Comments on: Chirac Tells Bush to Mind his Own Business

By: Daniel Geffen

Daniel Geffen — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Chirac honestly doesn't think it's OK for "powers at the center" to tell each other what to do. He has no such qualms, however, about the big boys telling less wealthy states how to conduct themselves, as I've documented here.

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

How very German of you to say that....If your sentiments are correct and France is a has been then why are we so insistent on having them bail our asses out in Afghanistan AND Iraq, not to mention that unfinished business in Kosovo and Bosnia. Nobody's perfect but we're not exactly not covered in the shit we made ourselves. Chirac does have a point about meddling in other people's affairs. We can talk about Turkey and NATO all we want since we're in NATO. However, we are not in the EU so that's none of our business. Monroe Doctrine sort of works both ways.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

I don't think anyone is expecting France to bail us out. How could they? We're looking for two things: 1) an "international" face, means support from the UN or NATO institutionally. That would be mostly cosmetic; from a purely military standpoint, the US is the UN and NATO, in that both would be meaningless without us. 2) More "boots on the ground." That's just a matter of warm bodies. One doesn't need to be a world power to provide those. The U.S. obviously has a stage interest in what goes on in Europe. We've provided the lion's share of Europe's defense for 60-odd years. Plus, we're the only world power. Very little international action of consequence happens in Europe (Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.), Africa, or Latin America without our involvement.

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

I don't know what you mean by "cosmetic," but Non-US NATO has 6500 currently in Afghanistan which is about 30% of the total in country. And it'll be up to 10,000 for the September elections. Not exactly a cosmetic presence I'd say. If we had to pull out 10,000 from Iraq to replace those troops it'll be a big hurt.

By: Fausta

Fausta — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Jacques got plenty of reason to worry what Sarkozy would say to all this -- while Jacques's away, Sarko's already saying that full economic ties with Iraq will be restored immediately. Ii wouldn't be surprised if Sarko's got plans for Turkey, too.

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

The issue of Turkish membership in EU is much more complicated than making Turkey a European country. You have all of the issues such as the Greek-Turkish dispute, Cyprus, worries about the assimilation of Muslim population in Europe coupled with free migration on the table with Turkish EU membership. Also, does the Turkish economy at this point even qualify it for EU membership? I don't know the answer, but I would suspect that's it's a NO at this point.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Sure. I'm not sure that, on balance, admitting Turkey makes sense. Certainly, pre War on Terrorists, I'd have thought not. But that's a separate argument from whether the President of the US is entitled to weigh in on the matter.

By: TM Lutas

TM Lutas — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

The EU has a higher population than the US. The fact that they are supplying 30% of the forces in Afghanistan when they have more people to draw from is not a sign of European seriousness regarding their alliance commitments. At the same time, 30% is not cosmetic so why not split the difference and call it childish and irresponsible, hmm?

Ultimately, the muslims who declare Osama bin Laden and his Muslim Brotherhood allies to be apostates (with all the baggage that carries among muslims) are going to end up deserving EU entry. Unfortunately, the ranks of those muslims are rather thin on the ground at the moment.

By: Lorne

Lorne — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Let's get it straight. The U.S. is the world's only military superpower, not the only economic superpower, and we cannot survive without the products and services that come into the U.S. from France, which isn't the only European country with which we face a sharp trade deficit. We fell right into Europe's trap -- under Reagan, Bush I and now W, they allowed us to become the world's police department while they strengthened their economies and relationships with each other.

We will be much stronger once Bush and the other oil-loving hawks are gone.

By: Atm

Atm — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

I'm pretty sure we can survive without goods and services from France. Germany, on the other hand, is more problematic. And if you are going to blame Reagan, 41, and 43 you should apportion more blame to Clinton, who was president during much of the time when European forces were being cut. Moreover he committed forces on multiple occasions to deal with European problems.

By: Lorne

Lorne — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Fair point, atm, regarding Clinton. Perhaps if he had the support of Congress, he might've been able to prevent the massacres in the former Yugoslavia. But then again, the Right doesn't believe in using the military for anything but its own gain. Regarding France's imports, we're not talking about wine here. Check out the U.S. sales of pharmaceuticals discovered and developed by the French. It's remarkable.

By: John Doe

John Doe — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Elite units benefit from real world experience.

---