Wonderful. In the same post you manage to put down our president and admit that he is right on this.

"If France and Germany cannot support the United States on a matter that we see as being of vital importance to U.S. national security, then on what will you Mr. Chirac and Mr. Schroeder support the United States?"

Possibly things which Chirac and Schroeder see as being of vital importance to US national security.

You seem to assume that just because Bush says that something is so, others should believe that it is so, or at least that they should act that way.

I agree fully with your sentiment. But read
the NY Times article how the United States cuddled up to Poland and practically GAVE Poland 48 fighter jets for free, in competition with the French who claim their planes are just as good, and cheaper, and EUROPEAN.

Perhaps that is enough to make Chirac see red.

Nice letter, Sean-Paul, in terms of stating the truth about Saddam, and taking France and Germany to task for their hypocrisy - but it totally ignores the true motivation of the French and Germans. It's not reaction to GW Bush. Except, perhaps in the sense that Schroder relies on ignorant America-bashing to win elections in Germany. The Germans also fear revelations regarding their selling WMD components to Iraq in disregard of the UN.

As for the French, they are desperate to maintain their oil contracts with Saddam (yes, for the French, it really IS about the oooiiilll) but even more they fear losing what little world power remains to them.

So, to say to them, as you have here, to calm down, that they should not get upset by that cowboy GW Bush, but look to their long term interest in being our allies, is merely another backhanded slap at GW. You seem to be ignoring the deeper motivations behind the French and German obstructionism.

Barry are you claiming that the leaders of France and Germany are more qualified than our own President to decide what is best for America?

don't forget that the french are trying to single handedly counter our hard power by using soft power to undermine us. and of course, they are turning over classified operational information to our enemies.

I beg to differ, Sean-Paul. The French and German governments, reflecting the opinions of the vast majority of Europeans, prefer the containment of Saddam Hussein over a bloody and unnecessary war. So do I.

Bush II will pass, and if Europeans can play a role in obstructing his megalomaniacal ambitions then I, for one, will be grateful to them. The blame for any damage done in the meantime to our historic alliance with Europe, and to the U.N., will rest squarely with Mr. Bush and his enablers.

Check out my reply to the letter at http://www.overspill.blogspot.com

It is a good letter Sean-Paul. I agree with you that France and Germany can't dictate for America what America sees as being in its best interest for national security.

But, and this is a big but, what if France and Germany believe that America is reading this situation totally wrong and that America's actions may actually be a national security threat to themselves?

Are France and Germany supposed to sacrifice THEIR sense of their own national security and cede to America all authority in deciding what is best for the world?

Alliances are a two way street. That is if those who are partners in the alliance view each others as equals. The problem is that Bush views Europe as the 52nd state (Canada being the 51st) and thus gives no respect to their concerns for their own interests.

France and Germany should be concerned about what America is concerned about. But America should be equally concerned with what France and Germany are concerned about.

That's what friendship is all about.

I think that your letter, like almost all U.S. media coverage of the differences between the U.S administration and the governments of France, Germany, Russia, et al completely distorts the issue. You speak as though the French and Germans were in some way undermining NATO. This is absurd. It could not be more obvious that the Bush Administration is aggressively and deliberately undermining NATO, the UN and any other organization that could potentially moderate the unilateral exercise of US military might. I am grateful that the French and Germans consider themselves true enough friends of America that they are willing to stand up to the extremists currently in control of Washington. I believe the world will owe them a debt of gratitude, assuming that the US does not go ahead with this mad, reckless adventure. If Bush and Co. do go ahead with it, I am quite certain that the "wrong side of history" will be self-evident, and that Germany and France will not be on it.

...I am quite certain that the "wrong side of history" will be self-evident, and that Germany and France will not be on it....

Sean-Paul, I urge you to save your comments.

Elton,
a vast majority of european governments support the US. France, Germany, and Belgium have isolated themselves.

I think the NATO constitution will basically require France, Germany and Belgium to support Turkey. But the UN is a different matter. France got an ovation from the UNSC after their speech - 11 of 15 UNSC members support their position. Given that the US is in the extreme minority at the UN, one might equally argue that it is up to Bush to stop yelling that he must invade Iraq NOW, NOW! and work, as his father did so well, to build a consensus.
You're welcome to quote Eastern Europe at me, but the ten members of the Vilnius group have a combined defense budget lower than that of the NYPD.

Wesley, you are of course correct that the governments of many smaller European and Eastern European countries have elected to cooperate with the Bush administration on the matter of Iraq. But here’s the thing: I seem to recall a common plaint about the European elites controlling the continent, and the lack of true democracy there, and the horrors of those unelected Brussels bureaucrats. So here we have, I say again, an overwhelming majority of Europeans – not the elites but the people of Europe - opposing Bush’s proposed war. It seems fairly reasonable for their governments to reflect that, and there are probably some interesting explanations for those that don’t.

If France, Germany and Belgium are isolated, it seems a rather splendid isolation. After all, you could just as easily - and meaningfully - say that the pro-Bush governments have isolated themselves from their own people.

Elton,
i don't mean to split hairs with you but.. if this was bill clinton's war.. you wouldn't hear a peep out of europe. what the majority of europeans oppose is george bush. most europeans don't like dictators like saddam and i think they will all be glad that he is gone. i just left germany several months ago and that is the word on the german street. i'm fairly certain that it is the same in other countries as well. bottom line, the world is concerned about bush being in control of our powerful military.. and that's it.

i should follow up that bush, contrary to clinton, has at least taken extra steps to build coalitions before he does something with our military. clinton didn't with operation desert fox. so give bush some credit for not acting unilaterally.

Sean-Paul, this is a straight question more than a response:
What if France were to respond, "Where were you during the Suez crisis? We were allies then (NATO was founded in 1949). We saw it as vital to our (and Britain's) security to take on Nasser. You didn't just fail to support us, you actively opposed us.
"If your support could not have been assured, in what sense were we allies?
"In the obvious sense--we were sworn to defend each other in the event of attack (as we offered to defend you after the actual attack of September 11), and we were generally on the side of Good and against Evil. That did not mean you had to support every one of our policies, such as the one in Suez. And our alliance today means that you do not have to support every one of our policies, such as the policy on Iraq. Nevertheless, we remain allies, so long as you do."

Dear StanD:

I wrote the comment stating my opinion that France and Germany will not be on the wrong side of history.

Your comment, although somewhat indirectly worded, contained a hint of threat. I must say that I believe that this is the first time I have ever been threatened for my political views. Just a sign of the times, I suppose. Next, we will have a new un-American Activities Committee, once again to conduct un-American Activities in the name of patriotism. My response to your threat? Shove it, asshole.

Barry, I urge you to seek counseling, therapy, or take a trip to your local detox center. I hope that you have kind and caring people by your side that are determined to see you through it.
Perhaps, when you are fine and sober you will realize that I haven't addressed you, nor have I threatened anybody else. I asked Sean-Paul to make sure that he saves his comments, so after all this is over and is history we can look back at exactly who said what and see who's on the "wrong side of history".
God bless you, and good luck.

Stan, you are too kind to the laughably paranoid Barry Ruddell. He seems to be one of those just waiting, impatiently, for Ashcroft's jackbooted thugs to "stifle his dissent".

Barry: we have your IP address and you have been reported to the TIA. Be listening for the black helicopters tonight.

Dear Hard-on:

Great to hear from you. Fuck off.

Dear StanD:

Perhaps I overreacted. If in fact you were only hoping for the pleasure of rubbing it in my face in the (unlikely) event that you are proved right and I wrong, then, hey, that's fair. Forgive me if I have imputed evil intent where only dweeby competition was present. As for your condescending comments, well, we all have to pretend to feel superior sometimes, so I forgive you for that, too.

Oh, God, the testosterone is online. Lord save us.

The democracy deficit in the EU is a serious problem that threatens to undermine the strength of the Union. While following The People's wishes only on Iraq is a little cheap of French and German leaders, it is nonetheless part of the role of representative government.
As for Bush's respect for multilateralism, that too is a matter of representative government: most polls show that the majority of Americans require an Iraq war to have international support. Should the Bush press machine fail and support for the war slip below 50%, I think even the Iraq-obsessed administration will have 2nd thoughts.

Why do all the anti Chirac and Schroeder hawks talk like those leaders should act like tyrants? And tyrants of third rate countries, when France and Germany are the center of the EU.
Ignore the wishes of your people. Follow the lead of a superpower that your people distrust. Allow that superpower to take your assent for granted and to insult you when you hesitate.

As Paul Berman has stated, Bush has not made a case for this war that Europeans can appreciate. If he can parallel to Afghanistan -- "open support and protection for terrorism" -- that would be good. If he can parallel to the former Yugoslavia -- "genocide that must be stopped by military action" -- that would be good. If he can parallel to the Gulf War -- "current aggression toward another nation" that would be good.

If we regime-changed in North Korea first, that would boost our credibility hugely. Kim Jong Il is a much scarier SOB than Saddam Hussein, and we would show that our priorities are in order: worst dictator and biggest WMD threat first, and the rest of you will be dealt with shortly in the order of evilness to your people.

If we put as much money and manpower into capturing terrorists as we are into Iraq, that would also boost credibility. We know the terrorists have killing us as their goal, and we would show that our priorities are in order: most likely to kill us (or have already conspired successfully against us) first, and the rest of you will be dealt with shortly in the order of your proven threat to the U.S.

If we were seriously rebuilding Afghanistan into a model society, that would also boost credibility. We have deposed but not fully eradicated the problem elements insofar as possible for us, and we would show that our priorities are in order: nation whose regime we have already changed will be hugely improved over what it would have been had the U.S. never interfered, ever, and the rest of you will be similarly treated when we regime change you.

All of this would address the arguments raised by the Europeans. As for the oooiiilll thing (I never see anti-war people writing it like, just the pro-war folks), a serious effort at conservation and energy self-sufficiency would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath for that any more than the rest of it.

Though a friend made a good point: All this duct-taping and plastic-sheeting of gaps and cracks is increasing our energy efficiency in our homes.

France/Germany have a lot at stake in Iraq. Also, Iraq owes ~10 billion to Russia (not to mention oil projects). I bet if we guaranteed Putin that the new Iraqi gov't would honour that debt - he would be more inclined to jump to our side.
Have a read:

http://overspill.blogspot.com/2003_02_01_overspill_archive.html#89100477