New New World Order?

shotamoose

Leaving aside the arguments over the rights and wrongs of the Iraq issue, I'm beginning to wonder whether, in a practical sense, America is dangerously over-reaching itself. What I mean is that while America is certainly the most powerful country in the world (and perhaps is more dominant than any other singular force has been in history, though that's a whole other argument), some in the present administration seem to believe that this means they can do what they like, when they like and how they like without having to consider the consequences; simply, that power is its own excuse and its own answer to every protest.

If true, this seems to me to be a very stupid attitude. It may well be true that they can browbeat, bribe and bludgeon anyone who disagrees into line (in economic and political as well as in purely military matters), but this brings costs of its own which they seem unwilling to accept or even comprehend. They're happy if they can get their way in the World Trade Organization by imposing discipline on everyone else while avoiding it themselves, even though they blithely antagonise most of the rest of the world. And they seem sincerely baffled at the intransigence of France and Germany in NATO - I mean, doesn't Old Europe know how insignificant it is in the new world order?

Some of you might argue that this is all premature, that America will get its way in NATO and the UN and that will be that. That's not what I'm arguing about, though. What I'm saying is that the US seems willing to piss FAR more people off than ever before, in fact seems to think that the number of people with serious objections is a matter of no consequence whatsoever, since nobody else has the power to stop the US.

But there's a few problems here. Firstly, not everyone is as dependent on American goodwill and benificence as, say, Turkey. France and Germany are no longer nearly so politically and economically dependent as they were, and seem keen to move away from NATO towards a more European military bloc. Nor are they alone in Europe - after all, the leaders of eight countries may have signed a letter applauding the US stance on Iraq, but that doesn't mean their publics agree (a poll today shows support for Labour neck and neck with the useless Tories, and Saturday's anti-war event will probably be the biggest political demonstration in the UK for decades).

The second problem for the US is that their power relies heavily on the multilateral institutions that they're undermining by heeding only when it suits them. They can't be the world's economic police like the IMF and WTO can, and they can't buy as much support as a strong United Nations commands.

Thirdly, bullying, hypocrisy and double standards eventually catch snap back in your face: subject country governments can fall due to popular resentment or corruption, and the towering US trade deficits and debt levels may one day be considered unsustainable.

Anyway, even if there's any merit to this speculation, I don't think the present administration - incredibly short-sighted in its economic policy, and with all the diplomatic finesse of a spoilt child - is capable of realising it.

so very true.

I doubt the US will stop their trend of bullying since they've gotten away with everything so far. Afghanistan was understandable, since the evidence provided was "good", however their "evidence" against Iraq is shaky beyond belief. Personally i don't think they care too much abt giving the world "evidence", but, rather, they'll bully the leading countries into supporting them.

However, if they continue to get away with this attitude, where does it stop? Creating a nuclear war with N.Korea?

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
however their "evidence" against Iraq is shaky beyond belief.

This made me smile, remember posts from Sand (I think) saying that its not that the evidence is shaky, its that some people just dont want to believe.

I had this vision of Fox Sand sitting in his basement office, with his "I Want to Believe" poster up in the background, only instead of that blurry UFO pic, it was a sat image of a bunker with a truck parked outside it.



Sand - if this offends in any way, I apologise in advance.

jc

rofl..

you obviously have too much time on your hands, bonkey.

shotamoose

Just to follow up, bbc.co.uk has a story about polls suggest that "Europe's leaders may be divided on the Iraq crisis, but the majority of people across the continent are united in their opposition to war".

From Portugal to Russia, opinion surveys suggest that without a further UN resolution, most Europeans are overwhelmingly against war - and even a second resolution would not convince many of them...

... public opinion in eastern Europe is even more hostile to war than in the west.

A Gallup International poll of a few days ago found low support in the region for war, even if sanctioned by the UN - just 38% in Romania, 28% in Bulgaria and 20% in Estonia.

Full story is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2747175.stm

growler

do you think that it's a well intentioned global domination agenda that they have ? ie well USA is soooo good, safe, friendly and multi-cultural, home of democracy (cough) , religiously tolerant, socially advanced, protector general and saviour in 2 world wars etc. that the world would be a much nicer place is everyone lived the american dream

or
the traditional bond-villianesque "let's take over the world" ?

i'm pretty sure that many americans believe scenario one and only those in politics strive for the second

The Saint

"A Gallup International poll of a few days ago found low support in the region for war, even if sanctioned by the UN - just 38% in Romania, 28% in Bulgaria and 20% in Estonia. "

And this is the powerful New Europe that the US is going to move their bases to. I think the EU should take a stand against the US on planned military build ups in eastern Europe especially in Turkey who wants to join the EU.

PiE

How feasible would it be for the US to survive without European trade and such? And vice versa, would Europe collapse without links with the US?

It's just that over the past few years I've noticed, as I'm sure all of you have, that Europe is trying to be a bit more independant from the US.

So if I may go the whole shebang: If it came down to a Europe v US battle for survival (not neccesarily military, I mean economically)... who would be the victor?

The Saint

I'd think Europe. Europe collectively has a much larger population than the US with higher standard of education. The US government is also too involved in business in the US and are corrupt beyond belief. Europe is also much more popular than America and usally abide by their trade agreements and dont **** over any country they can. Europe also has the higher ground on Human Rights and usually abides by the will of the UN which the US picks and chooses which declarations they wish to abide by when relevant. We'll also get Russia and maybe China on our side and set up Siemens and Alstom manufacturing plants in Cuba and get 100% employment just to piss the yanks off. The US is also completely dependant on an oil economy which is not going to change due to the policies and interests of future administrations and oil giants while Europe and in fact most of the world is trying to reduce its dependance on fossil fuels while the US trys to block any initiatives for research into renewable energy. Oil is the staple diet of the US economy, so what happens if their is no more oil?

Meh

Originally posted by The Saint
The US government is also too involved in business in the US and are corrupt beyond belief.

Uh, Europe isn't innocent here either. You should read up on Berlusconi and Andreotti's antics in Italy sometime -- much worse than anything I've read about political corruption in the US.

Europe is also much more popular than America and usally abide by their trade agreements and dont **** over any country they can. Europe also has the higher ground on Human Rights

You're probably right here...the Europeans seem to be a bit better at diplomacy than the US. Possibly the popularity could also be due to the higher EU aid spending...

The US is also completely dependant on oil

So is the European economy, and every economy in the world.

most of the world is trying to reduce its dependance on fossil fuels while the US trys to block any initiatives for research into renewable energy.

No it doesn't. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2705607.stm

President George Bush has set course for the hydrogen economy.

In his State of the Union speech, he announced $1.2bn in research funding to help America "lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles".

The Saint

"Uh, Europe isn't innocent here either. You should read up on Berlusconi and Andreotti's antics in Italy sometime -- much worse than anything I've read about political corruption in the US."

Thats one country. Its like there being corruption in Florida when it goes all the way to top.

"So is the European economy, and every economy in the world."

I know it still is but is trying harder to reduce it dependency.


"President George Bush has set course for the hydrogen economy.
In his State of the Union speech, he announced $1.2bn in research funding to help America "lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles".

This is a token gesture to make people think that something is being done. $1.2 Billion is hardly a lot considering how huch is spent on other departments. All you need to do is look at what Bush has done to reverse the reduction in the US's dependance on oil since he has come to office. Do a little study and see how environmental budgets has been slashed since he has come to office. This funding is a public relations stunt while money is cut from other environmental initiatives to reduce CO2 emmisions.

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
You're probably right here...the Europeans seem to be a bit better at diplomacy than the US.

I'm sure that you'll be told that this is because the world sees Europe as being full of cheese-eating-surrender-monkey's and is therefore no threat to anyone.


jc

DadaKopf

N'yes, shotamoose, America sees power as its own justification.

One (quite bad) article in the Sunday Times two weeks ago drew a (somewhat fallacious) ideological contrast between Europe and the US. Europe, due to its history, has embraced the principles of rationality, law and discourse as the solution to all conflicts. America has chosen anarchism, that is power, as the solution to all conflicts. The battle lines were drawn between Kant's 'perpetual peace' idea and Thomas Hobbes' 'Leviathan'. Fairly interesting stuff but not very helpful.

Anyway...

Another book likens the American attitude to the Western genre. The core of the American attitude can be seen at work in films like Shane and A Fistful of Dollars. Order is restored, always, through violence and killing. Within the genre itself, the attitude toward order maintenence changed; whereas there was an aura of honour and righteousness ascribed to earlier movies' heroes, films like A Fistful of Dollars indicated an amoral attitude to violence as if the Man with No Name was an early advocate of American realpolitik.

This post is just an aside. Obviously the Western has little real bearing on current events but it does imply that this attitude of power, so clearly exposed by the Bush administration is at work right now within American culture. This is an attitude very different the the European one. However, it is relevant. I mean, since this whole thing began, Bush has been reciting cowboy clichées like Ronald Reagan and, clearly, this strikes a chord with the American public - which is the only public the government really needs to care about. It strikes a chord with the American public because this is America's attitude to power - the legend, told and retold, has become its own justification. This logic's been at work in US diplomacy for half a century, now it's just been exposed.

Sand

This made me smile, remember posts from Sand (I think) saying that its not that the evidence is shaky, its that some people just dont want to believe.

Nah, that some people dont want to be convinced - Ive made up my mind, dont confuse me with facts etc etc:)

Sand - if this offends in any way, I apologise in advance.

I hate ya forever:)

As for the US theyre just being realistic. They want to achieve some goal. Theyve only a passing interest in compromise because if push comes to shove they can accomplish it solo but they dont like being *that* brazen about it.Whereas France and Germany are powerful european states theyre fairly weak internationally and rely on compromise to achieve what they want - or at least 60-70% of it:| Its a differing political attitude because of strenths rather than morals or cultures. The French have yet to completely grasp their irrelevance and are fighting tooth and nail to chain the important international decisions to the UN where they hold a wholly unrealistic position of influence.

As for a struggle between the US and Europe - it would never happen - firstly because Europe is hopelessly divided on just about every issue and when the French talk about Europe speaking with a greater voice they mean Europe singing from a French song sheet. Europe is also merely a large market for US goods - it is economically dominated by the US and is far less competitive. To become a rival to the US would require economic idealogies and convictions which are not populist or practical for a career politician such as the French practically breed.

Turnip

Sand if the French (and the Germans) are as irrelevant as you claim, then why are the Americans clearly so upset by their position? Because they see them as vital allies that's why.

DiscoStu

because the french can veto any security council resolution. although they will move without the un behind them it would be bad pr for blair if they didnt get one. that is why they are slightly miffed.

DadaKopf

I don't think the US is really upset by France and Germany's turn. They're just feeling inconvenienced. Germany's only doing this because Schroeder is desperate to look like the statesman before he bows out of power and France is, well, France. Once France's economic interests in Iraq can be guarunteed, they'll come around to the American way of thinking.

It's all a crock.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Nah, that some people dont want to be convinced - Ive made up my mind, dont confuse me with facts etc etc:)

Exactly what facts would those be?

You see, this is why I have a deep abiding distrust of the US stated position.

They have claimed that they know things time and time again, and yet have consistently failed to deliver.

Nothing which Powell presented to the UN was fact - it was nothing more than one possible interpretation of the information gathered.

Let me just ask one simple question - do you believe that the US has been 100% honest in its presentation of the information, and its conclusions drawn upon that?

For example - do you believe that a radio message saying that Iraq and Al Qaeda should set aside their differences and unite to fight a common enemy is proof that they have already done so? That requests for future alliances prove that one already exists? Really?

If not, then please stop talking about confusing people with facts, lightheartedly or not. If the US is not being 100% honest, then they are seeking to confuse people with propaganda, nothing more.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand To become a rival to the US would require economic idealogies and convictions which are not populist or practical for a career politician such as the French practically breed. [/B]

Couldnt have done it without the insults? Why let your argument stand for itself, when you can throw in a quick insult along the way to strengten it, yeah?

OK, so other than insulting the French some more - which seems to be a standard platform that any pro-American argument has to take nowadays - you're basically saying here that Europe kowtows to its populist demands, rather than anything else, and that this is why it cannot rival America.

And yet, the fact that the populist demand in Europe is that we dont go to war, you are saying that European nations are against war cause they value oil contracts more than the good of the world - with the exception of Germany, who's government is kowtowing to populism cause of some other reason..

Can you explain that to me? On one hand, European governments bow to populist pressure, on the other hand, the populist pressure is not the reason they are making their decisions here. so they are making massive decisions based on something other than the populist demands.

Why is this conflict about oil for the French, and yet economic decisions are made by simply bowing to populist demands? I mean - its not like you havent argued consistently that France's opposition is basically an economic one - its based on oil, its cost, and so on.

The only conclusion from this, Sand, is that either your two arguments are self-contradictory, or you believe that the people of Europe are against war because they want the cheap oil from these contracts.

Is that really what you're trying to tell us? That the people want cheap oil, oppose the war, and as a result, the French government (and others) are caving in to this populist demand.

No other arrangement of your arguments seems to give a non-contradictory overall view - everything else has governments making a decision on non-populist grounds, despite being governments which simply bow to populist pressure.

jc

Is that really what you're trying to tell us? That the people want cheap oil, oppose the war, and as a result, the French government (and others) are caving in to this populist demand.

I've seen a whole range of opinions now on this topic.
People oppose the war and that is the majority view in most European countries.
France opposes the war, yes along with it's public, but it may also benefit from the continuation of Sadam's regime if it has an oil contract with him.
One things for sure,that contract won't be upheld if , the US and the UK force regime change.

One statistic, I'd be interested in is the UK tax take from oil and all it's derivitives.
Presumably, Regime change if it lead to murdocks assumption of an oil price of €20 a barrel, would lead to cheaper pre tax fuel at the pumps...That would open up an opportunity for a "green" tax on the fuel, bringing in lots more revenue,but not increasing pump prices beyond what they are now, so not affecting demand that much...
Then I don't usually subscribe to conspiracy theories(....but I should have Gordon Browns job:D )
But that notion might just as easily apply to the French position.
mm

Hobbes

Originally posted by klaz
Afghanistan was understandable, since the evidence provided was "good", however their "evidence" against Iraq is shaky beyond belief.

What evidence? There was absoluty no evidence that Afganistan had anything to do with 9/11 except for having the stupidity of having OBL in thier country. Handing OBL's head over on a silver platter with a side order of AQ bodies wouldn't of stopped the US attacking Afganistan.

Originally posted by MehSo is the European economy, and every economy in the world.

True, everyone in the world uses Oil. Some more then others, but the US dependancy on oil is crippling it. If you were to switch off the taps tomorrow then Europe would have a much better chance of surviving then the US. There are places in the US that would just not survive without oil. The US also pisses the most oil away then any other country.

BattleBoar

Don't forget, the US has strategic petroleum reserves which could last about 60 days at current consumption rates if all oil production stopped. Say at least 180 to 270 days when you consider that domestic production won't stop and rationing goes into effect. That should be more than enough time to start more drilling in the gulf of mexico and alaska.

The US has a better chance of surviving in the short term, because it has sources of its own. In the long term, it would be determined by who found a viable alternative energy source faster. Given the state of universities and scientific research at the highest levels of advanced science in both the US and in Europe, my money would probably be on the US.

Hobbes

Originally posted by BattleBoar
Don't forget, the US has strategic petroleum reserves which could last about 60 days at current consumption rates if all oil production stopped. Say at least 180 to 270 days when you consider that domestic production won't stop and rationing goes into effect. That should be more than enough time to start more drilling in the gulf of mexico and alaska.

Doubtful, especially considering the US has a lot less oil then it makes out to. -> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2755955.stm

From what I've heard the US is now the top importer of Iraqi Oil to try and keep it's usage level.

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
France opposes the war, yes along with it's public, but it may also benefit from the continuation of Sadam's regime if it has an oil contract with him.
One things for sure,that contract won't be upheld if , the US and the UK force regime change.

Sure, but thats not the point I was addressing. There is a hell of a big difference in saying "outcome X would have benefit Y for nation Z" and "nation Z is attempting to force outcome X because it wants benefit Y".

Sand has previously argued that the French are opposed to the war because they want to preserve their oil contract. That implies that the oil contract is the reason for the opposition...not just that keeping the oil contract is desirable.

On the other hand, Sand has argued that the French (and European governments in general) are simply kowtowing to the populist wishes. He has gone so far as to say that this "type" of politican seems to be all France is capable of producing...further showing his belief that French politicians will not stand up to public opinion.

Now, regardless of whether or not you feel this caving in to the wishes of the majority is a good or bad thing for a democratic society, it completely strands at odds with the implication that the French position is about oil unless it is the populist opinion that war be avoided to keep the oil contracts.

There is no other way that I can see that both of these two arguments remain valid, relevant, accurate, and consistent.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
Doubtful, especially considering the US has a lot less oil then it makes out to. -> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2755955.stm

From what I've heard the US is now the top importer of Iraqi Oil to try and keep it's usage level.

Yes, but this is the regular stocks that the article is referring to. It is exactly because these stocks are so low that they are talking about tapping the strategic reserves - which is what battleboar was referring to.

Even the article you quoted backs this up :

The low level of stocks has prompted speculation that the US will release some of its emergency stockpile.

This clearly shows that the stockpile is seperate to the low stocks...not the same thing.

The US has become a big importer of Iraqi oil to try and avoid having to tap its strategic reserves, not because the strategic reserves are low, but because they want to keep them as a last option, and clearly buying oil off the country you plan to invade is seen as a valid option to be used before that.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by BattleBoar
Don't forget, the US has strategic petroleum reserves which could last about 60 days at current consumption rates if all oil production stopped.

But many European countries keep their stocks between 90 and 120 days, have less dependance on oil and have better relationships with a greater number of suppliers.

Sand

Now, regardless of whether or not you feel this caving in to the wishes of the majority is a good or bad thing for a democratic society, it completely strands at odds with the implication that the French position is about oil unless it is the populist opinion that war be avoided to keep the oil contracts.

No, Id argue that the French want to keep their oil contracts. They do this best by supporting Saddam, indirectly at least and in simple terms they get no advantage from dealing with a democratically elected Iraqi government. If the French people were baying for the Iraqis to be liberated much as they were by the americans 60 years ago then yes, the French leadership would eventually crumble and fall into line. However the French people at best seem to feel liberating Iraq is not in the best interests of the Iraqi people. Youve chosen a bad example as popular will and the elites will have a similar end result - opposition to the Americans intervention in Iraq - if differing reasoning.

If you want to choose a good example think about where Europe is now. When America was economically strong, Europe was carried along in its wake - Europe put on the long finger structural reforms required to make the EU more competitive, to try and end the frankly ridiculous levels of unemployment and perhaps most importantly to deal with the timebomb of generous pension schemes which are paid for by the *next* generation in an era when europes population is aging, when opposition to immigration is a populist stance if nothing else, and when ( and this is what I was thinking of most directly when i made the comment you originally objected to about idealogies and conviction ) no politician has seen fit to try and persuade the people that they must accept lesser pension benefits on the sort of scale required

---

political suicide eh when your friendly socialist/marxist bandwagon will sweep to power in the next election promising money for everyone, taxes reduced for everyone and better weather.

The French arent stupid - they know they need to tackle these issues; they also know given the temperment of the French and their god given right to a free lunch theyll be facing a return to 68:| What they need is a Terry Venables - so far no volunteers.

What evidence? There was absoluty no evidence that Afganistan had anything to do with 9/11 except for having the stupidity of having OBL in thier country.

And the added stupidity of allowing him to set up training camps in their country. And to allow free passage of various heavily armed, rather fanatical young men to train at these camps. And allowing the mentioned men to leave on "missons". Apart from that, totally blameless:|

Couldnt have done it without the insults? Why let your argument stand for itself, when you can throw in a quick insult along the way to strengten it, yeah?

Hmmm, the French are always worth an insult. Visit France and youll see what I mean - if youre not rude, obnoxious and truly arrogant on a whole other level youre not a local. And its not an insult, the French actually do breed career politicans. De Gaulle set up a school for bright up and coming young men and women to create a political elite to control France, via its bureacracy or the polls. The name of it escapes me at this time. I can try and find out if youre interested and google doesnt yield instant results:|

Exactly what facts would those be?

Intercepted radio traffic, actual use of WMD not so long ago, their procurement of fabulously exspensive and quality conventional rockets, eyewitness accounts, the apparent dissapearance of 3000 weapons scientists, their admitted programs to create means with which to use their biological weapons and - something I heard on the radio this morning, the UN weapons inspectors apparently got lucky and stumbled over a rocket which exceeds Iraqs range limit - Whilst Ive not seen a detailed news report yet Im sure it was the *only* one they ever made, and Im *sure* the Iraqis would never dream of making more, or hiding them at all:|

Hey, maybe youre right - there might be no fire - its mathematically possible, but there is a hell of a lot of smoke dont you think? And regardless, ridding the world of Saddam isnt a bad thing.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
If the French people were baying for the Iraqis to be liberated much as they were by the americans 60 years ago then yes, the French leadership would eventually crumble and fall into line.

OK, so we're agreed that the French are doing what their public wishes, which means that their decision is not based on oil. They may wish it to be, and hell - your argument wishes it to be, but you're agreeing here that the wishes of the public carries more weight.

Hmmm, the French are always worth an insult. Visit France and youll see what I mean - if youre not rude, obnoxious and truly arrogant on a whole other level youre not a local.

I dunno. I've lived in France for a total of about 6 months. I had a great social life over there, including two French girlfriends. So either I must be rude, obnoxious and arrogant, or maybe its just you they took exception to.

Hey, maybe youre right - there might be no fire - its mathematically possible, but there is a hell of a lot of smoke dont you think? And regardless, ridding the world of Saddam isnt a bad thing.

Sand - you know I have taken the stance from day 1 that fundamentally I agree that removing Saddam is not a bad thing. What I have objections to are the lies and propaganda surrounding it.

The Americans are saying there is proof, and you have been talking about people not wanting to be convinced...and yet here you are admitting that there might be no fire - in other words, there is a lot of circumstancial evidence being presented and nothing else. Not only that, but this evidence is hardly coming from impartial sources. This isnt proof, except in the loosest, most abusive sense. Propaganda.

I know the reality. I believe Saddam is guilty of some of the things he is charged with. I believe the world may be a better place without him, but I fear that the backlash from his removal will offset any advantage.

What I strenuously object to, though, is any establishment of principle that the new way of the world is that the US administration tells us who is next, and the world is expected to step in line. If they want co-operation, they should damn well earn it the hard way, and not expect the rest of the planet to act the part of subservients.

jc

Sand

OK, so we're agreed that the French are doing what their public wishes, which means that their decision is not based on oil.

No, we agree that the apparent will of the french people is no war, and that the will of the french leadership is a grateful saddam who will reward them via nice oil contracts and that these, for the moment are working in the same direction. The will of the people does not guide political and international strategies - France has not held a referendum on what their policy should be, have they? The will of the people is then at most times the will of the most vocal portion of the people, and the will of the coulmnists and media barons.

Representive democracy works by our elected representitives making decisions without consulting us, via referendum, on a case by case basis. It is policitally smart to go with the flow but the will of the people only matters at election time - see the recent FF popularity figures for examples. If you wanted a true test to see whether the French were acting on the best guess at the will of the people or whether they were thinking "friendly oil regime" youd need to have an "either, or" situation - i.e the french demonstrations in favour of war.

Or, as happened last time - the French toeing the line whilst the war being deeply unpopular in France.

I dunno. I've lived in France for a total of about 6 months. I had a great social life over there, including two French girlfriends. So either I must be rude, obnoxious and arrogant, or maybe its just you they took exception to.

Yep, me and the half dozen or so friends who went over there seperately and received a similarly warm welcome from the famous french hospitality. I never believed we Irish were really that friendly, but I saw the difference between how the average Irish person responds to a tourist looking for directions and the average french person - the nicest person I met in France was Korean woman ffs. Oh, and I also had a chat one time with a person from one of the French departments and what do you know, they reckon the French are prats too. Oh, and since Ive been online and chatting with people from other countires - guess what? They too reckon the French are prats based on personal experiences.

Im delighted you had a nice time over there. Ive got to admit the country is lovely - just the people are plain obnoxious.

What I strenuously object to, though, is any establishment of principle that the new way of the world is that the US administration tells us who is next, and the world is expected to step in line.

What I object to is the establishment of the principle that paragraph 2, section B, Page 893 is more important than deposing regimes like Saddams. Different priorities I guess.

Victor

See comments of French ambassador here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=773458#post773458 Further link to press conence also.

shotamoose

Well, to sum up what I think on the topic: I would say that the present US administration not only believes that it can bully or bribe anyone else into acting in accord with it but also that this means it does not need to take any notice of any dissenting voices. The first proposition may be true, but the second one is a fundamental miscalculation. Maybe you can threaten and cajole, but to instantly dismiss any disagreements you meet as futile and ignoring the inevitable will eventually earn you the dislike of everyone you meet. For me, this was the real meaning of the massive anti-war marches around the world last weekend. Since many of the people marching would support a war against Iraq in the right circumstances and if it had the full and active support of the Security Council and the support of a significant portion of the wider UN membership, those marches (estimated to total around 15 million people worldwide) were most of all protesting against the Bush regime. The majority of sensible people I know who have an opinion on it genuinely despise the Bush regime. Why? Because its attitude is that it just doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, and not just on war but on trade, finance and the environment too. Your opinion will not make a jot of difference to the course of action the US takes.

This is just not a good idea in the long run. Many of the countries the US deals with are democracies, and in those countries governments are being distinctly uncomfortable by the gulf between official and public attitudes to the US - in Turkey, 90% of the people are reportedly against a war, and even the promise of $26bn in loans and aid and a free run at the Kurds doesn't seem to have convinced the government to ignore that. And as I said the US is finding that it in fact is reliant on the opinions of others, most notably in the Security Council. But as I also said above, I just don't think the present regime is able to learn from this, especially if its belligerent reactions to disagreements is anything to go by.

The upshot may well be that the present regime becomes increasingly politically isolated, but not necessarily any less interventionist in the rest of the world. And this can only be a bad thing.

The Corinthian

"Let us be the wise Greeks to the bumptious Romans" - Harold Macmillan.

Our balkanised nature as Europeans (the fact that many of us don't even like being described as such) is ultimately the reason why Pax Americana shall succeed. The British have, perhaps wisely, already realized this and are following the path of becoming the "wise Greeks" or a European equivalent to Puerto Rico. I am slowly and sadly coming to the conclusion that the rest of us have little alternative but to follow suit.

SloanerF1

Originally posted by shotamoose
Leaving aside the arguments over the rights and wrongs of the Iraq issue, I'm beginning to wonder whether, in a practical sense, America is dangerously over-reaching itself. What I mean is that while America is certainly the most powerful country in the world (and perhaps is more dominant than any other singular force has been in history, though that's a whole other argument), some in the present administration seem to believe that this means they can do what they like, when they like and how they like without having to consider the consequences; simply, that power is its own excuse and its own answer to every protest.

In my view, the main problem is that they are now the world's only real Superpower. No-one can really afford to hold them to account, even their own people

Von

The Statement Of Principles on the New American Century site pretty much says it all. Almost every name on the list of signatories now figures in the news around Iraq -- and most controversially of all, Dan Quayle is there

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Cork

France opposes the war, yes along with it's public, but it may also benefit from the continuation of Sadam's regime if it has an oil contract with him.

We should Bertie not safegaurd our economy and for US assistance is getting the Peace Process going again?

It is hard enough to get jobs out there.

It is so easy for opposition TDs to harp on. France is minding its economic interests.

We should not be afraid to safegaurd our own.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
If the French people were baying for the Iraqis to be liberated much as they were by the americans 60 years ago then yes, the French leadership would eventually crumble and fall into line.

Originally posted by Sand
The will of the people does not guide political and international strategies - France has not held a referendum on what their policy should be, have they?

I'd love to continue this discussion (and maybe ask one or two of my French co-workers to offer their input), but before we go any further....

could you make up your mind please?

Either the French government does, or does not, follow public sentiment. You're alternating from one to the other here to back up your various arguemtns, and its difficult to decide which one of these two positions I'm supposed to be listening to

jc

Sand

My opinion is that the French government follows the path it feels best for France, often without consulting the people of france - this is what it is elected to do.

Should a policy be so wholly unpopular that the french engage of their favourite past times of polluting their rivers, and burning animals alive then a politician thinking of the next election may be forced into a U-Turn. This is obvious, no?

You cant argue the French government is going with the will of its people when it has not consulted its people. All you can say is that the French media and "rent a protest" havent come out against their decision so there has been no pressure on the French to make a choice.

Bertie Aherns government operates on a similar principle - it is so deeply unpopular that it cannot be said to act on the will of the people ( it would resign if it did ), but rather acts in what it considers to be Irelands ( and of course Fianna Fails ) best interests - and hopes to drag the people along with them.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
My opinion is that the French government follows the path it feels best for France, often without consulting the people of france - this is what it is elected to do.
/B]

OK...so you didnt mean what you were saying earlier :

To become a rival to the US would require economic idealogies and convictions which are not populist or practical for a career politician such as the French practically breed.

I mean - when I tackled you on it you were quite adamant that not only were the French obnocxious, but that yes...this is indeed the type of politican that they create.

Now you want me to believe that your opinion is that France does not create populist-dependant politicians. That they rule without bowing to the populist demands.

Now come on Sand....this isnt even over two threads. Its not over discussing two seperate points. Its the same argument we've been following from page one, and you've pulled a complete 180 on your stated beliefs here.

You started from the French politicians not having the courage to buck populism, and yet now turn around and tell us that it is not influenced by the people of France.

So can I now accept your new stance? That your earlier arguments are, in fact, not your current ones, because you've certainly reversed your underlying stance.

jc

Sand

You started from the French politicians not having the courage to buck populism, and yet now turn around and tell us that it is not influenced by the people of France.

Bonkey - in all politeness youre truely exasperating me here, do you experience difficulty with the english language or something? Im unsure how to dumb it down for you bar pictures and hand puppets tbh.

/me sighs.

Okay *one* more time

A Politician will try to do what they think is best - usually for them first, their country second. Agreed?

*IF* they cant get away with it - i.e. 1968 all over again any smart politician will forget their principles and do whatever flip flopping and u turning is required. Agreed?

Now lets compare two cases.

Case One - Europe has a series of deep fundamental economic problems. Solving them would lead to 1968 all over again. Hence otherwise fairly intelligent politicians keep passing the buck.

Case Two - France wants to keep its oil contracts in the Gulf. Opposing a war which threatens their contracts is not leading to the summer of 1968 all over again. Hence politicians can get away with it quite happily.

Case One = Case Two? False!

Why?

In case one the politicians know they wont get away with it. They bow to populist sentiment and just let the whole sorry mess drag on for another government to solve when it can no longer be ignored.

In Case Two theyre going for their strategic interests and not only are they getting away with it theyre the shining virtuos heroes of all thats right and true. Win, win.

Relationship between the two? Answers on a postcard to the usual address.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Case One = Case Two? False!

Why?

...

Relationship between the two? Answers on a postcard to the usual address.

The relationship between the two is that the public opinion happens to co-incide with what the politicians want for political/economic reasons in this specific case.

If the public wanted war, and the government didnt, what would happen?

In this, the government would have to choose between appeasing the public and keeping their oil. One would win over the other.

Ergo, it is reasonable to conclude that either oil or populism would carry the day if the two aims did not coincide.

You have seperately argued that the government acts in its own (i.e. the nation's) interest (in this case, oil contracts), and that French politicians are pretty much unable to make non-populist decisions.

This is patently impossible - either they listen to the public, or they dont. If the public agrees with them, then great - there's no problem, and it is impossible for an observer to determine whether the decision is made for one reason or the other. Fine - I have accepted this. I have no problem with this.

However, you have made general statements about the French politicans/government to the effect that they do both - run the country without referring to the public, and at the same time are incapable of making decisions that are not populist.

This is a patent contradiction - not in the case in hand (the Iraqi situation) but in general, and you have been throwing these contradictory generalities around to back up your argument for this specific case..

So let me make this even clearer, because clearly you are misunderstanding me as much as you claim I dont understand you :

I am not referring specifically to the Iraqi situation. I am referring to your general comments about French politicians which are contradictory.

Look over your posts :

A Politician will try to do what they think is best - usually for them first, their country second. Agreed?

My opinion is that the French government follows the path it feels best for France, often without consulting the people of france - this is what it is elected to do.

Shall I provide more? Note, that in neither of these situations are you specifically referring to Iraq. In fact, my apparently pathetic grasp of English extends far enough to be able to tell that both of these statements are structured as generalisations, and therefore cannot be specifically and solely referring to the Iraqi situation.

This is what I have an argument with. I have no argument about the wishes of the French people and the French government on this specific issue. There is no contradiction in this specific case....but you cannot refer to a specific case with generalities...at least not in the version of English that I learned.

Then again, apparently you seem to think that this is where the fault is (my weak grasp of the english language), so maybe you'd like to correct me and explain how, in fact, generalities are meant to be only applied to your chosen specific examples.

jc

Jes'Shout!

RE: What I'm saying is that the US seems willing to piss FAR more people off than ever before, in fact seems to think that the number of people with serious objections is a matter of no consequence whatsoever.............

I agree. The hump politicians drawing dust in the US system really don’t care who they piss off but pissin’ they are. And they are pissing off many of their own citizens but good. Lest we forget, Baby Bush did not win the popular vote of the people. He’s proven himself to be a real swashbuckling nit-wit.

I have relatives living in the US so I’ve spent a fair amount of time there. People are tired of being fed the sheep dung spewed out by the political propaganda machine. People are protesting in the streets. “No war in Iraq” signs are up in the most unexpected places. But of course, those who dare to go out on
a limb to exercise their right to Free Speech are labeled "unpatriotic", “bad Americans”, "agitators", and "dangerous" by the “mainstream cattle”. It is my understanding that ability to dissent and the ability for the people to stand up for change are essential to American democracy. How good of an American is the politician who is a whore for corporations which are devoid of morality and humanity? (And I’m not just speaking of US corps but the world-wide network of greed motivated businesses.) There are many in the US who are furious with the political status quo. It makes no sense why the military is allowed to spend billions on missiles, jets, and toilet seats when a large portion of the population can’t afford to get even a little bit sick because of the price of health care. I know that the people of the US are pissed; I marched next to many of them at the Seattle WTO protest. (AHHHHH, there’s nothing like pepper spray for your sinuses!) Sadly, though, there are many who are yet too comfortable to be moved to action; I guess that they’ve never been “hungry” enough. If they continue to sit on their butts and do nothing, they will be someday.

Sand

If the public wanted war, and the government didnt, what would happen?

Yes, Id love to see what would happen then to see how principled Chirac and co would then be in their defence of the rights of small nations to disagree, the dominance of the UN, and the more inspections/more time plans. It would be interesting to see.

You have seperately argued that the government acts in its own (i.e. the nation's) interest (in this case, oil contracts), and that French politicians are pretty much unable to make non-populist decisions.

Ive argued that the French will oppose war in Iraq because its benficial for them to do so. Ive argued that a French politician will let his principles and intelligence be overridden by the angry mobs burning and terrorising that the French specialise in. This isnt either/or. A french politician can make a non-populist decision so long as he doesnt actually anger enough people so much that the populist cause becomes reversing his decision or bringing him/her down. Ive provided an example (actually the whole "sub argument" were having came from the point I made that the French havent the balls to go against the people and make the economic reforms that are required, and that they know are required to match the US as an economic power ) of where the politicians could make a decision thats in the best interests of France, but wont because it would be extremely unpopular and lead to the fall of the government.

Now, regardless of whether or not you feel this caving in to the wishes of the majority is a good or bad thing for a democratic society, it completely strands at odds with the implication that the French position is about oil unless it is the populist opinion that war be avoided to keep the oil contracts.

There is no other way that I can see that both of these two arguments remain valid, relevant, accurate, and consistent.

I have no argument about the wishes of the French people and the French government on this specific issue. There is no contradiction in this specific case

Bonkey, someones performing acrobatic 180s in style, and it isnt me.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Yes, Id love to see what would happen then to see how principled Chirac and co would then be in their defence of the rights of small nations to disagree, the dominance of the UN, and the more inspections/more time plans. It would be interesting to see.

I didnt ask if it would be interesting. I asked you to apply your logic about French political behaviour to it and conclude what the outcome would be.

Interesting that this is the reply from the person who accused me of having difficulties understanding english.

jc

Sand

I didnt ask if it would be interesting. I asked you to apply your logic about French political behaviour to it and conclude what the outcome would be.

Interesting that this is the reply from the person who accused me of having difficulties understanding english.

jc

Sorry Bonkey, I thought that you were actually employing your ability to understand english when you read one of my early posts in the thread. One more time.....

No, Id argue that the French want to keep their oil contracts. They do this best by supporting Saddam, indirectly at least and in simple terms they get no advantage from dealing with a democratically elected Iraqi government. If the French people were baying for the Iraqis to be liberated much as they were by the americans 60 years ago then yes, the French leadership would eventually crumble and fall into line. However the French people at best seem to feel liberating Iraq is not in the best interests of the Iraqi people. Youve chosen a bad example as popular will and the elites will have a similar end result - opposition to the Americans intervention in Iraq - if differing reasoning.

Not only have I answered your question, I did so before you asked it because Ive already covered this ground before in the thread and youre merely going back over and over and over it trying to "prove" that its wrong to say that the French politicians are basing their policies not on idealism but on self interest, that they would crumble if they were faced with massive public discontent etc etc. Youve been so eager to do this youve contradicted yourself, and for the record I dont believe your command of English is as poor as you seem to be pretending it is - If I didnt know better Id have assumed you were trolling.

Éomer of Rohan

Just out of interest, why quote me, Sand?

Sand

Ah I just thought it a memorably ironic quote. You should be happy:)

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
youre merely going back over and over and over it trying to "prove" that its wrong to say that the French politicians are basing their policies not on idealism but on self interest, that they would crumble if they were faced with massive public discontent etc etc.

No, I started this by questioning the assertion that the French were kowtowing to their oil contracts - an assertion you made - as well as to the public and my point is that you cannot do both.

Despite beginning from a position where you insisted they were doing both, you are now saying what I started with - that following public opinion is the key factor when dealing with an issue such as this where public opinion is so strong.

and for the record I dont believe your command of English is as poor as you seem to be pretending it is - If I didnt know better Id have assumed you were trolling.

No, I was responding to the following remark made by you :

do you experience difficulty with the english language or something?

Which did you want me to do? Take it as an insult, or as a genuine comment?

jc

Sand

No, I started this by questioning the assertion that the French were kowtowing to their oil contracts - an assertion you made - as well as to the public and my point is that you cannot do both.

And you ended it with.....

I have no argument about the wishes of the French people and the French government on this specific issue. There is no contradiction in this specific case

A complete U-Turn. Thanks. Was there anything else?

do you experience difficulty with the english language or something?

Which did you want me to do? Take it as an insult, or as a genuine comment?

Take it as a sign of exasperation with an otherwise seemingly intelligent person who seems either incapable - or more likely- unwilling to understand a fairly straightforward position laid out multiple times with examples. It seems theyre so eager to argue for the sake of arguing thatll theyll completely reverse their position if need be.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
A complete U-Turn. Thanks. Was there anything else?[/bn]

Yes. If you actually read what I wrote, rather than just trying to pull snippets out of context to avoid having to admit that you have argued to diametrically opposed positions, you would see theat in one case, I stated htat I had no problems with the wishes of either group while In the other, I said I had problems with the offered reasons for their choices.

In a single sentence - the French government may wish to keep their oil contracts, but it is not these cintracts which drives their position - it is the overwhelming public opposition to war.

See - their wish and their reason are two seperate things here. No contradiction from me.

Care to try again?

Take it as a sign of exasperation with an otherwise seemingly intelligent person who seems either incapable - or more likely- unwilling to understand a fairly straightforward position laid out multiple times with examples. It seems theyre so eager to argue for the sake of arguing thatll theyll completely reverse their position if need be.

Are you talking about me or you here, Sand?

I wasnt the one who arbitrarily switched from saying "its only cause theyre kowtowing to their oil contracts" to saying "French politicans cannot make decisions which upset too many people", and then insisted that these two positions do not actually conflict.

And talking about exasperating - I notice that you, in another thread, have taken Von to task for making petty remarks about you. I suggest you look over your allegations about my english ability, your recent comments about arts students to Eomer or Rohan, and so on before you open your mouth on the subject again.

The last thing you want right now is the moderator's coming down hard on regulars handing abuse to each other (or to newcomers), because you wont be far from the front of the line if we go looking for culprits.

jc

Sand

See - their wish and their reason are two seperate things here. No contradiction from me.

LOL boneky old chum - now youre trying to switch ground again. My position has always been that the French are basing their position on the fact they get a better oil deal from saddam than froma democratic regime. It would not be smart for the French to go against the oil benfits AND the mob . Howerver, they have NOT held a referendum on their Iraqi policy - they cannot claim to be following the peoples wishes here. Theyre following their wishes, and the mob ( who arent always an accurate reflection of the majoritys opinion ) is out in support of the actions they have taken.

How is these oppose each other? From reading the news you must surely have caught on to the fact that the French government are serving their own interests, and doing it without bringing the wrath of the mob down upon them.

I wasnt the one who arbitrarily switched from saying "its only cause theyre kowtowing to their oil contracts" to saying "French politicans cannot make decisions which upset too many people", and then insisted that these two positions do not actually conflict.

They arent conflicting? Read the news lately?

And talking about exasperating - I notice that you, in another thread, have taken Von to task for making petty remarks about you. I suggest you look over your allegations about my english ability, your recent comments about arts students to Eomer or Rohan, and so on before you open your mouth on the subject again.

Ah yes, about me (personal )

Questioning your ability to comprehend english ( A question, asked in all politeness - and probably a nicer thing to think than thinking you were so eager to argue for the sake of arguing.....was I wrong? )

And giving my opinion on arts students - Im sorry I cant comment on my view of a large bloc of people ( i.e not personal )?

The last thing you want right now is the moderator's coming down hard on regulars handing abuse to each other (or to newcomers), because you wont be far from the front of the line if we go looking for culprits.

Youll have to look long and hard for me calling posters names, and/or personally abusing them. Im sure despite that though, that I wont be far from the frontlines as you say.