I think I will copy and paste my old posts more often from now in these arguments, since the exact same arguments come up every time.
uh, I'm too tired to do this right now, my arguments are half baked and I'm going to screw up facts, please don't let this get close before I wake up again
I can take over for you for the moment, since I can just recycle my old arguments.
I always thought it was american, oh well, generaly I am well informed screwed up there though, but the point I was trying to make was that NATO is basicly a bunch of contries that wants the USA to keep them safe, do not tell me the idea was not to keep the USSR at bay
This is so true. NATO is essentially a cold war relic that was formed to combat the USSR and has essentially become obsolete in today's age, especially with the diffences in opinion forming between the US and Europe. Such alliances are formed out of a common objective and a common objective alone; once that objective has been met, the alliance no longer really exists. In today's world, the objective is to fight the "terrorists," and the main nations that have an interest there are those being targeted by the same groups (mainly there is the US, Israel and India, but also some others).
No, the fact that you are using our weakness to get what you want. It's like an ultimatum - wanna join NATO: support us. If you do not support us: screw you and if WW3 should come... *wink-wink* *nudge-nudge*
Exactly, that is what every sensible nation in the world does. You take advantage of the other's weaknesses; it is common sense.
(although in this case, it does not really matter)
Germany and France arent indecisive or weak, they're wise. This wisdom comes from 2000 years of history America does not have.
Yes, I will certainly argee that they are wiser due to their centuries of experience with these political systems. Here is the train of thought that they must be using: in recent years the US has grown too far economically and militaristically (note all this stuff about the "unipolar world"), and this cannot be allowed to continue. Therefore, they need to do something that will bring the US down so that they will have a chance of becoming the great powers of the world once again in the future, but they cannot operate in the open since they are too reliant on the US at the moment. However, they can do things more indirectly and secretively, and that is exactly what they are doing here. They know that an attack on Iraq has a significant chance of temporarily disrupting the next 9/11, and the French also have business interests in Iraq, so they must give Iraq another chance; in order to do this, they will make sure the US holds off for another month or two, which will mean that it will drag on into next year, since the scorching desert temperatures in the summer would prevent proper operation of machinery. The US on the other hand needs to finish up with Iraq ASAP so they can move on to the others. In fact, I would not be surprised one bit if it is found that the French and German governments are directly financing al Qaeda in exchange for having them leaving their own nations alone for the moment and going after the US; if they are doing this, then they are living up to my expectations of their wisdom quite well. Now note that this is no reason to think the nations are "bad;" on the contrary, I very much admire them for their skill here, as this "world opinion" is one of the places that they are getting the better of the US.
As for the oil argument, read the last thread on this subject; there is not only a good reason they are not after oil (Saudi Arabia), but also even if they were, they are trying to get some free oil, what in the world in wrong with that?
what I meant to say (or what I meant but did put to words too well) is that America has never experienced the losses of war. Europe has suffered through countles wars and knows the cost in human lives is too high.
Now, if you want to get into the theoretical aspect of this, look up my posts on the good old "experiential bias" topic; there is a point at which experience becomes more detrimental than beneficial to thinking due to the way it plays with emotions. For example, consider the question "is alcohol bad for you?" asked to a complete alcohol addict and a man who has never drank it in his life. The alcoholic, who has far, far more experience, will answer in the affirmative, while the other guy will answer in the negative, but who is to be believed?
And when we get into the losses of war, while some valuable people die, the majority of the deaths are the common people that are easily reproducible, a side effect of their higher percentage of the population. Then there is also the issue of whose people they are; the US should, as any smart nation will do, only worry about Iraqi people as they contribute to the well being of the US. This is the way international politics works. Then again, if Afghanistan is any indicator, the civilian casualties will likely be much less of an issue than most people think.
BTW do you really believe Bush is after freedom etc. Oil man, its the biggest industry in the world. America is stationing troops in the Middle East and it'll be 10 years before they start pulling out. Can you honestly be so naive as to think that America is doing this for anyone's benefit but their own.
Well, yes, but in a limited sense; he is after his own freedom.
It is rather obvious that the US is doing all this for their own benefit; I don't think there is any country in the world that is stupid enough to do things that benefit other nations more than their own (well, possibly India, where I am from, but they are really messed up).
Oh come on, don't tell me that Sadam hid them somewhere so that they can't find them. Those inspectors probably have hi-res equipment to find those.
I think this statement says it all about misinformation.
Here's how to hide a bomb: find some random place in the middle of a desert, dig a ditch about ten feet down, put your warhead in there (these things are about the size of a computer, at the most), and cover it up again with dirt. Even if all of the European population combined (over 250 million) is sent to Iraq and instructed to find it with the best technology at their disposal, chances are that they will take at least a decade to find it. If you can invent something like a bomb detector that has a fairly large radius, you will be a rich man indeed.
Just because the US wants to take out Saddam doesnt mean everyone has to. Let the "Great Army" do its "Great Duty" on its own.
Thats called hitlerism, or even Bushism now that freakin American Nazi.
Ah, it's great to finally some sensible posting around here.
The US definitely should not be worrying this much about global opinion (since all countries are at their core enemies of each other, this is like worrying about Iraq's opinion on the war
), especially when the stakes are so high; I see this as something of a weakness, only balanced out by the US's other assets. Bush is indeed a nazi, and so far he's doing a good job at it. Let us see if he can keep that up.
