Keith Devens .com

Europeans, out of some romantic rebellion against America and high technology, were shunning U.S.-grown food containing G.M.O.'s -- even though there is no scientific evidence that these are harmful. But practically everywhere we went in Davos, Europeans were smoking cigarettes -- with their meals, coffee or conversation -- even though there is indisputable scientific evidence that smoking can kill you.

This is a very weak analogy. The criticism against food containing GMOs is not based on that they are inherently harmful. It's because of possible long-term negative effects to the environment and natural evolution that may (or may not) be caused by them. Imagine that cigarettes would've been invented five years ago, they wouldn't be considered harmful as well, and similar to GMOs, it's the long-term effects that are the lethal ones.
People are not acting stupid if they doubt the promises of a new technology. Remember the promises nuclear power gave us: Save, clean and inexpensive energy. Nothing of this turned out to be true.

out of some romantic rebellion against America and
high technology

Make me laugh... the author still doesn't understand we're not against America.

But practically everywhere we went in Davos, Europeans
were smoking cigarettes -- with their meals, coffee or
conversation -- even though there is indisputable
scientific evidence that smoking can kill you.

Quick look to http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/who/whoampro.htm, Europe and Americas are quite comparable. And by looking to recent obesity statistics in america, I've just to say: you chose the way you die.

It can make you stupid. It can make you reject U.S.
policies simply to differentiate yourself from the
world's only superpower.

In case the author didn't notice, we have joined the ranks of the most prominents american militarian leaders from the Gulf War, people who are more trustful than a son of his daddy, whose sole glory is to have avoided an Enrongate. To mister Friedman, it seems that arrogance is blocking fact perception.

Let's all try to cut down on the insults. "Intellectually bankrupt", huh? A lot of people (even libertarians) seem to think that we need a reason to avoid war. We don't. While I don't always oppose state violence, I place the burden of proof on those who want to start a war.

Obviously I agree with Omar and Damien, and have written to that effect on my site: <a href="http://www.plasticbag.org/archives/2003/02/smoking_and_the_smoking_gun.shtml">Smoking and the Smoking Gun</a>.

You know what? This posting made my day, as I heartfelt laughed. Laughed, how silly an approach to a discussion someone can take: "they smoke, they can't be serious with whatever they do." well sorry. saying something like this you do when you run out of valid - and serious - arguments. as a non-american one can be under the impression that america is so hysterical about smoking that is looses scale and focus a bit from time to time.

i wonder why civilans want to see the army go to war, while those who know the trade aren't so keen on it. from salon.com:

"We have a dangerous role reversal here," one Pentagon source tells Capitol Hill Blue. "The civilians are urging war and the uniformed officers are urging caution."
...
An angry Rumsfeld, who backs Bush without question, is said to have told the Joint Chiefs to get in line or find other jobs. Bush is also said to be "extremely angry" at what he perceives as growing Pentagon opposition to his role as Commander in Chief. The President considers this nation to be at war," a White House source says, "and, as such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason."

so why are the civilans so keen on war? famous writer (and former british spy) john le carre from the london times:

How Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America's anger from bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the great public relations conjuring tricks of history. But they swung it. A recent poll tells us that one in two Americans now believe Saddam was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. But the American public is not merely being misled. It is being browbeaten and kept in a state of ignorance and fear. The carefully orchestrated neurosis should carry Bush and his fellow conspirators nicely into the next election.

From the Zuricher Zeitung (Switzerland):

America's theatralic military activism against insignificant rogue states [...] is a sign of its weakness, not its strength. However, this weakness makes it unpredictable. The USA is about to become a problem for the world at a time when we had become used to seeing it as a solution.
[...]
Iraq [...] is also supplying Europe and Japan with oil. But they can afford to buy it with the money earned through exports. They are economically strong enough so that they don't have to control Iraq with military force. The US on the other hand is running out of money with which to pay for its gigantic use of oil. This is why military control of this region on the other side of the world is vital for them.

and the guardian on the sad state of the american press:

Guardian writers are inundated by emails from Americans asking plaintively why their own papers never print what is in these columns (in my experience, these go hand-in-hand with an equal number insulting us for the same reason). In the American press, day after day, the White House controls the agenda. The supposedly liberal American press has become a dog that never bites, hardly barks but really loves rolling over and having its tummy tickled.
...
[P]olitical courage is especially rare. Reporters in Washington are kept in line by the standard threat: annoy us, and your stories dry up. In normal times this matters less, because there may be enough dissidents to produce alternative information. But the Bush White House's sophisticated news management has given them control.
...
If there is a Watergate scandal lurking in this administration, it is unlikely to be Woodward or his colleagues who will tell us about it. If it emerges, it will [like the Trent Lott story] probably come out on the web. That is a devastating indictment of the state of American newspapers.

finally from TIMES:

West Europeans, generally speaking, do not share America's ambitions of vast global reform or visions of history coming to an end. They had enough of that kind of thinking, and its consequences, with Marxism and Nazism.

They are interested in a slow development of civilized and tolerant international relations, compromising on problems while avoiding catastrophes along the way. They have themselves only recently recovered from the catastrophes of the first and second world wars, when tens of millions of people were destroyed. They don't want more.
[...]
Considering [the small death toll of Americans compared to that of Europeans in World Wars I and II], Washington does not really possess the authority to explain, in condescending terms, that Europe's reluctance to go to war is caused by a pusillanimous reluctance to confront the realities of a Hobbesian universe.

it is good to have an own opinion, and why run with the horde when it runs against the wall? it is also good to be european, and good to stand with courage and bear with pride when another country wants to play the imperalism game again. we've seen the u.s. in better state, and up to now, each time when it played the imperialism (or isolation) option, it later also played the internationalism card again.

now go ahead, hate me if you want, think about your position if you want, ignore the comment if you want :-)

Dieter

Dieter, I wish you had given citations for your quotes so I could read the original articles...

A lot of the objections to this article I've seen have been about smoking. Both from Dieter and from the coverage on Plastcbag.org (where Tom goes into the smoking part of it at length, with pictures and statistics and geography and everything ). The article has nothing to do with smoking. The author was using smoking and GMOs as an illustration of how a lot of the objections to the war on Iraq are simply red herrings.

Part of the reason Germany and France don't want us to go to war with Iraq (even though they both signed the security council resolution) is because they've done tons of business with Saddam, despite U.N. sanctions. Germany in particular is culpaple, being (AFAIK) possibly Iraq's largest business partner (including, I heard, lots of nuclear technology, but I'd have to verify that). As far as I'm aware, Germany's president Schroder specifically ran an anti-American campaign which helped him get elected. France does tons of business with Iraq, and has a history of questionable relations with Iraq. Bill Tierney, former U.N. weapons inspector, says he's sure the French inspector was tipping off Iraq as to where the inspectors were going to go next.

Dieter, a lot of your arguments are spurious: Europe and Japan can afford to buy oil from Iraq, but America can't so we're going to take over the country and steal it? That doesn't make any sense. I'd also appreciate it if you could provide support for your quotations (50% of Americans think Saddam was behind the WTC attack?)

Finally, to Omar, the burden of proof is on Iraq to prove that they've disarmed in order to avoid military action. Resolution 1441, which was signed unanimously by all security council members, puts the burden of proof on Iraq to show that they've disarmed. Even Hans Blix says they haven't done that, that they've continued their deception, and that Iraq's time is running out.

Dieter, rather than this action against Iraq being inconsistent with America's history of saving the world you referenced above, I think this is yet another example of America leading the way to free the world of one more murdering dictator. And about Europe's reluctance to go to war: Europe has a dangerous history of appeasing dictators until it is too late. I'm glad our President is leading our country and the UN to action. No other country in U.N. seems to have had the conviction to enforce the previous dozen or so resolutions against Iraq that Iraq has flouted.

Part of the reason Germany and France don't want us to go to war with Iraq (even though they both signed the security council resolution) is because they've done tons of business with Saddam, despite U.N. sanctions.

Pardon me, but this is ridiculous. Where do you get this information from, and what does "tons" of business mean in this context? This statements insinuates that it is a vital interest for the german government to back up Iraq because of it is a very important business partner. Nothing could be that wrong, Iraq is as important as El Salvador to the german economy (see http://www.bmz.de/infothek/hintergrundmaterial/statistiken/stat_09a.pdf). Thatt argument is a real red herring!

As far as I'm aware, Germany's president Schroder specifically ran an anti-American campaign which helped him get elected.

That is only half-true. The general critique with the US foreign policy was already there, and the larger part of the german people were against a war in Iraq. Schröder had bad poll results and decided to make Iraq a topic. He just used the public opinion to save his chancellor's seat (which is questionable), but he did not launch any anit-American campagin whatsoever.

Finally, to Omar, the burden of proof is on Iraq to prove that they've disarmed in order to avoid military action. Resolution 1441, which was signed unanimously by all security council members, puts the burden of proof on Iraq to show that they've disarmed.

That puts Iraq into a dilemma they can't get out. How can you prove that nothing is there anymore? Even if they had destroyed all their ABC weapon potential, you could still say "well, they lie and they must have hidden the weapons even better than we can imagine". I particularly resent this automatism such a misinterpretation of law standards creates, now it seems inevitable to go to war with Iraq.

No other country in U.N. seems to have had the conviction to enforce the previous dozen or so resolutions against Iraq that Iraq has flouted.

<sigh>
It's not really about enforcing UN resolutions, is it? What about Israel, that's constantly breaking UN resolutions for decades now. Does that spur any action, yet critique from the US government?

Well, German companies embarassingly have done more business with Iraq than any other country. When Iraq submitted its report to the U.N. it turns out 80 German corporations have continued to do business with Iraq, much more than any other country. More importantly, German countries dealt in nuclear technology with Iraq. I don't claim that business with Iraq makes up a significant portion of Germany's economy, but they are certainly Iraq's biggest business partner.

"Schröder had bad poll results and decided to make Iraq a topic." - the point is that one of the points of his campaign was distancing himself from the US and opposing war on Iraq. Like you say, it probably helped him win. I'm just pointing out Germany's increasing anti-Americanism.

That puts Iraq into a dilemma they can't get out. How can you prove that nothing is there anymore?

I dunno, but the resolution clearly puts the burden of proof on Iraq. They can start by at least reporting everything we know about, which they haven't done. I'm watching Colin Powell document tons of evidence of Iraq's non-compliance right now.

now it seems inevitable to go to war with Iraq

Keep in mind that this isn't a new thing. Iraq has been in non-compliance for 12 years. Their current deception is nothing new, and rather, it's consistent with their previous deception.

It's not really about enforcing UN resolutions, is it? What about Israel, that's constantly breaking UN resolutions for decades now. Does that spur any action, yet critique from the US government?

See, people who bring this up lose credibility with me. It shows your bias that you bring this up. You have a double standard, where you criticize the only democracy in the region with no history using weapons of mass destruction against its neighbors, and excuse a murdering dictator who is clearly a danger to his neighbors and the world.

I don't claim that business with Iraq makes up a significant portion of Germany's economy, but they are certainly Iraq's biggest business partner.

Of course there were companies breaching the embargo. But not only german and french ones, FWIW. I don't question that. But there are those 80 companies and then there's the german population and it's government. Quite different things. To conclude that the actions of some companies are identical to Germany's government or at least or a sign of it's reasons is a flawed approach, and a gross oversimplification.

See, people who bring this up lose credibility with me. It shows your bias that you bring this up. You have a double standard,

One could argue that judging the actions of one country against the UN resolutions and willfully neglecting to do that for a different country is also a double standard. My only point was to show that and honestly, I don't understand why that would be in any way biased.

And I'm really tired that everytime someone critizes the US governments actions he is labeled as anti-american. Don't you critize good friends?

If you want to know why "many European company" made deals with Iraq during the blocus: http://www.refuseandresist.org/newwar/022302cheney-iraq.html

Just because US companies hide themselves behind their European subsidiaries doesnt' mean that they don't do business with Iraq. And now we've seen the tons of evidence given by Colin Powell... well, really nothing to keep you awaken.