[tambourine-man]

Originally posted by Mazer
[b]This is actually the point I was trying to make, that they shouldn't oppose us just for the sake of opposing us. Yin and Yang is a fluid concept as you well know, and I chose Yang for the US because it's quick to anger, but elements of both sides exist in everything. I only used it as an analogy but we'll take a closer look.[b]

I supported the invasion for ethical reasons, I saw Saddam as a threat and his removal was for the greater good. Bush et al probably invaded Iraq for political reasons, they used Saddam as a scapegoat. Europe, realizing that Bush was doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, decided he needed to be set straight. Then they proceeded to make the same mistake by using Bush as their scapegoat for political gain, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Here's the problem, if Bush did invade for political gain, then his ethical claim is nullified. Considering the lack of WMD and the failure to materialise anything that could've brought about the doom-and-gloom prophesies we were subjected to, I'd say that Bush was on shaky ethical territory. In which case, it's difficult to site Bush as 'doing the right thing for the wrong reasons'. Actually... hang on... we're getting into a circular argument here. We're gonna end up arguing about justifications for war/administration lies... and that'll get us nowhere - especially as I respect the fact that you clearly have a thought-out, developed opinion... just not one that I agree with! Really, your point (and the OP) is one of the relationship between the US and Europe...

As Yin and Yang, Europe and the US would inevitably try to maintain an equal balance of power thereby minimizing the dammage that one world power left alone would cause. But I think both sides have caused harm and our responsibility to help each other is not being fulfilled.

In essence, yes... but... let's be frank. Helping eachother is about as likely as a polititian caring about anything other than re-election or helping his neighbour. Secondly, in terms of realpolitik, France, Germany and Russia are pissed off that the US has militarily waded into an oil-rich region that they had managed to negotiate with for decades. In other words, they chose to miss the gravy-train-to-oil-city, thinking that they could prevent it from ever leaving the platform. With European integration increasing, (notwithstanding the historical factors), I see US co-operation as a pipe-dream. Shame really.

Though they couldn't stop us from going to war Europe should try harder to get us to finish what we've started. Likewise we should try harder to get Europe involved in anti-terrorism since it affects us both.

Again, Europe will fight both of these aims as the major players view the US as it's antagonist. Basically the Franco-German attitude on this is: "Got a problem in Iraq? Tough. We told you not to go". Moreover, there is an undercurrent of feeling (and this stretches back years) that the US has contributed to the rise of terrorism and that it was merely a matter of time before the worm turned. Sadly this critique and opposition to US policy is all-to-often distilled, bottled and labelled 'Anti-Americanism', when the truth is actually far more complex.

Is any of this going to get accomplished when politicians, both American and European, care only about their elections? The world could use a little more cooperation and I wouldn't count on the US to fix everything.

Herein lies the solution. 'Fixing things' was never the intention of the US. It's intentions were purely political and monetary. That aside, the answer to your question is obviously a resounding 'no'. But I would argue that as things stand, co-operation is about as likely as finding a fart in a jacuzzi.