What should we ask of Bush II.2?

When George W Bush was reelected President of the United States on 2 November 2004, much of the rest of the world let out a collective groan. What can we expect of his second administration? As important: what should we demand of it?

See TGA's Guardian columns on this subject

Debate - Page 5/12

Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Michel Bastian, France

To Warren:
> you wrote: "So clearly such a massive infringement on American sovereigny as the ICC would cost us much while giving us nothing at all. It would entail risks to which you have only responded, "You will just have to trust the political culture of Europe". Why should we ? You mean like the Belgian judges who were so eager to try Sharon but couldn't spare the time to try Marc Dutroux ?"
It would cost you a little trust in the ICC and it would gain you an enormous amount of credibility and good will in the rest of the world. Also, this has nothing to do with "political culture", european or otherwise. It is a matter of law. The rules of the ICC and the statutes it tries its cases by are clearly defined, they cannot be altered to suit the Europeans, the Chinese, the Philippinos or what have you. They are not very much different in essence from what you are used to in the US (ask any US lawyer and he´ll tell you that he´ll have no more difficulty conducting a trial in the Hague than he would have conducting one in Cleveland, Chicago or Seattle). The judges and prosecutors are among the finest the world (including the US) has to offer. There is no risk of political interference by any state or group of people other than the risk of somebody filing frivolous charges, which could happen in any court including your own. And last not least, it would show that the US do not consider themselves to be "above the law", which, frankly, seems to be the case right now. The Bush administration has shown us that it doesn´t care a lot for human rights other than those of its own citizens (cf. Guantanamo Bay, Abu Guraib etc.). It´s the old "America first and the rest be damned" attitude, and not joining the ICC is just another aspect of that attitude. All the other reasons for not joining the Bush administration is feeding us are just phoney. Heck, even your own law scholars acknowledge that. I´ve seen a podium discussion in Davos on the BBC just yesterday (in which Timothy Garton Ash took part, btw.), where an american law professor (from Princeton, I believe) stated quite clearly that most of the stuff the Bush administration is letting out about the ICC is essentially ill-informed garbage.
Concerning Sharon, I´ve already posted that he wasn´t even tried. The court rejected the complaint, plain and simple. Had the same complaint been filed to an american court, that´s exactly what would´ve happened as well. And Marc Dutroux was duely tried and convicted. Get informed, Warren.
> Hey, we Americans live in a country where a vast number of citizens, probably a majority, believe that the federal government has no right to control their possession of firearms. Do you seriously believe that such a people would tamely subordinate their legal system to foreign judges for no better reason than that the European chattering classes think it's a good idea ?
Enlighten me, what´s "the european chattering class", and what´s it´s relevance to the ICC? And no, I don´t believe that all americans would subordinate a small part of their legal system (because that´s what we´re talking about here; the ICC won´t abolish the consititution, you know) to the ICC. Bush has already proven that. Doesn´t make the refusal any more sensible, though.
> Do you believe that such a nation would violate the principles of a constitution that has served it well for two centuries merely in order to accomodate your latest Big Idea to make the world perfect ?
Again, enlighten me: what part of the constitution would be violated by joining the ICC? The only thing that would be violated by joining would be Bush´s unilateralism doctrin.
> To the American people the ICC is a European abomination that the Democratic Party has had the political good sense to not touch with a ten foot pole. Never at any time during the election did Kerry or any leading Democrat say that he would enter the ICC or sign the Kyoto Treaty and their is no way any American Senate would ever ratify either of those abominations
Again, the ICC is not "european" in essence. It is international. Look at the states party to the ICC and you´ll understand that the europeans are but a small part of that body.

To Phil Karasick:
> To Michel Bastian:
RE: the ongoing discussion about the ICC, here is another piece of interesting news...
German justices consider trying Rumsfeld
BERLIN, Jan. 28 (UPI) -- A German court spokesman said Friday no decision had been made on whether to prosecute U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for the Abu Ghraib prisoner scandal.
The daily Tagesspiegel reported German justice authorities would not act on a criminal complaint filed by an international legal team in November against Rumsfeld and other U.S. senior officials because no German nationals were involved.
But a German court spokesman said: "We have yet to decide whether or not to pursue the charge."
Tagesspiegel said German law prevents federal Prosecutor Kay Nehm from taking legal action unless Germans were involved -- either as suspects or victims.
QED. Hate to say " I told you so", but if Kay Nehm says he won´t prosecute, he won´t prosecute, whatever any courts spokesman says or doesn´t say. Incidentally, I could explain in detail to you why a german prosecutor is not allowed to prosecute the case, but it´d take me quite a while. Short version: it´s in the german procedural law: you can´t try a crime in which no german was either the victim or the perpetrator.

To Johnny Trahan:
> President Bush has done well under fire, Period.
Well, if he has (and I very much doubt it, given the situation the US troops in Iraq are facing at the moment), then it´s fire he himself has provoked.
> We have two choices, 1. We allow the paper lion of the U.N. to dictate to us what we will or will not do. There are even Morons in the United States government who think there is some legitimacy within that organization.
Interesting how americans seem to forget that they were the ones who founded the UN after the second world war. Legitimacy? I´d say it has some legitimacy, what with representatives from a large majority of countries on the face of the earth?
> The only thing legitimate about the U.N. is that it is almost wholly funded by the United States.
Nope, it´s not. Read up on your facts before posting, Johnny. The UN spends approximately 10 billion dollars per year. As of 31 december 2004, it had arrears of 357 million dollars, of which the US alone "owed" 241 million dollars. And that´s a conservative estimate. Even the state department pegged US arrears to the UN over the years at over 1 billion dollars. Incidentally, I´m putting the word "owed" in brackets here because the UN has no legal possibility to force the US (or any other member country) to pay up. However, don´t sound off about the US funding the UN, because it´s just not true.
> Lets be real, without the U.S. the world would have nothing to complain about.
Heh, true enough in more than one sense :-).
> There would be no conviction, because everyone else hates morality (right?) or at least they critize our citizens for desiring a moral society.
Goodness, Johnny, I hope we´re not going to have to run the whole values thread by you again. Read it and post your opinion over there if you have to.
> What Pigs!
It´s hard enough trying to take you seriously without profanities, so you´d better cut the loudmouthing if you don´t want to be politely ignored.
> The would be no economy, no one would have anyone to borrow money from.
Wow, an amateur economist. Incidentally, the US isn´t the only economy in the world, you know. Just in case you didn´t notice. And as for borrowing money, if you´re a third world country, you´re just as likely to borrow money from the germans or the french than from the americans nowadays. Why do you think Bush is trying to get the europeans to cancel the debt owed to them by Iraq? And why did France, Germany and Britain agree to cancel the debt owed them by the countries involved in the tsunami?
> But, the UN can critize us for not giving enough to Tusnami aid. Like we have not been paying the world's bills for about 100 or so years.
Well it´s true: you HAVEN´T payed the world´s bills for the last 100 years. You´ve payed some of the bills, but not all of them. Not even the biggest part.
> but i digress. 2. We can tell the UN to Shove it and enforce its threats like they should be enforced.
I might be mistaken, but isn´t that what Bush is doing right now? Of course he´s been a bit more polite about it but the unilateralism doctrin means just that: tell the UN to shove it.
> The United States has brougth some since of reality to what the world fears in the UN.
Oh, they did that allright. We had to face up to the reality that now we have Bush to worry about besides terrorism, climate change and global poverty.

> Saddam did not have to have WMD's to deserve to go. He has been breaking the rules for 13+years.
I think I´m going to install a style sheet for this, so I won´t have to type it over and over again: yes, Saddam was a dictator, yes, his regime was oppressive and criminal, yes, it´s a good riddance that he´s gone. That doesn´t justify invading Iraq because then you´d have to invade every country in the world with a dictator (and god knows we have enough of those). It also doesn´t justifiy misleading the public about the reasons why you´re going to war. It doesn´t justify killing over 100.000 people in the process and it doesn´t justify spitting in the face of old allies just because they disagree with you.
> Just because the EU puppet Billy Clinton did not react on it does not mean the there are not still rules.
ROTFLMAO! Clinton an EU puppet? Oh, you mean because he didn´t go out of his way to alienate his main european allies? Get real.
> Not to mention, the scandal which is unfloding in the oil for food program.
Another case for a style sheet. Read the other posts about this. I´m tired of repeating the same stuff all the time.
> The UN and its KA leadership simply wants as much money as the US so the lie, cheat, and steal. Its becasue they hate morality, right? Bush did the right thing, and the way you can tell is by the very people that do support him and the ones who do not.
I wouldn´t say Bush did the right thing, and the way you can tell is when people like you support him.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

To Michel Bastian:
With regard to America's defense of its national interests around the world, I wrote: "Nations have not 'merely' the Right, but furthermore the Obligation, to protect and defend their national interests.". You responded by saying: "Like I said, dangerous doctrine. That gives any nation, not just the US, the right to launch attacks on other countries with the excuse of 'preemptive' action. And indeed, it gave the US an excuse to launch a completely unnecessary and illegal war on Iraq." What you are claiming is "illegal" is the idea of a pre-emptive strike. However, your own country has engaged in precisely such actions, yet I don't see any mea culpas being issued for those actions. How many times has France intervened militarily in the affairs of West African nations that are no longer colonies of France? And when the environmental activist group "GreenPeace" was protesting French nuclear testing in the South Pacific, French military divers blew up and sank a "GreenPeace" vessel, killing one of the "GreenPeace" volunteer crewman on board. What do you call that, if not a clearcut case of France doing what it considered necessary in a pre-emptive strike to protect its interests? The "GreenPeace" vessel was completely unarmed, incidentally.
You also wrote: "Clinton made a mistake. The mistake was not that he didn´t invade Afghanistan, the mistake was that he didn´t focus on killing off Al Quaida and particularly Bin Laden enough". Again, you're wrong. The way to kill off Al-Qaeda and bin-Laden was not to fire off a few cruise missiles and pray that they killed the right targets. The way to destroy or weaken al-Qaeda is to send massive numbers of our troops to the other side of the world, to invade the land that al-Qaeda and the Taliban controlled, to forcibly liberate that territory, to drop bombs on the houses and heads of THEIR supporters and THEIR families, and to kill, capture or drive out any and all Al-Qaeda and Taliban who oppose us. Clinton should have invaded Afghanistan years ago, regardless of whether Afghanistan had dirfectly attacked America or not. Clinton should have ignored "world public opinion" and sent 500,000 or so troops to invade Afghanistan. His refusal to do so is a key reason why Al-Qaeda was able to continue using Afghanistan as a base of operations right up until the Liberation of Afghanistan by US and Coalition forces - namely, they were allowed by Clinton to do so, because he didn't "do" anything to stop them.

With regard to the idea of the US "consulting" with our allies and informing them of our actions, I wrote: "Informing allies IS consulting, in my opinion. 'Consulting' does not mean in any way, shape or form that we have to "ask your permission or consent" before we carry out actions deemed vital to our national security." You replied: "The word 'consent' means that you have to convince us (and not just us, all the other allies as well) that the war you want to wage is for a good reason if you want our participation." Please explain how you went from "consult" to "consent". I never once used the word "consent". "Consult" means that we may inform you, ask your views, etc. but that we then have the right to do as we please. No one ever said anything about us in America having to ask your "consent" for any action we undertake. And with good reason -- we will not "ask permission" to defend America or America's interests.

Charles Warren, USA

Bastian wrote > "Fortunately, the Bush administration doesn´t (at least not in public ;-)).
North Korea is indeed a threat (because of the nuclear technology they have built up), but the Bush administration seems to have understood that an invasion of North Korea wouldn´t be the right way to go. So much for the preemptive strike doctrine."
Your criticism is silly. North Korea is a wretchedly poor nation surrounded by rich and powerful nations. It is a nuisance but not a real threat. It is a wretchedly poor nation that has China as an ally so there can be no military action without the benevolent neutrality of China. Which we do not have. Or the backing of South Korea. Which we again do not have. This really is China's problem so there is no reason for us to be up front on it. We are not going to go to war with China to take out North Korea's nukes. Besides, the country is in such freefall that the issue is pretty moot.
Iraq on the other hand is a regional superpower among weak nations. A nuclear Iraq would dominate the Persian Gulf. So the destabilizing effect of Saddam's regime was always far greater than Kim's.
Further, you said ....
"Like I said, dangerous doctrine [preemptive war]. That gives any nation, not just the US, the right to launch attacks on other countries with the excuse of "preemptive" action. And indeed, it gave the US an excuse to launch a completely unnecessary and illegal war on Iraq."
I must confess to being somewhat confused here. When did universal peace break out ? When did nations all over the world concede to the "international community" the right to decide whether they can or can't use force ? When did any nation ever decide to let the UN define its vital interests ? What nation on this planet would let sentimental concerns about the "international community" interfere with doing whatever it thought necessary ? What nation on this planet would feel the need of a UN piece of paper before destroying its enemies ? France ? Hardly.
History hasn't stopped. It has continued. And it is as full of the rivalries of ideologies and states as ever, and as unconstrained by sentimental sermons about "international law" as ever.
For example, the European blather about "international law" is absolutely nothing more than our old friend balance of power. It is nations that wish to constrain America without incurring the awesome costs that would be entailed in actively defying it. So France plays the "a difference between old allies" act while seeking to mold the EU into a Third Empire that can confront America as a geopolitical equal. The precariousness of this act was shown by Chirac's tirade of imperial fury when the Eastern Europeans had the insolence to chose America's friendship over Gaullist pretensions. Of course France was only concerned about international law and justice. That is why Chirac spoke to the Poles as if he were Stalin for daring to speak for themselves and not let France speak for them. "A perfect occasion to keep quiet " ? "Badly brought up" ? Is this how one talks to equals or subjects ?

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "Again, you´re wrong. We don´t want to dictate your policies to you." Many Europeans clearly do wish to dictate our policies to us in America. They are not the least bit shy about it. That's why so many of them are demanding that we sign the ICC, that we sign the Kyoto Accord. They want to change our policies, by any means necessary. They want to force us to adopt the policies that they want us to have, regardless of whether or not we agree with those policies.
Michel Bastian wrote:"We want a right to have a veto over any action IF you want us to participate." Sorry, not acceptable. I would not have ever asked for non-American involvement in liberating Iraq, because asking for others' involvement would require conceding a measure of control to those others, and I'm not willing to do that.
Michel Bastian wrote: "Hmph, I wouldn´t know that East Germany openly aspires to WMD nowadays :-)". These days, East Germany seems mainly to aspire to put the Wall back up, and there appear to be substantial numbers of (formerly West) Germans who would agree with that. But Libya seems to have aspired to acquire WMDs. The Washington Post is reporting today that North Korea may have shipped materials suitable for producing WMDs to Libya.
N. Korea may have sent Libya nuclear material
U.S. officials have already briefed key officials in Asia
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6896589/
Michel Bastian wrote: "If you do not respect that right, fair enough, but you´ll be on your own." Yes, and I am perfectly okay with that.
Michel Bastian wrote: "Oh, please, spare me the anti-french rethoric. Shall I look at all the yank crackpots that go around saying that "France is the actual enemy" (and also making millions with books on that subject, incidentally)?". Be my guest. And the supposed "anti-French rhetoric" as you refer to it is based on the imbecilic rantings of a Frenchman whose Looney-Toon "conspiracy theory" idiocy is more popular in France than reality. See below:
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins040902.asp

James Milliron, USA

George W. Bush is the president of the USA. Enuf said. I believe he should lift the sanctions against Cuba. Aid more in the Sudan, keep an eye on Rwanda and be a peace maker. He should consult with Timothy weekly. Polemics - the media should look to become part of the cure instead of part of the cause. Timothy makes polemics abundantly clear. Now folks let's go to work together and make this a better world or perhaps, there'll be another chimera to fight like the economic insanity of the "cold war". Logic, love and service can do a lot to save the world. It starts with us, one person at a time, being civil. Listening!

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "Also, I think the Bush administration has a distinct tendency to only see american lives as important. Never mind if hundreds of thousands of non-Americans get tortured, maimed or killed in the process, the main thing is that no american is killed or harmed. That´s saying an american life is worth more than a few thousand foreign lives. Pure cynicism, if you ask me." A few questions for you, M. Bastian: (1) Which "non-Americans" are being "tortured, maimed or killed in the process"? (2) What are their names? (3) How many "non-American" Iranians perished directly or indirectly as a result of Saddam Hussein's brutal invasion of their country in 1980 and the resulting 8-year war which Hussein started? (4) How many "non-American" Iraqis were killed, wounded or traumatized in that war which Saddam started and which ended with Iraqi troops back exactly where they had started? (5) How many "non-American" Kuwaitis directly or indirectly perished as a result of Saddam Hussein's brutal invasion of their country in 1990-1991? (6) How many "non-American" Iraqis were killed, wounded or traumatized in that conflict which saw Iraqi forces ultimately ejected by force from Kuwait? (7) How many "non-American" Israelis were killed in Scud missile attacks by Saddam's forces, in a conflict in which they were not even one of the warring parties? (8) How many "non-American" Iraqi Kurds and Shi'ites were slaughtered by Saddam Hussein's troops in 1991, after US Pres. George Bush (Senior) refused to militarily overthrow Saddam Hussein and instead incited Kurdish and Shi'ite uprisings which the US government refused to militarily support? (9) How many "non-American" Iraqi dissidents, political prisoners and unlucky others were imprisoned, tortured and/or murdered between 1991 and 2003, a time period in which you claim that former Pres. Clinton's policies re: Saddam "worked"?
And finally: Were we to total up the body count that resulted from all of Saddam Hussein's horrific misdeeds, it would surely number in the millions. Where, pray tell, is your "outrage" at the slaughter that this man committed, and why does your morality regarding the issue of "non-American" deaths appear to be peculiarly selective?

Michel Bastian wrote: "That doesn´t give the rest of the world a right to vote in the US, of course....". Thank you for recognizing and admitting that. Many Europeans (and others) still can't bring themselves to do that. Michel Bastian wrote: "...but us non-Americans are sure going to continue to rant on against Bush´s foreign policy. Sorry, mate, that´s our right too." Fine, and many of us Americans are going to continue to politely ignore your rantings. Sorry, mate, that's OUR right, too. Michel Bastian wrote: "You´re making three mistakes here: one: there is no such thing as a "european style leader". If you actually examine all the european political leaders you´ll see that they all have their distinctive "style", if you want to call it that. Two: that bit about "big social programs, confiscatory taxes" etc. is getting old. I´m tired of repeating myself on this subject, so read my other posts (again). And Three: you still didn´t get what Europe´s goals are because you still do not understand the nature of the EU. You think of it as a nation, like the US, that will always act in its own best interest and the rest be damned. Again: the EU is not a nation, it is a union of nations, with a common basic denominator, but other than that each nation has its own agendas and goals. That´s why some of the EU members supported Iraq while others didn´t." Well, no, I believe that YOU are making three mistakes here. (1) There is indeed such a thing as a "European-style leader". Chirac personifies it: elitist, arrogant, overbearing, disdainful of plain-speaking and supposedly "uncultured" people, utterly convinced of his own innate "superiority", dogmatically devoted to the European Nanny State with its love of Big Government and its inner conviction that the Individual is Stupid and must be "gently but firmly Guided" by the Big Mommy Government. (2) The European love of confiscatory taxes and huge social programs is an established fact and one which Yur-up-pee'uns proudly trumpet as evidence that their "social model" is supposedly "more socially just". And (3) Europe's (at least, Old Europe's) goals are to remake Europe thru the EU into a "virtual Nation" capable of becoming a an economic and military counterweight to the US, with a common EU-wide government, common economic philosophy (higher taxes; more social programs; more rules, restrictions, regulations and punishments imposed upon the business community), etc.
Hence, the new de facto Franco-German-Spanish political alliance, with the EU intending to remake Europe and with France and Chirac intending to dictate what the new EU's philosophies shall be. You didn't happen to miss Chirac bellowing at the leaders of new Eastern European EU countries (some of which supported the US in Iraq) to "shut up" and fall in line and adopt France's position on Iraq, did you?

Michel Bastian wrote: "Nope, that´s a matter of fact. At the time of the invasion in 2003, Saddam Hussein didn´t have any WMD nor any ties to Al Quaida or other terrorist organisations, period. He was in no way a threat to american security interests." Nope, that's a matter of fraud. You're wrong again. At the time of the invasion in 2003, Saddam Hussein was still paying $25,000 bounties to the families of Arab homicide/suicide bombers who slaughtered Israeli civilians in bombings of marketplaces, buses, Bar Mitzvahs. That's support of Terrorism - Pure and Simple, period. He funded terrorism. At the time of the invasion in 2003, Iraq was still generously hosting and providing safe haven to the Arab architect of the 1985 terrorist hijacking of the cruise ship S.S. Achille Lauro in which an elderly Jewish American in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer, was murdered and his body dumped over the side into the Mediterranean Sea. That's Support of Terrorism. Al-Qaeda is not the only terror organization in existence. As for WMDs, Saddam's regime had failed to account for hundreds of liters of banned chemical and biological weapons. That's called a Material Breach, and that in itself justified military action against his regime.
Michel Bastian wrote: "Saddam's regime was certainly a threat to his neighbors, against whom he launched two unprovoked wars in two decades. One of which the US actively promoted, but that´s another story." Again, totally wrong. The US never once 'promoted' Saddam's insane war on the Iranians, actively or otherwise. He did it on his own, without any "guidance" or "suggestion" from anyone else. Nobody ever "told" Saddam to launch an unprovoked war against the Iranians who were then our mortal enemies, but if he wanted to do it on his own, that was his choice. We simply used his own insanity to our best advantage, which is fine.
Michel Bastian wrote: "Yes, he did that with Scud missiles. What are Scud missiles? WMD. Did he have WMD in 2003? No. So where was the threat to Israel?" Did he have WMD in 2003? We don't know yet. "Absence of evidence" is not "evidence of absence", nor is it "innocence". Iraq never did account for thousands of liters of chemical and biological weapons. Also, Iraq was found to possess Al-Sud missiles, the successors to the Scuds and which had a range in excess of what they were permitted by the U.N.
Michel Bastian wrote: "....it´s just an excuse for the US to start wars wherever they want whenever they want, without even the pretense of a threat to american security. Don´t tell me that´s not imperialism." It's NOT imperialism. We have not merely just the Right to protect our national security interests around the world, but furthermore the Obligation to do so. I don't want us to be in Iraq for a Hundred years, that would be imperialism, but ten to twenty years would be fine, just long enough for us to help Iraq become a stable and functioning democracy -- as was done in Germany and Japan following WWII. Michel Bastian wrote: "The UN inspectors had stated pretty clearly that they didn´t find any WMD before the war....". So what? These are the same UN inspectors who had managed to allow themselves to be buffaloed and hoodwinked by repeated Iraqi attempts to build / buy / steal WMDs or WMD comnponents for the last 12 years.
Michel Bastian wrote: "Nope, he (George Bush Snr.) just wasn´t too keen on invading Iraq, destabilizing the middle-east, alienating his european allies and having to maintain a massive american military presence in Iraq for decades." So, are you saying that tolerating the continued existence and rule of a murderous dictator represents 'stability'?
Michel Bastian wrote: "You can´t blame Bush sen. for crimes Saddam committed, especially since to my knowledge, he didn´t "call upon" the Kurds and Shi´ites. He and his allies (UK and France) moved troops to northern and southern Iraq to protect the Kurds and Shi´ites shortly afterwards. So don´t blame the US for something the US didn´t do." I can certainly blame Bush, Senior for crimes that Saddam was ALLOWED to commit when Bush and the US military had the opportunity to remove Saddam from power once and for all but declined to do so. Your knowledge is faulty, incidentally. Bush #41 did indeed call upon the Shi'ites and Kurds to rise up and overthrow Saddam, which resulted in Saddam's troops (the ones which escaped from Kuwait) slaughtering thousands. The US, the UK and France only moved troops to northern and southern Iraq to protect the (remaining) Kurds and Shi´ites AFTER Saddam's forces had slaughtered thousands.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

text: Scott Loranger wrote: "And for God's sake, fix your two biggest social crises: slow population growth and the welfare system. Start having babies again and make the lazy free-loaders get a job." I thought was hilarious. It seems to me that Mr. Loranger does not realize or understand that the central core of Europeans' belief systems is first and foremost the belief that everyone is "entitled" and "guaranteed" to be provided with a basic standard of living, courtesy of the taxpayers. To Europeans, such people are not "free-loading" at all, they are merely "exercising their right to be supported by the State" so that they as Europeans can "prove" that they are "not some barbaric, dog-eat-dog, everyone-for-themselves society like America".
Asking Europeans to actually voluntarily get off their massively corpulent social-welfare systems, take Personal and Individual Responsibility for their situation, and put up with accepting a job "below their stature" or "beneath their dignity" would be INCONCEIVABLE. It would be OUTRAGEOUS.
Why, it would be like asking them to act like.... well, like (Quelle horror!!!!)... like... AMERICANS!!!!

To Michel Bastian:
Michel Bastian wrote: "Hate to say 'I told you so', but if Kay Nehm says he won´t prosecute, he won´t prosecute, whatever any courts spokesman says or doesn´t say." But Kay Nehm didn't say he wouldn't prosecute. And what the court spokesman stated was not "Kay Nehm won't prosecute". What the spokesman said was as follows: "We have yet to decide whether or not to pursue the charge."
Michel bastian also wrote: "Short version: it´s in the German procedural law: you can´t try a crime in which no German was either the victim or the perpetrator." Short response: German procedural laws can be changed to allow prosecution of alleged "crimes" in which no German was either the victim or the perpetrator. Laws get changed when political parties decide that they want those laws changed. The Belgians, under pressure from the Greens and other left-wing parliamentary members, found a way to change their laws to bring prosecutions virtually anyone they wanted to - Ariel Sharon, Donald Rumsfeld, General Norman Schwartzkopf, non-Belgians all.

Michel Bastian wrote: "That doesn´t justify invading Iraq because then you´d have to invade every country in the world with a dictator (and god knows we have enough of those)." How do you know we won't do precisely that? One has to start somewhere, oui? You appear to be claiming that we "only" have a single, "all-or-nothing" choice: either invade every single, solitary country in the world that has a dictator for a ruler, or else invade nobody at all, and allow dictators to quietly remain entrenched in power. I refuse to accept the notion that this is the "only" choice open to us. Indeed, the only reason this could ever be the "only" choice open to us, is so that we (or others) could agree that we were and are being "morally consistent". So what? Who cares if someone claims we're being "inconsistent"? If they want to correct that inconsistency, let them send their own country's troops, not mine, to fix it.

I am so astonished by it, so incredulous, I almost don't know what to say. The following news was just announced:
Two of the world's worst human rights violators, the governments of Cuba and Zimbabwe, have just been selected for A PANEL THAT WILL DECIDE ON THE AGENDA FOR A MEETING OF THE U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION NEXT MONTH.
Cuba, as most of the world knows (but apparently cares little about), is a Stalinist police state which recently sentenced over 70 dissidents and political prisoners to lengthy prison terms for their having dared to publicly criticize Cuba's atrocious human-rights record and call for democratic elections in Cuba.
Zimbabwe, as most of the world again knows but apparently cares little about, is a Stalinist regime in the making whose dictator of a leader stole elections and unleashed thugs on political opponents.
And people in the rest of the world actually have to "wonder" precisely WHY the U.S. has so little faith and/or confidence in the virulently racist, anti-capitalist, anti-semitic, anti-Israel, dictator-loving United Nations???!?!?

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> You said: <...> What you are claiming is "illegal" is the idea of a pre-emptive strike. However, your own country has engaged in precisely such actions, yet I don't see any mea culpas being issued for those actions. How many times has France intervened militarily in the affairs of West African nations that are no longer colonies of France? And when the environmental activist group "GreenPeace" was protesting French nuclear testing in the South Pacific, French military divers blew up and sank a "GreenPeace" vessel, killing one of the "GreenPeace" volunteer crewman on board. What do you call that, if not a clearcut case of France doing what it considered necessary in a pre-emptive strike to protect its interests? The "GreenPeace" vessel was completely unarmed, incidentally.
All you´re saying there is completely true and, being a frenchman, I´m not exactly proud of many things the french did, particularly the Greenpeace affair. Concerning Africa, you´re right: we were imperialists, there´s no question about that. And we were absolutely wrong. We (along with Belgium, Britain, and even Germany) are probably the main reason why central and west africa are as messed up as they are now. I´ll even give you more ammunition: it´s called Algeria. Most of the actions taken there were stupid and many of them criminal. There was torture for intelligence by the french military, there were french troops left out in the desert to fight the FLN (algerian partisan organisation) without adequate means, there were thousands of algerians and french troops dead in the process and insurgency all over the place. In the end, the french had to pull out. Doesn´t all that remind you of something: military torture for intelligence (Abu Guraib, Guantanamo Bay), american troops without adequate equipment (missing armor in vehicles and missing body armor), thousands of Iraqis and american troops dead and, once again, insurgency all over the place? Of course we messed up a lot in our history (as did many other nations as well), and I hope we learned from our mistakes.
The point, however, is: why does the Bush administration insist on making our mistakes all over again?
> You also wrote: "Clinton made a mistake. The mistake was not that he didn´t invade Afghanistan, the mistake was that he didn´t focus on killing off Al Quaida and particularly Bin Laden enough". Again, you're wrong. The way to kill off Al-Qaeda and bin-Laden was not to fire off a few cruise missiles and pray that they killed the right targets.
Nothing to do with cruise missiles. I´d have to research it, but didn´t the CIA know where bin Laden was before 9/11 and failed to kill him? Wasn´t there something about a drone having identified him?
> The way to destroy or weaken al-Qaeda is to send massive numbers of our troops to the other side of the world, to invade the land that al-Qaeda and the Taliban controlled, to forcibly liberate that territory, to drop bombs on the houses and heads of THEIR supporters and THEIR families, and to kill, capture or drive out any and all Al-Qaeda and Taliban who oppose us.
True (except for the families, I disagree on that).
> Clinton should have invaded Afghanistan years ago, regardless of whether Afghanistan had dirfectly attacked America or not. Clinton should have ignored "world public opinion" and sent 500,000 or so troops to invade Afghanistan. His refusal to do so is a key reason why Al-Qaeda was able to continue using Afghanistan as a base of operations right up until the Liberation of Afghanistan by US and Coalition forces - namely, they were allowed by Clinton to do so, because he didn't "do" anything to stop them.
Before 9/11, Clinton, as well as most americans, didn´t perceive bin Laden as the menace he was. He wouldn´t have sent troops there because he saw no need to, and indeed wouldn´t have had the backing of congress or the american public to do it. Bush didn´t concentrate on bin Laden either at first. Both of them had CIA operations going on to catch him, but only after 9/11 did the notion of an invasion in Afghanistan really come up. By then, al Quaida and the Taliban could not be ousted by anything less than a full scale invasion. A few years before that, the CIA could probably have defused the problem by neutralizing bin Laden and the other Al Quaida leaders.

> With regard to the idea of the US "consulting" with our allies and informing them of our actions, I wrote: "Informing allies IS consulting, in my opinion. <...> Please explain how you went from "consult" to "consent". I never once used the word "consent". "Consult" means that we may inform you, ask your views, etc. but that we then have the right to do as we please. No one ever said anything about us in America having to ask your "consent" for any action we undertake. And with good reason -- we will not "ask permission" to defend America or America's interests.
Again, we´re essentially saying the same thing here: of course you can do as you please. You don´t even need to inform us. Who would stop you? However, afaik you still need our consent if you want our active participation.

To Warren:
You wrote: <...>
Your criticism is silly. North Korea is a wretchedly poor nation surrounded by rich and powerful nations. It is a nuisance but not a real threat. It is a wretchedly poor nation that has China as an ally so there can be no military action without the benevolent neutrality of China. Which we do not have. Or the backing of South Korea. Which we again do not have. This really is China's problem so there is no reason for us to be up front on it. We are not going to go to war with China to take out North Korea's nukes. Besides, the country is in such freefall that the issue is pretty moot.
Well, North Korea has nukes (or is in the process of developing them), so whether it´s a poor nation is of limited interest. Poor or rich, they will be able to bomb Seoul or Tokyo with these things if they want to, so I wouldn´t say they´re quite as negligible as you make them out to be. You´re right of course in saying that military action there is not a good idea, for the reasons you´ve given. Like it or not, diplomacy is the way to go. The Bush administration seems to have understood that.
> Iraq on the other hand is a regional superpower among weak nations. A nuclear Iraq would dominate the Persian Gulf. So the destabilizing effect of Saddam's regime was always far greater than Kim's.
Yes, but, again, Saddam didn´t have any WMD. No nukes, no gas, no bioweapons. He wanted them, of course, but everybody, including the US authorities agrees that he didn´t have them and wasn´t even close to being able to build them.
> Further, you said ....
"Like I said, dangerous doctrine [preemptive war]. That gives any nation, not just the US, the right to launch attacks on other countries with the excuse of "preemptive" action. And indeed, it gave the US an excuse to launch a completely unnecessary and illegal war on Iraq."
> I must confess to being somewhat confused here. When did universal peace break out ?
Don´t know, but I´d say it would be pretty cool if it did break out, wouldn´t you?
> When did nations all over the world concede to the "international community" the right to decide whether they can or can't use force ? <....>
Oh, most of them did. It´s called "UN".
> For example, the European blather about "international law" is absolutely nothing more than our old friend balance of power.
Yes, there are elements of the balance of power idea in it. However, you misunderstand the term "international law". International law consists of contracts (bi- or multilateral) between sovereign countries. If the US sign up to such a contract and then go on to completely ignore it, that´s a breach of international law. Of course nobody is going to declare war on the US because of that, but it puts them in a position where they have broken their given word, with all the consequences: loss of credibility, loss of legitimacy, loss of status and popularity. And yes, these things do matter, because if you have the whole world hating or at least not liking the US, even they will be hard put to protect their interests in the long run.
> It is nations that wish to constrain America without incurring the awesome costs that would be entailed in actively defying it.
If you mean "military constraint", you´re wrong. Nobody wants to "militarily constrain" the US, mostly because nobody would be able to, but also because it´s not necessary. The US (and I include the current administration in that) are not some kind of banana republic regime you can´t talk to. They still do have a functioning democracy and they´re still listening to advice (even if they don´t always take it). If you want to "constrain" the US, you have to talk to them. That´s what Europe is trying to do at the moment, and fortunately, the Bush administration seems to be listening.
> So France plays the "a difference between old allies" act while seeking to mold the EU into a Third Empire that can confront America as a geopolitical equal.
Nonsense. France has no desire or possibility to mold the EU into a Third Empire. France, as Germany, Britain, Spain, Italy and all the other EU member states, has the desire to see a strong EU that can be taken seriously, not only by the US but also by Asia and the rest of the world.
> The precariousness of this act was shown by Chirac's tirade of imperial fury when the Eastern Europeans had the insolence to chose America's friendship over Gaullist pretensions. Of course France was only concerned about international law and justice. That is why Chirac spoke to the Poles as if he were Stalin for daring to speak for themselves and not let France speak for them. "A perfect occasion to keep quiet " ? "Badly brought up" ? Is this how one talks to equals or subjects ?
Yeah, well, Chirac can be pig-headed at times, just as Dubbyah can: saying a foreign head of state is a jackass doesn´t exactly qualify him as a first rate diplomat, either. And Rumsfeld´s "old Europe" phrase didn´t help. Of course France has its interests, and in that instance France didn´t want a war in Iraq. That´s why Chirac 8and not only him; Schröder wasn´t exactly thrilled either) got worked up over the Poles. Gaullist pretensions? That would include the Germans and Brits as well, since nobody does anything in the EU without those three countries. I think neither the UK nor Germany could be qualified as "Gaullist" or catering to french interests.

Mike, London

To Phil Karasick: you're post is a bit too long for me to have time to respond to, but I was outraged by your attempted refutation that American administrations only ascribe value to American lives:
Most of what you have said concentrates on the evils of Saddam Hussains regime and the lives lost under it. Most of these lives were lost WITH US SUPPORT. The war against Iran was SUPPORTED BY THE USA. When the USA supported this war, were they worrying about the lives of non-americans? They couldn't care less. They were playing Iraq against Iran for their own interests. How can you say Michel is being selective? Very ironic.
A perfect example of not caring how many non-americans get killed or maimed in the process is the use of cluster bombs, carpet bombing, agent orange. 3 million Vietnamese are thought to have died as a result of US intervention in Vietnam, compared to 60,000 Americans= a fact which does not lay heavily on the American psyche, and is rarely mentioned. Whenever the Vietnam war is lamented in America, it is never the Vietnamese lives that are cried over.
I'm not saying the USA is unique in this attitude- I'm sure most countries take this attitude to some extent. If there's a disaster in the world, the first thing the journalists try to find out is if anyone from their native country has died. What I am saying is that US ideology, viewed from this side of the Atlantic, seems to currently have created a kind of biblical, black & white world view concerned with absolutes of good and evil which simply do not exist in the real world. In this way, the American mind generally finds it easier to rationalise what is essentially seen as amoral expansionism by the rest of the world. It is this aspect that I feel characterises the ideology pushed by the Bush administration in terms of foreign policy.

Volker Schnell, Germany

I would ask the president a simple question: What is his definition of freedom and liberty? He mentioned those words 50 or so times in his second inaugural speech without defining them, except for one little reference to minorities.
An example: In the spring of 1981 newly elected president Ronald Reagan visited West Berlin. This was, in this insular city protected by the Americans, the heyday of the punk, no nukes and anti-american movements. Riots in the streets.
In a press conference, the new secretary of state Alexander Haig was asked what he, as an American who fought in WWII and as former Nato commander in Brussels, responsible for the protection of West Berlin, made of all this anti-american rioting by people he protected.
What he said is one of the best definitions of freedom I ever heard. I was then 19 and belonged culturally to the rioters, heard the same music, watched the same movies. I strongly disliked Reagan. But Haigs answer instantly hit home. He quoted (I think) Voltaire: "I don´t agree with what you say - but I will fight for your right to say it!"
Is this Bushs definition too? Does it include me, a leftist atheist? Will he fight for my right to speak my mind, whatever I´m saying?
Or do I have to believe in God to be free?

Michel Bastian, France

to Phil Karasick:
You wrote: A few questions for you, M. Bastian: (1) Which "non-Americans" are being "tortured, maimed or killed in the process"?
Errm, well, a few hundred thousand Iraqis, the inmates in Abu Guraib, Guantanamo Bay and the other camps for "illegal combatants" the US have put up. Not enough for you?
> (2) What are their names?
I´d have to get the list of the 100.000 + Iraqis killed in the war (if there is such a list; I understand nobody even bothered identifying them all) as well as the list of inmates of the above institutions. A bit excessive, methinks, so I´ll pass.
> (3) How many "non-American" Iranians perished directly or indirectly as a result of Saddam Hussein's brutal invasion of their country in 1980 and the resulting 8-year war which Hussein started? (4) How many "non-American" Iraqis were killed, wounded or traumatized in that war which Saddam started and which ended with Iraqi troops back exactly where they had started? (5) How many "non-American" Kuwaitis directly or indirectly perished as a result of Saddam Hussein's brutal invasion of their country in 1990-1991? (6) How many "non-American" Iraqis were killed, wounded or traumatized in that conflict which saw Iraqi forces ultimately ejected by force from Kuwait? (7) How many "non-American" Israelis were killed in Scud missile attacks by Saddam's forces, in a conflict in which they were not even one of the warring parties? (8) How many "non-American" Iraqi Kurds and Shi'ites were slaughtered by Saddam Hussein's troops in 1991, after US Pres. George Bush (Senior) refused to militarily overthrow Saddam Hussein and instead incited Kurdish and Shi'ite uprisings which the US government refused to militarily support? (9) How many "non-American" Iraqi dissidents, political prisoners and unlucky others were imprisoned, tortured and/or murdered between 1991 and 2003, a time period in which you claim that former Pres. Clinton's policies re: Saddam "worked"?
And finally: Were we to total up the body count that resulted from all of Saddam Hussein's horrific misdeeds, it would surely number in the millions. Where, pray tell, is your "outrage" at the slaughter that this man committed, and why does your morality regarding the issue of "non-American" deaths appear to be peculiarly selective?
Long rant, (hopefully) short answer: so now you need Saddam´s murders (which I am indeed outraged about, just as you are, since I don´t "select" deaths; all of them are terrible, regardless of nationality) to justify the Bush administration´s position? Basically you´re saying: Saddam killed a few million, so it´s ok if we kill a few hundred thousands. Some argument. No, really, a very cute exercise in sophistry. > Fine, and many of us Americans are going to continue to politely ignore your rantings. Sorry, mate, that's OUR right, too.
Nice to know you´re not one of them :-).
> Well, no, I believe that YOU are making three mistakes here. (1) There is indeed such a thing as a "European-style leader". Chirac personifies it: elitist, arrogant, overbearing, disdainful of plain-speaking and supposedly "uncultured" people, utterly convinced of his own innate "superiority",
Sounds like you have a marked inferiority complex there, otherwise you wouldn´t be insisting on the "elitist" bit all the time. So all the european leaders are like Chirac, eh? Even if he was elitist, arrogant and all that, I doubt very much Mr. Blair, Mr. Zapatero, Mr. Schröder, Mr. Fogh-Rasmussen, Mr. Balkenende etc. etc. would care for your argument.
> dogmatically devoted to the European Nanny State with its love of Big Government and its inner conviction that the Individual is Stupid and must be "gently but firmly Guided" by the Big Mommy Government. (2) The European love of confiscatory taxes and huge social programs is an established fact and one which Yur-up-pee'uns proudly trumpet as evidence that their "social model" is supposedly "more socially just".
This is getting old, Phil. Write a book about it. You´ll probably make millions.
> And (3) Europe's (at least, Old Europe's) goals are to remake Europe thru the EU into a "virtual Nation" capable of becoming a an economic and military counterweight to the US, with a common EU-wide government, common economic philosophy (higher taxes; more social programs; more rules, restrictions, regulations and punishments imposed upon the business community), etc.
*Sigh*, no, you´re wrong (as well as repetitive). See all my other posts.

> Hence, the new de facto Franco-German-Spanish political alliance, with the EU intending to remake Europe and with France and Chirac intending to dictate what the new EU's philosophies shall be.
Ah, so now it´s a Franco-German-Spanish conspiracy led by Chirac, the devil reincarnate, is it? Please, Phil, do me a big favour: read up on european institutions and how they work. You wouldn´t be posting all this nonsense if you had at least basic knowledge of how the EU takes decisions.
> You didn't happen to miss Chirac bellowing at the leaders of new Eastern European EU countries (some of which supported the US in Iraq) to "shut up" and fall in line and adopt France's position on Iraq, did you?
No. I didn´t. You didn´t miss all the US administrations mewling against France either, I hope?
> Nope, that's a matter of fraud. You're wrong again. At the time of the invasion in 2003, Saddam Hussein was still paying $25,000 bounties to the families of Arab homicide/suicide bombers who slaughtered Israeli civilians in bombings of marketplaces, buses, Bar Mitzvahs. That's support of Terrorism - Pure and Simple, period. He funded terrorism. At the time of the invasion in 2003, Iraq was still generously hosting and providing safe haven to the Arab architect of the 1985 terrorist hijacking of the cruise ship S.S. Achille Lauro in which an elderly Jewish American in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer, was murdered and his body dumped over the side into the Mediterranean Sea. That's Support of Terrorism. Al-Qaeda is not the only terror organization in existence. As for WMDs, Saddam's regime had failed to account for hundreds of liters of banned chemical and biological weapons. That's called a Material Breach, and that in itself justified military action against his regime.
ROTFL! So if Bush can´t find any terrorist ties, he has to pull out the old ones and the classic „anti Israel‰ story. Achille Lauro? Come on, Phil, surely there must have been some terrorist attack at least in the nineties you can pin on Saddam´s back. Put in a little more effort, will you.

> Michel Bastian wrote: "Saddam's regime was certainly a threat to his neighbors, against whom he launched two unprovoked wars in two decades. One of which the US actively promoted, but that´s another story." Again, totally wrong. The US never once 'promoted' Saddam's insane war on the Iranians, actively or otherwise. He did it on his own, without any "guidance" or "suggestion" from anyone else. Nobody ever "told" Saddam to launch an unprovoked war against the Iranians who were then our mortal enemies, but if he wanted to do it on his own, that was his choice. We simply used his own insanity to our best advantage, which is fine.
Right, so you didn´t incite the war, you just supported it. Big difference!
> Did he have WMD in 2003? We don't know yet. "Absence of evidence" is not "evidence of absence", nor is it "innocence".
You sound like a trial lawyer about to loose his case. The US wanted to go to war, the US has burden of proof that there was a reason for war. So far, I haven´t seen even a shred of evidence for one of the main reasons: WMD. Face it: there were no WMD, it wasn´t a „slam dunk‰ that Saddam had them and, oops, the UN inspectors were right.

> Iraq never did account for thousands of liters of chemical and biological weapons. Also, Iraq was found to possess Al-Sud missiles, the successors to the Scuds and which had a range in excess of what they were permitted by the U.N.
No, Iraq was found to posses Al-Sud missile hulls. If those were the WMD Bush was talking about, then everybody with as much as a shotgun should beware: it might be construed as a reason to bomb him flat.
> It's NOT imperialism. We have not merely just the Right to protect our national security interests around the world, but furthermore the Obligation to do so. I don't want us to be in Iraq for a Hundred years, that would be imperialism, but ten to twenty years would be fine, just long enough for us to help Iraq become a stable and functioning democracy -- as was done in Germany and Japan following WWII.
And yet another dead horse: comparisons between Germany, Japan and Iraq are skewed. It´s not the same situation by far. Read the other posts on this thread.
> So what? These are the same UN inspectors who had managed to allow themselves to be buffaloed and hoodwinked by repeated Iraqi attempts to build / buy / steal WMDs or WMD comnponents for the last 12 years.
Ah, so they were hoodwinked, were they? Well, they must have been incredibly lucky then, because despite their hoodwinking, Saddam couldn´t manage to get himself WMD for the last 12 years.
> So, are you saying that tolerating the continued existence and rule of a murderous dictator represents 'stability'?
Heh, yes, in a way it does, but that´s not the point. The point is that before the war there wasn´t a united front against the US in the arab world. Now, due to the war, there is. Ask any arab what he thinks about the US and you´ll find disdain at best and pure hatred at worst. That´s what Bush managed to do: make Iraq a focus point for the arab world. He effectively destabilized the whole region.
> I can certainly blame Bush, Senior for crimes that Saddam was ALLOWED to commit when Bush and the US military had the opportunity to remove Saddam from power once and for all but declined to do so. Your knowledge is faulty, incidentally. Bush #41 did indeed call upon the Shi'ites and Kurds to rise up and overthrow Saddam, which resulted in Saddam's troops (the ones which escaped from Kuwait) slaughtering thousands. The US, the UK and France only moved troops to northern and southern Iraq to protect the (remaining) Kurds and Shi´ites AFTER Saddam's forces had slaughtered thousands.
Ok, I´m willing to be convinced here: what are your sources for the fact that George Bush Sen. Called upon the Shi´ites and Kurds? Incidentally, even if you were right, he only needed to protect the Shi´ites and Kurds. No need to invade the whole of Iraq, which is why he didn´t do it even after the massacres.

> text: Scott Loranger wrote: "And for God's sake, fix your two biggest social crises: slow population growth and the welfare system. Start having babies again and make the lazy free-loaders get a job." I thought was hilarious. It seems to me that Mr. Loranger does not realize or understand that the central core of Europeans' belief systems is first and foremost the belief that everyone is "entitled" and "guaranteed" to be provided with a basic standard of living, courtesy of the taxpayers. To Europeans, such people are not "free-loading" at all, they are merely "exercising their right to be supported by the State" so that they as Europeans can "prove" that they are "not some barbaric, dog-eat-dog, everyone-for-themselves society like America".
Asking Europeans to actually voluntarily get off their massively corpulent social-welfare systems, take Personal and Individual Responsibility for their situation, and put up with accepting a job "below their stature" or "beneath their dignity" would be INCONCEIVABLE. It would be OUTRAGEOUS.
Yeah, whatever, Phil. Again, read my other posts.
> Why, it would be like asking them to act like.... well, like (Quelle horror!!!!)... like... AMERICANS!!!!
Heck, Phil, if you insist on using french phrases, at least try to get it right. It´s "quelle horreur", not "quelle horror".
> But Kay Nehm didn't say he wouldn't prosecute. And what the court spokesman stated was not "Kay Nehm won't prosecute". What the spokesman said was as follows: "We have yet to decide whether or not to pursue the charge."
To cut a long story short: Nehm won´t prosecute. It´d take quite a while to explain it to you, so you´ll just have to trust me on this one, I do know what I´m talking about.
> Michel bastian also wrote: "Short version: it´s in the German procedural law: you can´t try a crime in which no German was either the victim or the perpetrator." Short response: German procedural laws can be changed to allow prosecution of alleged "crimes" in which no German was either the victim or the perpetrator. Laws get changed when political parties decide that they want those laws changed.
No, it can´t be changed. Again, just trust me on this.
> The Belgians, under pressure from the Greens and other left-wing parliamentary members, found a way to change their laws to bring prosecutions virtually anyone they wanted to - Ariel Sharon, Donald Rumsfeld, General Norman Schwartzkopf, non-Belgians all.
No, it was the other way round. The Belgians changed their law after the Sharon affair. They amended it so it couldn´t be used to get indictments against foreign nationals.
> <...> How do you know we won't do precisely that?
You don´t have the means. Even now with just Iraq to take care of your military is already stretched to the limit. There is absolutely no way Bush is going to invade more than, say, one other country (Iran?) and even then he´d probably have to institute the draft. I bet that´d go down really well with the american public.
> One has to start somewhere, oui? You appear to be claiming that we "only" have a single, "all-or-nothing" choice: either invade every single, solitary country in the world that has a dictator for a ruler, or else invade nobody at all, and allow dictators to quietly remain entrenched in power. I refuse to accept the notion that this is the "only" choice open to us. Indeed, the only reason this could ever be the "only" choice open to us, is so that we (or others) could agree that we were and are being "morally consistent". So what? Who cares if someone claims we're being "inconsistent"? If they want to correct that inconsistency, let them send their own country's troops, not mine, to fix it.
Didn´t get that bit. What´s your argument? That being inconsistent is your right and that therefore you can invade any country you want to?
> I am so astonished by it, so incredulous, I almost don't know what to say. The following news was just announced:
Two of the world's worst human rights violators, the governments of Cuba and Zimbabwe, have just been selected for A PANEL THAT WILL DECIDE ON THE AGENDA FOR A MEETING OF THE U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION NEXT MONTH.
<..>
Oh my god, this is the decline of the western world. Cuba and Zimbabwe will actually be on a panel (with several other states) which will decide on an AGENDA! This is the end! I mean honestly, get off it, Phil, or you´ll end up in hospital with a coronary.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

text: To Michel Bastian:
You wrote: "Doesn´t all that remind you of something: military torture for intelligence (Abu Guraib, Guantanamo Bay), American troops without adequate equipment (missing armor in vehicles and missing body armor), thousands of Iraqis and American troops dead and, once again, insurgency all over the place?". Nope, it doesn't. The detainees at Abu Ghraib may have been humiliated, but they sure as heck were treated a lot more humanely than when the place was under the command of Sadly Insane Hussein's forces. US troops are being issued body armor and new vehicles equipped with armor plating. Iraqis braved death threats from the terrorists to vote in record numbers in Iraq's first democratic elections in over half a century. And the insurgency (actually "insurgencies", there are a number of small and varied insurgencies going on at the same time and being carried out by different groups with different agendas) is/are losing support among the Iraqi people.More and more, the Iraqi people are turning against the terrorists and supporting the Iraqi government.
As for the detainees at Git'mo, they are Islamic Al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists who were captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not in Iraq. And as far as I'm concerned, the US military can do whatever it likes with them. Torture them to get information about Al-Qaeda and where Bin-Laden might be hiding? Sounds great to me. More, please. If I thought that using "prohibited methods of intelligence-gathering" against the Islamic fanatics caged at Git'mo might help prevent another 9/11 atrocity, I would cheerfully interrogate them myself -- with a blowtorch, if that was what worked.

Michel Bastian wrote: "(1) Nothing to do with cruise missiles. (2) I´d have to research it, but didn´t the CIA know where bin Laden was before 9/11 and failed to kill him? (3) Wasn´t there something about a drone having identified him?"

I have the following comments to make: (1) It had everything to do with cruise missiles, because that's all Clinton did against al-Qaeda.
(2) In a word, NO. The CIA did not know where Bin-Laden was, other than that he was almost certianly in Afghanistan and under the protection of the Taliban. The CIA could not possibly kill Bin-Laden, because (a) as I have already stated, they didn't know where he was, and (b) it's a little difficult to kill a particular individual when that individual is being protected by a 40,000-man Taliban "bodyguard".
(3) A person who "looked like" Bin-Laden was spotted by an unmanned American reconnaisance drone. The soldier controlling the drone wanted to open fire, but his request to fire was denied because he couldn't identify beyond any doubt that the target was actually Bin-Laden and because his request had to go up a chain of command. By the time his request was approved, the target had moved and wasn't visible anymore.
By the way, all this happened considerably AFTER 9/11, not before. The US military didn't start using unmanned drones in Afghanistan until well after 9/11.

Michel Bastian also wrote: "Before 9/11, Clinton, as well as most americans, didn´t perceive bin Laden as the menace he was. He wouldn´t have sent troops there because he saw no need to, and indeed wouldn´t have had the backing of Congress or the American public to do it. Bush didn´t concentrate on bin Laden either at first. Both of them had CIA operations going on to catch him, but only after 9/11 did the notion of an invasion in Afghanistan really come up. By then, al Quaida and the Taliban could not be ousted by anything less than a full scale invasion. A few years before that, the CIA could probably have defused the problem by neutralizing bin Laden and the other Al Quaida leaders."
That view is blatantly incorrect. Pres. Clinton was very much well aware of the horrific threat that Bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda posed. Pres. Clinton, after all, was the US President in office in 1998 when Al-Qaeda terrorists blew up two US Embassies in Africa, killing hundreds of people and injuring over 4,000 people. Pres. Clinton was also the Commander-In-Chief of the US in 2000 when Al-Qaeda terrorists bombed the US Navy destroyer USS Cole in a port in Yemen, killing 17 US Navy sailors and nearly blasting the ship in two. To suggest that Clinton "wasn't aware of" the threat posed by Bin-Laden or "didn´t perceive Bin-Laden as the menace he was" is utterly ludicrous. Former Pres. Clinton himself has stated on more than one occasion that Bin-Laden was the main subject of the daily threat-analysis briefing at the White House for years at a time. Therefore, Pres. Clinton knew of the threat that Bin-Laden posed; he (Clinton) simply didn't do anything about it, other than ordering a Navy submarine to fire off a few cruise missiles.
The claim that "A few years before that, the CIA could probably have defused the problem by neutralizing bin Laden and the other Al Quaida leaders", is equally preposterous. It's as nonsensical as the claim by an ignorant 20-year old Canadian student that "all the US would have had to do, was send in a small CIA commando team and 'take out' Bin-Laden" or some such rubbish. Statements like those are so ludicrous, it's difficult for me to imagine that anyone would even utter something so naive.
First: Bin-Laden had spent many years in Afghanistan, dating back to the early 1980s or so, back when the Soviets still occupied the country. He was and is quite familiar with the country and its terrain. He also was (and is) quite adept at protecting himself and his entourage, by staying hidden. He also has had many years of experience in doing so, dating back to the Soviet era. I realize this may come as a radical concept to some, but finding a single individual terrorist who doesn't want to be found and who is very good at staying hidden is not the easiest thing in the world to do, even for the CIA.
Second: Afghanistan is roughly 400,000 square miles of territory that ranges from barren plains to jagged mountain ranges and peaks that are over 15,000 feet high. The country is riddled with mountains, deep canyons, valleys, caves, tunnels, caverns, underground bunkers and similar places that make welcome hiding places for terrorists. To suggest that anyone could simultaneously search all or most of these places to find Bin-Laden is absolutely mind-bogglingly naive. The Soviets could not hunt down or find anti-Soviet guerrillas in the 1980s, even when they had over 110,000 troops in the country; the US has barely one-tenth that number of troops in Afghanistan now.
Third: Afghanistan's rural populace is fanatically Muslim, deeply religious, and intensely suspicious of and hostile toward foreigners, especially non-Muslims. It's a population that is a natural base of support for Bin-Laden; they simply will not give him up.
Fourth: In his time in Afghanistan, Bin-Laden gave large amounts of money to the ruling Taliban regime. The Taliban, in turn, became a private for-hire 40,000 man army and bodyguard that protected and sheltered Bin-Laden. The idea that a "Small, Elite CIA Hit Squad" could sneak into Afghanistan, somehow get past the 40,000-man Taliban army, find Bin-Laden in his hiding place, kill him, and sneak back out again without being detected, slaughtered or captured and turned in by the Islamic populace, is so preposterous, it almost can't even be dignified with a response.

To Mike in London:
I am outraged at your flimsy and pathetic attempt to claim that the US was somehow "responsible" for SADDAM HUSSEIN'S actions. The lives that were terminated by Saddam WERE NEVER LOST WITH 'US SUPPORT'. The war against Iran WAS NOT 'SUPPORTED' BY THE USA. The US never once 'promoted', 'advocated' or 'encouraged' Saddam's insane war on the Iranians, actively or otherwise. He did it on his own, without any "guidance" or "suggestion" from anyone else. Nobody ever "told" Saddam to launch an unprovoked war against the Iranians who were then our mortal enemies, but if he wanted to do it on his own, that was his choice. We simply used his own insanity to our best advantage, which is fine. The only "support" we ever gave Iraq was defensive in nature. We never gave Iraq tanks, we never gave Iraq combat aircraft -- nothing that could be used for offensive purposes. We didn't "help" Iraq to "win", and Saddam didn't "win". We merely kept Iraq from LOSING, which is a completely different matter. And Saddam was always a brutal thug, and we always knew he was a brutal thug. And Saddam was never our "friend". We NEVER "liked" him, we merely TOLERATED HIS EXISTENCE.
As for your ludicrous comment that "A perfect example of not caring how many non-Americans get killed or maimed in the process is the use of cluster bombs, carpet bombing, agent orange"... Agent Orange wasn't even a "weapon" at all!!! And what exactly do you think the purpose is in war, if not to WIN!?! When Britain bombed Nazi Germany, did you "deliberately and humanely avoid using anti-personnell weapons to spare the civilian populace" ? AS IF. If you want to talk about carpet-bombing and the slaughter of noncombatants, I suggest that you do a Google search on the word "Dresden". It might be refreshing and illuminating for you to learn something of your own history before you arrogantly presume to make accusations at others.
Finally, with regard to your comment that "What I am saying is that US ideology, viewed from this side of the Atlantic, seems to currently have created a kind of biblical, black & white world view concerned with absolutes of good and evil which simply do not exist in the real world. ". There IS absolute good and Absolute Evil in the real world. If the Holocaust and the spectre of concentration camps did not teach you that, then clearly you have a very, very large amount of learning to do.

Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12

Debate - Page 5/12