Re: Re: What I don't Understand About Kerry's "Alliance Building"
Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror (except the invasion has probably created more terrorists).
Well, I dunno. Except for housing Abu Nidal in Baghdad, Saddam also paid $25,000 to the family of Palestinian suicide bombers. That seems to have something to do with terrorism, for a start.
"Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with terrorism" is a leftist mantra, but it is about as accurate as the old "the Soviet Union is just a different form of government", or before that, "What's so bad about Hitler anyway?" mantras.
Bush, however, knows better--he knows that it is a global war against Islamic fascism, with Iraq as a cusp. A democratic Iraq would be a huge victory, not only to the Iraqis, but to all those in the Middle East who prefer democracy to Fascism. It is for this reason that Iran and Al Quaeda are doing their best to fight the US.
As for "creating more terrorists", the problem with this argument is the same problem as with the beaten woman who decides that she will now do everything her husband asks her immediatelly, so she will surely not get beaten any more. What she really needs to do is confront him and go to the police--even if this will "create more beatings" in the short run. In fact, it usually causes the opposite even in the short run.
The US has two options in the war on Islamism: either to defend passively and hope for the best, or to take the war to the enemy's land. While the latter is better in the short run, it is disasterous in the mid- and long-run.
France, Germany and most European countries are against terrorism
Yes, but they don't and won't do a damn thing about it, so them being "against terrorism" or "for terrorism" is less than meaningless.
So far as I can tell, the best the Europeans are willing to do is to try and appease the terrorists (paying ransom for the release of the hostages, for instance, replacing the government in Spain to a left-wing one after the Al-Quaeda bombing, etc.) and hope for the best.
Of course, they also have their so-called "humanistic position the the question of Palestine", which traslates in practice into asking the Arabs, "and if we let you butcher the jews, will you leave us alone for a while?".
Quite apart from the moral depravity of Europe's position, it is also practically wrong. You cannot "appease" or "understand" Al-Zaraqwi, bin Laden, or Arafat any more than you could appease Hitler or Stalin. It simply doesn't work.
but do not trust America to involve them in a decision. America has shown no interest in involving allies merely exploiting them.
Would you please make up your mind? You are telling me the US has "exploited" its allies. AUP tells us that it is the "coalition of the billing"--that is, the allies are only supporting the US because THEY expect to give the US a "bill" in terms of foreign aid, etc., so that the allies are exploiting the US (isn't it so nice of "A Unique Person" to suddenly be so concerned about the US not being exploited? I'm sure he's sincere.)
That's the problem with most of the criticism of the US on this board: you cannot agree on the most basic facts (whether the US is exploiting or is exploited by its allies, in this case) but you "know" the US is doing wrong.
If the situation was different and Iceland was the most powerful nation on earth. Would Americans commit their troops to action in which the only concerns are Iceland’s interests ?
Fighting global Islamofascism "only concerns US interests"? How about the bombings in Spain, Belsan, etc., etc., etc.? Not any more than fighting Communism or, before that, Fascism "only concerned the US interests".
As I recall, Europe was quite satisfied to be liberated from Hitler and then protected from being swallowed up by Stalin by American power. Considering the fact it only exists today due to America fighting, rather obviously, to liberate the world and not only "in concern with its own interests", you'd think the Europeans would know that the US, when it starts to fight, usually does it for reasons that have to do with ideals of freedom as well as America's interest.
I think you will find most Europeans would favour Kerry’s attitude than Bush’s. A coalition is far more appealing than a dictatorship.
You got to love the logical contradiction here, which lothian falls into because he's using the usual hyperbolic criticism of Bush: "Bush is a dictator--elect Kerry!" Well, if he stands for elections and could be replaced in the ballot box, what kind of dictator is he?
But leaving that aside, the logical flaw here is the belief that somehow, coalitions between states should be based on the "one state, one vote" principle, or a "coalition" without a leader. This is nonsense; states are not people, they have no right to vote.
When you accept the belief that "all states are created equal"--including genocidal ones like Sudan, Zimbabwe, Iran, or Saddam's Iraq--you get the UN, whose sorry state, corrupt beurocracy, moral bankrupcy, relentless appeasement of dictators, and utter uselessness in keeping the peace is well known.
No, when the European countries talk of a "coalition", they do not mean that they want a part in the potential spoils equal to their contribution to the struggle. They want what a "coalition" where they (due to numerical superiority in voting) determine policy, while the USA supplies 90% of the troops, arms, and blood.
It's like the candidates to Randi's challange, who invariably want a "test" with their rules and Randi's money.
No wonder Bush is opposed to that. Quite apart from being unfair to the USA, such leaderlees "coalitions" where how to fight a war is determined by longwinded negotiations and current public opinion are notorious for being just about the most inefficient and useless way to fight a war imaginable.
