But only if it is in our interests. And they do the same. Clearly it was in our interests to keep Nazi Germany and later The Soviet Union from overrunning Europe. We backed them. Clearly it was not in our interests to back them in their dozen or so wars to retain their overseas empires. So we did not. They backed us against the Soviets and in Kuwait and in Afghanistan after we were attacked. All of these things are in their interests. They did not back us in Vietnam and Iraq because they were not in their interests . . . and as it turns out, not in ours either. And don't forget that it was France who pulled our asses out of the fire in 1781. A day will come again when we will need our allies.
We were 5 years old. We could use our allies now. Afghanistan will not be solved by withdrawing troops. We need to go in there and Pakistan as a coalition and kill al qaeda and taliban where they nest. All of them.
so if they back us not out of loyalty but because it is in their interests then why worry about maintaining a good relationship with them? they, like us, are goinjg to make decisions based on their own interest. this is exactly what i have been saying all along when people claim we are losing the respect of the world. the world will follow us, or they wont, it isnt about our image or whatever nonsense. if france has oil contracts with iraq, and dont want to fight, all the coaxing and respect in the universe wont matter.
Afghanistan is not a problem, we can leave anytime and the result will be the same. It is a third-world tribal society ruled by warlords, as it has been for millennia. We've proven that we can take down countries and occupy them for as long as we wish. We don't need to occupy them forever to make that point. They want us gone and they won't be letting Al Qaeda back, now that they get the point. The Taliban thought that we wouldn't respond to Al Qaeda'a attack or that we would blunder like the Russians and they were shocked to get hammered badly and occupied for 10 years. Afghanistan is solved by leaving . . . they will happily get back to killing each other and growing opium for Chinese addicts. We can get back to the real problem. Al Qaeda is the problem. Focus. Now you're talking, except we have to play it far smarter than He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named. Swift, decisive airpower and special forces was very effective in taking down countries harboring terrorists, got that part done perfectly. But clearly, invading and occupying entire countries with armies is a huge expense; a traumatic, unpopular exercise that does not solve the problem of terrorism. The payoff is dubious and it is difficult to get out of. Hitting them covertly where they hide is effective and has been stepped up by You-Know-Who. Al Qaeda must be pressured militarily, economically, politically, and socially. The countries that harbor them must cooperate in the capture or destruction or pay the price in those same terms. But it is important to distinguish between Al Qaeda and the nations themselves. We must hit Al Qaeda hard with covert forces and airpower in pakistan and Yemen, while turning their few remaining allies against them instead of driving them all together by foolishly trying to repeat the Iraqi debacle. The last thing we need is another army on the ground in Asia.
:insane: You called all of our european allies cowards and so I debunked it. Now you are going off on a tangent and arguing some other debate. You be crazy.
when i make an awesome point, i dont stop there, i keep on rollin. and you didnt debunk my point, you defended it. you said why they were cowards, the reason (you are correct) is that they have been destroyed by war so much more and more often than we can imagine. true enough. they are cowards because of it. point 1: our european allies are cowards point 2: they will be cowards no matter how we manage our image or whatever. george bush could make the whole world hate us and our allies will still act the same say relative to us, helping us only when it helps them. france and germany would help china or russia if it was mutually benefiacial. and china and russia have a far worse rep than bush could have ever brought to the US. the idea that we need to preserve international "respect" is stupid.
Caution is not cowardice. The British are not the French. You try to make complex situations overly simple so that you can understand. It ain't that simple.
