One bridge too far

I notice that you reference the ”massive amount of goodwill’ toward the US after 9/11. You ask where did it go? Indeed I have heard this remark many times. It is a favourate comment of the idealists and the media types. Perhaps it went away because it was never all that massive in the first place? Perhaps it went away when it became clear that the U.S. wasn’t going to play the victim very long. In any event, rather than resign itself to living with the terrorism and treating 9/11 as as crime to be dealt with by the police, the U.S. elected to use the military. Perhaps that was the moment when the support waned because it illustrated U.S. millitary power could do what Europe can no longer do.

Regards

Sauron

Sauron,
Going on personal experience and looking at various manifestations of sympathy and outrage, I would say that there was a genuine sense of solidarity after 9/11. I cannot think for a moment that the editorial lines some papers took in Europe, that the various ways in which people felt the urge to show their sympathy in individual or collective ways was fake.
So as somebody who lives in Europe, I can assure you that there was to my eyes a genuine sense of goodwill in the “traditional European allies” towards the USA.
And this has obviously been eroded in recent years. I do not believe that it is down to the fact that the US decided to strike back. One only has to look back at events from the last decade or so to see that many European countries took part in military operations alongside the USA, whether in the Balkans or in Afghanistan, to see that it can’t be as simple as that.
Various “smaller” countries also have conducted operations of their own, to try and restore peace or strike at dangerous targets.

I think that on the part of many opponents to some aspects of US policy there is a perception that the USA has decided to go it alone. Now before you or US forum users start flaming, let me qualify this by saying I am looking for reasons in the transatlantic rift. These are not the sum total of my opinions. (one of the books I am currently reading is Tom Clancy’s non-fiction book on the Marines, out of genuine interest; I am not a US-basher).
I do believe that the attacks struck at the heart of America and that as such, it is not really our place (“our” meaning non US citizens and/or residents) to criticise, just as people living outside the UK for example have no call telling its inhabitants how to go about their lives.
The problem stems from the fact that some actions taken by the USA have a knock-on effect on the rest of the world who are not directly involved (inasmuch as we can nowadays fail to feel involved by an attack on a traditional Western ally; which I would possibly question).

And one of the stated purposes of recent military operations has been to try and combat instability on the world stage.
Well one has to acknowledge that this has not been achieved yet. Naturally I am not suggesting for a second that this is an objective which can be accomplished in a matter of months or years. The question is ‘We aren’t there yet, but are we at least going in the right direction?’.

The other topic which was broached in the last few posts concerns the question of UN involvment. My recollection from a few years ago seem to point in the direction that it was Tony Blair who urged President Bush to get UN backing before attacking Iraq, in order to keep other European countries on side.
The other point worth mentioning is that from what I read in recent weeks (which doesn’t amount to a lot I confess because of a hectic schedule) regarding the conclusion of the US Congressional inquiry into the handling of post 9/11 policy, some serious flaws were identified, were they not, about the way Intelligence was used or presented?
I do not side with rabid anti-US militant, but nor do I accept the dismissive and simplistic view that most European countries are lilly-livered cowards apart from the UK.
Things are a lot more complex and there are many arguments and facts which I think are not getting looked at hard enough.

These are the things I’d enjoy hearing more about, particularly from people who know these issues quite well and have thought hard about them.

Pro-active defense? Isn’t that offense?

In the words of the famous American Football coach Vince Lombardi.
“The best offense is a good defense.”

Funny when people say this, that we’re NOW talking multilateral. You guys seem to forget all the trouble Bush went through to GET the UN involved. Regardless weather you agree with US or not, Bush did try to get the UN involved.

Remember why the inspectors were back in Iraq? Bush went to the UN.
Remember when he went and spoke a SECOND time to the UN, to try to get the rest of it on our side?

We did NOT go to war alone on purpose–we went without UN approval because the UN wouldn’t go, NOT because we didn’t want it.

At EVERY step we had wanted all the help we could get. Certain things we were not going to “hand over tothe UN” for reasons of security. (knowing that the UN buggs out after the first bombing is one reason), ensuring that certain pivitol things actually get done, is another.

The fact is that we had wanted international help from the beginning, and we wnat it now. It was the UN that didn’t want to be in on it, and allowing the international community “in on it” at this point in the game is not as simple as letting them in.

No, Bush wanted to have the UN-involved but would attack without if necessairy. He said that from the beginning. Ofcourse he wanted the UN-involved, because he needed the peacekeepers once the war was over. I agree with you that the UN however should not be the only body representing the world community. As long as the UN represents the opinion of some larger states and not their people it can’t be seen as the one and only ‘truth’. Not going to the UN therefor was more a political mistake than an ethical one I think.

Pro-active defense? Isn’t that offense?

See, typical European elitisim… “WE europeans KNOW politicians are self-serving, you americans trust them!” hehe.

Actually, most people know not to trust them. The nice thing about bush, that makes his supporters defend him, is that he actually HAS done most of the important things he said he would, his tax cut was the number one reason conservatives voted for him, and he delivered.

After 9/11, he promised to do everything he could to follow through. Wether you agree or not, he did follow through with what he said he would.

Now, obviously, if you disagree with him, you disagree withwhat he promised, and what he did. However, I voted for him, because I wanted what he said he was going to do–namely cut taxes. Well, he cut taxes, AND he actually followed through with military force after we were attacked–siomething the last guy didn’tdo, because it might look bad.

So, the supporters of Bush do so because he ACTUALLY followed through! It is rare to have a politician actually do what they promised. In the #1 and #2 areas, he did. for that, I’ll defend him.

For his flaws–allowing government to grow, being iffy on the “assault weapons ban” , etc., I will criticize him.

For conservatives, after 8 years of Clinton’s taxes, scandals, and non-reaction to multiple terrorist attacks, tax cuts and a pro-active defense is something worth defending.

John

Looks like the gang here would all vote for Castro if they could. To bad they don’t have elections in Cuba (even for the Cubans). Do you notice how they love dictatorships? From afar that is. :rolleyes:

Regards

sauron

Sorry to drag this up from the distant past…
I love the way that if you don’t agree with someones immediate point of view then you are against it and therefore against everything else too.
I love right-wingers: they get a red rage if you don’t agree with them and they are just so easy to bait! If I type that Bush is a mentally stunted intellectual dwarf then Americans drop out of the woodwork to defend him; whereas if I said that Bliar is a smarmy, greasy, arse-licking lacky dedicated to initiating us as the Satanic 51st state then you will find a large proportion of Brits agreeing with that statement.
In Britain we have long ago learnt that a politicians word is only good for sound-bites: they will promise the world to us right up until they gain office, then its stall tactics and check with their financial backers to see if it affects big business and its associated fat cats (witness the unions withdrawing from Labour faster than the tide). In America politicians are (apparently) respected despite usually having ‘bought’ their position (by which I mean that you have to have lots of money or a big backer before you can even think about standing for office) and initiating practically clear-view jobs-for-the-boys programmes (politicians involved with companys awarded with multi million dollar deals in Iraq, anybody?).
My point is that, in Britain and probably Europe too, politicians are regarded as self-serving opportunists for us to make fun of; from an American point of view you are obviously a communist if you don’t whoop and cheer whenever the president appears on TV.
As regards Cuba – does the Cuban in the street think it is better now than before Castro took power? I’m not talking those who try to escape: people immigrate from other countries for many reasons, but here they are almost purely economic – and America is not helping itself by boosting signals so Cubans can (apparently) pick up US TV without satellite dishes and assume that life would be so much better there (and that they would be welcomed with open arms…?). If there is any local heavy-handed control of the population then is it really any worse than what happened in Nicaragua, Chile, Argentina, and other places where the generals were kept in power with active assistance from…well, you tell me.
I will believe in an evil Cuban state when I hear of piles of bodies laying by the sides of roads – apparently shot by freedom-fighters although they were originally detained by the police – or when bodies are washed ashore having been thrown – alive – from transport aircraft far out to sea, nuns are raped and priests and doctors shot for the hell of it, or when rumours of mass graves of badly tortured prisoners reach the worlds free press (not just those of the anti-Castro-ists); these incidents happened in countries smiled upon by America so, other than the fact that Cuba is obviously not America-friendly, what is there to moan about if they have happened here?

Does anything above make you think, make you ask questions? Or is it that Cuba is just a communist hellhole that doesn’t deserve to exist?

Flood.™

. And that’s why the US is thinking multilateral again. At a certain point, Rumsfeld even wanted to attack Iraq without the British. (remember that?) Luckily for the world AND America these days are over.

Funny when people say this, that we’re NOW talking multilateral. You guys seem to forget all the trouble Bush went through to GET the UN involved. Regardless weather you agree with US or not, Bush did try to get the UN involved.

Remember why the inspectors were back in Iraq? Bush went to the UN.
Remember when he went and spoke a SECOND time to the UN, to try to get the rest of it on our side?

We did NOT go to war alone on purpose–we went without UN approval because the UN wouldn’t go, NOT because we didn’t want it.

At EVERY step we had wanted all the help we could get. Certain things we were not going to “hand over tothe UN” for reasons of security. (knowing that the UN buggs out after the first bombing is one reason), ensuring that certain pivitol things actually get done, is another.

The fact is that we had wanted international help from the beginning, and we wnat it now. It was the UN that didn’t want to be in on it, and allowing the international community “in on it” at this point in the game is not as simple as letting them in.

I mean Ireland, sorry.

Northern Ireland gained independence for example, not only through terrorism, but it was a deciding factor.

Independence from whom, and when?

Northern Ireland is part of the UK.

1. Barbara Tuchman is not an opinion. She’s not some leftist professor from an unknown university in California, publishing a book on the history of Marihuana. “The Proud Tower” is a book written in the 50’s, it’s undoubtly the best historical book on the last decades before WWI. She’s from Harvard, so I don’t think what she wrote is just another ‘opinion’. Wordlwide she’s regarded as one of the top historians. The US was imperialist in the 1890’s. What’s so shocking about that? One detail: they called it expansionism.

“The US was always interested in taking any land that lay next to its current borders; that’s how the US moved west to the Pacific. Enthusiasts in the US at various times talked aboutacquiring Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central America. During the Mexican-American War c. 1846-48, some Americans discussed the idea of all of the Western Hemisphere coming under the “progressive” and “civilized” control of Anglo-Saxon Americans. But until 1898, the US’s land grabs were in sparsely settled areas, where objecting Indians and Spanish were overwhelmed. And after 1898, when the US held the Philippines, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, there was never an intent for a wave of white immigrants to go out and settle those places. The ideology of US imperialism was to acquire naval bases, not an outlet for a growing population.”

2. Taleban are coming back, because they were the ones who killed those doctors. They may not become part of the legitimate government but what does that change for the people on the ground? They were terrorists before 9/11 and they still are. The goal of the Afghanistan campaign was not a change of gov’t, it was rooting out terrorism, and so far, that has not been succesful.

3. How can you say that Sauron. Terrorism has ALWAYS been a deciding factor in war. In fact, I knew few wars which have only been fought conventionally. Northern Ireland gained independence for example, not only through terrorism, but it was a deciding factor. There are some anaylists claiming terrorism will be the war of the 21th century. Terrorism has always been the first form of war, war between national states and organised armies is quite new.

4. Those nations individually not, but the coalition as a whole is falling apart. And that’s why the US is thinking multilateral again. At a certain point, Rumsfeld even wanted to attack Iraq without the British. (remember that?) Luckily for the world AND America these days are over.

Sorry Geforce but reading opinions about US imperialism is pointless because it dosn’t add up. You can make a case for almost anything if you you ignor certain facts.

Afghanistan? Well we all know it’s a tough go but many things have changed for the better and the Taliban are not coming back regardless of the diehards. As long as the support arrives as promised life there will improve and the central government will gradually get stronger.

Terrorism has never been the deciding factor in any war. The only government brought down by terrorists was the Taliban. The Taliban would still be in power had al-Qaida not attacked New York.

The nations that have withdrawn (or may withdraw) from Iraq will not change the outcome and have little to contribute in the first place. The kind of terrorism that we are talking about kills relatively few people if you think about it.

To say the U.S. is going solo in the world is simply not true. The US cooperates with the world on countless issues and on many levels. The very fact that you mention Powell is evidence of that.

Sauron

The US never imperialistic? I suggest you read Barbara Tuchman’s book “the proud tower”. All western powers were imperialist at the end of the 19th century. You honestly don’t believe the United States went to war with Spain to liberate the Cubans did you? Some senators even wanted a war with the UK over Venezuela. (Mahan who wrote the book “the influence of sea power”). The US was not worse than Belgium for example (in many ways they (US) treated the local population more humane), but the theory behind it is the same.
And even if the US did not have a colonial empire like the British, it did expand a lot in the 19th century, not always in “humane” ways. Imperialism goes way beyond the Marxist definition though. The Portuguese and the Dutch in the 17th century were not imperialist because they didn’t want to take over whole countries/land, but they did want to controll it, thus creating military bases and trade posts. But it’s not a bad thing, again, because the American bases may have prevented a third world war. The most imperialistic era under the Romans (Pax August) also meant two centuries of peace.

The Canadian soldiers in Europe. I don’t find this a shame to be honest. Don’t mistake, it’s very nobel of Canada to send peace-keepers but making peace is the responsability of the world and not just of the neighbouring countries. Europe sends peacekeepers to Africa as well. I even think at a certain point there were soldiers from the United Arab Emirates in Kosovo.

As for Afghanistan. The country is still in deep problems. This is not the US’s fault, but it is naive to think the US could change this. Afghanistan was better for a few months when US soldiers were in the country, but now, this country is going back to the Taleban-era. Last month, 3 doctors from Doctors without frontiers were kidnapped and killed there. Again, this is not the US’s mistake. But it would be incorrect to say everything is better right now, as it is not, nor see I see any chance of improvement in the near future.

Terrorists never won a war? Explain to me please. They have other methods, but they win all the time. Every time a country pulls back its troops from Iraq terrorism has won. Terrorists have other goals than national states. In fact, their only goal is to create terror and make people afraid. Even if they lose, they win.

I can only tell what my brother tells me. He travelled a few times to the US the past year and said he was treated like a criminal.

With non-military actions I don’t mean police actions. I mean a change in international politics. This is however going on, as Powell and others understand that going solo is not a good option.

Geforce

When you make a comment like you did to me about WWI/WWII you invite a response like I made. Note that small numbers of Canadian forces are apparently still required to assist in places like the Balkans which if you think about it, is astonishing given the population of Europe and the resources available. I know some of those folks.

I am very aware of the respect paid allied dead in your country and elsewhere. The level of care devoted to the grave sites is outstanding. Do you seriously believe that the millions of North American families who had members involved in those wars, know nothing about those events and the individual stories?

You know very well that the U.S. never was and is not an Imperial power. American occupations esentually only last as long as it takes for the local populations to form a government capable of running the country. The U.S. never ruled a colonial empire. European powers (like Belgium) ruled their colonial empires for centuries in some cases. Quite a difference. The same cycle is currenty playing out in Afghanistan and Iraq . Both will take time and both will be better off.

How you can call Afghanistan a failure is beyond me. The Taliban are now simply terrorists with out a place to call home and terrorists have has never defeated a determined nation or won a war.

The U.S. is the least Xenophobic place on earth. Canada exhibits more xenophobia than the U.S. I am sorry to say.

The non-military actions go one every day via international actions by the various police forces, the national inteligence agencies and the courts.

The only people who have trouble travelling to the U.S. are those without proper documentation. Millions do each year (half the people in our town go each year). Occasionally an idiot or a member of the press who wants a story to print has an issue. The U.S. has a perfect right to expect vistors to have proper documentation. There is no paranoia at U.S. airports.

U.S. sanctions do not keep Castro in power. His thugs do as Mixtec as said.

You are quite correct that issues are often grey but radical Islam hates unbelievers. The only variable is the number of ways they express that simple fact.

Sauron

Nobody is asking Mr. Bush to become new best friends with Castro. In fact, the only reason why Mr. Castro is in power is thanks to US sanctions. Otherwise, the Cuban people would rapidly understand Mr. Castro is betraying them, but now he has a reason to remain dictator. There’s no need for political ties between the US and this Cuban regime. But economic sanctions and now social, this hurts the people the most and gives Castro more credits to remain the evil dictator.

Castro is an opportunist thug indeed. But the issue here Brad was does that give one the right to prevent people from seeing their relatives?

Yes he is an opportunist, however I want to make clear that there was nothing wrong with the revolution that put him into power. The problem is he has taken advantage of that oportunity by thinking that the Cuban people should be eternally grateful to him, and conjeres up every false pretense he can think of that he is still fighting a revolution when in fact he has become the oppressor. As far as the US preventing people in the US from seeing their relatives in Cuba, countrys cut off political and economic links with other hostile countrys all the time. I dont see whats so new or special about that.

I have no respect for Castro at all and I believe he is an embarrasement to all of Latin America. That is not to say that the US is the good guy or to say that all communists are bad. I respect anyone who stand by their beliefs as long as their sincere about carrying them out. But Castro mouths off about how the US is the oppressor and how he is fighting a struggle of liberation against them and then the next moment holds his hat out and begs US bussinessmen to do trade with him. In my eyes that makes him a cheap punk, and if people want to make him out to be some kind of brave voice of the people, fine. Alls I know is that I look to different places in Latin America other than Cuba to elevate social and economic development. I know what its like to be poor and I even know what its like to be oppressed and I have had to pay a high price to free myself from situations where my rights are being violated. I can tell you thugs are always thugs no matter how much you dress them up and glamourize them. And Castro my friends, is a thug.

Castro is an opportunist thug indeed. But the issue here Brad was does that give one the right to prevent people from seeing their relatives?

Geforce

Yes it’s obvious! Europe has no military option even when it is justified. It can’t take a firm stand on anything therefore it simply takes the rather delusionary view that talk will solve all it’s problems. That fact also aids French and German ambitions to control the E.U

True, I’m the first to admit this. It’s sad that Al-Quaida threatens us but we can not respond if necessairy. However, we shouldn’t become xenophobic as well.

Yes, the U.S. has the military option to use when appropriate. An while you may not like it, many European governments support U.S. actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Most had no problem geting U.S. military help in the Balkans either.

You know very well, that the U.S. is involved in non military actions against terrrorism around the world so why suggest that it is not?

Military and non-military actions go hand in hand. The war in Afghanistan may have been necessairy (speaking from a western point of view), god knows it was NOT succesfull. And what are the non-military actions? Creating paranoia on airfields so people are actually afraid to travel to the USA?

It’s also obvious why the U.S. is under attack. It’s under attack by a violent form of Islam. Spare us the analysis. As long as the U.S. has a significant military force anywhere in the M-E, that will be reason enough for it to be targeted by Islamic terrorists. It isn’t any more complicated than that.

It is more complicated. I know the simplistic answer is always more popular (be it left or right wing), but the truth is always grey.

How do you know Europeans are more interested in foreign policy than Americans? Because the media says so?

I doubt if university students are any better informed about world issues than any other group. What are Americans naive about by the way?

University students as a whole not, but Americans living in Europe do have a better perspective on life HERE. (Same goes for Europeans travelling to the US)

Your imperialist examples are a little lame. Why didn’t you include Germany, Japan, South Korea and (gasp) Iraq?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: The Philippines and Cuba were imperialist actions taken by the US at the end of the 19th century. The US was not worse than any other European country, but it was not better too. Germany, SK are different issues. It was in respond to someone bringing up the UK’s imperialist history.

What would us Canadians need to know about your wars other than we seem to be obligated to help you fight them from time to time? 😉
Sauron

In Belgium we show all respect towards the soldiers from your country who died for a good cause. In fact, in my local village there’s a statue for “the unknown canadian soldier”. But Sauron, it’s not YOU who helped us today, we have to respect the people who died back then, but this is now the world today. For the same reason, we can’t be mad at the Germans forever. Your anwer shows of little respect too, it’s not the people of Belgium who caused that ware so we can be thankfull Canadians saved us. Too simplistic again. My great-grandfather died too you know. 😡

I have no respect for Castro at all and I believe he is an embarrasement to all of Latin America. That is not to say that the US is the good guy or to say that all communists are bad. I respect anyone who stand by their beliefs as long as their sincere about carrying them out. But Castro mouths off about how the US is the oppressor and how he is fighting a struggle of liberation against them and then the next moment holds his hat out and begs US bussinessmen to do trade with him. In my eyes that makes him a cheap punk, and if people want to make him out to be some kind of brave voice of the people, fine. Alls I know is that I look to different places in Latin America other than Cuba to elevate social and economic development. I know what its like to be poor and I even know what its like to be oppressed and I have had to pay a high price to free myself from situations where my rights are being violated. I can tell you thugs are always thugs no matter how much you dress them up and glamourize them. And Castro my friends, is a thug.

Geforce

Yes it’s obvious! Europe has no military option even when it is justified. It can’t take a firm stand on anything therefore it simply takes the rather delusionary view that talk will solve all it’s problems. That fact also aids French and German ambitions to control the E.U

Yes, the U.S. has the military option to use when appropriate. An while you may not like it, many European governments support U.S. actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Most had no problem geting U.S. military help in the Balkans either.

You know very well, that the U.S. is involved in non military actions against terrrorism around the world so why suggest that it is not?

It’s also obvious why the U.S. is under attack. It’s under attack by a violent form of Islam. Spare us the analysis. As long as the U.S. has a significant military force anywhere in the M-E, that will be reason enough for it to be targeted by Islamic terrorists. It isn’t any more complicated than that.

How do you know Europeans are more interested in foreign policy than Americans? Because the media says so?

I doubt if university students are any better informed about world issues than any other group. What are Americans naive about by the way?

Your imperialist examples are a little lame. Why didn’t you include Germany, Japan, South Korea and (gasp) Iraq?

What would us Canadians need to know about your wars other than we seem to be obligated to help you fight them from time to time? 😉

Sauron

“the U.S. elected to use the military. Perhaps that was the moment when the support waned because it illustrated U.S. millitary power could do what Europe can no longer do. “

I think that’s quite obvious Sauron. Did you get this hot from the press or never heard about WWI, WWII and the cold war. But the fight against terrorism should go further than just military actions. The US should also try to analyse why people want to attack the US and change their foreign policy. I wouldn’t call that a sign of weekness, in fact, diplomacy is what maked the US big, not the military!

“

Too many people in Europe love the cheap sterotypes…and have a double standard when it comes to viewing the U.S. and its government….witness Grey Area’s comments.”

That is true. But that has nothing to do with the fact that Americans like Europe more than Europeans like America but because most US-citizens are totally NOT interrested in foreign policy. From some of my American friends in university I’ve heard this occasionally. Forgive me, but in some sence, Americans are more naive. This is not an insult, in fact, on the contrary, as I hate the cynism which is too popular in the European press. Another thing is Europe is secular. If our PM, even from a catholic party, would say something similar like “May god bless Belgium” it would be interpreted as provocative and he would have to step aside.

The “cheap stereotypes” are on both sides of the oceans. It’s not a bad thing, in fact. In Europe, we solve these problems through football! 🙂