posted on September 17, 2001 01:03:11 PM new
Hard to answer "ifs". Let's put it this way. Eventually we would have had to fight Hitler. Maybe that would have been in 1951 instead of 1941 and all by our lonesome. I'm sure of that.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Sep 17, 2001 01:03 PM ]
posted on September 17, 2001 01:06:57 PM new
The point is that before posters start to cast stones at other countries for being "afraid" of war, they should look at their own history.
posted on September 17, 2001 01:09:48 PM new
And in that case - of a later war with Germany - I can see a potential widespread nuclear war from which we would still be recovering without the transistor or the microchip changing industry. And the Ausralians and Kiwis would be the UK because England would pretty much gone and Ireland and Scotland would be a land of tribes agaoin.
You are right stockticker there has always been a large number of people reluctant to jump into every conflict and embrace it as their own. The sane ones.
A good arguement for not even getting involved with obligations like NATO. A case for isolation is easy to make. Look how well it has worked for the Swiss. They developed that national attitude by getting their clock cleaned in some adventure back in the 1600's if I remember right, and said never again - we are going to mind our own business.
When Hitler was upset with the Swiss over financial matters he asked his generals what it would cost to occupy them and they said a million dead German soldiers. He said we can't afford a million casualties. They said No sir - 3 million casualties and a third of them 1 million dead.
posted on September 17, 2001 01:18:36 PM new
Only a few posters have said such things, Irene. I don't think it could be characterized as the prevalent American viewpoint...on this board, at least.
posted on September 17, 2001 01:18:40 PM new
Gravid: You miss my point. You mocked the fact that other countries are fearful of war. I don't find anything wrong with being fearful of war. I would be worried about any country that enjoys the thought of war. What I do find admirable is countries that are willing to fight despite that fear because they feel that the price of war is worth paying.
posted on September 17, 2001 01:21:42 PM newI don't find anything wrong with being fearful of war. I would be worried about any country that enjoys the thought of war. What I do find admirable is countries that are willing to fight despite that fear because they feel that the price of war is worth paying.
posted on September 17, 2001 01:35:45 PM new
You are right stockticker - I don't blame them for being afraid but I do find it sad they act on the fear rather than the obligation. Better to not form the alliance in the first place than to act reluctant and want to quibble when the fertilizer hits the air screw. If they only offer "logistical" support I would not blame the US if they withdrew from NATO when this is done.
The US should declare it if it is a war however so that question can not hang in the air. This custom of undeclared wars is in itself cowardly.
I am perhaps old fashioned in that I see a value to honor and truthfulness which often require courage, and I see both in short supply both by nations and individuals. When I see the acts of courage that individuals performed saving others in New York it heartens me that those qualities are still there in people.
posted on September 17, 2001 02:16:24 PM new
Maybe I'm seeing this war as different. I think the U.S. will do what they can to seek out Bin Laden & Co. because they (allegedly) have evidence that he's responsible for Tuesday's events. I see needing other countries cooperation, but not military at this point. I think the U.S. wants to get rid of terrorism across the world and with the help of their allies, will have a good chance at succeeding. Am I blind? Do you think there will be military action? Where?
posted on September 17, 2001 02:39:46 PM new
I agree Kraftdinner. Using military from these other countries would probably produce more of a hindrence for what must be done than anything else.
posted on September 17, 2001 02:46:30 PM new
Kraft, to root out terror worldwide would require the toppling of the regimes that make terror possible. That would essentially require us waging war on several countries at least.
posted on September 17, 2001 03:15:20 PM new
I know we can count on Canada, Great Britain, and Australia. If we have to muddle along without the rest of our "friends"...I have no doubt we'll be able to manage just fine. As I'm sure they'll be able to manage without us, if need be.
posted on September 17, 2001 03:35:38 PM new
Toke- the countries you just mentioned are what Churchill referred to as the English Speaking Union + the United States.
They're a great buch, in good times and in bad.
All countries will benefit though when the terrorists are wiped out.
posted on September 17, 2001 03:41:57 PM new
I still do not see where there is evidence that Germany or France will not join in military action if that is agreed. I see American officials saying they can only count on the U.K., and I do not know why, unless it is some inherent fondness for generally portraying Europeans as wimpish.
Is it because both France and Germany have publicly made statements that shape and support their views of what will be acceptable action (as quoted before):
--------------------------------------------
M Jospin said: "We must vigorously condemn and combat terrorism. But we must not allow ourselves to be led into considerations of a conflict between the western world and the Islamic world, where we have many friends and partners."
The remarks from the Socialist prime minister were aimed at reassuring both the France's political Left and its Muslim population, which numbers six million. But they will be seen as further evidence of disagreements between France and America on big foreign policy issues.
--------------------------------------------
and
--------------------------------------------
Rudolf Scharping, the German defence minister, also cautioned against launching swift military strikes. "I hope we all remain calm and do not now speak of a state of alarm. We do not face a war.
"We face the question of what is an appropriate response," he told German television. "Not in the sense of revenge and retribution, but in order to be able to fight and break international terror."
--------------------------------------------
Neither of these statements to me say "We are not going to take action", but that appears to be how they are interpreted.
The French in particular have large numbers of Muslims living in their country and are citizens of France. They quite sensibly wish to ensure that any action taken is seen as against terrorists and not against Muslims, for being Muslim.
The Germans also have a significant Muslim population, drawn from Turkish immigrants. They are obviously, and rightly, going to be reserved about wholesale or indiscriminant attacks that are based on anger, and a need for revenge. And that is what Mr Scharping said. Not that they would no longer join in military action, but stating what they saw as an inappropriate response.
Article 5 does not say "America will determine what action all the other allies will take". It says that they will collectively provide a military response, that is collectively determined.
If America chooses to do its own thing, to take action that other allies do not feel appropriate, THEN they can say they are not participating. That is not what has happened here, as far as I can see.
I think if that proves to be the case - that America chooses to take action that other countries find difficult to reconcile with their own consciences - then America may find that internal pressure will also build on the U.K., Australia and Canada to reconsider their position of "unswerving support". To obtain collective action, you must engage and retain collective support. That's politics.
posted on September 17, 2001 03:54:43 PM new
I have ceased to care what Europe chooses to do...these choices are theirs alone. They own their decisions...for good or ill.
It's time we concern ourselves with our concerns. They, of course, may do the same.
posted on September 17, 2001 04:11:08 PM new
France, Germany, and now Italy have publicly stated their support will not include the military.
Colin Powell was asked about Italy not providing military support in a press conference today. He acted surprised and didn't know they had made a statement to that effect.
A Coalition will never hold together with the broad mandate of destroying terrorists and those that support them.
Each time we trace the support across a new border, more countries would drop out.
We may be in it alone. The same thing happened when Churchill and others suggested we go after Hitler. Everyone condemed Hitler, but no one wanted to send military forces to stop him.
posted on September 17, 2001 04:17:09 PM new
Unfortunately, Europe does not have the luxury of being able to be concerned with only its concerns. What America does has a huge impact on lives far beyond the borders of the U.S.
Thankfully, at least some American politicians recognise that we all live on a small planet. We have to learn how to co-exist together.
posted on September 17, 2001 04:42:30 PM new
France, Germany, etc. have always had it both ways: they don't have to get involved and we clean up and pay for the mess. But these are different times. I think we should ask who are and are not our friends. If you are not, what do we need you for???
I would not like to think what will happen if they pull out. Wouldn't it be funny to have China and Russia with "most favored nation" trading status and France and Germany not??? Not to mention the American public's desire to buy anything from these countries. We'll see if it is American dollars or Mideast oil they'll sell their souls for. Nevermind what the right thing to do is.
posted on September 17, 2001 04:52:57 PM new
I realize the countries that habour these terrorists are at risk james, but what about if one of these countries says they'll fight terrorism but have no intentions of it (ie: Iran)? Does the U.S. send in troops to monitor all the suspicious countries? If Bin Laden decides to stay in Southern Afghanistan, do you think the U.S. will bomb? If so, where in Afghanistan?
posted on September 17, 2001 05:16:23 PM new
It is your very best friends who can tell you that your breath smells.
Many, many people have serious concerns about the bombing of innocent Afghanis, though it appears this is less of a moral dilemma in the U.S. than elsewhere. Politicians in France and Germany are able to articulate the very real, and valid concerns about the direction that the military action to be undertaken is heading.
If this is now going to extended to 60 countries (as the link krs posted reports), because they harbor terrorists, based on evidence that only the U.S. is privy to, there is overwhelming reason for people around the world to be concerned.
The U.S. didn't destroy the McVeigh family home after Oklahoma. They didn't even take his father into custody for raising such a monster. He got the benefit of a trial, in accordance with law. But this is not the case for ordinary Muslims who reside in countries where they have little to no influence over their political leaders. It appears that their fates are to be decided by American political and military leaders, and the rest of the world is supposed to simply acquiesce and actively join in the destruction?
I am sorry if you see the reticence to follow the U.S. lead as "backing off" or "chickening out". If the military action is targetted to obtaining those it sees as guilty of terrorism, for the purpose of bringing them to justice, I don't think any reasonable person will have a problem with that. But to insist that others follow a US-inspired action that will assuredly destroy the world as easily as the terrorism it purports to prevent seems more than foolhardy to me. If the U.S. expects the rest of its allies to allow it to be judge and jury for the terrorists, and for action to be based solely on the U.S. determination of any evidence, it reveals a contempt for the rule of law equivalent to the terrorists'.
Such blanket violence will breed more violence. Such hatred will only inspire more hatred.
posted on September 17, 2001 05:51:32 PM new
Europe was ravaged by war over the last century. Is France's attitude surprising? We sure rushed to their aid in WWII. If not for Pearl Harbor, we would have sat on our hands while Europe was utterly destroyed.
What happened at WTC is like a pimple compared to what went on in Europe. No doubt free countries sympathize with us, but not to the point of supporting what amounts to a U.S. invasion of Europe, or a blank check to wreak havoc. France in particular has a large Arab population.
As bad as WTC really was, Europeans with a memory that goes back 50 years probably see this more as "what goes around, comes around." America has ignored thugs and transgressions in other nations. Now the first time we get our nose bloodied, we expect the rest of the world to jump on our bandwagon? Things that make you go "hmmm."
Terrorism isn't new. We've sat at home watching it on our televisions for years, wagging our heads, and doing nothing. America created these monsters, as we did with Arafat in Palestine. Now they are coming home to roost.
James, thanks for your observations. I appreciate your insight.
posted on September 17, 2001 06:24:47 PM new
I think we are going to fight this war "dirty". Did you hear what Bush said today about old west "Wanted, Dead or Alive" posters? Make a list (a long list, no doubt), set prices for heads, and this might be easier than we all thought days ago. There are people in these countries that would kill their grandmother for $1000....
posted on September 17, 2001 10:06:57 PM new
Sometimes it seems to me that the US just can't win. When the US does jump in to help people scream or whine about how Americans should stop sticking their noses into everyone else's business & just go home. When the US doesn't jump in immediately or not at all, people whine & scream "where is/was the US? Why aren't they out here helping?"
Do I blame other countries for not wanting to jump immediately into a military action? No, because I hope we ourselves will make *sure* of the identity of the perpetrators before doing so.
But I do know that if this had occured in another country...England, France, Germany, wherever...*they* would be demanding our support just as we are doing the asking now.
What all these other countries should be considering right now is that whoever did this has demonstrated that they will not hesitate to attack innocent target in major cities...and what was done to us can & probably will be done to them in the near future. Turning backs in a case like this is not the prudent thing to do...
posted on September 17, 2001 10:26:15 PM newIf not for Pearl Harbor, we would have sat on our hands while Europe was utterly destroyed.
It might be argued that Roosevelt, leader of an isolationist country with a depressed economy, a small standing army, and a navy which ranked 17th (just behind Portugal) in tonnage did everything possible to lay the groundwork for US entry into the war as early as possible, meanwhile aiding the Brits to the greatest extent possible via the lend lease program.
America has indeed "ignored thugs and transgressions in other nations", but no instance springs to mind where these transgressions were not also ignored by the European nations mentioned, or where American intervention would have been welcomed by same.
"What goes around, comes around?" How true. Perhaps in view of this, and in lieu of participation in any sanctions or military actions, the governments of France and Germany could foot the bill for redevelopment of the WTC site and reconstruction of the Pentagon, in memory of the Marshall Plan.
-gaffan- [email protected]
posted on September 17, 2001 11:18:24 PM new
In case it wasn't clear, I was supposing how the French might react to our plea. Not my own personal feeling, but how others (Europeans) likely view the U.S. The very fact that we avoided the carnage that devastated Europe in the last century would be enough for some Europeans to resent the U.S.
While in fact, we may have been "laying the groundwork" for a speedy entry into WWII (cough, cough), I doubt the French see it that way. Considering the 13 million people who died at Hitler's hands, we weren't exactly breaking any speed records.
Oh, yes.