Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
I grant that he raises issues that need some thought
…What I'm getting at here is that when you find yourself in an argument with Europeans over Iraq, they try to present it as if we both want the same thing, but we just have different approaches. And had the Bush team not been so dishonest and unilateral, we could have worked together. I wish the Bush team had behaved differently, but that would not have been a cure-all � because if you look under the European position you see we have two different visions, not just tactical differences. Many Europeans really do believe that a dominant America is more threatening to global stability than Saddam's tyranny.
The more I hear this, the more I wonder whether we are witnessing something much larger than a passing storm over Iraq. Are we witnessing the beginning of the end of "the West" as we have known it � a coalition of U.S.-led, like-minded allies, bound by core shared values and strategic threats?
The problem, old boy, isn't the "dominant" part. It's the "dishonest and unilateral" part combined with the "dominant" part. One part or the other can be dealt with. The combination is threatening as hell.
Posted by P6 at November 2, 2003 06:31 AM | Trackback URL: http://www.prometheus6.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2169Dishonest has nothing to do with it. "Multilateral" and "dominant" are mutually exclusive.
Multilateral and unitary are mutually exclusive. Dominant requires someone else to be around. Dominant does not require you to get your way ALL the time.
But let's pretend you're right about multilateral and dominant.
Even if that were logically sufficient grounds for Europe's reaction, dishonesty will still give an extra "oomph" to people's distaste for the USofA. In fact, I'd say proving to be dishonest is sufficient reason for me to cut you off.