Re: Bush began Iraq plan pre-9/11

On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 10:40:45PM +0000, Daniel Cassidy wrote:
> Hum that may be so, but AFAICT that's not a view held by most Europeans,
> either then or now. The US accounts for most of NATO's might, so it makes
> a lot of sense for the other countries to agree with whatever they say, at
> least officially.

Have you been paying any attention to 2003? I recall a number of NATO
members betraying Turkey for being a US ally by vetoing to ship PATRIOTs to
it after a direct request.

> Again, I was referring more to EU countries rather than the whole of 
> Europe. Apologies for my lack of clarity.

That's why we have EU-12 to refer to the Eurozone, EU-15 for the current EU
and EU-25 for the EU after May 1st.

> What I basically meant was, historically speaking we are well overdue for
> another couple of wars between the UK, France and Germany (with sides
> undoubtedly allying as arbitrarily as usual), and anyone else who happens
> to get dragged in.

I don't think wars are triggered by solar eclipses. We can only be overdue
for war if there are political reasons for it. Perhaps if France and Germany
continue to break European Treaties such as Maastricht..

(don't ask me exactly how it works, but the EC is suing the EU member states
for not reprimanding France and Germany, which might be the first and only
decent thing Prodi has done for us, if he had anything to do with it at all)

> I'm not particularly convinced by the MAD argument, though to be honest I
> am not quite sure why. Although even if it is correct, we are talking
> about European opinion rather than hard facts. Or, at least, I am :).

Have you seen Dr. Strangelove? 

> >>The difference between the way the United States was formed and the
> >>EU,and their relative histories should also cast some light on the fact
> >>that many US Americans seem to have some trouble understanding this. In
> >>Europe, we continue to hope that the US will recognise that Europe is a
> >>valuable lesson when faced with political confrontation; we have already
> >>tried acting unilaterally, branding the opposing side as "evil" and
> >>ourselves as "good", and have had a long history of war as a result.
> >>Instead, embracing each other's differences and working together has
> >>proven (so far) to be the path to peace (internally speaking, in the
> >>case of Europe).
> >
> >That is the path to peace, not only b/w nations but b/w individuals:
> >"God, grant me the courage to change the things I can, the patience to
> >accept the things I cannot change, and the wisdom to tell the
> >difference."
> >
> >The problem always is the powerful factions who profit massively on war;
> >and that thus constantly push for war and a war mentality.
> >  
> The EU allows them to profit pretty well from peace as well ;)

Internal peace in Europe? What a nonsense.

France and Germany ignore the Maastricht treaty. Distribution of votes for
the EC and EP is one big, hostile battle. Rich countries like Germany and
the Netherlands are fed up paying for Greek farmers, French railways, etc
etc.

The summit on a new constitution failed and I believe every single country
found another one to blame:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3317535.stm

(some Greek paper even managed to blame the US)

Rob
-- 
Rob Kaper     | Fate fell short this time, your smile fades in the summer
[email protected] | Place your hand in mine, I'll leave when I wanna
www.capsi.com |   -- "Feeling This", Blink 182

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFABhfKtppIl2G1SjcRAjwFAKDEYDcTiuGMV9uxo+OxSq09tUfd2ACeImBU
P8mXWW4CK54PEbYaLhqnkyk=
=Lfxh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----