Rashak, you’ll find true Americans abhor phrases like “daisy cutter” or “shock and awe.” They just sloganize a brutal doctrine and paint a smiley-face on it.
The US is in a strange position with Israel, along similar lines to my earlier post:
BTW: a great many Americans still like the French very much.
That’s a bit of an exaggeration. We don’t get along that well sometimes, but France is not evil nor an enemy. They are generally a force for good in the world, although just like the US national interests come first and often conflict with higher ideals like human rights.
Naturally many americans (true ones like you put it) don’t follow the same line of thought… but are they sufficient in numbers to stop Bush from getting re-elected ? (Not that french are specially likeable mind you… parisians in particular.)
Depends on what the alternatives are. Americans may not like Bush’s overagressiveness, but they like indecisiveness even less. If Bush talks tough about terrorism while a Democrat mumbles platitudes about international cooperation, he wins that foreign policy debate in the public’s eyes.
I agree… Osama is another guy that is all against indecisiveness and for tough talk. Moderates getting out-shouted everywhere it seems.
Terrorism has rarely been dealt with sucessfully… and I don’t think Bush will be an exception. We are in a way more complex political and military scenario than ever before.
Well, decisiveness vs. indecisiveness is not really related to moderation vs. extremism.
Terrorism has been defeated in the past, although there is no one way to go about it.
The US defeated Filipino terrorism at great cost in lives and money, but did win.
Communist terrorism in Europe pretty much died because the sponsors of it went away. Part of Bush’s strategy is that if you eliminate the sponsors, you pretty much defeat the terrorism.
Armenian terrorism was defeated simply by ignoring their demands and making it clear their demands would never be met. On the other hand, Palestinian terrorism was encouraged by granting ever more concessions and international legitimacy with each terrorist act.
Syria took care of its Islamist terrorism by killing tens of thousands of people and completely destroying villages where they were hiding. Saddam also ruthlessly destroyed any Islamist threats in his nation.
So it can be done, it’s just a matter of finding the right strategy, or apply enough brute force to win. It is unlikely that Americans have the stomach for the brute force it requires to win such a war.
Adaher you forgot Algeria… not nice at all how they did it. Military victory but a total loss of morality in the process. The way the US is “torturing” some prisoners or allowing them to be taken to some “allies” is pretty disgusting.
I disagree that Bush is going after the supporters effectively… heavy handiness is creating more supporters.
France wants to be the leader of a European “counterweight” to US power. Or, so I’ve heard. That’s a dangerous game.
Makes you wonder about how long liberal democracy has in France. Everyone always shows so much concern for the United States (and, Thanks! :dubious: ). Maybe the Europeans should turn the mirror towards themselves a bit more.
Will France be the last nation defending every malignant dictator’s right to “national sovereignty”? If they aren’t careful…
Specifically, what percentage of French people think Israel has a right to exist? Does anyone have that number?
I doubt any europeans including the French think that Israel doesn’t have the right exist…
Cite ?
Posted by Beagle:
If the Europeans don’t provide a counterweight to U.S. power, who will? Not the Chinese, I hope.
**Adaher you forgot Algeria… not nice at all how they did it. Military victory but a total loss of morality in the process. The way the US is “torturing” some prisoners or allowing them to be taken to some “allies” is pretty disgusting.
**
In the world of international relations, morality doesn’t count for much at this point in time. Everything is strictly on the basis of self-interest. Should we try to be moral? Absolutely. Should we tie our own hands and risk losing a war when our enemies have no such restraints? Therein lies the gray area. During WWII we certainly considered ourselves the good guys and few will really dispute that. But the methods we used to fight were horrible and could certainly be considered immoral. But they were forgiveable because of the nature of the enemy. We couldn’t afford to hold anything back.
**I disagree that Bush is going after the supporters effectively… heavy handiness is creating more supporters.
**
Sure, it creates more people who WANT to commit terrorist acts or support those who do. But that does not good if they dont’ have the means. Heavy handedness has beaten terrorism in the past.
France as a counterweight? THeir time in the sun has come and gone.
A counterweight to the US is unlikely in the short term, probably not in this generation. No other nation has the attributes necessary at this time to even approach US power. There are several with potential, but are held back by their political and economic systems, or just not developed enough yet.
Don’t forget that France was had to leave Algieria. The effort and cost of being their became greater than the rewards. Percieved morality, through it’s effects on people, has realpolitik consequences.
In what war did it make sense to help the enemy recruit soldiers?
Don’t forget that France had to leave Algieria. The effort and cost of being there became greater than the rewards.
Percieved morality, through it’s effects on people, has realpolitik consequences.
In what war did it make sense to help the enemy recruit soldiers?
In what war did it make sense to help the enemy recruit soldiers?
You could make this argument about every war ever waged. Don’t you think attacking Germany and Japan made it easier for them to get people to fight?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by BrainGlutton *
First, that was a serious question deserving a serious answer. “No Europeans” is not a serious answer.
Right.
Second, a “counterweight” is France threatening the US with its nuclear weapons and opposing Isreal as it does so. Fine, I’ll take Israel, you can have France.
GAH! The first response was to Rashak Mani, the second to Brain Glutton. The quote part was left in by accident. More. Coffee.
If the Cold War is the model France is striving for, they are well on their way.
I picked the right partner. I didn’t know Israel had SLBM capability. Has Israel MIRVed yet?
Does anyone think the previous article I cited has any credibility? I know it was written by Jews. Has it been rejected out of hand for that reason? If so, that self-proves the point of the article.
Their take on anti-Semitism in France seems a lot more reasonable than the odd response that Europeans all agree on the status of Israel.
Posted by adaher:
No, France cannot provide a counterweight to American power. Not by itself. But the European Union can. After it admits several former Communist-bloc countries next year, the EU will have three times the population of the United States, and a comparable GDP. And if they decide they want to form their own “Euro-Army” independent of NATO – what can we do about it? That doesn’t mean we’ll move into a new “cold war” with the Europeans as our enemies. What I hope it means is that we’ll move into a period where the EU is generally friendly to the U.S., under most circumstances, but the EU also speaks to the U.S. with one voice and we have to listen.
Beagle have any european nations or groups ever called for the end of Israel ? My “generalized” response is correct then.
France might not love the US - Israel love affair… but to question Israels right to exist is a totally different thing.
Also this silly France as counterweight vs the US isnt going anywhere. Its obvious France by itself won’t be enough. The EU as a whole might and is serving as counterweight in some ways. Its not the beggining of a “cold war” by any means thou… they are just waiting for Bush to lose office.