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

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Basically, the economic interests of Britain got intertwined with those of America. Between 1900 and 1939, America increasingly became an important investing force in British colonies, surpassing Britain itself in some.

When Britain (and France, Netherlands) could not hold their colonies anymore, somehow America had to protect their economic interests (and those of its allies, if Marshall was to work), out of fear that nationalist movements would install communism. This is what I define as neo-imperialism, the large scale trade of weapons and funding of affiliated right-wing military guerillas.

Wouldn't the same thing by the Soviets, but of left-wing groups, also be neoimperialism?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
Thanks Spiffor.

And, you can take it to the bank, what I am saying is what many Americans are saying and feeling. There is a huge anti-French and anti-European opinion here mainly because of the fallout from Iraq.

It is one thing to disagree with a course of action. It is another to openly oppose American policy under circumstances where we have declared our vital national interests to be at stake -- even if Europe disagrees that they are.

It is one thing to disagree with policies of an American president. It is another to ridicule him.

We assume that Europe and France are on the side of peace, stability and democracy. We should be working together to make the world a better place for every inhabitant on this planet. But frankly, the European attitude about Saddam Hussein is hardly comprehensible. There is little doubt that had France gotten its way from 1990 on, that Saddam Hussein would have been in power today, not only in Iraq, but also in Kuwait and probably in Saudi Arabia and the entire Persian Gulf. Tell me I'm wrong about this. Tell me how this dictatorial madman was a benefit to mankind. Explain to me why eliminating his regime was not good for the world.

You're wrong, Ned.

The thing about Saddam is pure bullshit. We had a huge "coalition of the willing", which INCLUDED France and Germany, when we went into Kuwait.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
This whole thing about WW2 is silly. When facing an enemy like the Nazis, you would be hard-pressed to be on the side of the bad guys.

I don't see why America's involvement 60 years ago should dictate how we view post-WW2 foreign policy.

It's the idea that America has bailed Europe out twice in the past century, and so Europe "owes us one". I'm not supporting them, just explaining.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kucinich


You're wrong, Ned.

The thing about Saddam is pure bullshit. We had a huge "coalition of the willing", which INCLUDED France and Germany, when we went into Kuwait.

After the Nov. Resolution authorizing force if Saddam did not pull out of Kuwait by Jan. 15, France did its best to negotiate a way out for Saddam.

It is true, though, that France did participate in Desert Storm.

[Pekka]

Yes. French Foreign Legion acted effeciently taking out the city of... (?) and didn't lose a single soldier in it, thanks to their fast action, high training and courage methods of fighting.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I was filing it under flights of fancy while I hit the submit button, but... the possibility exists that they will become unwilling to send troops outside of the hemisphere for any reason at all. If that happens there is then a large vacuum. Someone will fill that vacuum. Will they be better or worse than the Yanks?

I'd say the possibility of that is so remote as to not even be worth considering.

But, to play along for just a little while:
If that came to pass, I doubt it would be a sudden, radical shift. The US would slowly wind down and make it clear that they no longer intended to get involved outside of their hemisphere (it just sounds extremely odd to even say that). At that point, I think it's more than likely that Europe as a whole or individual countries would start to ramp up their militaries. Like it or not, Europe can free ride on the US right now to a point simply because just about anything that is of a really compelling interest for the US is very likely to be of interest for Europe as well, and vice versa. Which really gets us back to where we were in the first place.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ned


After the Nov. Resolution authorizing force if Saddam did not pull out of Kuwait by Jan. 15, France did its best to negotiate a way out for Saddam.

It is true, though, that France did participate in Desert Storm.

You're point being? Saddam was given a strict deadline to move out or else. Not a single shot was fired until that deadline passed. In the meantime, every major party, including the US, tried to use diplomatic means to avert a war. They didn't work, so everyone went in swinging, including, as you say, France.

You're just inventing an issue here.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ned


After the Nov. Resolution authorizing force if Saddam did not pull out of Kuwait by Jan. 15, France did its best to negotiate a way out for Saddam.

It is true, though, that France did participate in Desert Storm.

You're picking the wrong war to justify the current Iraq adventure. Kosovo would be a better point of attack for you.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Typical American dumbism

I am amazed to see how many Americans consider the non-use of force as being a sign of weakness. Truly shows too many of your folks are hardly more elaborate than cowboys

No, Spiffor. The problem is that if one goes in with a guarantee never to use force, you end up conceding a lot to get peace, which only incents greater demands the next time.

French "diplomacy" is like the Romans paying Atilla tribute. Where did that lead?

[Ned]

As to the French efforts prior to Gulf War I, IIRC, they did everything in their power to get Bush to stand down. Bush did not. But Saddam thought the French could broker a deal in the final hours and stayed in Kuwait.

The French caused the war.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Ned


No, Spiffor. The problem is that if one goes in with a guarantee never to use force, you end up conceding a lot to get peace, which only incents greater demands the next time.

French "diplomacy" is like the Romans paying Atilla tribute. Where did that lead?

Ned, Saddam would never have had anything close to be a nuclear weapon. The rest is insignificant to French security.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Wouldn't the same thing by the Soviets, but of left-wing groups, also be neoimperialism?

Yes, but in a much lesser scale - I had a huge debate on this with Imran two weeks ago.

Basically, the USSR filled - or tried to - natural vacuums, i.e. Eastern Europe and Northeastern Asia (Korea, Manchukuo).

Their main goal was to improve their economy and stability in their own sphere of influence, which was continental. OTOH, the goal of America was to protect the West's sphere of influence, which was pretty much the rest of the world, given its colonial past.

Which means that for prestige issues, the USSR did help some communist guerillas (like in Angola) or managed some oddball invasions (Afghanistan), but never as massively as America, with their intervention in Vietnam, and their absolute control over South America.

Simply said, the West had everything to lose from national communist movements, while the USSR could only gain some 'bonus points' from it. In turn, it explains why America was much more competent in defending its own vital interests, than was the USSR in 'possibly' dismantling them (which were not as important for their survival).

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Ned, Saddam would never have had anything close to be a nuclear weapon. The rest is insignificant to French security.

The problem, Oncle, is that the French twice intervened in negotiations between the United States and Saddam and somehow managed to convince Saddam that there was hope when there was none.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Ned
The problem, Oncle, is that the French twice intervened in negotiations between the United States and Saddam and somehow managed to convince Saddam that there was hope when there was none.

What's wrong with this? And BTW, there was hope, until the world realized Bush's aggressive and silly nature.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Saddam would never have had anything close to be a nuclear weapon.

Never say never.

the USSR did help some communist guerillas (like in Angola) or managed some oddball invasions (Afghanistan), but never as massively as America, with their intervention in Vietnam, and their absolute control over South America.

Why is America's interferance in its 'sphere' (South America) worse than Soviet interferance in its 'sphere' (Eastern Europe)?

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Never say never.

Seriously, he could not. It costs billions, requires thousand of employees, and the facilities are so huge that the satellite spies would have detected them years in advance.

Why is America's interferance in its 'sphere' (South America) worse than Soviet interferance in its 'sphere' (Eastern Europe)?

It wasn't. Don't get me wrong, both empires sucked. I do think that America is slightly better, though, because at least it respects most human rights within its own borders (but not outside, obviously).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Seriously, he could not.

How could North Korea then? I mean, it isn't as impossible as you believe.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
How could North Korea then? I mean, it isn't as impossible as you believe.

Yeah, that's a good question. North Korea has been undergoing research for a much longer time, and it probably has received help from either the Soviet Union or China, or maybe even unofficially from Pakistan.

Still, I higly doubt that American intelligence didn't know that North Korea was undergoing research- it was merely letting it go, for obvious reasons. First, I doubt that China would be terribly benevolent towards the idea of an invasion of North Korea. Then, North Korea just doesn't have oil and can't possibly be linked with terrorism to justify a war. Last, America needs Japan's alliance, and that means keeping the Korean menace alive.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And of course, worldwide intelligence had no clue that Pakistan had the nuke... although there were signs it was working on it.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And of course, worldwide intelligence had no clue that Pakistan had the nuke... although there were signs it was working on it.

Really? Cites please. Personally, I think it was known from the end of the 80s/beginning of the 90s that Pakistan was doing research for nukes. Either that, or they were given the technology, in which case that would be a diplomatic failure and not an intelligence one.

You just can't harvest uranium on the world market and get away with it without US intelligence knowing about it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think it was known from the end of the 80s/beginning of the 90s that Pakistan was doing research for nukes. Either that, or they were given the technology, in which case that would be a diplomatic failure and not an intelligence one.

They doing research, but the fact they had one was a total shock. You would think that the US would prevent Pakistan from getting a nuke, especially since they were our ally.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
They doing research, but the fact they had one was a total shock. You would think that the US would prevent Pakistan from getting a nuke, especially since they were our ally.

No, actually I think that they would allow them to get nukes, especially if they are allied, and especially since India was very commie-friendly in the 80s.
Are you drunk?

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, actually I think that they would allow them to get nukes, especially if they are allied, and especially since India was very commie-friendly in the 80s.
Are you drunk?

No, but obviously YOU are! The US would let Pakistan get nukes because they are allied? Yes, because we've usually just given away nuclear secrets to all of our allies. I'm sure Iraq during the 80s would have loved to hear that, instead of secretly getting info.

And the US gave plenty of money to India as well. India played both sides... learn your history .

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Why?

How does Bush-bashing affect transatlantic relations? An alliance is supposed to be deep enough to withstand the ephemeral heads of State. Bush-bashing in the public opinion, as well as Chirac bashing in the American public opinion, is definitely no reason for diplomats not to work efficiently.

It's a bit different when the Bush or Chirac bashing comes from MPs or other people associated with government. Then it becomes divisive for alliances. The Tory **** who was quoted as saying that Bush's manner of expressing himself put Tories off, because he sounded like a Texan, would piss off a large number of Americans and people in American government, should it not? Would they not be correct to think that Europe could go and fvck themselves if the manner of expression of the person they chose to be a leader caused so much of a problem?

We had the same **** happening here. Early in the process leading up to Iraq several people connected with government were caught out saying things to the effect of Bush being a moron. It did not help relations with the US. Do you think it would?

Originally posted by Kucinich
America wouldn't WANT to do that. That would mean giving up what is essentially our hegemony forever. If someone fills that void, it would suck more for us in the long run.

If Russia, China, and India are willing to trade, who cares whose soldiers stand guard? Why should American blood continue to be spilt all around the world if the vital interest, trade, is agreed to by capitalists in Moscow, Beijing, and Delhi?

There was a reason that America had to stay involved outside of the hemisphere after 1945. That reason has been extinguished with the defeat of the Soviet system. Continued involvement might be simply a reflex.

Originally posted by Arrian
Just using the term "Manifest Destiny" without explanation, however, will lead an American who knows his history to think of its historical use: the justification for westward expansion.

-Arrian

Strange. To a non-American it will ring of the warning to others (Europe) to keep out. It might also make Canadians harken back to days of weenie roasts in Washington when your politicians tried to practice it in regard to BNA.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Believe me, OB, if Nazi Germany today invaded France, there would be no way in hell that Congress would declare war on Germany.

Bullshit!

Why? they didn't the first time around.

Originally posted by Kontiki


I'd say the possibility of that is so remote as to not even be worth considering.

But, to play along for just a little while:
If that came to pass, I doubt it would be a sudden, radical shift. The US would slowly wind down and make it clear that they no longer intended to get involved outside of their hemisphere (it just sounds extremely odd to even say that). At that point, I think it's more than likely that Europe as a whole or individual countries would start to ramp up their militaries. Like it or not, Europe can free ride on the US right now to a point simply because just about anything that is of a really compelling interest for the US is very likely to be of interest for Europe as well, and vice versa. Which really gets us back to where we were in the first place.

i think you are mistaken on a few points.

First, all that has to happen is that enough American boys fill enough body bags, and some pol comes along and says that it doesn't have to be that way. He or she could win.

Then you could see the US out of Europe, the ME and everywhere else outside of the Western Hemisphere in very short order. What requires them to stay?

Second, that radical shift would be just that. It would be the result of a single election if accompanied by support in Congress. What stops the first and second cases from happening are elections and the will of the American people. However, for how much longer will they want to bleed in the face of foreign powers who are quite happy to trade? This is not 1964, we are no longer involved in a struggle with an ideological antithisis for life or death of our way of life.

[notyoueither]

Incidently, oil from the ME is the oil that Europe, China, and Japan require to keep moving. Why should the American taxpayer continue to pay for the security of that resource with blood and dollars?

Someone's getting a free ride here, and it sure as hell is not the average American citizen.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Believe me, OB, if Nazi Germany today invaded France, there would be no way in hell that Congress would declare war on Germany.

Bullshit!

Why's it bullshit?

Mind you, Ned's point doesn't say much. The US didn't declare war on Nazi Germany when they invaded in 1940 either.

[Pekka]

and back to this it goes, pointing fingers and trying to find dirt in the history. It's like 'yeah but he started it'. Stupid crap.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Incidently, oil from the ME is the oil that Europe, China, and Japan require to keep moving. Why should the American taxpayer continue to pay for the security of that resource with blood and dollars?

They are a large supplier, but by far not the only one. Additionally, oil is pretty much all they have, and they live pretty good by selling it. So they have to choose, either to sell their oil for reasonable prices and get rich, or to live in relative poverty. Tough call...

[Bereta_Eder]

Actually that is no longer true. Most of the Arab world has reached record highs in poverty and oil is not the amvrosia it was for their economies in the '60s.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


What's wrong with this? And BTW, there was hope, until the world realized Bush's aggressive and silly nature.

The problem of course is not what "the world" recognized, it is what Saddam recognized.