Iraq: Helping the US

[aerosolben]

The latter.

Ah, thanks.

What a douche-nozzle.

 

[jmontecillo01]

Is it? I wasn't aware.

Would you know in what way it is helping?

If I remember it right, Japan sent an Engineering force to help with reconstructions. The Australian and (some) of British troops are suppose to provide protection for them. It is a small force (I think around 600 engineers).

 

[BPSCG]

Er. Space travel requires smarts, quite a lot of smarts.
Most species go extinct when they reach that level.
They simply cannot handle the technology.

Evidence?

 

[WildCat]

They would be able to help by doing at least what they did in Iraq1:

So you want them to set the stage for another war 10 years after this one?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Europeans and Americans sometimes disagree on policy.

Europeans and Americans sometimes feel strongly about this.

Europeans and Americans both believe that they have the more correct position.

This clearly shows that Americans are arrogant.

 

[PogoPedant]

Europeans and Americans sometimes disagree on policy.

Europeans and Americans sometimes feel strongly about this.

Europeans and Americans both believe that they have the more correct position.

This clearly shows that Americans are arrogant.

Nice

However, I'm afraid that the perception on this side of the pond is more like this:

Americans and Europeans feel differently

Europeans ask for a discussion to figure out which party is right

Americans call Europeans cowards for wanting to find out the truth and prefer to start a war in somebody else's home country

--

Mind you, this isn't necessarily the truth, it's merely how I think people here view the current situation with regards to Iraq.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your prejudices aside, are you seriously saying that nothing the Bush Administration could do would bring these countries around?

I would thank you kindly for not telling me what my predjudices are. And yes, I'm saying I don't think there's anything realistic Bush could have done to get either Germany or France on board. Germany was hostile to the idea from the very beginning, and France, once they decided to oppose us, became positively vindictive about it (recall their denial of NATO planning to help Turkey should Turkey get attacked). Can you think of anything that would have brought them around? I cannot, and I have seen no one put forward proposals for what might have worked either.

 

[geni]

Still, it seems to me that a humiliation of the US on the order of the looming Iraq fiasco, is not in any democratic society's deepest interest.

This is broadly correct. However the US survived Vietnam it will survive Iraq.

So, I think it is time for all democracies worldwide to forgive and look at the greater perspective. Bury the war-hatchet with the US and help them out. Greater things than the current US Administration's idiocy and arrogance are at stake here, I think.

Nothing much to be done. Europe can have little role in Iraq's fate.

Of course, we are talking about politics here. So, would anyone know of a way to get the Bush Administration to make a (huge!) jesture of conciliation with Germany, France, Japan, Norway, etc, etc?

Why should they. France, Germany and Japan are the only ones with militiries worth considering. Germany and Japan have consitutional issues. Which leaves France. Any influnce would probably be better used to get france to send more troops to southen lebanon.

In any case bush is too disliked as is Iraq. European contries will get involved in afganistan and depending on the result of the next US election may be prepared to get more involved there. But Iraq? No no one is that stupid.

 

[Merko]

Why should they. France, Germany and Japan are the only ones with militiries worth considering.

I think you're illustrating very well the problem so many Europeans see with contemporary USA. Doing something about a problem is basically assumed to work only in one way: send the army to kill someone.

Europeans usually don't see things this way, and that causes some friction.

Not that this was always the prevalent attitude in the US. Perhaps the most enlightened and successful intervention throughout world history was the Marshall Plan. Transforming Europe from a continent with so many likely war fronts that we'd need faculties to describe them, into today's overwhelmingly peaceful region, is a truly amazing result, especially considering how fast it was achieved. I'm not saying the Marshall Plan did all of the work, but it was certainly an important component.

 

[geni]

I think you're illustrating very well the problem so many Europeans see with contemporary USA. Doing something about a problem is basically assumed to work only in one way: send the army to kill someone.

I am european. If other than troops on the ground what else is there?

Europeans usually don't see things this way, and that causes some friction.

Which europeans would these be?

Not that this was always the prevalent attitude in the US. Perhaps the most enlightened and successful intervention throughout world history was the Marshall Plan. Transforming Europe from a continent with so many likely war fronts that we'd need faculties to describe them, into today's overwhelmingly peaceful region, is a truly amazing result, especially considering how fast it was achieved. I'm not saying the Marshall Plan did all of the work, but it was certainly an important component.

Europe has not been exactlt peacful for the last 60 year but the major powers have been quite because they were exusted by WW2 and had to work together due to the soviet union.

No europe hasn't been peacful with the war in Yugoslavia the cold war across europe the various internal conflicts and the upcomeing civil war in greece

 

[Gurdur]

.....Charles Krauthammer .....The Europeans don't seem to have the stomach for the fight against Islamism ....My $0.02.

If you did not exist, it would be necessary to have Borat invent you.

 

[Gurdur]

Europe has not been exactlt peacful for the last 60 year but the major powers have been quite because they were exusted by WW2 and had to work together due to the soviet union.

Weird. You really think that was the reason?

the upcomeing civil war in greece

Extremely weird. I am amazed at your clairvoyance; as far as I know, you are the one and only person I have ever encountered in the last 20 years to claim an upcoming civil war in Greece. Why do you think that?

 

[geni]

Weird. You really think that was the reason?

Pretty much. Fighting two of the bloodies wars in history will make even the like of britian ask for a timeout.

Extremely weird. I am amazed at your clairvoyance; as far as I know, you are the one and only person I have ever encountered in the last 20 years to claim an upcoming civil war in Greece. Why do you think that?

Oh the normal argument over Macedonia. No it won't really be a civil war but that area of the balkans has been two peaceful of late.

 

[Gurdur]

Pretty much. Fighting two of the bloodies wars in history will make even the like of britian ask for a timeout.

The real reason is that Germany, France, Italy and the UK etc. found that mutual cooperation in a liberal framework actually accomplished their aims of prosperity and security much more than war. You make it sound like they're only resting, waiting for the next war; that simply is not so. There has been a very real and longlasting change of POV, framework and societies. Western Europe has discovered satisfaction and prosperity through the EU and mutual cooperatioon; THAT is what keeps it together, not exhaustion or the late USSR.

Oh the normal argument over Macedonia. No it won't really be a civil war but that area of the balkans has been two peaceful of late.

So there WON'T be a civil war in Greece. You know you're kind of confusing? First off you claim an upcoming civil war in Greece, now it turns out you meant no such thing, but maybe you mean a war between Macedonia (FYROM) and Greece, two totally seperate countries, which even if it did happen (and it won't), would NOT be a "civil war in Greece". Sheeeesh.

 

[geni]

The real reason is that Germany, France, Italy and the UK etc. found that mutual cooperation in a liberal framework actually accomplished their aims of prosperity and security much more than war.

They all lost their empires so it would appear that isn't the case.

You make it sound like they're only resting, waiting for the next war;

No. Nuclear weapons mean that war isn't really an option for most of them any more. Say invadeing gibralta is somewhat less fun when you risk haveing madrid wiped out. Even Franco who was not your peacful european understood that.

that simply is not so. There has been a very real and longlasting change of POV, framework and societies.

In Germany perhaps.

France lost many troops trying to hang on to it's empire. Britian withdrew slightly more gracefuly but has had it's share of conflict. Both have involved in militry interventions in thier former empires.

Both still have an incedibely strong nationalistic streak and both actively use militry force to atchive some of their forihgen policy aims.

Western Europe has discovered satisfaction and prosperity through the EU and mutual cooperatioon;

No. Western europe has got too good at war it simply isn't pratical to fight them any more at least against each other.

THAT is what keeps it together, not exhaustion or the late USSR.

European countries have been prepared to unite against outside common threats.

So there WON'T be a civil war in Greece. You know you're kind of confusing? First off you claim an upcoming civil war in Greece, now it turns out you meant no such thing, but maybe you mean a war between Macedonia (FYROM) and Greece, two totally seperate countries, which even if it did happen (and it won't), would NOT be a "civil war in Greece". Sheeeesh.

It was meant to be an indication that europe might not stay peaceful. It is a real ethnic conflict but one that most people don't think about. And it would have to be a civil war because macedonia isn't stupid enough to go to war with greece.

 

[egslim]

They all lost their empires so it would appear that isn't the case.

This is actually debatable. Many of these former colonies are deep in debt with their former colonisers. As a result they have to supply cheap, uneducated labor and raw materials to their creditors - just like when they were still formal colonies - instead of developing themselves.

European countries have been prepared to unite against outside common threats.

I agree. The difference between now and 100 years ago is that European countries have to compete with powerful nations across the globe, instead of only between themselves.
However, those competitors aren't likely to go away soon and increased cooperation will at least somewhat foster a more European identity as opposed to a nationalist one.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is actually debatable. Many of these former colonies are deep in debt with their former colonisers. As a result they have to supply cheap, uneducated labor and raw materials to their creditors - just like when they were still formal colonies - instead of developing themselves.

Other way around. They do not develop themselves, and so have nothing to offer BUT raw materials and cheap labor. In many cases their cheap labor is even worthless, because they cannot provide the other things necessary to make such a commodity valuable (infrastructure, reliable enforcement of contract laws, etc). They put themselves in debt by taking out loans which their leaders pocket or use for useless prestige projects.

 

[egslim]

Other way around.

Actually it works both ways. Developed nations are happy to provide loans to poor countries which they know will never be repayed, because it a) supplies them with a perpetual stream of interest payments and b) gives them significant economic influence - guaranteeing cheap raw materials and preventing poor countries from using protectionism to protect their own fledgling industries.

They put themselves in debt by taking out loans which their leaders pocket or use for useless prestige projects.

True, the undeveloped nations themselves are happy to receive those loans for the reasons you state, even though their political issues (civil war, widespread corruption) don't allow effective use of those loans.

So it works both ways. However, this is no different from the age of colonisation - which was my point. Back then the same issues (tribal warfare, corruption, egomanical leaders, etc) allowed those same countries to gradually become dominated until they effectively became colonised.

Wether heavily indebted or formally colonised, the endresults are the same: cheap raw materials and cheap, uneducated labor.

 

[ingoa]

Ziggurat
Some countries have been helping. A number of other countries (noteably France and Germany) have no interest in helping, despite the fact that yes, at this point our success would be good for them and our failure would be bad for them.

I don't know about France, but Germany IS actually helping:

- Support in building up an Iraqi sapper batallion by training Iraqi instructors in the United Arab Emirates in two phases in spring and autumn 2005 and handing over material from inventories of the Federal Armed Forces.
- Provision of reserve military hospital staff and 30 ambulances and training with medical materials in Germany from June to August 2005.
- Training of 420 Iraqi criminal police officers in the United Arab Emirates by experts from the Federal Criminal Investigation Agency. Altogether, four courses were held from April to November 2004.
- Training of Iraqi executives from criminal justice as part of the EU mission for promoting the rule of law, EUJUST LEX, which has been running since July 2005. In two courses, a total of about 80 Iraqi police officers, judges and penal officials are trained in Germany.
quoted from German Foreign Ministry.

It is not the Germans fault that people like Ziggurat ignore the help.

Will we help to improve the situation in Iraq? Anytime.
Will we send troups to Iraq? No way. Western troops are not supposed to be there (IMHO, which is accidentally also the vast majority opinion in Germany (or even Europe)).

How many hundreds of $billions have the US spent on the war on Iraq? Compared to that does the German help seems too low? Well, we cannot ask our parliament for a $ 100 billion like Bush does. Our federal Budget is less than $ 350 billion for an entire year (2007 estimate).

If you look at the support that is given, you will find a pattern. We support the Iraqis in order to help them to build a functioning society. We will not support the American troops directly. That is your mess.

Don't take it that we do not support the USA when it is needed and justified. Just have a look who is on the ground in Afghanistan.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Wether heavily indebted or formally colonised, the endresults are the same: cheap raw materials and cheap, uneducated labor.

I hope someone geographically closer to you smakcs the living crap out of you then pees in the wounds

there is a WORLD of difference between being a colonial slave, with absolutely no rights, and a free man, who is simply indebted