Glad to see you're not one of those "burn them all" jerk. Glad to see we can discuss, to make it short. And you do get a point when you precise your comments are directed at French administration, that's the way it should be in both ways.
As for Yugoslavia, I was "too" young at that time, not interested in politics at all (not that I am much more now, but I have to get informed a minimum as I have the right to vote now), so I could hardly discuss about that. However, correct me if I'm wrong : European Nations didn't manage at that time to solve this problem cause European Nations, despite all EU construction efforts, aren't that well organised together. European countries don't have a common army, and would they have had it at that time, that army wouldn't have had the legitimacy to stop Milosevic alone, IMO. For international matters of that scale, I think UN is the one to be called. And if a majority of nations at UN don't consider it's justified to act, then... do not act, or put the request in another way to convince UN of the necessity to do something.
Isn't it what European Countries did ? I mean, we didn't ask our US ally to come and help us with our problem, we asked UN to do so (as I said, I may be wrong here). By the way, the dangerosity of Milosevic's regime was known, it was happening "live", and without any control. Something had to be done, quickly.
Now with Iraqi problem, the situation was kinda different IMO. USA was the only country to ask for an intervention/war (at the beginning, before gathering other countries around this idea). We knew for a long time Saddam is a fool, is dangerous, what he did to his people and what dangerous weapons he owned : that's why his country has been stopped while attempting to invade Kuweit (and France helped, IIRC), then has been put under severe control and embargo for long (note the difference with Yugoslavia, no control as the problem was rising). However, nothing "special" was happening in Iraq at that time : it's not like US or any other intelligence had discovered evidence of Iraq being making WMD in huge quantities or aim one missile at New York, although under embargo and UN inspectors control - IMO that would have convinced my country to join yours without discussing.
Something had to be done in Yugoslavia cause it was urgent, the problem was rising, we had to do something to stop the slaughter. In Iraq, I consider the damages Saddam's regime could cause to the world had been jugulated thanks to embargo and UN control (although it had to be strengthened for sure). The way your president asked for "help" or "support" in Iraq just didn"t convince my country, as well as others, to do so, whatever allies we were, are and will be.
Other considerations of the same kind lead people say : "our soldiers freed France in 1944-1945, and that's how you thank us ?". Sure, lots of US soldiers lost their lives to save us, we really need help as we were under occupation. Would such a bad thing occur to your country (which I obviously don't hope), even at a much lesser scale, that France and other countries will come and help, make no mistake about that. I just think all those situations are different, and shouldn't call for "tit for tat" as a reason to go to war.
As for Yugoslavia, I was "too" young at that time, not interested in politics at all (not that I am much more now, but I have to get informed a minimum as I have the right to vote now), so I could hardly discuss about that. However, correct me if I'm wrong : European Nations didn't manage at that time to solve this problem cause European Nations, despite all EU construction efforts, aren't that well organised together. European countries don't have a common army, and would they have had it at that time, that army wouldn't have had the legitimacy to stop Milosevic alone, IMO. For international matters of that scale, I think UN is the one to be called. And if a majority of nations at UN don't consider it's justified to act, then... do not act, or put the request in another way to convince UN of the necessity to do something.
Isn't it what European Countries did ? I mean, we didn't ask our US ally to come and help us with our problem, we asked UN to do so (as I said, I may be wrong here). By the way, the dangerosity of Milosevic's regime was known, it was happening "live", and without any control. Something had to be done, quickly.
Now with Iraqi problem, the situation was kinda different IMO. USA was the only country to ask for an intervention/war (at the beginning, before gathering other countries around this idea). We knew for a long time Saddam is a fool, is dangerous, what he did to his people and what dangerous weapons he owned : that's why his country has been stopped while attempting to invade Kuweit (and France helped, IIRC), then has been put under severe control and embargo for long (note the difference with Yugoslavia, no control as the problem was rising). However, nothing "special" was happening in Iraq at that time : it's not like US or any other intelligence had discovered evidence of Iraq being making WMD in huge quantities or aim one missile at New York, although under embargo and UN inspectors control - IMO that would have convinced my country to join yours without discussing.
Something had to be done in Yugoslavia cause it was urgent, the problem was rising, we had to do something to stop the slaughter. In Iraq, I consider the damages Saddam's regime could cause to the world had been jugulated thanks to embargo and UN control (although it had to be strengthened for sure). The way your president asked for "help" or "support" in Iraq just didn"t convince my country, as well as others, to do so, whatever allies we were, are and will be.
Other considerations of the same kind lead people say : "our soldiers freed France in 1944-1945, and that's how you thank us ?". Sure, lots of US soldiers lost their lives to save us, we really need help as we were under occupation. Would such a bad thing occur to your country (which I obviously don't hope), even at a much lesser scale, that France and other countries will come and help, make no mistake about that. I just think all those situations are different, and shouldn't call for "tit for tat" as a reason to go to war.
--- ALnitak --->
Dexazon-devoted single player
Artemis - level 99 windexazon - 673 dex so far (reachable goal : 737 dex)
Dexazon-devoted single player
Artemis - level 99 windexazon - 673 dex so far (reachable goal : 737 dex)