The most likely scenario is the EU working closely with China to counterweight the current US hegemony. It will be a relationship of convenience and will not involve sharing ideologies.
History is fraught with examples of changing alliances… alliances that change to balance power or promote self interests. The only constant was the use of diplomacy to do so… 
A lesson not learnt by some.
“As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan… I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned.” – Wesley Clark, page 130, Winning Modern Wars.
Sharon is giving Bush a little push push … why do I suddenly feel like disco dancing?
The EU could if it was truly united. The East has no interest in being a counter to the US, nor is Britain. Really, all that we have is France+Germany+ a few other small nations. It’s not nearly enough unless they can add Russia to that coalition somehow.
Very few want to openly oppose the US… its counterproductive for them even thou they are right. Confrontation won’t be the way people will oppose Bush and Co.
I agree, as that makes them a direct threat to Israel.
I still would love to hear the actual public opinion numbers in France. Demographics and such make that a far more interesting question than some people obviously think it is.
I’m not afraid to subject US public opinion to scrutiny. In fact, some overseas posters love to tell US citizens what we think. Everyone with the perspective gained from being thousands of miles away seems to know what is going on over here. Meanwhile, the stupid brainwashed sheep that make up the 280 million plus citizens of the United States are kept in the dark.
I guess this “counterweight” would have kept Saddam in power to fulfill the Russian, French, and Chinese oil contracts?
Second time someone insists it’s a real possibility. Is there any movement in France or Europe that says Israel should cease to exist ? (Non-muslim of course) Enlighten me.
define “exist”. Exist in it’s current form?
Does deny a jewish state count, but acknowledge a state where Arabs are Jews are equal?
Beagle of course takes the point to an obviously silly extreme, but essentially IMHO there is more of a grain of truth in this. The average educated citizen in rest of the world has more exposure to US culture, and has a better general knowledge of at least the key US political and news agenda than visa versa. This NOT saying that US citizens know nothing of what is going on elsewhere, let alone US dopers, but as a broad point it is more true than false.
I, along with many many others, do regular business with American companies and travel regularly to the US on business. Again, more common than visa versa (obviously every transaction has two parties but again my strong impression is the US side is concentrated in few entities/individuals than the rest of the worlds exposure). From what I see of US media, both print but especially TV, it does not present such a broad range of opinion, let along raw data, as European media. This impression has been confirmed by expats living in America of all nationalities that I have discussed this with.
So, yes, Beagle you are correct!
Oh, by the way on my last point, it has also been confirmed the other way around. By US expats living in Europe.
The EU won’t have three times the population of the US. Though I don’t have the figures in mind, it’s more like a population 50% larger than the US. And the GDP is already comparable to the US one.
I’ve never heard about such a movement in France, but I suppose there are some non-muslim people who would support that. They might even be organized in some obscure movement(s). I don’t remember having heard the continuing existence of Israel being discussed by anybody, but there are all sorts of people with all sorts of opinions, of course.
These “oil contract” issue is plain ridiculous. The loans to/contract with Irak were essentially never mentionned as a motive for the french stance here during the Irak crisis, even in the serious/specialized press, except for the opposite reason, some companies lobbying the government for a more compliant attitude towards the US, since it would have been the best way to safeguard their interests in Irak after the war.
And indeed, had the government been that interested in these issues, it would have logically chosen to join the coalition rather than to oppose it, since nobody doubted that the US would wage war and win it.
For Rashak Mani:
“She dealt her words like pretty blades/ As glittering they shone/ And every one unbared a nerve/ Or wantoned with a bone.” Emily Dickinson
“Faith, whin [sic] us free born Americans get through with th’ English language we’ll make it look as though it had been run over b[y] a musical comedy.” Finley Peter Dunne
“It seems as if the present age of words should naturally be followed by an age of silence, when men shall speak only through facts, and so regain their health.” Ralph Waldo Emerson
“Life and language alike are sacred. Homicide and verbicide – that is, violent treatment of a word with fatal results to its legitimate meaning, which is its life – are alike forbidden.” Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.
“The search is for the just word, the happy phrase, that will give expression to the thought, but somehow the thought itself is transfigured by the phrase when found.” Benjamin Cardozo
“Slang, n. The grunt of the human hog (Pignoramus intolerabilis) with an audible memory.” Ambrose Bierce
“Saying and Doing, have quarrel’d and parted.” Benjamin Franklin
“He can compress the most words into the smallest ideas of any man I ever met.” President Abraham Lincoln
“One of our defects as a nation is a tendency to use what have been called ‘weasel words.’ When a weasel sucks eggs the meat is sucked out of the egg. If you use a ‘weasel word’ after another there is nothing left of the other.” President Theodore Roosevelt
“It is remarkable how very debased the language has become in a short period in America.” Frederick Marryat
“Deeds are better things than words are, Actions mightier than boastings.” Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
For Daisy Cutter:
“I learn immediately from any speaker how much he has already lived, through the poverty or the splendor of his speech.” Ralph Waldo Emerson
Meanwhile, back at the OP
It’s looking more and more like Washington was advance-briefed on the air strike and may well have given its approval. So a new question for the debate is thus: if this action and any retaliation by Syria yields the insertion of US forces, was it justified? Is brinkmanship good policy for a democratic superpower?
Bashir Assad is being taught a lesson about power politics. He does not have it, and the people that do are sick of him funding terrorists. Whatever the legalities or niceties, he is a young and as yet untested leader. I think his test has begun.
It’s pretty clear that foreign fighters are flowing into Iraq from Syria and Iran. That’s one thing I’m sure the powers-that-be would like to stop. The Syrian connection to terrorism is well documented. The Syrian intransigence in peace negotiations with Israel makes their intentions pretty clear, if their actions don’t. Throw in the Baathist connection and that makes Syria the next likely target for some serious hardball international politics.
Your second may be a reasonable question to debate but I do not see how your first is.
If the US government are prepared to give even a nod to the UN Charter which bears their signature then how can US aggression against Syria, by insertion of forces, be in any way justified. Just how does Syria present a real and immediate threat to the US. Not US interests but the US.
Oh, and some hard evidence please.
If on the other hand you are asking if Israel’s action could be justified (to Israel, I presume) if it secures them the intervention of US forces then we can discuss on the basis of real politick - it being a given that the majority of Israeli actions have not been justified on any legal or moral grounds for decades.
Which is it to be?
As to whether brinksmanship is “good” policy for a democratic superpower. IMHO the clear answer is “no”, unless that power is prepared to back up their threats with action if the bluff is called , and then with that potential action having to be in accord with their international obligations, and common human decency. You need to think through the end game first, and judge that against the values you profess to stand for. For all US governments sorry history the biggest gap has been between those values and their actions.
What about Israeli intransigence in peace negotiations ? Sharon has taken every possible chance to spoil peace negotiations … keeps building settlements and fences even thou the US asked him to stop. This double standard is what gets most Arabs pissed off.
While the US backs blindly what Israel does the region will continue to be a mess.The negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are a different issue than the negotiations between Syria and Israel. With the Palestinians, there are issues that have to be compromised on that both sides consider absolutely vital. With Syria and Israel the only real issue is the Golan Heights.
Which are Syrian sovereign territory. Discuss?
Well, the Golan did belong to Syria, Israel now claims it as the spoils of war I guess.
In any case, they say they need the Golan becuase it makes a Syrian invasion pretty much impossible.
When you think about it, all the Arabs can offer Israel is promises to not invade again. Israel chose to trust Sadat and King Hussein. Israel most defintely did not trust Assad, and with Assad still supporting terrroism against Israel they aren’t likely to enter into real negotiations with them. Egypt and Jordan had ceased allowing terrorists to use their territory before entering into peace negotiations. Syria will have to do the same.
It would also help if they pulled out of occupied Lebanon. Speaking of an occupied territory few like to talk about…