Rumsfeld Praises Austria in Senate!

[Ted Striker]

Gotta keep those mad cows from reaching the US somehow.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Demerzel
heh violating WTO rules hasn't been a problem for the US recently

Everything has been done according to the WTO's rulings. Unlike the EU in the banana dispute.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Not to be nationalistic or anything but I bet we could tank your economy before you could tank ours. BTW a nationally organized embargo would violate WTO rules.

I think mutual boycotts beteen Austria and the US would have nearly no impact on both economies, since Austria deals disproportionately with the EU, and is unsignificant in US exports or imports You'd need much time and many allies to tank one of these two economies.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Not to be nationalistic or anything but I bet we could tank your economy before you could tank ours. BTW a nationally organized embargo would violate WTO rules.

An embargo, but not a boycott. Another good thought would be sending the US ambassador packing.

[Ted Striker]

If you tank the American economy you tank the world economy.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
In Ted's defense: As opposed to another arrogant and self-opinated European?

I think Ted's "you Europeans get the **** out of the way" has been an unmatched feat of arrogance thus far.

[Ted Striker]

Thank you, thank you.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Spiffor
You'd need much time and many allies to tank one of these two economies.

You are right. It´s really more about a diplomatic punch on the nose. More we can´t achieve, realistically. But at least we would catch up with the Belgians, French and Germans.

[Ted Striker]

But seriously, Europeans, move the **** out of the way so we can take care of business and we can move onto the next thing you want to whine about us doing or not doing.

EDIT: Actually, you're not really in the way in the first place because we'll take care of this whether or not you want to.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
EDIT: Actually, you're not really in the way in the first place because we'll take care of this whether or not you want to.

Why do you whine so much then ?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Absolutely not. Chirac has been lying from the beginning, as he is used to, and he will join the US as soon as the war starts.

That's what I thought. Just wanted some confirmation. Thank you for the info.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by DetroitDave
Please. There are many reasons for opposing the war above and beyond any sympathies for Hussein.

We can't keep enough cops and firemen on the streets for the real brunt work of homeland security, states have huge deficits, and no program is safe from cuts.

But, suddenly we have 100s of billions to bomb and rebuild Iraq?

Dave: You seriously need to read the post your responding before you start typing. Go back and check the section you quoted this time pay careful attention to words like "intent" and "real world consiquences".

[Ted Striker]

This reminds me of that scene in the Mummy when Brenden Frasier and the Egyptian guy are trying to clear a tunnel full of heavy boulders. Behind them the funny English guy (who isn't doing ANY damn work) stands there and starts barking orders.

"Take the heavy ones from the top!"

"Put your back into it!"

Finally the 2 guys shoot him a dirty glance and he shuts up.

[Spiffor]

DD:
This is only MHO. My friends are thinking he might have some balls this time. However, there are several hints that France will back an attack eventually :
- France is not opposed to war on principle (unlike Germany), but thinks all diplomatic options have not been exhausted. Translation : we'll go to war too, when it fits our calendar.
- France has sent the Charles de Gaulle in easetern Meditarranean, enough said.
- French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin saluted Powell's performance politely.
- The diplomatic storm has abated, so I suppose all the diplomats are currently discussing on the way to solve the diplomatic crisi with nobody nosing his face (except bombed Iraqis of course, but who cares ?)

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I think mutual boycotts beteen Austria and the US would have nearly no impact on both economies, since Austria deals disproportionately with the EU, and is unsignificant in US exports or imports You'd need much time and many allies to tank one of these two economies.

Spiffor: You're right the volume of trade between the two countries in question is quite small but there are a number of very effective way which 3rd party states can be encouraged to comply with the embargo. Have you ever heard of the Helms-Burton act? It is more then a little unfair but it does an excellent job of keeping the embargo on Cuba going. How does it do this?

It forces companies to make a choice. You can either do business in the U.S. or you can do business in Cuba but not both. That's right. If BMW wants to sell cars in Cuba then it can but it will have to give up selling cars in the U.S.. Like I said, it is unfair but since the U.S. is the largest market in the world virtually everyone decides to skip over Cuba.

[Spiffor]

Doing a Helms-Brton act on Austria would likely create a hefty reaction within the EU, and could start a big commercial war over something stupid (namely, an idea from Comrade Tribune )

[Demerzel]

Originally posted by Oerdin


In Ted's defense: As opposed to another arrogant and self-opinated European?

I don't ignore other people's opinions and tell them to **** off if I disagree. I listen and try to point out my views if I think I have something worth saying but I'm perfectly prepared to be persuaded of the error of my position. For instance, most recently I've been argued into changing my thoughts on Blair-Bush relationship. Not exactly the sign of an arrogant, unlistening and self-opinated European eh?

Originally posted by Oerdin

Everything has been done according to the WTO's rulings. Unlike the EU in the banana dispute.

"The WTO has backed the EU's claim that the tax scheme amounts to a massive illegal subsidy which costs European companies billions a year in lost trade."

and

"WTO panels have repeatedly ruled that the US tax breaks for exporters contravene international trade rules.
Washington has tinkered with the system, but - faced with massive opposition from US corporations - it has failed to satisfy the WTO's demands for reform."

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2225972.stm

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Doing a Helms-Brton act on Austria would likely create a hefty reaction within the EU, and could start a big commercial war over something stupid (namely, an idea from Comrade Tribune )

If it provoked the US into a trade war with the EU, and if that was the goal, would it really be that stupid?

[DanS]

About forgiving foreign debt, it ain't gonna happen. We might threaten it, but realistically all debt stays. Russia is paying off old Soviet debt, for instance. However, the timing of any payments, interest, and terms are all renegotiable.

Oil contracts are all renegotiable, and any country standing in the way of a UN resolution is sure to lose business in Iraq.

Even two days ago, I would have said that France would eventually come on board and vote yes for a second resolution. Now I'm not so sure that this will happen. The US will likely seek a resolution that is a little tougher than the ground that France has prepared for itself. We will be making a pitch to others such as Mexico, Bulgaria, Angola Guinea, and Chile. We would then need one other (Pakistan? Cameroon?) to force a vote and dare France/Russia/China to veto.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It forces companies to make a choice. You can either do business in the U.S. or you can do business in Cuba but not both. That's right. If BMW wants to sell cars in Cuba then it can but it will have to give up selling cars in the U.S.. Like I said, it is unfair but since the U.S. is the largest market in the world virtually everyone decides to skip over Cuba.

No, the effect it has is to keep big companies out of Cuba and encourage small businessmen to start up shop down there.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS
About forgiving foreign debt, it ain't gonna happen. We might threaten it, but realistically all debt stays. Russia is paying off old Soviet debt, for instance. However, the timing of any payments, interest, and terms are all renegotiable.

Oil contracts are all renegotiable, and any country standing in the way of a UN resolution is sure to lose business in Iraq.

Even two days ago, I would have said that France would eventually come on board and vote yes for a second resolution. Now I'm not so sure that this will happen. The US will likely seek a resolution that is a little tougher than the ground that France has prepared for itself. We will be making a pitch to others such as Mexico, Bulgaria, Angola Guinea, and Chile. We would then need one other to force a vote and dare France/Russia/China to veto.

Right now you have the UK, US and Spain.

The nays have Germany, Syria, France, China and USSR.

You need to get 6 of the undecided 7 on board,

That's a lot of talking you got to do...

[DanS]

Then it's time to get on the phone and start talking. We don't need it, but it wouldn't be right to keep Blair hanging.

[Oerdin]

Sava: I didn't vote for Bush and I’m a registered Democrat. What does that do to your stereo typing? I also have yet to demand a single person stop making dissenting statements but I have asked several of them to back up what they say with logical arguments. That's when most of them break down and start muttering incoherently about "Oil" and "blood".

Any way you look at it the “real politic” of protesting only helps Saddam. If you really wanted to change government policy then may I suggest you write your congressman or submit an op-ed piece to your local paper or better yet actually vote in the next election?
Protesting though just makes people like Saddam say “see they’re weak and I don’t have to comply with the U.N.” and makes for excellent propaganda.

Originally posted by Sava
Of course you agree with him, you're a hawk. Everything in your mind is right. Everyone else is wrong. And all of us "leftists" that are the voice of dissent are just helping Saddam. And God forbid your exhalted leader Dubya could be wrong or driven by other motives. Heavens, it should be illegal to mention such treasonous statements.

Jesus Christ... if you don't like dissenting opinions, move to North Korea.

Protesting Bush and his motives aren't helping Saddam no matter how you rationalize it. If you want to point the finger at people who helped Saddam, why don't you look at Reagan, Bush I, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. Their actions in the past have helped out Saddam exponentially more than anyone protesting war.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS
Then it's time to get on the phone and start talking. We don't need it, but it wouldn't be right to keep Blair hanging.

Has any resolution ever been passed over the objections of 3(!) veto powers?

[KrazyHorse]

Blair's up **** creek without a paddle.

And I can't say that makes me sad right now. He should have done what our PM has and kept his big trap shut until he saw which way the wind was blowing.

[DanS]

Shoot, I don't know. But if we have 9 votes, then whether or not the resolution was actually agreed to makes less difference. Nobody would be friendless and nobody could be painted as being in isolation.

[Demerzel]

To be honest, I'm still with the French & Germans in that more time should be given to the weapons inspectors. Considering res. 1441 states that they are the ones that define whether Iraq is in violation or not, they should be given all the time they need ( within limits, i.e. not years ).

The question the remaining non-permanent members of the SC have got to ask themselves is why after 10-12 years of containment is it so necessary to rush into a war with Iraq? Why is the US so insistent that war is vital and that war should be instigated immediately?

I suspect that with enough pressure from certain countries, a 2nd resolution would pass with no vetos occuring but with only a majority yes vote, not a unanimous one.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Demerzel
"The WTO has backed the EU's claim that the tax scheme amounts to a massive illegal subsidy which costs European companies billions a year in lost trade."

and

"WTO panels have repeatedly ruled that the US tax breaks for exporters contravene international trade rules.
Washington has tinkered with the system, but - faced with massive opposition from US corporations - it has failed to satisfy the WTO's demands for reform."

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2225972.stm

Both cases have proceeded through the WTO exactly as the treaty spelled out. There is now an appeals process and if at the end of the repeals process the ruling is still angainst the U.S. then the U.S. gets to submite proposed remedies.

That's how a court works. It's a long drawn out process and neither side has broken the treaty since the court is exactly the way the treaty calls for disputes to be settled.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Frogger
Has any resolution ever been passed over the objections of 3(!) veto powers?

What you do is talk them into abstaining by pointing out all the nasty little things you could do to them if they stand in the way and then show them all the nice helpful things you can do if they don't.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Demerzel
To be honest, I'm still with the French & Germans in that more time should be given to the weapons inspectors. Considering res. 1441 states that they are the ones that define whether Iraq is in violation or not, they should be given all the time they need ( within limits, i.e. not years ).

Powell said yesterday that an extension on inspections "seems to be a forgone conclusion".