But up until war has been started, there is still a chance for peaceful solution. During the cold war, had the US taken this same attitude forward then we would be likely suffering a nuclear winter at this moment.

It wasn't military inaction that allowed Nazi Germany to seek to take over Europe. But if you take the line that it was, at what point did we know enough to invade them? How could we have possibly know that Hitler had the plan that he did. If i wrote a racist book, making empassioned plans, it doesn't give you the right to kill me, on the basis that i fit a profile for a murderer. Its all very minority report. At some point you have to know enough before you can act. The point was proved in this war with Iraq, that "claims" to "know" that Iraq had WMDs, used as the reason for war, were lies. We invaded a country (correctly, but for the wrong reasons) because of this line. Maybe we decide that Turkey is a threat, and invade them, sack the country and then afterwards say, whoops we made a mistake. You can't be doing that. At that point every country goes scrabbling for WMDs of their own to defend against the US threat of invasion. It is an immature or naive way to run foreign relations.

I thank God that GWB wasn't in power during the cuban missile crisis...

Two points here. First, given the threat that we faced (possible WMD terrorist attack), we could not afford to wait. Second, peaceful solutions to this problem had been attempted, and failed, for 12 years. At what point do you stop trying to do things that clearly aren't working. The problem in Iraq was Saddam was in power....nothing short of removing him and his regime would constititue a workable solution. What peaceful means can you even envision that would lead to that outcome? I can't think of any...Saddam would not willingly give up power. If he did, the likely successor were even worse...the entire regime needed to be removed. They were not going to leave peacefully.



Again, I think you're misreading the actions he took. There was no rush to judgement. In fact, GWB took considerable heat from the right for not acting sooner. Rather, I think it was an analysis of the situation that pointed to attacking Iraq (I have covered this extensively in numerous Iraqi threads of the week). As such, I don't think you could conclude that GWB would have acted any differently in Cuba than Kennedy. If you recall, in fact, in was Kennedy's actions that resolved the conflict, not his inactions...and he was roundly criticized by many at the time he took them. All of which is quite similar to what GWB is going through currently.

Hobbes

Excuse me, but what problem?

Pro war supporters always make this claim, but just what exactly was the problem? Saddam Hussein was told to disarm and he did. Problem solved.

The only problem left, as far as I can see, is an American dissatisfaction with the continued existence of Saddam Hussein and his government...

But, getting rid of Saddam Hussein was never the point of the 12 year sanctions.

But we didn't face any threat whatsoever, though, did we. There had used to be some, but he'd actually gotten rid of them. The point was not whether Saddam should have been removed - i've always said that he should be, and supported the war. The point was that the purported reason was phoney (we should have gone to war to try him for war crimes and human rights violations). If we invade turkey because we think they have WMDs, then yes we're preventing possible war. However, having destroyed their country, finding out that we were wrong, would your response seriously be "well, at least we acted. At least we're safe now." It is THIS desire to rush in without evidence that unsettles. You call it unwillingness to act. We call it prudence, based on experience.


It was JFKs unwillingness to thrown the hammer at the nut, but rather use a nutcracker, that made his actions successful. Had he mortered in guns blazing, then he would not be looked on so fondly by history.

That there was a national desire for GWB to act even more quickly is not comforting. Those that have done the right thing have often taken heat from one or other parties for one reason or another. Doing the right thing is what is important, what he is elected to do. However, just because you get flak doesn't mean you're doing the right thing.

Hey, he representes you, not us. Most people outside your country (and apparently just under half within the country) don't trust him, or like the way he's acted. I would suggest there was a reason, rather than just an ignorant dislike, although i suspect you don't care.

I still thinking of my response to other quotes but I'll have to put a big false tag on this one.


Saddam was ordered to work with UN inspectors to prove his disarmament, which he refused to do. Even his destruction of his programs in secret was a violation of the intent of the resolution.

Hence the problem.

Its a great spin eh? It absolves the USA from any charge of aggression and puts the blame square on the one man in the equation whom no one is going to defend.

Its simply brilliant! and any one who questions it can be written off as a loony lefty member of the black helicopter brigade


The problem is... Europeans do not believe US Spin, and we don't have the same culture of lefty bashing that the USA has. In Europe, Hans Blix (a European nominated for his job by the French, against US wishes) and his report are not ignored. We understand full well that due to Hans Blix's report, the UN was about to set Saddam Hussein free. That Iraq had friends in the UN and even here in Europe who were more than happy to see Iraq freed and dealing its oil in Euro's.

We also remember that Saddam Hussein's government put forth a comprehensive report that the US subsequently edited (with redacted pages) before dismissing out of hand as all lies...


...and we understand that those lies Saddam Hussein published were in fact all true. That Saddam Hussein had no WMD's just as he said he didn't, that the USA understood this and acted to pre-empt Hans Blix and the UN from releasing Iraq from the sanctions.

The 'problem' was never WMD's. The problem arose when Saddam Hussein decided to stop dealing in Dollars and switched to Euro's. From that moment, he was a serious problem that could no longer be 'contained'. Iraq would have made a far greater profit from selling its oil in Euro's. The Dollar economy would be in serious trouble if the rest of OPEC followed suit (Saudi Arabia even tried but was reigned in by the USA)

All of this is understood in Europe. Its no secret and neither is it covered up as 'conspiracy theory'. When GW Bush came over here, he came as a victor intending to reap the spoils and re-establish the status quo.

Instead he was met with France now more ready than ever to sell weapons to the Chinese.

editted for spelling

Oh the theory now involves math..of course. Exactly where does this data on Americans who " have some direct experience of the consequences of war" come from?


And you know all this from what "direct experience"? Isn't the basis of your whole theory that in order for one to truly understand things in the world one must have "direct experience"? So exactly how do you..a non-American..some one who has never even visited America.. know what it is Americans think, feel, understand or care about? You base all your beliefs on America, Americans and our culture on.."other sources: education, movies, books, &tc."


How can you claim most European nations have this too? With the exception of a few neutral states all other European nations are NATO members and so when NATO takes action like she did in Yugoslavia they are enforcing their "will on other nations by military means."
Also the military history of France refutes this..why wasn't she so traumatized by the war? Don't forget post WWII ...Indochina, Algeria, several nations in Africa , Middle East and also Yugoslavia. Also France pursued nuclear armament post WWII and still maintains nuclear weaponry and before you go on to tell us France isn't Europe...what about the UK? We have Northern Ireland, Korea, Iran, Falklands two consecutive Gulf wars and also nuclear armament all of which happened post WWII. In all those incidences wasn't the UK also enforcing "its will on other nations by military means." ? Or the Netherlands..they didn't pull out of Indonesia because WWII made them recognize the error of their ways. Or Belgium again WWII didn't change much in how she dealt with the Congolese. Where is this mythical anti-war group conscience you claim exists in Europe?

The nations it does occur in were not just occupied and did not just have "direct experience of the consequences of war" they were conquered... totally and completely subjugated. Germany was America's and USSR's conquest. Japan was conquered..Austria conquered. Germany and the other nations who lost WWII did not continue to militarize like the other European states or go on to have other escapades because they were forced to demilitarize and were not permitted to do otherwise. It was not something they naturally involved into or learnt form "direct experience of the consequences of war"...it is how we made them. And with all this extra money no longer in need for armament they were then allowed to further socialize their governments.



The manner in which you keep posing this question seems to show that you have very little respect for this incident in American history. I don't have time to inform you about American culture and it's modern influences. People have written entire books on this subject alone so I am sure you could find one to read if you are honestly interested. This period of history is commonly referred to as The Cultural Revolution..so I think claiming it had and effect and changed America is not a baseless assertion in need of proof.
How the war effected and changed America differs for everyone..here in America being that individualism is protected and promoted and preferred over the concept of group think...the Vietnam war means different things to different people, groups and cultures. I have never seen any American historian/sociologist claim that this war had little effect on our nation and I would be more interested in seeing you produce anyone (legitimate) who claims otherwise...I feel it is your opinion on this event that is not in the least substantiated and requires further explanation.


It is broken you compared the Civil war to the Holocaust. Not the Civil war to World War II ..and why? because we all know WWII is glorified and romanticized too.
Americans do not glorify the holocaust or slavery because they feel it is wrong.
Also your further explanation of this analogy makes even less sense...you claim all the European descendants that fled to America because of war or the horrors of war did not " bring the reality of war to the mind set of the USA" and yet descendants of slaves did? How does that work? Why do African-Americans carry their culture or their history with them through generations and yet European-Americans do not?



The Swiss most recently warred internally or for others. All one has to do is look to the very long, proud and openly displayed tradition the Swiss have as mercenaries (Swiss Guard) to know that this is a society who is not anti-war or non-militaristic. Also what is the Catholic Church if not one of the oldest banks in the world. The Swiss were called the King's Bankers and they have traced their tradition to banking to the start of the 1700s and also the Swiss Guard has been around since the start of the 1500s. I don't think your theory is well served with the Swiss example.


You are right how many other nationalities had to deal with the end results of the World Trade Center bombings? Yet it is not surprising to see Europeans wishing to retain this event and it's meaning in nationalistic terms.


Sweden never saw the wars like the rest of Europe did so I fail to see how your theory applies to her. Spain was an authoritarian regime until the late 1970s ..hardly peaceful and we can all see with ETA she still has not found peace...so I don't understand how your theory applies to her either.
What other European nations do you have in mind that represent or exemplify your theory? Germany does not count since America and Russia dictated her military appetite. France is still militaristic and "still enforces its will on other nations by military means" as does the UK, as does any other NATO member. So that leaves you with Switzerland, Sweden, Ireland, Austria and who else?
I disagree that Switzerland is non-militarized, I disagree that the people of Ireland are against aggression or enforcing their "will on other nations by military means" and I disagree that Austria counts because Austria 's independence was given under the condition she was remained neutral ..she was forced into her neutral stance and so I do believe it is unconstitutional for her to be a NATO member.



And I have said over and over that I was born in London. That my father was alive during the raids and remembers it well. So I have experienced these emotions...I was brought up around them as much as you were and yet here I am AN AMERICAN. I have been to London thanks...plenty... and contrary to what you wish all of us to believe I know it is a city that is alive and vibrant and is not still suffering from war...WWII is history in the UK as much as it is in the US. And guess what America did have their cities bombed ....my husband works with men and women who were blown across the room when the Pentagon was hit. People here in the US had mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, daughters, sons who were killed. These emotions are not being passed on from a dying generation but rather they are a part of THIS generation. I did not even live in the US when America was attacked so I will readily admit that I have a different view and perception of this event then those who were in America at the time. But I am more than able to see how this event changed my country and the people in it. I came back to a new America and if you and moif can recognize the feelings, emotions and understanding that Europe experienced over 60 yrs ago and how it still permeates your society and it's views today..why can't you acknowledge this for Americans? Why are Americans not afforded these emotions, or understandings or feelings towards similar actions?

I guess this explains a lot. You just listed out a few different incidents with no notion of the reasons for the UK involvement.

The Falklands war was the UK forces liberating and protecting people that although they'd settled there from the UK, still considered THEMSELVES to be British. They REQUESTED our protection from invading Argentinian forces who wanted the land for themselves that had been made from a rocky outpost into a good and usable land by UK investment. and people. Until the UK had invested in it, Argentina wasn't interested in the land.

Likewise Northern Ireland. There are more intricacies in this one, but it was UK investment and people that created the environment from a situation of poverty, that then those from Ireland decided they wanted. If the people in Northern Ireland had wanted to, the UK forces would have pulled out. The ongoing situation is defending UK people and investment, not invasion and enforcing will on other nations. If you're going to throw such stuff around, maybe you'd care to look at the details first and not twist facts to serve your agenda.

You've made it very clear that you cannot and will not accept that direct experience brings more knowledge than third hand experience. Until you've been beaten, shot, raped, made homeless or countless other experiences, you cannot truly understand what it means on all the levels. Will you not accept that these events that a country or region suffers remain in a national psyche? The people who remained within the borders of America were not affected by the vietnam war, except when their loved ones died. As bad as that loss is, it is not the same as having your country bombed and devastated.


That incident being the Vietnam war, are you kidding me? On what basis can you say that you think we've little respect incident? Or is it irony again, in that you just banded about several other wars, and refer to WW1 and 2 so lightly? The world wars did NOT affect AMERICA anything like as much as they did Europe. It stands to reason that Europe will thus me more affected by the experiences. Whether your family came from Europe or not is moot. We're talking about the national psyche, not that of individuals.


I never suggested for a second that London is still war torn. Stop twisting the words. But you cannot reasonably claim that WWII is as much a part of US history as it is that of Europe (although sadly you clearly are), because the effect on the people back home in the US was nothing remotely like that of the people living in Europe.

As for your pentagan bombing, again, as bad as any bombing is, we suffered the IRA for 25 years! 25 years of bombings in and around the capital. We've suffered terrorism. It took more than 20 years before the US stopped turning a blind eye to it.


Its not about ownership. Yes of course America has now experienced terrorism. They have suffered the loss, the confusion, and frustration and anger. But an act of terrorism is NOT WAR. It may give you window into the suffering (and you weren't even part of that) but it is NOT the same. During WW2 American citizens weren't made to hide underground in dimly lit darkness, while their houses were bombed and fires raged. They weren't made to leave their homes and move to safer areas of the country. They weren't rationed, or unable to get basic foodstuffs. Be thankful, but don't be so arrogant as to write such experiences off as though you know even slightly what it was like. If you have not experienced it, you cannot fully appreciate it. Why is that so hard to accept?

bucket

No, the 'theory' does not involve math, at least not as anything I am proposing. I am merely pointing out that second and third hand experiences from an immigrant population are not going to have the same effect on a population as being subjected to war will.


No. My theory is not about 'understandings things in the world'.

It is about the simple fact that European society was formed from war and the generation of Europeans alive today are a product of that society.

American society was founded, but not formed by war, and since the current generation of Americans are equally a product of their society, then it stands to reason that they will have a very different perspective on war. I don't have to have lived in America to understand this. Americans are not aliens. They conform to the same basic humanity that every one else does.


I can accept the argument that France is still prone to using its military for political reason. Its the main reason why I feel France is the greatest threat to the EU.
But for the rest. NATO is, and always has been, a US political entity, created to meet the threat of the cold war and now largely outdated and unpopular in Europe. I don't see how NATO reflects the mood of modern Europe at all.

With regards to Britain, as Genesisblade points out, most of your examples constitute defensive actions. Britain did not use its military as a political tool in the Falklands. It was defending itself. Not unless called upon by its political master does the UK go to war, and even then, such war is widely unpopular in the United Kingdom.


Its a curious argument that the USA made Germany what it is today when the USA has done nothing but complain about Germany in the last ten years.

If the USA made Germany what it is, then how is it that so many US politicians have been met with an obstinate No from Germany with regards Iraq? Could it be because the current generation of American leaders are in fact out of touch with the very lessons and principles that were learned (also by Americans) during the 1940's and by which Germany was made?

Or perhaps the difference stems from somewhere else entirely? Perhaps the people of Germany, for all their faults, took to heart the lesson of the second world war and made themselves what they are. Perhaps the influx of eastern Germans in last fifteen odd years have also had an impact in reminding Germany of its past? Perhaps the Germans just have their own independent way of thinking and no one made them who they are.


Respect for what? Respect for the 60,000 odd American men and women who died? or respect for the million or so Vietnamese who died?

Sure I have respect for the Vietnam war, and I recognize it had an impact on America.

All I'm saying is that it had a far far greater impact on Vietnam than it did on the USA and that if anyone wants to understand what the Vietnam war really meant and what its consequences were, they'd be far better served to go and visit Da Nang or My Lai than some monument in Washington.


Sure it had an effect. Of course it did. You can see this even today where flag draped coffins are hidden from the press and any mention of the similarities between Iraq and Vietnam are ridiculed by pro war supporters.

One thing I've seen in this current US war is how a LOT of Americans make the observation that they were never against their troops in Vietnam. From my perspective, I see far more guilt in the USA with regards to how returning soldiers were treated than how the Vietnamese were treated. This illustrates clearly how the US population having experienced the trauma of returning vets being treated so shabbily over rides any concern with the mutilated people of Vietnam of whom the majority of Americans have had no contact what so ever.

And I see the same thing happening today. I see Americans making far more noise about Islamic terrorism than about the blatant human rights violations at Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay. Now, instead of the hated commie gooks, we have the wahabbist towel heads.

By contrast, in Britain I see a massive public backlash against the latest moves by the Blair government to emulate the Bush government with regards to detaining prisoners against their basic human rights.


How can you ask such a question? The answer is obvious. African Americans have a different skin colour. They could not simply assimilate into the great mass of European Americans as immigrants could. Long after slavery ended, the African Americans, even to this day I am informed, suffer the consequences of having African skin and features. For more than a century they have carried the reminder of who they are and where they came from on their very faces and they have never been allowed to forget.

By contrast the tales of war and misery told by European immigrants are soon forgotten by those few who hear them. Only a very vocal minority, such as the Jews, are able to keep their stories to the fore in the USA, and even this is distorted and bloated by personal and political bias on behalf of Israel.

I don't believe for a moment that immigrants such as yourself have any significant impact on the American society. That society is set in its ways by far greater forces than the individual experiences of immigrant Europeans.

That is not to say that immigrants have not had a profound effect on US society. They have. Very much so. What I'm saying is that those immigrants who came with stories of European war cannot over ride the mass of immigrants who didn't.


I don't understand what you mean by this. Which Europeans?

As for nationalistic terms, it was not a European leader who told the USA, 'you are either with us or you are with the terrorists'. GW Bush made it quite clear from the beginning that the attack on the world trade center was an attack on America and not the world.


I'm curious. Just how many different ways can you actually stretch what I said to fit your own answers? Who said anything about finding peace?

Lets just look at Spain though. Why not? its a good example of what I mean. Yes, Spain was a dictatorship ...until it became a democracy, and then guess what happened? The people prevented another dictatorship from taking power.

Today Spain is a European democratic nation and member of the EU and yes it does have a legacy of terrorism and still struggles with the ETA. But how does this counter my theory? I said all along that European society was formed by its violent past and we know full well what terrorism is. The Basque separatist movement is not something that suddenly emerged in recent times as a result of Spanish policies. It is a long standing, internal Spanish problem rooted in centuries of internal differences. At no point since they took their freedom did the Spanish people send soldiers into another country to kill people for Spains own gain.

In other words, Spain's problems are a product of its violent past and not its democratic present.


Where did I say that Switzerland was non-militarized? How can you be disagreeing with some thing I never said. Why do you insists on putting words into my mouth all the time?

I said, Switzerland is neutral, and its neutrality stems from its violent past. Whether or not the Swiss are bankers is completely irrelevant.

Genesisblade


Wrong. This conflict or dispute over the Falklands was over 150 yrs old. Argentina was not interested?..she had always been interested. She sought, desired and remained constant on her claims for over 150 yrs.

Also sure defence we have all heard that one before...South Vietnam invited the US too..as did the Shah of Iran. moif claimed that the political tool of waging war and the purpose to wage war (enforcing a nation's will by military means) some how is something Europe as a whole is void of..and that is NOT TRUE...not in the least.

Northern Ireland ..I don't even wish to tread into this debate..but I used it to show the utter hypocrisy of moif's statement on Europe.."our nations have been geared towards peaceful cooperation"


Of course I do I already stated I did..you really ought to read my posts more closely. You keep misjudging me on things I have already made very clear.
I object to the idea that America has never suffered war or had to deal with the consequences of war.


The comment was not directed to you...why do you keep replying for moif? Is this a result of the group conscience you both claim all of Europe shares?


I didn't I just said it is in fact history There isn't any nation in Europe still down trodden or destroyed by war. European cities have all been rebuilt. NYC hasn't tho...has she?


America experienced terrorism before 9/11 too.
Also there was rationing in the US during WWII.

I have never denied the horrors of WWII..I am sure my experience with this war is much like your own. I recognize and understand the British "psyche" as much as I do the American one and I take no issue in recognizing them both. I never claimed equality or ever attempted to dismiss anything..I just believe America is not ignorant of war.

Moif....


So Europeans have a shared culture that their own individual history has shaped and yet Americans do not? There is no American culture that you might perhaps have no understanding or concept of?
Again somehow I find your belief that you know as much as there is to know about Americans and their culture because we are all humans contrary to the basis of your theory.



Outdated? Never mind she was utilized to wage war what 5 yrs ago? Was the war on Yugoslavia part of the cold war? Was it mostly for US or EU political needs?




What Genesisblade did is ignore most of my examples..no comments on Korea, or Iran or the Gulf wars I and II and that is what I wrote in a rush off the top of my head....how about the Suez crisis? Or Brunei? Yemen? Borneo? Cyprus? Kenya?
Many of the "consequences" America has been paying for her military or foreign policy originally began as British foreign policies.



You can believe what ever you like..but this again seems to deviate from the theory..if you contend that the events nations as a whole experience have a lasting effect then America's reorientation, America's denazification and America's demilitarization of Germany must fit into that claim some how yes?
disputing this fact by claiming American politicians complain about Germany seems a little bit of a weak argument to me. I complain about my kids from time to time but I know I raised them. America does complain about Germany's pacifist attitudes and lack of military ability...but that is how the US influenced and changed her culture. America did not raise Germany to be like her...but rather subordinate to her. And when she chooses to make changes to this arrangement it does bother some Americans. Because of the experiences Americans had with WWII Germany is not very well trusted..as she is not in many other nations in Europe.


Not if that some one wishes to commentate on American culture, people and history.


One of your assertions or pieces of your theory is Europeans ..being so familiar with the horrors of war..detest war and are driven to pursue peace. I don't feel Spain is very peaceful..and ETA believes they are fighting for sovereignty.


I should add I will not be around much for awhile..so if I do not respond again.. I apoligize. My nan died this morning and I am preparing a very sad trip to the UK

bucket

We've sort of reached the point where we're just banging heads together now so I'm just going to say that I do not agree with your contention that the USA has an equal understanding of the consequences of war nor do I accept that Europe has not become more pacifiest due to the many influences that the second world war imposed upon it or that America in any way has had the same shaping influence that Europe has had.

However, you've made some excellent points that have given me much food for thought and pointed out that no theory is perfect. I accept the validity of your opinion and thank you for the debate.

Please accept my condolences.

Likewise, my condolences for your loss.

For the sake of clarity, rather than further discussion, i post this link with regard to the history of the Falklands dispute. Like most of these conflicts, there is a lot more history to them than just the current actions and desires. (N.B. It wasn't that i ignored the other conflicts, i just know less about them!)



http://freespace.virgin.net/gordon.smith4/F13history.htm