Alpha 1: Are you suggesting that any action beyond Afghanistan is not an acceptable goal?
I´m suggesting (and it just needs reminding that this was originally even the official US positioon) that military action can only be one part
of the whole campaign, with international cooperation being an essential basis for success.
Alpha 1: If you mean that the U.S. isn't looking for the CONSENT of the UN or Europe, he doesn't need that.
Cooperation means you´re trying to find a common strategy. And that requires the consent of all
sovereign nations involved. The european nations have - individually and on EU level - declared and supplied their support for the fight against terrorism as a matter of course.
That we´re not obedient servants
to the USA, but active partners
in the operation, seems to have slipped out of focus a little bit. Obedience
has no place in the free world. Partnership
Alpha 1: Actually, Vietnam #2 isn't straight ahead, because this is a war that has the support and backing of the American people-which wasn't the case in Vietnam.
I wasn´t talking about the home support (wars usually get less popular the longer they take); I was talking about the outcome
Alpha 1: And gee, Klaus, seems to me there's already a threat to the US mainland. Do you think that by stopping the pressure on these thugs their threats will just go away?
Exactly the opposite! Military pressure is what makes terrorist organisations thrive
as long as they still have some place to hide. You just can´t declare war on every country where there might be a terrorist in hiding. Thinking of Oklahoma City and quite possibly of the anthrax attacks, you´d even have to declare war on the USA itself!
Alpha 1: It may not look like a great idea to you, but I don't see any alternatives flowing from you, either.
All that had been talked about extensively in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, so I just assumed you´d remember.
The most important goals to pursue for our alliance (and that addresses all
the member nations, not just the USA!):
- Finally solve the Israel/Palestine conflict instead of always just taking one side. Fail to eradicate this main tumor and you can just forget about rooting out its metastases, of which Al Quaeda is only one of many.
- Motivate and even exert pressure on oppressive regimes in the arab and muslim world to finally open themselves for reforms. And that includes those ugly, but "useful" regimes!
- Conduct a fair and credible foreign policy that accepts the valid interests of others, even if your own perceived economic interests might suggest otherwise.
of these three building blocks missing, there is no chance of success.
Alpha 1: -that's a responsibility of these Arab/Muslim government who have tolerated the existence of these groups within their borders. That is NOT the responsibility of the US. The US, Europe and others CAN give aid and encouragement to these goverments, to help improve the lot of the people in these nations, but it isn't OUR responsibility.
Actively supporting those oppressive regimes is not exactly helpful, though.
Alpha 1: I think you assume too much, Klaus. You assume that I, and others who defend our position have some kind of inferiority complex. Inferior to what or to whom? To Europe? Don't make me laugh!! And I mean exactly what I said with that sentence.
I was referring to you specifically. If not that
, why is it that the faintest hint of "inobedience" by anyone outside the USA gets you to abandon all civility and jump all over the place? Looks a lot like insecurity to me.
Alpha 1: I see nothing wrong with the policy on terrorism.
Policy? Where is it, beyond military planning?
Alpha 1: My harsh criticism of others stems from my vehement disagreement with what I see is a growing pacificistic policies that are eminating from Europe.
Remembering the original strategy and sticking to it is hardly "pacifist". If you actually bothered to look a little closer, you might be surprised...