26-01-2003 09:44									#121
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Chris 62 So have I. What offensive war is being contemplated? The current situation is a continuation of the Gulf war started by Iraq, 12 years later. It seems you have lost sigth of that, perhaps you'd like to reconsider your postion in light of that fact?

Are you seriously asking these questions? I though you were some sort of historian/author. How can you not know what constitutes an offensive war and/or what NATO is all about? Just because you think a war is justified doesn't change whether it's offensive or defensive.

	26-01-2003 10:52									#122
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki Are you seriously asking these questions? I though you were some sort of historian/author. How can you not know what constitutes an offensive war and/or what NATO is all about?

Saddam has not lived up to the terms of the cease fire. Not honouring the cease fire is ample reason to resume hostilities.

In short, there is a guy who is the dictator of a state. That guy has demonstrated (twice) that he is fully capable of starting wars. That guy has demonstrated he is more than willing to use chemical weapons on humans (enemy or not). That guy got beat up, but agreed to terms to save his regime. Since then he has not honoured those terms.

Now, the people who hauled most of the freight to defeat Saddam last time are demanding that he honour those terms. Either that, or they will finish the job. Are you shocked?

What do you think would have happened in 1920 should the Germans have reneged on the terms of the armistice of 1918?

	26-01-2003 11:06									#123
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 BTW peeved wasnt the reaction I believe... more like "cool down there big fellow"

No, I think they were angry and it was just a reflex on their part. If it didn't have a kernel of truth, I'm sure the sophisticated French would have laughed and shrugged it off.

Rummie's message got through clearly. Germany and France aren't necessarily setting the pace among EU members on this issue and he pointed out that fact. Each NATO country appears to be going its own way based on perceived interests.

quote: and mainly a reaction to his characterization of France and Germany as "problem countries"

That was an answer taken out of context. The question referred to the problems that the US was having in persuading 4 NATO countries to go along with supporting Turkey defensively. In that respect, they were "problem" countries--i.e., our problem.

	26-01-2003 11:10									#124
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Since then he has not honoured those terms.

http://asia.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asia...prj.india.iraq/

	26-01-2003 17:26									#125
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

How unbelievable convienient that such stuff always is discovered just when you need it

	26-01-2003 20:19									#126
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Is it our fault that the Indians didn't find this sooner?

	26-01-2003 21:01									#127
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara The real Axis of the Weasel is Sicily, Naples, and parts of Greece. Why?

Nobody knows? Not even the historians?

Hmmmm, I stumped 'em.

	26-01-2003 22:18									#128
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by DanS Rummie's message got through clearly. Germany and France aren't necessarily setting the pace among EU members on this issue and he pointed out that fact. Each NATO country appears to be going its own way based on perceived interests.

France and Germany are the most democratic and progressive of the Nato/EU countries when it comes to the right of citizens, politically and socially.

The socalled percieved interests of countires like Italy - a quasi-fascist state, Britain and Denmark - both monarchies - are set down by the elite. I'll give you a rundown of the political economy of Denmark if you wish - but I'll promise you this - it ain't democratic.

I also seriously doubt whether any of the countries in the East - the 'New Europe' - are true democracies, yet. In a democracy minorities are not lawfully treated in an unequal manner. Nationalism still rears its ugly head in these countires which I suppose is only natural after so many years of communist repression of such feelings.

I for one still hopes that it is in fact Germany and France who are still the driving force behind the integration of Europe, because they are the only one's with constructive ideas it seems.

	26-01-2003 22:35									#129
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki Are you seriously asking these questions? I though you were some sort of historian/author. How can you not know what constitutes an offensive war and/or what NATO is all about? Just because you think a war is justified doesn't change whether it's offensive or defensive.

I'm completly serious.

The first Gulf war NEVER ended.

If it did, where is the treaty?

The CEASE FIRE laid out VERY CLEARLY what Saddam had to do as compliance for an end to hostilities.

As of yet, he has failed to do this, so you CANNOT claim the United States is invoking a Offensive War, this simply is not true.
This is a continuation of a matter that has gone unresloved for a decade.

You may not like that. or even remember that the Gulf War never ended, but it IS the facts.

France and Germany, as well as any other disenters would do well to remember that fact, since both seem to have conviently forgotten.

	26-01-2003 22:56									#130
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I have some questions to the thread starter.

1 - What do you think, do the United States grant France and Germany the right to have an own opinion in their foreign policy?

2 - If 1 is yes, why are the US so pissed? If 1 is no, why should France and Germany at free will continue this de facto state of vassalization?

3 - In either case, even if France and Germany insist not to participate in the war the US intend to start (heck, or to continue, where's the difference), why can't the US just get over it and say ok, we'll do it without you, instead to use the usual methods of mudflinging and pressure trying to force their opinion to the 2 countries? Mind you, that even though this war may be a continuation of the first Gulf War, it's does not oblige the NATO allies to participate, since no NATO country was attacked. Participation is at free will, right?

	26-01-2003 22:59									#131
	Put an end to popups!

The socalled percieved interests of countires like Italy - a quasi-fascist state, Britain and Denmark - both monarchies - are set down by the elite. I'll give you a rundown of the political economy of Denmark if you wish - but I'll promise you this - it ain't democratic.



You've got some strange opinions, but even if true, it just proves my point.

	26-01-2003 23:01									#132
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I don´t consider the axis between Germany and France as being very strong or even eternal.
France´s position results from economical interests, as far as I got it.
Germany is a different issue. the German position results from the experiences of wwII and from the interdiction of first strike wars which is written down in our constitution.

the reason why Rumsfeld describes Germany and France as a "problem" could be the fact, that both country´s leader´s voices are nearest to the majority of people´s voices all over Europe (including England).
Germany, however, has a very weak cancellor and France a pretty unpopular president.

	26-01-2003 23:10									#133
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Well, to be fair Schröder seems to do most of that also because of other reasons than pure pacifism. It helped him certainly in the last elections.

However, of course countries can make their own decisions about that issue. To come back to the initial question: Yes, over the long run it would be wise for US, Germany and France to be allied. There are a number of reasons for this, political, economical, cultural. But all sides will continue to have own interests in such an alliance (so has every country).

	26-01-2003 23:26									#134
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by BeBro Well, to be fair Schröder seems to do most of that also because of other reasons than pure pacifism. It helped him certainly in the last elections.

yes, he started out even worse on this issue. however the german diplomacy is miles away from where it could be with a more competent cancellor.
I dare the hypothesis that if Kohl still were our cancellor, the Iraq crisis would have been solved peacefully yet.

	26-01-2003 23:37									#135
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Hm, perhaps the tone between Washington and Berlin would be more peaceful but I don´t think Germany had/has the influence to solve a crisis of this dimension. If the US decides for an attack, there´s next to nothing we can do against it.

	26-01-2003 23:50									#136
	Get a bigger avatar today!

notyoueither and Chris 62:

I'm not sure what you think you're arguing. The 1991 conflict was an offensive war on the part of everyone except Kuwait given that no other state was attacked by Iraq and that Kuwait was not a member of an explicit alliance. It is completely irrelevant if you think it was justified or not (and for the record, I think it was), it's still an offensive war. Don't confuse me with David Floyd or some others who think that offensive war is never justified - I simply never said or implied that.

Beyond that, the only formal alliance France and Germany have with the US is NATO, which is a defensive agreement - ie if one of the NATO states is attacked, it will be considered an attack against all NATO states. Since Iraq hasn't attacked a NATO country (and don't even get into the no-fly zones), there is no obligation for France, Germany, Canada, Belgium, or any other NATO states to engage Iraq in a war. While France may have sent troops in 1991, they were under no alliance obigations to do so, nor were they obligated by an alliance to even support the war. Remember, the original question posed by Chris was whether or not there is a point in maintaining an alliance with France and/or Germany given the differering aims of the countries. Since the only alliance that exists is a defensive one, I was wondering how the differering views on the current Iraq situation in any way compromise that alliance.

So, you guys can argue all you want about whether this is a continuation of the 1991 war, or more generally about whether or not Iraq should be attacked. It doesn't change the facts that:

A) All operations conducted by the US and whatever coalition existed/currently exists are offensive in nature.

B) Given A, no NATO country is under any obligation to support or participate in said conflict.

If you can't understand this, check out Ned's post as well. He seems to grasp it.

	27-01-2003 00:16									#137
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

To Kontiki

I agree with your statement.

Howver the neo-con perspective would be that the war against Iraq is a continuation of the War on Terror. Note that the US administration believes there is in fact alink between Al-Qauida and Iraq. The Nato countries invoked article five in the Nato treaty which says that any attack on one member country, in this case the US is an attack on all countires. This is even though the Al-Qauida don't represent a specific nation but is a privately run organisation.

Whether the US was a victim of aggresion is debatable, since the faomus neo-con Samuel Huntington has said that there has been a state of quasi-war between the Islamic Empire and the Anglo-American Empire since the late seventies. But for the sake of argument let's say the US was in fact a victim of aggresion.

By the same token Britain could, had they wished, have demanded invocation of said article in the war against IRA. Naturally they did not since human rights issues would put a damper on the British efforts to end the conflict where it to be an international concern.

As such I don't know whether the US is 'happy' that Nato is involved in the war on terror since being part of a treaty system binds you to certain basic issues concerning human rights - and democracy, which the NAto treaty says should be respected.

As such it would perhaps make sense to get Nato involved in the war against Iraq, because then attention would be taken away from the less than succesful war on terror towards the issue of peacekeeping and nationbuilding in Iraq. Typical spin-doctoring.

That is if there is at all any connection whatsoever between Iraq and the war on terror in the first place, but that does not really matter since the spin is that there is .

	27-01-2003 00:23									#138
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Tripledoc The Nato countries invoked article five in the Nato treaty which says that any attack on one member country, in this case the US is an attack on all countires.

That was thier choice. It wasn't as if we actually needed France and co to get the job done in Afghanistan.

	27-01-2003 00:31									#139
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc That was thier choice. It wasn't as if we actually needed France and co to get the job done in Afghanistan.

I agree - I don't think it was needed. In many ways the NATO allies have perhaps been more of a nuisance than a help. Seen from a neo-con perspective.

At the same token would the involvement of Nato in a war on Iraq not be a a source of irritaton to the US administration?

	27-01-2003 00:35									#140
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Tripledoc Seen from a neo-con perspective.

Actually you don't even need to go to the neo-con perspecvtive. You can start and end your search by looking at the gap in military capabilities between the US and most of Europe.

	27-01-2003 01:05									#141
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Actually you don't even need to go to the neo-con perspecvtive. You can start and end your search by looking at the gap in military capabilities between the US and most of Europe.

The exclusive focus on military capabilities IS the essence of the neo-con perspective.

They believe that fundamentally the basic yardstick of influence is how powerful the war-machine is.

That I don't understand because the issue is not to defeat one's enemies, which can always be done if enough effort is put into it. The problem as I percieve it is what to do with the vanquished after battle.

One also has to look at the long run perspective, in terms of global economic development.

	27-01-2003 01:18									#142
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: The real Axis of the Weasel is Sicily, Naples, and parts of Greece. Why?

A Norman, Robert Guiscard "the Weasel" conquered Sicily, Naples, and parts of Greece from the Byzantines and Arabs.

	27-01-2003 01:28									#144
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I bet that's why Robert didn't recognize the Pope as a feudal lord. If someone gave me the honorific of "the Weasel," I'd be pretty pissed off at him.

	27-01-2003 03:04									#145
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Guiscard never conquered parts of Greece, IIRC. Just Southern Italy (Apulia and Naples) and Sicily after the Pope had sent him there to kick the Byzantines out. After he had done what the Pope asked him to do, Guiscard ended his fighting days and set up the richest state in Europe (even richer than the Byzantine Empire) using Arab bureaucratic organization of Sicily.

	27-01-2003 03:21									#146
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

He did, it just wasn't as permanent as his conquests in Sicily and Naples (maybe it would be better described as a raid).

	27-01-2003 04:37									#147
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by DanS No, I think they were angry and it was just a reflex on their part. If it didn't have a kernel of truth, I'm sure the sophisticated French would have laughed and shrugged it off. Rummie's message got through clearly. Germany and France aren't necessarily setting the pace among EU members on this issue and he pointed out that fact. Each NATO country appears to be going its own way based on perceived interests.

Interesting to see your interpratation .
There wasnt "anger" I wonder where you saw that.
The reply: we are good friends and allies and we disagree with you" is what you give to an erratic little child which has been "offended" (in that case the US )

quote: That was an answer taken out of context. The question referred to the problems that the US was having in persuading 4 NATO countries to go along with supporting Turkey defensively. In that respect, they were "problem" countries--i.e., our problem.

Nope again. Rumsfield characterised France and Germany "problem countries".
in an announcement after berlin and paris made their own declarations
Again the little eratic child being offended and needing friends sydrome

Rumsflied is really cluless.
Germany and France ARE Europe
(or as close as it gets)

	27-01-2003 04:38									#148
	Increase Your PM Length

You got some nice answers about eastern Europe so I wotn bother repeating the same

	27-01-2003 05:31									#149
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Chris 62 It's not meant as a bash of them (but it is a really funny line), but the question remains, can the United States, France and Germany continue as allies when it's clear they have widely different world view and objectives?

Being an ally should not mean agreeing on everything - and outside The US, Bush's unilateralist foreign policy is viewed with alarm. We haven't seen anything like this since Britannia ruled the waves and cocked a snoot at everyone else. Sooner or later the US will realise they cannot go it alone. Iraq is being used to show this.

There is a real sense, which shows up often even on this forum, that Americans simply do not understand the world outside their borders. The European powers consider they have a superior understanding. Maybe, maybe not. They certainly have a different view of the Middle East and a lot more experience dealing with it.

quote: Should they even try?

Yes they should. I think the differences between the US and Europe are exagerated. Its really ridiculous to expect Great Powers to just toe the US line. France never has.

A British ambassador to the US recently published his memoirs. It showed that behind closed doors the US and Britain constantly quarrelled and bickered for the entire Cold War. Healthy relationships are frank.

	27-01-2003 05:45									#150
	Get a bigger avatar today!

We haven't seen anything like this since Britannia ruled the waves and cocked a snoot at everyone else.

Histrionics.

The US hasn't acted unduly unilaterally in this administration. The biggest unilateral actions were quitting the Kyoto and ABM treaties. On the other hand, the war against terrorism has been a tour de force of multilateralism and now the Iraq war will be done multilaterally with a dozen or so countries at least. Even Korea is being done multilaterally.

Of course, I agree that it's worthwhile to have a good fight amongst ourselves now and then, although doing it publically makes it look like other motives are involved. France and Germany should have played fair and not have ambushed us. The German government has been hopeless.

Last edited by DanS on 27-01-2003 at 05:51