Bingo!
NCfan
Posts: 945
March 30, 2007
Houses of Straw
The EU’s delusions about the sufficiency of “soft” power are embarrassingly revealed.
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
‘It’s completely outrageous for any nation to go out and arrest the servicemen of another nation in waters that don’t belong to them.” So spoke Admiral Sir Alan West, former First Sea Lord of the Royal Navy, concerning the present Anglo-Iranian crisis over captured British soldiers. But if the attack was “outrageous,” it was apparently not quite outrageous enough for anything to have been done about it yet.
Sir Alan elaborated on British rules of engagement by stressing they are “very much de-escalatory, because we don’t want wars starting ... Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were, in effect, able to be captured and taken away.”
One might suggest, not necessarily “sinking everything in sight,” but at least shooting back at a few of the people trying to kidnap Britain’s uniformed soldiers. But the view, apparently, is that stepping back and allowing some chaps to be “captured and taken away” is to be preferred to “roaring into action and sinking everything in sight.” The latter is more or less what Nelson did at the battle of the Nile, when he nearly destroyed the Napoleonic fleet.
The attack coincides roughly with Iran’s announcement that it will end its cooperation with U.N. non-proliferation efforts. That announcement was in reaction to a unanimous vote to begin embargoing some trade with Teheran of critical nuclear-related substances. With that move, Ahmadinejad is essentially notifying the world that Iran will go ahead and get the bomb — and let no one dare try to stop them.
If a non-nuclear Iran kidnaps foreign nationals in international waters, we can imagine what a nuclear theocracy will do. The Iranian thugocracy rightly understands that NATO will not declare the seizure of a member’s personnel an affront to the entire alliance.
Nor will the European Union send its “rapid” defense forces to insist on a return of the hostages. There is simply too much global worry about the price and availability of oil, too much regional concern over stability after Iraq, and too much national anxiety over the cost in lives and treasure that a possible confrontation would bring. Confrontation can be avoided through capitulation, and no Western nation is willing to insist that Iran adhere to any norms of behavior.
Yet the problem is not so much a post-facto “What to do?” as it is a question of why such events happened in serial fashion in the first place.
The paradox now is that, just as no European nation wishes to be seen in solidarity with the United States, so too no European force wishes to venture beyond its borders without acting in concert with the American military, whether on the ground under American air cover or at seas with a U.S. carrier group.
There are reasons along more existential lines for why Iran acts so boldly. After the end of the Cold War, most Western nations — i.e., Europe and Canada — cut their military forces to such an extent that they were essentially disarmed. The new faith was that, after a horrific twentieth century, Europeans and the West in general had finally evolved beyond the need for war.
With the demise of fascism, Nazism, and Soviet Communism, and in the new luxury of peace, the West found itself a collective desire to save money that could be better spent on entitlements, to create some distance from the United States, and to enhance international talking clubs in which mellifluent Europeans might outpoint less sophisticated others. And so three post-Cold War myths arose justify these.
First, that the past carnage had been due to misunderstanding rather than the failure of military preparedness to deter evil.
Second, that the foundations of the new house of European straw would be “soft” power. Economic leverage and political hectoring would deter mixed-up or misunderstood nations or groups from using violence. Multilateral institutions — the World Court or the United Nations — might soon make aircraft carriers and tanks superfluous.
All this was predicated on dealing with logical nations — not those countries so wretched as to have nothing left to lose, or so spiteful as to be willing to lose much in order to hurt others a little, or so crazy as to welcome the “end of days.” This has proved an unwarranted assumption. And with the Middle East flush with petrodollars, non-European militaries have bought better and more plentiful weaponry than that which is possessed by the very Western nations that invented and produced those weapons.
Third, that in the 21st century there would be no serious enemies on the world stage. Any violence that would break out would probably be due instead to either American or Israeli imperial, preemptive aggression — and both nations could be ostracized or humiliated by European shunning and moral censure. The more Europeans could appear to the world as demonizing, even restraining, Washington and Tel Aviv, the more credibility abroad would accrue to their notion of multilateral diplomacy.
But even the European Union could not quite change human nature, and thus could not outlaw the entirely human business of war. There were older laws at play — laws so much more deeply rooted than the latest generation’s faddish notions of conflict resolution. Like Gandhi’s nonviolent resistance, which would work only against the liberal British, and never against a Hitler or a Stalin, so too the Europeans’ moral posturing seemed to affect only the Americans, who singularly valued the respect of such civilized moralists.
Now we are in the seventh year of a new century, and even after the wake-up call on 9/11, Westerners are still relearning each day that the world is a dangerous place. When violence comes to downtown Madrid, the well-meaning Spanish chose to pull out of Iraq — only to uncover more serial terrorist cells intent on killing more Spaniards.
To get their captured journalists freed, Italians paid Islamists bribes — and then found more Italians captured. When Germany, Britain, and France parleyed with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (the “direct talks” that we in the states yearn for) to try to get Iran to cease its plans for nuclear proliferation, he politely ignored the “EU3.” The European Union is upset that Russian agents murder troublemakers inside the E.U.’s borders, and so registers its displeasure with the Cheshire Vladimir Putin.
The latest Iranian kidnapping of British sailors came after British promises to leave Iraq, and after the British humiliation of 2004, when eight hostages were begged back. Apparently the Iranians have figured either that London would do little if they captured more British subjects or that the navy of Lord Nelson and Admiral Jellico couldn’t stop them if it wanted to.
“London,” of course, is a misnomer, since the Blair government is an accurate reflection of attitudes widely held in both Britain and Europe. These attitudes have already been voiced by the public: this is understandable payback for the arrest of Iranian agents inside Iraq; this is what happens when you ally with the United States; this is what happens when the United States ceases talking with Iran.
The rationalizations are limitless, but essential, since no one in Europe — again, understandably — wishes a confrontation that might require a cessation of lucrative trade with Iran, or an embarrassing military engagement without sufficient assets, or any overt allegiance with the United States. Pundits talk of a military option, but there really is none, since neither Britain nor Europe at large possesses a military.
What does the future hold if Europe does not rearm and make it clear that attacks on Europeans and threats to the current globalized order have repercussions?
If Europeans recoil from a few Taliban hoodlums or Iranian jihadists, new mega-powers like nuclear India and China will simply ignore European protestations as the ankle-biting of tired moralists. Indeed, they do so already.
Why put European ships or planes outside of European territorial waters when that will only guarantee a crisis in which Europeans are kidnapped and held as hostages or used as bargaining chips to force political concessions?
Europe is just one major terrorist operation away from a disgrace that will not merely discredit the EU, but will do so to such a degree as to endanger its citizenry and interests worldwide and their very safety at home. Islamists must assume that an attack on a European icon — Big Ben, the Vatican, or the Eiffel Tower — could be pulled off with relative impunity and ipso facto shatter European confidence and influence. Each day that the Iranians renege on their promises to release the hostages, and then proceed to parade their captives, earning another “unacceptable” from embarrassed British officials, a little bit more of the prestige of the United Kingdom is chipped away.
In the future, smaller nations in dangerous neighborhoods must accept that in their crises ahead, their only salvation, even after the acrimonious Democratic furor over Iraq, is help from the United States.
America alone can guarantee the safety of the noble Kurds, should Turkey or Iran choose one day to invade. America alone will be willing or able to supply Israel with necessary help and weapons to ensure its survival.
Other small nations — a Greece, for example — with long records of vehement anti-Americanism should take note that the choice facing them in their rough neighborhoods is essentially solidarity with the United States or the embrace of Jimmy Carter diplomacy or Stanley Baldwin appeasement.
Quite simply, there is now no NATO, no E.U., no U.N. that can or will do anything in anyone’s hour of need.
©2007 Victor Davis Hanson
Houses of Straw
The EU’s delusions about the sufficiency of “soft” power are embarrassingly revealed.
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
‘It’s completely outrageous for any nation to go out and arrest the servicemen of another nation in waters that don’t belong to them.” So spoke Admiral Sir Alan West, former First Sea Lord of the Royal Navy, concerning the present Anglo-Iranian crisis over captured British soldiers. But if the attack was “outrageous,” it was apparently not quite outrageous enough for anything to have been done about it yet.
Sir Alan elaborated on British rules of engagement by stressing they are “very much de-escalatory, because we don’t want wars starting ... Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were, in effect, able to be captured and taken away.”
One might suggest, not necessarily “sinking everything in sight,” but at least shooting back at a few of the people trying to kidnap Britain’s uniformed soldiers. But the view, apparently, is that stepping back and allowing some chaps to be “captured and taken away” is to be preferred to “roaring into action and sinking everything in sight.” The latter is more or less what Nelson did at the battle of the Nile, when he nearly destroyed the Napoleonic fleet.
The attack coincides roughly with Iran’s announcement that it will end its cooperation with U.N. non-proliferation efforts. That announcement was in reaction to a unanimous vote to begin embargoing some trade with Teheran of critical nuclear-related substances. With that move, Ahmadinejad is essentially notifying the world that Iran will go ahead and get the bomb — and let no one dare try to stop them.
If a non-nuclear Iran kidnaps foreign nationals in international waters, we can imagine what a nuclear theocracy will do. The Iranian thugocracy rightly understands that NATO will not declare the seizure of a member’s personnel an affront to the entire alliance.
Nor will the European Union send its “rapid” defense forces to insist on a return of the hostages. There is simply too much global worry about the price and availability of oil, too much regional concern over stability after Iraq, and too much national anxiety over the cost in lives and treasure that a possible confrontation would bring. Confrontation can be avoided through capitulation, and no Western nation is willing to insist that Iran adhere to any norms of behavior.
Yet the problem is not so much a post-facto “What to do?” as it is a question of why such events happened in serial fashion in the first place.
The paradox now is that, just as no European nation wishes to be seen in solidarity with the United States, so too no European force wishes to venture beyond its borders without acting in concert with the American military, whether on the ground under American air cover or at seas with a U.S. carrier group.
There are reasons along more existential lines for why Iran acts so boldly. After the end of the Cold War, most Western nations — i.e., Europe and Canada — cut their military forces to such an extent that they were essentially disarmed. The new faith was that, after a horrific twentieth century, Europeans and the West in general had finally evolved beyond the need for war.
With the demise of fascism, Nazism, and Soviet Communism, and in the new luxury of peace, the West found itself a collective desire to save money that could be better spent on entitlements, to create some distance from the United States, and to enhance international talking clubs in which mellifluent Europeans might outpoint less sophisticated others. And so three post-Cold War myths arose justify these.
First, that the past carnage had been due to misunderstanding rather than the failure of military preparedness to deter evil.
Second, that the foundations of the new house of European straw would be “soft” power. Economic leverage and political hectoring would deter mixed-up or misunderstood nations or groups from using violence. Multilateral institutions — the World Court or the United Nations — might soon make aircraft carriers and tanks superfluous.
All this was predicated on dealing with logical nations — not those countries so wretched as to have nothing left to lose, or so spiteful as to be willing to lose much in order to hurt others a little, or so crazy as to welcome the “end of days.” This has proved an unwarranted assumption. And with the Middle East flush with petrodollars, non-European militaries have bought better and more plentiful weaponry than that which is possessed by the very Western nations that invented and produced those weapons.
Third, that in the 21st century there would be no serious enemies on the world stage. Any violence that would break out would probably be due instead to either American or Israeli imperial, preemptive aggression — and both nations could be ostracized or humiliated by European shunning and moral censure. The more Europeans could appear to the world as demonizing, even restraining, Washington and Tel Aviv, the more credibility abroad would accrue to their notion of multilateral diplomacy.
But even the European Union could not quite change human nature, and thus could not outlaw the entirely human business of war. There were older laws at play — laws so much more deeply rooted than the latest generation’s faddish notions of conflict resolution. Like Gandhi’s nonviolent resistance, which would work only against the liberal British, and never against a Hitler or a Stalin, so too the Europeans’ moral posturing seemed to affect only the Americans, who singularly valued the respect of such civilized moralists.
Now we are in the seventh year of a new century, and even after the wake-up call on 9/11, Westerners are still relearning each day that the world is a dangerous place. When violence comes to downtown Madrid, the well-meaning Spanish chose to pull out of Iraq — only to uncover more serial terrorist cells intent on killing more Spaniards.
To get their captured journalists freed, Italians paid Islamists bribes — and then found more Italians captured. When Germany, Britain, and France parleyed with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (the “direct talks” that we in the states yearn for) to try to get Iran to cease its plans for nuclear proliferation, he politely ignored the “EU3.” The European Union is upset that Russian agents murder troublemakers inside the E.U.’s borders, and so registers its displeasure with the Cheshire Vladimir Putin.
The latest Iranian kidnapping of British sailors came after British promises to leave Iraq, and after the British humiliation of 2004, when eight hostages were begged back. Apparently the Iranians have figured either that London would do little if they captured more British subjects or that the navy of Lord Nelson and Admiral Jellico couldn’t stop them if it wanted to.
“London,” of course, is a misnomer, since the Blair government is an accurate reflection of attitudes widely held in both Britain and Europe. These attitudes have already been voiced by the public: this is understandable payback for the arrest of Iranian agents inside Iraq; this is what happens when you ally with the United States; this is what happens when the United States ceases talking with Iran.
The rationalizations are limitless, but essential, since no one in Europe — again, understandably — wishes a confrontation that might require a cessation of lucrative trade with Iran, or an embarrassing military engagement without sufficient assets, or any overt allegiance with the United States. Pundits talk of a military option, but there really is none, since neither Britain nor Europe at large possesses a military.
What does the future hold if Europe does not rearm and make it clear that attacks on Europeans and threats to the current globalized order have repercussions?
If Europeans recoil from a few Taliban hoodlums or Iranian jihadists, new mega-powers like nuclear India and China will simply ignore European protestations as the ankle-biting of tired moralists. Indeed, they do so already.
Why put European ships or planes outside of European territorial waters when that will only guarantee a crisis in which Europeans are kidnapped and held as hostages or used as bargaining chips to force political concessions?
Europe is just one major terrorist operation away from a disgrace that will not merely discredit the EU, but will do so to such a degree as to endanger its citizenry and interests worldwide and their very safety at home. Islamists must assume that an attack on a European icon — Big Ben, the Vatican, or the Eiffel Tower — could be pulled off with relative impunity and ipso facto shatter European confidence and influence. Each day that the Iranians renege on their promises to release the hostages, and then proceed to parade their captives, earning another “unacceptable” from embarrassed British officials, a little bit more of the prestige of the United Kingdom is chipped away.
In the future, smaller nations in dangerous neighborhoods must accept that in their crises ahead, their only salvation, even after the acrimonious Democratic furor over Iraq, is help from the United States.
America alone can guarantee the safety of the noble Kurds, should Turkey or Iran choose one day to invade. America alone will be willing or able to supply Israel with necessary help and weapons to ensure its survival.
Other small nations — a Greece, for example — with long records of vehement anti-Americanism should take note that the choice facing them in their rough neighborhoods is essentially solidarity with the United States or the embrace of Jimmy Carter diplomacy or Stanley Baldwin appeasement.
Quite simply, there is now no NATO, no E.U., no U.N. that can or will do anything in anyone’s hour of need.
©2007 Victor Davis Hanson
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Nice arguement. I consider your response to this article the admission of a defenseless position.
consider it what you want. this happened... a week ago? and becos britian hasn't gone in guns blazing to turn iran into a glass parking lot in that time, the entire policy of western diplomacy is a complete and utter failure?
how successful has america's aggression in iraq been?
extreme behaviors are ineffective. be it a total pacifism and unwillingess to fight, or an over-eager use of violence to resolve problems.
Your reading comprehension skills need a bit of work. The author in no way says or even supports what you're trying to convey. In fact, he suggested the British just defend their own uniformed soldiers - not engage in any type of war. And I bet you're one of those that hates O'Rielly for putting words in others mouths...
im pretty indifferent to o'reilly. he's on a par with bill mahr, clearly an ideological party man, but at least open about it. he's better than hannity, moore, or coulter... who think that anyone who sees things another way is an idiot.
but regardless, i still don't see the relevance of this article. these were servicemen. they know they are at risk. britain's reluctance to launch military action that could provoke a volatile war with a dangerous country is far from unreasonable. it took us how long to get the american civilian hostages out of iran in 79? wanting to proceed with caution and explore a peaceful resolution before launching missiles seems pretty intelligent to me.
Is bombarding Iran and ivading etc going to get the troops back home or at all? No.
Is invading Iran going to cost ridiculous amounts of money and lives fighting a war in a desolate mountainous country with no real advantage even if you "win"? yes.
Better idea...."look, you say we were in your waters... ok sorry it was not our intention. Our expensive satillite navigational equipment must have failed (whether it did or not), can we have our troops back safely? Fighting a war over this is silly, your citizens will die needlessly our citizens will die needlessly. Nothing will be accomplished. Let our people come back home and theres no harm or foul, we are sorry if we wronged you. Appologies, Love, GB"
would have worked with the chinese plane incident too.
The larger problem is the crux of the article, and that is that appeasement will not work against idealists like the Iranian government and likeminded Islamic militants. The whole reason these soldiers were kidnapped in the first place is becuase the Iranians knew the Brits wouldn't or couldn't do shit about it. "Confrontation can be avoided through capitulation, and no Western nation is willing to insist that Iran adhere to any norms of behavior."
Go back and read the part about Europe being one major terrorist operation away from disgrace that will not merely discredit the EU, but will do so to such a degree as to endanger its citizenry and interests worldwide and their very safety at home. Imagine if the Eiffel Tower were blown up, what would happen???? Nothing, cuase the French aren't gonna do shit! They hardly have a military... and the EU doesn't want to fight with anybody.
The author is saying that by not "manning up" we are saying to thugs around the world "go do what you please, cuase we sure as hell don't want to fight... just look how much we criticize the war-mongering US".
what has the opposite extreme accomplished? the us involvement in iraq hasn't exactly put a stop to this kind of behavior either. in fact, it has made iraq the most dangerous country in the world. violence met with violence.
i also think the basis of this article is flawed. they point to european actions since ww2... well it seems to me europe responded to ww2 and handled itself quite capably. when called to fight, they will fight if the cause is worth it. would that the united states treated violence as a similar last resort.
You chose to fight only after appeasment failed. You possibly could have stopped Hitler sooner if you had tried.
that does not mean diplomacy will always fail. if hitler had been willing to negotiate, we would not have had to fight ww2 and many people would not have died. but you cannot know if someone is willing to find a peaceful solution unless you are willing to try first and resort to force later. it's very hard to start bombing someone and then tell them you want to negotiate a peaceful solution. i would say impossible actually.
You are correct, but Hitler was a madman. You cannot negotiate with the likes of him. I am willing to say the pres of Iran is close to being a looney and so was Saddam. They will keep asking for more and they will do what it takes to get it, like the kidnappings. It will take force to stop, just wait and see.
then when force becomes necessary, it will be used. but it is not necessary now and it's ridiculous for this article writer to condemn the whole of western diplomacy becos they didnt start shooting people the moment iranians captured british soldiers who may very well have been in their waters.
yeah sorry, I didn't get a chance to read the entire article and yeah, I tend to agree with the sentiment, I just don't really know how to change that attitude either other than play the corporate/political ass kissing game kind of like the US does with North Korea, 9 times out of 10 these kinds of incidents are about money, I would imagine, Iran figures they can work something out monitarily with this deal, it's been working for everyone else.
I would like to see more respectable negociation that does not reward this type of action.
I see what you are saying NCFan... and I agree... if you are going to say something should be done... then, do something, right?
Well, is doesn't help when the U.S. tells Iran it is 'unacceptable' to test fire a rocket engine... and they do it... and we do nothing. And we tell them it is 'unacceptable' to continue their nuclear capabilities... and they do... and we do nothing. The terms, 'unacceptable' and 'outrageous' are meaningless as far as consequences go.
It reminds me of when I was in High School and was talking to my friend during class and my Science teacher said if I didn't shut up, he would break my arm. I said, 'Go ahead... break my arm', knowing full and well there was no way he was going to do it. Of course, I was eventually sent to the Vice Principle's office and had to pick up trash on the school grounds for a couple of days.
The point being... don't make idle threats if you are going to remain idle. People won't take you seriously.
Hail, Hail!!!
Basically the same part. Thing is, europeans as a voting population are sick of war and tend, through elections and political programs, to reduce little by little the money spent in the military. It's not a policy dictated by the powers of the EU or the european governments, it's something wanted by the inhabitants of these countries (at least that's how I see it, feel free to argue this point).
Your right, they wouldn't do much and can't do much. But you as well as the author seem to forget 2 things : terrorist attacks didn't start in 2001, we already had a few. And in case of a terrorist attack, what do you do? Terrorist represent an ideology, not a country. When algerian terrorists did an operation in the parisian metro, France didn't go and bomb Algeria, why would she have? The terrorists where algerian, they weren't fighting in the name of Algeria. I think, concerning terrorist attacks, the best a country can do is to have a serious surveillance system on suspected terrorist groups in the territory and serious economic and diplomatic ties with countries harboring terrorists.
We'll see where all this leads us to, neither you, nor him nor me know where this is going. As for criticizing "the war-mongering US", what is criticized is the unilaterality of the decisions, not the will to act.
I think people did read the whole article, at least i did, and while i found it to be well written and well presented, the crux of it was just scare-mongering and yet more American tub-thumping.
This bit i thought was particularly well observed however:
How true is this?
The scandal of Iran is not because of Iran's unique and unilateral positions, but rather that a country outside of "the west" dares to do the same as we have always done. They are supposed to obey us, dammit! Dont for a minute mistake the dabacle about Iran as having any ideological basis except as window-dressing and talking points. The reality is two states staring eachother down for their own particular selfish interests. As always. The outrage is over Iran's gall to oppose the US and company and pursue it's own interests.
*note: when I used "Iran" and "US" just now, I referred to the respective governments. Average Iranians want war probably even less than americans, since it's Iran who's gonna be devastated either way.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I doubt the author is upset at Europeans for not being "American" or that you are less willing to "agress" than we are. Instead, he simply states the fact that your foreign policy centers more on appeasement to threats and pacifism as opposed to a basic defense of your cultural and political beliefs - the bedrock of your society.
In short, the shared enemies of America and Europe, basically non-tolerant Muslims, know they can push you around with the ocasional attack with relative impunity. And they have turned the corner of American popular opinion on their way to doing the same to us.
We can all blame this on the Republican party or Bush and Co., but the situation is what it is, and it's not going to change until we get involved and help other countries find there way out of autocratic societies. Sure, Bush lied to the American public, the world and then proceeded to make a mess or Iraq. But the majority in Europe and many in America can't differentiate between being mad at Bush and the obvious mistake of pulling out of Iraq just to spite him and everyone else that supported the war.
this is the most ridiculous post i ever read. you admit and acknowledge that the american president lied to the world and made a mess of his war, then say it is still imperative that we hang in there to... what? do you truly think we can force iraqi muslims to start seeing things our way via military occupation? honestly? all we do is make ourselves a target by BECOMING the autocratic society you bemoan. do the ends thus justify any means? lying, abuse of power and discretion, torture, trampling of civil rights... whatever it takes to... what? im not even sure what goal you're advocating here. prove a point? show islam its terrorism will be met with misdirected and poorly managed aggression and policy?
those european countries, last i checked, still have their cultural and political beliefs intact. iran and al-queda have not influenced them. so how are they not being defended? becos they haven't invaded iran to force them to adhere to the same beliefs?
you are the biggest unsubstantiated shit talker i've ever seen here. it terrifies me that you are actually in a graduate education program. have our standards slipped that low? my only hope is that purple hawk is who i am thinking of.
anyway, i dont know why im bothering trying to talk sense with you. you may go back to masturbating over the latest issue of soldier of fortune magazine now.
First of all, I'm not in a graduate educational program... don't know why you think that.
We may disagree about this, but I don't think we are trying to make people in the Middle East see things our way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I understand the situation.
- We overthrew Saddam
- held elections
- formed a democratically elected governement based on election results.
- a president was democracitally elected
All we are doing now is making sure that this government "of the people" is not overthrown and replaced by anarchy. Are the majority of Iraqi's trying to overthrow the governement they just elected? The answer is NO! It's just the radical militias who have a settle to score against past political opponents or grudges against rival religous factions.
There is not an all out civil war raging in Iraq. There are thousands of people in arms fighting each other out of 25 million. They pick off a couple GIs every other day or blow up a market full of innocents - and we freak out like the world is gonna end or something. Yes, the situation is bad. But no, we are not trying to subjigate their people okay? We're not over there shooting up people, we're trying to keep the fucking peace okay? Yes, we've not been very good at it, but that is becuase we have incredibly terrible leadership. We let them have free fucking elections and something like 75% of them people went out and voted.
I doubt many people here share your opinion of me.
i was thinking of purple hawk then. that's a relief. the situation over there is bad and is not going to improve as long as we sit there. it's been... 4 years since "mission accomplished"? why can the iraqis not defend themselves yet? what the hell happened to the military and police we've been training? ill tell you what happened, they know their country is not going to stabilize. it's an arbitrary hodge podge of people who hate each other who were thrown together by europeans after ww2. so their police and military dont WANT to take over, cos they know once they do, they will be the ones dying. as long as they play incompetent, we HAVE to stay there so dubya can save face. we need to get the fuck out and let them have their anarchy. let the islamic world solve its own fucking problems. i see no reason it is our business if they want to kill each other over different koran interpretations. let the country splinter and let them decide their own boundaries. regardless of what we are TRYING to do or what you think we are doing, to the iraqi citizens, they see us as occupiers setting up a puppet government. joe iraqi might be ok with that becos it beats saddam, but dont fool yourself into thinking we're the good guys here.
anyway, news is the iranians are releasing the hostages... so explain to me the relevance of this article again? it's a damn good thing the brits didnt do what you were pushing for and start ww3 over this. who knew they could be reasoned with? iran doesn't want world domination, they want respect instead of condescension.
I didn't mention Bush or even Iraq anywhere.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Just a minor correction... that actually solidifies your point...
Germany Declared War on the U.S. on December 11, 1941 in order to sink U.S. flagged merchant ships in the Atlantic as acts of War, otherwise those acts would otherwise have been considered acts of piracy on the high seas and German Fleet Commanders held accountable for War Crimes. We didn't 'Join the Fight'... we were called in by Hitler.
Still, you have to give us some credit for helping to bring an end to the War... along with the numerous military blunders committed by Hitler. We lost an awful lot of soldiers... maybe not as many as European countries... still, their deaths count for something, right?
Hail, Hail!!!
Yeah they count for a lot my friend, especially the ones that fought before America (s government) decided to actually get involved. Dont get me wrong Cosmo I know i dont show it too often on here but i dont hate americans in general, or America. I've met a few in Europe and a lot in America:) that i like a lot, i read a lot of good stuff on here. But i also read a hell of a lot of idiotic chest pumping bullshit, and jsut plain stupidity, and most of the time i'm just tryin to hold a mirror up to that. Also i've never let myself be drawn into politics in a massive way because its boring and has very little bearing on my life, but right now i am scared of America, mostly because even tho there are a lot of cool as fuck Americans they seem to have no bearing whatsoever on Americs foreign policy. Thats scary!
America sped up greatly the conclusion af a largely already won war, but probably saved another 5-10 years (obviously guesswork) of horror and hardship in Europe.
But maybe you could shed some unbiased light for me on how come America went into the war in the middle of a massive recession and came out the richest country on the planet while Britain had rationing for many years after?
END
ps. are you still awake after that?
I'll answer that last question, first...
"...how come America went into the war in the middle of a massive recession and came out the richest country on the planet while Britain had rationing for many years after?"
Because we are WAAAAAAAAY over here. None of our manufacturing facilities or airfields (other than Hickam and Clark) were bombed. We didn't have to rebuild anything because we weren't bombed.
NOTE: For those of you who want to correct me and claim Pearl Harbor... Hawaii was not a state in 1941... look at the newsreel footage and count the stars on the flag. The Douglas facility in Santa Monica, CA. didn't get hit by the Luftwaffe like the DeHaviland, Hawker and Supermarine plants. We were able to pump out B-17s and B-24s round the clock.
Also, no U.S. city was blitzkrieged like London. Our manufacturing was firing off, full bore. And yes, we made a lot of money... enough to end our economic depression.
And yeah.. I admit it... I have seen the 'Ugly American', both here and abroad. It shames me to admit that we are both Americans. Some Americans believe just because we are a Super Power, that we can solve anything militarily. Not the case. We should use that 'inginueity' we are always bragging about to avoid conflicts. I think we have to get over the thought that if only the rest of the world was like us... they'd be as happy as we are. We can't seem to recognize that maybe some people don't want to be like us.
Hail, Hail!!!
Or that maybe America is no happier (or has more freedom) than a lot of the rest of the World.
Cool answer to my question, tho not quite as unbiased as it could have been, you failed to mention that what Americas factories were largely pumping out was weaponry/ammunition for top dollar to "allies" in trouble.
But fuck it, couple of points aside we're pretty much cool i think.
Unless you think American football is better than proper football, cos then we may have problems.
I guess we have a problem, then.
When I was in London, back in the 80s... I wanted to go to a football game at Wembley. My English friends advised me not to because apparently, it was some big rivalry game and all i might get is a standing room ticket in the end zones. They said, it gets pretty rough in there.
I did like the RAF Muesum in Hendon... when I was there, I was lucky enough to see them fly the Me-109Bf... never seen one over here, let alone an actual one in flight. I'd love to see that Lancaster fly... I bet it's pretty impressive.
Hail, Hail!!!
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
come on, you KNOW you wanted some bombing! it's so much more fun to watch on tv than some boring newscaster talking about a peaceful resolution. where's the drama in that? this is really bad news for the "journalism" industry