Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (6027)	11/16/2003 12:04:55 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15987

Con't: Europeans Vindicated But Fearful About Iraq Some hope that Iraq will prove to be a learning process for -- if not a fatal blow to -- American neo-conservatives, whom many Europeans hold responsible for the war. "Iraq is proving that even for the U.S. it is not easy to go it alone," said Eberhard Sandschneider of the German Council on Foreign Relations. He added, however, that Europe does not want the lesson to be too severe. "It cannot be a sensible policy to humiliate the U.S," he said. (Hawk's note: And what lesson should France, Germany, and Russia learn from the years of active resistance to, and undermining of, enforcement of UNSC 687 and 1441. A political subversion of the UNSC that led Saddam to believe that he would never pay a physical penalty for his intransigence?) Josef Joffe, co-editor of Die Zeit, a German weekly newspaper, recently returned from a trip to Iraq that left him pessimistic about the prospects for American success. "There's a sinking feeling that if the U.S. screws up, we're all going to suffer," he said. "The idea of excessive U.S. weakness, if the U.S. goes into retreat or isolationism, is now exercising the same people who were obsessed with excessive U.S. power," Joffe said. "There are a lot of bad guys out there and the Europeans know that the Middle East is a very dangerous place from which a lot of bad stuff can emanate. The Europeans want the U.S. attack dog safely leashed, but they don't want the attack dog put down." (Hawk's Note: More of the same elitist European mentality which believes that can manipulate the US into protecting their @sses without their having to make any sacrifices themselves.. They call that "cooperation"?? "F#@&" 'em!!) Blair agreed. "The thing I fear is not American unilateralism, it is actually American isolationism, were it ever to go down that path," he said. Looking back on the deep divisions earlier this year when the United States and Britain gave up trying to win a U.N. Security Council resolution endorsing military action after France threatened to veto it, many Europeans contend both sides were to blame. Some -- including British officials who ended up supporting the war -- believe the United States should have waited for U.N. weapons inspectors to complete their work before launching its campaign. (Hawk's Note: Complete what? Saddam offered NOTHING to be inspected as was required. He offered PLENTY to be INVESTIGATED AND SEARCHED FOR, but that wasn't what the "inspections" were ever about) But many also believe that France, Germany and Russia could have adopted a less confrontational approach toward the United States and other European nations and could have worked harder to produce international consensus. "There certainly should be a lesson to learn on both sides," said Rummel. "For the Europeans among themselves it was as painful as it was for transatlantic relations. But things just escalated. No one wants that to happen again." (Hawk's Note: Bingo!! But the French, Germans, and Russians were bent upon protecting their economic interests with Saddam. The evidence is pretty clear on this). Many Europeans believe the United States should not have disbanded the Iraqi army, or should have acted faster to establish a new indigenous security force. But they have few short-term answers on how to deal with Iraqi insurgents. Many point to Afghanistan, where authority was turned over to a provisional government under President Hamid Karzai. "The situation there is imperfect in lots of ways, but at least the procedure agreed upon has forged consensus," said one diplomat. (Hawk's Note: Bingo Again!! But criticizing the US is one thing.. Actually offering assistance and funds to implement such programs, quite another, now isn't it?) European Union officials in Brussels say they are still prepared to deliver the $236 million for Iraqi reconstruction in 2004 that they pledged at a donors conference in Madrid last month. "People do recognize that whatever you thought about the war, it's in everybody's interests to live with a stable, reconstructed Iraq," said a senior EU official. "Nobody's talking about backing out." (Hawk Note: Wow!! I'm underwhelmed. We spend $20 Billion and they offer a mere fraction of that.. Gee thanks!!) Richburg reported from Paris. Correspondent Peter Finn in Berlin contributed to this report. washingtonpost.com

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (6027)	11/16/2003 4:35:09 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Hawk, previous US Presidents adopted a policy of containing Saddam, and not toppling him. This deliberate policy was to ensure stability in that region. The US policy makers knew very well that if Saddam was deposed, it would be very difficult to fill the vacuum left by his departure. But the current Bush Administration decided to throw all that away and instead rushed to oust Saddam. This decision has been a disaster and is borne by the fact that Bush has suddenly decided to cut and run from Iraq. I say so because Paul Bremmer, until 2 weeks ago was very adamant that US hold onto power till a constitution was drafted and elections were held. Now there is a sudden reversal of that strategy. Kind of shows how the Bush administration is in disarray, isn't it?