Is Europe really worth America's trouble?

BartSimpson @ Mon May 09, 2005 3:45 pm

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

$1:

Pakistan has never fired a shot in anger at the US. Not once. There have been some words between the two, but the relations have always been diplomatic.

This is specious reasoning. Iraq never fired a shot in anger at the US either. Pakistan's chief nuclear scientist sold nuclear weapons to North Korea and Iran. Osama bin Laden, the architect of the 9/11 attacks may well be hdigin in Pakistan. I suspect the Pakistani government knew, and if they, they certainly ought to have.

It demonstrates that it is not human rights or weapons of mass destruction but willingness to comply with US interests that is the primary determinant for US policy.

I have no problem with that reasoning. I'll take interests over morals anyday. I do have a problem with moral arguments that try to convince that the US is some force of good. The US is a force of "good for the US" not a force of "good." To many Americans that would be a subtle distinction.

Incidentally on September 12, 2001, the headline of Le Monde was "We Are All Americans." A snippet:

$1:

"In this tragic moment, when words seem so inadequate to express the shock people feel, the first thing that comes to mind is this: We are all Americans! We are all New Yorkers, just as surely as John F. Kennedy declared himself to be a Berliner in 1962 when he visited Berlin. Indeed, just as in the gravest moments of our own history, how can we not feel profound solidarity with those people, that country, the United States, to whom we are so close and to whom we owe our freedom, and therefore our solidarity? How can we not be struck at the same time by this observation: The new century has come a long way."

Le Monde went on to comment that the US had been humbled and that it was perhaps American arrogance that had instigated the attack. The French played it up on page one and then played their real feelings on the Op-Ed page. Bill Maher commented about the Le Monde series of opinion pieces in one of his radio rebuttals to critics of his "Muslim terrorists are not cowards" opinions.

The best response to 9/11 came from Belgium and detailed how that Belgium would not exist as a nation were it not for the sacrifices of Americans and that Belgium stood ready to repay that debt of honor.

Belgium even recently remembered the veterans of Bastogne and the Battle of the Bulge with nothing less than first class treatment all while ardently disagreeing with America over Iraq. \

That's class.

Jaime_Souviens @ Mon May 09, 2005 3:47 pm

PeterFinn PeterFinn:

And now France has told China that they will side with China if a war breaks out between the US & China. And France is also poised to resume selling arms to China regardless of the EU ban on such sales since 1989.

Ah, back on topic...

I don't have anything on this myself, but it makes perfect sense.

Let's boil it down schematically :

France, oddly enough, sees itself as a world power.

Of course to truly 'fufill its destiny' it would have to have control over Europe, and that was France's only interest in the EU.

France obviously is thwarted in its ambitions by the (mere existence of) United States.

So, it makes perfect sense. France and China agree (at least) to split Eurasia.

It works in both their interests.

.

Zipperfish @ Mon May 09, 2005 3:52 pm

$1:

I actually don't think nations are judged by the company they keep. In international relations, the old rule applies, 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Saddam Hussein was against Iran at the time, as was the United States.

Well, we're agreed on that. I don't think nations should be judged, period. However, many people put forth a moral reasoning for the invasion and occupation of Iraq -- human rights and all that. Yet they see no conflict in the US allying itself with Pakistan. Go figger. I suppose the great thing about being a moralist is that you don't have to be rational.

But when Pakistan follows the same worn old path trod by Saddam and bin Laden, please do not call me anti-American when I roll my eyes.

$1:

As far as the 'spectacular failure' goes, stopping the Soviets was actually worth it. As unfortunate as it is to bring it up, stopping the chances of nuclear war is more important than exploding office buildings.

Well, I have to give you points for the sheer sang-froid of that argument.

$1:

Um.... They've had elections. They're drafting a constitution. I don't see Orwell.

That makes it even more ironic.

BartSimpson @ Mon May 09, 2005 3:55 pm

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

PeterFinn PeterFinn:

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

How do you 'loan' your navy to another country?

This, of course, was AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW...

The League of Nations had become irrelevant by 1939 and the body of 'international law' you cite was limited to only treaties between nations. Lend Lease may have violated portions of the Washington Treaty (as Republicans of the day posited) but it was legal between the two powers as they had agreed to it.

If China invaded Mongolia tomorrow what would the UN do about it to enforce 'international law'? About as much as the League of Nations did when Germany invaded Czechoslovakia.

I had a long series of posts with MasterBlaster about the nature of International Law.

I don't remember which thread. You could go and ask him where that is, but I don't think he's talking to either of us right now.

Actually, I wasn't responding to him. He'd been engaging me in flame tactics every time I ran into him and I'd rather not participate in that. I wish he'd take a clue from Zipperfish who can disagree with people in a very polite manner. I'm here for the discussion. Flame wars are for other people.

I notice MasterBlaster has changed his avatar and alias. Maybe this is a portent of things to come. I hope so as the guy does make intelligent points most of the time.

Jaime_Souviens @ Mon May 09, 2005 3:57 pm

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

No one ever confused me with a moralist before.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well, I have to give you points for the sheer sang-froid of that argument.

Then I see we understand each other.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

...That makes it even more ironic.

Touché.

.

Zipperfish @ Mon May 09, 2005 4:03 pm

$1:

I wish he'd take a clue from Zipperfish who can disagree with people in a very polite manner

Cheers mate!

Zipperfish @ Mon May 09, 2005 4:07 pm

$1:

No one ever confused me with a moralist before.

Ahh syntax, syntax, syntax. I said "many people put forth a moral reasoning for the invasion and occupation of Iraq." However, based on my discussion with you thus far, you would not fall ibnto teh category of those "many people."

BartSimpson @ Mon May 09, 2005 4:25 pm

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

$1:

I wish he'd take a clue from Zipperfish who can disagree with people in a very polite manner

Cheers mate!

We may not agree on much but the next time I'm up your way I hope we can agree on a place in North Vancouver where I can buy the beer!

[BB]

Jaime_Souviens @ Mon May 09, 2005 4:51 pm

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

$1:

No one ever confused me with a moralist before.

Actually, I was presuming for the sake of... oh, well, forget it...

Yes, rationality and morality cross paths. --- But it's a big forest.

:wink:

BartSimpson @ Mon May 09, 2005 6:00 pm

Even rationality and morality often take a back seat to expediency.

Constantinople @ Mon May 09, 2005 7:25 pm

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

$1:

I wish he'd take a clue from Zipperfish who can disagree with people in a very polite manner

Cheers mate!

That's why I nominated him for Most Zen- he's cool, calm, and collected.

Previous 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13

Board index » Politics » International Politics