush43 is the voice of the minority.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think many Englishmen would consider this a grave insult, but I support free speech. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember I speak about the population. In several European countries it was the population which forced the government to declare its resistance to the war. For most countries it would be in their national interest to join the US (yet they did not), in Germany and France they have national pride for this.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is pretty amazing to me: that it would have been in their interests, AND in the interest of the Iraqi people to be relieved of the oppressions of a brutal and murderous dictator--and yet, paradoxically, the European populace opposed the war. Even more enigmatically, they actually have pride over so doing.

Good for them + Good for the Iraqis = Opposed??? (scratches head) /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Felix_Nietsche]

After WW2, the English sacked W.Churchill.
Perhaps Americans think higher of him than do the English. But he was 1/2 American. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ACPlayer]

That the war in Iraq is good for the Europeans (or Americans) or Iraqi's is your judgement. On the planet well over 50 percent of the population believe that you are wrong in your assumption and thus your conclusion is flawed.

Perhaps better to stop scratching your head and consider why you are so wrong.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
That the war in Iraq is good for the Europeans (or Americans) or Iraqi's is your judgement.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I was just using Arnfinn's premise that the war would have been good for the Europeans. Please reread his post, if you will.

[ QUOTE ]
On the planet well over 50 percent of the population believe that you are wrong in your assumption and thus your conclusion is flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, it wasn't my assumnption (and I was in fact a bit surprised to read it). Regardless, Arnfinn said the Europeans had pride in their decision to oppose despite the fact that the war would have been good for them. I am just taking him at his word for the sake of hypothetical, since the point revolves around the matter of European opinion.

[ACPlayer]

.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
The Europeans view foreign policy as some method of finding international compromise and cooperation while Americans see foreign policy as a tool to protect national interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

To Europeans, "compromise" means a one world government and creeping socialism.

To the US "protect national interest" means "stabilizing regions with lots of oil".

natedogg

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]

That is pretty amazing to me: that it would have been in their interests, AND in the interest of the Iraqi people to be relieved of the oppressions of a brutal and murderous dictator--and yet, paradoxically, the European populace opposed the war. Even more enigmatically, they actually have pride over so doing.

Good for them + Good for the Iraqis = Opposed??? (scratches head) /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

It is in no countries national interest to oppose the US as it is the only superpower. If they would put national interest on 1st place they would pretend to support the war.

The following news excerpt upon Bush's reelection shows that our prime minister realizes the problems connected with opposing the US:

"Bondevik, who's already called for the Bush Administration to show more international cooperation, noted that he worries nonetheless that trans-Atlantic ties may be weakened. Many, he suggested, may see a need for Norway to engage in stronger foreign policy cooperation with the European Union, also in security matters.

That, Bondevik acknowledged, may influence his own view on the EU. Norwegians have narrowly turned down EU membership, first in a referendum in 1972 and against in 1994. But the issue keeps coming up, and recent polls have showed Norwegians favoring EU membership.

Bondevik repeated, meanwhile, that he hopes Bush will pay more attention to the United Nations, as well as to the troubles i the Middle East."
Well summed up



Or the main conservative newspaper just before the election:
"Seen with our eyes, we won't hesitate to call George W Bush an 'American accident.' Four years ago, he was named president by the narrowest majority possible in the US Supreme Court. Bush took over the helm of a bitterly split USA.

"The terrorist tragedy on Sept 11, 2001 completely changed this. An entire world supported the USA with deeply felt sympathy and a similarly intense desire to work together to fight the modern evil that terrorism represents.

"George W Bush has squandered that sympathy. The attack on Iraq showed how the USA ignored all the well-meant advice from its friends. It showed a superpower that ignored both the United Nations and international law when the international community wouldn't dance after the USA's tune.

"We have also seen a power structure that hasn't hesitated to use manipulation of intelligence to legitimize a war. Claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein's contact with the terror network al-Qaida have proven to be a pure bluff.

"There was no lack of warnings along the way. But President George W Bush has overlooked them all. Unfortunately, this shows that the USA is led today by a strongly right-wing-oriented branch of the Republican Party. It carries on an ideological crusade that for us is very foreign.

"The consequence of this is that the world is more unsafe than it was four years ago. Cooperation between nations is now more difficult, and directions are unclear. This is tragic, in a world that more than ever before has an acute need for wise leadership.

[MMMMMM]

Excuse me, Arnfinn, but I don't see how all that answers the point I raised in my post?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
Excuse me, Arnfinn, but I don't see how all that answers the point I raised in my post?

[/ QUOTE ]

Supporting the Iraq war > benefit to short and mid term national interest of European countries and citizens due to American goodwill.
Supporting the Iraq war > still morally wrong (IMO) and also contrary to long term national interest of both Europe, US and citizens of those.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

LOL.

I plead guilty. Guilty, in several of my replies, of voicing my opinions on Iraq war in this thread which was not meant to be about it. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Don't send me to Guantanamo. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Supporting the Iraq war > benefit to short and mid term national interest of European countries and citizens due to American goodwill.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, that explains the benefit of which you spoke.

[ QUOTE ]
Supporting the Iraq war > still morally wrong (IMO)

[/ QUOTE ]

So: let's presume this is also the view of the average European, for whom you spoke. Do you not agree that the removal of a brutal and tyrannical government, which murdered over 300,000 of its own citizens, would be a good thing for the Iraqi people? How can some vague "morals" be placed above that?

So from the above we are still left with my original question, and puzzlement.

[ QUOTE ]
and also contrary to long term national interest of both Europe, US and citizens of those.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you said you thought the Europeans considered what would be best for their countries, and that they thought not opposing the war would be best. I also disagree with your assessment regarding the likely long-term interests; I think that deposing a widely murderous dictator, and trying to institute democracy, is likely to be best for the USA, for Europe, and of course for the Iraqis themselves.

Anyway, I really do not see how Europeans can consider it more moral to allow a despotic, murderous government to continue, than to try to replace it with a decent democratic government.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Getting to the core of things now, the thinking behind opinions and decisions.

[ QUOTE ]
So: let's presume this is also the view of the average European, for whom you spoke. Do you not agree that the removal of a brutal and tyrannical government, which murdered over 300,000 of its own citizens, would be a good thing for the Iraqi people? How can some vague "morals" be placed above that?

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, I still think the process leading up to it did more harm than good. No sensible solution for Iraq involves US soldiers as US is very unpopular in the region (I spoke to a UN soldier in Kosovo and he said that US soldiers there could not really contribute into making peace and security as Serbs distrusted them, I guess Iraq is similar scenario).

[ QUOTE ]
I also disagree with your assessment regarding the likely long-term interests; I think that deposing a widely murderous dictator, and trying to institute democracy, is likely to be best for the USA, for Europe, and of course for the Iraqis themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you don't see the long term damages to the US you travel too little. Huge loss of credibility and sympathy.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I really do not see how Europeans can consider it more moral to allow a despotic, murderous government to continue, than to try to replace it with a decent democratic government.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was done in a completely senseless way. The number of insurgents now is similar to that of six months ago, since they recruit at app. the same rate as they are killed. Just think, if there is spp. 1 000 million moslems (i don't know the exact number) in the world, maybe 0,5% (5 millions) of them were willing to take up arms against US before the war and now it might be 2% (20 millions). Are you going to have your forces in the area until all those 20 millions are killed?

[MMMMMM]

To save space and for clarity I will try to summarize the points you just made, then respond to them (otherwise the copy-pasting will get too much, as it qould require copy-pasting both of our responses repeatedly, and then responding to each point individually.

Your principal points in the above post seem to be:

1) That the process leading up to the war was damaging, and that local sentiment is such that Americans are not well-suited to doing much good in Iraq, as the Iraqis do not much like or trust them

2) That long term damages to the U.S. in credibility and sympathy have resulted

3) That more terrorists or anti-U.S. Islamic warriors may be created by the war

Ok, hopefully that is a fair summation.

My response would be that:

1) progress is being made in Iraq; even the religious council has called for disparate groups of Iraqis to come together and participate in the political process (whereas not long ago they wrre opposed to this); and that even if Americans may be less well-recived than some others, getting rid of the state murder-machinery that was Saddam's regime is worth it.

2) Yes, the damages you mention have resulted. However that is very small potatoes compared to the benefits that will accrue if Iraq becomes a free and democratic country. Perhaps it will even spread throughout the Middle East.

3) Creation of anti-US terrorists may at times occur but it is probably impossible to measure even a bit accurately, and even harder to compare to the numbers that might have been craated anyway, had we done nothing at all. Also let's not discount the number of current terrorists we eliminate. I think we still have to do what is right even if it pisses off some backwards nitwits with guns.

Freeing Iraq from the grip of a mass-murdering despot was the right thing to do, morally speaking. It is only too bad that we have limited means to effect change in other tyrannically ruled countries around the world. Of course, if Europe would take a more proactive role, along with us, in trying to further the causes of human rights and freedom around the world, together we might be able to do more for humanity, and for the severely oppressed--and for their future generations.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, I still think the process leading up to it did more harm than good. No sensible solution for Iraq involves US soldiers as US is very unpopular in the region (I spoke to a UN soldier in Kosovo and he said that US soldiers there could not really contribute into making peace and security as Serbs distrusted them, I guess Iraq is similar scenario).

[/ QUOTE ]

No other country had the wherewhithal or the ability to remove Saddam from power. I dont see how a sensible solution couldnt involve the US.

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't see the long term damages to the US you travel too little. Huge loss of credibility and sympathy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a non-issue. Who cares about sympathy ? Has the supposed loss of credibility kept countries from dealing with us? All it does is give some rhetoric to liberal leaning leaders of other countries.

[ QUOTE ]
It was done in a completely senseless way. The number of insurgents now is similar to that of six months ago, since they recruit at app. the same rate as they are killed. Just think, if there is spp. 1 000 million moslems (i don't know the exact number) in the world, maybe 0,5% (5 millions) of them were willing to take up arms against US before the war and now it might be 2% (20 millions). Are you going to have your forces in the area until all those 20 millions are killed?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the most maddening assertion I see poeple make. I have yet to have anyone show me any data that says the number of insurgents/terrorists have increased. Sure its a somewhat plausible theory but its just as plausible for me to say that US actions have had a deterrent effect on terrorists. I cant prove it but neither can you. Dont pass off your assumptions as facts.

[ACPlayer]

No other country had the wherewhithal or the ability to remove Saddam from power. I dont see how a sensible solution couldnt involve the US.

Given Iraq's capaibility at the time, I think this is an unfounded statement. In any event it did not have to unilateral.


This is a non-issue. Who cares about sympathy ? Has the supposed loss of credibility kept countries from dealing with us? All it does is give some rhetoric to liberal leaning leaders of other countries.

Would you rather do biz with someone because you want to or because you have to (while looking for alternatives).If you loose your credibility people are more reluctant to do biz with you in the future. It is an issue -- whether you agree that we lost credibility is an opinion.



This is the most maddening assertion I see poeple make. I have yet to have anyone show me any data that says the number of insurgents/terrorists have increased. Sure its a somewhat plausible theory but its just as plausible for me to say that US actions have had a deterrent effect on terrorists. I cant prove it but neither can you. Dont pass off your assumptions as facts.

This is atleast plausible as you acknowledge -- so why dismess it as a maddening assertion. Perhaps there is an excess of emotionalism in your thinking.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
No other country had the wherewhithal or the ability to remove Saddam from power. I dont see how a sensible solution couldnt involve the US.

Given Iraq's capaibility at the time, I think this is an unfounded statement. In any event it did not have to unilateral.

[/ QUOTE ]

You clearly do not understand the definition of unilateral.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Given Iraq's capaibility at the time, I think this is an unfounded statement. In any event it did not have to unilateral.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasnt unilateral and we didnt prevent any other countries from helping us.

[ QUOTE ]
Would you rather do biz with someone because you want to or because you have to (while looking for alternatives).If you loose your credibility people are more reluctant to do biz with you in the future. It is an issue -- whether you agree that we lost credibility is an opinion.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is an irrelevant point when you are talking about nation states relationships. Either they deal with us or they dont. If they wont anymore, then we need to reevaluate. So far I dont know of any nations that have reduced or eliminated diplomatic ties with the US due to the Iraq war.

[ QUOTE ]
This is atleast plausible as you acknowledge -- so why dismess it as a maddening assertion. Perhaps there is an excess of emotionalism in your thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it was pretty clear why I find it maddening. But since it wasnt, the problem is that people start with this premise as if it were fact. It is no where near a fact. Like I said, its plausible, and Im willing to entertain that theory but starting from that point as if it were a fact is disingenuous at best.


PS I like this new bold quoting thing youre doing . /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]

So far I dont know of any nations that have reduced or eliminated diplomatic ties with the US due to the Iraq war.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hello? At least 20 countries have started to build alternative alliances due to the Iraq war. As an example, our prime minister (Norway) stated that due to this Norway need stronger relationship with other countries than the US. Russia has chosen to strengthen relationship to Iran. France has chosen to strengthen relationship to China.

In Norway the sentiment is that US is no longer an ally (that is a huge diplomatic and strategic loss to US,since we are one of the few stable longterm oil producers).

[vulturesrow]

Way to dance around my point. I'll put it to you in the form of a direct question. What countries have broken diplomatic or economic ties with the United States because of the war in Iraq?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
Way to dance around my point. I'll put it to you in the form of a direct question. What countries have broken diplomatic or economic ties with the United States because of the war in Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]

But what is your point? Is diplomatic ties any value if there is no cooperation?

[ACPlayer]

THat is idiotic - you clearly believe in binary relationships if they dont love us they must break deplomatic ties. They dont have to break diplomatic relations, but European countries are exploring alternatives to NATO, India and CHina are building ties, people are talking of using the Euro for international trade -- all of this hurts us and the cummulative effects are tremendous.

Diplomatic relationships is about nuances and not always about sledge hammers.

[ACPlayer]

It wasnt unilateral and we didnt prevent any other countries from helping us

They didn't help because of the way we went about it. Essentially telling them we are doing this and if you dont like it stuff it. Hardly the stuff of relationships.

Compare Bush41's multilateral effort with Bush43's "multilateral" coalistion of the willing (a few sycophancts who went against the will of those who elected them). This was a unilateral effort (Bush's decision, Blair with his nose in Bush's butt, Spain -- where is that PM?, token efforts from a couple of other countries) plain and simple.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
THat is idiotic - you clearly believe in binary relationships if they dont love us they must break deplomatic ties. They dont have to break diplomatic relations, but European countries are exploring alternatives to NATO, India and CHina are building ties, people are talking of using the Euro for international trade -- all of this hurts us and the cummulative effects are tremendous.

Diplomatic relationships is about nuances and not always about sledge hammers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize that there can be different arguments pro/contra war etc., but when I see how many Americans who does not realize the relationship damage it surprises me. Again, my own country as example, 1945-2003: close cooperation with US; 2003-: Due to iraq war, looking for alternatives.

George W. Bush's reign will represents a paradigm shift in the world perspective on US. Prior to his reign US was seen as an ideal, now it is ridiculed.

[vulturesrow]

AC,

I'll attempt to reply to both posts at once.

[ QUOTE ]
THat is idiotic - you clearly believe in binary relationships if they dont love us they must break deplomatic ties. They dont have to break diplomatic relations, but European countries are exploring alternatives to NATO, India and CHina are building ties, people are talking of using the Euro for international trade -- all of this hurts us and the cummulative effects are tremendous.

Diplomatic relationships is about nuances and not always about sledge hammers.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are reading too much into my statement. I know that our political views differ widely but at least give me some credit for being able to think a little more subtly than that. My point is that have yet to see evidence that this war has greatly destroyed America's relationships with other countries. I have seen a lot of bluster and that is about it.


Let me quickly address your few examples.

NATO-Good for them, the NATO alliance doesnt really make sense in the post-Cold War world.

Euro for international trade-hadnt heard this yet, but if so, its all talk so far and color me skeptical if I dont believe the international economic community is going to give up on the dollar that easily.

China-India- really hard to say if the US policy in Iraq accelerated this at all. I doubt it personally. This is the only development of the three you mentioned that remotely concerns me and I doubt the Iraq war had much to do with it.

[ QUOTE ]
They didn't help because of the way we went about it. Essentially telling them we are doing this and if you dont like it stuff it. Hardly the stuff of relationships.

Compare Bush41's multilateral effort with Bush43's "multilateral" coalistion of the willing (a few sycophancts who went against the will of those who elected them). This was a unilateral effort (Bush's decision, Blair with his nose in Bush's butt, Spain -- where is that PM?, token efforts from a couple of other countries) plain and simple.


[/ QUOTE ]

At any rate, what exactly about the way we went about was objectionable? we had UN resolutions passed, Colin Powell working behind the scenes, the buildup was incredibly slow and deliberate, thus greatly reducing some of our strategic advantages, in an effort to win support.

[ACPlayer]

1. You were the one who suggested that all was OK because they have not broken diplomatic relations, not me.
2. A move away from dollar should concern Americans, if it happens.
3. Regarding resolutions:

Please advise what UN resolution authorized a full scale invasion. I suggest you provide the link and quote (in bold if you like) the specific sentences authorizing, recommending or suggesting this invasion.

Hint there is not one.

In fact, as I recall it, Colin Powell tried really hard to ger a resolution which was dropped when it was obvious it would not survive.

The Iraq action, as far as I can tell, was a (essentially) unilateral action, an emotional response to a non-threat. But I will admit that this is my conclusion. It was my opinion in 2003 and every thing that I thought about the reasons offered has proven to be correct -- that is the administration either did not do its due diligence or lied to us.