BTW about soldiers staying in Iraq for a few more months here is a good article by military analyst James Dunnigan which argues that it shouldn’t be a big problem. In fact it might improve combat readiness by giving them more time to train in desert conditions:
http://strategypage.com/dls/articles/20030226.asp
I gotta admit, I’m really, really surprised at Mexico and Chile, I was pretty sure they would fall all over themselves to get on the payday side of things. Angola, Guinea, and Cameroon, well, what else could the poor blighters do, after all. Betcha we got all three for less than ten million bucks. Chump change.
A relationship that will last approximately three weeks, which I figure is the period of time the Iraq war will last.
NATO exists to provide for the common defense of Europe and the North Atlantic. Iraq is not in Europe, and the war cannot seriously be described as a defensive measure. NATO survived American adventures in Vietnam, Panama et al, not to mention the Anglo/French aggression in the Suez, various European catastrophes in Africa, and continues to survive the Turks and Greeks being at each others’ throats. Bush Jr.'s egotistical little war will not destroy NATO.
A rather obvious solution would be to bring them back to the United States.
Please; this is a completely laughable argument. They’re professional volunteer soldiers; I’m sure they can take a few unpleasant deployments. It’s not a very good reason to start a war and slay thousands.
Well the US tried to bully Mexico with some not-so-subtle threats of a backlash if they didn’t toe the line. Surprise, surprise the bullying backfired and before you knew it the Bushies had alieanated yet another important ally in addition to Germany, South Korea and Turkey.
Of course after every diplomatic disaster there will be true believers like Sam Stone who see it as yet another brilliant plan by the Great Statesman in the White House.
I dunno about that…some of us just can’t hack it without air conditioned tents and clean sheets every day. I’m pretty sure some of us would simply kill for a hot bath.
[sub]I am sooooooo kidding…[/sub]
You mean we have soldiers camped out in the desert? Holy shit, we better get this war started toot sweet!
I didn’t say that the U.S. should attack just because the soldiers are there. I said that consideration for the soldiers is something that should be considered when discussing a long-shot diplomatic effort with a duplicitous France. Get the distinction?
Probably not. The partisan blinders are firmly affixed now. I’m trying to start a serious discussion about possible ramifications of all this, and all you guys can do is sneer at Bush.
“I’m trying to start a serious discussion about possible ramifications of all this, and all you guys can do is sneer at Bush”
Well if you want a serious discussion it might help if you had some basic knowledge of the issue. For instance you seem to be under the impression that Blair’s statement about a close relationship between the US and Europe is a radical departure. In fact it’s been the British position for decades. There is nothing to suggest that Blair is thinking of joining a new alliance which excludes France and Germany. Such an alliance would destroy the EU which Blair strongly supports. Countries like Spain and Italy are also heavily integrated with the EU and aren’t going to join some half-baked new alliance with Bush at the expense of their fundamental economic interests.
Oh and I still want a source about France promising to not oppose the US if Saddam didn’t disarm by March 17.
Oh, for God’s sake. You want to disparage my knowledge on the assumption that I didn’t realize that Great Britain was an ally of the U.S.???
Go read the transcript of the press conference, if you didn’t see it. All three leaders emphasized an ‘Atlantic Alliance’. Yes, I’m aware that there already is an Atlantic alliance. It’s called NATO. The question on the table is whether or not a NEW Atlantic alliance is forming, sans France. Don’t forget that France also caused a huge split in NATO just a couple of months ago by actively opposing a request from a NATO member for defense under Article 4 of the treaty.
So you can stop trying to portray me as an idiot. It’s insulting, and it’s an ad hominem attack that brings nothing to the debate, other than to highlight the fact that you’re a condescending snot.
Sam Stone-If you’ll remember, the U.S. got unanimous approval for resolution 1441. To do so, it agreed to attempt to seek a second resolution authorizing war. HOWEVER, for the U.S. to agree to that, France agreed that it would not oppose a second resolution if Iraq had not totally disarmed by the March 17 deadline.
Hold on, am I missing something? You’re saying this March 17th deadline was agreed on before resolution 1441 was passed? This is news to me (or am I misreading?).
Also you might want to email that first bit to the Bush admin, they seem to be under the quasi-impression that 1441 authorizes force (which might be why they chickened out of a losing new resolution which would take legitamacy away from that position).
I think it’s a little outlandish to think this summit marks some beginning of the end for us-europe relations. It seems just a emergency meeting of the moment.
Suggestion: Apply that point of view to your characterization of all the posters who consider the summit meeting unimportant as mere sneerers at Bush?
Well, then, elucidator, that’d probably make you one of a very small number. After all, we still have troops in the Balkans and Afghanistan, both of which were protested, but we don’t hear protests about either of those anymore, do we?
You are Air Force, right? God forbid that you guys sleep on the ground!
Well, its really hard to protest about Afghanistan, since we have installed a quite splendid fellow as Mayor of Kabul (after distributing truckloads of $100 bills to his sworn enemies). I am told his power stretches for two, three kilometers in every direction, and that peace and harmony prevail over the nation, where pink unicorns scamper at play amongst the land mines…
And the warlords, freed of the tyranny of the dreaded Taliban and dignified with titles of considerable gravity, are ruling the countryside much as they did before, in the just and humane manner of warlords everywhere. But without the heinous interference of the dreaded Taliban. Why, things are so rosy there, they’ve quite fallen off the media radar screen. 'Cause things are so good.
Cite?
This board is just turning into one long left-wing polemic. The idea that Afghanistan is totally anarchic outside of Kabul is ridiculous. There are millions of children back in school. Two million refugees have returned. Hundreds of schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, and other infrastructure have been rebuilt by U.S. engineers. Hundreds of millions of dollars of aid are flowing into the country. There is a 50 million dollar Hyatt being built in Kabul, and thousands of peacekeepers are in-country.
Is it perfect? No. Do warlords still have control in some outlying regions? Yes. So there’s still work to do. But to insinuate that it is all a big failure is flat-out wrong.
Let see, now. I say “Omega”, so I got to provide a cite. Sam says “Alpha” and that’s that.
Hmmmmmmmm.
Actually, I provided plenty of cites to this information just a couple of days ago. Go search for it.
Putting entirely aside the question of how well or ill things are going in Afghanistan, there is is simply no comparison–not in scale, not in nature, not in anything–between resistance to war in Afghanistan and resistance to war in Iraq. Same goes for Kosovo which was attracted almost no protests within the United States.
“You want to disparage my knowledge on the assumption that I didn’t realize that Great Britain was an ally of the U.S.???”
No I am questioning your knowledge when your describe as “the most important line” a thoroughly banal reiteration by Blair of a long-standing British commitment to strong ties between Europe and the US. The same goes for the statements by the other European leaders. This is just standard Euro-American boilerplate not an indication that these leaders are ,in the face of stiff public opposition, planning a diplomatic revolution which will bust the EU and profoundly damage their heavily integrated economies.
In fact even Chirac makes these kinds of statements in public.
Oh I am still waiting for that source on French promises wrt 1441.
Okay, fair enough. But I still predict, given human nature and the way the public generally acts, that only a complete quagmire in Iraq would keep people protesting. I fully expect that, assuming a quick victory into the long-haul peacekeeping effort, these protesters will soon go find another “flavor of the month” protest and then we’ll hear for hours on end about that.