As it seems to be coming out in recent weeks, it was more than a case of allies not wishing to support us. When your friend supports your adversary, he is no longer a friend at all. Oh would they just have stayed out of it completely, that would have been much different. Still, as much as I dislike "French" government action, I would not wish to be enemies with the people of that country.

Once again, I repeat: you must distinguish between France and Germany. France opposed the war because (1) they want to set themselves up as an opposing power center to the US and (2) the Chirac regime was corruptly involved in arms sales, oil contracts and kick backs with the Saddam regime.

Germany also had some business involvement with the Saddam regime, but I believe that the core of Germany's opposition to the war was an innate "romantic pacifism," linked to Schroeder and Fischer's background in the 60s. When Fischer told Rumsfeld "I'm sorry, I have to convince the [German] people, and I just don't have enough evidence" at that Munich security policy conference in February, I believe he was sincere. Since there have been no real WMDs found yet, the "evidence" was a bit inflated or confabulated after all, right?

I can testify from my own visit to Germany in February and from my son's accounts as a US soldier there, that the Germans helped us out, with force protection and transportation.

The Germans have offered food aid to Iraq. The Germans are desperate to join in on the occupation force. The Germans want us to succeed in Iraq and are willing to help. The German's alignment with France against the US was a temporary abberation which will go away unless we destroy our relationship with Germany in a fit of pique.

The French, on the other hand, want us to fail.

let me add a few thinks out of a GERMAN perspective:

1. germany is was and never will be americas enemy.
2. germany is NOT 'unreliable'
3. germany felt offendet by the US, and felt they where unreliable
4. french is not your enemy, they don't want you to fail, they didn't collaborate with saddam, but their efforts to build an multipolar world with a bigger french influence let your intrests stand diametral against each other.

i was able to read A LOT of nonsense in the last weeks and months about german foreign policy and their motives.
please think again before you blaim germany for beeing not a friend, nor an ally anymore and beeing unreliable.
short after 9-11 millions of germans came into our churches and held worships to show their solidarity with the US, and many, many flowers and candels where laid down in front of the US embassy in Berlin. our chancellor spoke of 'infinite solidarity' and many have agreed - so all these people became anti-americanists that are full of hatrets and love saddam in these few months?
at no time there where germans full of hatret against the US, but by time they felt offendet by how the US would answer to our offers of help and aid, and our efforts to solve a GLOBAL problem, the international terrorism, in a GLOBAL way.
for many americans there might be no difference in feeling between 9-11 and now, but in case of EUROPEAN thinking many things had changed wich culimatet in the situation we face now.

sometimes it semms to me many americans are very short-thinking. yes many of you questioned themselfes WHY germans and french semmed to have changed their positions fundamentally [i don't think so, i will tell you later why] and the only explenations i was able to read in american newspapers as well as american blogs or comments to them where only very shortend views of thinks.

what did you thought of when you formed your 'coalition against international terrorism'?
we thought you would try to face the international terrorism the only way able to face this problem: with an GLOBAL perspective, with GLOBAL efforts, with GLOBAL partners.
NO country is able to fight a multinational problem a unilateral way. international terrorism doesn't care of boarders, and for them the whole world is their place to fight - so the only way it could be won is with JOINT efforts.
and that is what germany and french and the EU always had in mind, they where experienced in fighting terrorism, they knew this enemy. and they where experienced in reaching goals in small steps, with long-terms thinking and a LASTING effect.

so they thought of multilateralism, and of international efforts to solve the problems.
who is the experienced one in weapons inspections? the UN/IAEA. who has the experienced lawery in questions of international efforts against proliferation of wmd's? the UN. who has the structural ability to get the whole world at one table to solve a problem the whole world concerns? the UN.

but instead of going this multilateral, worldwide way the US decided to do otherwise.
the world came to your side after 9-11, they offered what they could do, to help the US, and to solve the worldwide problems - INCLUDING terrorism, repressive dictatorships, the Middle East, proliferation of WMD’s AND environemtal and development problems throughout the whole world.
but instead of going this way the US offended all their allys by rejecting all this, stopping to agree on the non-proliferation agreement in biological wapons, stopping to agree to international-court, stopping to agree to kyoto, stopping to agree to future UN anti-terrorism effords - and telling everybody going it alone would be better.

fighting terrorism is done the best, and THE ONLY POSSIBLE way in a big coalition, where different coutrys work together, and give up a part of their own souverenity and a part of their own intrests to get bigger results, to get the ONE AIM done. so asian states have to stop their quarrel about whaling to get the much more importent aim, the terrorism done. and the US should have given up some of their hardcore positions to achieve the ‘ONE AIM’ TOGETHER with all the others.
not the rest of the world but america lacked willing in these questions.
they never where willing to give up a part of it’s souverenity to work together with others, one example is the rejection of the international-justice court efforts. and they never where willing to give up a few of their own intrests to achieve other ones, more importent ones which only can be achieved in a ‘real’ coalition, one example is the rejection of the kyoto agreement on climate.
even in the question of WMD’s they where not willing to work together with the world, to form a real coalition, where everybody GIVES and GETS, one example was the rejection of the biological-warfare agreement and the rejection of the ABM agreement.
this is not what policy should be if long-term thinking, building ONE frontier against ONE target to reach ONE aim, is necessary.

so not germans changed foreign policy between the aftermath of 9-11 and now, but the US.

PLEASE REMEMBER: we are your FIRENDS and we show it every day.
OUR soldiers are in kabul and have the cent-com in peace-keeping there.
OUR soldiers help out in kosovo, and our 'navy' is at africa's eastcoast to help in the international fight against international terrorism. we give our lives and our money to reach this goal.

we are not on the side of the terrorists, but even more then you interestet in solving the problem.
islamic terrorism is a MUCH bigger threat to european countrys then to the us.
both, france and germany have many muslims living in their countrys, also radical and even some ready to use brutal fore.
and if there is a threat of WMD’s on rockets, then this threat is against europe not against the US which is much farther away from the ‘axis of evil’ and the other ‘evil-countries’.
we have a vital intrest in containing the treat of terrorism, in stopping the proliferation and facing future problems.
we also have a economic intrest in containig all these dangers, throughout the world and in the important regions even a bigger one then the US has: in south-east asia OUR trading relations are much higher then the US, so our economies are much more endangered here, the same in the middle-east, east-europe etc. etc.

we just don't think you can reach this GLOBAL goals in a unilateral action AGAINST the opinion of nearly the whole world.

D. Lee makes several assumptions that deserve testing; that the U. S. and the other NATO members are allies, that France and Germany are sovereign countries, and that attempting to thwart the US in dealing with terrorists and their sponsoring states is supporting those states.

Alliance

NATO?s purpose was to keep the Russians out, the Germans down and the Americans in. Americans were willing to do this because Europe had descended into the most horrific general wars twice in a mere 25 years and was on the brink of doing so for a third time. These wars created significant problems for the U. S. forcing it to intervene both times against the wishes of its pacific and isolationist population. Rather than wait for the third war to begin, the U. S. chose to retain its army of occupation in Europe under the guise of an alliance, NATO. The intent of this organization was for the U. S. to assume the responsibility for territorial defence of western Europe. This provided substantial security to the recovering European countries which were subsidized by the U. S. directly as well as by this defensive umbrella.

While various colonial wars were fought to maintain a semblance of order, the colonial empires of the western European nations were dissembled as much by U. S. insistence as by necessity. Not the act of an ally. When some of the western European countries attempted to exercise a muscular foreign policy outside U. S. control by seizing the Suez Canal in 1956, the U. S. promptly stopped the effort and told the Europeans to return home. Not the act of an ally. As a result, the French, when they finally got their act back together, asked the U. S. to remove its occupation army. Because France was peripheral to the defence of western Europe and not leaving would have removed the façade of a voluntary alliance, living U. S. troops left, the dead remained. As a further result of Suez and the burden of acting as a victor instead of one of the countries physically ravaged by the century?s wars, the British had to withdraw fro east of Aden and eventually from Aden itself.

Sovereignty

The erosion of European sovereignty began with the creation of the U. N. This was clearly an institution conceived and designed by the Anglo Saxon powers to restrain nations from going to war yet again. This organization was designed to remove the use of force from the quiver of the European nations, representing a diminution of their sovereignty. When this institution was shown to be insufficient to restrain the Soviet Union, NATO was created, making the diminution more explict.

The European Coal and Steel pact made France and Germany, two countries that had fought each other for control of Europe for at least the previous 150 years, integrate their industrial economies to such an extent that the causes of and ability to wage war between them would be minimized. The pact was reinforced by the presence of an army of occupation in the event either country found that the peaceful barriers to conflict could be surmounted. This pact was the beginning of the erosion of sovereignty of the European powers.

The erosion of sovereignty continued with the expansion of the Coal and Steel pact into the EEC and finally the EU. As a result, the nations of western Europe have abandoned significant powers that define a sovereign nation, they can no longer defend themselves, do not control their borders, do not issue coin or currency, and have given up the ability to define a wide variety of economic and social regulations. The political situation is disturbingly similar to that of the U. S. under the Articles of Confederation, without the homogeneity and consensus necessary to make the resolution by the equivalent of the Constitutional Convention successful.

Terrorism

So we have these semi-sovereign nations of western Europe, imbued with memory of their past centuries of glory now reduced to dependence on the U. S. And as another blogger wrote, you don?t hate any one like you hate someone to whom you owe something, especially when the debt can?t be paid. Along come the terrorists who attack the U. S. And when the big dog is attacked successfully, and we were, it looks weaker. Our response in Afghanistan was supported by the world because it threatened no one but the Taliban. But when we got to Iraq, we were threatening the French oil supply. And the French oil company ELF is showing in court that it is willing to buy politicians like Saddam bought journalists. Clearly our interests with France are not now those of an ally.

D. Lee says, ?If France and Germany believe that their foreign policy, economic, and defense interests are vastly different from ours, it is their perogative (sic) to form their own alliances and military force to defend those interests.? In the case of Iraq, I suspect that the French did see that their interests were vastly different than ours as well as seeing us on the ropes and viewing their enemy's enemy as their friend. Recognizing that they no longer had the power to threaten us even as much as the Duchy of Grand Fenwick, they pursued war by other means. They lost. They have only begun to pay. Does D. Lee think that in victory we should also reorient our policy and alliances toward France in a visible way? To unburden them of ?the baggage of pretending to be our allies? would be the most foolish thing we could do. The charade must be maintained at all costs so that when we finish with the terrorists, France, without allies, can be welcomed back to the family of (civilized) nations.

In Europe we have created a continent of adolescents. And that?s not bad, considering what they did when they had the power of adults. But we are going to have to accept that they will act like adolescents. How do we want to deal with them when they go a little wild, as they have done with disturbing regularity for centuries? Do we want to do the arguing inside the house or out on the street? Germany will wake up and try to get back in the house without having to acknowledge that anyone noticed. But France and Elf must be firmly but quietly punished. Everyone should know something is happening, but not exactly what. Above all, Russia must not be driven into France?s arms. If we can achieve this without letting it get into the papers, so much the better.

If someone can explain to me why my quote marks turn into question marks when I post but not when I preview, I sure would appreciate it.

Thanks.

Richard,

Are you somehow using "curly quotes" and apostrophes when composing these? Or Word? RTF and Word formats don't always work well on the web. When Word converts "..." to a one-character elipsis, the same thing happens.

My comment got a little long for a comment, so I posted it here.

richard writes of the french and germany as of strategic enemies, but thats a wrong assumption.

you should be aware that the 'western civilization' as huntiongton descibed it is not wrong, he's right when he generalizes the intrests of western (EU-)Europe and the US.
both are capitalist-liberal democracy with a high level of wealth. and so we have general common intrests which are a stable and secure world with stabilized trading relations and a high wealth standart in our countries, and a developing of LDC's(less developed countries) and perhaps turning them into liberal democracies.
this must not mean to turn them into western democracies, but into stable, human rights accepting gouvernmental systems that feel an addiction to our trade power and our security guarantees.

in the last years different dangers to this vision came on top. which where international anti-western terrorism, proliferation of wmd's and a middle east that remains unstable.
the US had, as Jeff Medcalf describes in the early beginning of beeing threatened the problem to accept these problems as real dangers.
and after 9-11 they had problems to accept these dangers are not only threats to the US alone but to the whole (not only western-) world, which caused their wish to 'do it alone' instead of doing it together.

Richard describes the european lack of souvereighnity like this would be a disadvantage.
it is not. by giving up individual souvereighnity to supernational organizations like the EU (in trading rules, currency an in near future even security questions and foreign relations), the UNO (also in trading rules [WTO], and international control-regimes [stop proliferation of wmd's], international-justice court, environmental problems [kyoto]. all this where to the favour of every participant, especially inside of the EU.
the whole EU has much more weight in international relations than any member alone ever would have.
many EU countries have opend their borders inside the EU, in this cases richard is correct when he writes that they 'do not control their borders' (and it was in favour of these nations, it let them have intensive trade relations and inter-european cultural exchange) but in fact the outer boarder of the EU is one of the most secure and 'best' boarder in the world. so inside the EU the lack of souvereighnity guarantees better trading relations and outside of the EU the lack of souvereighnity gives the whole EU a better secured boarder.

'France, without allies, can be welcomed back to the family of (civilized) nations.'

you have the wrong assumtions to write stuff like this.
france IS in the family of civilized nations, and it IS in the family of western nations and it IS in the family of european nations - and none of these will change in nearer future (i can not talk about the next 500 years...).
and they never will stand 'without allies', because they decide if they want to stay inside of the european family and inside the family of their allys. and theres no option in forseeable future they would decide anything aginst their EU family. their efforts in the last moths where not to weaken but to strenghten the Europeans. if this what they made was the right way is discussable, but knowing what their intention was lets me know in which direction they will go in future.

'Above all, Russia must not be driven into France?s arms.'

this won't happen. but it WILL happen that russia get's nearer to the whole EU, and that's not surprising. the EU has an enormous attraction on russia in questions of economic and trading. and improved trading relations would be in favour of both - AND would be in favour of the whole western world, because if russia is addictet to western trading relations it has become a strategic ally, and is no more a strategic danger. there is no question in near future a approximating between the EU and russia will take place.

but i don't think it is a situation to fear, this would stabilize russia, and would in fact give us a new ally to achieve the 'big picture' of a stable wealthy and secure world.

Joe,

You are correct. My spelling or typing is so horrendous composition in Word. Any tips? Should I paste to note pad first?

Maxim,

France aided Iraq in stalling at the UN in bad faith. It takes a lot to get Colin Powell PO'ed. The French managed it. They coerced Turkey into preventing the 4ID from moving into Iraq from the north. Americans died because of the French. And now we are just learning from the Iraqi files the extent to which France continued to work with Iraq. I suspect the military has its hands on most of it and it will not see the light of day in my life time for the reasons mentioned above. Friends? Allies? I don't think so. Enemies? I write, you decide.

Germany is not an enemy, just the victim of unscrupulous leaders who fell under the spell of the French. I expect them to return to rationality after the next election.

I believe that many of the arguments made so far in these comments make the mistake of seeing Germany and France's actions (specifically France's) either too much directed at US or too short sighted.

My understanding is that France (and for a lesser part Germany) has come to the realization that its ability to pay for social programs is decreasing and will have to be replaced with outside resources or ended in the near future. Given this, Chirac's anti-Americanist attempts to create a European counter-balance is surely an attempt to create a larger tax base that can no longer be gained through warfare. In this attempt, his actions have little to do with the US (we're just convenient). Likewise, to say that he is simply trying to placate the un-asslimilated masses is too short-sighted.

Case in point, the meeting of France, Germany and Benelux to form a "European Defense Organization" was rightly derided by many in the media and blogosphere as ridiculous because of the costs involved. "Who would pay?", we all asked. Well, that's the point. I think Chirac is trying to get all of Europe to pay, and the best way to do that would be a further integration of EU states into a USofE. He just needs enough reasons for the members to decide the same thing.

As I traveled through Europe, The Czech Republic, Hungary and Morocco by motorcycle last year (tech layoff gone crazy), I recall wondering (as I rolled into Malaga a day after the ETA bombings) if Europeans thought that the EU was as great a thing as I did (in the wake of fewer border stops and a single monetary unit). I was sure that truckers who didn't have to wait in Dresden to Prague-esque lines any longer probably thought so, and like an earlier commenter further thought that if the EU keeps going and becomes an USofE then it would make sense for there to be a Basque state. Why not? Once The USofE was responsible for defense, health insurance and pensions, the basics of life could be assured and previously unviable regional states could work. Couldn't they?

So, Chirac's anti-Americanism, IMHO, is simply one in a number of strategies to drive the EU into a more tightly knit group that can 1) Afford the types of social programs that France offers by taxing the other members of the "state", 2) More effectively put down any type of revolt by radical muslims in specific "states", 3) OK, sure, counter-balance the US.

Can it work? Well, Lithuania, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland all have higher percentages of 0-14 year old populations in comparison to 65+ (Poland in particular is 18% 0-14 and 12.6% 65+). This would say to me that the plan could work, as long as you could get everyone to go along with it. Would they? To get into the EU in the first place, perhaps so. Once in, the larger populations of France and Germany could vote in provisions they wanted.

So, in the end, I think that Chirac is just looking for issues to bind Europe together so that he can create a larger tax base. Anti-Americanism, Pan-European defense and regionalism are simply three of those issues. It'll be interesting to see what else he comes up with. What that means for us is that if defense is something he can use to make this happen, the German and French governments will care where we put our people only so far as our placement doesn't undermine their ability to require the host country to kick-in for the good of the EU too.

I'm actually surprised that Chirac hasn't hired McKinsey (or Cap Gemini) to figure out how many euros could be saved if the national governmental functions of EU members could be consolidated in Paris. Then again, maybe he has...

okay, by now you scared me with your view of things.

you believe in abstruse conspiracy theories against the french and germans and your posts are full of this silly europhob stuff.

France aided Iraq in stalling at the UN in bad faith.

okay, do you know all the scary conspiracys concerning george bush and 9-11? and do i write them over and over to discredit you country? NO because i know its nonsense. and you should know its nonsense that the french are the deepest allies of saddam hussein.
you know some time ago the US supportet him as well? but these times where over in 1990, the US and the French fought against him TOGETHER in gulfwar.

They coerced Turkey into preventing the 4ID from moving into Iraq from the north.

hmm.. let me remember. are the turks the deep friends of the french? NO they are not.
and who decided to prevent the 4id from moving into north-iraq? was it chiraq, or was is schroeder? or was it the turkish gouvernment? NO, NONE OF THESE.
you are living in a democracy can you remember an insitution called PARLIAMENT? and did you know the electet members of these thing, called 'parliament' are free to decide what their conscience tells them? and did you know the turkish gouvernment AGREED to the move of the 4th ID, but the OLD MAN in the parliament thought different?
and did you know germans and french' opend there airspace to the US, and allowed the US troops inside germany to go out and fight while german troops secure these US bases???
GERMANS and FRECH where and are giving their lives in 'enduring freedom' in afghanistan and beyond and you are writing such a shaming europhob conspiracy?

'And now we are just learning from the Iraqi files the extent to which France continued to work with Iraq.'

okay, a not-known journalist told you so. but these 'files' never where shown, and no other journalist could have prooved it. did you know there are several journalists thoughout the world who are writing nonsense?
and are you aware that even your president and your secretary of state LIED before this war to maipulate the world's opinion? powell showed us the sattelite images of the 'WMD factory's, whats in these factory's now??

'Germany is not an enemy, just the victim of unscrupulous leaders who fell under the spell of the French. '

okay, if you think like this i have to tell you you are wrong. HATE ME, I AM GERMAN: only because the germans told the world they would oppose a war without strong evidence the french could do and say what the've done and said.
i don't think of our gouvernment as of an 'unscruplous' one, i like schroeder and fischer an think they are wise man, and in the last election i voted for them, in in the next i'll do again. AM I EVIL NOW?

i am afraid when i read posts like yours, because i know about the importence of the alliance between ALL PARTS of europe and the US, and because i know about our deep friendship, but i see it endangered by stupid, wrong and europhob nonsense like those above.

my upper post is dedicatet to richard.

crionna, you give me hope, with your much mor realistic, balanced, not simplicatet view of things.
i wouldn't say i agree in total, but it is a disussible position based on deeper knowlege of how europe works and feels.

Some very recent background courtesy of the IHT.

http://www.iht.com/articles/96219.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/96216.html

I realize that Chirac is playing a larger game, and that anti-Americanism is just a tool for him to use towards his larger ends. In fact, I see the logic in his long-term position, in that France would be able to put off facing economic reality for quite some time. What I don't understand is what's in it for the eastern Europeans. Why would they want to pay off the French pensioners, rather than using that same money to become prosperous themselves?

I am certainly fine with European integration, though, as long as the result is a free and stable nation which is not an enemy of the US. It would be nice to get rid of the largest threats to the peace in the last 500 years: European inter-necine warfare. The eastern European nations, Italy, Spain and Britain are basically allies in any real sense of the word. Germany came very close to stepping over the line into acting in opposition to us in a meaningful sense (denial of the use of our German bases, of Germany's airspace, preventing aid to Turkey and so forth), but stepped back at the last minute. Turkey, by refusing basing rights, probably cost American lives, but most Americans respect the Turks' decision (after all, it was a democratic process that followed the will of the Turkish people). OK, no basing rights, no influence in post-war Iraq and no economic aid. We can deal with that.

France, on the other hand, stepped way over the line, and can no longer be considered an ally in any meaningful sense. I don't consider France a hostile power, and I doubt many Americans do, but it's certainly no more an ally to us than is, say, Russia. We are on friendly terms overall, but we cannot be considered allies any longer. If the early reports of documents being found in Iraq, on French nuclear assistance to the Saddam regime and particularly of French intelligence sharing with Saddam even after the war started, then it may well be that France slips down to the same plane as China: not actively an enemy, but not to be trusted and in fact to be opposed in any circumstances where it is not in our immediate interest to assist them. This would be sad, but not at this point a surprise.

If France desires to turn all of Europe into an active opponent of the US - call it counterbalancing or what you will - and is successful, the rest of Europe will also sink to the "friendly, but not an ally" state at best. That would be even more sad.

Hopefully, wiser heads will prevail and the non-French Europeans will see that they are better off as our allies than as our somewhat friends or, worse, our opponents.

The Eastern Europeans might very well prefer to have the funds to use internally. The difficulty lies in the fact that the French are only too happy to use economic means (tariffs, continued subsidies to farmers etc.) to make life difficult for a "go it alone" Eastern European country and, IMHO, the US is just too far away to provide the benefit that the Europeans can with regard to investment. The US has found it to be just as easy (if not easier) to invest in Asia and Mexico. Those Eastern Europeans need to be in the EU to get back in the game, if you will.

In the end though, it won't matter. France's own research group (as quoted in the story I linked above) sees no winning scenario for Europe, linked or not, only a slow steady decline.

One more thing, Maxim's compliment? notwithstanding, I'm displeased (since this is a family board, whereas my true statement would be two words starting with F and P respectively) with France's stance on Iraq, though not surprised. They have (had) more to gain and less to lose than the Germans.

In 2002 we had trade deficits with both countries. From France we imported $28B worth of goods. The largest subset was civilian airplanes, parts and engines at $7.5B with art and antiques second at a little under $2B. I'd say that they can kiss off the airline business for 2003 and beyond, but that's not because of their stance on Iraq or the US public's reaction to it, its the pain in the airline industry. I'd also say that the art and antique world is going to keep buying whatever their feelings on Iraq.

Germany on the other hand had (has) a lot to lose. We import $62B from them and while $2.5B is civilian aircraft, parts and engines a whopping $17+ Billion is cars. And that is very vulnerable to the US public's reaction.

So, while France can afford to piss off the American people (business being business) the Germans cannot. IMHO they were not only saying "Screw the US", they were also saying "Screw Germany". Maxim should think about that when American writers bring up facts which led to American deaths and stick to defending a defensible (again IMO) Germany. France hung them out to dry too, it just didn't cost them any lives.....yet.

Sorry. A good writer would have mentioned the export number TO Germany and France as well, especially since I think it adds more punch to the point I hoped to make. (I guess my Giants losing affected me more than I thought).

To France we exported (in 2002) $19B for a trade deficit of $9B. To Germany we exported just $26B for a trade deficit of $36 Billion!!!

Also interesting to me are Germany's trade partners: France 11.1%, US 10.6%, UK 8.4%, Netherlands 6.2%, Austria 5.1%; Belgium 4.9%, Spain 4.5% versus France's: Germany 14.7%, UK 9.8%, Spain 9.6%, Italy 8.8%, US 8.7%. Given what we buy (and how much) from Germany, perhaps France sees (saw) an opportunity to hurt US German relations, impacting the German economy far more than the French and forcing Germany into a closer partnership with them (due to the then more perilous social circumstances).

Again, Maxim, I'd think its best you continue to work towards helping Germany remain friendly with the US rather than defending France. The French are clearly not out to help you (or the Iraqis as we've seen), only themselves.

this is an answer to a post in this thread which was only linked by jeff. his original post can be found &lta href="&lta href="http://URL"&gtHIGHLIGHTED TEXT"&gthere

'We as Western liberals, as children of the Enlightenment, must say that it is never acceptable to deliberately target civilians to achieve war aims. Never.'

i agree if you say that terrorism is not a acceptable way of warfare - but this won't help us in dealing with it.
yes, i dislike nation-based terrorism as well, but is it our job to stop terroists in Azerbaijan? is it our job to stop them in tibet, or everywhere terrorist groups fight for the souvereighnity of their nation/ethnic-group?
are we capable to wage such an endless, and in fact not productive war?
i don't think so - international terrorism is a threat to us that must be defended - in an international way - but to fight nation/ethnic based terrorism throughout the world is not our job, because it is not a threat to us. and for that reason we have to differ sorts of terrorism and how to fight them.
we CAN do something against even nation-based terrorism, but we are not capable or even willing to wage a worldwide war against it [and also you americans are not willing to do this - go out and ask those high-schoolers if they would like to die in Nagorno Karabakh]

'These are in the past, though, so I don't see how they apply to the situation now'

they apply to the situation now as much as every piece of history applys to the situation now.
history is not repeating, but you can learn from developments in history what is likely to happen in the present ['who controls the past, controls the future', huh].
it is unlikely there will be terrorist organizations in cyprus in forseeable future - but it is VERY LIKELY there will be terrorist organizations LIKE those in cyprus in the forseeable future.

'At the point that international terrorism is defeated,'

in MY EYES, perhaps you think different here but i have good reasons to assume this, international terrorism NEVER can be defeated in any kind of war.
you can dry it out, you can make the world in a place where a big majority is addictet to a stable and peaceful status quo, but fighting fire with fire won't be a realistic way.
i agree totally, that SOMETIMES force and even war is needed to face problems, but MUCH MORE is needed to face the problem of int. terrorism, INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS are needed.

'I do believe that the relationship between Germany and the US can be restored, and that it is not endangered in the way our relationship with France is.'

you should stop to see the european nations so unlinked - it is not a possible option that france becomes americas enemy while germans are their best friends (see this story both ways round..)

so i think your fear of a france that becomes your enemy is not a realistic - the NEED the EU and the EU NEEDS them - so they have to calm down to a normal relationship to america, because EVERY EU country is a deep friend of america spaind, italy, germany, UK, and also the new members poland, chzech etc.

'I presume, though, that Germany will get more sensible once Shroeder is gone.'

even WITH schroeder they are sensible.
you should be awar that we ARE your allys and your friends, but we are NOT your vassals. the cold war is over and the world is restored, and europe dreams of an international multilateral world, and inside this world we have the dominating power of the US and the semi-dominating ones of the EU, perhaps russia and in near future china.
as long as the US tries to dominate this world as a unilateral power, which i think they are not capable of, they will think the EU opposes them - but they do not, they just try to get the influence on international affairs that is in accordance with it's economic power.

i agree when you analyze that NATO is not alive anymore, they will be replaced by other forces and alliances.
nemly this will be on the european continent a EU-army and out in the world a alliance between this EU-army and the US.
but if you think the UN is dead and if you make policy as if the UN was dead, then you will have the feeling the EU opposes you. they won't, because they have no intrest in an opposition to the US, but they will try everything they can to let the UN become a new vital constant in international affairs because of they belive that's the only way we can solve the problems of the present and the future.
and EVERYBODY in europe thinks like this, you should have recogniced that the UK really wantet an UNSC resolution, and that they are together will all the europeans in their new iraq agenda which menas a vital UN plays a big role.

and these diametral developments bring great danger to the western world - if we are divided and if we loose our strong instrument of international affairs (the UN!, who is a western based organization. nobody would be luckier of their failure than china or india etc.) and if we loose our common dreams on what should happen to this world (i think you think of the same like me: stability, security, liberal democracys troughout the world and wealth throughout the world) then we are doomed to loose our position in the world to upcoming powers like china, india and, perhaps even a united muslim world.

okay, i think i am too stupid for linking links.
perhaps that works better:

here

i don't think so - international terrorism is a threat to us that must be defended - in an international way - but to fight nation/ethnic based terrorism throughout the world is not our job, because it is not a threat to us.

This statement makes no sense. Either it is a threat to us or it isn't. Recent events prove that it is a threat to us. International pressure is needed to halt the spread of terrorism, but international pressure can only be mounted if there is a credible threat of force. Either you take care of the terrorist groups within your borders or we are going to take care of them for you because they are threatening our lives.

I don't think the US thinks the UN is dead. Bush wouldn't have gone to the UN in the first place if he thought it was dead. By aiming for SC approval, they implicitly acknowledged the importance of international opinion and cooperation. The UN, however, since the end of the Cold War has been speeding its own demise by proving itself imcompetent at solving international crises: Iraq, Bosnia/Kosovo, Rwanda, etc.

Germany with Schroeder is not sensible. The man's policies are tanking your economy.

Indeed, I'd like to point out that the only two UNSC-approved wars of the past century (approved before the fact, that is. France gets its approval after the war begins-- See Ivory Coast)were the Korean War and the first Gulf War. There have been hundreds of wars in the past century, yet iirc the US is the one country to even bother to get prior approval.

I strongly believe that Europe and many Europeans based their anti-war stance not on the facts of the case, so much as opposing Bush and America with her gun-toating maniacs and idiot Jeds. I myself loathe the man and was anti-war for some time, that is, until I actually learned about the situation.

i dislike nation-based terrorism as well, but is it our job to stop terroists in Azerbaijan? is it our job to stop them in tibet, or everywhere terrorist groups fight for the souvereighnity of their nation/ethnic-group? are we capable to wage such an endless, and in fact not productive war?

Are we capable of doing this? I believe that we are. It will take a generation, but it can be done, and I believe that the US, with allies, will stamp out terrorism. We simply cannot afford not to.

'This statement makes no sense.'

it does. and your answer shows how important it is to seperate diffenrent types of 'terrorism'. the word terrorism is very vague.
a clear definition of what terrorism is is needed, and it is needed to seperate differend types of terrorism. and THEN you can analyse which terrorism is a can be fought which way.

'Yes, it is our job to destroy terrorists everywhere, even (in due time) those who only operate within a particular set of borders. Organized and sustained terrorism by one faction in a conflict must result in the end of that faction either through force, co-option or isolation (imprisonment or exile). [..] Are we capable of doing this? I believe that we are.'

that's what you think?
okay, have fun trying what generations of best trained anti-terror experts and years of repressen never could handle.

have fun to 'end' the faction of katholics in ireland and imprison or exile the whole iland to stop IRA's terror.
try what london tryed in more than 100 years without any success. let your soldiers die in ireland. is this what you think of when you talk of 'imprisoning' and 'destroying a threat to the US'?
have fun in Nagorno Karabakh to prevent further terrorist attacks there you (i assume) never heard of.
try what israelis are now trying since the 50's in a bloody costly fight.
try to face problems the french faced in algeria, the british in israel when jewish-nationalists terrorized them - and let the british fail.
is this what you want? a bloody war in Nagorno Karabakh a region nearly no one in the US ever heard from? or an endless fight in palestine to 'smoke them out'?
okay, try whatever you want to try, but you are warned. and europe will go on warning you, because riding the US in a bloody endless war in Nagorno Karabakh or elsewhere against an enemy that always hides never is seen and always gets stronger the more you beat him will ride the western world in crisis - maybe in a bloody crisis.
this is not what i want. and i can't imagine this is what the US wants. go out to your high-schools, ask the students if they are willing to thei in Nagorno Karabakh or elsewhere to fight a problem that never was your's.

shourly we should defend also national terrorism, surly we should be aware of threats everywhere, but it is not our job to defend azerbaijans in Nagorno Karabakh.

'I strongly believe that Europe and many Europeans based their anti-war stance not on the facts of the case'

i strongy believe the absolute opposite. i do not want to discuss if it was right/not right to wage a war there. but be aware that europeans thought a lot before their decision of opposing this war, and they had good reasons.
if they where convinced of a real threat from huge amounts of wmd's, perhaps even nuclear weapons, then they would have reactet different. but they wheren't convienced, and as you see their sceptism was right, because there wasn't a real threat in pre-war times which could have convienced the europeans of waging this war.

'The UN, however, since the end of the Cold War has been speeding its own demise by proving itself imcompetent'

be aware that the UN is only as strong as their members wants them to be.
i totally agree: the idea of UN peacekeeping troops never was a good one, especially when none of the western countries supportet it.
it is verly obvious that peacekeeping troops coming from ghana or senegal are not very good in training and are not very experienced in action.
but the UN showed it COMPETENCE several times, their weapons-inspectors showed how reliable and how experienced and professional they are, and that they are able to get results even under hardest circumstances.
their fugitive progamm showed how powerful this international organisation can help, and their administration for cultural means showed how positive this international efforts can be.

'ask the students if they are willing to thei in Nagorno Karabakh or elsewhere to fight a problem that never was your's.'

perhaps this is not undersandable because of a speiiling problem here...

it has to be '..die in Nagorno Karabakh..'

i think i have to clean my keyboard, i can't imagine i wrote this... ;)

'ask the students if they are willing to thei in Nagorno Karabakh or elsewhere to fight a problem that never was your's.'

perhaps this is not understandable because of a spelling problem here...

it has to be '..die in Nagorno Karabakh..'

i think i have to clean my keyboard, i can't imagine i wrote this... ;)

Maxim, the allegations about France's active and material support of Saddam Hussein during the period of the sanctions and leading up to the recent military operation are not "conspiracy" theories, they are supported with actual evidence found in Iraq's archives. What the UN weapons inspectors showed was that Iraq could and did penetrate their operations. Iraq fooled them for years, the inspectors only made some progress in the late '80's because of defectors from Iraq. They did not demonstrate any reliability nor competence of their own.

Your long comments would be more interesting if they actually dealt with real events.

I’ve been lurking, reading this correspondence with interest but increasing frustration. Now I’m going to inflict my views upon you! But firstly, you should know where I’m coming from; I’m British.

It is my view that the motives of Germany, Russia and France in opposing the US/UK move to a war legitimising UN resolution were significantly different in each case.

Germany opposed war with Iraq because since the end of WWII the German people have become fundamentally pacifist. They have learned the lessons of their history, and we should all be appreciative of that. I suspect this trait might have become more visible before now if they had not been forced to become a (no, the) vital part of the front line between West and East in the long 40+ years of the Cold War.

Russia opposed war with Iraq because it had oil and other interests there that it did not want to risk loosing (although a failed opposition to the war, the situation Russia now faces, greatly increases that risk) and as a trainee democrat, Putin when faced with a 90%+ popular opposition to war, ran with the crowd. Here, he needs lessons from Blair.

France opposed war with Iraq because (a) it risked loosing far more from its oil, military and other interests invested in the Saddam regime than any other country; (b) it was almost in bed with Saddam and risked having this exposed if the regime fell, as is now happening; © Chiraq saw this as an issue that could be used to put new life into the Franco-German axis that drove the European programme for so long in the early years of the European Common Market (now the European Union); (d) Additionally, he thought that in the question of Iraq he had a rallying cry to bind the rest of Europe around French leadership in opposition to the perceived overweening power and arrogance of the United States.

From this analysis, it is clear that each of these three countries should be dealt with in different ways.

Germany is the only one that has acted from genuine conviction, an as such should be respected. It is also the only one that, despite that conviction, did not stand in the way of the US/UK when talking became shooting. Indeed, in various subtle ways, Germany did help the Coalition. It is distinctly possible that Germany would be prepared to assist in peace-keeping, etc. in Iraq in future. Also, when the present weak Schröder government is replaced, as will surely happen soon, it will be possible to consign this unfortunate episode in German-US relations to the history books and pick things up again from there.

Russia made a mistake, probably led on by France. We should work to mend fences with Russia; perhaps going some way to help them recover their wounded pride, such as by compensating them in some not-too-obvious way from their lost investments. We must do what we can to ensure that Russia comes back onside sooner rather than later.

France. Ah now, France. What do we do with France, which has now been exposed as acting as dishonourably and disloyally as any so-called ally could short of actually shooting at the Coalition?

The main thing to remember about France is that this is a nation that has never forgiven-- firstly; Britain for decisively settling the hundreds of years of cold and hot wars between the two superpowers of the day at Waterloo in 1815 with conclusive British victory and 99 years of Pax Britannica, and secondly; America for picking up the faltering British baton and becoming the new sole superpower. What really hurts the French is that because both of these upstarts speak English, French, once the world’s international language, has diminished in significance to little more importance than, say, Italian, while English has grown into the nearest thing there has been to a true world language since Latin.

The next thing to remember about France is that this not the first time it has behaved in such an outrageous manner. Anyone who looks at its behaviour during the negotiations leading up to the Versailles Treaty at the end of WWI, the impossibly grandiloquent manner adopted by de Gaulle while a refugee and guest of the British during WWII, and then his supercilious dismissal of the British request to join the Common Market in the 1960’s will see what I mean. (The ironic thing is that if had not been for Churchill’s insistence at the time it was being created, France would not have been a permanent member of the UN Security Council in the first place.)

So what do we do?

I think the answer is simple. Nothing. France has already demonstrated that she has few followers in the rest of the EU and soon-to-be EU nations. Germany will fall away once the government changes and the true reasons for French behaviour becomes more and more obvious. This result will be an isolated France, which will hurt her more and more until she come to her senses.