[lit-ideas] Re: comments the DEMs must defend

  • From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:33:02 -0000

It was noticeable that you missed out the context from the quote, but never mind, let's play.


Whilst I agree that Europe has devolved some (at least) of its responsibilities, it's doesn't follow that Iraq was exclusively Europe's to deal with. Whilst Britain was mandated by the League of Nation to administer what became Iraq, there was a significant gap between what might be termed British sponsorship (ending in 1958) and the start of Saddam's rule (starting in 1973).

Perhaps, considering it's clandestine role in arming Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, the US might be deemed partly responsible for the terrors he initiated. But - and this was the context - none of this, I put to you, had any influence on the decision to invade past the fact that the Iraqi people might welcome the end of Saddam's rule. If anything, this notion was icing on the cake. Perhaps Europe should have dealt with Iraq at some point, but then this would have denied Bush his day wouldn't it.

Tell me Bush didn't want to invade, tell me it was a reluctant decision, then tell me he did it with the Iraqi people in mind.

****

Yet you can't have it both ways with regards to the relative strength of the European military. If Europe, under the auspices of the EU, did re-arm to the extent that it became a competitive force to the US, then you'd certainly be worried that violent, agressive Europeans once more had their fingers on triggers. Converesely, if, due to well intentioned political systems put in place for the purpose, age-old hostilities within Europe are reduced to such a point that they aren't apparent, you winge because Europe hasn't got the military capability to hold its own.

More than that however, the real contention seems to be that peace-loving Europe is not prepared to follow a war-mongering US government. We were allies, We saved your butts, Why won't you fight alongside us now? Well basically because we don't trust your president and his administration and we won't help you build an empire. That's the general attitude in Europe, an attitude I suspect that is held by the majority of people. You might as well focus on what the US under Bush is doing wrong as to try to understand why Europe holds such an attitude.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric" <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 5:57 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: comments the DEMs must defend


Simon: Of course it matters that Saddam killed so many, but that fact doesn't make the US the country of choice to reap revenge does it.


Exactly! The Europeans should have taken care of Saddam. It's your back yard after all. You should have dealt with it. You should have dealt with the Balkans too. If only we could return to spheres of influence! At the moment however, Europe is too weak militarily to deal with the problems on its doorstep. And in classic Nietzschean resentment, you make this weakness seem like a virtue.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html



------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: