Really? Take a look at the facts and tell me what you think:
Who were Iraq's real pals? Oh, yes: France and Russia.
Posted on 04/14/2003 6:34:14 AM PDT by MadIvan
BERLIN - The sun was shining, the linden trees were starting to show a little green and, as ever, there was an anti-war demonstration down by the Brandenburg Gate. I headed out into the crowd of 15,000 or so amidst the fluttering rainbow flags, the "No Blood for Oil" placards, the usual array of Palestinian scarves and rubber George Bush masks and even one or two posters reading "Michael Moore for President." And then it struck me. The signs were the same as they had been two weeks ago, so were the chants and the people. In downtown Berlin, at least, it was almost as if the war hadn't started at all.
I stopped a young student with a "Shame on You Mr. Bush" poster and asked him why he was there. 'To protest against American imperialism," he said earnestly. And what of the pictures of Iraqis pulling down the statue of Saddam Hussein? "Didn't you see the looting?" he replied. I tried another protester, a young woman in a red costume and with rouge on her cheeks. "I am proud to be German again," she told me. "Our history has told us that all war is wrong." War against dictators too? "They have to be removed by other means," she replied.
I wasn't going to bring up words like "appeasement," but for a brief moment I was reminded of the days when I lived in proto-Stalinist East Berlin and would cross the Wall into the West only to run into demonstrators protesting against the "illegal American occupation" of the city.
This particular form of political naïveté is not new in Berlin, but in the past, the West German political class tended to ignore such attitudes. Not any more, on the contrary, it now seems Gerhard Schroeder has become their champion.
This weekend, as American troops headed towards Tikrit, Vladimir Putin, Jacques Chirac, and Schroeder met in St. Petersburg "to discuss the future of Iraq," as if it was they who had won the war.
Neither France nor Russia had much to lose by attending the conference and calling for the United States to step back after winning the war. But Germany did.
Chirac was en forme, saying of the U.S. success in Iraq that "even in bad we can find good," and stating that "only the United Nations" will have a "political, economic, administrative and humanitarian" role to play after the war. Putin, clearly suffering from amnesia about Russia's role in Chechnya, was equally hostile, going so far as to accuse the United States of "colonialism."
The U.S. State Department was said to be "extremely annoyed" by the meeting and Colin Powell pointed out that the United States had not gone to war merely to pass all responsibility on to the UN afterwards. But Chirac's raison d'être is to define France as a great power whose role is to oppose the United States. And Russia, having lost superpower status, has to insist on an important role for the UN since the permanent seat on Security Council is one of the last remaining bastions of power in the international arena. It is also in Russia's national interest to cause rifts both in NATO and in the European Union.
For Germany, however, the St. Petersburg summit will go down in history as one of the great follies of its history. Schroeder does not seem to understand that both France and Russia are taking advantage of Germany's naive pacifism. Before the Iraq war, Germany was in an enviable position. Unlike the French and the Russians, Germans seemed to be comfortable with their reduced role in the world and did not "long for Empire." Germany was the wealthiest state in Europe with a strong position in the EU and excellent relations with the United States -- indeed a decade ago it appeared that it would be Germany, not Britain, that would be America's main ally in Europe. But the Chancellor has thrown that all away.
Schroeder first jumped into this hole by fighting for re-election on an anti-American ticket and then going on to oppose war under any circumstances, even if sponsored by the UN Security Council. The trouble is, he's still digging.
At the summit this weekend, Schroeder told the United States that the reconstruction of Iraq "must take place through the UN although obviously the details will have to be discussed with the coalition as well." Needless to say, the United States has ignored this diktat, announcing instead that the four countries which contributed fighting ground troops to the war -- namely the United States, Britain, Australia and Poland -- will play the leading role in the transitory administration of Iraq, thank you very much, Herr Schroeder.
Germans claim to have learned the lessons of history, but on the streets of Berlin today the irony that their country is turning its back on the United States in favour of the likes of France, Russia, China and Syria -- countries engaged in places such as Ivory Coast, Chechnya, Tibet and Lebanon -- indicates that they haven't learned quite as much from the past as they would like to think.
When asked in St. Petersburg about the reasons for the U.S.-German rift, Schroeder shot back: "I don't want to speak about the past." For a German politician in the process of wrecking the post-war consensus, it was the wrong answer.
But politics is, after all, the art of the possible. Whether some reform, even if inadequate, is better than none is a question I shall leave to people who know more about economics than I do. In any case I insist that Germany's infrastructure is the most solid in Europe and that this giant is being tied down by a myriad of lilliputians in terms of rules, controls, and bureaucracy. It will break free - it must, because if it dies it will take the entire economy of Europe with it.
Nonsense. The Bin Ladens of this world have just learned that if they go after America, they will be killed. And if more crop up, they will be killed. And if more crop up, they will be killed. Until the lesson is learned - raise your hand against civilisation, and you find your head promptly cut off.
This was the choice made by Bin Laden's followers - they decided to embrace death to destroy the West, now the West is forcing them to eat it. Appeasement will not work. Victory will.
Ivan
1. "this state was Americas best friend when it was under US Control and fighting against Iran during the 80ies."
Well, no, they weren't our "best friend." That said, we did provide support, money, and some armaments. Iran, during the 80s, was the bigger threat - they had just had a major religious revolution, that looked like it might spread. It was implacably anti-American, and had already (as one of its first actions, in fact) take a violent turn against the U.S. Remember, they'd captured our embassy - American soil - and held our diplomats hostage for over a year.
We considered Iraq the lesser of two evils, and were willing to deal, so that they could contain the revolution, rather than us doing so. It may not have been the best of all possible choices - but we had to choose from the choices available. As I see it, our choices were to deal with Iraq, to launch an attack against Iran ourselves, or to ignore the whole situation. Given our military's condition in the early 80s, I think we made the best choice we could. We certainly have not continued supplying Iraq with advanced and terroristic weaponry into the 90s, though.
2. "there are a lot of countries that sponsor terror groups....are you willing to "democrate" them all or just the ones that have oil and no state of the art army? "
There are, indeed, quite a few countries that sponsor terrorism. The leading ones are Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia (and the Palestinian Authority, if you wish to count them as a country.) The first three have been at the receiving end of an awful lot of threats recently. Perhaps as a result of that, North Korea is now showing a greater acceptance of multi-lateral talks, and Syria has sealed its borders against escaping Iraqis. Will we go in forcibly? I don't know. I hope not - military action always carries risks, even when we are overwhelmingly powerful. But the option is available, and we have begun applying pressure.
What about the other two on my list of leaders - Saudi Arabia and the PA? Well, I wish we'd do more there too. I certainly wish we weren't trying to reward the PA. But, like I mentioned in point 1, we sometimes have to deal with the choices available, and try to make the least bad choice. Dealing with the PA, distasteful as I find it, may yield large dividends in removing an irritant from the Middle East. If it works, it'll be worth it. If not, well, we'll deal with it as it comes. Hey, I disagree with President Bush on this one, but I also accept that he's trying his best, which is about all we can ask.
3. "but if you think that you reduced the danger of terror, youre really naive. now all the bin ladens have another great argument to bust you."
OK, after all I've already said, this is the point I wanted to deal with the most. Terrorism, taken as a military strategy, is actually a fairly intelligent response. Over the course of centuries, we have put together rules for warfare, that try to keep it from spinning out of control. Terrorism uses these rules to attack, taking advantage of those rules as a form of force multiplication. By having only indirect state sponsorship (in the forms of radical education and tolerance of broad popular support) they leave us without a direct opponent. They try to arrange to be treated in a criminal, instead of military, fashion.
Our choices, in response to this, are to either take it, or to change the rules. For the last 25 years, we've basically just been taking it. We encourage Israel not to retaliate to a string of suicide bombings. We get hit in Beirut, and retreat. We get his on the U.S.S. Cole, and do basically nothing. We occasionally hit a single camp or building, but painstakingly go after the criminals or planners, without ever touching the base of support that is necessary for these plans to work.
9/11 changed our tolerance. President Bush is now trying to change the rules of war. This is a dangerous task - make no mistake. The rules came about through several centuries of experience, we should not lightly change them. Also, as we are the great power at the moment, we stand the most to lose through a change in the status quo - indeed, we are the most likely to lose from it as well. Still, I think the President is correct. 9/11 really did change our calculation of the costs of doing nothing, and we need to change things.
So, attacking regimes that provide indirect support of terrorism is the change we're currently making. It may be that you're right - this may yet provide the impetus for more terrorists. But I hope you would concede that it may not. Terrorists rely, I think, on sympathetic regimes, whose education systems supply a steady stream of new recruits, and whose populace provides funding and cover for them. Removing such regimes may yet help our position. Again, we know the cost of doing nothing. I think the risk is worth it. Would you at least acknowledge the risk, and the potential cost?
4. "why did the world take so much time and energy to install the UNO, when bushrumsfeldcheneywolfowitz comes along and ignore it? "
Final point. Well, we, and the world, created the UN hoping to make something better. It has been becoming ever clearer that this organization has failed. I think the big mistake was giving every country the same vote, regardless of how that country was organized. Thus, both free and non-free nations have the same voice, and ostensibly the same legitimacy, in the UN. It has led to such travesties as Syria being in charge of the Human Rights commission. Certainly the UNs record of actual peace keeping has been pretty abysmal. Just witness their retreat from the safe haven of Sarajevo as soon as it came under attack. Or, perhaps, their studied ignorance of the slaughters in Rwanda.
There is a strong contingent on this board that wants no foreign entanglements. I'm not among them. I'd be quite happy with a broad international organization - I just think it needs to be organized differently than the UN.
Looking forward to your response,
Drew Garrett
I thought that's what Neville Chamberlain said?
This is no doubt a position designed to place moral distance between herself and Nazism, but look at the result: All war, even war against dictators, is wrong. That means the Allied war effort in WWII was wrong, which means Hitler would have been left in power, in possession of his spoils (i.e., Europe).
This poor stupid fool has spun herself into a logical paradox and doesn't even know it.
Abject pacifism IS an alliance with tyranny.
Bullsh!t. This gives you away as a typical ignorant European commie moron. The correct answer would be France and Russia, but you wouldn't know that because you get all your history and news from Marxists.
Again, where is YOUR outrage at France, Russia, China and Syria for being in Ivory Coast, Chechnya, Tibet, and Lebanon?? Where are the UN resolutions authorizing this presence? Or is it only the US has to bow down to the UN...@sshole!
ANOTHER??! You slimy P.O.S.
I have often given thought to the fact that just about every country has been both our ally and enemy at some point. Russia & China: WWII ally, Cold War enemy - Japan & Germany: WWII enemy, Cold War ally - France: enemy in colonial days, ally during our Revolution, faux ally since then until now possibly enemy again.
Grampa Dave wrote: "The Germans have started another war that will be devastating to their country. This one is an economic one and one of chosing the side of evil. They will be in a severe recession with higher unemployment before the year is over."
Really? Take a look at the facts and tell me what you think:
Who were Iraq's real pals? Oh, yes: France and Russia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.