France Being Shafted By THE BOYCOT
Apr 26th 2003 | 9:30 am
#406
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Maybe Germany will finally
In article , Wolfgang Schwanke
writes:
>Declaring "friends" and "foes" over a passing political issue that will
>be forgotten in a couple of months, among governments who are likely to
>change in 2 years or so, seems a bit exaggerated. If people would only step
>backwards and not let themselves be influenced by media hypes. Last I
>looked, all the countries you mentioned were in NATO. Did that change
>recently?
In my opinion, NATO , as we know it will either cease, or change completely. Do
you think NATO will stay the same?? Nah, it will change,-- actually I , do not
see a need for NATO at all. Alliances are made, changed and broken, all
because the needs change. Germany does not need the US , nor NATO , and the
reverse is true.
Rosie
writes:
>Declaring "friends" and "foes" over a passing political issue that will
>be forgotten in a couple of months, among governments who are likely to
>change in 2 years or so, seems a bit exaggerated. If people would only step
>backwards and not let themselves be influenced by media hypes. Last I
>looked, all the countries you mentioned were in NATO. Did that change
>recently?
In my opinion, NATO , as we know it will either cease, or change completely. Do
you think NATO will stay the same?? Nah, it will change,-- actually I , do not
see a need for NATO at all. Alliances are made, changed and broken, all
because the needs change. Germany does not need the US , nor NATO , and the
reverse is true.
Rosie
Apr 26th 2003 | 9:39 am
#407
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Maybe Germany will finally
On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 21:30:04 +0000, Rosie Miller wrote:
> In article , Wolfgang Schwanke
> writes:
>
>>Declaring "friends" and "foes" over a passing political issue that will
>>be forgotten in a couple of months, among governments who are likely to
>>change in 2 years or so, seems a bit exaggerated. If people would only step
>>backwards and not let themselves be influenced by media hypes. Last I
>>looked, all the countries you mentioned were in NATO. Did that change
>>recently?
>
> In my opinion, NATO , as we know it will either cease, or change completely. Do
> you think NATO will stay the same?? Nah, it will change,-- actually I , do not
> see a need for NATO at all. Alliances are made, changed and broken, all
> because the needs change. Germany does not need the US , nor NATO , and the
> reverse is true.
NATO is a relic from the cold war.
This said, maintaining in place an instrument for legitimation of US
inteference in European domestic affairs is very convenient to the US.
Even if nowadays it can't be expected to work every time anymore. Even
if not all NATO countries consistently take orders from the US they way they did during
the cold war.
I say the US will want it to stay. And European countries won't feel like
rocking the boat. They did enough for that for the time being. Now they
need to get used to the idea that yes, they are independent after all.
And to get the US to get used to the idea too. Which sounds kind of
painful I suppose...
> In article , Wolfgang Schwanke
> writes:
>
>>Declaring "friends" and "foes" over a passing political issue that will
>>be forgotten in a couple of months, among governments who are likely to
>>change in 2 years or so, seems a bit exaggerated. If people would only step
>>backwards and not let themselves be influenced by media hypes. Last I
>>looked, all the countries you mentioned were in NATO. Did that change
>>recently?
>
> In my opinion, NATO , as we know it will either cease, or change completely. Do
> you think NATO will stay the same?? Nah, it will change,-- actually I , do not
> see a need for NATO at all. Alliances are made, changed and broken, all
> because the needs change. Germany does not need the US , nor NATO , and the
> reverse is true.
NATO is a relic from the cold war.
This said, maintaining in place an instrument for legitimation of US
inteference in European domestic affairs is very convenient to the US.
Even if nowadays it can't be expected to work every time anymore. Even
if not all NATO countries consistently take orders from the US they way they did during
the cold war.
I say the US will want it to stay. And European countries won't feel like
rocking the boat. They did enough for that for the time being. Now they
need to get used to the idea that yes, they are independent after all.
And to get the US to get used to the idea too. Which sounds kind of
painful I suppose...
Apr 26th 2003 | 6:40 pm
#408
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: France Being Shafted By BOYCOTT. Americans Attacked in Paris! The French are smelly vermin
On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 23:49:03 -0400, Julian D.
wrote:
>>Despite what the extremist hard-liners claim, no-one that I have ever
>>read or heard has suggested that Saddam was a good thing to have in
>>power. The problem is that those hard-liners are incapable of
>>understanding that a narrowly based coalition may serve simply to
>>polarize the situation still further, sowing seeds not of peace, but
>>of future war.
>>But that's OK with them, because they think war is a fine thing...
>>provided they don't suffer from it.
>Well, duh. Obviously.
>We just want anti-American terrorists and those who harbor or sponsor
>them to suffer terribly.
Quite. Which of those was Iraq?
--
Craig
wrote:
>>Despite what the extremist hard-liners claim, no-one that I have ever
>>read or heard has suggested that Saddam was a good thing to have in
>>power. The problem is that those hard-liners are incapable of
>>understanding that a narrowly based coalition may serve simply to
>>polarize the situation still further, sowing seeds not of peace, but
>>of future war.
>>But that's OK with them, because they think war is a fine thing...
>>provided they don't suffer from it.
>Well, duh. Obviously.
>We just want anti-American terrorists and those who harbor or sponsor
>them to suffer terribly.
Quite. Which of those was Iraq?
--
Craig
