Keep Your Allies Close

I look forward to French and Iranian shoulders standing shoulder to shoulder in solidarity manning the barricades in southern Lebanon to stop the rockets being launched into Israel. Here here!

Oops, first shoulders should have been soldiers.

Does France retain its long-held agenda of being the Key European power in the Middle East?

France has never, ever, relinquished its colonial empire or its colonial ambitions. It is an imperialist nation and has long supported the Arabs in the ME, not for their sake, but for its own sake. It was previously closely linked to Saddam Hussein. Now that he is gone and the Iraqi people are regaining control over their own country - is France moving into one of the key agents behind the insurgency in Iraq - is France moving to align itself with Iran? Iran is behind the Iraqi insurgency; it is behind the Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists. It would like Syria to move back into Lebanon, with Syria understood as an understudy under the control of Iran.

After all, France held Lebanon for years - and France rarely leaves a country that it has controlled. When it does (Haiti, Vietnam), those countries are destabilized for a generation. Vietnam has recovered from France, but Haiti most certainly hasn't.

With Iraq moving into a democracy, does France see itself as regaining that foothold in the ME, by aligning itself with Iran - for Iran has its own agenda of establishing the ME Persian Empire, with itself in control.

Then, France-Iran - would rule the ME - and France, of course, has every intention of ruling the European Union.

What is incredible, is how Mr. Joe Normal, rants against the US, viewing the US as imperialist - which it isn't - and, in his ignorance, totally ignores the reality of France as an imperialist force.

Fwance: can't even be bothered to build a Maginot line this time, and instead is giving up tout de suite.

"...a great country, a great people and a great civilization"

"Great". Now there's a word you don't hear much in Canada. Nor "excellence". These are considered fascist concepts in Candada.

This reminds me of a quote from a great Canadian conservative, from a time when excellence was preferred to diversity:

"The human mind naturally adapts itself to the position it occupies. The most gigantic intellect may be dwarfed by being cabin'd, cribbed and confined. It requires a great country and great circumstances to develop great men." -- Charles Tupper, 1865

The corollory being, of course, that a weak nation more given to celebrating diversity than extolling the virtues excellence cannot develop great men, and I do emphasize men.

Canadian Tire Guy is 104 years old.

ET, you're bang on with regards to French foreign policy. France was one of the biggest opponents to the US invasion of Iraq. France was also stood to be the largest controller of Iraqi oil if Saddam remained in power. They pillaged and exploited Africa and southeast Asia. Now they're playing friends with Iran? Unbelievable....

Had we known the part that France would play in future events, I'm sure WWII would have turned out differently for them.

Or,

"It can't be the start of WWIII, France hasn't surrendered yet."
(Comment on CNN)

Does anyone know why France lines it roads and avenues with trees?

So German soldiers can march in the shade.

The difference between France and the US is that France doesnt bother trying to depict itself as the moral saviour of the world like the US does. The US thinks it is Gods gift to mankind, as do many people here. And perhaps it would have been if its Foreign Policy didnt mirror the narrow self interest of French policy. The French make it clear that they re out to do what is best for France. The Americans go on blabbering something about freedom and other moral stuff, while pursuing their equally narrow agenda.

Some of you buy the morality speak and ignore the actions.

Dont forget that it was France that sold Israel aircraft - the Mirages that bombed the living daylights out of Egypt in 67. It was the French who armed the Israelis in the initial stages. The US only came in a lot later. Its true that they also armed Iraq, but then again both India and Pakistan operate different versions of French made submarines and nuclear capable aircraft.

They ve never had qualms about admitting that they are exploiting any side that they can. Yes, its imperialist. But its also refreshing in that it is not masqueraded as being the "right" thing to do for "freedom". The French dont bother with terms like that, and I respect them for it. They do business and then they leave.

The Americans play all kinds of morality games, and then baffle everybody with Iran Contra type deals. The French are out there doing what is best of them and they admit. The Americans are out there doing what is best for them, and trying to disguise it as morally correct,which for some reason, a lot of you on this blog buy into.

How in the hell could the french fight? they always have both hands in the air.

Hold on - the Fwench aren't weasily? When did that happen?

I missed their confession that they opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq due to their oil interests, their armament sales, their oil-for-food kickbacks, and other lucrative business dealings that they had with Hussein.

Anyone still have a copy of the press release?

Middleton sez: "The Americans go on blabbering something about freedom and other moral stuff, while pursuing their equally narrow agenda."

I'll bite... What exactly is this "narrow agenda"?

middleton- apart from your assertion, which is only your personal opinion, could you provide some proof that (1) the US defines itself as the moral saviour of the world; and (2) that France does not? Proof is an important value; otherwise, your opinion remains - only yours.

Your statement that the US 'blabbers' about freedom is equally - your own personal description.

The US is the country, the one country, that is responsible for more freedom, more progress, of all parts of the world than any country at any time in the world's history. That includes the results of their Civil War, the results of the two world wars, their enormous financial contributions to the world - and the current situation.

France? Never. It has colonized, retained control of its so-called 'ex-colonies' and left them in a shambles in Indonesia, in Africa, in the ME. It is a colonial and imperial agent.

The fact that you respect them for their 'we'll sell to any thug as long as they pay us' - is your problem.

true french sympathies?

well folks, dont forget the vichy french!!

stuff like that doesnt just vanish on its own. its still around.

Do not forget what the French (i.e. Charles de Gaulle) tried to do to Canada with his "Vive le Quebec Libre" comment in the 60's.

Middleton, all the evidence points to France acting purely out of self interest again and again. Yet you apologise for them. But the US comes to the rescue of Europe in both world wars. The US fought the cold war against communism. They fought for South Korea. They fought for the Vietnamese people who didn't want communism. And yet you condemn them as acting purely out of self-interests. What did the US gain by liberating France twice? What did they gain by keeping North Korea from trampling South Korea? What did they gain by preventing the Soviet Union from wiping out Western Europe in the late 40's early 50's? What did they gain by trying to help keep south Vietnam free of communism?

Nice post ET. I agree with you, the French have never let go of their imperial delusions, and they are utterly amoral opportunists masquerading behind a "mission civilizatrice" that in its treatment of colonized peoples was anything but civilizing. I don't know how many Frenchman you've worked with Middleton, but by God they bear no resemblance to the ones I knew.
Wrt the current situation, if the French, in cahoots with the Iranians, are calling for a cease-fire, then it means Hezbollah is getting raped.
Iran playing a "stabilizing role" in the region!!!??? The chutzpah of the Eurocrats is beyond belief! Exactly what were those Katyushas and longer range rockets supposed to stabilize prey tell?

"What exactly is this "narrow agenda"?"

Its called American interests. Theres no dearth of shortsighted policies - Reagan ignored Pakistans nuclear bomb during the 1980s because he wanted their help in Afghanistan. End result - Pakistan is home to the biggest proliferator in history - AQ Khan.

The US wanted to dismantle the Soviets by arming the Afghan Mujahideen, including Osama. Soviets collapsed. America promptly left the scene instead of helping Afghan rebuild. End result- the biggest terrorist training camp in history.

World Trade talks a couple of weeks ago. The US theoretically promotes Free trade but the deal between the six major trading powers - US, EU, Japan Brazil India and Australia. The talks collapsed because the Americans dont want to stop subsidizing their farmers. The US blamed the EU, the EU blamed the US, and the rest blamed the US alongside the EU. According to the Indian commerce minister, the talks now lie somewhere between Intensive Care and the Morgue. Why? Because American farmers are scared. So much for Free Trade.

The list goes on...and on...and on. Most people dont realise that each Administration can last a maximum of 8 years, and that none of them have a long memory. Each one has their own short term policy. And the next guy couldnt be bothered by it.

pete said: "But the US comes to the rescue of Europe in both world wars."

Canada: With our allies; in blood.

D-Day, 6 June, 1944: Juno Beach.
Dieppe Raid, 19 August, 1942.
Battle of Vimy Ridge.
Battle of Kapyong, Korea.
5,900 identified war dead in Italy.
The Medak Pocket, Croatia, 1993.
Etc., etc.
Etc., etc.

There are many on the American Right, e.g. the Independent Institute, some in the Cato Institute, the Pat Buchanan rump, etc. that have urged that the United States imitate French foreign policy and make the aggressive pursuit of American interests the only goal of U.S. foreign policy.

If one looks at the French statement, it could have been authored by the U.S. State Department during the time of the Shah. Looked at without reference to the current holders of power -- the long term view that most diplomatic establishments take -- the French statement is probably accurate.

Middleton,

The EU (especially France) is at least as responsible as the US for agricultural subsidies. Note that Canada is just as guilty as the EU and US on this score. France (even before the EU) has always refused to open their markets to agricultural competition. They have small, inefficient farms who are heavily subsidized. They (and the rest of Europe) would never agree to end subsidies even if the US and Canada would which we (and they) will not.

But it's all the Yanks fault cause it fits your idiotic bias.

Do you have anything useful to say? Please.

As for the actions of the US, note Churchill sided with Stalin over Hitler. Does that mean he was a big fan of Stalin? No, of course not. It means that sometimes in life you get to chose between crappy and crappier. Sometimes Utopian perfection isn't on the menu. If you fault the US for choosing the worst of two bad choices you're an imbecile.

Asswhipes who whine about the lack of perfection from the west usually hold the real scum to a much lower standard. In fact, the real villains are usually put on a pedestal and worshipped by the left as heroes (like blood-soaked Che, Mao, Castro and the palestinian "freedom fighters" you lot apologize for.)

If you can't come up with a reasonable understanding of reality, you must be a lefty. Yet another reason for my contempt of you lot.

ET,

"We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies."

Yours faithfully, Dubya

Not my opinion exactly. But look at it this way. Bush is still doing business with the Saudis - they re a very democratic lot. Hes still doing business with the military dictator of Pakistan. Hmmm. Moral Choices. Hes got an embargo against Cuba but nothing against China. We both know which country has done more harm not only to its own people but to its neighbours. "The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right." And money.

As I recall, France's immediate response to India's nuclear tests was none of that condescending, albeit supposedly moral, Nuclear weapons are bad if you dont sit on the UNSC, but rather a simple statement that India was obligated to do what it felt was in its national interests. And that in a nutshell defines French policy - it actually does view ALL sovereign states as being sovereign.

Perhaps I shouldnt have used the word "blabber", but the word "freedom" really has a knack of showing up everywhere. Surprising for a nation that backed some of the most oppressive unsavoury regimes. Remember Pinochet? Yeah hes being tried for crimes against humanity or something. No points for guessing who installed him into power over a democratically elected, albeit socialist, leader.

Et,

Oooh. It gets better.

"The US is the country, the one country, that is responsible for more freedom, more progress, of all parts of the world than any country at any time in the world's history. That includes the results of their Civil War, the results of the two world wars, their enormous financial contributions to the world - and the current situation."

Really. I d give the British more credit for putting democratic institutions across the globe, some of which have actually gone on to work.

As I recall, the US entered the 1st world war in 1917, 3 years after it began. And it joined the Second World War in 1941, over two years after it started. It might shock you to know this, but between 1939 and 1941, Canada was the UKs biggest ally. It was our sailors on the North Atlantic, who fought the odds, with heavy casualties because of lack of training (Read Marc Milners books on the subject) that kept supplies going to Britain in her our of need. Canada contributed far more than America to ensure that England survived those crucial two years. If England had collapsed then, the world would be a very different place. Not that I m suggesting that Canada saved the day. I m only making it obvious that the Americans didnt save the day.

As for the rest, this Freedom business is a bit bizzare when you remember that most of the countries under lined up behind the US banner were dictatorships of one sort or the other. South Korea was a military dictatorship until quite recently. Nothing democratic or free about them, other than that they were lined up behind the self proclaimed leader of the free world.

I never said France wasnt imperial. All I said is that they do as they see fit and dont bother masquerading it as, you know, "right".

Pete,

Gah.

"Middleton, all the evidence points to France acting purely out of self interest again and again. Yet you apologise for them."

Didnt apologize for them. Just said it was great that they admitted as much and didnt try to disguise it as moral or "right"/

"But the US comes to the rescue of Europe in both world wars."

It joined both wars halfway through after it was attacked. In 1917, they were angered by German policies sinking American unarmed ships. In 1941, Pearl Harbor happened, and the system of alliances was such that war against Japan meant war against Germany. The 1st World War began in 1914, not 1917. The Second World War began in 1939, not Dec 7 1941. They werent doing public service, they were fighting because they got hit.

"The US fought the cold war against communism. They fought for South Korea."

And left the South Koreans under a military dictatorship till well into the 1980s. Again it was a matter of interests - they saw a threat in communism and stood up against it using some of the most oppressive regimes in history.

"They fought for the Vietnamese people who didn't want communism."

The South Vietnamese regime were no angels either. It wasnt good or bad, it was built on a fear of communism taking over and removing potential US client states and markets. Democracy was always secondary - the Shah of Iran can attest to that.

"And yet you condemn them as acting purely out of self-interests. What did the US gain by liberating France twice?"

They beat the Germans down for hitting them in the first place. Germany was fast becoming a threat to the US. They wiped it off the map. But only after it hit them first, not because it was inherently evil or anything.

"What did they gain by keeping North Korea from trampling South Korea? What did they gain by preventing the Soviet Union from wiping out Western Europe in the late 40's early 50's? What did they gain by trying to help keep south Vietnam free of communism?"

Think about it. Economics maybe - you know markets and all that. Plus they didnt want the Soviets to have the whole world to themselves. The Soviets were becoming a threat to the US. Its not rocket science. And there certainly isnt a moral basis.

Middleton,

Who exactly do you hold up as a beacon of freedom and democracy vs. the US? Couldn't be Canada - not with that scrap of Trudeau toilet paper called the constitution, could it? No, not that bigoted document which blocks most Canadians from federal government employ, as well as crowning an unelected supreme court our unelected supreme law makers, could it?

Say it ain't so, Mr. 'Historian.'

ET: Can you explain how France, being a democracy, maintains its imperialistic stance through successive adminstrations?

(I agree with you but I think there may be some peculiarities about their govermental system that enable the persistence of this ambition.)

Warwick,

While what you say is correct, the general consensus of the ministers who left that meeting was that the Europeans were being far more flexible than the US and that it was the US that was being extremely rigid. Its not a matter of my bais, its the statements of the various Commerce Ministers that puts the blame on the US. By the way, its all very well saying that all western countries are guilty, but how many of them go around proselytizing the goodness of free trade to third world countries in the manner in which the US does. I think you ll find that America leads the rest by a long way.

Imbecile eh. Already degenerated to namecalling. Well done. You must be very proud.

"It means that sometimes in life you get to chose between crappy and crappier. Sometimes Utopian perfection isn't on the menu. "

I dont care much for twisting words and throwing htem around, but I want you to remember how fondly "Uncle Joe" was spoken off in the States during the Second World War. Its true that you have to do somethings for self interest, in fact that is my whole argument - that America is driven by self interest and not moral choices. I m not saying anything was wrong with supporting OBL either. However the shortsightedness of that particular policy resulted in the terrorist camp that we know as Afghanistan. Reagans "moral" war ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union. No one realised that hte radical Islamists were equally dangerous. That is called short sightedness.

Lefty righty, I dont buy into these labels. You can have contempt for me for stating facts that you dont like, but that doesnt mean they arent facts. You are presumably right wing, and burdened with the blinkers of that particular ideology.

Middleton, your pygmy opinion is both illogical and immoral. First of all, the facts show that the moral high ground in international affairs belongs, hands down, to the Americans--thanks, ET--not the French. "Cheese eating surrender monkeys"--I love that term--describes the French perfectly. And you say that their international subversion of fair play is just fine, no problem, because the French are totally up front about being scum. Huh?

So, I guess if someone loudly announces that he's going to run every red light between here and home and rob a few banks too, that's OK because you think he's being "authentic". But it ISN'T OK if the guy plots these actions in secret (and I don't concede that US actions are analagous to these: I'm talking about monkeys here) and then carries them out. Why? Because, then, he's being furtive. And seeing as authenticity is more virtuous than furtivness--BINGO!--the former fellow's on the moral high ground while the other one's in the gutter. The act itself isn't what's right or wrong, just the modus operandi.

How the bloody hell did your mind and conscience get so screwed up? (Let me guess.) Your knowledge and analytical abilities and your moral compass--what's that? you're thinking--are tragically skewed, if not altogether absent. With fifth columns like you around, the "true North, strong and free" will be neither much longer. (To the tune of "White Christmas": I'm dreaming of my first burqa, Just like the ones I eschewed before . . . )

The War Against Muslim Islamist terrorists/genocide is worldwide.

The Muslim Islamist terrorists, e.g., hezbollah, is within Canada.

Punching and strangling now; what is next? Homicide bombing?

What is to be done? Keep your powder dry. ...-

Hizballah Supporters Attack Counterprotesters in Montreal

Judeoscope.ca has video of Hizballah supporters in Montreal violently attacking pro-Israel demonstrators.

After having heard countless cries of “death to Israel”, “vive le Hezbollah” and once in Arabic “death to the Jews”, I addressed some of the protesters by shouting back “am Yisrael chai” (the people of Israel live) and “shalom aleichem” (peace to all). The incident then turned violent when a fanatic ran up to me suddenly, punching and strangling me quickly as I fell onto a parked car on Ste. Catherine St. As the attacker was restrained and ushered away I then yelled “Are you crazy? This is Canada, so act civilized like everyone else watching you.” The unknown assailant was then reintroduced by protest-organizers into the crowd to avoid detection by the numerous members of the media and policemen who had witnessed the assault. Other disgruntled anti-Israel protesters then attempted to enter my place of work where I sought refuge yelling “Jewish pig” and “down, down Israel” as police and bystanders sealed the entrance briefly, preventing the mob from breaking the storefront. ...-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1676517/posts

Irwin,

"Who exactly do you hold up as a beacon of freedom and democracy vs. the US?"

Well the real question is: Does there have to be one nation that is considered to be a beacon of freedom and democracy?

Its really just a fun term to throw around. US policies have supported far too many autocrats to make the US a beacon of either freedom or democracy.

Middleton,

Again, let me reiterate:

"...sometimes in life you get to chose between crappy and crappier. Sometimes Utopian perfection isn't on the menu. If you fault the US for choosing the worst of two bad choices you're an imbecile."

I guess I was right, you're an imbecile.

What would you call the Marshall Plan? It was the US that funded the rebuilding of Europe and Asia. The Marshall Plan as well as the US writing the constitutions of Japan and Germany have allowed these two countries to be free and prosperous nations. The US is trying the same in Afghanistan and Iraq.

With you pointing out the obviousness that the US was late for the party in both world wars, maybe the left will stop decrying the yanks as imperial warmongers since they seem to have been a bit reluctant to get involved in foreign wars. On the other hand, maybe they learned something about quickly confronting evil.

Maybe, when the US sees multiple levels of evil, they have learned to fight the worst evil first, then move down the chain. This may mean allying yourself with regimes and movements you don't like. Again, Churchill's support of Stalin in WWII (and supporting Charles De Gaulle who Churchill also loathed.) It means supporting the Afghans against the Soviet Union. It means then supporting the Northern Alliance in Afghan against the Taliban.

Prior to 9/11, Bush was an isolationist and had no real plan to do any forays into foreign policy (much like FDR pre-war.) The left of course whined about it. They whined even more when they got their wish of global engagement... I guess the adage about being careful what you wish for is appropriate.

I suppose I'm a fool myself for asking you to think. You clearly aren't capable.

Middleton,
"the general consensus of the ministers who left that meeting was that the Europeans were being far more flexible than the US"

Surprise. Eurotrash bureaucrats agreeing amongst themselves that it's all the yanks fault. How novel.

As for how kindly "uncle joe" was spoken of, FDR was a socialist and no friend of mine. He should have led the US into war instead of following opinion. That's what leaders do. The communists in the US (and there were far more then) of course were trumpeting the USSR as was their mouthpieces in the NYT's who won a Pulitzer for being a lying propagandist for Stalin while Stalin was killing millions. In fact, the commies in the US were steadfast against joining WWII up until Hitler double-crossed Stalin and attacked the USSR. Up until that point, the left in the US was against the Imperial Warmonger Churchill. The left is always on the wrong side of everything. In other words, your point is not relevant.

There are lots of bad people in the states. Just fewer there than a lot of places. The Yanks did better in WWII than Trudeau did. At least the Yanks didn't ride around Jewish areas with German military helmets on...

"Middleton, your pygmy opinion is both illogical and immoral"

Pygmy? The namecalling on this board is really very creative.

"First of all, the facts show that the moral high ground in international affairs belongs, hands down, to the Americans--thanks, ET--not the French."

Wrong. I will always contend that there is no moral high ground in international affairs because each country has its own interests. With the diversity of interests that ntions have, morality doesnt even arise as an issue. Nobody has a foreign policy based on morals, even though they might try to disguise it and pass it off as such. And gullible, umm, giants like yourself will keep buying into it.

"And you say that their international subversion of fair play is just fine, no problem, because the French are totally up front about being scum. Huh?"

Considering that all players are flaunting the rules, would you look down on the guy who cheats but keep protesting hes innocent, or the guy whos honest enough to state that hes cheating.

"the former fellow's on the moral high ground while the other one's in the gutter. The act itself isn't what's right or wrong, just the modus operandi."

Missed the point entirely. There IS NO MORAL HIGH GROUND. One side admits as much, the other is out to prove that he is on the moral high ground.

I think its hard for a number of you folks to guage the fact that moral compasses and whatnots dont exist in a number of spheres, international relations being one of them. And heres why:

What exactly is the moral choice -

Should a democratically elected leader do what he believes is "right"?

or

Should a democratically elected leader do what is "right" for his country? In other words, do what he believes is best for his country and people?

There is a subtle difference, but an important one. And it can be a moral dilemna. Who do your loyalties lie to - humanity in general, or your nation in particular. You dont need to be a nationalist to realise that the nation state is built on an exclusivism of sorts.

Keeping that in mind, what would the moral choice be :- Do the right thing? Or do the right thing for your country? I suspect you ll find that Americans are more concerned with the latter.

Warwick,

"Surprise. Eurotrash bureaucrats agreeing amongst themselves that it's all the yanks fault. How novel."

There were 6 parties at the talks. The EU was only one of them. The US was another. Australia, Japan India and Brazil made up the other four. A consensus would require the views of the latter four, too. I dont know why you re so adamantly pro-US but this time the US was in the wrong. Its certainly compounded by the fact that no country makes as much noise in support of free trade as the US.

" At least the Yanks didn't ride around Jewish areas with German military helmets on..."

Huh? Are you referring to the Bitburg incident wherein Ronald Reagan chose a Nazi Waffen SS cemetary to announce a reconciltion with West Germany?

Middleton

I believe what you refer to is this:

Lord Palmerston said : "Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests."

The difference is that American interests usually correspond to the interests of the rest of us far more often than they have the opposite effect.

No one is saying that the US only does stuff that is purely altruistic. That said, it's just a fact that the Yanks have pulled far more than its weight in improving the world. It has accomplished far more than anyone else in making the world a better place (and funded it to boot.)

Perfection? Surely not. Have they done stupid things that were wrong? Of course. Do they mean well even when they're wrong? I think so.

What people are saying is that the US is a force for good because its interests are good. Its interests are shared with all western nations. It has defended and paid for the defence of most of the world since the end of WWII and this burden has allowed the rest of us to develop an unreal world view because we are sheltered from the consequences of that view by the Americans.

"Considering that all players are flaunting the rules"........not to nitpick, Middleton, old bean......but I do believe you meant 'flouting'. ;-)

"What would you call the Marshall Plan? It was the US that funded the rebuilding of Europe and Asia. The Marshall Plan as well as the US writing the constitutions of Japan and Germany have allowed these two countries to be free and prosperous nations. The US is trying the same in Afghanistan and Iraq. "

Oh my. The Marshall plan was about making the Germans prosperous. Forget for a moment that it was money being spent to rebuild a German economy that would then buy American goods. In fact all the Marshall plan money was earmarked to buy American goods and services, not just any goods and services. How nice and noble of the Americans- rebuilding an economy that would then buy American goods. Surely the Americans didnt have American economic self interest in mind.

As for rebuilding Japan and Germany, the Marshall plan only came in response to the threat of communism. It was meant to serve as incentive to join the US camp. I may be an imbecile, but at least I dont muddle up history. Setting up pro-American regimes in the face of the Red Menace. Yes it was all done out of benevolence. No, self interests were not invovled.

"With you pointing out the obviousness that the US was late for the party in both world wars, maybe the left will stop decrying the yanks as imperial warmongers since they seem to have been a bit reluctant to get involved in foreign wars. "

They used to be isolationist, just like us. They didnt want to fight in a war that was seen as Europes war both in the US and in Canada. They emerged as a superpower and extended their global reach and now they dont want ot give it up, despite the decline of the threat on the basis of which they justified their empire, with its many puppet dictators.

"It means supporting the Afghans against the Soviet Union. It means then supporting the Northern Alliance in Afghan against the Taliban."

My point exactly. Its driven by self interest, not moral choices.

Warwick

"Prior to 9/11, Bush was an isolationist and had no real plan to do any forays into foreign policy (much like FDR pre-war.) "

Thats what you say.

"America remains engaged in the world, by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power that favors freedom. "

Thats what Bush said in his inauguaral speech on Jan 20th, 2001.

"Shaping a balance of power" doesnt sound too isolationist to me.

"Considering that all players are flaunting the rules"........not to nitpick, Middleton, old bean......but I do believe you meant 'flouting'. ;-)

Hahaha...yeah that was what I meant. Makes it sound quite wierd eh.

Warwick,

Again what you say is true. I was merely arguing that there is no "moral" basis to any foreign policy and that was in response to somebody asking me if my moral compass was askew.

Nations do what is in their best interest and I daresay that the US is no different. Its views may be representative of Western nations views from time to time, but there are many times when they are not. And thats fine. But to try and follow your self itnerests while offering all kinds of moral justifications is misleading. And that was my argument to begin with. There is no place for morality in the international system. France does what it is in its self interest without bothering too much to offer a moral disguise, while the Americans are busy disguising things as moral choices. Sure they have done plenty of good for the world. But I daresay this good was not done because it is inherently good, but because it suited America. Theres no question of morals here - they do what they need to.

warwick - you answered Middleton's narrow and selective opinions perfectly. The EU most certainly, like Canada, subsidizes its farmers - so- Middleton's complaint that the US does also, is empty and biased.

Same with his complaint about who the US sides with - You know, Middleton, the world isn't divided into the Purely Good and the Purely Bad - like a Die Hard movie. The world is more complex, and one has to work with this complexity to isolate the Greater Evils from the Less Great Evils.

As far as China is concerned, Middleton, it is, explosively, opening up to capitalism. Democracy will follow, for the two go together. Cuba is not an open market.

I fully agree with Bush's statement. Do you realize how inadequate you would be as a world leader, if the world leaders behaved as you write - where, if a country isn't Pure Good, then, you sanction them, cut off all trade, and possibly go in and kill their leaders? Have you ever wondered why you are not a leader, and why Bush, Blair, Howard, Harper - are world leaders? Because they know that the world is complex; it doesn't operate the way you want the world to exist - white goodness and black evil.

No, France doesn't view 'all sovereign states as sovereign. Quite the contrary. It considers that any ex-colony, even after independence, still belongs to France, and has no hesitation in going in, with its army - and without UN approval - to protect its still massive interests in those countries. Check out the Ivory Coast history for one example.

No, France does hide its interests - as it hid its investment support for Hussein, under the verbal statements of only 'Don't Go In'.

And another 'no Middleton'. I'm not shocked that 'Canada was the UK's biggest ally' in the early years of WWII. Canada was intimately tied to the UK then (no constitution, thank god); and declared war AS A MEMBER OF THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH. It couldn't have done anything else.

Germany was a threat to the US? And wasn't 'inherently evil'. So, you approve of Nazism?????

greenmamba - France, like Canada, has set up a governing system that excludes the majority of its population from major governing roles. In Canada, it's our Evil Charter, which is primarily about bilingualism, and sets up our gov't so that only a bilingual person can have any authoritative role in Canada. That's not merely the elected govt, but almost all gov't appointments, including deputy ministers, heads of public corporations, banks, justices, funding agencies - the whole system. Since 80% of the Canadian population are not, and never will be, bilingual, this means that a small 'sect' assumes power. France is similar, but it isn't decided by language but by 'family'. France is very class conscious - and the elite families maintain power in France. They'll all be networked, they'll all go to the 'correct schools'; they'll all, via family, move into key governing positions. The bureaucracy is the focus - and they run France.

Middleton- I don't think it is short-sighted to realize that radical Islam was going to emerge. It didn't emerge until well after WWII, when the ME states were transformed by oil revenues and the population moved from a rural economy to the urban centres, and began to explode in numbers. BUT, BUT, the political infrastructure didn't change to accomodate this economic change; it remained tribal. No-one could have predicted this. No-one.

I disagree with you, middleton, that morality plays no role in international affairs. Your point is that each country has an agenda of its own self-interest, which is, naturally, correct. It would be unconstitutional for it to reject the protection and well-being of its population. BUT, this protection and well-being of its population, surely includes the collaborative protection and well-being of others. (You can check out Nash's Game Theory here).

If you operate only within an adversarial framework, middleton, which sets up x as existing only versus Y - this is naive Darwinism. In the real world, this naive Darwinism doesn't exist; instead, there are 'networked arrangements' between species, among species. It's the same with nations. A world where each nation is focused only on itself and is adversarial to other nations, won't work. The whole has to be a kind of 'collaborative, flexible, active networking' of mutual interests, singular interests, connected interests. Your framework, middleton, doesn't permit this complexity.

Middleton: Your response to my post is typically simplistic. You say, "[T]here is no moral high ground in international affairs because each country has its own interests. With the diversity of interests that ntions [sic] have, morality doesnt [sic] even arise as an issue. Nobody has a foreign policy based on morals . . ." This is utter poppycock.

Yes, each country has its own interests but your one dimensional reasoning reduces all such interests to being equivalent. They most certainly are not. E.g., Israel's at war--being as diligent as it can to observe Geneva Convention rules--not in order to expand its territory, but to preserve its very existence. Iran, via Hezbollah, is at war--in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention rules--in order to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Countries like Canada, the US, and Australia, which discern the moral difference, are siding with Israel. (By your analysis, the Nazis and Allies, both persuing their own interests, were morally equivalent. And if you repeat that morality has nothing to do with this, you're even more vacant, and your views more reprehensible, than I thought.)

Your analysis is complete hogwash.

And I was not name calling: I used the word "pygmy" as an adjective for the word "opinion". There is a difference, Middleton, but discernment's obviously not one of your strong points. (I'm still trying to discern if you have any.)

So, what about it Middleton. Are you driven by "self interest" or "moral choices".

It is never as simple as saying it is one or the other. Self interest always plays a part.

In defense of the Marshall Plan:It was not perfect, but it was certainly better than the "loot and pillage" approach of the treaty of Versailles, or for that matter of the Soviets treatment of Eastern Europe after WW2. Note the differences between East and West Germany.

Call me cynical, but I think as superpowers go, the USA (while far from perfect) is arguable better than any in history. Certainly, the Brits did things in their day that seem scandalous today. Boer concentration camps, military occupation of Ireland, Maxim guns blazing conquest of Africa, from Capetown to Cairo, etc. etc.

Sure the USA did similar things back in the day (eg: treatment of Aboriginals), but all in all, things are being done at least as morally today as they have been by any superpower in history.

ET: thanks - makes sense.

You basic premise is still not backed up anywhere in your dissertation. You posit like crazy, but state it like fact. I know you feel like you've earned this right due to your education, but let's not quibble on that point.

America's actions may or may not align with its asserted morality. Of course, you're not going to harm your own country in the decisions you make, but you can make an effort to align your decisions with a moral code, especially if you have one built right into your constitution. Warwick suggests that (and more often than not, to boot) decisions are based on the lesser of two evils. We're seeing it right now in the ME. Israel is left with either a. having its own citizens attacked and killed a little at a time by unceasing provocations from h'blah or b. attempting to wipe out the terrorist organization and killing Lebanese civilians in the process due to the nature of the target. Somebody's going to die, but a decision still has to be made. There is not c. do nothing and no one gets hurt. So the lesser of the evils for Israel will be the one where they protect their citizens.

The US attempts to align their decisions with a moral code because their citizens are (predominately) morally aware. Christian values (regardless of an individual's ability to put them into practice) do tend to get gov'ts elected in the US.

Couldn't you posit (as I am) that the US attempts to align its self interest with its moral code whereas France, as a foreign body politic, has no morals? You probably don't want to lose your anti-American bias though, so this wouldn't fly, eh?

ET,

All along I ve been arguing that morality is not of consequence in the international system, because there is no set of good and evil. Rather unsurprisingly, you accuse me of doing exactly the opposite.

The only reason I did pull out those examples and run with them was to show that America, despite its colorful moral rhetoric, is not, in fact, driven by "moral choices". If they were, then they would legitimately be subject to the black and white framework that you accuse me of creating.

"Middleton's complaint that the US does also, is empty and biased."

Well seeing as Australia, India, Brazil and Japan are also complaining, I dont think the US was the "good guy" there.

"Same with his complaint about who the US sides with.... - Less Great Evils."

See above. If the US was guided by morality as it makes itself out to be and as most of you seem to believe, then it can legitimately be criticized within the black and white - right and wrong - moral framework that it itself has created.

"As far as China is concerned, Middleton, it is, explosively, opening up to capitalism. Democracy will follow, for the two go together. Cuba is not an open market."

Speculation. Not fact.

France and Ivory Coast. You re right. My mistake.

"No, France does hide its interests - as it hid its investment support for Hussein, under the verbal statements of only 'Don't Go In'. "

And ze Germans? Did they also have interests to hide in Iraq? I dont buy it - its more consistent with their general attitude towards the rest of the world - let everyone do what they want to. If they want to fight, we ll sell both sides the weapons - India/Pak for example.

"declared war AS A MEMBER OF THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH. It couldn't have done anything else."

We did have a choice. King made the choice. Check your history first. We are not at war once Britain is at war. King made it clear that he would side with Britain as early as 1938, when he visited Germany. The Kings visit in 1939 was no coincidence - it was meant to stir up pro British sympathies for a war that King saw coming. And Canada declared war on September 10th 1939, as opposed to the other commonwealth countries that did so on September 3rd. It wasnt automatic.

"Germany was a threat to the US? And wasn't 'inherently evil'. So, you approve of Nazism?????"

Twisting words. I never said I approve of Nazism. It certainly does appear as though the Americans did, until 1941 that is. The argument, which you apparently missed, was that America turned on Germany not because they felt the Nazis were inherently evil, but because they had been dragged into the war by Japan, and saw Nazi Germany as a threat. They were neutral until Dec 41. That suggests that they didnt see anything evil with the Nazis thus far.

"Middleton- I don't think it is short-sighted to realize that radical Islam was going to emerge. No-one could have predicted this. No-one."

Mmmm Hmmm. The Islamic revolution took place in Iran in Jan 1979. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan took place in December. The Americans knew how radical the islamists could get. Yet, when the Soviets collapsed in 89, 10 years of Islamic revival later, the Americans just walked off assuming everything would take care of itself. And then Sept 11th happened. How they couldnt see the tide turning in the 80s is, well, baffling. Short sightedness.

Asd for national interests, you forget that national interests are not just about survival, they are about virtually everything. But even if we leave that aside, I think you are disagreeing for the sake of it. Nash's game theory is based on rationality, not morality. Dont confuse the two. Theres nothing moral about it.

"If you operate only within an adversarial framework, middleton, which sets up x as existing only versus Y - this is naive Darwinism."

I dont. ANyone who believes in a moral framework for international relations does. Because then there is ONLY a right and a wrong, only an X and a Y. I know theres a high degree of interdependence, but that interdendence would fall flat in a moral framework, because, quite frankly, Saudi Arabia and the US are interdependent but there is no moral justification for that relationship. I m not the one putting into place a moral framework. Anybody who believes that there is a place for morality in the international system, such as yourself, is.

Middleton

Morality is not black and white, but follows a 'Likert Scale' akin to 'greatest good, less great good, neutral, less bad, greatest bad'.

Decisions have to be made about the relationship of one's country with other countries, based on economic, political, legal AND moral values. You state that moral values play no role in these decisions. I disagree.

With regard to China and democracy, this is not speculation but fact. Capitalism is an economic mode based on individual empowerment; the political mode of democracy is similar; it acknowledges individual empowerment. Since China is rapidly moving ahead with economic individual empowerment, then, the political system will follow. The only way to prevent this symmetry between systems (economic and political) is by force - and - it is too late to prevent their symmetrical balancing.

I wasn't aware that you, Middleton, were aware, in the 1980's that Islamic fascism would emerge. Did you write about it? Did you make your views public? Brutality and 'radical' doesn't mean that the people are fascists - as I'm sure you would agree. Again, I'll claim that no-one could have predicted the rise of Islamic fascism, for it is a result of several issues:
1. the transformation of the ME economies from peasant agriculture to industrial after WWII
2. the mov't from rural to urban of the population
3. the explosion of population.
All of the above was observable. What wasn't observable was:
4. the continuous imposition of a political system of government that is only suitable for a medium size population and a rural economy - namely, tribalism.
AND
5. the tension between the maintenance of this mode of govt, tribalism, and the increasing demands for shared power by the people.

This tension and demands were dealt with by several tactics: military dictatorships, the dev't of fundamentalist religion to make people afraid to question; migration of large numbers to Europe and N. America; and the propaganda tactic of The Evil Other (The West)...this tactic is also used by the Liberal Party of Canada (the Evil US).

These tactics merged into a focus on fundamentalism - Islamic fascism - which was at first focused on the West and is increasingly turning its focus inwards, (Iran vs SA, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt).

None of this could be predicted. As I said, Middleton - you imply that you knew this situation would happen. Did you inform anyone?

The interesting thing about rationality, is that it includes morality. Reason without emotions, without evaluation of benefits, which includes morality, is pyschopathic.

If SA and the US are collaborating, and this is a rational decision, then, according to you, morality can play no part in this decision. According to others, myself included, morality has to play a part.

I think I see your position, which is that for a nation to assert that its reasoned decisions are also moral, is essentially hypocritical, for its decisions must, above all, be pragmatic, be practical, be for its own benefit. According to you, morality plays no role in these decisions.

Actually, this issue, the relevance of morality and rationality, is discussed by a number of philosophers. One of the greatest - is Aristotle, who actually linked reason and ethics. In politics.

His ethics was 'for the good of man and "for even if the end is the same for a single man and for a state, that of the state seems at all events something greater and more complete whether to attain or to preserve...

I don't agree with your conclusion, which is that the state (and do you also include individuals?) is guided by and run by, one focus - a reasoned conclusion of self-benefit, and that this reasoning necessarily excludes ethical considerations. I think that self-benefit also includes an ethical consideration, which is found within the laws of the state.

That is, the laws of the state will act as the ethical boundaries. Bush, for instance, cannot declare war unless it is approved by Congress, and Congress will debate, not merely the practical results but the ethics of such a war.

For example, that is one of the key problems the West is having with the current war on Islamic fascism. Wars are fought, ethically, and there IS an ethics-of-war, between nations, by their designated military. The military are not civilians. Islamic fascism has no military; it is made up of civilians. The west, currently, is uncertain how to fight, how to prosecute, how to deal with these people - for, they masquerade as civilians, they hide behind civilians, but, they act as a military. The fact that the West does not go in and bomb out a hospital is an ethical decision; the reality that the Islamic fascists are pretending to be that hospital - is a difficult situation.

ET,

"Morality is not black and white, but follows a 'Likert Scale' akin to 'greatest good, less great good, neutral, less bad, greatest bad'."

Morality has always been about right and wrong. You ve just given it a grey area - neutral, less bad etc. Thats not morality.

"I wasn't aware that you, Middleton, were aware, in the 1980's that Islamic fascism would emerge."

By the late 1980s, the Islamic threat had made itself known. For starters, Beirut happened. By the time America decided to leave the region, rather than stay there, Kashmir was also taking off. Islamic fundamentalism was quite apparent back even then. In fact, the West has been ignoring its rise. I bet you didnt know that prior to the 1993 WTC bombings, a test run was carried out in Bombay India, killing 200 in a number of coordinated explosions in a number of important city landmarks, including the Stock Exchange. The West quite calmly ignored it, then looked shocked when the WTC was hit by an explosion of remarkable similarity. Its really a matter of ignoring the signs and then saying they were never there.

By the way, the Iran Saudi rivalry existed prior to the advent of radical Islam. Both nations wanted to replace the British as regional hegemons.

"Middleton - you imply that you knew this situation would happen. Did you inform anyone?"

I m in my 20s old chap. In 1990 I hadnt even hit my teens. No one would take me seriously. Not that I devoted much time to the subject till a lot later.

As for the rest, yes it appears that you have correctly interpreted my argument. Yes I suppose you are right in suggesting that ethics/morals do play a role in decision making, to the extent that "Congress will debate, not merely the practical results but the ethics of such a war", but even this is based on the belief that nations publicize every aspect of their national policy. There are many things that are done covertly which rarely if ever are made known. Congress only debates on what it knows. It still leaves room for Iran Contra type affairs that are based completely on self interest, and with no moral basis whatsoever. To the extent that foreign policy is publicized, it is open to criticism and thus forced to respect moral constraints of the population.

But, at the same time, it would be foolish to suggest that any nation exposes everything about its foreign policy. Most important decisions are kept secret precisely in order to ensure that there is no public debate over them. Reminds me of Foreign Affairs Canada officials scouring Ottawa for a prostitute to entertain a certain visiting African Head of State.

Ham

I ve said all along that my biggest beef with US foreign policy is the attempt to make it out to be "moral". Somehow the US intentions are always noble.

"Couldn't you posit (as I am) that the US attempts to align its self interest with its moral code whereas France, as a foreign body politic, has no morals? You probably don't want to lose your anti-American bias though, so this wouldn't fly, eh?"

Well I ve been saying the same thing, except where yo say align, I say disguise. I m not anti-American - I just dont care for morality speak. Morals have always been clear cut, but for the first time, I m seeing moralists concede that there is a grey area - lesser evil and all that. Morality was always based on a simple assumption - its either right or wrong - theres no grey areas.

Like I said earlier, morals may come into play to the extent that certain foreign policy initiatives get publicised, but what about the ones that remain covert. A declaration of war and ethics on conduct during the war may be debated, but many things are not brought to the public eye. How come they re exempt from morality?

Middleton,

If I am hearing you correctly, you contend that moral justifications for the US invading Iraq, or Israel invading Lebanon (and other such actions are spurious, because there is no such thing as a morality that is in fact true. At least this is what I get from such statements as:

"All along I ve been arguing that morality is not of consequence in the international system, because there is no set of good and evil."

I disagree with this philosophically, but you are entitled to hold this belief.

However, if you do believe that morality is a non concept, then you have no basis whatsoever for criticizing the USA, Israel, or anyone for any atrocities, or for being governed by their own self interest, or even for their hypocrisy for that matter. Unless of course you want to impose your own morality upon them.

You can't have your morally relativist cake and eat it too.