Europe-US Split ... Ramifications May Last For Years

[randomturn]

come on, france and germany aren't acting "to stop the war." they have absolutely no power to do so. bush has made absolutely clear from the very beginning that Iraq would disarm to american satisfaction or there would be war -- with or without the UN or allies. So then what are their real motives?

It is widely perceived in america now that -- in contrast to china and russia -- france and germany have strictly personal self-interest at stake rather than high morality: reelection for Shroeder and deification for Chirac. It is generally accepted as gospel that france's motives have been to use iraq to consolidate franco-german control over european foreign policy and leadership over the rest of europe in general (and they call america "imperialist"!). The french are enjoying themselves far too much. A lot of countries oppose the US policy, many for honest and fair reasons -- but the french are grandstanding on the world stage. The french are making themselves despised here, even by Americans like me who oppose the war as it currently stands.

the alliance is over, you will see. whatever the next crisis after Iraq, the US president won't even bother to call the french or germans. They have lost all their voice in american international affairs, (while Britain has greatly increased hers). And it will be a long day coming before the US goes before the UN. Why bother? How can you receive legitimacy from a group whose motives are so disingenuous? Yes, the bushies are terrible diplomats and terrible leaders -- but they made clear how important this was for them, and france and germany chose to play games with them anyway.

[ahenobarb]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Who were the counterbalances to the Romans or Mongols for example?

Romans had the Etruscans, the Samnites, Magna Graeca, Carthage, Alex the G's successor states, the Parthians, Sassanids, and on and on until 410 AD (or 1453 depending on your view). They were constantly counter balanced, the first several balances didn't hold. The Sassanids kept Rome on its toes in the East long enough for the barbs to do them in in the West.

Mongols came on too fast and unseen (few lived in inner Asia at the time) for any state to have time to consider counter-balancing. After their conquests, those states that remained provided an uncoordinated counter-balance. At least the kept them in check until the Khanates did themselves in.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian


Wow, and Americans are accused of arrogance?

Frankly, I'm glad you have no interest in living here, even if your "reasons" are either false or grand exaggerations.

-Arrian

See what I mean.....

[Agathon]

Let's look at the supposedly "lunatic" French side of the debate

1. The US bring Iraq at the top of world's problem out of the blue, for domestic poltical matters.

Perhaps not for domestic political matters, but it was certainly out of the blue. There is no demonstrated connection between Iraq and 911 nor is there a plausible case that Iraq would be involved with 911 like events in the future. In fact it looks like hawks in the administration (the deranged Wolfowitz, et al.) are merely using 911 as a pretext for a war they have long wanted.

How off base is this? Well..

Brezinski (an insider if there ever was one) argues in The Grand Chessboardthat some large scale threat or attack is precisely what is needed to galvanise domestic support that would be required for US operations to preserve it's global pre-eminence.

It is a matter of historical record that Perle, Wolfowitz, et al have been agitating for an invasion of Iraq for years. It is also a documented matter of fact that the "pre-emptive strikes" policy makes the preservation of US pre-eminence by military means official policy of the government of the United States.

Conclusion: there is ample reason, from its very own proponents, to think that this war is motivated by unilateralist impulses that are not in the interest of the rest of the world.

2. The US wants war. It says so to Europe, and expects everyone to accept.

I think it is clear that the dominant members of the current US administration have wanted this war for a very long time. That is a matter of historical record. It is also a matter of fact that the US has basically done this over the last few months. I think it is a reasonable inference to make that they expected the rest of the world to accept otherwise it makes their diplomatic strategy rather opaque (are they trying to divide Europe rather than get rid of Saddam? etc.).

So 2. is also likely to be true.

3. Given the high reluctance, the US goes to the UN to get a rubberstamp, to further their warmongering agenda. France accepts to draw 1441, rather than blocking the whole procedure altogether.

That's exactly why they went. They want regime change in Iraq and were prepared to make the case in terms of disarmament because they thought that the result (i.e. war would be the same). 1441 is a reasonable compromise. It puts pressure on Iraq to disarm whilst leaving options open. I don't think anyone could have a good reason to reject 1441.

4. The US can only agree to an unclear resolution with unclear (albeit serious) consequences. It has shown no willingness whatsoever to find a peaceful way.

It has shown no willingness whatever to find a peaceful way to disarming Iraq because it doesn't want disarmament, it wants regime change, which the UN cannot authorise. So this is also true.

5. The US send troops to the Gulf, and expect everyone to shut up.

This is also true. The attitude of the US has been, "how dare you object!"

6. France and Germany voice their opposition.

Again, true.

7. Britain, Italy and Spain, like the good vassals they are, side with the American big brother. The Bush admin ridicules, insults and call names its allies who have simply voicced their opposition.

Again all true.

8. It is true France answered too vividly, and should have seeked to calm the cowboys.

How could they have sought to calm the "cowboys" when the Bush administration has made it clear that there can ultimately be no compromise?

9. Powell brings "decisive proof" that Iraq is a threat to the est. These proofs are nothing more than some rag-tag intel, on par with the British files directly copied from a student's work.

Again, this is true. The so-called proofs have all been hopeless. And what's more, if the US did have proof it is in violation of the UN resolution by not giving it to the inspectors to check up (or it should do so if it is really committed to disarmament).

So either way you look at it they are sunk. Either they are giving up false information because they want war, or they are witholding information because they want war. Either way, they want war.

10. The US will do anything to have the UNSC approve the war, despite Blix saying the inspections are working.

Not anything, but certainly bribes, threats, etc.

11. The US do only want war, won't listen to anyone else, and are completely wrong.

I'm not sure that most people think that they are completely wrong. After all most people think Saddam is a bad guy. However, the US has in this case and in several others demonstrated contempt for international institutions when they don't serve its own interests. People who are committed to some kind of international rule of law and democracy either now or in the future have good reason to dislike the Bush policy.

And it is true that they seem unwilling to listen to any other opinions.


So what's the problem here. I don't think that there is anything radically unreasonable in any of these claims. Some of them could be interepreted in a radically over the top fashion, but literally they make a lot of sense given what has happened. I don't see how any of these are necessarily part of some extreme anti-American view of events.

[Arrian]

Social system: subjective. I don't agree.
Political system: It's a long way from perfect, to be sure, but I don't see perfection out there. To call it "a joke" is, at the very least, exaggeration.
Lack of press freedom: Bull.
Pressure to conform to militaristic jingoism: If you mean that people who want war vs. Iraq are trying to convince others to go along, yeah, of course they are. However, those who are anti-war are doing the same for their beliefs. The pro-war people are the ones running the government at this time, however, and thus they are calling the shots right now.
Crime: no argument here.

So, IMO, your characterization of America is deeply flawed, and displays either lack of understanding or deliberate mischaracterization. I suspect the latter. Accordingly, I'm pleased you have no desire to live here.

-Arrian

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian
Social system: subjective. I don't agree.
Policital system: It's a long way from perfect, to be sure, but I don't see perfection out there. To call it "a joke" is, at the very least, exaggeration.
Lack of press freedom: Bull.
Pressure to conform to militaristic jingoism: If you mean that people who want war vs. Iraq are trying to convince others to go along, yeah, of course they are. However, those who are anti-war are doing the same for their beliefs. The pro-war people are the ones running the government at this time, however, and thus they are calling the shots right now.
Crime: no argument here.

So, IMO, your characterization of America is deeply flawed, and displays either lack of understanding or deliberate mischaracterization. I suspect the latter. Accordingly, I'm pleased you have no desire to live here.

-Arrian

I don't see how the notion of a social system is subjective. A system that imprisons such a huge proportion of its population and a huger proportion of its black population and among other things cannot provide decent health care to its citizens cannot be anything but a failure.

Are pro-war or anti-war people being threatened with blacklisting in Canada? No.

Lack of press freedom. Look in the UN human development index, where this is measured. The US is, surpisingly for a country with such a stated committment to free speech, quite far down the list.

A political system in which a candidate's brother can disenfranchise thousands of legal voters and engage in other nefarious activities and where the winner is not decided by the simple expedient of counting the votes and in which less than half the population votes is a joke.

[Arrian]

UN human development index

I think I saw that list. IIRC, I had some objections to exactly how they calculated press freedom. That aside, I see contrary viewpoints ALL THE TIME in our press, and find it easy to fill in any gaps via the internet.

Re: social system: like I said, I disagree with you. I'm not claiming that we have it all figured out and everyone should be just like us. Never did. But neither do I think anyone else has it all figured out and we should emulate them. Your location says it all: left of Lenin. I'm no neo-con, but I'm a long way to the right of you.

Re: the last election. You choose to believe one side of the story. Clearly, you choose the side closer to your political beliefs. Understandable, most people tend to do that. IMO, the electoral college needs to go, and THAT was the root of the problem. Both sides acted terribly while wrangling over who won based on which recount rules. I guarantee that any State that had to go to recounts would have turned up all sorts of minor (statistically speaking) problems. We need to update our voting system, using modern equipment.

But I do not subscribe to the "Jeb cheated for George and stole the election" theory. Sorry.

Re: blacklisting people. I agree that current administration is going too far, but the backlash is underway. Enough people remember McCarthy. However, the Canada analogy is weak, for several reasons. First: Canada is neither leading the charge for or against war. Second, there aren't pro-war demonstrators in Canada as far as I know. Third, why would the government mess with people agreeing with it (anti-war, as most of Canada is anti-war, and so is the government)?

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Anyway, this is rather pointless.

I reacted to your post for two reasons:

1) you left debate behind and starting taking potshots at America in general, which pissed me off.
2) those potshots were mostly, IMO, bs.

[/end threadjack]

-Arrian

[ahenobarb]

Originally posted by Agathon

How off base is this? Well..

Brezinski (an insider if there ever was one) argues in The Grand Chessboardthat some large scale threat or attack is precisely what is needed to galvanise domestic support that would be required for US operations to preserve it's global pre-eminence.

It is a matter of historical record that Perle, Wolfowitz, et al have been agitating for an invasion of Iraq for years. It is also a documented matter of fact that the "pre-emptive strikes" policy makes the preservation of US pre-eminence by military means official policy of the government of the United States.

Conclusion: there is ample reason, from its very own proponents, to think that this war is motivated by unilateralist impulses that are not in the interest of the rest of the world.

Pretty off base, the last refuge of a half-a$$ed arguement is in a conspiracy theory. The fact is many members of the US foriegn policy establishment have believed that Saddam Hussein is a serious threat for years. They advocated removing him at the time of the 1991 Gulf War and have since conitnued to advocate his removal.

Also, what country would want leaders that advocate reducing the pre-eminence of their military. "Sir, we need a military that can allow others to defeat us from time to time -- it's only fair." As RAH once said, "the most expensive thing in the world is a second rank military -- good, but not good enough to win."

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by ahenobarb


Romans had the Etruscans, the Samnites, Magna Graeca, Carthage, Alex the G's successor states, the Parthians, Sassanids, and on and on until 410 AD (or 1453 depending on your view). They were constantly counter balanced, the first several balances didn't hold. The Sassanids kept Rome on its toes in the East long enough for the barbs to do them in in the West.

Now which of those didnt the Romans wipe out over the centuries that their empire stood? They're not really in the same league as the Soviet-US balance during the cold war.

[ahenobarb]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Now which of those didnt the Romans wipe out over the centuries that their empire stood? They're not really in the same league as the Soviet-US balance during the cold war.

Bipolar world orders are rare in international relations. The most heavily studied one during the Cold War occured in Ancient Greece during the Peloponessian War and the experiences there didn't bode well for the US (the doomsayers never quit). Athens a sea power (read US) squared off against the Spartans a land power (USSR) and the Spartans came off on top.

The point is, it is a fundamental rule of international relations that other states will do their upmost to oppose the more powerful state if possible. If they cannot they will accomodate the power.

Relative to Rome, all of those other nations tried to stop Rome when it appeared on their radar screen (Egypt didn't care about Rome when it was working over the Samnites). They all failed except Parthia and the Sassanids. Those empires were close matches for Rome in power. Rome couldn't project power into their territory for very long (and was unwilling to risk the rest of its empire to do so) and the same for the other side. Instead they toyed with each other by setting up opposing kings on the Armenian throne. Balance was eventually acheived.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by ahenobarb


Pretty off base, the last refuge of a half-a$$ed arguement is in a conspiracy theory. The fact is many members of the US foriegn policy establishment have believed that Saddam Hussein is a serious threat for years. They advocated removing him at the time of the 1991 Gulf War and have since conitnued to advocate his removal.

Also, what country would want leaders that advocate reducing the pre-eminence of their military. "Sir, we need a military that can allow others to defeat us from time to time -- it's only fair." As RAH once said, "the most expensive thing in the world is a second rank military -- good, but not good enough to win."

Well, it isn't a conspiracy theory or you don't understand what "conspiracy theory" means. In fact it is you who are providing the half a$$sed objections because it is clear that you aren't familar with the facts.

A "conspiracy theory" is a theory that fits the available evidence but makes wild and unsubstantiated claims about motive. In other words it deliberately ignores the methodological principle of Ockham's razor.

What I offered is nothing of the sort. I offered publicly available information from pro-war sources. I suggest you go check out the sources yourself. Zbigniew Brezinski is well thought of in Washington and his book The Grand Chessboard is widely respected. I suggest you read it. I don't think stating the well known and published opinions of a foreign policy guru counts as a conspiracy theory. Roughly, Brezinski's argument is that American hegemony is vital and that aggressive pursuit of American interests in Eurasia is justifiable in the face of alternatives (I disagree, but that's what he says).

As for the rest I suggest you look read some of the material published by Wolfowitz, Perle et al. It's not secret stuff. In fact it's the sort of thing one sees a lot if one reads foreign policy stuff. They seem to agree with Brezinski in broad outline although they are much more hawkish than he is.

Similarly, the "pre-emptive strikes" policy is also available online.

Perhaps looking before you leap would help.

[Ned]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Now which of those didnt the Romans wipe out over the centuries that their empire stood? They're not really in the same league as the Soviet-US balance during the cold war.

The Romans did not wipe out the Germans, Goths or the Arabs. The Persians were also a major thorn in their side. The exhaustive war between Persia and Rome in the early 600's paved the way for Arab conquest of both empires.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
A political system in which a candidate's brother can disenfranchise thousands of legal voters and engage in other nefarious activities and where the winner is not decided by the simple expedient of counting the votes and in which less than half the population votes is a joke.

For a Canadian to tell Americans that their system is a joke is sort of laughable.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by The Viceroy
I agree completely with oliverfa, Lonewolf .. we are Europeans, and we see our future as your allies !! Only France believe's its some kind of super-power .. although it never has been, and German history may explain why many of them don't support war.

As for Agathon's continuing belief in that polls should replace democracy .. I have to say I thought of you last night when the BBC News 24's latest opinion poll asking "Would you support a war on Iraq without UN backing" .. got 55% for war, 45% against ..

You see, as ive told you before, Polls are merely indicative, and do not represent the people. 2 million people marching in London is not a majority .. and considering each one of those 2 million people have a different shade of belief .. some don't want war at all, some hate the US for whatever reason, some hate society, some are old hat left wingers who hate blair .. and many many of them are people who simply don't want a war .. Nobody said there was a majority in favour of war , they said there isn't a majority against it either in any circumstance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The election of Tony Blair and the Spanish prime minister was representative, not indicative, and long may our systems ignore indicative polls, which only serve the questioners bias anyhow.

Was it not the Simpson's joke, that the news channels were trying to make opinion polls legally binding ??

and the opinion that polls = democracy is just that .. a joke.

excellent post

[Ned]

It looks like Blair had a very good day in Commons. The rebels are suppressed. But, the rift with Chirac is getting personal even in Britain.

Blair KO's his rebels

[ahenobarb]

Originally posted by Agathon


Well, it isn't a conspiracy theory or you don't understand what "conspiracy theory" means. In fact it is you who are providing the half a$$sed objections because it is clear that you aren't familar with the facts.

A "conspiracy theory" is a theory that fits the available evidence but makes wild and unsubstantiated claims about motive. In other words it deliberately ignores the methodological principle of Ockham's razor.

What I offered is nothing of the sort. I offered publicly available information from pro-war sources. I suggest you go check out the sources yourself. Zbigniew Brezinski is well thought of in Washington and his book The Grand Chessboard is widely respected. I suggest you read it. I don't think stating the well known and published opinions of a foreign policy guru counts as a conspiracy theory. Roughly, Brezinski's argument is that American hegemony is vital and that aggressive pursuit of American interests in Eurasia is justifiable in the face of alternatives (I disagree, but that's what he says).

As for the rest I suggest you look read some of the material published by Wolfowitz, Perle et al. It's not secret stuff. In fact it's the sort of thing one sees a lot if one reads foreign policy stuff. They seem to agree with Brezinski in broad outline although they are much more hawkish than he is.

Similarly, the "pre-emptive strikes" policy is also available online.

Perhaps looking before you leap would help.

Glad you also liked the book. BTW it’s Brzezinski not Brezinski. You are right that is what he says in the book, which makes questionable your agreement with the “out of the blue” claim. This is a threat the US has been concerned about for some time.

Your conclusion from his book however was erroneous. You concluded: “there is ample reason, from its very own proponents, to think that this war is motivated by unilateralist impulses that are not in the interest of the rest of the world.”

Motivations first. “Unilateralist impluses?” Brzezinski said, “a comprehensive and integrated geostrategy for Eurasia must also be based on recognition of the limits of America's effective power and the inevitable attrition over time of its scope … the US policy goal must be unapologetically twofold: to perpetuate America's own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still; and to create a geopolitical framework that can absorb the inevitable shocks and strains of social-political change while evolving into the geopolitical core of shared responsibility for peaceful global management.” That does not sound like a unilateralist impulse, nor do the actions of the current administration look that way otherwise it would not have gone to the UN. Yes, we have said we will remove Saddam with or without them, but let’s take that in a second.

Not in the interest of the rest of the world? “America's withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival would produce massive international instability. In effect, it would prompt global anarchy.” It is the position of the US that by not facing the threat today, the threat will grow worse. WMD multiply state power, these states are not currently a direct threat to the US (and we have no desire to wait for them to be) they are however a threat to their neighbors and when their neighbors get into trouble they call on us to do the dirty work. We have no desire to let the states that depend on us for their military security to wait while their enemies grow stronger before asking us to slog it out with a force that has been allowed to grow stronger -- we let Europe do that during the 30’s and we won’t do it again. The US believes the effort to remove Saddam is both in the interest of “the world”, or more precisely the states that are closest to and most likely to be threatened by the regime or its successor. It is also in the interest of the US because there is little doubt that we will be asked to deal with it sooner or later. And if the UN is unable or unwilling to enforce its decisions, the tyrants of the world will understand that there is no one willing to confront their aggression and we go back to the future (so to speak) of the 30’s. No one wants to see a WMD amplified World War III. No one. Not you, not me, not anyone on this board, not Wolfowitz, not Perle, not Brzezinski, no one.

That is why the US has stated that the regime in Baghdad while the costs of action is still low must go and we will work with any other state willing to do so. It is in the interest of the world to remove regimes that are stockpiling these weapons and the US will act to prevent a destabilizing force in the world from gaining the ability to threaten its neighbors with impunity.

Regarding the conspiracy theory, that came from the word “needed” as in “a domestic attack is precisely what is needed [for the US to preserve its global preeminence]”. Brzezinski said, “Given the reality of American democracy, an effective response will require generating a public understanding of the continuing importance of American power in shaping a widening framework of stable geopolitical cooperation”. The people of the US are no more trigger happy cowboys than Europe, we do have an interest in preventing problems from festering because everyone turns to us to solve their problems. It however takes a great deal to get our attention, it’s easy to duck responsibility and avoid problems. This is the attitude of many, not all, in Europe currently – the problems not big enough – let’s wait. He said that it would take a Pearl Harbor type event to get Americans to focus on the problem. I assume you are Puerto Rican, so you should know that just about everytime someone in the US thinks there’s a major problem that isn’t being addressed they say we could face another Pearl Harbor (in the 90’s we were concerned about a cyber-Pearl Harbor). This doesn’t mean that Brzezinski thought that a horrendous attack on America at home “is precisely what is needed”. He said it would be difficult to get the American public to understand the problem and their interest in addressing it short of some attention grabbing event. Didn't mean to come on too strong, but it's frustrating to keep hearing the "bin Laden didn't do 9-11" theory, which is what I read in "needed".

Also, if you disagree with the assesment that is being made by the administration doesn’t make them “deranged” with “lunatic ravings”. You obviously have an interest in the subject and have done a fair amount of reading. You just have arrived at different conclusions.

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Agathon
I never said that the polls equalled democracy. I said that the vast majority of public opinion throughout the world opposes this ridiculous war.

Tell me how can you tell that.

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Agathon
A system that imprisons such a huge proportion of its population and a huger proportion of its black population and among other things cannot provide decent health care to its citizens cannot be anything but a failure.

It's funny to see someone with a flag like yours write this. Is maybe Cuba your idea or freedom? Are you telling me that there are no innocent people in Cuba? Are you telling me that Cuba provides a decent health to their citizens?

Are pro-war or anti-war people being threatened with blacklisting in Canada? No.

Are pro-war people being threatened with blacklisting in Spain? Yes. Are radicals trying to spoil every single act the Spanish party in goverment does? Yes. Are anti-system people all around the world using the goodwill of people who don't war to attack our civilization and the western values? Yes.

Lack of press freedom.

I suggest you to check again the newspapers in the western countriesm and I challenge you te present an example of lack of freedom after that.

Look in the UN human development index, where this is measured. The US is, surpisingly for a country with such a stated committment to free speech, quite far down the list.

UN is anti-US. Everybody knows. Even you.

A political system in which a candidate's brother can disenfranchise thousands of legal voters and engage in other nefarious activities and where the winner is not decided by the simple expedient of counting the votes and in which less than half the population votes is a joke.

Well, at least they have elections. Something that I'm still waiting to be seen in Cuba. And... you fail to remember that, even if what you say was true (which I sincerely doubt) Bush gained widely in the last elections, which were presented as an evaluation of his government so far.

Ah! Selective memory!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by ahenobarb


Glad you also liked the book. BTW it?s Brzezinski not Brezinski. You are right that is what he says in the book, which makes questionable your agreement with the ?out of the blue? claim. This is a threat the US has been concerned about for some time.

That's what I meant. It appeared completely out of the blue for the US to suddenly be worried about weapons of mass destruction, but in fact there had been agitation for such a move in years. To the rest of us it looked rather strange - suddenly Bush has a hard on for war - that's odd.

Your conclusion from his book however was erroneous. You concluded: ?there is ample reason, from its very own proponents, to think that this war is motivated by unilateralist impulses that are not in the interest of the rest of the world.?

That's an astonishing inference. I don't quote Brzezinski [sic] in support of that thesis. I quote him in support of the thesis that the stern actions that will be required (on his account) would be easier to square with public opinion were there some perceived large scale threat.

Here's my conclusion about his book from my earlier post:

"Roughly, Brezinski's argument is that American hegemony is vital and that aggressive pursuit of American interests in Eurasia is justifiable in the face of alternatives (I disagree, but that's what he says)."

This is pretty much what you go on to say. So I fail to see how I can be accused of misinterpreting him. My claim that this is not in the interest of the rest of the world comes from my disagreement with Brzezinski over the necessity for American hegemony (in short I think he's off his rocker on that one - though I don't doubt the moral probity of his motives). As you say he thinks that the "alternatives" I mentioned will all be far worse.

It is also true that his overall argument could be used to support the unilateralist invasion of Iraq as a means to shoring up American power in what he calls "the hole" left by the collapse of the Soviet Union. I think that is roughly speaking the main reason why this war will take place. The weapons of mass destruction hoo-haa is a sideshow because it isn't clear that Iraq is any real danger on this account - or at least no proof has been given that it is. And even if it does have WOMD it is not clear that the Iraqi regime is not deterrable.

So insofar as ZB calls for action to preserve American hegemony (whatever his ultimate motives are) I think that he provides a better explanation of why the US is going to war than what the administration is publicly declaring every day (that it's primarily about disarmament, etc.)

The French, those on the left, et al. tend to say it is about preserving and expanding American primacy, I find it dishonest of their opponents to say that it isn't (whatever the ultimate reasons are).

That is why the US has stated that the regime in Baghdad while the costs of action is still low must go and we will work with any other state willing to do so. It is in the interest of the world to remove regimes that are stockpiling these weapons and the US will act to prevent a destabilizing force in the world from gaining the ability to threaten its neighbors with impunity.

I don't buy this. I think they couldn't care less about the interests of the neighbours and that a conquered Iraq will be spattered with US military bases as a means of exercising control over the region. Saddam Hussein is painted as some major threat to world peace, which in light of the current facts is rather ridiculous. And the attempt to say it is about liberating the Iraqi people is frankly risible.

Regarding the conspiracy theory, that came from the word ?needed? as in ?a domestic attack is precisely what is needed [for the US to preserve its global preeminence]?. Brzezinski said... ...which is what I read in "needed".

That's what I meant, which is why I found the "conspiracy theory" comment rather galling.

Also, if you disagree with the assesment that is being made by the administration doesn?t make them ?deranged? with ?lunatic ravings?. You obviously have an interest in the subject and have done a fair amount of reading. You just have arrived at different conclusions.

No I think the administration is clearly deranged. I don't think ZB is a lunatic (I just disagree with him over the need for American primacy). I have other reasons for thinking that Wolfowitz and Perle are crackers. Particularly Wolfowitz because he is a Straussian. In my professional life I come across Straussians occasionally (I'm doing a PhD in ancient philosophy - if you know about Strauss the connection should be clear). They are to all intents and purposes, insane. I'll try to find an online copy of an article about Strauss and his influence which explains it better. One clear implication of Strauss' ideas is that it is fine for the "politically elect" to lie to the populace, which is what i think is going on here.

Moreover there is the famous "project for a new American century" which I think goes further than ZB would be willing to and demonstrates an astonishing degree of hubris (a word that is being used more often these days). But more on that later.

BTW I'm not a Canadian, although I do live there.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by OliverFA

Tell me how can you tell that.

I take it you don't do too well in school.

Polls do not equal democracy because that's not the representative system actual democracies have. It is conceivable that there could be so called "direct democracy" but there isn't.

On the other hand, scientifically conducted polls with well formed questions are the best means of discovering the state of public opinion. Politicians conduct polls so that they have a better idea of what is going to go over well at the time the poll is taken. A politician that ignores polls has a better chance of losing than one who doesn't since when voting time comes people tend to choose the candidate who has annoyed them the least.

Most of the reputable polls I have seen confirm massive anti-war sentiment, particularly in your country. This is an orthodox line among all the english speaking media outlets I have looked at.

Large protests like the ones in Spain are also a good indication of overall public opinion. When you take out all the people who don't care either way (a surprising amount in many countries) and the people who have other things to do and those who can't attend for other reasons and those who are anti war but don't want to attend it gives you a better account of how intense the anti war feeling is. Large protests are the tip of the iceberg.

For example in Britain at least 1 out of every 60 people went to the demonstration in London (it was probably more like 1 out of every 45). When you consider the amount of travel required and take out those who can't go, the very young and the old, etc. you start to get some idea of who big the thing was and why Blair has looked so scared lately. It is even worse in Spain.

[OliverFA]

Oooooooh. Are you calling polls conducted by the anti-systems scientific polls?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by OliverFA

It's funny to see someone with a flag like yours write this. Is maybe Cuba your idea or freedom? Are you telling me that there are no innocent people in Cuba? Are you telling me that Cuba provides a decent health to their citizens?

You will have to do better than that, you right wing hack. Cuba has one of the healthiest populations in the world due to its excellent health care system. Cubans also have the best teeth in the world. If the ridiculous embargo was lifted I'm sure that many of Cuba's economic problems would be eased.

Are pro-war people being threatened with blacklisting in Spain? Yes. Are radicals trying to spoil every single act the Spanish party in goverment does? Yes. Are anti-system people all around the world using the goodwill of people who don't war to attack our civilization and the western values? Yes.

Oh no! Radicals want their own way. How can they be radicals when the majority of the population is anti-war. And as for our western values they are supposed to include human rights and just war theory which our lords and masters habitually ignore.

UN is anti-US. Everybody knows. Even you.

Or the US is anti-UN. There is a conflict, at least in this situation. And hell, I'm going to put everything on the line and go with the proponents of international democracy.

Well, at least they have elections. Something that I'm still waiting to be seen in Cuba. And... you fail to remember that, even if what you say was true (which I sincerely doubt) Bush gained widely in the last elections, which were presented as an evaluation of his government so far.

What's the point of an election when the candidate with the most votes doesn't win?

You just seem to be a Spanish version of the typical whiner and moaner who is always going on about "liberals" and "communists", surely you can do better than this.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by OliverFA
Oooooooh. Are you calling polls conducted by the anti-systems scientific polls?

I'm calling the BBC poll someone mentioned not scientific because that's what it says on their site.

Face it, the majority of Europeans don't want the war. The majority of Spanish don't want the war. The only person I have seen disputing this is you - which makes you an amusing crank. Americans who say that in their country feelings are mixed are also correct, there is not the degree of anti-war sentiment there that there is elsewhere.

Get used to being in the minority.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ned
It looks like Blair had a very good day in Commons. The rebels are suppressed. But, the rift with Chirac is getting personal even in Britain.

Blair KO's his rebels

Of all the papers you could have quoted. The Sun?

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Agathon
Large protests like the ones in Spain are also a good indication of overall public opinion.

You seem to know better than me what it is happening in Spain. That's remarkable considering how far you are from my country.

When you take out all the people who don't care either way (a surprising amount in many countries) and the people who have other things to do and those who can't attend for other reasons and those who are anti war but don't want to attend it gives you a better account of how intense the anti war feeling is.

people that have other things to do? On Saturday? Well, if they have other things to do on Saturday I guess they are not very worried about that. Again I'm fascinated by how homogeneous you consider the crowd manifesting, and how heterogeneous you consider the crowd not manifesting. The fact is that lot of people there was against the war, but not against US nor the Spanish government. And the irresponsible parties at the oposition are counting all them as the same thing. For example: The Vatican is against the war, so a lot of catholics were in the demonstrations, and they felt indigned (the less) when they saw it was turned into a political demonstration.

And I ask to you again. Which ways have the people that, using you terms, "want war"? If they cannot manifest there is no way you can count them and exagerate their number as you do with the others.

Large protests are the tip of the iceberg.

I agree with that. They are the tip of the iceberg of all the attacks that the enemies of the western civilization are ready to throw at us. Too sad lots of goodwill people don't see this and allow themselves to be manipulated. But not the tip of a "public opinion" iceberg made just for your convenience.

[The Viceroy]

Agathon,

By all means debate, but try to lesson the insults, they serve nothing but to discredit your opinion, which im sure is worth listening to.

You talk of scientific polls, but do you not agree that they are purely subjective, and the question can skew the result ??

My other thought was, you say that "Most of the reputable polls I have seen confirm massive anti-war sentiment"
by what judgement do you count reputable .. do you not like us all occationally choose to take note of the polls that support your opinion, and hope that the ones that don't are merely blips, or not "Reputable". The only confimation here, is in your mind.

That politicians choose to ignore polls at their own risk, is certainly true, and as Democratically elected politicians, that is their right. As an electorate I can punish any politician who ignores my opinion, and if you are, you can. That is our right, this does not give polls any significance, it gives our personal opinion significance to us.

Polls are simply statistical tools, and as all good BBC polls state, they are merely indicative, and not representative of the population as a whole. Neil Kinnock will remember all the polls which forcast him to be the next Labour prime minister, and George Bush senior will remember the polls which gave him 90% approval only a year before the election.

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Agathon
You will have to do better than that, you right wing hack.

You are the one putting the labels here. I didn't say anything about right, left, or wathever.

Cuba has one of the healthiest populations in the world due to its excellent health care system. Cubans also have the best teeth in the world.

Ok, send your submission to become a Cuban citizen right now!

If the ridiculous embargo was lifted I'm sure that many of Cuba's economic problems would be eased.

If Cuba's system is so great why they need help from abroad?

Oh no! Radicals want their own way. How can they be radicals when the majority of the population is anti-war.

Did I say they are all radicals? If you understand everything as my posts then you have a problem. I'm complaining just about the contrary! I'm complaining that interested people misunderstand in purpose all the demonstrators against the war as demonstrators against the government!

And as for our western values they are supposed to include human rights

Human rights? Like the ones respected in Irak maybe?

Or the US is anti-UN. There is a conflict, at least in this situation.

If the US supported the organization that is always trying to bash them they would be plain stupid.

And hell, I'm going to put everything on the line and go with the proponents of international democracy.

Democracy? Like the one in Irak? Like the one in many many countries who have membership in the UN? Like several UN-council members? The UN is a joke! How can a democratic country vote have the same value as a dictatorship?

What's the point of an election when the candidate with the most votes doesn't win?

Again, you forget the later election in which they won

You just seem to be a Spanish version of the typical whiner and moaner who is always going on about "liberals"

As I said, you put the labels.

[Sava]

It seems to me that this "rift" is simply between the politicians currently in power. Once Bush is gone in 2004, I think relations will be a lot better because we'll have a president that knows to treat our allies with respect rather than insult them over some stupid political mess.

[randomturn]

I have to disagree with Sava. France has removed itself from the list of nations the United States will confer with in a crisis. What future President would want to repeat Bush's diplomatic errors -- which certainly include Kyoto and cracks like "old Europe" -- but also very much include giving the French any say in world affairs. That is clearly just an invitation for them grandstand and play at being Leader of the World. Avoiding the French means avoiding the UN, so theat is going to be a huge casualty of this process. Some administration types are actually talking about the US withdrawing "temporarily" from the UN until that organization is reformed. The rift is far deeper than anyone in Europe seems to understand, and the consequences for the Atlantic alliance will be enormous.