Power and Weakness - The Truth about European Attitudes in the Modern World

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
OK ed, have it your way.
Iran is a pro-USA state but just can't come out and say it right now.

Actually thats not very far off. When the US was proping up the Shah to the detriment of the Iranian people. The people of Iran looked at the US as the source of
all their problems and by removing the Shah they'd remove US influence and solve their problems. Well they got rid of the Shah and US influence but many Iranians would argue that their quality of life hasn't improved much(if at all). The current young generation of Iranians now view the mullahs in a similar way that the previous generation viewed the Shah(and Americans).

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
The last people anyone will take too much notice of when being lectured on electoral probity these days is the American right-wing.

The elections of 2000 and 2004 were perfectly legitimate under US constitutional law. The President is elected by the electoral college not the popular vote. Bush won the electoral college and the presidency. There was a dispute regarding the recount of the Florida election which was peaceably resolved by the United States Supreme Court.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
You're also side-stepping the issue.
Iran's Presidential election was internationally monitored (and declared to "generally meet international standards") and I think you'll find their turnout was (at 58%) higher than your own last Presidential elections.

You're evidently a pretty good dancer too sminkey.

Source: Wikipedia
While pre-voting polls mostly favored a run-off between Rafsanjani and Mostafa Moeen, the actual vote counts from the Ministry of Interior unexpectedly put Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mehdi Karroubi in second and third places. Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad led with respectively 21.0% and 19.5% of the votes, and were followed by Karroubi (17.3%), Ghalibaf (13.9%), Moeen (13.8%), Larijani (5.9%), and Mehralizadeh (4.4%). This was the result of 29,317,042 votes, which amounts to a turnout of 62.66%, as there were 46,786,418 eligible voters. While Rafsanjani had secured the first place in the first round, he failed to win the second round, by failing to attract the people who have voted for the reformist candidates who were now supporting him in the second round, like Karroubi and Moeen. Ahmadinejad won with 61.7% of the votes, while Rafsanjani only secured 35.9%. There was a total of 27,959,253 votes in the second round, slightly lower than the first round. Considering that the number of eligible votes was raised by about 150,000 people, the turnout was about 59.6%.

Source Wikipedia:
After the first round of the election, some people, including Mehdi Karroubi, the pragmatic reformist candidate who ranked third in the first round but was the first when partial results were first published, have alleged that a network of mosques, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps militiary forces, and Basij militia forces have been illegally used to generate and mobilize support for Ahmadinejad. Karroubi has explicitly alleged that Mojtaba Khamenei, a son of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, was involved. Ayatollah Khamenei then wrote to Karroubi and mentioned that these allegations are below his dignity and will result in a crisis in Iran, which he will not allow. As a reply, Karroubi resigned from all his political posts, including an Advisor to the Supreme Leader and a member of Expediency Discernment Council, on both of which he had been installed by Khamenei. The day after, on June 20, a few reformist morning newspapers, Eghbal, Hayat-e No, Aftab-e Yazd, and Etemaad were stopped from distribution by the general prosecutor of Tehran, Saeed Mortazavi, for publishing Karroubi's letter.

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the leading candidate, has also pointed to organized and unjust interventions by "guiding" the votes, and has supported Karroubi's complaint

Also, some political groups, including the reformist party Islamic Iran Participation Front, have alleged that Ahmadinejad had only ranked second because of the illegal support and advertising activities for him during the voting by the supervisors selected by the Guardian Council, while the supervisors should have remained impartisan according to the election law . Also, the reformist newspaper Shargh has pointed to an announcement by Movahhedi Kermani, the official representative of the supreme leader in Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, mentioning "vote for a person who keeps to the minimum in his advertisements and doesn't lavish", which uniquely pointed to Ahmadinejad.

Now does that sound like a fair election?

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
It's true Iran isn't an American style democracy (but that doesn't seem to be such a big concern or a big deal in say Uzbekistan, does it, hmmmm?)......and what?

Well actually it is. The US objected the massacre of protesters in Tashkent(thats why our military was told to pack up and get out).

Source Wikipedia
The White House response was at first noticeably muted. It was a delicate situation for George W. Bush: the Bush administration had received much support from the Uzbek president in the "war against terror" in nearby Afghanistan, but did not want to be seen as supporting a ruthless and highly repressive regime. The situation was further complicated by widespread rumours in Uzbekistan that the US embassy had urged the Uzbek government to stand firm in the face of Islamist groups a mere week before the crisis. In the weeks to follow, the U.S. joined a chorus of nations calling for an independent, international investigation of the Andijan events and, along with several European nations, refused to participate in a highly-suspect, Uzbekistan-sponsored "international" investigation that included CIS states, China, Iran, India and Pakistan. Apparently in response to U.S. calls for a truly independent international investigation, the Government of Uzbekistan placed restrictions on the operation of the U.S. base in Karshi-Khanabad. After the U.S. participated in the international effort to relocate over 400 Andijan refugees from neighboring Kyrgyzstan, where they were constantly under threat of illegal extradition to Uzbekistan, to third countries (initially Romania), the Government of Uzbekistan ordered the Karshi-Khanabad base in the country's South to be closed within six months

US told to take a hike

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
You seem to be labouring under the delusion that given the chance Iran would be best buddies with the USA.

Many Iranians like many Americans would welcome an improvement in bilateral relations between our two nations.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Dream on ed; after the US support for the Shah and his 'methods' coupled with the current US 'adventures' and threats it'll be a long long time until the Iranians feel particularly friendly to you guys.

The Shah has been gone a long time and many Iranians inparticular the young ones I believe would be open to a reconcilation with the US.

mod edit: added external quote tags

Quote Reference (review link)

[edit on 11-10-2006 by UK Wizard]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
......and, interesting as this diversion has been, you still haven't been able to show anything even remotely resembling a sound reason to attack Iran......

So whats the burden of proof? My fear is that the burden of proof won't come until a city disappears into a mushroom cloud. Is that what we have to wait for?

Source Wikipedia
Iran was obligated to inform the IAEA of its importation of uranium from China and subsequent use of that material in uranium conversion and enrichment activities. It was also obligated to report to the IAEA experiments with the separation of plutonium. A comprehensive list of Iran's specific violations of the NPT can be found in the November 2004 report of the IAEA on Iran's nuclear program

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
.......or why us 'Europeans' are so wrong to be attempting to resolve the issues of the day by direct contact and dialogue, when it has produced such obvious and tangible benefits previously.

Could you provide links to these great European successes? Because from what I've seen everytime Europe tries to negotiate a peaceful solution(though peace seemed to have gone a while ago)they inevitably have to call the US of A to get people to negotiating table.

mod edit: added external quote tags
Quote Reference (review link)

[edit on 11-10-2006 by UK Wizard]

What utter, fatuous drivel this article is.

link to source
It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world. On the all-important question of power — the efficacy of power, the morality of power, the desirability of power — American and European perspectives are diverging. Europe is turning away from power, or to put it a little differently, it is moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation. It is entering a post-historical paradise of peace and relative prosperity, the realization of Kant’s “Perpetual Peace.”

It is time to stop pretending that the US is not descending rapidly into fascism, which has, at its heart, the fetishism of power and what Umberto Eco - in his excellent essay "14 ways to recognise a Brownshirt" has called "the cult of action".

In this paragraph we see most blatantly a fetishism of power. The US is a powerful country, therefore it must act in the world, a world in which "laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation" are at best irrelevant and at worst inconvenient.

Yes, Europe has, to some extent, learned a lesson from its history - that fighting wars ruins landscapes, economies, lives and societies. This is a lesson that, in its entirety, the US has yet to learn, as its wars can visit destruction on peoples and lands at a nice, safe, distance. This dismissiveness of "laws and rules" and so on is only to be expected from someone connected to an administration that endorses torture, wars of aggression, the asset-stripping of other countries, secret prisons, and omnipresent eavesdropping, along with all the other trappings of a nascent police state. I would assert that this is fascist barbarism, of which the contempt for laws and negotiation is one of a number of obvious signs.

Put bluntly, this is a bullies' charter. No surprise there, then. "Might makes right".

link to source
The United States, meanwhile, remains mired in history, exercising power in the anarchic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable and where true security and the defense and promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might.

Mired in history? As Bugs would say, "it is to laugh". The US is the foremost denier of its own history on the planet, with the UK and France coming in smartly behind. Having made a thorough, miserable mess of its own hemisphere through the subversion of democracies everywhere south of the border, through the export of death squads and the imposition of the neoliberal economic model, the US is now looking to promote these same disastrous values throughout the world. A less rose-tinted view of its own imperial history (and that of others) might prevent hideous missteps such as the misbegotten Iraq adventure and the imminent prospect of its repetition in Iran. But such clarity of vision will not be found.

As for the "anarchic Hobbesian world", its laws and rules are unreliable in no small measure because the US refuses to submit itself to them. It is also, indisputably, the single biggest threat to every other country's security, continually invading countries, threatening to invade them, deposing inconvenient governments and generally acting like a bad-tempered child frustrated at its toys. Negotiation simply means treating other parties with respect, and this is something the US is singularly incapable of doing. LBJ, for example, told the Greek premier to "**** himself", and shortly after, there was a military coup which ushered in all the concomitants of death-squad democracies - torture, disappearances, human rights violations. US complicity in this coup is barely acknowledged even today.

For the past century, the US has been building economic hegemony with ruthless tactics... but the myth it tells itself is that it's interfering with other countries' internal business for the best of reasons. That long-standing lie is the key to the US' inability to understand its real role in the world, and to its inability to reconcile its perceptions of itself with those of, well, pretty much everyone else.

As for military might promoting a liberal order... that's really not working so well in Iraq, is it? The country is out of control. No nation has ever won a guerrilla war, and one would have thought that the lessons of Vietnam might have sunk in... but no, a poisonous rhetoric has seeped into the nation's discourse which says that the US lost in Vietnam because of liberal traitors within the nation. If we can just be bloody minded enough to see this Iraq business through to the end, everything will be ok, just you wait and see.

No, it won't. The lessons of history have yet to be learned by the neocons and their authoritarian fans.

link to source
One cannot generalize about Europeans: Britons may have a more “American” view of power than many of their fellow Europeans on the continent. And there are differing perspectives within nations on both sides of the Atlantic. In the U.S., Democrats often seem more “European” than Republicans; Secretary of State Colin Powell may appear more “European” than Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Many Americans, especially among the intellectual elite, are as uncomfortable with the “hard” quality of American foreign policy as any European; and some Europeans value power as much as any American.

What is actually being delineated here is the spectrum of authoritarianism, and an almost spurious equivalence between the American character and the acceptance of the use of force, while painting unmanly attributes like an acceptance of international law as European. This is pretty much a nonsense, although it is my perception that US culture has a vicious, heartless quality to it which allows indifference to the economic and social needs of the majority in the name of some kind of bizarre social Darwinism. As Darwinism itself is the circular product of the British Imperial psychology, this is hardly surprising.

What is different about Europe is that its nations are in a post-imperial phase, with the possible exception of France... and, now, the UK: one can only suppose that Blair is trying to recapture some former imperial glories by hanging on the coat-tails of the imperial superpower.

One of the defining characteristics of the imperial mindset is that it must justify acts of aggression and theft in other countries as essential to bring civilisation to the benighted, uncivilised, unwashed unfortunates who didn't have the good sense to be born British/French/American (delete where applicable). This article reeks of the imperial mindset, but with a new twist of paranoia. The world is a chaotic place and must be controlled lest there be another attack on the homeland.

link to source
As for the United States, there is nothing timeless about the present heavy reliance on force as a tool of international relations, nor about the tilt toward unilateralism and away from a devotion to international law.

Here again we see a willingness to ignore the most obvious facts of American history. The author might well benefit from reading Mark Twain's accounts of the Philippines invasion and subjugation: it provides a lesson that pompous, windy justification of atrocities is not something invented by Rumsfeld et al: the rhetoric he describes and eviscerates is eerily remeniscent of much of today's discourse.

How many countries has the US invaded in the last fifty years? And how many in the previous fifty? A good source for a clear-eyed view on the matter would be the writings of Brigadier-General Smedley D. Butler, whose book War is a Racket should be required reading in US schools, but is rather too honest and robust a work for the subtle indoctrination required by those institutions.

link to source
When the United States was weak, it practiced the strategies of indirection, the strategies of weakness; now that the United States is powerful, it behaves as powerful nations do. When the European great powers were strong, they believed in strength and martial glory. Now, they see the world through the eyes of weaker powers. These very different points of view, weak versus strong, have naturally produced differing strategic judgments, differing assessments of threats and of the proper means of addressing threats, and even differing calculations of interest.

This is a passage worthy of Goebbels, and exposes the "might makes right" attitude and the deeply fascistic tendencies of its author. One might think that WWII had never happened, and that Hitler's espousal of similar principles was not a matter of historical record.

Kagan's analysis of Europe is entirely based on militaristic criteria, and is in any event inaccurate as he ignores, for example, the Falklands war, content to assert that "the ability of European powers, individually or collectively, to project decisive force into regions of conflict beyond the continent was negligible."

Like it or not, Russia is now a European power, too. But at no stage does Kagan acknowledge that US military power is as great as it is at a huge cost. The US spends as much on its military as the rest of the world put together, and its society is probably the most heavily militarised on the planet. The idea of not using this tumorous growth of the military-industrial complex to boss the rest of the world around is plainly ridiculous, and is therefore not addressed. The US, as if by magic, has come by enormous military strength, and therefore justifications for its use must be produced. Kagan's revisionism of the Balkans adventure is suitable for demonstrating European fecklessness, but ignores the deliberately destabilising policies pursued by the US which, in a pattern that is now familiar, wrecked the unity of a country in which antagonistic factions had begun to live in peace.

mod edit: just popped in source for clarity

[edit on 11-10-2006 by UK Wizard]

More blatant "might-is-right" neofascism:

Clearly they were not. Not only were Europeans unwilling to pay to project force beyond Europe. After the Cold War, they would not pay for sufficient force to conduct even minor military actions on the continent without American help. Nor did it seem to matter whether European publics were being asked to spend money to strengthen nato or an independent European foreign and defense policy. Their answer was the same. Rather than viewing the collapse of the Soviet Union as an opportunity to flex global muscles, Europeans took it as an opportunity to cash in on a sizable peace dividend. Average European defense budgets gradually fell below 2 percent of gdp. Despite talk of establishing Europe as a global superpower, therefore, European military capabilities steadily fell behind those of the United States throughout the 1990s.

Yes, indeed... the collapse of the Soviet Union precipitated Rebuilding America's Defenses, which might have been written solely to perpetuate the military-industrial complex. And here the equation is at its most explicit. To be a manly nation, you have to have lots of guns and people who are prepared to use them, not in your defence, but in order to have "muscles to flex".

And the peace dividend was a pretty popular idea in the US at the time. For a little while there was even talk of affordable healthcare and the like. And Kagan's figures for defense spending ignore black project funding and its revenue streams from the illegal drug trade, which is only to be expected in this kind of paper.

Kagan continues to make free with the historical record in his assertion that the US was more prepared to use force abroad after the collapse of the Soviet Union: many of the examples he cites predate this event, and are simply more examples of the US predisposition to the use of force to remove inconveniences.

I could go on... but it's late, and ultimately, Kagan's analysis bores and irritates me in equal measure. Ultimately, it's one long justification for the use of force in international relations "because it's there" and attempting to portray people who think that using force is, in most instances, counterproductive, as "weak" or "appeasers". Personally, I think, at the moment, the country that is being appeased most in the world is the US itself. This is, after all, the country that has invaded two nations in the last five years and threatened to "flush Ireland's economy down the toilet" if it didn't allow Shannon airport to be used as a staging post. Let alone the sabre-rattling going on now with Korea and the impending war with Iran.

Originally posted by danwild6
Actually thats not very far off.

- Dan you can't back that up, it's just opinion.

they got rid of the Shah and US influence but many Iranians would argue that their quality of life hasn't improved much(if at all).

- I think that kind of 'either or' view is not reality, people (whether Iranian or not) can handle a slightly more sophisticated view of the world than that.

The current young generation of Iranians now view the mullahs in a similar way that the previous generation viewed the Shah(and Americans).

- There may well be some truth in that but from what I have seen here it would appear that some of 'our' attitudes and beliefs about the current Iranian government's domestic policies are out of touch.

The elections of 2000 and 2004 were perfectly legitimate under US constitutional law.

- That's besides the point dan.

The elections in Iran were subject to degree of outside scrutiny in a way neither of those US Presidential elections were (as also is the case with the elections in Venezuela).

You're evidently a pretty good dancer too sminkey.

-
Should I try and present my ideas/case in the worst light possible or the best?

Now does that sound like a fair election?

- It sounds like a different kind of election.

There are many countries in the world where all shades of opinion do not get represented by the candidates.

In the 'west' we tend to have rich guys representing and to a greater or slightly lesser degree pushing the interests of the other rich guys and the wealthiest corporations/businesses.

When was the last time that cosy arrangement really got broken in any meaningful way?

Well actually it is. The US objected the massacre of protesters in Tashkent(thats why our military was told to pack up and get out).

- Eventually. It certainly took a while before anyone got too bothered about it.

.....and it's not just Uzbekistan.

There's an interesting piece about US machinations in the region here and here.

Many Iranians like many Americans would welcome an improvement in bilateral relations between our two nations.

- I don't actually disagree with that but I don't think it is exclusive from the idea that Iran will harbour a great suspicious distrust towards the USA for along time to come.

The Shah has been gone a long time and many Iranians inparticular the young ones I believe would be open to a reconcilation with the US.

- Like I said dan I think there is room for better relations but the possibility of genuine 'friendliness' is a long way off.
The Shah is only 27yrs ago.
The hugely damaging Iran/Iraq war (where the USA sustained and played each side off against the other) ended less tha 20yrs ago.

Look at how long our cultures are/were obsessed about WW2.

It will take a lot more than just over a quarter of a century to fade away (and IMO the current climate of invasion and war next door, threats and intimidation aren't helping that process).

So whats the burden of proof?

- Well let's put it like this, after Iraq it certainly doesn't revolve around a mere US say-so and blinding ourselves by withdrawing the one expert means of monitoring and verification we have.

My fear is that the burden of proof won't come until a city disappears into a mushroom cloud. Is that what we have to wait for?

- That's just fear-mongering paranoia dan.

It isn't an 'all (war) or nothing' situation.

You might as well just get on with it and go out and conquer every country in the world with that kind of approach cos they all might just be hiding something that they'll use one day.

Could you provide links to these great European successes?

- What do you call the 2yrs suspension of enrichment activities, the go anywhere anytime inspections or the 24/7/365 monitoring?
They are all well beyond the terms of the NPT.

Are they not examples of the effectiveness of direct contact and negotiation?

Because from what I've seen everytime Europe tries to negotiate a peaceful solution (though peace seemed to have gone a while ago) they inevitably have to call the US of A to get people to negotiating table.

- Not sure what you're getting at here dan.

I know Iran and Nth Korea for instance have called for direct talks with the USA for many years.
That's not exactly something 'we' in Europe can do much about whatever is happening, right?

If you're referring to Iraq I'd suggest it was us in the UK that got ourselves dragged into something we really would rather not have.

If you're referring to the former Yugoslavia/Kosovo then as I said before the neo-con version of events presented earlier here is so ridiculous slanted as to be a travesty of what actually happened.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Dan you can't back that up, it's just opinion.

I don't know about that

The Hoff

I say we send in te Hoff. After all he did single handedly defeat communism and liberate eastern europe

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- I think that kind of 'either or' view is not reality, people (whether Iranian or not) can handle a slightly more sophisticated view of the world than that.

Perhaps but the point I was trying to make wasn't that it was an either or view it was precisely that they can't and many don't blame their problems on the US alone. They current generation listens to horror stories of the oppression that their parents faced under the Shah and I'm sure they've wondered have things really changed.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- There may well be some truth in that but from what I have seen here it would appear that some of 'our' attitudes and beliefs about the current Iranian government's domestic policies are out of touch.

Undoubtedly true and I think the largest myth is that the Iranian people general are in anyway extremist. I'm sure that all of them want the best for their country and many no doubt believe that nuclear weapons could insure the security of their country not that thats ever been the case(even with the superpowers).

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- That's besides the point dan.

The elections in Iran were subject to degree of outside scrutiny in a way neither of those US Presidential elections were (as also is the case with the elections in Venezuela).

Just sounds as about as fair as the politbureau.

Originally posted by sminkeypikey
-

Should I try and present my ideas/case in the worst light possible or the best?

Yeah I know just teasing:p

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- It sounds like a different kind of election.

There are many countries in the world where all shades of opinion do not get represented by the candidates.

In the 'west' we tend to have rich guys representing and to a greater or slightly lesser degree pushing the interests of the other rich guys and the wealthiest corporations/businesses.

When was the last time that cosy arrangement really got broken in any meaningful way?

Very good point. I remember how disgusted with the Republican party I was when they did everything they could to stop John McCain from seeking the nomination. But he did get to run without any legal incumberances(such as asking permissions from an opponent).

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Eventually. It certainly took a while before anyone got too bothered about it.

.....and it's not just Uzbekistan.

There's an interesting piece about US machinations in the region

Those articles highlight why the Bush Administration took its time. The facts are that Central Asia is an extremely minerally wealthy region important to the US not only in geo-political terms but also its economic interests. I know how everyone(including me)wants to seperate political and economic interests from how we deal with unsavioury regimes and it isn't always easy or even possible. That being said I believe Bush did the right thing(eventually).

[iOriginally posted by sminkeypinkey
- I don't actually disagree with that but I don't think it is exclusive from the idea that Iran will harbour a great suspicious distrust towards the USA for along time to come.

Well that goes without saying(from what I read most Europeans share Iran's suspicions of the US).

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Like I said dan I think there is room for better relations but the possibility of genuine 'friendliness' is a long way off.
The Shah is only 27yrs ago.
The hugely damaging Iran/Iraq war (where the USA sustained and played each side off against the other) ended less tha 20yrs ago.

Yeah I understand. As an American we're not given to holding grudges. And sometimes we expect the same of others. We have a fairly short collective memory. That can't be said for the rest of the world.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Look at how long our cultures are/were obsessed about WW2.

Vietnam was our nations most traumatizing conflict but we're putting things behind us. The US and Vietnam are enjoying friendlier relations all the time but Vietnam still reminds the US of unfinished business in regards to our miss deeds(and rightfully so).

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
It will take a lot more than just over a quarter of a century to fade away (and IMO the current climate of invasion and war next door, threats and intimidation aren't helping that process).

Yeah and the current Administration doesn't help matters much but he's only going to be around for another couple years then we can get to rebuilding.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Well let's put it like this, after Iraq it certainly doesn't revolve around a mere US say-so and blinding ourselves by withdrawing the one expert means of monitoring and verification we have.

Well there are some major differences between Iraq and Iran. We only suspected that Iraq had illegal weapons programs(a suspicion that Saddam was all to happy to keep alive in our minds). We know Iran has a nuclear program and had illegally concealed part of it. While their hasn't been a smoking gun I think the evidence shows that Iran has been less than truthful regarding its nuclear program. What are they hiding?

And if they're not hiding anything then why not open the doors to inspectors and put the our collective minds at ease. And make a fool of the US again(not that thats difficult).

Originally poste dby sminkeypinkey
- That's just fear-mongering paranoia dan.

It isn't an 'all (war) or nothing' situation.

You call it paranoid fear mongering but did you ever expect something like Sept. 11 would happen. I never expected anything like 9/11 to happen and when it did look what resulted. I don't think a terrorist getting hold of a nuke whether from the black market or a rogue nation is all that unlikely. And that is only one of my concerns. Do we really want the spread of nuclear weapons? Towards the end of the 20th century we had been making progress towards the curtailing of nuclear weapons procurement and development and now it looks like we're beginning to move backwards.

And I know its not a all or nothing situation. But if negotiations fail and the UN can't come together and agree to put its foot down then what other option do we have?

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
You might as well just get on with it and go out and conquer every country in the world with that kind of approach cos they all might just be hiding something that they'll use one day.

Most countries don't support terrorism. Most countries aren't supporting an ideological drive to throw back the clock to the 10th century. To try to marginalize the issue is a cop out. To put it all on American paranoia is to turn a blind eye to a real threat. The US has a beef with three countries at the moment. iran for its nuclear program, North Korea for its nuclear program and Sudan for Darfur. We're not trying to conquer the world just make it safer. I know that sounds rediculous(because it is)not that the statement is untrue just how its turned out.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- What do you call the 2yrs suspension of enrichment activities, the go anywhere anytime inspections or the 24/7/365 monitoring?
They are all well beyond the terms of the NPT.

Are they not examples of the effectiveness of direct contact and negotiation?

Actually yes those are I'm not saying that this crisis can't resolved peacefully but if it can't there have to be consequences for Iran.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Not sure what you're getting at here dan.

I know Iran and North Korea for instance have called for direct talks with the USA for many years.

That's not exactly something 'we' in Europe can do much about whatever is happening, right?

And the US as always being told to take a multilateral approach to deal with these countries. And rightfully so. After all these issues don't just affect the US. Do you feel comfortable putting this situation in the hands of the US alone?

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
If you're referring to Iraq I'd suggest it was us in the UK that got ourselves dragged into something we really would rather not have.

No not referring to Iraq but if we didn't go in I doubt you'd be there now.

Originally posted by sminkeypikey
If you're referring to the former Yugoslavia/Kosovo then as I said before the neo-con version of events presented earlier here is so ridiculous slanted as to be a travesty of what actually happened.

Okay can you present some facts supporting your statement. I mean from what I remember there were endless negotiations to bring about a peaceful solution when peace had gone years before. And it was pretty obvious that without the US military inttervention the war would have either gone on to its bloody end or just gone on.

I don't think we're a whole world away on this (as usual ) dan.

As for my comments about British policy during the Major years and the then British gov's refusal to agree military intervention in Yugoslavia/Bosnia/Kosovo?

This is a good source, (well worth a good look around this site too btw)

Faced with the crisis created by Milošević’s expansionist campaign, the British government did its very best to appease Milošević and to avoid confronting the Serbian armed forces - as Brendan Simms has brilliantly demonstrated in Unfinest Hour - Britain and the destruction of Bosnia (Allen Lane, London 2001).

Yet on that occasion the media were filled with reports of the atrocities carried out by Serb forces, seriously embarrassing the British government.

In the US meanwhile, the climate created by media reports of these atrocities, above all of the Srebrenica massacre of 1995, put the vacillating Clinton Administration under such pressure that it was eventually forced to carry out air-strikes against Serb forces in Bosnia, dragging the reluctant British government along with it.

link

- The then British foreign secretary until july 1995 was Douglas Herd, this is a very interesting article about the webs these guys weaved -

British foreign policy in Bosnia was led by Lord Hurd throughout the war in a professed attempt to prevent ‘a level killing field'.

In late June 1995, just two weeks before the fall of Srebrenica, he unexpectedly resigned. But Lord Hurd's involvement with former Yugoslavia did not end there.

His infamous ‘working breakfast' with Milosevic in June 1996, where as director at NatWest Markets, together with the former Foreign Office executive Pauline Neville-Jones, he negotiated the privatisation of Serbia's telecommunications system, replenished the coffers of the Belgrade regime, and temporarily boosted Milosevic's personal standing. It also, arguably, helped to finance the Kosovo war three years later.

link

- Like I said the Kagan article right at the begining of this thread painting this as some sort of typically degenerate and 'divided soft socialist Europe' terrified of committing to any actual military involvement (even on such obviously plain distressing and necessary humanitarian grounds) is very wide of the mark.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
I don't think we're a whole world away on this (as usual

) dan.

Always nice for me too hear.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Like I said the Kagan article right at the begining of this thread painting this as some sort of typically degenerate and 'divided soft socialist Europe' terrified of committing to any actual military involvement (even on such obviously plain distressing and necessary humanitarian grounds) is very wide of the mark.

Good info. Clinton wasn't keen on using force(even when it was called for). There is a book out there entitled the reluctant superpower detailing US policy in the Balkans during the early ninties.

And unfortunately the picture Kagan painnts is something most Americans are too readily willing to accept.

Originally posted by edsinger
Ok Ok your right...lets just stick our heads in the sand and do NOTHING, Lets just sit around, have a few beers and talk about it. When nothing happens, we can talk some more.....

Lol, no, go, please, invade Iran, have loads more of your boys dead because of hipocrisy and yet again “WMDs”. None found in Iraq…no nukes will be found in Iran either…and all those meaningless deaths for what???

Then when Tel-Aviv lights up, I guess we can ........???? Yes talk about it. Maybe them guys will be nice and not support terror anymore.

Empty threats by the Iranians, as well as the Hindu-Pakistani threats. New Delhi and Karachi aren’t light up, and yet two very trigger happy nations have nukes…
Funniest part yet is…Iran hasn’t any nukes the US can proof! Smells like Iraq…

One thing that can be said for the whole Iraq thing, Saddam is no longer paying 25k for bombers, no longer supporting terrorism, no longer killing his own people, and the list goes on.

Nope, now the ones that kill his own people are the US, big change huh?? Switched a killer for another…great.

If it was up to the UN or the Europeans we would still be talking and the Chinese and Russians would still be dealing under the table. I exclude some European nations from this because a few still have balls.....

Yeah, the UN and us would still be talking wether it is right to ilegally invade and bomb a country without any proof whatsoever but invented intelligence reports and propaganda…hmmm, wonder what would the Iraqi people would prefer?? Being blown up by US bombs and Anti US guerrilla or being repressed by Saddam…tough choice…repression or death??

"Why can't we all just get along?"

Fascists still live in the world…some even get to be presidents, that’s why

Originally posted by edsinger
No need to bomb the sites, just bomb infrastructure until they wise up. I think the government would fall in a very brief amount of time anyway. It would de-stabilize them and the Mullahs would loose power.

Yeah, bomb the infraestructure, hurting more the population than the military assets, just like in Lebanon. Now that is really a smart strategy, educated too! It de-stabilized Lebanon so much and made their government fall! Oh wait…no it didn’t.

They are close now anyway as the people are getting tired of the mullahs and the crap that they do. The Iranian people just want to join the 21st century without being held back.

Well well…who’s talking about the 21st century? Legalizing torture for “enemy combatants” How about the patriot act?

The US is NOT as hated there as the press would have you believe.

Actually, the US is disliked in many more places than Iran alone, and as far as I know, from Irani acquaintances, the US is just viewed as a threat to their freedom and country, not “hated” per se.

Originally posted by edsinger
That's not what I said, there are a great MANY that DO like the WEST and want the Mullahs reign to end, and that is why the government controlled just 'who' ran in the elections....

And as much as they might like the western customs, I can say that not one irani would apreciate the US invading or attacking Iran.

See above, the non hard liners could not run......remember that Kim Jung ILL is also elected with a high turnout... Even Lyndon LaRouche can run in the US.

Lol, even Bush run in the US…

(1) They have declared internationally that they would like to see Israel blown off the map and are attempting to gain a way to DO IT.

Empty threat, and Israel has the means to prevent that alone.

(2) Blatant support for world terrorism

Terrorism in Gaza and Lebanon alone. The US supported terrorists more than once as well…nobody attacked them though…

(3)What they are doing in the background in Iraq, they are by proxy attacking the US right now...

What a surprise! Somebody is fighting back the illegal invasion?? Must be the devil!

It has?....................................................................

Hmmm, Bosnia? Nope
Sudan?.......Nope.....
N Korea? .....Nope
Saddam? ...... Nope

Bosnia is solved. Period. No guerrilla, no war not Iraq.
Sudan nobody, meant as in nobody wants to stick the nose there.
N.Korea is not a threat to Europe.
Saddam was never a threat to Europe, and no proof was given of WMDs.
Europe wasn’t about to support a bs invasion, sorry if that dissapointed you.

You cannot appease.....Reagan proved that a position of Strength is the ONLY way to negotiate, period......

Jimmy Carter is my personal favorite over R.R. And strength is the ONLY way to negotiate for those who don’t know how to talk or when to…brains are needed to talk, not to punch…

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Lol, no, go, please, invade Iran, have loads more of your boys dead because of hipocrisy and yet again “WMDs”. None found in Iraq…no nukes will be found in Iran either…and all those meaningless deaths for what???

Actually thats not strictly true I'm afraid.
Several chemical and biological weapons did go missing but not to the scale that was listed in the report.

Nope, now the ones that kill his own people are the US, big change huh?? Switched a killer for another…great.

Well its a bit hard not to kill somone when he's strapped with explosives shouting praises to his god and running straight at you.

Yeah, the UN and us would still be talking wether it is right to ilegally invade and bomb a country without any proof whatsoever but invented intelligence reports and propaganda…hmmm, wonder what would the Iraqi people would prefer??

Invented intellignce? More like stretched intelligence but then again this depends on WHO you wish to believe.
Listen to majics "information warefare" podcast.

Being blown up by US bombs and Anti US guerrilla or being repressed by Saddam…tough choice…repression or death??

Mabye you'd like to ask the iraqi resistance (the ones that fought sadamm) how they felt about repression.

Fascists still live in the world…some even get to be presidents, that’s why

Fascists? Thats a bit harsh dont you think.

Yeah, bomb the infraestructure, hurting more the population than the military assets, just like in Lebanon.

Didnt the iraqi army hide its assests inside the city?

Now that is really a smart strategy, educated too! It de-stabilized Lebanon so much and made their government fall! Oh wait…no it didn’t.

Umm if you can win a war I suggest you apply to MOD at officer level entry.

(3)What they are doing in the background in Iraq, they are by proxy attacking the US right now...

You call killing your own people fighting back?

N.Korea is not a threat to Europe.

Lol yeah they can reach america and there no concern to europe?

Saddam was never a threat to Europe, and no proof was given of WMDs.

Read the UN special report , there are actually WMDs that "dissapeared.

Europe wasn’t about to support a bs invasion, sorry if that dissapointed you.

Isnt the UK part of europe or do we smell?

Originally posted by devilwasp
Isnt the UK part of europe or do we smell?

Actually I think the difference is that you don't

Originally posted by danwild6
Actually I think the difference is that you don't

Lol, just wondering, why do you have Mara jade as your DP?

Originally posted by devilwasp
Lol, just wondering, why do you have Mara jade as your DP?

I don't. Its actually Jaina Solo. Why? Why not? She's my ideal women. Hotter than the blade of a lightsaber, her fiery personality could light a million stars, her dark hair adds the touch of mystery that only a brunette has and she can kick the crap out of anyone she needs to sigh its to bad she only exists on paper.

Originally posted by danwild6
I don't. Its actually Jaina Solo.

Damm so close.

Why? Why not? She's my ideal women. Hotter than the blade of a lightsaber, her fiery personality could light a million stars, her dark hair adds the touch of mystery that only a brunette has and she can kick the crap out of anyone she needs to sigh its to bad she only exists on paper.

True, just recognised the SD and the light saber. Used to read all the star wars books, and everything.

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili

Jimmy Carter is my personal favorite over R.R. And strength is the ONLY way to negotiate for those who don’t know how to talk or when to…brains are needed to talk, not to punch…

Well that just about says it all then..........BtW cehck this out...

LINK to Carter and Respect due...

Just thought I would like to mention something that will be shocking to all of you.

I think I like the new french leader, he has some balls!

He is talking about Iran and is doing so much harsher than Bush did or is doing.

What the hell happened over there in France? He was elected so that must mean the French have had a change of heart? I sure as hell hope so..

Originally posted by edsinger
Just thought I would like to mention something that will be shocking to all of you.

I think I like the new french leader, he has some balls!

He is talking about Iran and is doing so much harsher than Bush did or is doing.

What the hell happened over there in France? He was elected so that must mean the French have had a change of heart? I sure as hell hope so..

Wow isnt that a suprise, as soon as france suggests military action anywhere the yanks are suddenly impressed and change thier minds about all they have said abou the french....I mean its not like the french havent had the capability or balls to do this before?

Guess Afghanistan wasnt enough huh...

Originally posted by devilwaspGuess Afghanistan wasnt enough huh...

Well not really, what the new leader is now seeming to say is that France is not willing to capitulate any farther. Heck it should shock those of you across the pond more than us yanks...

I am bewildered because this is not an isolated guy, he was elected so something happened to the French mindset..

Originally posted by edsinger
Well not really, what the new leader is now seeming to say is that France is not willing to capitulate any farther. Heck it should shock those of you across the pond more than us yanks...

Your country has known them for as long as ours has, we've fought them since well.....we've existed and before. They've had the balls to do this for quite a while, they've just wisely resisted the urge to start playing the worlds policemen (both our countries have done this role and its not fun.)

I am bewildered because this is not an isolated guy, he was elected so something happened to the French mindset..

Thats what you get when you focus on thier worst defeat in the 20th centuary, they're a strong country with a very strong military. But then again, you yanks probably think us brits are all top hat wearing, tea drinking, umbrella weilding, pint drinking gentlemen who need big old uncle sam to lead the way....