How the old world rejected the new

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

http://www.sundayherald.com/37529

Nato: Wary of Europe’s defence plan, the US prepares global cops. By Angus Roxburgh in Brussels



An emergency meeting is to be held at Nato headquarters tomorrow, at the Americans’ request, to try to allay Washington’s fears that EU plans for a separate defence identity could fatally undermine the alliance and begin to push America out of Europe.
The Americans have good grounds for concern. Their war on Iraq exposed hidden wells of anti-Americanism across Europe – not just among the millions who came out on to the streets to protest, but among previously “loyal” governments. At a crucial point in the preparations for war, France, Germany and Belgium prevented Nato from making any kind of contingency planning.

Worse, in April, those three countries got together with tiny Luxembourg and announced their intention to set up a separate EU defence headquarters in Tervuren, just outside Brussels.

It was, in fact, Tony Blair who had set the ball rolling, when he met President Jacques Chirac of France in St Malo in 1998 to discuss the forging of a European “defence identity”. The initiative led to the creation of the EU’s rapid reaction force, which has since seen limited action in peacekeeping operations in Congo and Macedonia. But it was never meant to be seen as anything other than a way for the EU to carry out peacekeeping or humanitarian actions in cases where the US explicitly did not wish to be involved. Such actions would still rely on US or Nato intelligence and logistics.

<snip>

George II, The great uniter!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

1. So we threatened to take our toys home

And now we're freaking out?

As I recall, Rumsfeld was hinting ominously about pulling out of NATO, relocating bases to Eastern Europe, and then calling Luxembourg et al the "chocolate producing nations".

Petulant little fuckers.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

4. I have the utmost respect for nations that produce good chocolate

Yum! :bounce:

[wdwilder]

6. I might be a little crazy

but I'm beginning to think that American's don't really like good chocolate. I remember when I was a kid the local Safeway sold large slabs of Ghirardeli chocalate at a serious discount and it was GOOD!

But now it seems the only good chocolate is made by Lindt and Sarotti which are both based in Germany. I think we could learn a thing or two about chocalate from the frogs, sprouts, clogs and krauts if ya know what I mean.

Strike Hold! Huah!

(huah, I don't get no respect, huah).

chuckles, Rodney Dangerfield in the 504 PIR

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. From your avatar:

I believe our Heavenly Father invented man because he was disappointed in the monkey.
- Mark Twain in Eruption

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

3. Makes me wonder what's next. LOL, Thanks!

[bpilgrim]

5. the neo-CONS have been called...

i hope they aren't truely serious about TOTAL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE and not letting anyone challenge us militarily or economically.

PNAC = :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

to see how bad things are read this...
http://www.counterpunch.org/kolko1126.html

peace

[Capt_Nemo]

7. Absolutely brilliant!

What a find, bpilgrim!

This article is the best analysis of modern US foreign policy that
I have ever seen in print. The following excerpts accurately
convey some ideas I've been trying to formulate here in my posts:

"The U.S.' most symbolic sites--Wall Street and the Pentagon--have been devastatingly attacked, and it is now plain, as the government itself has predicted for several years, that the country itself is highly vulnerable. Bin Laden's network replaced "rogue states" for a time, but essentially American strategy continues to flounder: it prepared for nuclear and mechanized war in Europe but fought only in Asia, where it was stalemated and lost two major conflicts. It encouraged and funded wars by Iraq against Iran and against the Soviets in Afghanistan only to have to fight the very people it once believed were merely its proxies. It has confronted innumerable surprises in Latin America and Africa--to mention but a few of its policy failures--and it has precious little control in both those continents. The U.S.' ambitions in the century that is just beginning far exceed its military, political, and moral resources for attaining them, and if it does not acknowledge the limits of its power--which it should have done much earlier--it will continue to embark on quixotic adventures in every corner of the world and experience more terrorism on its own shores."

plus:

"But there are no technological quick-fixes to political problems. Solutions are political, which requires another mentality and a great deal more wisdom, including a readiness to make compromises and, above all, stay out of the affairs of nations, or they will not succeed. Worse yet, its reliance on weapons and force has exacerbated or created far more problems for the U.S. than it has solved. After September 11 there can be no doubt that arms have not brought security to America. It is not only to the world's interest that the America adapt to the realities of the twenty-first century. What is new is that it is now, more than ever, to the interest of the American people themselves. It is imperative that the U.S. also acknowledge the very limits of its power--limits that are inherent in its own military illusions and in the very nature of a world that is far too big and complex for any country to even dream of managing."

and:

"The world and now the American people cannot afford U.S. foreign policy's opportunistic and ad hoc character, its wavering between the immoral and amoral in practice but which official speech writers portray as rational and principled. In reality, it has neither coherence nor useful principles but often responds to one failure and crisis after another--and these are usually of its own making. Even given its unrealistic ambitions, it has lost control of its priorities, which all nations must have. We can never forget that the two men who the U.S. has most demonized over the past two decades, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, both collaborated for years with the U.S.; Washington believed their causes were identical and put vast sums at their disposal. There is no greater proof of confusion and ineptness on America's part, and rather than leading the world in a better direction it has usually inflicted incalculable harm wherever it has intervened. Its leaders have been addicted to intervening for its own sake, to save the nation's "credibility," preventing an alleged vacuum of power, or its self-appointed role as the enforcer of regional or global order (which it usually equates with the freedom of American businessmen to make money)."