Germany joins France, Belgium in blocking NATO planning to protect Turkey

New = Knew

Probably. But they´re causing more harm by trying to unite Europe AGAINST America. The Iraq conflict is too serious to play games with.

(Note; the HTML was fouled up in the original; some of the quoted stuff did not apear as such).

I hate to have to start two different streams of conversation, but I must reply to elements of your latest post.

I think Europe and the US share this vision (they are the values of the French Revolution and your constitution), but have a different view on how to spread it over the world.

If memory serves, the French Revolution quickly became subsumed by the thirst for raw, naked power. I trust you mean the original goals of the French Revolution, not what ultimately resulted from it.

Your president argues that America will impose freedom and democracy, using its unrivaled military force to impose a Pax Americana. Dictators and tyrants will be attacked "preventively"

As some of these dictators and tyrants have seen fit to start something they cannot be allowed to finish, I can't argue against this sentiment. Fortunately, Belgium has not been attacked since World War II; unfortunately, the US has.

The US can't go wrong in choosing between right and wrong (or good and evil), because they are objective, eternal entities.

Agreed here.

Most Europeans (and I) think that is not up to the president of the United States to decide what is right or wrong. That’s a call for the United Nations to make, for want of a better institution to represent humanity. The vision of an world of freedom and democracy is a task for humanity as a whole.
I appreciate that the US presently seek the backing of the UN and Nato, but this does not necessarily mean that the rest of the world is convinced that attacking Irak now is the "lesser evil". My country of 10 million people has been occupied by the Spanish, the Austrians, the French, the Dutch and the Germans (twice) during the last 500 hundred years. Many people here see war itself as "evil", something to be avoided at all cost, not as an instrument of foreign policy. This means we have great difficulty with the "War on Terror", when it means that the US get to attack whoever they think is "evil". We do not want to give the only military superpower in the world a license to kill.

Considering that most of the members of the UN do not share the goals of democracy and freedom, the UN is hardly an institution that is able to make that determination.

I'm afraid that Europe has learned the wrong lessons from its tumultuous past. It had previously chosen to turn its back on both the only democracy in the Middle East; now, it has also turned its back on the country that has come closest to reaching democracy and freedom. Both of these snubs are a godsend to countries that respect neither democracy nor freedom, who also have precipitated attacks in the Middle East, Europe, and most-recently, America. Why? If it's the money, the only items that would NOT be repaid by a new Iraqi government are for the procurement of weapons that Iraq agreed not to seek after 1990, weapons that France, Germany, et al, were bound not to offer Iraq after 1990.

Furthermore, the US have provoked great distrust in Europe by pulling out of the Kyoto treaty ("a plan that will hurt American Workers"), the International Criminal Court, the ABM-treaty and this convention on Chemical and Biological weapons. This adds to our suspicion that the mission "to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world." is second to the national interests of the US....

The Kyoto "Treaty" really is nothing more than an attempt by the "Second" and "Third Worlds", along with their sympathizers in the "First World", to strangle the economies of the First World using very questionable science to try to con everyone to jump on board. As most of Europe is part of the "First World", it puzzles me why you and they want to throw away their industrial base.

The International Court makes the dangerous assumption that a nation's laws and pre-existing war crimes treaties can never be trusted to really work, even after a successful liberation of a despotic ruler. While the Nuremburg trials were conducted by foreign judges, they used both Germanic law and rules set forth in war crimes treaties. That seemed to work rather well, at least until recently.

Why should there not be protection from what is inarguably the most-horrific weapons ever created, especially when countries that cannot be contained are obtaining these weapons?

This adds to our suspicion that the mission "to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world." is second to the national interests of the US. There is nothing wrong with realpolitik, but please don't try to market it as an epic fight against "evil". Also, there is a contradiction with the following quote.
"We are also guided by the conviction that no nation can build a safer, better world alone. Alliances and multilateral institutions can multiply the strength of freedom-loving nations. The United States is committed to lasting institutions like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the Organization of American States, and NATO as well as other long-standing alliances. Coalitions of the willing can augment these permanent institutions. In all cases, international obligations are to be taken seriously. They are not to be undertaken symbolically to rally support for an ideal without furthering its attainment."
This paragraph is probably only intended to introduce the concept "coalition of the willing", which essentially undermines the multilateral efforts. I get to hear many times that it was the US that saved Europe from fascism and communism. Well, multilateral institutions like UN, Nato and the European Union - not very popular in this forum - were conceived precisely to avoid a new world war. If the US decide to attack Irak without UN-approval, this effort will have been in vain.

So Britain and France simply should have continued to negotiate with Hitler after he invaded Poland, or should they have waited until they could bribe World War I allies Italy and the Soviet Union out of their alliances with Germany? If that were the case, you'd be speaking German right now as further negotiations would have simply delayed (and then only if your country were lucky) the use of Belgium as a quick road around the Maginot Line.

The failure of the League of Nations was due to the fact that when countries like Nazi Germany and Japan began to act up, nobody wanted to actually do anything more substantive than negotiate. In the end, the League dissolved and World War II kicked off in earnest. Your country, along with France, Germany and Russia, are repeating the same mistakes with regard to Iraq.

To round up my argument, I have great difficulty to believe that:
"In keeping with our heritage and principles, we do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage."
Therefore I think the US do not have the right to attack another country unilaterally. I do not believe in a struggle between "good" countries and "evil" countries, but I think good and evil are present simultaneously in every country, in every human. (I have tried to be good in this forum, but I can get evil if you want).

You may well be advised to ask the leaders of the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Portugal and Hungary just how unilateral this is not. As for the good/evil comment, just how long do you think you can abide either rule by a clone of Saddam Hussein or a clone of the House of Saud?

As for the justification, serial violation of the terms of a ceasefire is justification for a resumption of war. Another justification is the alliance of Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda, the latter group committing no less than 4 acts of war against the US.

Thanks, Michael. One suggestion; when you use invective, try to use German instead of English; the Mods of Doom are less likely to catch it :-)

:-)) I saw another FReeper calling the little Belgium "s*i**y" and thought I may say that word too. I´m glad I wasn´t banned for that for one hour (I was once because of swearing and profanity).

What usually works is either changing the vulgarity ever so slightly (# for h, ! for i, @ for a, etc., etc.) or simply sticking an "(expletive deleted)" in there (which is what I usually do).

Thank you for taking the time to write that. I think it is important that we "ordinary citizens" communicate in this way while our various politicians posture on the world stage.

Most of us here would agree with you that it is "not up to the President of the United States to decide what is right or wrong." And in fact that is not our system. He does not get to decide that by himself. Although the administration made some early noises that the President could decide this by himself, that was widely interpreted here as a way to get the Congress to debate and vote on the issue. It is in fact extremely unlikely that any President would launch any sort of war without Congressional approval.

I understand why Europeans might not be comfortable with this, but as a practical matter a vote by almost any group of 535 reasonably sophisticated sane people from either Europe or the U.S. is likely to arrive at roughly the same decision where we are talking about these "values" issues like right/wrong, freedom/despotism etc.

In particular, such a system acts as a brake on the possibility that one individual has "gone over the edge," no matter what position he holds. It is simply not true that George Bush can decide on his own to commit the U.S. military to war, or that he alone can decide what is right or wrong.

I realize that this cannot be entirely satisfying to Europeans, and so you offer up the UN as a better brake on human excess than the U.S. Congress.

The United Nations sounds like it ought to work in the abstract, but in the real world it turns out to reflect not the views of "humanity," but of "governments," and many of those governments are dictatorships that do not reflect your values or ours. How comfortable are you that an organization that would put Libya at the head of its Human Rights efforts reflects your values? Why should such people have veto power over anyone's actions? The UN has become a place where dictators and thugs go to be treated with respect by people who should spit on them instead.

There is also the issue that not everyone's motives are pure here. Just as you cannot believe that this is all about "freedom" and "good vs evil," we cannot believe that French opposition is not tied into the oil contracts that TotalFinaElf has in Iraq. They would happily leave a brutal dictator in place, WMD's or not, dead Americans or not, if the money keeps coming in from Iraq's oil fields. We also suspect that the sheer viciousness of the opposition, to the point of threatening the very existence of the UN and NATO, can only be caused by a desire to cover up what they have been doing in Iraq... like selling Saddam Hussein equipment and materials for WMD's. We do not know that, but it looks like we will find out.

If we do find "Made in France" labels on nuclear processing equipment in Saddam Hussein's bunkers, how "moral" will France's anti-war stand appear then?

You ask why George Bush should be allowed to decide this by himself. Why should Jacques Chirac?

Or just speak German ... btw, is it allowed to use German words or just tolerated?

It depends on the word. If it's not a vulgarity, I'd have to guess it's allowed, as long as it can be easily translated. If it's a vulgarity, as long as the translation is somewhat vague, then it's no harm, no foul.

Of course, you shouldn't ask me; I've only been around here since 2000, and posting since 2001.

Most Europeans (and I) think that is not up to the president of the United States to decide what is right or wrong. That’s a call for the United Nations to make, for want of a better institution to represent humanity.

Sorry. The UN is incompetant at even starting to do this. Libya heading the Human Rights Commission? LOL. There IS good vs. evil, and the UN will never get it right. The major purpose the UN is put to in the world today is to protect the evil-doers.

Furthermore, the US have provoked great distrust in Europe by pulling out of the Kyoto treaty ("a plan that will hurt American Workers"), the International Criminal Court, the ABM-treaty and this convention on Chemical and Biological weapons.

1. Kyoto will do nothing to change global warming even if it is caused by humans, as even scientists in favor of it have conceded, and it will ruin the whole world's economy for no reason as it is likely the "science" of global warming is totally bogus. 2. The ICC is a direct violation of the sovreignity of the US and our Constitiution and will be used by tin-horn dictators to impose sanctions on the wealthy and free countries. 3. The ABM treaty was based on M.A.D., a concept which by necessity is bi-lateral, not multi-lateral inorder to work, and became moot when the Soviet Union failed to exist, as it was a treaty with that entity, not the broken up states. 4. The Chem/Bio convention is deeply flawed and will allow idiots like Saaadum to play hide and seek games just as now, while giving those idiots access to even more powerful technology.

The UN is useless, NATO used to be worthwhile, but France/Belgium/Germany are apparently going to destroy it now. The EU::: well, give it a go, if you like, but I find it hard to believe you will be able to make it work.

Whether you choose to admit it or not, the US has not used our strength for unilateral advantage. If we had chosen to do so, we could have, and would have, conquered the world long since. That is not our way. Nor is it the point of the Liberty Doctrine to "impose" liberty and freedom on others, only to recognize that this is the way progress has been made, and that we will resist any who seek to impose the antithesis of those on any part of the world, including, at times, dictators who decide to become global menaces. I'm not going to take this further myself. You will have to read more deeply into the mindset of the Liberty Doctrine to understand the difference between our imposing freedom, and resisting tyranny.

Your years of living in socialized bliss will continue to convince you that there is no such thing as evil even as it absorbs you. For me, my president, and most of my countrymen, we know there is a time for war. If ever before in history, there can be made a "Case for War" as stated in
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/840350/posts and we will again go to battle to save you despite yourselves.

God Bless Belgium, France, Germany.

I reiterate Nick's thanks for your discourse with us on these important topics, Belgo. We do agree on much, and it is important that we hammer out the best ways to do these things. Really, though, the UN is not the best way to hammer it out any more.

Bumping your excellent posts, Nick and Phys.

Mr belgo, you're a bright guy; don't run away from these thoughtful ripostes to your assertions.

They have gone to far to back out and still have the power to control world politics. It is now do or die for them` no matter what evidence is given them. Besides if we do go in now and find French and German companies have helped Saddam in more than civilian projects it will now look like the French and German goverments were in the know and willing to help that process. If they had agreed to take care of Iraq they could have distanced themselves from those companies, not any longer. They have lost the ability to save face.

When I was stationed at Mons, we sent a sample of unidentified Stella Artois to our lab for testing. The report that came back was "the horse died". May God bless Belgium in that I can't see sending thousands of young Americans to impose freedom on the pauvre Belques. Learn German!!