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

AP | 2/10/03

[kattracks]

BERLIN (AP) -- Germany joined France and Belgium on Monday in blocking the start of NATO military planning to protect Turkey against the threat of an Iraqi missile attack.

"We are joining Belgium and France," Foreign Ministry spokesman Walter Lindner said.

The announcement came after France and Belgium blocked the move at the NATO alliance in Brussels, Belgium.

NATO officials said France formally blocked the move an hour before NATO procedures would have automatically started the military planning at 4 a.m. EST.

At a weekend defense conference in Munich, Defense Minister Peter Struck had still hinted that Germany might be willing to lift its objections.

[steve-b]

What about Osama bin Laden

He daid.

and al-Qaida?

Caught a bunch of them; looking for the ones who ran to cover. Probably turn up a few in Iraq when the dust settles.

If you are looking for a tyrant with nuclear WMD, why not first attack North-Korea?

But... but... just a minute ago you were saying to try diplomacy first. It took twelve years to conclude that there just isn't any peaceful way to get Saddam to shape up and behave himself. North Korea probably won't take twelve years (either way), but surely will take more than the twelve hours you seem to want.

[MEGoody]

"anyone figure out anything actually made in Belguim"

Chocolate - that's about it.

[MEGoody]

"Just what should we eat on Sunday mornings????"

Pancakes. LOL

[SerpentDove]

Nuke the U.N.

[AFPhys]

I thank all of you who replied to Belgo in my absence. I didn't expect to get such a rise from anyone from the statement I felt was rather benign. I've only a little more to add to your comments.

Belgo, I stated:"The New World that we must lead"...

which you said:It's exactly this kind of talk that gives a European like me the creeps.... "

Sorry, Belgo, I really didn't mean to give you the creeps, and perhaps I should have said "that we apparently must lead because the Old Europeans are unwilling to join with us in forging it." I can not understand the appeasement attitude which too many of the Europeans have decided to live with. I can not understand how they can continue to refuse to learn from their botched history of appeasement to totalitarians and totalitarian governments. We in America will never surrender ourselves to the rule or blackmail of a foreign power, whether the UN, Iraq, or EU. How can you live with yourselves? We are extremely frustrated with your irresponsibility.

If you are scared about our motives, perhaps it would do you some good to look at President Bush's speech at West Point given in June, 2001. He outlines there very succinctly and brilliantly what has been dubbed by some "The Liberty Doctrine", and how the United States intends to use its unique (and earned) position as the world's only ultrapower (as some member of the French intelligensia put it.) Here is a link to help you:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020601-3.html

Is it really that scary that we will use our military might in this humanitarian manner. Please let me know what you think is so bad about this?

I also challenge you to look at the document titled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America" which expands on this. Again, I provide a link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

Again, what other nation in the history of the world has chosen to use their military strength in this manner rather than for conquest and control of others? We choose to live as peacefully as possible in this world, but will do so in liberty, and will help others to do the same. You can help us, or you can sit on your couch and watch. If you watch, or choose to obstruct, your value and worth to the world community will only diminish further.

[SerpentDove]

Nice reply!

I might have included an admonition that Belgo take a bath and start using deodorant.

;-)

[steveegg]

Of course, you notice that since posting his/hers one-hit-wonder piece, Belgo has been nowhere to be found. Therefore, I'll have to answer my questions to Belgo myself:

And why, exactly, do you want Iraq to have weapons of mass destruction? Is it...

• You really think that the more countries, especially countries that do not value human life at all, that have WMDs, the safer the world is?

If my memory serves, the Euroweenies objected far more loudly to the Pershings than to the reason why we wanted to (and eventually did) put them there; the Soviet medium-range nukes that were targeted on them. So, that can't be the reason.

• You really believe that Saddam Hussein, despite having been in a constant state of war of his own design since assuming power in a coup, and despite breaking virtually every international agreement he has ever made, is really a peaceable person who can be trusted?

I guess this depends on the meaning of the words "peaceable" and "trusted". Iraq is "peaceable" just as Islam is; it's only after they have the whole world under their thumb that they will be "peaceable"; until then, they'll be "piece-able", taking a piece of this and a piece of that as they can. As for "trusted, I'll discuss that below.

• Iraq represents the best chance yet of removing the "stain" of Israel from the world map?

If Saddam can be trusted to do anything, it is to lob a good portion of whatever he has at Israel. Considering he has had a solid 4 years of unfettered warhead development, which followed nearly 8 years where he and his minions successfully hid key components of Iraq's research, it is madness to believe that the Scuds won't have WMD warheads on them this time.

The mistake the Euro-weenies are making (with the Balkans experience, I don't know if I can call it a mistake) is that the only things standing between them and an Islamist empire are the presence of Israel and the potential of the US.

[Belgo]

Hi AFPhys and everyone,

Sorry to have kept you waiting. I read the speech and the introduction to the doctrine you gave me, I'll keep the rest for bedtime reading.

Let's start with what we can both agree with (all quotes by George W. Bush):

"The 20th century ended with a single surviving model of human progress, based on non-negotiable demands of human dignity, the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women and private property and free speech and equal justice and religious tolerance.

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.

"America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge -- (applause) -- thereby, making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace."

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"

"We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge."

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

"Some worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the language of right and wrong. I disagree. (Applause.) Different circumstances require different methods, but not different moralities. (Applause.) Moral truth is the same in every culture, in every time, and in every place. Targeting innocent civilians for murder is always and everywhere wrong."

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.

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. 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.

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).

I have no illusions of trying to convince you all, but I hope to make clearer how some Europeans think about this. If your reply is going to be an insult to me or “my shitty little country”, please don’t bother or try to find an argument that “cuts wood” as we say in Dutch.

PS: - The Stella Artois we export to the US tastes like spot remover because we have tuned the taste to the general preferences of the American public.
- For the experts in military history among you who doubt the military prowess of our state-of-the-art (ahum) army: please remember that the great Julius Caeser wrote in his book “De Bello Gallico” (about the Gallic War): “Horum omnium Belgae fortissimi sunt” (Of all them (Gallic tribes), the Belgians are the bravest)

Thank you for your time,
may God bless Belgium

[dfwgator]

I'm sure the 1 million Turks who currently live and work in Germany are going to love this news.

[Catspaw]

I don't give a rat's patoot about your sh!tty little country.

[Michael81Dus]

Actually, we´ve 2 million Turks... :)

[Michael81Dus]

My friend,

I have heard these views so many times here and I´m tired. Yes, some may be founded and reasonable. Yes, the US shouldn´t make decisions on their own but pay more respect to the other nations and in particular to the UN.

But that position must not lead to a breach of NATO and not to opposition against the coming war. The US will respect if nations won´t participate, but one shouldn´t stop them. Iraq is playing the same game for 12 years, and now the US finally got sick and say it´s enough. They´re ready to risk the lives of thousands of soldiers for defeating a threat to the entire civilized world.

We should be glad that at least the US do what´s necessary!

Ok, the UN should say what´s right and wrong - but look at them: Schröder, Chirac & Co give a shit to the evidences. We all know that Iraq breaks the 1441, and what happens in the SC? France and Germany are going to show their super-Euro-power and destroy all ties to our long-term friend America! I don´t know why our super-Euros oppose a war! I can imagine that it has something to do with their political fate (in particular Schröders here with his Greens), but there´s no rational reason to oppose the war.

Thanks for your attention,

Michael
Düsseldorf, Germany

[headsonpikes]

'...they are the values of the French Revolution..."

BZZZZT!! Wrong answer.

For those wondering about discordance between American Revolutionary values and those of Europe, I refer you to the erudite writings of Jacob Talmon, who clearly, and comprehensively, demonstrates how the totalitarian impulse brought to bloody fruition by the acolytes of Marx, was born in the ideas of the French Revolution, and its chiefly French intellectual successors.

[Lady Heron]

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.

When these institutions aid and abet ruthless dictators they have become as useless as the League of Nations. As I said before we have not contained Iraq. They are waging a shadow war through the islamic terrorist. This country stated after 9-11 that we would take care of goverments helping terrorist. Glad to see which countries really are our friends. Besides the UN has shown exactly how much a resolution means, they have made themselves meaningless.

[Lady Heron]

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.

It is obvious that the UN can not tell right from wrong when most of the countries that deal with "human rights" are dictators or communist countries where there are no human rights. Libya has just been seated as head of that panel.

When we have been attacked we have the right to fight. If you or Europe can not see a reason for removing Sadam or helping us when we are in need you can not expect feelings from some people on this forum not to run high. It is not personal. People here are feeling betrayed by those countries we deffended all through out the cold war. We were willing to die for you for 40 years and new at any minute we might have to, when we could have isolated ourselves here in America and only defended this continent. We have been loyal to our alleys.

[Lady Heron]

when it means that the US get to attack whoever they think is "evil".

Gee, I thought that it was the French that gets to attack whomever they think is evil. I like the UN resolution they sought for their actions recently in Africa.

We have sought UN resolutions. They have not been met by Saddam. I quess more resolutions will fix the problem.

[Lady Heron]

when it means that the US get to attack whoever they think is "evil".

Gee, I thought that it was the French that gets to attack whomever they think is evil. I like the UN resolution they sought for their actions recently in Africa.

We have sought UN resolutions. They have not been met by Saddam. I quess more resolutions will fix the problem.</sarcasm off>

[SerpentDove]

>>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."


Most American's (and I) don't really give a damn what Europeans think. The U.N. is, by and large, a gang of America-hating third-rate countries.

The U.N. is nothing but a joke.

Nice day.

[Lady Heron]

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. 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.

Kyoto is noting more than the rape of America wealth and sovereigntry. I do not work so hard just to have it taken away from me just because the rest of the world wants to destroy us. Dirty little secrete we are cleaner than most countries, and our politions are shoving more and more regulations on buisness to get cleaner.

The International crimminal court Over MY Dead Body! I would trust it to do the right thing just like I trust the UN to do the right thing. NOT

ABM missle treaty, I think I would rather trust "starwars" missle defense. Look at how Iraq hides what they have, do you honestly think that the treaty has been lived up to by other countries. I have a lovely bridge to sell you.

[Lady Heron]

I don´t know why our super-Euros oppose a war!

Power. They want the EU with one voice and the ability to form and move world politics (their voice not Englands).