Replies

"The New World that we must lead"

It's exactly this kind of talk that gives a European like me the creeps. Do the US want to establish a "fourth Reich" ? Do you really believe you are on a mission from God to rid the world from "Evil" ? Please get real. If the US attack Irak without UN authorisation it creates a precedent for every country with a big gun that wants to attack/conquer/disarm its neighbour. That means we throw thousands of years of civilisation overboard and go back to the law of the jungle and living in a cave. Try to understand European criticism does not mean we hate America or have signed up with "the Axis of Evil". We just think that throwing a lot of weapons of mass destruction on Bagdad is not the best way to keep terrorists from using WMD against the US.

Some other things I fail to understand about the American priorities in the "War on Terror":

What about Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida ? I thought they were first on the hitlist ? Haven't heard about them lately.
If you are looking for a tyrant with nuclear WMD, why not first attack North-Korea ?

And finally, most Europeans get really upset when they hear George Bush mixing political speech with the language of a religious sermon. It makes him sound like Mullah Omar. Some of the worst crimes against humanity are performed in the name of God/Allah.

I do not have many illusions about the sympathy of this forum for my points of view, but I hope to have given you some insight in the mind of a "weasel".

Let the Belgo-bashing begin !

Note: in the following post, I shall use "Europe" to generally mean "France & Germany."

No, we don't want to create a "Fourth Reich." Such a thing could only rise out of Europe, with its history.

That said, I can understand why Europeans are a bit leery of us right now. You see us as essentially Europeans, but with a massive heap of bravado. But we are not. Not European, that is. We may look like Europeans, but we have a fundamentally different way of thinking, and we promote freedom for freedom's sake.

Now, what you have to understand is this: this IS about oil. For France. That's why France is standing in the way. They have huge oil contracts, and they do lots of other business with Saddam's regime, and they don't want the status quo disrupted.

For the U.S., this is about creating democracy and peace in the Middle East once and for all. We couldn't care less about Saddam's oil; we've got plenty of other sources for oil. This is also, frankly, about Israel, and our desire to bring peace to they that have suffered so greatly for so long. Europeans are not especially fond of Israel, so we understand why they are so recitent about this.

I certainly have hesitation about invading a sovereign country preemptively. However, I do not share the Europeans' fundamental distaste for bringing liberty to the Iraqi people, and other people in the region. They've suffered murder, torture and worse long enough at the hands of despots.

"Some of the worst crimes against humanity are performed in the name of God/Allah.

Not by America. Religon itself is just a belief system, and is neither good nor bad by definition. It's the interpretation of a religon and the way it is actually practiced that matters. Bush adds a few references to God in his speechs, but that is a long-standing, well-established American tradition. I'm surpised that you know so little about our country and yet are willing to criticize us so strongly. Right on our coin currency, on every single coin, are the words "In God We Trust." One of the most popular songs sung by Americans for the past 50 years is "God Bless America". We've been singing it at sporting events, in Church, and at home for many years now. This is a Christian nation founded on faith in God and the President shares this faith. To say that he sounds like a brutal, cowardly killer like Mullah Omar is insulting to the President and to our country.

Just for the record, I believe the biggest reason why France & Germany are so opposed to the use of force in Iraq is because they have a massive involvement in illegal weapons programs in Iraq. There's going to be a major scandal when we go into Iraq and uncover all the weapons programs. We will find that France & Germany have been undermining the security of their NATO allies and the entire civilized world for 12 years. Chirac and Schroeder will fall into political disgrace and oblivion (unless, of course, their countries are now so depraved that nobody in France & Germany cares about their "allies".)

We just think that throwing a lot of weapons of mass destruction on Bagdad is not the best way to keep terrorists from using WMD against the US.
Some other things I fail to understand about the American priorities in the "War on Terror":

What about Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida ? I thought they were first on the hitlist ? Haven't heard about them lately. If you are looking for a tyrant with nuclear WMD, why not first attack North-Korea ?

To answer some of your questions: First North-Korea is contained,once again they are trying to blackmail us for more money(Thanks to Clinton). They should be China's problem,they are the ones who support them. We will deal with them if they try to harm their neighbors as we have promised in treaties (that is what friends do).

Second we have not stopped dealing with Al-quaida, this is what Iraq is about. It might not be outrightly stated but is Iraq providing al-quida with WMD (anthrax, ricin, training etc.),that is the reason for us going into Iraq. Iraq is not contained and is using the shadowy world of terrorism to wage war. We explained before that we would go after anybody supporting the terrorist that included goverments. If we loose former friends over this that we have protected in the past that is up to them.

It's exactly this kind of talk that gives a European like me the creeps. Do the US want to establish a "fourth Reich"

The comparison of the United States to a "Fourth Reich" is indeed one of the lowest, meanest canards hurled at this country, especially coming from a European. The Third Reich cost the world well over 60 million lives. It was the United States that saved the world from this menace, which originated in Europe. America rebuilt Europe through the Marshall Plan. For almost six decades, it has been the American security umbrella that has permitted Europe to thrive in a safe, secure environment and resulted in the fall of Communism (another European gift to the world along with Nazism and Facism).

How dare you sir link the Nazis with America. We may have some faults, but on balance, America is a force for good in this world. We are not an imperial power but a liberator. Ask the people of Afganistan if they want to go back to the Taliban. The vast majority of people in Iraq will welcome the American and UK liberators. Ask your fellow Europeans in Poland, Romania, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, etc. about the American contributions to their liberation.

And why, exactly, do you want Iraq to have weapons of mass destruction? Is it...

You really think that the more countries, especially countries that do not value human life at all, that have WMDs, the safer the world is?
You really believe that Saddam Hussein, despite having been in a constant state of war of his own design since assuming power in a coup, and despite breaking virtually every international agreement he has ever made, is really a peaceable person who can be trusterd?
Iraq represents the best chance yet of removing the "stain" of Israel from the world map

I'm waiting.

Belgo, just one question:

How many classified intelligence briefings have you attended?

I ask this because what Secretary Powell revealed last Wednesday was not ALL the evidence we have against Saddam -- it is indeed only the tip of the iceburg. More information was not provided because intelligence sources -- including the lives or brave individuals and their families - must be protected.

I don't trust our government absolutely and unquestionably, but I do trust them to have a phenomenally effective intelligence capability, and I sure as hell trust President Bush and his administration a whole lot more than I would ever trust a murderous lying thug like Saddam.

Apparently I now also have little reason left to trust YOUR government, as it does not honor its treaty commitments, and slanders my own.

In 1991, when the US-led troops were marching toward Baghdad faster than a BWM in an autobahn, Saddam Hussein accepted the cease-fire agreement proposed by the US. For 12 years, Hussein has broken every term of the agreement, and war has never stopped in Iraq, since US and British planes routinely receive anti-aircraft fire, and several times the US and British planes have bombed Iraq since 1991.

To continue the suffering of the Iraqi people and a never-ending war is not acceptable. Hussein will either comply with the cease-fire agreement or be deposed.

When United States have vanquished a foreign government, we have never imposed a tyrannical regime on such defeated country. As a matter of fact, the US has been extra careful in respecting local traditions while trying to democratize the former enemy. We allowed the Japanese to keep their emperor, and we did not chase most of the Nazis and collaborators out of Europe either. Actually, some low-level Nazis became prominent politicians in the new democracies, such as Kurt Wahlheim in Austria.

The best thing that can happen to any country is to be defeated by the US.

Comparing the champion of freedom to a mullah is so irrational that only a Euro-weenie can come up with such a ludicrous argument.

Do you really believe you are on a mission from God to rid the world from "Evil" ?

No, we do not believe we are on a mission from God. However, we are committed as a nation to the democratic ideals of freedom and liberty for every human being on this globe. President Kennedy, said that, "We would bear any burden, pay any price...." to achieve that objective. What makes America different from Europe is our idealism and optimism. We are not cynics when it comes to our view of man and the future.

The United States can walk and chew gum at the same time. The war against al-Qaida goes on in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the sometimes shadowy world of terrorism. North Korea is the case study on why it is dangerous to allow rogue states to acquire WMD, particularly nuclear weapons. We don't have a cookie cutter foreign policy. We must deal with the realities of the situation and weigh our options as we confront the dangers posed to our interests and those of our allies. Different problems require different solutions.

And finally, most Europeans get really upset when they hear George Bush mixing political speech with the language of a religious sermon. It makes him sound like Mullah Omar. Some of the worst crimes against humanity are performed in the name of God/Allah.

America is a place founded on religious tolerance. Many Europeans came to America to escape religious persecution. We have not launched Crusades, held inquisitions like in Spain(except maybe for the Salem witch trials), or prevented people from expressing their religious beliefs. The comparison with Mullah Omar and the Taliban is odious and way out of line. The separation of church and state is an accepted fact in America protected by our laws and constitution. There is no state religion or compulsory religious education like there is in some European countries.

If you are looking for a tyrant with nuclear WMD, why not first attack North-Korea ?

The lying conceit embedded in your question is the reason that so Americans are furious with this so-called European "diplomacy."

For twelve years we have tried to avoid using "the big gun" to rid the world of Saddam Hussein's WMD. We have tried sanctions. We have tried UN resolutions. We have tried every form of diplomacy known to mankind, and we have been trying it for twelve years.

Now, thanks to al Qa'eda, we can't just worry that Saddam Hussein will use WMD's on his neighbors or on opponents in his own country. We have to worry that these poisons and diseases will show up in our own cities, as is happening now in London, Paris, etc. with the poison ricin.

So ridding Iraq of a brutal dictator with WMD's takes on new urgency. Did we use "the big gun?" No. Once again, we go to the UN. We ask for another resolution. We try inspectors. We wait months. Nothing happens. Saddam Hussein continues to lie to the inspectors. Hans Blix himself says this.

OK, finally, yes, we say it is time to use force. We have tried everything else for twelve years.

Now comes Korea, where we are just starting down the road with new diplomacy, and you give us this flip response about "Why don't you just use the 'big gun'?" This makes us think you are not serious. You wish only to taunt while you sit on your hands and do nothing about these people. It is what you have always done about such people. It is why Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin could do what they did. You always sit on your hands and do nothing.

That is not our way. We will not die from poison gas so that you can be comfortable sitting on your hands doing nothing.

What about Osama bin Laden

He daid.

and al-Qaida?

Caught a bunch of them; looking for the ones who ran to cover. Probably turn up a few in Iraq when the dust settles.

If you are looking for a tyrant with nuclear WMD, why not first attack North-Korea?

But... but... just a minute ago you were saying to try diplomacy first. It took twelve years to conclude that there just isn't any peaceful way to get Saddam to shape up and behave himself. North Korea probably won't take twelve years (either way), but surely will take more than the twelve hours you seem to want.

I thank all of you who replied to Belgo in my absence. I didn't expect to get such a rise from anyone from the statement I felt was rather benign. I've only a little more to add to your comments.

Belgo, I stated:"The New World that we must lead"...

which you said:It's exactly this kind of talk that gives a European like me the creeps.... "

Sorry, Belgo, I really didn't mean to give you the creeps, and perhaps I should have said "that we apparently must lead because the Old Europeans are unwilling to join with us in forging it." I can not understand the appeasement attitude which too many of the Europeans have decided to live with. I can not understand how they can continue to refuse to learn from their botched history of appeasement to totalitarians and totalitarian governments. We in America will never surrender ourselves to the rule or blackmail of a foreign power, whether the UN, Iraq, or EU. How can you live with yourselves? We are extremely frustrated with your irresponsibility.

If you are scared about our motives, perhaps it would do you some good to look at President Bush's speech at West Point given in June, 2001. He outlines there very succinctly and brilliantly what has been dubbed by some "The Liberty Doctrine", and how the United States intends to use its unique (and earned) position as the world's only ultrapower (as some member of the French intelligensia put it.) Here is a link to help you:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020601-3.html

Is it really that scary that we will use our military might in this humanitarian manner. Please let me know what you think is so bad about this?

I also challenge you to look at the document titled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America" which expands on this. Again, I provide a link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

Again, what other nation in the history of the world has chosen to use their military strength in this manner rather than for conquest and control of others? We choose to live as peacefully as possible in this world, but will do so in liberty, and will help others to do the same. You can help us, or you can sit on your couch and watch. If you watch, or choose to obstruct, your value and worth to the world community will only diminish further.