September 18, 2003


Europe must hold firm : There is a dangerous temptation for Europe to sign up to the US security agenda, with its focus on rogue states and WMD. That was wrong after September 11 2001 and it is wrong now. (Quentin Peel, 9/18/03, Financial Times)

This is only available to subscribers, which we aren't, but do you really even need to read it? Reasonable people can disagree about whether deposing Saddam was necessary and/or wise, but what sensible argument can there be that the West shouldn't confront "rogue states and WMD"?

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 18, 2003 9:26 AM

Hey, get that Spellchekker cranked up!

I live in a "rouge state" ; are you going Frenchie on us now?

PS. rouge means "red" in Frenchie talk.

Posted by: John J. Coupal at September 18, 2003 10:02 AM

In New Hampshire, rouge means whore.

Posted by: David Cohen at September 18, 2003 10:32 AM

Lucky you are, John. I live in a bleu state. It sounds wretched, doesn't it?

Posted by: pj at September 18, 2003 10:33 AM

Alright, alright, I'm too lazy to spellcheck...

Posted by: oj at September 18, 2003 10:38 AM

Mr. Judd;

You're presuming an Anglospheric view point. I can make quite strong arguments for why Europe ignoring rogue states and WMD is a good idea based on having a revived Caliphate as a goal.

Or, even from a European point of view, you could consider it assisted suicide.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at September 18, 2003 1:10 PM

Seeing as we are commenting without reading, I will go out on a limb and guess just from the guy's name that we are dealing with another sniffling toff who finds Bush & co too vulgar. I imagine him droning on after a late lunch at the club about "Mesopotamia" and the need for subtlety.

Posted by: Peter B at September 18, 2003 2:29 PM

Well, it would be a dangerous temptation for them. They'd get their hands dirty.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 18, 2003 6:06 PM