>Would Europe have stayed free of the USSR without
>the promise of war with the US?? Not a chance. Those
>who can't see this are truly self deluded.
Really? Arent you?. Europe never "butted in" in the US/Uk vs USSR. Its was a show and tell war. US got a big missile, so did the russians. US got a brand new sattelite, so did the russians, and gave part of the info to the world. Show and tell.
Part two was the standoff. Do you really think the russians would go up agains a nuclear france, or uk , or even others . Simple, no. And had no problem with that in first place. And why the hell for? They had severe casualties during WWII , and Moscow came under attack. They had already experienced war for a lifetime. Against the US was simply a matter of "dick size", a competition, not a prelude to war. And in the end, you could see what that did to the russian economy, it was devastated. Even during the cold war, maintaining an army, in such a vast area, in an adverse conditions, they had very little chance to go into an allout war agains a full set of countrys.
>The freedoms of the US it's self was won at the point of
>the sword, bayonet and gun. This is also the truth of
>history.
Very true.
>Throughout history those who compromise with evil
>pay a high price for doing so. Even when others step
>forward to also pay along side them.
Evil is a relative thing. Usually the winners say whats evil and whats not. The rest is an opinion.
>in possesion of such overwhelming advantage in arms
>vs. his surrounding nations did not use that force of
>arms in conquest.
Most of the ones that can, do. See the Roman Empire. See the German Blitzkrieg. Or the might of the Napoleon's army. Every country on the planet was conquered, fought for. Even in recent history. So there's nothing new there. But because others did that, doesnt exonerate the ones that do today.
> At that point let France take the lead in restoring
> freedom and democracy.
The UN is not a "point and blast" body, its supposed to deal with adversity and find a reasonable way out of it by diplomatic efforts, if not bluntly interrupted by the US foreign policy. But lets say the UN move, US are cut off from it, and Europe sticks together, and Asia cools off.
Then what? US is as depedent on Europe , Asian economy as we are from US economy. Without the markets, the currencies going in and out, the exports and imports, the economy would plundge in both sides. Going solo isnt going to help the US economy in any point. Its an arrogant way to think that nobody else matters, that doesnt work anymore, its a globalized world now, and borders are getting thinner.
Another point is... freedom and democracy? Thats a joke. There are no free democracies. Understand that and you're half way there. The governments are always influenced by the big corporations, international agreements, financial arrangements, personal gains, corruption . Change the faces, but the policy still remains the same. So, i dont give that "true democracy" much credit. Its not a very good system, but are evolving, and hopefully , it will get better. I've seen some signs of that.
And , i've stated before, there are alot of censureship in the US, still hunting the impropriate thought, the not so appropriate book, even what goes on in schools. Teachers fired and prosecuted for giving a diferent ideia, or a remark. Books taken of of libraries. It still happens. Just like racism, it refused to die.
>They don't have a chance. Yet they also have no
>freedom, which is why they are in that situation.
They are in that situation for two simple reasons. One, saddam is there, and was put there by the US. Two, they arent tired enough of him or they would have a revolution.
>what are opinions over Kosovo? are there ppl who
>think that peacefull solution would have been reached
>over there without the stick of the US (that defied UN
>over that).
That was another. Its near a oil rich area. If it was in middle of Africa or Asia, nobody would know were Kosovo was. The bi lateral talks led to a inicial agreement between the two sides. It would have stopped the war, maybe a permanent peace treaty, if the the US didnt butt in. They bluntly sabotaged the talks, and bombed the hell out of the area. Now thats being a real humanitarian ...
to big ben 2k :
The foreign policy of the US only started to change during the late Bush Senior mandate, and took another format during the Clinton administration, to the best imo.
Btw, I liked the expression "Cowboy Diplomacy".
Anyway, the taliban were put into power by the US support of the regime during the cold war, and to be more specific, against the russians, who got their butt kicked. The main problem was that they left the country in rubble. A generation groing in that type of conditions, and a mentality that judged the US involvement in the area as "evil actions", same as russians, due to the fact that neither was asked, or wanted there, served the extremist factions a good, powerfull, and almost impervious enemy that they could hate. And with good reason, to a certain level .
It's just to say, i
understand 9/11. Its not about agreeing or not. Knowing what caused it is understanding half the problem. The second part of the problem is changing mentalities, and "force" wont do that.
> I'm glad to see the US feel a little bit of what Europe is
> going through, in terms of terrorism
We've had alot during the 20th century, Spain with Eta, Great Britain with IRA , Portugal with the FP-25 , etc. Also, most countrys got involved in two world wars, and nobody wants to get his hands on another, as far away as it might be. So they are very moderate in this subject. They do realize Saddam isnt the nice guy but he isnt the only one, and force and violence is not always the course of action to take.
The US participated in both wars, but never (in those wars) suffered in the homeland like the europeans. For most, util 9/11, the world was far far way, and their problems were irrelevant. That changed, but for the worse. Now the US are taking a more offensive action against those problems. Its like scratching a open wound.
>This is where, to me, it relates to oil: if you can stabilize
>the whole middle eastern region with a provisional
>government in Iraq, the price of oil should drop
>dramatically. This is good for Europe, but especially to
>the US, where the price at the pump has gone up 25%
>in the past six months. Heck, it might even allow the US
>to bypass OPEC, for a few years!
Exactly. But i dont agree with that course of action. What next ? If the Arabe League pumps up the price the US bombs them too? Having a real military base there, gives it a dangerous precedent. Isnt it enought that the dollar drags so many currencys ? Or that the imports and exports policy of the US are ourageous ?
Im not very fond of OPEC rulings about who and what and at what price, but this way it may open a pandora's box.
>I'm one who does support the removal of Saddam by
>any means needed, unless he steps back and
>surrenders all WMD. His removal from power would be
>a plus as then you don't need to wonder what else he
>would be trying to buy or secretly build. But without
>WMD's his removal wouldn't be worth a war.
It wont happen that way, if Saddam said "you're all right, im getting out" , it would invalidate the US army there, it would make this past year look like a prelude to nothing, and Bush would be ridicularized, beucase, lets face it, he's been ready to invade for ages. The triumph of diplomatic ways would be a cold blow to the US who are taking it personally, and what , really what, area control.