Why does America need Europe?

[The_Penguin]

And the cold war has been over almost 25 years.. so what is the excuse now for the massive US military..? Feel free to leave Europe and dont let the door hit you on the way out.

This is one of those things that you and I actually agree on.

 

[The_Penguin]

In my opinion, it's sad when this becomes an American/European pissing contest.

On both sides of the ocean, we have more in common than what divides us. And on the fields where we differ, we can learn from each other and inspire each other.

Europe is very anti-war and anti-military, which in itself may be a good thing, but it keeps us from doing what's necessary to defend ourselves. I don't see we could defend ourselves properly without America. Hell, we didn't even manage the Yugoslavia wars in our backyard in the 90s without the US stepping in and taking lead. Americans show us how we can profit from strength and self-confidence, from belief in the strength of free markets and our right to use force to solve problems.

*shrug*

I was born in Eastern Europe, came here in '92 and became a citizen in '98ish. I studied German and lived in Bayern for a year (no no, I didn't just visit and saw the tourist traps .) As much as I'd like to have some conciliatory movement and find more common ground, I genuinely doubt that that is possible. Anti-Americanism was pretty rife in Bavaria. Americans = cowboys, heard people make fun of the fact that Americans say "Yeah" and not "Yes" and the ever-favored insult of viewing all of Americans outside of urban centers as inbred hicks with the average intelligence of a squirrel.

I'll be honest, I really don't see much common ground where the people from both sides of the continent can find common ground. Hell, based on the perception of what's the best way to achieve success in life (free markets or government run economies), we have more in common with China.

When I was there, I tried to play the good guest and not get into everyone's face too much about it (hell, sometimes I'd just drink beer to forget what some were blathering about), but after those 11 months I was pretty antsy to get the hell out of Europe.

In return, Europe can teach America a lot about the value of diplomacy, the value of a strong law vs. law of the stronger, and the general idea that being too trigger happy may lead into catastrophe. We can remind America how evil war is, because they don't know that, since they have never had a war on their ground since the Civil War.

Not a full-blown war, but we have been attacked on our soil.

We can also remind America that equality is a value similarly important as the value of freedom, and that integration of a society is a very good means of solving problems, rather than expanding differences (see high US crime rates).

It's really not as bad as some make it out to be :roll: . You can find Baltimore and Detroit, yes, but they're the exceptions. Go to rural/suburban areas and things quiet down considerably.

 

[The_Penguin]

Europe is the most internationaly respected region of the world. We are the mecca of the modern world, America has dropped the ball and fell into international disgrace. You cant even stop the oil leak. Your a weak neation.

You're a doody headed poopy faced booger. I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

 

[The_Penguin]

Ya just look at Greece, they're doing just super, oh wait that's probably America's fault too.

Actually it is. Apparently some American banks loaned them cash and told the Greeks to go bonkers. After carefully considering the situation and dicussing it thoroughly with other in a sane and rational manner, they... nah, they just started spending like there's no tomorrow and it was a 24/7 party .

 

[zimmer]

Look, there is a basic moral standard that says "two wrongs don't make a right". I don't question Saddam was a murderous dictator. But starting a war against him that results in hundreds of thousands of deaths is hardly an acceptable answer.

I think your should read what Hans Blix reported to the UN.
I would say, by your definition, Blix was fear mongering. He paints a bleak, dangerous picture.

Then tell me Bush was a liar, Blair was a liar, the Democrats were liars, the French, Russians and German intel agencies and governments were liars.
Bolded for easy reading, and edited.

He had the worst of WMD, as Blix noted, and they couldn't account for it, and he was uncooperative.
What do you do as a President sworn to defend against enemies foreign and domestic, with an obviously gleeful band of terrorists spread about the world like cancer?

You "Connect the Dots"... remember those words?

Now tell me, after reading the following. You have just been hit (911), and this kook in Iraq has WMD by all indications. He hates America, and terrorists are dying to get a hold of some WMD goodies.

Do you issue years of threats, behave like Neville Chamberlain or Bill Clinton, or do you give one last chance, and then act if he doesn't? Hoping it is not too late already.

CNN.com - Transcript of Blix's remarks - Jan. 27, 2003

Resolution 687 in 1991, like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq, but such was often withheld or given grudgingly.

Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

As we know, the twin operation declare and verify, which was prescribed in Resolution 687, too often turned into a game of hide and seek. Rather than just verify in declarations and supporting evidence, the two inspecting organizations found themselves engaged in efforts to map the weapons programs and to search for evidence through inspections, interviews, seminars, inquiries with suppliers and intelligence organizations.

As a result, the disarmament phase was not completed in the short time expected.

The Implementation Resolution 687, nevertheless, brought about considerable disarmament results. It has been recognized that more weapons of mass destruction were destroyed under this resolution than were destroyed during the Gulf War. Large quantities of chemical weapons were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision before 1994.

While Iraq claims, with little evidence, that it destroyed all biological weapons unilaterally in 1991, it is certain that UNSCOM destroyed large biological weapons production facilities in 1996. The large nuclear infrastructure was destroyed and the fissionable material was removed from Iraq by the IAEA.

One of three important questions before us today is, How much might remain undeclared and intact from before 1991 and possibly thereafter? The second question is, What, if anything, was illegally produced or procured after 1998 when the inspectors left. And the third question is, How it can be prevented that any weapons of mass destruction be produced or procured in the future?

I'm obliged to note some recent disturbing incidents and harassment. For instance, for some time farfetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of an intelligence character.

Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441 states that this cooperation shall be "active." It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of catch as catch can. Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items.

On 7th of December 2002, Iraq submitted a declaration of some 12,000 pages in response to paragraph 3 of Resolution 1441, and within the time stipulated by the Security Council. In the fields of missiles and biotechnology, the declaration contains a good deal of new material and information covering the period from 1998 and onward.

Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that will eliminate the questions or reduce their number.

I shall only give some examples of issues and questions that need to be answered, and I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons.

The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons, and that the quality was poor and the product unstable.

Consequently, it was said that the agent was never weaponized.

Iraq said that the small quantity of [the] agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

There are also indications that the agent was weaponized. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at the storage depot, 170 kilometers southwest of Baghdad, was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved here in the past few years at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding.

Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve, but rather points to the issue of several thousand of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and has set up a committee of investigation. Since then, it has reported that it has found four chemical rockets at a storage depot in al-Haji. I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of ... a mustard [gas] precursor.

I turn to biological weapons. I mention the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasions, and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist.

As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as reported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999.

In the letter of 24th of January this year to the president of the Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that, I quote, "All imported quantities of growth media were declared." This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.

Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fueled missile named Al-Samud II and a solid propellant missile called Al-Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to arrange in excess of the permitted range of 150 kilometers,

These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems.

In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure.

Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 kilometers.

Iraq has also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and guidance and control system. These items may well be for proscribed purposes; that is yet to be determined.

What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq; that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.

Presumptions do not solve the problem; evidence and full transparency may help.

Let me be specific. Information provided by member states tells us about the movement and concealment of missiles and chemical weapons and mobile units for biological weapons production.

However, Iraq has all the archives of the government and its various departments, institutions and mechanisms. It should have budgetary documents, requests for funds and reports and how they have been used. They should also have letters of credit and bills of lading, reports and production and losses of material.

The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the lacing enrichment of uranium, support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals.

On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes.

Any further sign of the concealment of documents will be serious.

It's still all but sure yet if this experiment will succeed. Is the situation in Iraq self-sustaining? When the US pull out, will there be civil war? Will the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds start killing each other? Will Iran interveen in favor of their Shia friends and become an even bigger threat? Will some Iraqi government launch a coup and turn the country into a dictatorship once again?

If only Barack Hussein Obama had been president then. He could have bowed and talked nicely to Saddam Hussein. It would have solved everything. He might have even been able to sweet talk the terrorists. Then again, that hasn't worked with Iran or the terrorists. The Jews or Palestinians... Never mind... had a slurp of Hope & Change Kool-Aid.

.

 

[alexa]

Then tell ME Blair was a liar,

I'd second Blair being a liar.

TONY Blair privately admitted on the eve of war in Iraq that Saddam Hussein did not have any useable weapons of mass destruction, Robin Cook, the former Foreign Secretary, has claimed.
In an explosive allegation which challenges the Prime Minister’s honesty and dramatically undermines the case for military action, Cook says Blair told him on March 5 he no longer believed Saddam had WMD ready to fire within 45 minutes.

http://news.scotsman.com/labourparty/Cook-Blair-knew-Iraq-had.2467411.jp

 

[zimmer]

I'd second Blair being a liar.




Cook: Blair knew Iraq had no WMD - Scotsman.com News

Did you read Blix's testimony?
That alone tells you a lot was unknown, there was no trust, and they believed there was WMD unaccounted for.

Let me ask you. If you have a family member who has a young daughter and the street she lives on is turned into a halfway house for recovering pedophiles, would it bother you if the mother let the child walk the street to school unaccompanied?

.

 

[alexa]

I sort of agree with him. The Greece fiasco revealed some pretty bad social and economic undercurrents in the EU. I doubt that the EU will fall apart, but we'll see a generation-wide lack of desire to rectify the current underlying problems.

I think the EU enlarged too fast by taking on Easter European countries so quick. That is where I think problems come from but I am not an EU expert. I agreed with Digsbe's concerns about anti-islam in Europe, though I am hoping this will settle. I also agreed with PeteEU on this that the US itself has shown similar problems in this regard.

 

[alexa]

Did you read Blix's testimony?
That alone tells you a lot was unknown, there was no trust, and they believed there was WMD unaccounted for.

There was no evidence that Saddham had wmd's that could reach us in 45 mins. This was just a rouse to get us to war. I never believed it but some people did. We are in the middle of an inquiry as to why we went off to war on such lies and why parliament was not told the truth.

 

[bennyhill]

Colin Powell lied to the UN about Saddams missels, and american soilders never found those missislls, so yes the world does beleive GWB started an unnecessar war.

 

[zimmer]

Colin Powell lied to the UN about Saddams missels, and american soilders never found those missislls, so yes the world does beleive GWB started an unnecessar war.

Hans Blix makes the case.
Anthrax, weaponized VX... no cooperation, missile programs, illegal chemicals, and 12-years of UN Fun House with Saddam... 4 of which had no inspecteurs.

There was no evidence that Saddham had wmd's that could reach us in 45 mins. This was just a rouse to get us to war. I never believed it but some people did. We are in the middle of an inquiry as to why we went off to war on such lies and why parliament was not told the truth.

Another one like the other one.
Will the top brass at the BBC gets their asses booted this time too for sexing up news? LOL.

.

 

[zimmer]

And the cold war has been over almost 25 years.. so what is the excuse now for the massive US military..? Feel free to leave Europe and dont let the door hit you on the way out.

Remember that when you folks coming whining to us to intervene in another EU backyard mess like The Balkans.
YOU folks handle all of it and pay for it ALL.

Ingrates.

.

 

[The_Penguin]

I think the EU enlarged too fast by taking on Easter European countries so quick. That is where I think problems come from but I am not an EU expert. I agreed with Digsbe's concerns about anti-islam in Europe, though I am hoping this will settle. I also agreed with PeteEU on this that the US itself has shown similar problems in this regard.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with your entire post.

Greece is to blamed for its plight. From unsustainably lavish social expenditures to at times lying to get into the EU. Oh and Greece is in Southern Europe, by comparison, Poland has a growing economy .

The problem with Europe's immigration issues and our own is that ours are relatively minor and have fewer issues with integration. Europe can learn valuable lessons on how to better integrate immigrants.

 

[alexa]

Another one like the other one.
Will the top brass at the BBC gets their asses booted this time too for sexing up news? LOL.

The Hutton inquiry if that is what you are referring to was a whitewash and resulted in someone committing suicide. Not a laughing matter at all. If on the other hand you are referring to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, I do hope we will not need 38 years until the truth is recognised.

 

[Simba]

It's not so much that Europe needs America, so much as America, or that neo-conservative part of its government, that needs Europe to sustain its legitamacy.

The quicker Europe makes its own trek, the sooner we Americans can regain control over our government against the desires of the neo-conservative, AIPAC supporting globalist.

 

[Agent Ferris]

It doesn't matter. I can remember clearly that our intelligence said in it's report before the war, that it believed that Saddam was only likely to be involved with terrorism if it was attacked.

Actually that was one of the things that pre-war intelligence was unsure of, and post-war intelligence proves that Saddam was willing and able to attack the U.S. using Islamic Terror organizations.

We were told this after things got started of course but it was ridiculous to suggest Saddam had links with Al Qaeda. Bin Laden wanted to lead the first gulf war!

Saddam did have links with AQ, they did attempt to set up plans to work together, nothing ever came out of those links and AQ and Saddam never did have a collaborative relationship, but that doesn't mean they weren't willing to work together, and Saddam did in fact have a collaborative relationship with Islamist terror organizations including AQ affiliates.

Again our intelligence said that the only fear from terrorism from Iraq would come about if it were attacked.

We were told a pack of lies. Those lies are currently the focus of an inquiry.

Once again the DOCEX review by the Pentagon proves beyond any and all doubt that Saddam was willing to attack the U.S. with the aid of Islamic Terror organizations and was planning on doing so right up until the fall of Baghdad.

 

[alexa]

Actually that was one of the things that pre-war intelligence was unsure of, and post-war intelligence proves that Saddam was willing and able to attack the U.S. using Islamic Terror organizations.

Your intelligence agencies maybe, I was talking about British

Saddam did have links with AQ, they did attempt to set up plans to work together, nothing ever came out of those links and AQ and Saddam never did have a collaborative relationship, but that doesn't mean they weren't willing to work together, and Saddam did in fact have a collaborative relationship with Islamist terror organizations including AQ affiliates.

Bin Laden hated Saddam. He did not have the same religious leaning.

Once again the DOCEX review by the Pentagon proves beyond any and all doubt that Saddam was willing to attack the U.S. with the aid of Islamic Terror organizations and was planning on doing so right up until the fall of Baghdad.

Whateve the US says I am at the moment not interested. I simply said that our intelligence was that the thing that would make Iraq liable to be a home for terrorists was an invasion.

 

[German guy]

I don't feel like answering to every single link that has been brought up here now, maybe we can do it in another thread some time, so let me just say so much:

First, there was indeed a lot of fearmongering involved on the side of Bush and Blair. Remember that claim about mid-range rockets, possibly nuclear armed, that could reach Britain? Obviously, it goes without debate that this claim was pure fearmongering without any basis in reality. I won't exclude the possibility that anti-war people, or especially governments, also downplayed certain details saying that there is a tiny possibility for WMD in Iraq, but these clues were hardly sure and I think history has proven them right: No WMD were found in Iraq, and neither did Iraq use them during the invasion (and if they didn't use them when their very existence was at stake, it's safe to say they wouldn't have used them under less extreme conditions either).

Ties with terrorists or even al-Qaida were superficial at best, at best aimed at improving Saddam's bad image among islamists, because his regime was a secular one, he considered islamists a threat for his power and jailed them. At any rate, Saddam was not remotely involved in 9/11, nor did he support terrorists to commit another one.

Also, opposition to the war in 2003 was legitimate. It was a most risky choice to go to war, because of both ethical and pragmatic reasons: Critics said the war might have caused a general destabilization in the Middle East, forcing a huge number of people into the arms of islamist terrorists and become the hugest recruitment program they have ever seen, it may cause immense bloodshed, horrible humanitarian situation for the civil population, stabilization of a country that's ethnically divided between Shia, Sunnis and Kurds may become an impossible task to fulfil, and Iran may exert power over Iraq's Shia majority once Saddam is removed. It was also supposed that it may lead to a general fire and intervention in that region by neighboring powers. The latter has not become reality, fortunately, but all other arguments have either come true to some extent, or are still to early to call. More than 650,000 people have died due to the invasion in Iraq so far, which is 5 times the number per year as under Saddam.

Because of that, it was very legitimate to oppose the war in 2003. It was most risky and it was legitimate to say this risk was too high, and thus opposition to the war was legitimate. History has not yet proven these skeptics wrong.

Sure, there was much hystery and ignorance involved on the side of war opposers. But the pro-war camp hardly had better arguments or attitude. Today, 7 years after the invasion, it remains the hope that history will be generous, and allows Iraqis to live in freedom, democracy and safety from crime eventually. But even if that happens, it doesn't mean opposition was wrong or illegitimate.

 

[Simba]

Well said, German guy. Well said.

And look at that...I came back on to find I wasn't banned!

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Hehe now that you mention it, a good thing!

 

[Agent Ferris]

Bin Laden hated Saddam. He did not have the same religious leaning.

And yet Bin Laden and Saddam had high level contacts.

 

[Agent Ferris]

I don't feel like answering to every single link that has been brought up here now, maybe we can do it in another thread some time, so let me just say so much:

First, there was indeed a lot of fearmongering involved on the side of Bush and Blair. Remember that claim about mid-range rockets, possibly nuclear armed, that could reach Britain? Obviously, it goes without debate that this claim was pure fearmongering without any basis in reality. I won't exclude the possibility that anti-war people, or especially governments, also downplayed certain details saying that there is a tiny possibility for WMD in Iraq, but these clues were hardly sure and I think history has proven them right: No WMD were found in Iraq, and neither did Iraq use them during the invasion (and if they didn't use them when their very existence was at stake, it's safe to say they wouldn't have used them under less extreme conditions either).

These non-existent WMD have been used by the insurgency in post-invasion Iraq in the form of Sarin gas filled shells (the binary type with indefinite shelf lives) that were converted into IED's and used against coalition forces.

Ties with terrorists or even al-Qaida were superficial at best,

No they were collaborative.

at best aimed at improving Saddam's bad image among islamists, because his regime was a secular one, he considered islamists a threat for his power and jailed them. At any rate, Saddam was not remotely involved in 9/11, nor did he support terrorists to commit another one.

Saddam was collaborating with Islamist terror organizations to attack the U.S. right up until the fall of Baghdad as proven by the Pentagon review of DOCEX. What's really interesting is that Saddam was in fact recruiting suicide pilots to attack the U.S. up until at least 2001.

Also, opposition to the war in 2003 was legitimate. It was a most risky choice to go to war, because of both ethical and pragmatic reasons: Critics said the war might have caused a general destabilization in the Middle East, forcing a huge number of people into the arms of islamist terrorists and become the hugest recruitment program they have ever seen, it may cause immense bloodshed, horrible humanitarian situation for the civil population, stabilization of a country that's ethnically divided between Shia, Sunnis and Kurds may become an impossible task to fulfil, and Iran may exert power over Iraq's Shia majority once Saddam is removed. It was also supposed that it may lead to a general fire and intervention in that region by neighboring powers. The latter has not become reality, fortunately, but all other arguments have either come true to some extent, or are still to early to call. More than 650,000 people have died due to the invasion in Iraq so far, which is 5 times the number per year as under Saddam.

No it's actually a little over 100,000 the Lancet Survey is proven bull**** but you hacks still refuse to discontinue its use for your own propaganda purposes.

Because of that, it was very legitimate to oppose the war in 2003. It was most risky and it was legitimate to say this risk was too high, and thus opposition to the war was legitimate. History has not yet proven these skeptics wrong.

Sure, there was much hystery and ignorance involved on the side of war opposers. But the pro-war camp hardly had better arguments or attitude. Today, 7 years after the invasion, it remains the hope that history will be generous, and allows Iraqis to live in freedom, democracy and safety from crime eventually. But even if that happens, it doesn't mean opposition was wrong or illegitimate.

Bottom line is that Saddam did have WMD programs just because the on button wasn't pushed in is of little relevance, he still had the means and the desire to have WMD, AND Saddam did have a collaborative relationship with Islamist terror organizations (including AQ affiliates) and was plotting with them to attack the U.S. right up until the end of his reign.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

And yet Bin Laden and Saddam had high level contacts.

On bizzarro planet...

 

[Agent Ferris]

On bizzarro planet...

No right here on planet earth, it's all right in the 9-11 Commission Report actually.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Thanks for being a blast from the past but a few meetings between them does not a connection make. There was no assistance towards sept 11 by Iraq for Osama by any means and ive never heard of them offering serious material support either. Osama has had contacts with alot of relatively anti-american states. Unless you have sources on Saddam and Osama collaborating I say its BS. And wiki directly states Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and gave no material support for the attacks.