US-EU War

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
But there are onlytwo of them are there not?

Actually, there are 21.

Can we have some substantive evidence for this apart from the rubbish that Tom Clancy puts in his amazingly biased books?

Pretty sure Eomer is right on this one. To my knowledge, the US submarine fleet is quite detectable with active sonar systems (ie. air-dropped bueys which would almost certainly be all over the European side of the atlantic)

And from where would the AWACS launch? Again, can we have evidence as to the effectiveness of the American missiles as opposed to European ones? France has possession of some American aircraft anyway - Eagles, Tomcats, Hornets as do several other European nations.

The navy operates carrier-based AWACS aircraft. The current European air force may operate some US jets, but they are no match for the US airpower at the moment. I have no doubt that with the industrial infrastructure, they could develop that airpower within 20 years if it were prioritised, however.

If Europe felt under threat, I imagine China and Russia would be quaking in their boots - enough to throw their lot in with Europe, Russia especially. If it came down to it and America decided to challenge the EU, I think the end result would be the USA vs the World (bar a few unaligned nations).

Hard to predict this one. If Europe regains its aggressive tendencies, I think it would be just the opposite.

That is simply not true - that is the whole point of AEGIS.

Eomer is right on this one. Cruise missiles are basically nothing more than low flying, slow moving, non-stealth aircraft and if you have a modern defence AA network in place, they are quite easy to shoot down. The Iraqis downed quite a few, and I'm pretty sure Europe has better AA defence than Iraq. The problem lies when one is fired at an area that is not well defended or when the system is overwhelmed, either by electronic jamming or sheer numbers.

Éomer of Rohan

Probably the first time I will ever thank you for something BB lol

Hard to predict this one. If Europe regains its aggressive tendencies, I think it would be just the opposite.

I would like to know why you think the opposite however. I was thinking that the point we are making here is that the US has the power to knock off Europe (and yet still the nuclear question remains) so therefore is the most powerful military in the world - and therefore Russia, who would naturally feel more akin to Europe than to her old nemesis (esp given the desperate overtures at ties with the EU) would throw in her (admittedly rather small) lot with Europe. China under the multi-polarity agreement would probably follow - though China's influence on this would simply be to invade Taiwan and push the North Koreans into taking out South Korea - removing their own adversaries while the US has it's back turned. The Arabs would almost certainly go with Europe - if not by formal ties then certainly by attacking the US wherever possible - which means that Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc would all be overrun fairly fast - and here we have another nuclear/chem/bio weapon scenario - what would Israel do? It is all very interesting to wonder which way the needle would swing. Of course if Europe really did want the US out of the way, they could covertly supply some random anti-US nation with a nuclear bomb to explode in New York or Washington which would bring the US to it's knees IMO (though the European economies would probably take a bashing as well).

xm15e3

Originally posted by The Corinthian

However, I have noticed that recent events have done two things in the minds of Europeans; the first is to engender a certain level of pride for Old Europe for standing up against the World’s only remaining Superpower as well as a sense of offence as being considered so politically irrelevant. The second is frankly a sense of unease and mistrust - a realization that our crass and wealthy, but well meaning transatlantic cousins are not as well meaning as we had thought (neither are they as crass either, but we’re talking about European perception rooted in mild prejudice).

This thread and your post are the only reason I surf this site. I fully expect to see the US and at least part of the UN in a hot war within the next 40 years. A war that will be both a terrible waste and unnecessary. And your post outlines the root cause.

Europeans have become so cynical about the motives of the US government that they now trust the French more the Americans. That has to raise a red flag (no pun intended).

Sun Tsu gives three methods to lay siege to a fortress, by direct attack, by co-opting the population to your side, and by discrediting the enemy's leadership. Usually, all three methods are used. We worked to do this to the Soviets and the 60's counter culture was often used by the Soviets to do the same to us. Media, the education institutions, religious leadership, and even corporate boardrooms were targets for both sides.

So now we have a Conservative Irishman convinced the US is using it's global dominance to force it's will on the world militarily, and that Europe must re-arm to defend it's interests.

So here's something to think about:

1) It's not the US that is trampling European interests
2) Americans, and their current government are about as well meaning as a nation gets
3) The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and probably Pakistan, Syria, Iran, N.Korea, (Please God!) France
are not about Oil so much as removing the festering boil of humanity that finally succeeded on 9-11. It
isn't about Al Quida so much as all of the Al Quida's ilk.
4) CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC or anything out of Hollywierd are not pro-American. Fox and Sky are, and
they are owned by an Aussie (go figure).
5) Yes we are crass, only Europe isn't any better.

bonkey

Originally posted by xm15e3

Europeans have become so cynical about the motives of the US government that they now trust the French more the Americans.

And in this statement we see just how accurate a picture you actually have of Europe.

Never before have I seen a nation act as petulantly as the US government have done regarding the French since the US decided it wanted to pick its fight with Saddam. I've seen 8-year-old kids act with more maturity.

Never before in my life either have I seen such a widespread acceptance and endorsement of such a bigoted policy by a people who claim to support demoracy, freedom of choice, and all the rest of it.

The rest of your post - if it isnt a troll - isnt even worth discussing. Maybe when you - as a nation - calm down and remember what the concepts of discussion, compromise, and freedom are about there might be something to talk about.

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by xm15e3
1) It's not the US that is trampling European interests

It’s a fair bet that if a big chunk of Europe (and Russia) were opposed to the conflict, then European interests were not best served by said conflict. That such opposition was dismissed would indicate diplomatic trampling.

Would you have another argument that refutes this?

2) Americans, and their current government are about as well meaning as a nation gets

I’m sure Americans, and their current government would see it this way, but much of the rest of the World may disagree. Again, how would you refute their views?

3) The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and probably Pakistan, Syria, Iran, N.Korea, (Please God!) France are not about Oil so much as removing the festering boil of humanity that finally succeeded on 9-11. It isn't about Al Quida so much as all of the Al Quida's ilk.

What bothers me is the definition of Al Quida's ilk and who is the sole judge, jury and executioner of this policy. Is Iran Al Quida's ilk? Or Cuba? Are we to see a proven link between Fidel Castro and Osama then?

And should we disagree, should we expect ‘consequences’?

4) CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC or anything out of Hollywierd are not pro-American. Fox and Sky are, and they are owned by an Aussie (go figure).

In fairness, they all are - Sky and, in particular, Fox are just over the top at it, while the others are somewhat subtler. You would do well to watch some of the anti-American (such as the Arabic stations) or even more neutral (such as many of the European stations).

5) Yes we are crass, only Europe isn't any better.

Never said, we were - merely said it was a prejudice, like believing that one’s nation is well meaning and can do no wrong...

bonkey

Originally posted by The Corinthian
What bothers me is the definition of Al Quida's ilk and who is the sole judge, jury and executioner of this policy. Is Iran Al Quida's ilk? Or Cuba? Are we to see a proven link between Fidel Castro and Osama then?

And should we disagree, should we expect ‘consequences’?

Well what other reason could France be listed as "Al Qaeda's ilk" or a "festering boil of humanity".

Then again, the main things that were removed on 9/11 were the lives of thousands of innocent civilians, some military/Pentagon employees, and the US belief that their homeland would never be attacked.

I'm trying to figure which one of these was "the festering boil of humanity" that was successfully removed on 9/11.

Actially....I'm not really trying to figure it out....

jc

BattleBoar

Originally posted by xm15e3
Europeans have become so cynical about the motives of the US government that they now trust the French more the Americans. That has to raise a red flag (no pun intended).

Look, give these people some amount of credit. I think most everyone here knows that the French almost never take a principled stand on anything and I'm willing to bet that very few people think they are trustworthy. Everyone knows they were in it for themselves and, given there history, that should come as no surprise. That said, your statement may indeed be true. And, that said, what does that say about the diplomacy of this administration in carrying out the campaign?

Case in point: Clinton never took Kosovo to the UN because he knew it would be vetoed. Bush should have known the reaction he was going to get based on his uncooperation with european nations on other issues. Thus, he should have realized that he should never have taken the issue before the UN in the first place. And please don't take this as any kind of endorsement of Clinton whatsoever, but in this case, his foreign policy was just...superior.

The idea that attacking Iraq was primarily about eliminating Al Queda is patently ridiculous. At most, tertiary goal. If it had not been, the target would have been Syria, or Saudi Arabia, or hell even Pakistan. No, I'm afraid that this war was always about weapons of mass destruction. Only in the aftermath of the Baghdad celebrations have the pundits started to opine that the liberation of Iraq was reason alone for going to war. And I'm afraid. I'm afraid because so far, nothing seems to be there. And I'm afraid that if nothing continues to be there over more weeks and months, we will eventually have a situation where the US's international credibility will have been dramatically eroded - at worst, for an outright lie, and at best, for a colossal mistake in intelligence. If found to be the former, perhaps the lie wasn't from bush but by someone high up who manufactured intelligence on WMD to further an agenda. If the latter, it should result in a massive overhaul of the intelligence services, which have needed it for some time now anyway.

So we're left with a few options. Either there were never were WMD in Iraq, the WMD haven't been located at any of the sites where our intelligence said they would be (again another intel lapse), or the WMD that were in Iraq have been moved or given to another state or terrorist organization and will one day be in a U-Haul truck on their way up I-95. Given the amount of diplomatic rangling at the UN, they certainly had enough time to get them out of the country. This latter case is yet another reason the diplomacy was horrible...even if you think someone is dangerous and you want to get rid of them militarily, why would you come out and directly say so?

In any case, I don't think you can lose sight of the fact that it *IS NOT* the job of the US military to liberate the oppressed peoples of the world, in Kosovo or Iraq. And any attempt to characterize the war in Iraq as justified based on that needs to be questioned because it leads to the question - if this alone is reason enough for starting a war, are there not countless other cruel, dictatorial, oppressive regimes that are surely worthy of American bloodshed and sacrafice? If it was reason enough in Iraq, why not go ahead and make it the official policy of the department of defense?

Sparks

That was excretable BB, even by your standards.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Sparks
That was excretable BB, even by your standards.

Is that meant to be constructive criticism or just the best contribution to the topic you can muster?

Sparks

I felt it to be the best response your post deserved.

Originally posted by bonkey
Never before have I seen a nation act as petulantly as the US government have done regarding the French since the US decided it wanted to pick its fight with Saddam. I've seen 8-year-old kids act with more maturity.

jc

Well, I would have thought, that the treatment of the "paddies" in Britain after the London and Birmingham Pub bombings in the 70's was much worse and , engrained itself much more than the U.S peoples current perception of the French.
It's a tad unfair in my opinion to be judging the U.S nation as a whole in this way.
Remember in the months prior to the war, only half their population supported the U.S stance, and a significant portion of them weren't immediately anti-French.
I spoke with a lot of people in the States, around the time Gulf war 2 started and , I can tell you, much of the French bashing was more humourous than Malicious.
It's played up in an obvious way by the likes of Fox News, and to a lesser extent by the mainstream networks.
It is not a reflection of mainstream public opinion, even if some polls would have us believe otherwise.
It is most definitely played up by this current Bush administration, keen as it is to get re-elected to continue the patronage of it's big business friends.
That said, what matters to the voters in the U.S is whats in their pockets at the end of the day and French bashing, no matter how high profile it is, won't be what they are worrying about.

On an aside, the Bartering , going on at the UNSC, now , wrt the U.S resolution speaks volumes for the quality :rolleyes: of the institution we all hold so dearly.
Nothing is more sure than the fact that France and Russia will barter, untill they get as close to what they want out of Iraq as possible.
Thet are looking after their interests, as usual, just like Bush....
What I despise about that is ( no joke meant here ) but what about Irish interests, the interests of Tunisia, Malta, peru,Iceland...etc,etc,...??
what input does everyone else have in the Barter clique??:(
mm

Sparks

Man,
you've got a very generous view of what went on vis-a-vis the franco-american relations. I'm sure the Germans feel the same way, and that they look on US bases being pulled from germany to damage the german economy as nothing more than a practical joke.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by BattleBoar
I think most everyone here knows that the French almost never take a principled stand on anything and I'm willing to bet that very few people think they are trustworthy.

Taking a principled stand is, unless there is a happy coincidence of interests, contrary to the interests of the nation state, hence no nation should ever be so irresponsible as to take a principled stand on anything and should be assumed to be untrustworthy from the perspective of other nations.

Where many Europeans stand is that they do mistrust the French as much as the US government, but there is happy coincidence of interests and commonality between France and the other European states that is frankly not there with the USA at present.

No, I'm afraid that this war was always about weapons of mass destruction.

That too is as arguable; as it being about Al Queda, of democratisation or anything else. Ocham's Razor would seem to indicate that it was about regime change, to facilitate various economic and strategic objectives. Anything else, including the elimination of WMD (for which the region is rife) would be an altruistic by-product.

In any case, I don't think you can lose sight of the fact that it *IS NOT* the job of the US military to liberate the oppressed peoples of the world, in Kosovo or Iraq.

Here I would agree, but (being cynical) would add that it is the job of the US military to execute policy that is designed to benefit or protect the USA.

Originally posted by Sparks
That was excretable BB, even by your standards.

It was not, it was quite reasonable even if we may not agree, and you did us all a disservice in saying so.

(And I'm supposed to be the Fascist... Go figure... :rolleyes: )

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,
you've got a very generous view of what went on vis-a-vis the franco-american relations. I'm sure the Germans feel the same way, and that they look on US bases being pulled from germany to damage the german economy as nothing more than a practical joke.

Nah, I'm just injecting a little more realism;) as some parts of the discussion here reads like gaming strategy from another board, all thats missing is a discussion on pings:p
mm

BattleBoar

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Taking a principled stand is, unless there is a happy coincidence of interests, contrary to the interests of the nation state, hence no nation should ever be so irresponsible as to take a principled stand on anything and should be assumed to be untrustworthy from the perspective of other nations.

I concur.

Where many Europeans stand is that they do mistrust the French as much as the US government, but there is happy coincidence of interests and commonality between France and the other European states that is frankly not there with the USA at present.

Yep, I'll agree with that. And I think its a shame.

That too is as arguable; as it being about Al Queda, of democratisation or anything else. Ocham's Razor would seem to indicate that it was about regime change, to facilitate various economic and strategic objectives. Anything else, including the elimination of WMD (for which the region is rife) would be an altruistic by-product.

Fair Play. I should have clarified that it was sold by the claim of WMD.

Here I would agree, but (being cynical) would add that it is the job of the US military to execute policy that is designed to benefit or protect the USA.

I agree. It just so happens that in this case, I believe that the war in Iraq was not in our national interests.

Originally posted by Sparks
...That was excretable BB, even by your standards.

...I felt it to be the best response your post deserved.

That was a very intelligent, substantive defense of your position Sparks, even by your standards.

Ping Chow Chi

I think that many will have perceived that though the dominant American military, American companies have secured very lucrative contracts in rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure, and general influence in the world. Now this leaves Europe with a simple choice, either they think that they will gain more influence by going along with everything that the present American leadership says, or by developing a rival force to counter that

I do think that any sort of military war against the EU and USA would be a mistake for both sides though. France itself has 350 nukes, if just a tenth of them got through to America that alone would wipe out any perceived benefits in conquering Europe. In the end it will come down to what Europe thinks its best policy for gaining world influence is. Either as a ‘partner’ to the USA or as a rival power.

The mistake that the present US administration has made is that they have alienated many Europeans who do not agree on one policy of that administration. I for one feel that the Bush administration now often preaches to us, rather than consults, and this more than anything else shows just how the USA perceives our ‘partnership’.

Now, after about 6 major contracts in rebuilding Iraq have been allocated, and not one of them has been awarded to any company from outside of America, not even to any other of the ‘coalition of the willing’, it may well be worth exploring the possibility of creating a rival power to the USA. After all if the US is not even going to throw any scraps to you, you’re going to have to grab them yourself.

vorbis

there is a also a sense that we europeans overestimate our own importance. Instead of saying that the US has alienated us, we might ask the question how have we alienated the US? It is after all the biggest fish in the pond.

Éomer of Rohan

We do not overestimate our importance; Europe is more populous than the USA, has played a central role in world politics since the concept was invented and is just as central to the capitalist world economy (much as I detest the concept) - the real difference is that the US exports a cultural virus and spends vast amounts of money being a stupid little boy with stupid but f***ing dangerous little toys.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by vorbis
there is a also a sense that we europeans overestimate our own importance. Instead of saying that the US has alienated us, we might ask the question how have we alienated the US? It is after all the biggest fish in the pond.

Europe may indeed have an overestimated value of its own importance - or perhaps had, as recent events have brought this illusion crashing down as she has realized that her opinion counts for little (even Britain was/is publicly tolerated, rather than treated as a partner).

Ultimately, what France and Germany did to alienate the US was simple - they did not did not obey. The US wanted to enact a policy and they refused to play ball, hence American alianation; it really is that simple. As such, what you are suggesting is the doctrine of subservience, Vorbis.

Nonetheless you have brought up an interesting point; should we indeed "be the wise Greeks to the bumptious Romans", as Harold Macmillan once argued Britain should reign itself to become.

Are you a wire Greek, Vorbis? Or, more correctly, a New Puerto Rican?

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Ultimately, what France and Germany did to alienate the US was simple - they did not did not obey. The US wanted to enact a policy and they refused to play ball, hence American alianation; it really is that simple.

No true. France actively campaigned diplomatically against America on the Security Council. America was slandered by French and German politicians. France and Germany prevented NATO military aid going to Turkey. Both may even have shared intelligence with Iraq. In short, both tried to actively sabotage America's war.

Éomer of Rohan

France actively campaigned diplomatically against America on the Security Council

As Americe did against France in fact.

America was slandered by French and German politicians

Freedom fries, 'consequences' and so forth. Ring a bell Biffa?

France and Germany prevented NATO military aid going to Turkey

As they are perfectly entitled to - an attack on one is an attack against them all - and the neither the US nor it's interests were under attack, same with Turkey. NATO is a military alliance, not an American Empire - it is not the case of US subjects disobeying US rule (mind you any of those of you who are historically aware, cf the Delian League!) - rather of partners refusing to engage in a war because their people believed it was wrong - whether you agree or not is irrelevent.

Both may even have shared intelligence with Iraq. In short, both tried to actively sabotage America's war.

I would like to see some proof of this - or even some credible evidence please.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
America was slandered by French and German politicians.

Really? What untruths did they say which damaged the US reputation?

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
No true. France actively campaigned diplomatically against America on the Security Council.

You mean they didn't follow orders - God forbid they would have a separate agenda to the US. They refused to accept what was effectively a US dictate, because (be it moral or not) they had their own interests which were not compatible with a US invasion of Iraq.

America was slandered by French and German politicians.

Both sides fired accusations at each other, most of which remain unsubstantiated - let me remind you that Britain and the US’s claim that they only pulled out of the second resolution process because of a probable French veto holds little water if you consider that British and US diplomats were arguing days before that they would achieve a moral majority on the Security Council vote, despite any vetoes.

France and Germany prevented NATO military aid going to Turkey.

As for the Turkish question, any initial objections by France and Germany were short lived. It was the Turkish Parliament that rejected the aid for military alliance deal and even the US accepts that point. You’re being disingenuous with your facts, Biffa.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
and spends vast amounts of money being a stupid little boy with stupid but f***ing dangerous little toys.

*cough* of course no Socialist or left wing government has ever had or used these toys{read guns,wmd's or whatever} or used them at all, at all, at all... :rolleyes:
mm

Éomer of Rohan

*cough* of course no Socialist or left wing government has ever had or used these toys{read guns,wmd's or whatever} or used them at all, at all, at all...

I would like to point out that the USA consumes more money on defence (and I find it increasingly ironic that all this money is spent as 'defence' when more accurately it is 'attack') than the entire GNP of certain nations - and what is more, I feel it necessary to point out that there has never been a Socialist Democracy. All other governments are null and void as examples and I know how much you love to harangue about this being a get out clause for Socialists, so lets get it over and done with yes?

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
As Americe did against France in fact.

When?

As they are perfectly entitled to - an attack on one is an attack against them all - and the neither the US nor it's interests were under attack, same with Turkey.

In the event of an invasion of Iraq from Turkish territory it was entirely possible that Iraq would counter-attack against Turkey. France and Germany refused to take measures to protect their allies from such an attack.

I would like to see some proof of this - or even some credible evidence please.

German spies offered help to Saddam in run-up to war
The French: I’m Shocked, Shocked!
France was giving regular reports to Iraq
France helped Iraqis escape
French helped Iraq to stifle dissent

Originally posted by bonkey
Really? What untruths did they say which damaged the US reputation?

"Bush wants to divert attention from his domestic problems. It's a classic tactic. It's one that Hitler used." – German justice minister, Herta Daeubler-Gmelin

Originally posted by The Corinthian

They refused to accept what was effectively a US dictate, because (be it moral or not) they had their own interests which were not compatible with a US invasion of Iraq.

You don’t seem to think the morality of France and Germany’s opposition to the war is important. Why not? I would have thought it was very important in considering the appropriateness of America’s reponse to their obstructionism.

Both sides fired accusations at each other, most of which remain unsubstantiated - let me remind you that Britain and the US’s claim that they only pulled out of the second resolution process because of a probable French veto holds little water if you consider that British and US diplomats were arguing days before that they would achieve a moral majority on the Security Council vote, despite any vetoes.

I don’t follow.

As for the Turkish question, any initial objections by France and Germany were short lived. It was the Turkish Parliament that rejected the aid for military alliance deal and even the US accepts that point. You’re being disingenuous with your facts, Biffa.

No I’m not. France and Germany refused to help defend their allies from attack. The vote in the Turkish parliament did not alter this fact.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
"Bush wants to divert attention from his domestic problems. It's a classic tactic. It's one that Hitler used." – German justice minister, Herta Daeubler-Gmelin

I'm still at a loss as to where the slander is.

Bush did want to divert attention from his domestic problems, and it was a tactic used by Hitler.

I see no slander there. I see no verifiable untruths. Indeed, I see nothing more than a distastefully worded version of what a large number of analysts were saying was a primary factor behind the timing of the war.

Bush couldnt leave it any later, because summer weather would have made using BNC protection impractical, and the US couldnt be seen to not be using it or it would destroy whatever slight credibility their WMD claims might have had.

He couldnt have delayed till next year, or it may have been too late to swing the public opinion with the forthcoming election (especially if the economy continued to go to the dogs).

So he had to go when he did, financially.

I don't think there are many credible analysts out there who actually disagree with the financial issues being a significant consideration in the timing of this war.

I would have no hesitation in saying that the comparison is definitely distasteful, but thats a far cry from slander.

Next attempt to dig something up?

jc

Éomer of Rohan

When?

Does the phrase 'we want a moral majority' mean anything? And the bribes that were offered?

W.R.T. espionage, none of this proves that French or German or even Russian sources actively collaborated with the Iraqis during the war with the USA. Moreover, this sort of reporting is simply sensationalising run of the mill diplomatic links; especially the first article.

No I’m not. France and Germany refused to help defend their allies from attack

Point out to me the instance at which the US was first attacked by Iraq without first being attacked themselves? It wasn't Iraq which stationed half a million men in and around the Persian Gulf, a couple of thousand miles from home with the intention of attacking a sovereign nation without justification and without democratic approval as expected under certain international agreements

Both sides fired accusations at each other, most of which remain unsubstantiated - let me remind you that Britain and the US’s claim that they only pulled out of the second resolution process because of a probable French veto holds little water if you consider that British and US diplomats were arguing days before that they would achieve a moral majority on the Security Council vote, despite any vetoes.

I don't follow

Fairly obvious; the US and UK engaged in getting a second resolution, recognising that it was the right thing to do with Blair and Labour saying that this was key to war. Then the story changed; America wanted a 'moral majority' in order to deflect the outrage at a declaration of war without proper UN consent due to a veto and then it changed altogether and the UN was roundly denounced and so forth and the US and UK abandoned hope of either outcome, instead resigning themselves to an illegal war.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
You don’t seem to think the morality of France and Germany’s opposition to the war is important. Why not? I would have thought it was very important in considering the appropriateness of America’s reponse to their obstructionism.

Please do not pretend to me that morality plays a part in the politics of nation states. I did not take you to be so... trusting.

I don’t follow.

The US argued publicly that it would still seek a ‘moral majority’ regardless of a veto, for the second resolution. When it became apparent that this simple majority would not succeed they walked away and blamed the French. Very simple.

No I’m not. France and Germany refused to help defend their allies from attack. The vote in the Turkish parliament did not alter this fact.

That France and Germany refused to help defend their allies is your interpretation, that the Turkish parliament then went up to further back up the French and German objections is the reality.

The Turks have not required help against the Iraqis for ten years; the US, on the other hand, required a base to invade from the north.

Feel free to interpret that.

vorbis

I think the US were capable of getting their "moral majority" (9 countries I think) However, when France made it clear that it would definetly use its veto, the US decided to abandon the UN route. To be honest, I don't think the US were really arguing a case for defending Turkey. They merely wanted a base to launch a Northern front from.
What has pissed off the US is the attitude of France and Germany. I haver never said that they need to be subservient to the US. Being supposedly "friendly" with the US, they should just have kept quiet. None of the US actions have been radically against their foreign policies. They took the opportunity to villanise the US purely for their own commercial interests.