No, it is a question of interests......
....That's what I was saying. US interest.
Of course it is a matter of interests. America was interested in ridding itself of the 12 year baby sitting burden and Europeans were interested in having America continue the burden for them. "Stability" in the Middle East meant America maintaining the dictator. Notice I didn't use Europeans here. Only America was to be criticized by Islamic zealots and religious monsters over its continued presence and its
evil tyranny "against Muslims." And oh yeah...the UN mission to starve out Iraqi children? ...also an American focus of blame, not Europeans.
So you are damn right it was in our interests to rid ourselves of Hussein. I would think that our "friends" across the ocean would understand this and support us. But instead, it pretended to be ignorant of the prior twelve years and criticize us for BS "WMD" excuses to take him out.
Because it was the USA who wanted to get influence over there. Not France or Germany.
This is an empty argument. America already had concreted influence throughout the region with these governments. Before Hussein kicked off into Kuwait, we had him standing between Iran and the rest of the region. After we rid Kuwait of Hussein, we had Kuwait as a part of our influence in the region. Jordan's king was already a fan of America. Egypt was already a business partner and ally. Turkey was already an ally of America. And Israel is more of a public friend than anybody in continental Europe is.
This argument that America wanted "influence" in the region as if we didn't already own this is misleading. The reason we lead every international effort is because we don't have another nation to burden our needs and wants to like the rest of you do. I suppose we wanted to gain influence in the former Yugoslavia too, huh?
"WMDs" or "Al Quaeda links" were still lies
This was a Bush mistake. He should have been up front so France and Germany could show their true colors. Europe used this BS to excuse themselves from the fight. Of course, now that Iraq is emerging as an international business opportunity, nations like France are salivating over the prospect aren't they? Don't want to involve themselves with the sweat and blood side of the effort, but definately wants to be there to suck up the rewards.
However, when it's about far countries like Cambodia or Rwanda, no one cares about democracy or genocides:
....Indeed, you helped containing Russia (because it was also your interest).
Yet.....America has never kept any acre of land anywhere outside its borders has it? In our mission to protect our interests, we constantly sought to do it with far more respect towards local human beings than any European country in history. The fact is that America recognized that its interests are better protected by fellow democracies a long time ago. The entire Cold War was about ensuring the spread of democracy over the spread of communism and the resources that would strengthen either one. Of course, spreading democracy isn't as easy as spreading oppression so invoking the European favorite of settling for the friendly dictator was the temporary fix during the threat of nuclear holocaust.
But the Cold War is over. Somalia was about feeding the hungry. Bosnia was about stopping genocide for you Europeans. And we could have easily opted to take the easy way out in Afghanistan and Iraq and dropped in a friendly dictator, but we chose to do the right thing. It's you Europeans that are still stuck in Cold War mode and criticizing us for trying to be better. It's you Europeans that preferred the dictator that maintained "stability" over actually practicing what you preach. And it's you Europeans that are fond of tearing our effforts down by constantly accusing us of being friendly towards Saddam Hussein and the Tali-Ban at one point. Somehow, the fact that we are and have been facing forward against our former temporary mistakes isn't supposed to matter.
I would call this behaving responibly towards those Cold War efforts. The entire third world had been wrecked due to European colonialism. Where's the responsibility of Europeans here?
However, while France did a similar thing and sent Lafayette to help you get your independence from Great Britain (because it was also a French interest), the USA didn't help France when Great Britain was at war with them, a few years later (because it was not in US' interest to do so):
Don't pull the "France helped you in the Revolutionary War" bit. "Major" ally is very much exaggerated. They did even less than the bare minimum and it was largely about sticking it to their long time enemy across the English Channel. Such
debt has been repaid over and over and over since with no like reciprocation. Now....if one were to state that America was a "major" ally to France during WWII, then it would be accurate because France didn't even exist anymore when American troops rolled through liberating it. In fact, the first time France had a chance to prove that it is a friend it failed by sending the bare minimum to Afghanistan with conditions of safety. This "interest" argument is far more a European attitude and prescription than it is an American one. After all....who more than once lobbied the UN to at least take a glance at the genocide in Darur? Was it a continental European nation or America and Britian?
It's like you bashing Europe because we didn't attack Saddam-the-evil-dictator while not mentioning that the USA helped overthrow democratic governments in Chile and Iran!
Again you invoke Cold War efforts as if America is to never evolve away from. As if maintaining the European status quo of world orders is supposed to be an American agenda. The Cold War is over. The only ones confused of this is Europe.
The more you talk about them, the more they reach their goal ....
Like not talking about the German scourge across the border was supposed to mean that they weren't a threat? Europe has a way of pretending their way into disaster. Bill Clinton also refused to talk about religious terror and the exponentially growing threat. 9/11 was our reward. And as immigration into Europe continues to exponentially grow amidst mass growing unemployment for those immigrants and the native Europeans...religion and it's voilent product will be your rewards.
USA, with France (they killed some pirates yesterday), the NATO, the UN, China, Russia...even Japan sent 2 ships...because unlike Darfur or Rwanda, it's not just about coloured people killing each others, it's about our commercial interests
Yeah sure. Like the Gulf War, it will be a grand showing of international cooperation with America bearing the burden. The interantional community has been not dealing with this pirate mess for years. A mess Asian, Middle Eastern, and European nations helped create via toxic dumping in their fishing waters. Not once has any of you amassed an effort to deal with it. But now that America is involved (which is what everyone always waits around for), we will deal with these pirates for our own self interests. And like always, protecting ourselves means others will benefit. Just once maybe America can benefit under somebody else's efforts and sweat. Just once maybe the black eyes and global criticism can be directed some where else.
But the world likes being able to point at America doesn't it? When in doubt, wait for America to get involved.
and most people I know have at least 5+ national backgrounds), more space per person and the metric system I don't see that much different.
.
