Old Europe left out in the cold? - Page 4

TheStinger · January 31, 2003, 05:08

Politicaly Blair could ensure ever lasting adualtion within the labour party( which he has never had) if he told GW to sod off. He is supporting BUsh because he thinks it is the right thing to do. You may disagree with him but saying he is a poodle or servile is just a cheap insult

HershOstropoler · January 31, 2003, 05:19

He supports Bush as a way of moderating the Bush admin. He also knows that Britain's pretending of being a global power depends on the close alliance with the US, and he has even said he is willing to pay in blood for that folly. Well not his blood, of course...

TheStinger · January 31, 2003, 05:24

Well the UK maybe pretending to be a global power, but France is a Global nuisance.

HershOstropoler · January 31, 2003, 05:31

One comes with the other....

Ned · January 31, 2003, 08:27

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
He supports Bush as a way of moderating the Bush admin. He also knows that Britain's pretending of being a global power depends on the close alliance with the US, and he has even said he is willing to pay in blood for that folly. Well not his blood, of course...

I think this is close to reality. We certainly do know that Blair has been advising Bush on everything from the war on terror to Iraq. In many cases, if not all cases, Bush accepts Blair's advice.

Blair is able to do this because he keeps any disagreements with Bush's policy or tactics private. To some, this may seem "servile." But if publicly began to lecture Bush, he would lose influence.

This is the way the UK and the US have largely consulted each other since prior to WWII. But I think Blair has been particularly effective at influencing US policy, both with Clinton and with Bush.

HershOstropoler · January 31, 2003, 08:37

In many cases, if not all cases, Bush does not accept Blair's advice. And why should he.

TheStinger · January 31, 2003, 08:39

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
In many cases, if not all cases, Bush does not accept Blair's advice. And why should he.

Why do you think Bush went to the UN in the 1st place because Blair and Powell pushed for it.

If not for Blair and Powell, **** and Don would have got their way

LaRusso · January 31, 2003, 08:49

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger

Why do you think Bush went to the UN in the 1st place because Blair and Powell pushed for it.

If not for Blair and Powell, **** and Don would have got their way

Mostly Powell. That man certainly deserves to be a president, and to see him serving a halfwit is really annoying. It is not that the USA does not have some quality politicians, it is just that the most they can ever achieve are the position of 'moderators'.

By the way, I watched some German TV news and behind commentator they had a photo montage of asnar, blair and berlusconi as three poodles obeying their master Bush. I was not aware Germans really cared that much.

By the way, Slovakia joined the mighty axis of vassals. Should Germany rejuvenate its alliance with Russia and end that Central European pestilence once and for all?

Ned · January 31, 2003, 08:49

Stinger, there are many to give a lot of credit to Blair and to Powell on this and other issues.

TheStinger · January 31, 2003, 08:52

I think Powell is a very good influence on GW. He is a soldier which helps and he won't agree to sending troops unless its neccessary. **** and Don ONTH are politicians who have about as much principle as a mongose.

HershOstropoler · January 31, 2003, 08:57

"Why do you think Bush went to the UN in the 1st place.. "

Because with a rightout unilateral war, he would have been alone (Blair), faced dissent in his admin (Powell), and would have had little support at home (Rove).

To call this "accepting advice" is a bit odd.

TheStinger · January 31, 2003, 09:00

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"Why do you think Bush went to the UN in the 1st place.. "

Because with a rightout unilateral war, he would have been alone (Blair), faced dissent in his admin (Powell), and would have had little support at home (Rove).

To call this "accepting advice" is a bit odd.

ok then he went to the UN because he wanted Blairs support. is that accepted.

It still means Blair is an influence on GW. Unlike the French or Germans

Ned · January 31, 2003, 09:01

Quote:

Originally posted by LaRusso

By the way, I watched some German TV news and behind commentator they had a photo montage of asnar, blair and berlusconi as three poodles obeying their master Bush. I was not aware Germans really cared that much.

What this the news or some opinion piece? If it was the news, I find this profoundly disturbing.

Ned · January 31, 2003, 09:16

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"Why do you think Bush went to the UN in the 1st place.. "

Because with a rightout unilateral war, he would have been alone (Blair), faced dissent in his admin (Powell), and would have had little support at home (Rove).

To call this "accepting advice" is a bit odd.

HO, Joe Biden, Democrat leader of the armed service committee, has spoken publicly on Bush and his desire to consult before he makes up his mind. Last summer, many in the world suggested that Bush was going to attack Iraq without consulting anyone. Bush never said this however. But his political opponents said this.

Biden consulted Bush. Bush told him that he would consult with our allies, with Congress and with the UN. He has done all three. Biden cited this when urging Congress to vote for the conditional declaration of war on Iraq.

HO, a lot of what you say about Bush and Blair are based on characterizations of Bush and Blair by political enemies. The do not reflect reality.

Bush does consult with people, like Blair and Powell; and he does appear to accept their advice.

Ned · January 31, 2003, 09:23

For example, here is a characterization by Mandela. I presume you agree with this 110%.

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa (CNN) -- Former South African president Nelson Mandela has slammed the U.S. stance on Iraq, saying that "one power with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust."

Speaking at the International Women's Forum, Mandela said "if there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America."

Mandela said U.S. President George W. Bush covets the oil in Iraq "because Iraq produces 64 percent of the oil in the world. What Bush wants is to get hold of that oil." In fact Iraq contributes to only 5 percent of world oil exports.

Sikander · January 31, 2003, 09:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman
How do you verify something does not exist?

Don't forget the third power struggle, Ned, between the people of Europe who don't want a war and their apparently undemocratic leaders.

Try not to be so obtuse. Even destroyed weapons will leave traces, especially when there are tons of them. The Iraqis have offered no declaration that the X number of warheads catalogued in 1998 were destroyed in location Y (which is required by the current resolution), where you can still see some scraps. Nothing at all. The Iraqis are simply betting that the inspectors will not be able to find much without their cooperation, and are willing to let their friends on the Security Council (read: France) torpedo the war resolution regardless.

Ned · January 31, 2003, 09:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Sikander

Try not to be so obtuse. Even destroyed weapons will leave traces, especially when there are tons of them. The Iraqis have offered no declaration that the X number of warheads catalogued in 1998 were destroyed in location Y (which is required by the current resolution), where you can still see some scraps. Nothing at all. The Iraqis are simply betting that the inspectors will not be able to find much without their cooperation, and are willing to let their friends on the Security Council (read: France) torpedo the war resolution regardless.

Although the entire world opposed to the US (do not read the US attack on Iraq, but opposed to the US) is willing to believe that any US war on Iraq is motivated primarily if not solely on OIL, it would seem to appear that French opposition to any war even in face of evidence of Iraqi defiance of the UN is based on something other than principle.

LaRusso · January 31, 2003, 09:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

What this the news or some opinion piece? If it was the news, I find this profoundly disturbing.

well it was a sort of dateline program. i must admit that i have seen such tastelesness before only on fox news.

Spiffor · January 31, 2003, 09:43

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler

Quote:

It seems incredible to me that France and Germany think that they can drive the EU in the absence of the UK, Italy, and Spain.

You really need an introduction into EU law and politics.

I think I'll do this introduction. The French-German ticket has been the motor of EU integration from the beginning. The De Gaulle-Adenauer couple pushed for peace and cultural / evonomical exchanges, while the Mitterrand-Kohl couple pushed for a further integration of the Union in a federation of sorts (with projects such as the united currency). In these cases, other countries had a marginal role, they didn't do much more than negociating marginally, such as the precise economic terms of Maastricht's treaty for example.
After the end of Mitterrand, the French-German ticket basically ceased to exist in the shape we knew it. Both countries used other institutions to push forward their own interests (such as the European Council), and they were did not anymore priviledge themselves when discussing about the future of the Union.
For example, Chirac has taken much more steps about a common army with Blair (despite strong differences about the US) than with Schröder. Another example : Schröder's proposal for a European constitution intended to make the whole Common Agricultural Policy null and void (the Germans pay much for this, and the French recieve much).
Now, there is a constitutional convention of about 600 people from all Europe who's working on a constitution, and other big projects. Unlike old projects which have been initiated by individual countries, this convention is truly a communautary/supranational undertaking.

In Europe, and France especially, there is an old fear that supranational institutions will take over national institutions. This fear motivated De Gaulle's policy of making the European Council (representative of the Nations) the most important decision center in EEC's institutions, and this fear drives many voters against Europe (Maastricht was almost refused by the French, and was completely refused by the Danish IIRC).
I think the renewal of the French-German ticket is mostly an attempt to limit the success of the Constitutional Convention, and an attempt to keep nations at highest importance in the decision process of the EU. Obviously, these countries want preponderance in the EU, but they will comply to some of the former "lesser" countries if they resist.
Italy and Spain are resisting, so you can expect them to be reluctantly integrated by France and Germany in their couple. At least, that's MHO

Spiffor · January 31, 2003, 09:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Although the entire world opposed to the US (do not read the US attack on Iraq, but opposed to the US) is willing to believe that any US war on Iraq is motivated primarily if not solely on OIL, it would seem to appear that French opposition to any war even in face of evidence of Iraqi defiance of the UN is based on something other than principle.

Erm you lost me. IYO, France will torpedo war on principle, or for other reasons ? (sorry, I lost track

)

TheStinger · January 31, 2003, 09:47

The UK used to also either just agree to other countries proposals or oppose them outright. They are now willing to take on more of the proposing and leading. This of course annoys the french no end.

Spiffor · January 31, 2003, 09:49

Stinger :
France cooperated with the UK on projects such as the common military more than with any other partner. An active UK is sure pissing the French, but things aren't as simple as they look.

TheStinger · January 31, 2003, 09:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Stinger :
France cooperated with the UK on projects such as the common military more than with any other partner. An active UK is sure pissing the French, but things aren't as simple as they look.

I know but i thought this was turning into a guide to internal EU politics for beginners. Basic Euro policies revolve around the French and British trying to wind each other up. The only time they unite is to annoy the Germans.

Ned · January 31, 2003, 09:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Erm you lost me. IYO, France will torpedo war on principle, or for other reasons ? (sorry, I lost track

)

From reports, France will veto a UN declaration war on Iraq even if the US demonstrates that Iraq is actively defying the inspections regime so that futher inspections (at least as they are now conducted) would be a waste of time.

Why?

TheStinger · January 31, 2003, 09:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

From reports, France will veto a UN declaration war on Iraq even if the US demonstrates that Iraq is actively defying the inspections regime so that futher inspections (at least as they are now conducted) would be a waste of time.

Why?

Because they are Gittane smoking, garlic chomping, wind up merchants, who love to see americans getting annoyed, so they can shrug their shoulders and look ambivalent.

That is their purpose in life

HershOstropoler · January 31, 2003, 10:01

Ned:

"Bush told him that he would consult with our allies, with Congress and with the UN. He has done all three."

In an attempt to form an opinion, or looking for a proper pretext for the invasion?

"HO, a lot of what you say about Bush and Blair are based on characterizations of Bush and Blair by political enemies. The do not reflect reality."

What you say is pretty much the propaganda world they make up. If I were relying on characterizations by their enemies, I would be a lot more critical.

"For example, here is a characterization by Mandela. I presume you agree with this 110%."

Mandela is talking bollocks. Apart from the "a president who has no foresight". But I say again, bring the invasion on. Stop pussyfooting around. Just do it.

MrBaggins · January 31, 2003, 10:06

Nothing is ever as simple as a black and white statement in this world. Its obviously not *just* about oil... but oil means something to every nation on earth... its availability... its sale... getting control of more of it... controlling the price... and so and so forth.

The US *needs* oil. Its not, however, going to invade a country to take their supply. If, however, a large oil producing state (read: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc.) were to go rogue, and refuse to sell oil to the US, or to jack prices up to unacceptable levels, then the US might take the situation into its own hands, and 'fix' the problematic regime.

I don't believe that the Iraq situation has anything to do with Iraqi oil, as so far as the primary reason for US action. Iraq exports a small amount of oil to the US... its not strategically significant in those terms. Its more important to France (who will likely block a UN vote for war based on non-compliance) and Russia, given their contracts with the current Iraqi regime. Its also true that Iraq holds the distinction of being *THE* expansionistic empire builder of the Arabic penninsula. They, however aren't capable of threatening any oil producing nation in a conventional military sense, given the current strategic situation.

The problem is... obviously... primarily... about WoMD. Its not even about the actual evidence thereof. Its all about the possibility.

A terrorist organisation cannot, on its own, develop materials for a 1st rate WoMD. It could, theoretically be bought, 'on the open market'... but there aren't *THAT* many markets available. Most of the 'free proliferators' sell to other nations rather than groups... China... North Korea... the former Russian states and so on.

It takes a nation to build nuclear reactors, enrichment facilities and to develop miniturized nuclear weapons. It takes a nation to develop weaponized bio or chemical weapon systems.

If such a nation were intent on regional destabalization, and willing to proliferate such weapons, for that reason, then... that nation is a serious regional... and due to the resources of the area, global, danger.

The use of these weapons will not necessarily come from the nation... but probably through forward agents of the regime, or allied terrorist groups. The old Cold-war sitution of MAD, will no longer apply. The missiles will not be launched from Russian silos and boomers... and there is no straightforward and clear retaliation.

Waiting until such time that the Iraqis have the above capabilities... and their distribution, is too late... Pandora's box... in that sense, will have already been opened.

Its not enough to say that these weapons are already 'available elsewhere', so Iraq's having them makes no difference. Availability is a complex issue. All effort must be made to reduce free proliferation, period.

War, now... is a very small price... and far from immoral or unclear. Doing nothing... as is the only other suggestion... is no choice at all.

MrBaggins

Spiffor · January 31, 2003, 10:06

Ned, the same as everyone else : oil and internal poltics ?

There is an extreme opposition to war in France, coupled with a traditional anti-americanism which is older and deeper than in other European countries. This leads our politicians to oppose the US more often than our neighbours do. Chirac has gotten an enormous support from both left wing and right wing after barking with Gerhard against the US (besides, this lets his hands free to deconstruct our precious welfare system without anyone noticing).
Another element is the important Arabic minority in France (from former colonies of North Africa) which has shown most violent anti-americanism and antisionism in the recent years. Opposition to war might avoid some civil trouble in French cities (not the main motivation, but a pleasant side-effect)
Also, I've read here France has interesting oil deals with Iraq, which is very plausible. I doubt we pushed for so long in favor of ending the UN sanctions for pure idealism, but because we wanted to get friedlier with Saddam, and buy more oil from this rather reliable source (we are also great friends with Iran, in which the 2 French majors are implented, profiting from American absence)

France took part in Gulf War I, and took part in about every conflict the US waged since. I wager the French carrier will go to the Gulf when war begins, along with some troops. IMHO France (unlike the French) doesn't refuse war on principle.

Edit : MrBaggins : Wow, an interesting and insightful pro-war post !

You should write this to the White House, maybe they'll use some more intelligent propaganda than "Saddam is a madman" next time

HershOstropoler · January 31, 2003, 10:11

The french might well end up supporting a war, leaving germany as the odd man out.

As for oil, the US bought the bulk of Iraqi exports allowed under oil for food.

French oil deals - I doubt even the nutjobs in the Bush admin will touch the oil deals Saddam made. They'd cut way too deep into the special interests who own them.

As for the connections of oil and WOMD, the US does not want Iraq to dominate a vital region - or even let it limit US options in the region like NK does in the far east.

January 31, 2003, 10:43

I suspect that the US wants Iraq as a base, so that they can remove all their forces from Saudi Arabia and then tell the ruling princes of that country to try their luck with their populace.