Yeah, and you’d better not assume that the U.S. is going to continue basing over 100,000 troops and their families in Western Europe. I wonder what it will do to the already bad employment rate in Germany if the U.S. removes the equivalent of a medium-sized city?
I’ll bet Poland or the Czech Republic would like to have them, though.
I’m sure they’ll cope.
Will you take your missile defense program out of Yorkshire as well? If we ask nicely? If we ask nastily? C’mon, tell us what we’ve got to do…
For the record, I think Rumsfeld should be dismissed. Leaving a valued ally and a great leadership role model like Blair to twist like that was classless. That said though…
Let’s de-pontificate your thought a bit with some Role Reversal.
After Chirac’s trick with Bush, after the diplomatic failure of the French Government, you’re going to have to try REALLY HARD to convince the US that you’re (the EU), worth listening to.
Now with rhetoric like that, it’s hard to see how you all don’t want a cold war sooner or later.
I do agree that the EU is big, & not to be taken lightly. But even bigger, and even less to be taken lightly, is the US. We can mine our own steel, oil, uranium, etc, if need be… Can you?
Economically speaking, I think the EU would be near parity with us if they had less infighting & more unity (a real possibility in the next decade…), but our resources here in the USA will always give a decent advantage. Unless somehow you can bring Russia onboard. Than we are screwed.
I only called France’s “actions” a diplomatic failure because after all that noise, we still did our thing anyways. Oh well. Debate that point if you must, but it seems pretty obvious to me.
For the Record, I do believe that if France had been interested in a real solution to the issue, instead of getting in our way purely for attention’s sake, and had offered less “half-baked” solutions, we might have not gone to war so fast (though with a guy like Saddam, it really was inevitable anyways.)
PS…
Eluciador,
I don’t think there is anything evil about what France did, but we (as a nation), are all growed up now & take care of ourselves. So if that’s your argument, thanks for the lookout, but we’ll be just fine.
The truth is, we didn’t need the security council’s approval anyways (as is evident by our new war.) I think Bush & Co just wanted that or even just wanted to try to get it as it would add a great deal of legitimacy to our war in regards to how the important (oil bearing) Arab nations see this. They know full well that Hussien would never seek those measures to go to war with first, & that makes us better. I think they had in mind the situation when this is all over more than getting approval for a war they knew they would fight anyways w/ or w/o it. Just my .02 though…
Cheers
France’s solutions weren’t half baked. They just weren’t “War now, dammit Nathan!”
Yup.
Absolutely. Both sides have to work hard to try and make this world work. But, if the US isn’t going to do that, if your side is going to try and pull some wierd kind of bullshit about how this is all France’s fault, or how everyone must toe the line with you, then I’m just pointing out that it won’t be as easy as it used to be.
Nobody wants a new cold war. Nobody wants the US to be screwed. But all that seemed to come from the US top brass during the runup to this war was “Allies? Pah! We don’t want allies! We want yes men and serfs!” That doesn’t sit well with anyone. If the tables were turned and France was the hyperpower, would it sit well with Americans? I think not.
Because the EU is built out of groups of people who traditionally don’t get along, we have an automatic head start when it comes to figuring out how to do this diplomacy thing and play nice with others in the Global sandbox, something Bush has done disastrously. You may consider the French diplomacy thing a disaster (I consider the whole thing a fuckup from beginning to end), but France has come out of it with more people on its side. The US has more military power to threaten people and more money to bribe people, and France still got ahead. When the majority of English people support a French politician over their own, it should clue in the Prime Minister that he’s in trouble 
So, bearing this in mind, if it did come down to a “Cold War,” my money is going to be on the EU. I don’t want that, and I don’t think anyone in the EU wants it. If the US decides it wants it, however, it might be a different story. Europe is full of proud people, maybe unjustifiably so in some cases, but it doesn’t change things. The bridges may have been burned, but it wasn’t France that burned them, even if it will have to help repair them.
Guys, this is getting over the top. There’s not going to be another cold war. This is a family spat amongst friends, mostly. France is a little out of control right now, but they’ll be back in line.
It’s not just their stance against the U.S., either. You’ve been talking a lot about the arrogance of the Americans - how do you feel about Chirac telling the Eastern European countries, “You missed a good opportunity to shut your mouths”? What kind of uproar do you think there would be if Rumsfeld had said anything remotely that direct to any of his allies?
Later, Chirac threatened the Eastern European countries with refusing membership in the EU - as if Chirac was the only person who could make that decision.
Then there was France’s refusal to allow defensive equipment to be sent to Turkey, which almost caused the collapse of NATO. Would you like to defend that bit of arrogance, especially coming from a country which isn’t even a full member of NATO? (They had to make the decision in the planning council - which France isn’t allowed to sit on).
Then there’s France’s obnoxious dealings within the EU. For instance, violating the EU deficit rules (Germany as well), while those two countries enforce the rules on the ‘lesser’ members.
My opinion is that France is becoming too arrogant, and trying to force its views on the world. France is acting improperly, and unilaterally. And in my opinion, France is going to suffer for it.
Sorry. Clarifying. I meant
A. Within the borders of the EU…
B. on the same scale the US can.
Say yes again, and I have a bridge to sell you, small bills only please.
As for the EU winning a a cold war with us? You do know which country we are, right? For that to happen, two things must also simultaneously happen. We must have a massive civil conflict, and you must get Russia to side up with you (Difficult to imagine with all of our Oil Co’s lining up to develop Eastern Siberia…), otherwise, no dice. If the 5% of the world that we are controls over 90% of its wealth (some say more, but I find that hard to believe…), it’s hard to imagine enough capatalistic competition to put the fear of g-d into us, exists on earth, let alone Europe.
Would we sit well with France as a superpower? I don’t know. Ask our ancestors. Europe had their turn, they blew it, & here we are today. If France couldn’t maintain an empire when their only adversary was England, I doubt it would ever be an appropriate thing for modern Americans to need to worry about. Just IMHO though…
Just so you know, most would say that’s an automatic disadvantage.
Incidentally, it was actually us, not eurpoe, who invented diversity, if that is what you are thinking. This is the country that banned neither the KKK nor the Black Panthers. I think if there is any Number One Authority on dealing with divergent internal causes, it’s US.
The Turkish Parliament voted not to participate, anyway (we wanted democracy in the middle east, right?). What bothers me are the reports of American arrogance, treating other countries with arm-twisting bullying or your-money’s-on-the-dresser cynicism. In my opinion, the US is going to suffer for it.
Not that France doesn’t deserve a great deal of criticism, especially for treating the Eastern Europeans with that level of contempt. Don’t forget bringing up the Treaty of Versailles. Apparently, by Chirac’s reasoning, our refusal to participate in the greatest diplomatic blunder in history is a real sticking point for the French.
Did you mean to type “France” then? Or were you being purposely ironic?
I think our ‘reprisals’ against France will be limited in the short term. I don’t think that they can expect any huge lucrative deals in rebuilding Iraq after countering us at every tern. That might be the extent of it for now. But this IS the beginning of a geo-political realignment, the EU is emergent as world power and France along with Germany wants to be firmly in control. They want to be a counter to the US ‘hyperpower’ and this dispute was a signal to the world that the EU under French/German domination will have a clear and independent character divorced from the post cold war relationship fostered with the US. I also think alot of the other European powers are a bit nervous about this proposition, this can be seen if you look at which European nations aligned themselves with the US in this matter, they were the secondary EU states like Spain/Italy/The Netherlands as well as that reluctant European nation Britain. Also included are the central and eastern European states, with many potential EU canidates. I think this was an attempt to demonstrate to France and Germany that they cannot take their role as the head of the EU for granted, or else they might find Europe divided with strong US ties and their plans ruined. Things are going to be very different in regard to US/European relations from now on, not necessarily BAD… just more guarded… less reliable.
Here’s an interesting article about the subject…
Does that mean you’re backing down from those breathlessly-admiring observations that the Azores meeting represented the historid beginning of a new US-led world order? If you think this is “over the top”, then I guess it must be.
Sam is obviously right about this,
Which is to say, Chirac has likely driven the Eastern European nations away from any French-German dominated EU. If world history did not already do that.
This is so ridicolous and I really should drop this hijack, but… According to the HFI you’re referencing, the ten most free countries are:
1 Sweden
2 Denmark
3 Netherlands
4 Finland
5 New Zealand
6 Austria
7 Norway
8 France
9 West Germany
10 Belgium
Out of those, only Denmark and Holland support the war. I fail to see your point. And Denmark’s current government is not left-wing, for the record.
I guess you missed the point of my other message. I’m not surprised.
I wasn’t suggesting that the Azores conference was the start of a new cold war. Merely, that it was symbolic of a stronger transatlantic alliance between the U.S., Britain, Spain, and a few other countries.
In other words, I wondered if the EU hadn’t been weakened by Chirac’s obnoxious behaviour, and whether a new Transatlantic economic alliance (think - NAFTA extended across the ocean) as an alternative to the EU.
Do you really think that reducing the number of consumers in Germany by about one tenth of one percent will have a devastating impact on the economy?
Germany gets more immigrants that that in three months.
Well now. Never thought payback could be so sweet and swift.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L21572989
Guess who’s going to veto that little UN resolution…
The US and British can take care of their new friends, the liberated Iraqi people, Chirac. Go mind your EU thingy…
So you want US taxpayers to foot the whole bill for rebuilding Iraq ?
That’s some pretty sweet vengence for the French.
The Iraqis can pay for their own rebuilding. In fact, didn’t the U.S. just table a new resolution calling for a trust fund for Iraqi oil to be set up for the Iraqi people, to help them rebuild?
The U.S also froze Saddam’s assets. I imagine those will be turned over to the Iraqi people as well.
It’s also not clear just how much ‘rebuilding’ will be necessary. So far, the oil fields in the south have been secured with little damage, no dams have been breached, and the only targets in Baghdad that have been hit have been Saddam’s palaces and institutions of the government.
If they get the leadership to surrender soon, Iraq may be pretty much completely intact. If that’s the case, the only ‘rebuilding’ that will need to be done will be of damage caused by Saddam and the first Gulf War. In which case, it’s the responsibility of the Iraqi people.
I also want the Iraqis to recognize who really liberated them and who supported their dictator down to the last hour. Rebuilding Iraq is an investment of Goodwill that the French cannot equal. With a stable Iraq there will be stabilization of the area, a realization of Muslim naysayers that we mean them no harm, a bright economic partnership and a stern warning to all US enemies who intend real harm to the US that we mean to seek them out and destroy them.
We shell out billions of dollars in aid to many nations of the world and we have never left any of the countries we defeated to fend for themselves after the devastation of war. Given the pinpoint accuracy of the bombing thus far, rebuilding Iraq wont even be that expensive. So far, the biggest destruction done to Iraq has been the handiwork of Saddam’s loyalists. Helping Iraq get back on its feet would benefit the world.
That may be, but many of the things Denmark’s Gov’t does would never happen in the US.
You all may like the idea of free healthcare and university, but in America, we call that socialism, and if it ever happened here, it would be a leftist thing. Even Denmak’s current leadership would never undermine such things, so from an American POV, it’s leftist, and that’s why I said that.