"Uneasy Alliances" LaTimes 2/16/03

irishFS1921 · Feb 17, 2003

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...1,3143507.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

good article by Jonah Goldberg, Jonah Goldberg is editor at large of National Review Online and a commentator for CNN.

It's a classic free-ride problem. The Europeans have benefited from the global stability provided by the United States. But the Europeans -- or at least the French and Germans -- now take that stability for granted and berate the United States for doing what it sees as necessary to ensure continued peace and prosperity. Unfortunately, the idea that violence never solves anything is a fraud. Violence ended the Holocaust; in the U.S., it freed the slaves. And, in 1998, American-led violence ended slaughter in the Balkans while European paper shufflers stood by paralyzed.
Click to expand...

Chicago1871 · Feb 17, 2003

That actually was a pretty well written article. Certain points are left out, but the part I like the most is this: "If we were hellbent on Iraqi oil, we would lift the sanctions tomorrow in exchange for fat oil contracts -- something Hussein has suggested in the past." This is not a war over oil, Goldberg explains why in just one sentence. This is something that has gotten lost in all the hubub. Some good stuff in there, but a lot of rhetoric that some will dislike.

irishFS1921 · Feb 17, 2003

Originally posted by Chicago1871
Some good stuff in there, but a lot of rhetoric that some will dislike.
Click to expand...

i think i'm pretty safe with goldberg. but i wouldn't dare bring ann coulter onto the board.

superdave · Feb 17, 2003

Originally posted by Chicago1871
"If we were hellbent on Iraqi oil, we would lift the sanctions tomorrow in exchange for fat oil contracts -- something Hussein has suggested in the past." This is not a war over oil, Goldberg explains why in just one sentence.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see the one sentence from Goldberg that addresses the neocon's plan for the Middle East.

I'm not saying that this IS a war for oil, I'm just saying that the way Goldberg attacks that viewpoint assumes his readers don't know what Wolfowitz and co. have been trying to achieve.

Chicago1871 · Feb 17, 2003

Originally posted by superdave
I'd like to see the one sentence from Goldberg that addresses the neocon's plan for the Middle East.

I'm not saying that this IS a war for oil, I'm just saying that the way Goldberg attacks that viewpoint assumes his readers don't know what Wolfowitz and co. have been trying to achieve.
Click to expand...

In this country, I wouldn't assume my readers knew their long division tables. It's only one column, not a book. He may have more to say, maybe not. And he doesn't explicitly talk about the Middle East, because the article is about the French.