Forum Overview :: Operation: Hammer Time :: Worth a few minutes

[quote name="Diotallevi"][quote name="Senor Barborito"]<a href="http://www.thestranger.com/current/feature2.html">Here</a>. Damned good read. Essentially we do have an ideological imperative to invade, but right now we've fucked up our foreign policy so very badly that it needs to become our first priority for the time being. I found it very hard to argue with. --SB[/quote]I think it's a terrible argument on the whole, but if it's brought a few of the "peace" dipshits over to the idea that a large-scale remodeling of the middle east is not only a good idea, but "necessary," then it's a good thing overall. [quote name="Dan Savage, D-Fagtopia"]George W. Bush wasn't able to convince NATO--NATO!--or the United Nations of the necessity of this necessary war.[/quote]I don't know that that's literally true. It's certainly possible that the French (and that's who he's really talking about when he says "NATO" and "the UN") actually HAVE been convinced that war is necessary, but that they're cynical enough to see some national advantage in opposing us in public. They were free-riders on US-guaranteed security for most of the Cold War, after all, so it would be just more of the same for them. Even so, any reasonable person is forced to concede that they way he represents it is the way it SEEMS right now. Skipping to the end... [quote name="Dan Savage, D-Fagtopia"]The Islamo-fascists will succeed where the Bush administration has failed. Colin Powell couldn't bring France, Germany, and Russia to their senses, but the next wave of deadly terrorist attacks no doubt will. So we'll just have to wait until after New York or Paris or Seattle or Strasbourg is wiped off the map to do what must be done.[/quote]I agree that inaction on the part of the west will likely lead to the deaths of my immediate family and most of my friends from high school and college. So why are we waiting? Why are we postponing the action that he says above is "necessary?" Because... [quote name="Dan Savage, D-Fagtopia"]I think a world without NATO and the UN will be more dangerous in the long run than a world without Saddam Hussein will be in the short run.[/quote]This is just hysteria. France may be trying to orchestrate the appearance of US isolation, but that's not the same thing as ending NATO. Even within Europe, <a href="http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2003_03_16_dish_archive.html#200002493">it's France that's isolated....</a> [quote name="Andrew Sullivan, R-Fagtopia (citing a $$$ Stratfor article)"]Stratfor's George Friedman performs the revealing task of actually counting where European countries stand on war against Saddam. There are three categories: countries that explicitly support the U.S position; countries that support it but wanted a second resolution; and countries that oppose war against Saddam. In the first camp, we have the United Kingdom, Spain, Denmark, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia, Croatia, Portugal, Bosnia and Montenegro. In the second camp - supportive - we have, "the Netherlands, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Slovakia - a bloc of five. But of these, The Netherlands sent Patriot missiles to Turkey before NATO approved the shipment, while the Czechs and Slovaks have sent chemical detection teams to Kuwait." ... Then we have the neutrals: Ireland, Austria, Finland, Serbia, Switzerland and Norway. And the opponents: France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden and Greece. Friedman therefore notes something that should be borne in mind when you hear NPR, the BBC and others tell you that "Europe" opposes the war. By an overwhelming majority of 21 countries to five, Europe backs war, with five countries neutral. And of those 21, you have the second and fourth largest economies, Britain and Italy, the two biggest emerging powers, Spain and Poland, and the entire former Eastern bloc. It would be a huge majority in the future EU.[/quote](NOTE: it's actually six, not five) So, NATO's not ending anytime soon. I mean, "NATO" the official organization could end, but it would quickly be replaced with some similar type of US-European alliance structure. Being our friend still looks like a way better deal than being our enemy (never more so than post-Saddam), and most countries in the world are led by people sane enough to grasp that very obvious point. The UN is a joke. Worse than useless. A world without the UN would not be meaningfully different from a world with it. The diplomacy-oriented parts, anyway. Some of the aid programs are worth keeping, but they could work just as effectively on their own. So, risking millions of lives to <i>preserve</i> NATO is ridiculous, because A: it doesn't need preserving (it's a bureacracy: the most self-preserving type of entity in the known universe) and B: even if it did go away, the value we derive from it wouldn't. Savage is making the mistake of taking the French at their word. Hard to believe, given the fact that this whole "crisis" is due to the fact that they voted for 17 UNSC resolutions threatening "consequences" that they never had any intention of delivering (or even allowing others to do the same). He may also be attempting to salvage his social life.[/quote]