jase wrote:The US is now the only superpower. It doesn't *need* allies as such, they're just useful when canvassing world opinion.
Sure the US needs allies. The US can't do everything by itself, and shouldn't be expected to. Every country should carry its fair share of the burden. And there are certainly areas where other countries have better capabilities or resources than the US. For example, intelligence gathering and strategically located military bases.
jase wrote:But, less than a month after the UK commits substantial effort to the war against Bin Laden, what does Bush go and do? Imposes punitive trade restrictions against Europe with regards to steel production, risking the jobs of hundreds of thousands of employees. Not related, but the unfortunate timing is a clear demonstration of how little thought the US government has for the welfare of its so-called allies.
That kind of stuff goes on all the time, and the Europeans are just as guilty of it as the Americans or any other peoples. All nations still act in their own self-interest first. But even when allies have differences of opinion, that doesn't mean they aren't allies anymore. It is unrealistic to expect complete agreement on all matters. Ask any husband and wife and they will tell you not even two people can agree all the time, let alone hundreds of millions.
jase wrote:The war with Iraq is different. I have grave misgivings about the whole thing. Support in these circumstances really should not be as unconditional as it is in the case of this country IMHO, I'm sorry. It's not the support I have a problem with, it's the unquestioning nature.
A lot of people have misgivings, even in the US. There were multiple demonstrations throughout the US just yesterday, protesting a possible war with Iraq. I myself wonder why the sudden attention to Iraq. The world has been letting Saddam violate the UN mandates for 12 years now, so what has changed? Is it a realization that he truly is dangerous and it is time to stop hiding our heads in the sand? Is it revenge time for the benefit of Daddy who didn't do the job right the first time? Is it a lust for oil? Is it new information (unavailable to you and me) that Saddam is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons and must be stopped now?
Personally I wish I knew the truth, but I will never be privy to such information. Depending on what is really going on, I could be all for going to war or all for leaving Saddam alone for now.
I will say this, though. Saddam is a dangerous and, yes, evil man, and anyone pretending otherwise is doing himself a disservice. And for those fretting about the possibilities of civilian casualties in a war with Iraq I would say two things. First, it is a little late and hypocritical to be bringing that up now. There have already been substantial civilian casualties in Iraq - casualties caused by Saddam himself. Second, if you want to worry about civilian casualties, start worrying about what happens when Saddam eventually acquires nuclear weapons and decides to make himself a hero in the Arab world by detonating a nuclear weapon in Israel. That will lead to a conflagration with loss of life that will dwarf anything contemplated for a US invasion of Iraq now. And don't fool yourself into thinking Saddam wouldn't do it. He has already demonstrated multiple times his willingness and ability to start wars and use weapons of mass destruction.
Pretending that everything will be okay if we just keep our heads down and mind our own business will not make it so. Just ask the souls of the millions who suffered and died at the hands of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mobutu, etc. Peace in our time, indeed...
jase wrote:As for the IRA, I don't think I need to mention the substantial economic assistance the US gave to this terrorist group, including help from some congressmen, in the years leading up to 2001.
This is another one of those things that occurs in all nations - you will always find people looking to do harm in any nation. But you must not confuse twisted individuals within a country supporting terrorism for support by a country as a whole. I don't debate that misguided and worse Americans have supported the IRA and continue to do so. But it isn't right, and America as a nation does not support the IRA officially or unofficially.
It is interesting how one's viewpoint on groups espousing violence to bring about their aims changes from "freedom fighters" to "terrorists" depending on whether or not the violence is directed towards oneself. (This isn't directed to you personally, Jase. It is just an observation that seems to apply everywhere, whether the example is the IRA, the Chechen rebels, the Taliban, etc.)
Oh, one last thing. One common thread to many of the areas of greatest instability and suffering in the world today (the middle east, Kashmir, Africa etc.) is the hand of European imperialism in general and British colonialism in particular. So I don’t think the US needs any lectures regarding “less-than-completely-squeaky-clean foreign policies” from Europeans. Much strife in the current world can trace its roots back to European adventurism, and in my opinion the world would probably be much more stable today if it wasn’t for the exploitation, corrupt political systems and arbitrarily defined nation-states for which the European colonial powers are directly responsible.
cfitz
by hjs on Thu Jan 01, 1970 4:45 am 
