I really must share this opinion of my compatriots ( I’m British) in Europe.
I feel sickened and ashamed to the pit of my stomach by how shorrt memories have become. In thier cowardly move to veto the defence of Turkey. France Germany and Belgium have stabbed the USA in the back. Can the french Goverment not see the war graves from the first and second world war where thousands of young American service men died to free France?
NATO has secured peace in western Europe for the past half century, the USA beeing the driving force in both man-power and finance. What is the point of paying for an alience that will not help a fellow member defend itself, Turkey only wanted patriot missile batteries and defencive units.
I would never wish disaster on any country but will France and Germany ask for help if they recieve terrorist attacks?
When the US was actually attacked how did France and Germany turn their backs on the US.
AKAIK there were German and French in Afghanistan.
Do you think that all European countries should just support the US because they were in WWII. Millions of Russians died fighting that very same war. Was the US betraying them during the cold war?
Apples and Oranges as far as I’m concerned. France has said that if and when this war goes hot they will be there.
No they should support the US because without the US there would be no Europe as we know it! Britain could not have liberated Europe in the second world war alone.
This was a move to defend a fellow member not declare war on iraq
Are you saying that, because of the heroism and sacrifice made by the US people more than 50 years ago, the current US government should have carte blanche to do whatever it likes now - even if the governments and people of Europe are vehemently opposed to that action?
As I said in another thread on that subject, does this kind lof logic apply to grudges too?
I think it’s a bit more complicated than this. If anything, I’d label it cynical. France in particular has always had a problem with NATO, and this move has weakened it. To what extent remains to be seen.
FWIW, I think their argument (that is, France/Germany/Belgium’s) is naive at best, ridiculous at worst. If SH is not complying, you could put 100 times the number of inspectors into what after all is quite a large country, and come out empty handed.
As an American, I am completely indifferent to France’s and Germany’s reluctance to support the war. I’m a tad reluctant myself. I certainly do not hold it against them.
Thank you XerXes, I agree france has tried to de-stabalise NATO before and it is its ultimate goal.
I am not saying war should be waged just because America wants to. War should be waged to stop SH. Not to mention Turkey as an allie should be defended to the last.
I think France and Germany are exactly right and that Tony Blair is an embarrassing little poodle. The UK has nothing to apologize for, but as an American let me apologize to the rest of the world for the reprehensible actions of our (unelected) president. America is in the wrong, here, don’t kiss our ass.
As for the Turkey and NATO question, France and Germany are correct. If Turkey is going to support a US-led invasion of Iraq through use of airspace, etc., they don’t get to call in allies who were opposed to the action in the first place because they were suddenly attacked. Sorry, but it just doesn’t work that way and I’m glad that little maneuver was vetoed.
In the larger world, while I disagree with France and Germany’s hard stance against the Iraq war, I certainly do not begrudge them the ability to determine and act on what they perceive to be their own national interests. And as much dislike as I have for the French government, I believe that if push really came to shove, France would stand side by side with the US and fight it out, but an admittedly borderline case like Iraq, I’m not too offended. Again, I disagree with their stance and I think it’s short-sighted (but this thread is not the place to get into that) but I’m not offended nor do I think they have some sort of obligation in this case to support US actions. Now, if Russia were to invade the US and France hemmed and hawed its way to pacifism, then I would be angry with them.
France and Germany have thier own agenda and have no problem with military action so long as it suits there needs.
Blair may be a poodle but Chirac is a criminal with aspirations to be president of Europe, and Schroeder is still aiming for a central cureencey despite the inherent problems of the Bundis bank … Oh sorry Euro. I keep getting them confused.
Seems I recall how “Germany was stabbed in the back” was one of Hitler’s fave soundbites when he was coming up, when he wanted to describe how Germans were hosed by the Treaty of Versailles.
I renounce that sort of rhetoric, when describing the self-inflicted international travails of the Bush regime. There is never a time to start talking about America being “stabbed in the back”.
Nobody stabbed the US in the back. The Bushies shot themselves in the foot, and nations like Belgium and Germany are merely pointing at the bloody hole and saying “my god, man, you need help”.
It’s pretty far from ‘cowardly’ to stand up to the world’s only superpower when its government is hellbent on destruction. Personally I have never had more respect for France, and especially M.Chirac; whereas my utter disgust at Blair’s craven spinelessness has never been more complete.
Didn’t the US of A kind of sit on it ass while Germany built up a huge ass army and raped France and most of rest of Europe? Didn’t we wait till a huge ‘suprise’ attack on our own people to join the world wars?
This is also probably why some people think would should kick Saddam in the nuts now befor he gets any bigger.