Forums Loading, stand by... HOME

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

Re: So, we need a topic...Lets try this?

Posted By: Phil (static-64-65-138-250.mspcovdsl.eschelon.com)
Date: 6/4/2003 at 2:45 p.m.

In Response To: Re: So, we need a topic...Lets try this? (Doom)

you neglected to mention another significant factor on the U.N.'s decision, the major countries of Europe. Unfortunately for the world, European politics can often take a form of being somewhat anti-U.S. -- which is understandable, since, after having been what they considered the center of the civilized world for about a millenium and a half, it does seem natural to be slightly resentful towards a country that in little more than two centuries has not only usurped that position, but made them look rather laughable in comparison

It's become very fashionable of late to bash our European allies for snootiness, arrogance, and just an all around sort of anti-American, second-child syndrome resentfulness. However, I feel this in an unfair characterization. Granted, calling the French overly arrogant is like claiming that America produces inferior automobiles, it goes without saying. But I can't blame them too much for their froggish behavior, after all, they're French, it's what they do. But to claim that Europe's stance on America's war is solely the result of Power-envy is a mistake. In the years since World War II left Europe a wasted landscape and America the world's premier superpower, Europe has come a long way economically. As the European Union continues to grow and expand it's borders into Eastern Europe, and as the Euro continues to gain ground while America's economy stalls and the dollar falls, the European Union stands poised to rival the U.S. economically. Similarly, as the U.S. drives a wedge between itself and Europe with stifling tariffs, treaty rejection, and foreign invasion, many European countries clamor more and more for a United European standing army, a concept the U.S. has strongly opposed. Don't sell Europe short. Europe has depended on the U.S. economy and military since the end of WWII, but if we force them to reduce their dependence on us they have the potential to evolve into a political force to be reckoned with.

As for the U.N. disapproving of the war, why wouldn't they? America never gave them a good reason to approve of the war. A reason like wanting to apprehend and try Iraqi war criminals before the ICC and prevent crimes against humanity. We claimed we wanted to remove Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Weapons of which there is little to no evidence. France, Russia and China all had their own financial stakes in Iraq to protect and were simply acting in their own interests by standing in our way. I can't fault countries for wanting to use the Security Council to further their own agendas. Certainly America has done so on numerous occasions. The U.N. works by having all countries come together to further their own conflicting agendas, and having to reach some sort of compromise to get as much of what they want as they can. But rather than try to compromise, the U.S. simply walked away from the table, gave the U.N. the finger, and did what ever we wanted to do.

Unfortunately, one of the best ways for a new leader, that, like Bush, was rather unpopular when first voted in, to make himself a fixture is a nice little war.

Exactly. And as much as I might not like the policies of the Administration, I do have to give a lot of credit to the Administration's public relations staff. They've done an amazing job of turning the image of Bush in America into that of the conquering hero, and turning the image of anyone who voices a dissenting opinion into an America-hating, troop-bashing, Saddam-supporting, torture-loving, anti-patriot, who should either tow the line or find another country to live in. And it's worked to a frightening degree (thank you Rupert Murdoch). I might not like it, but I can't deny its brilliance or its success.

One of the things I hate most about the Iraqi war is the people who are against it simply because they don't like Bush. That's not a good reason for ignoring the deaths of tens of thousands of people. I also don't like the levels of hypocrisy in the US government, nor the fact that they decided that they thought it necessary to use the pretext of the eminent threat.

I agree. Which is why I could have supported a war that alleged that Hussein had revoked his Sovereignty by committing crimes against humanity. And more importantly, I don't believe that even the Security Council could have refuted this claim or disapproved of a war based upon it.

as you said, they don't want to end up as a police force

Which is a shame. The U.S. has the capability to do tremendous good throughout the world but chooses not to in many cases because it's not in out best interests. We have the ability to stop genocide, foster democracy, create renewable energy, encourage multi-commodity economic independence, develop sustainable crops in drought stricken regions, and curtail diseases of epidemic proportions but why bother? What's in it for us?

-Phil.

Messages In This Thread

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

For your own future enjoyment, please report any major forum abusers or cgi errors so we can remedy the problem. If you have any questions email us.

The Asylum

The Asylum is maintained by Myth Admin with WebBBS 5.12.