Iran war could spark Cheney candidacy for 2008

[dazzleman]

War with Iran should only be undertaken if absolutely necessary.

It's interesting that they're looking to build a missile that can hit Europe.  That is obviously intended to have the predictable effect of making the Europeans more weak-kneed than they already are, and provoke the US into a response.

Since we're the furthest away from these people, maybe we should just let the Europeans deal with them.  The problem with that is, the Europeans will appease them fruitlessly and fritter away any chances to rein them in, and then turn the problem over to the US when it becomes a crisis.  Oh, and then they'll criticize whatever course of action we take, in line with their usual behavior.

Politically speaking, I don't think another war is a good way to divert attention from the first one.  It would be better to end the first one in a positive way if it's necessary to have another one, and it may be if Iran does not change course.  The controlled presidential election, which put a hardliner in office, was a sign that the mullah's intend to pursue a path of confrontation with the west.

[dazzleman]

I think European leaders (for now ignoring that "Europeans" is a vast generalisation of 40+ countries) seem to realise as much, hence Britain taking on a more hardline stance after Ahmadinezhad's election, while Germany under Merkel and France under (eventually) Sarkozy are bound to follow suit. Prior to that stage, ie. under President Khatami, a German-educated moderate, many European countries felt they could deal with Iran on a more level basis. Now, with that headcase in power, it's no longer the case and thus the tone from Europe will change. Unlike Iraq, Iran is something both the US and the EU will agree is an imminent threat.

It's easy to dismiss the EU as "weak-kneed appeasers" simply because they don't feel that all possible diplomatic avenues have been exhausted, but this does not necessarily correspond to reality. On that note, simply going by comments made in this and other forums, I sometimes wonder who hates us more, the Iranian mullahs or the American right.

I don't hate Europeans.  I just wish they didn't hate us so much after we've defended them for 60 years.

My distaste for Europeans is purely derivative.  It would go away if Europeans didn't appear to be so strongly anti-American, and so dismissive and unappreciative of the disproportionate sacrifices Americans have made in our common defense for 60 years.

[dazzleman]

Are European's so anti-American? The majority would seem to be anti-Bush but is that necessarily synonymous with being anti-American?

I'm not exactly enamoured with the incumbent president but I'm not anti-American - far from it and, unlike, most Europeans and a large plurality of Britons, I'm broadly supportive of the Iraq mission

Dave

Anti-Americanism in Europe long predates Bush.  Many Europeans hated Reagan for the same reason they hate Bush -- because he was not an appeaser and took a confrontational approach to an adversary.

On the other hand, Europeans didn't seem to mind presidents like Nixon, Ford, GW Bush, Clinton, who either took a more conciliatory approach toward adversaries, at least on the surface (Nixon/Ford - detente) or were not in office at the time of a major confrontation (GW Bush, Clinton).

The European hatred of America cannot simply be passed off as being anti-Bush; it is something far deeper in my opinion.  Europeans are appeasers who have relied on a foreign power to defend them for 60 years, despite the fact that on paper, there is no reason they cannot defend themselves.  They could; they simply choose not to.  This self-induced dependency creates a feeling of strong resentment toward the people who effectively make that dependency possible.

There is a basic split in values between Americans and Europeans, and a fundamental disagreement about how to deal with threats.  At times, this can lead to a constructive two-pronged approach that can actually produce good results.  But at other times, it is disastrous.

The funny thing is, when the Europeans feel directly threatened, they then demand American action to rescue them from their own impotence.  Kosovo is a perfect example of that.  They couldn't even deal with the whole Yugoslav situation without the US taking the lead and doing probably 80% of the work.  But when America is threatened, the Europeans want no part of the common defense.

So I don't buy for a minute that the Europeans love America, but just hate Bush.  Bush has simply held office at a time when circumstances have laid bare the major fault line between the US and Europe.

BTW, when I say Europe, I mean, generally, what Rumsfeld calls Old Europe.  The Eastern Europeans, for whom we did a lot less than the Western Europeans, seem to appreciate our contribution quite a bit more.  And Britain is not really part of Europe, but lies somewhere in the middle between the US and Europe.

[dazzleman]

MikeZ - a couple of comments.

I think I painted with a very broad brush, so not everything I say is true in every case, but what I wrote does reflect my general feelings about the matter.  In general, Americans are sick of defending Europe and, in our perception, mostly getting kicked in the teeth for it.  Understand that it is very disheartening to have entered two world wars that we had no part in starting (at least directly) and then being the primary defense for western Europe against the Soviet for 45 years, only to have so many people there hate us.  Had we let Europe go down the drain after World War II, as we might have, the lives of the western Europeans would have been very dark and bleak.

It seems that Europeans hate the US during periods of confrontation against imminent threats, and relations are better during more quiescent periods.  That is basically the definition of a fair weather friend.  Many Europeans didn't like Reagan's policy of confrontation with the Soviets, yet that policy did a lot more to rid Europe of the Soviet threat than the policies the Europeans espoused.  And where was there anger at the Soviets for targeting them with nuclear missiles in the first place?  Reagan did not initiate the nuclearization of Europe; he only sought to counter what the Soviets had started.

I am not anti-European per se, just disillusioned with what I perceive to be the European contempt for the US and disregard of the sacrifices we have made on behalf of Europe.

BRTD - I laugh at your characterization of the Kosovo War as a humanitarian mission.  If it was a humanitarian mission, then so is the Iraq War.  We attacked a country and removed a government from power, effectively.  Somalia was a humanitarian mission, but Kosovo was a war.  And it was against a country that was no threat to us.  Why are not as vehemently opposed to it as Iraq?  This war was done at the behest of the Europeans, who convinced a reluctant American administration to carry most of the weight in the war because they didn't want that nasty business going on in the back yard.  I recognize that the US is the largest single country in NATO, yet the European countries combined are at least as big as the US.  So then why is it that the US must make most of the military contribution?

[dazzleman]

I also love how you completedly ignored my opebo/religion, me/suburbs analogy. Come on, if all Europeans and American leftists are such rabid America haters, why not be as open about it?

Because people like you know you can further your agenda better if you hide your true motivations.

Actually, I don't really mean you. Your "points" prove nothing, just as your constant babbling about the fact that your aunt likes to live in Minneapolis doesn't negate the broader point about why middle class people have left the cities and moved to the suburbs in large numbers.

If you think the Kosovo war had absolutely nothing to do with Milosevic's fall, you are wrong.

[dazzleman]

Milosevic was toppled after he tried to nullify election results in which he lost. What does that have to do with Kosovo?

What happend in Kosovo significantly weakend Milosevic's hold over Serbia (and finally dashed his pseudo-fascist dreams of a Greater Serbia) and almost certainly speeded up his fall.

Thanks Al.

[dazzleman]

From an Aussie PoV:

Anti-Americanism is steadily growing down here, and a significant amount of it is Bush-related. Aussies had no problem with Reagan, certainly not to the same level as there is with Bush.

Alongside the growth in Anti-Americanism is Anti-European-ism.

At a general level, increasingly the US is seen as domineering, aggressive and rude; Europe as faded, arrogant and useless.

and here we are, finally starting to 'grow up', trying to decide between the UK, the US, Asia and ourselves. The US certainly isn't winning,and the UK and the rest of Europe dropped out of the race a long time ago. We're redefining our image, and whilst 'mum' (the UK) and 'dad' (the US) have a part to play, increasingly Australia is facing the decision not between the UK and the US,  but what course to take in the future-Asia or the west, or maybe NOTA.

Bush doesn't exactly present the west's case well, and the European leaders are so irrelevant, particially I believe by choice, that they might as well be African.

NOTA really isn't an option.  Australia is too small, and not powerful enough, to go it alone.  Alliance with the US and Europe, whatever the pitfalls, is better than any of the alternatives.

[dazzleman]

On topic - Cheney would NEVER run, he's even more unpopular than Bush, plus his heart would leap out of his chest and start hitting Dick in the head should he even consider it. Plus a war with Iran would be an act rampant stupidity, even without the Iraq debacle.


I would like to speak to the idea that Europeans are anti-American. I'm Australian, and have visited both areas often.

If I were to paint with a broad brush - I would say that many Europeans find America's culture very difficult to understand, actually they understand it, don't understand how anyone could actually like it.

It does have a lot to do with the leadership. Watch shows like Not the Nine O'Clock News from the early 80s, and the feelings toward Reagan (this is long before Glastnost and Perestkroika) were very similar to those now toward Bush. This is largely to do with leaders who were very very big military spenders, who spoke in generalisations and who weren't regarded as being terribly bright.

I think many around the WORLD were kind of shocked that the US (as is their right, of course) went from an articulate, detail oriented, Rhodes scholar (I think only in America would his personal life have been the issue it was) to this guy from a rich family, who is percieved as only getting anywhere because of nepotism, who trips over a simple sentence. Maybe to Americans thats endearing to the rest of the world that is terrifying.

People forget that Europe has a long cultural memory - they have been fighting each other for centuries and know the dangers of war talk. Remember Europe has been left in ruins twice in the last century because of war and militarism. While, I'm sure there were benevolent intentions, the actual adoption of things like the Marshall Plan were primarily done to avoid a complete Soviet take-over of the European continent. 

Part of the problem with Europeans and Americans is the way Americans are portrayed both in the European and most parts of the American media.

Culturally, there is somewhat of a difference between the US and Europe, but having visited both Europe and a small part of the Arab world, I have to say that in Europe, I always had the sense that I was in the same civilization, while in Morocco, I felt I was definitely in a different civilization.

The US is an upstart power, while Europe is a fading power.  All the wars you mention have caused the Europeans to lose their capacity to defend themselves.  Whatever the motivations of the US in the world wars and the cold war, the fact is that we helped to save Western Europe from a hellish prospect, and I think that should be recognized.

The relationship between the US and Europe has never been a lovefest.  It never will be.  But the Europeans should not be so insulated from reality as to think that they don't need the US.  And they need us to retain the things they seem to like least about us.  If we become like them, they're lost, because there'll be nobody to defend them.

As far as Cheney goes, there's no way he'll run.  At least I hope not.  He has absolutely no charisma, and wouldn't stand a chance of winning, except under the most extreme circumstances, and maybe not even then.

[dazzleman]

I don't think it's the Europeans who are insulated from reality.

In all fairness, I think everybody is insulated from reality in some way.

Americans are insulated from reality in certain ways, Europeans in others.  The basic issue is -- Europeans can't or choose not to defend themselves, so it could be dangerous for them to be too disdainful of the country they expect to defend them.