War May Realign World And Define A Presidency

USA Today ^ | 03.17.03 | Susan Page

[Guillermo]

CDU politicians are winning in Germany, and they support the USA.

Point is, Iraq is way down the list of concerns of Europeans.

Running our foreign policy on how Europeans may vote in the future is absurd.

[Chances Are]

France has a stake in maintenance of the status quo, vís-a-vís the war. So does Germany, to a lesser extent. What's Italy's impetus for following France? Spain's? Portugal's?

Are you saying Europe, speaking with a single voice (first time ever in history), finds that abhorance to a war they are not participating in will trump Francophobe sensitivities (and sensibilities) that have existed from the beginning of time, if not before?

Are you saying that a few thousand people marching in the streets (and Europeans know it's always the same people marching) will end up dictating public policy and determining elections?

Although the tax issue in the aforementioned German elections is real enough, your anlysis is bogus. When first seeking election, Schroeder was losing in all polls before adopting his anti-American rhetoric. He attempted, quite loudly, to let that carry hime in Hesse and Lower Saxony, but got soundly rebuffed. And if perchance those elections were decided by the tax issue (an economic, as well as local, issue), wouldn't that tend to negate your view that socialism is marching, with people manning the ramparts, ushering in a huge socialist electoral landslide fueled exclusively by anti-war sentiment?

I don't think so. Europeans in these countries in question may be stupid, but I don't think they're idiots.

As an aside, isn't Tony Blair representing the Labor Party? And they haven't dumped him yet? Well, does that mean disaffected Laborites will join with the Tories, who we all know are antiwar as a bloc (they must be - where else can all that antiwar sentiment be coming from?!), in ousting Blair? Well, I suppose stranger things have happened, but right now, I can't see it.

Maybe you can.

CA...

[CyberAnt]

"bold and dangerous"

ROTFLOL! Biden is classic liberal. Translation: We (the cowering democrats/liberals) are not "bold" enough, and we do not have enough courage to defend this nation - and if Bush tries this "dangerous" move, he could actually change this nation's alliances throughout the world (and set the democrat party back for HUNDREDS OF YEARS)!!

[apeman81]

I have more points to address, but first I wish to strongly object to the ridiculous assertion that this is the first “pre-emptive war”. Putting aside the argument that this war is to be fought to force Saddam to disarm, as the ceasefire and subsequent resolutions ordered, what everyone seems to overlook is John F. Kennedy’s October Missile Crisis.

Unless we are to believe that JFK, on behalf of the US, was bluffing, and he would not have backed up his play with action, then his ordering of a blockade of Cuba, an act of war, was indeed the first pre-emptive confrontation. The only difference between that situation and current crisis is that Hussein is not backing down, and we must back up our threats with action.

Don’t allow this assertion go unchallenged

[Eva]

The problem with this article is that France has not been a true ally ever, except for that breif period during the American revolution and that was more a case of my enemies' enemy (France has always had an adversarial relationship with England). The world will not be truly realigned, just more openly aligned. The US will now be able to acknowledge the duplicity of their erstwhile allies.

[dirtboy]

Also... Viet Nam? Korea? Etc.

Actually, North Korea did attack our troops stationed there and almost pushed them into the sea.