ANALYSIS: An Even-Handed Look at American, European Relations

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I don't think this one was terribly imperialist.

It was a unilateralist war undertaken in violation of international law and the sovereign equality of nations against an actor that had not threatened any of its neighbors.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well DD answered that one better than I could have .

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It was a unilateralist war undertaken in violation of international law and the sovereign equality of nations against an actor that had not threatened any of its neighbors.

Yeah, it's not like he had threatened Croatia and Bosnia? And it's not like he's being trialed for, hey, war crime and genocide, which are punishable by international law?

Funny, though, how international law is important when it comes to protect those without oil.

Well DD answered that one better than I could have.

Even I thought more highly of you. (and @ DinoDoc)

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Yeah, it's not like he had threatened Croatia and Bosnia?

Doesn't apply in this situation.

And it's not like he's being trialed for, hey, war crime and genocide, which are punishable by international law?

It's curious to see you suddenly supporting the most recent Iraq invasion. What happened to change your mind?

Funny, though, how Europe's position on invasions and international law changes when it comes to countries with oil.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's curious to see you suddenly supporting the most recent Iraq invasion. What happened to change your mind?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
And it's not like he's being trialed for, hey, war crime and genocide, which are punishable by international law?

OWN GOAL!!

[BeBro]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It was a unilateralist war undertaken in violation of international law and the sovereign equality of nations against an actor that had not threatened any of its neighbors.

Why unilateralist?

[Oncle Boris]

Imran and DinoDoc:

I knew you would bring this to the table. I decided not to talk about it in my post, just to give you the pleasure of feeling like pwning me for a few moments.

Seriously, I never said anywhere I was against the war in Iraq. In fact, and yeah, SHAME ON ME, even though I'm a commie and all, I was a mild supporter of the war back in April 2003.

What you need to keep in mind, though, is
-that the consequences of going to Iraq are much more important than were those of going into Kosovo, and they they have not been weighted properly (or just ignored)

-that it ALSO fulfills, in the same time imperialistic goals, which I am wary of.

-and that the embargo killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did.

For all these reasons, I think Iraq is a moral grey area, while Kosovo was a definite plus.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by BeBro


Why unilateralist?

Why's the recent Iraq invasion described as unilateralist?

[BeBro]

Hey, I asked first

But to answer, Washington was not only clearly the driving force behind it, IIRC it was also implied that the US would do this alone if neccessary.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by BeBro
Hey, I asked first

The answers are related to each other.

But to answer, Washington was not only clearly the driving force behind it, IIRC it was also implied that the US would do this alone if neccessary.

Washington was also the driving force behind Kosovo as well and we didn't invade Iraq alone we did it with a coalition of countries.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
For all these reasons, I think Iraq is a moral grey area, while Kosovo was a definite plus.

A definite plus would be if what the US and UK are trying to do in Iraq works, do you agree?

[Oncle Boris]

Yeah. Now that they're there, they might as well be succesful.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Washington was also the driving force behind Kosovo as well and we didn't invade Iraq alone we did it with a coalition of countries.

Kosovo: no UN mandate, but broad consensus between the allies

Iraq: no UN mandate, but big differences between the allies

And as said - even when the invasion was done by a coalition - the impression was that the decision to go to war was already made in the US, and the rest had only the choice to go with it or not.

[MrFun]

"There’s an extraordinary element of fundamentalist type of religion in American life," said Roger Duclaud-Williams, a political science professor at Warwick University in Britain, adding that he was bemused that Janet Jackson’s flashed breast at the Super Bowl caused so much hand-wringing. "It’s a kind of Christian-based Puritanism for which our educated governing class doesn’t have much sympathy."


I thought this bit is interesting -- to a much less extreme extent, religious fundamentalism still holds some power in United States in ways similar to some extreme Islamic fundamentalist countries.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Yeah. Now that they're there, they might as well be succesful.

Excellent. We can agree on something.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by BeBro


Kosovo: no UN mandate, but broad consensus between the allies

Iraq: no UN mandate, but big differences between the allies

The US enjoyed the support of dozens of countries in its war on Iraq. However that doesn't seem to have been enough to shake the accussation of unilateralism. What magical number if any would have confered the status of multilateral on the opperation? After all I still haven't heard the Kosovo intervention described as unilateral by Europeans because Russia and almost all of the 3rd world opposed the idea.

[BeBro]

You already made that point, and I already said the main focus of the criticism was the impression that the US - in a coalition or alone - would invade Iraq at any cost. If only one side decides what's good the label unilateralism does not seem too strong.