<strong>Does that still apply if the U.S. isn't acting unilaterally (as is the case with Iraq)?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not certain what you mean by "that" -- either 'act' or 'defend the Pax Americana.' And the problem is it's difficult to separate the two, as I wrote elsewhere.
Any country or countries acting against international consensus shouldn't do it, whether what you're doing is "disarming a tyrant" or "defending the Pax Wherever" if the reason is your own interests and the costs are so high. Nice loose definition there for you.
The US is acting unilaterally against Iraq as part of the strategy to defend the Pax Americana, if you see what I mean. England has signed up; but can it act with the US without a second resolution? I wouldn't be sure -- believe me there would be significant civil unrest including strike and occupation if this happens. Tony would be out of a job. He knows this. The problem is compounded by the fact that the protection of the Pax A. is done by back-room armtwisting and promises to change other country's policies: aid and blind eyes to dictators in Pakistan, aid and lobbying favours to Turkey and so on. "Coalitions" and "support" may look different if some countries didn't feel like they were being held by the bollocks.
If America acts against Iraq, it is doing so against international will and for its own interests -- which MIGHT even be fine as Saddam is a bastard -- if hundreds of thousands of people weren't going to die, vast areas weren't going to be contaminated with depleted uranium, Osama wouldn't have to fend off recruits with a shitty stick, the Muslims wouldn't REALLY hate us, the US / EU alliance wouldn't fall apart, peace in Israel would be impossible, terrorist attacks on my city wouldn't increase, democracy would actually come to Iraq, and the ability of the UN to have any control over unilateral action by states wouldn't end FOREVER.
They may have lost France in 3 days, but many French fighter pilots (and Poles, Czechoslovaks, Belgians, Norwegians etc) escaped to Britain and subsequently flew for the RAF, helping to win the Battle of Britain and eventually turning the tide of war, making it possible for an allied invasion of Normandy to take place.
I think his point is that if this Pax Americana agenda happens to coincide with other nations' agendas and support, is it still entirely in our own interest and wrong?
This whole EU and NATO issue has come up because these other governments support the US position more or less (many still want more time but won't rule out military action), so are they really acting unilaterally and in the American government's own interest?
<strong>I think his point is that if this Pax Americana agenda happens to coincide with other nations' agendas and support, is it still entirely in our own interest and wrong?
This whole EU and NATO issue has come up because these other governments support the US position more or less (many still want more time but won't rule out military action), so are they really acting unilaterally and in the American government's own interest?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let me be clear: if France and the UK end up in this war they're every bit as bad as the US, which is leading this coalition. People weren't slagging of the US on the march, they were slagging off the UK and the US.
I crap on constantly about the Pax Americana because it is a stated position by members of the US administration, and one that is not going to make the world safer, happier or more free. It's even resulting in increased security (with concomitant reductions of freedom) in the Land of the Free.
Edit: and the point is that where the PA agenda conflicts with anyone else's agenda -- and that includes Europe my friends -- any method going is worth using to achieve the ends, even if it means the end of consensus and old alliances. This is what is happening right now.
[quote]france has no real power, even in the EU<hr></blockquote>
Not true. I worked at the European Commission a couple of years ago, and the French have significant influence there. English is the de facto working language of the Parliament and the Council, but French dominates much of the Commission. While the power of the Commission is waning, it should not be underestimated. It is in many ways the driving force behind European integration, and continues to be the main source of EU legislation.
An issue, well not an issue, more an abiding suspision -- one I'm glad to see confirmed, and yet despondent about all the same -- is in that overwoked adage, power corrupts...
I've often said that while America is not the best behaved country by any stretch, she is remarkably fair given the power at her disposable, more responsible than any gov't I've ever seen or read of in books. Just look at France, but a whiff of power and already Chirac is unable to disguise his eager opportunism.
Is this the best we've got? And we have to answer yes, when we think about it. Realize then, that when we lament for America it isn't really an indictment of America, but of nations in general, of politicos and man's deep-seated weakness -- all our susceptibilities to corruption.
<strong>The US is acting unilaterally against Iraq as part of the strategy to defend the Pax Americana, if you see what I mean. </strong><hr></blockquote>But it really is a myth that the US is acting unilaterally. For all the talk, the actions are perfectly multilateral, entirely UN-centric. 1441 passed unanimously. Rght now, there's probably only a few members of the security council against military action - not enough to vote down a new resolution. So if France vetoes, who is really acting unilaterally, the US or France?
True, it's more vague. It mentions "serious consequences." The debate is first, whether Iraq has evaded the terms of this resolution, and second, if they have what those serious consequences are. War could be one of those consequences.
<strong>1441 doesn´t talk about war. It was a very importent issue for several countries when the vote was on.</strong><hr></blockquote>1441 is an example of how the US is not pursuing their Iraq policy unilaterally. But I still maintain that if things continue as they have been, there will easily be enough votes to pass a war resolution, unless France (or Russia or China) vetoes. And so if there are enough votes to pass, but it is vetoed, how would the US be acting unilaterally rather than the vetoer?
<strong>i agree 100%....great great country....i believe that intensely, even when on peace marches with my family...g</strong><hr></blockquote>Wow, peace marches with your family. You are one groovy pop!
The opportunity for war has been squandered. The right post war plan almost certainly won't materialize, but peace marches or not, Bush rhetoric or not, fear mongering or not, terror is coming to your door. I hope BOTH those in the peace marches AND in the war machine see that. I feel bad for you, all my thinking informs me of this inevitability.
don't feel bad for me...nor for us (or US)...i feel great, my family feels great...our country feels great....we are a strong country and over-come almost anything...even when we argue and disagree we are a strong country...just like a family....i don't really like bush, but i don't hate him or wish him harm....just like i'm sure the people that didn't like clinton didn't hate him or wish him harm...the president is very important to our country, so i wish bush well...as for terror...we will survive and overcome...it is the american way....g
Fine untill it's a spouse, a child, a friend. I don't think ideology will crumble, even if tension strains fredom, but I don't want to lose my friends to terror.
of course not matsu....i also assume iraqi people don't want to lose friends and family either...nor anybody on this wonderful earth...which is why i and my family march for peace....war is needed sometimes (even i see that), but it should always be questioned and used only when necessary...terror is horrible, war is horrible, killing is horrible...drunk driving fatalities are horrible....luckily most days are beautiful and peaceful, or at least boring and peaceful....g
as for being a groovy dad...well my kids may argue that point...but i learned from the best...my mom was taking me to peace marches in a stroller against the vietnam war...i was hit in the back with a billy club when i was like 6 (bruised from right shoulder to left hip) in the century city riots when we protested LBJ's visit...still my fondest memory of police is that the local hippies use to play softball against the santa monica police on the weekends...it was great fun....i like cops and i like the people i know and have met from the military...if i march for peace, i am marching for them too....g
ps...i don't want to lose a family member to terror, nor to a drunk driver, nor to a night club stampede, nor to war, nor to suicide, nor to just about anything....maybe like how my granddad just went, sitting in his chair watching the price is right....that is the only way i want to lose a family member....admittedly, some ways are worse than others, but a suddenly loss is always bad, and a suddenly violent death is almost impossible to stand...g
Any country or countries acting against international consensus shouldn't do it, whether what you're doing is "disarming a tyrant" or "defending the Pax Wherever" if the reason is your own interests and the costs are so high. Nice loose definition there for you.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
But, if it is a part of international concensus it is still wrong appearantly. You think America is alone on this? You would be wrong.
[quote]Originally posted by Harald:
<strong>
The US is acting unilaterally against Iraq as part of the strategy to defend the Pax Americana, if you see what I mean. England has signed up; but can it act with the US without a second resolution? I wouldn't be sure -- believe me there would be significant civil unrest including strike and occupation if this happens. Tony would be out of a job. He knows this. The problem is compounded by the fact that the protection of the Pax A. is done by back-room armtwisting and promises to change other country's policies: aid and blind eyes to dictators in Pakistan, aid and lobbying favours to Turkey and so on. "Coalitions" and "support" may look different if some countries didn't feel like they were being held by the bollocks. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Tony would out of a job and despised by many of his own people? You are probably right. And yet is willing to take a stand on this issue. Almost makes you think he actually believes in the issue. Oh, but logic would dictate his is purposely throwing away his political career so he can be Bush's dog...just like those march posters say.
[quote]Originally posted by Harald:
<strong>
If America acts against Iraq, it is doing so against international will and for its own interests -- which MIGHT even be fine as Saddam is a bastard -- if hundreds of thousands of people weren't going to die, vast areas weren't going to be contaminated with depleted uranium, Osama wouldn't have to fend off recruits with a shitty stick, the Muslims wouldn't REALLY hate us, the US / EU alliance wouldn't fall apart, peace in Israel would be impossible, terrorist attacks on my city wouldn't increase, democracy would actually come to Iraq, and the ability of the UN to have any control over unilateral action by states wouldn't end FOREVER.
All of which is going to happen.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thousand are dying now. But that doesn't matter right? So long as they die by Saddam's will and not in a war. Depleted Uranium? If he manages to get bio/chemical weapons smuggled out, vast aras of Europe and US may well become contaminated. Osama has no problems finding recruits right now. Muslim extremists and many non-violent Muslims already hate you. How would take make peace in isreal any more impossible? Short term there would be more difficulty. Long term, it's already looking pretty grim. What, war in Iraq would make Muslims hate Jews more? terrorist attacks in you city increasing...unless you all convert to Islam, Osama and his kin will attack you regardless...don't feel safe in your cocoon. Democracy isn't currently in Iraq right now either. UN losing it's ability to control unilateral action of states. You mean like a state invading another, being pushed out by the UN and then being allowed to flagrantly violate agreed upon ceasefires and the UN takes no action? To me, sounds like the UN is doing just fine in abdicating it's responsibilities on it's own.
oh and as far as touching a nerve. I ain't a yank, so your comments about the evils of the US don't really bother me, other than in their arrogance. In another thread you accuse some US politician of bigotry because he said something like Europeans are wimps. I think you even implied there should be a law against it or action taken against him for it. (thankfully freedon of speech protects him) and yet you launch into tirade after tirade about the evils of US decisions. How is what you say about the US any different than what he said about Europe?..oh yeah, he is American so his is subject to different rules than you.
Comments
<strong>Does that still apply if the U.S. isn't acting unilaterally (as is the case with Iraq)?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not certain what you mean by "that" -- either 'act' or 'defend the Pax Americana.' And the problem is it's difficult to separate the two, as I wrote elsewhere.
Any country or countries acting against international consensus shouldn't do it, whether what you're doing is "disarming a tyrant" or "defending the Pax Wherever" if the reason is your own interests and the costs are so high. Nice loose definition there for you.
The US is acting unilaterally against Iraq as part of the strategy to defend the Pax Americana, if you see what I mean. England has signed up; but can it act with the US without a second resolution? I wouldn't be sure -- believe me there would be significant civil unrest including strike and occupation if this happens. Tony would be out of a job. He knows this. The problem is compounded by the fact that the protection of the Pax A. is done by back-room armtwisting and promises to change other country's policies: aid and blind eyes to dictators in Pakistan, aid and lobbying favours to Turkey and so on. "Coalitions" and "support" may look different if some countries didn't feel like they were being held by the bollocks.
If America acts against Iraq, it is doing so against international will and for its own interests -- which MIGHT even be fine as Saddam is a bastard -- if hundreds of thousands of people weren't going to die, vast areas weren't going to be contaminated with depleted uranium, Osama wouldn't have to fend off recruits with a shitty stick, the Muslims wouldn't REALLY hate us, the US / EU alliance wouldn't fall apart, peace in Israel would be impossible, terrorist attacks on my city wouldn't increase, democracy would actually come to Iraq, and the ability of the UN to have any control over unilateral action by states wouldn't end FOREVER.
All of which is going to happen.
[ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: Harald ]
[ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: Harald ]</p>
<strong>
They may have lost France in 3 days, but many French fighter pilots (and Poles, Czechoslovaks, Belgians, Norwegians etc) escaped to Britain and subsequently flew for the RAF, helping to win the Battle of Britain and eventually turning the tide of war, making it possible for an allied invasion of Normandy to take place.
[ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: RodUK ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
They also spearheaded the odd operation in 1991 as I recall.
This whole EU and NATO issue has come up because these other governments support the US position more or less (many still want more time but won't rule out military action), so are they really acting unilaterally and in the American government's own interest?
<strong>I think his point is that if this Pax Americana agenda happens to coincide with other nations' agendas and support, is it still entirely in our own interest and wrong?
This whole EU and NATO issue has come up because these other governments support the US position more or less (many still want more time but won't rule out military action), so are they really acting unilaterally and in the American government's own interest?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let me be clear: if France and the UK end up in this war they're every bit as bad as the US, which is leading this coalition. People weren't slagging of the US on the march, they were slagging off the UK and the US.
I crap on constantly about the Pax Americana because it is a stated position by members of the US administration, and one that is not going to make the world safer, happier or more free. It's even resulting in increased security (with concomitant reductions of freedom) in the Land of the Free.
Edit: and the point is that where the PA agenda conflicts with anyone else's agenda -- and that includes Europe my friends -- any method going is worth using to achieve the ends, even if it means the end of consensus and old alliances. This is what is happening right now.
[ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: Harald ]</p>
Not true. I worked at the European Commission a couple of years ago, and the French have significant influence there. English is the de facto working language of the Parliament and the Council, but French dominates much of the Commission. While the power of the Commission is waning, it should not be underestimated. It is in many ways the driving force behind European integration, and continues to be the main source of EU legislation.
I've often said that while America is not the best behaved country by any stretch, she is remarkably fair given the power at her disposable, more responsible than any gov't I've ever seen or read of in books. Just look at France, but a whiff of power and already Chirac is unable to disguise his eager opportunism.
Is this the best we've got? And we have to answer yes, when we think about it. Realize then, that when we lament for America it isn't really an indictment of America, but of nations in general, of politicos and man's deep-seated weakness -- all our susceptibilities to corruption.
<strong>The US is acting unilaterally against Iraq as part of the strategy to defend the Pax Americana, if you see what I mean. </strong><hr></blockquote>But it really is a myth that the US is acting unilaterally. For all the talk, the actions are perfectly multilateral, entirely UN-centric. 1441 passed unanimously. Rght now, there's probably only a few members of the security council against military action - not enough to vote down a new resolution. So if France vetoes, who is really acting unilaterally, the US or France?
i agree 100%....great great country....i believe that intensely, even when on peace marches with my family...g
<strong>1441 doesn´t talk about war. It was a very importent issue for several countries when the vote was on.</strong><hr></blockquote>1441 is an example of how the US is not pursuing their Iraq policy unilaterally. But I still maintain that if things continue as they have been, there will easily be enough votes to pass a war resolution, unless France (or Russia or China) vetoes. And so if there are enough votes to pass, but it is vetoed, how would the US be acting unilaterally rather than the vetoer?
<strong>i agree 100%....great great country....i believe that intensely, even when on peace marches with my family...g</strong><hr></blockquote>Wow, peace marches with your family. You are one groovy pop!
don't feel bad for me...nor for us (or US)...i feel great, my family feels great...our country feels great....we are a strong country and over-come almost anything...even when we argue and disagree we are a strong country...just like a family....i don't really like bush, but i don't hate him or wish him harm....just like i'm sure the people that didn't like clinton didn't hate him or wish him harm...the president is very important to our country, so i wish bush well...as for terror...we will survive and overcome...it is the american way....g
as for being a groovy dad...well my kids may argue that point...but i learned from the best...my mom was taking me to peace marches in a stroller against the vietnam war...i was hit in the back with a billy club when i was like 6 (bruised from right shoulder to left hip) in the century city riots when we protested LBJ's visit...still my fondest memory of police is that the local hippies use to play softball against the santa monica police on the weekends...it was great fun....i like cops and i like the people i know and have met from the military...if i march for peace, i am marching for them too....g
<strong>
Any country or countries acting against international consensus shouldn't do it, whether what you're doing is "disarming a tyrant" or "defending the Pax Wherever" if the reason is your own interests and the costs are so high. Nice loose definition there for you.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
But, if it is a part of international concensus it is still wrong appearantly. You think America is alone on this? You would be wrong.
[quote]Originally posted by Harald:
<strong>
The US is acting unilaterally against Iraq as part of the strategy to defend the Pax Americana, if you see what I mean. England has signed up; but can it act with the US without a second resolution? I wouldn't be sure -- believe me there would be significant civil unrest including strike and occupation if this happens. Tony would be out of a job. He knows this. The problem is compounded by the fact that the protection of the Pax A. is done by back-room armtwisting and promises to change other country's policies: aid and blind eyes to dictators in Pakistan, aid and lobbying favours to Turkey and so on. "Coalitions" and "support" may look different if some countries didn't feel like they were being held by the bollocks. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Tony would out of a job and despised by many of his own people? You are probably right. And yet is willing to take a stand on this issue. Almost makes you think he actually believes in the issue. Oh, but logic would dictate his is purposely throwing away his political career so he can be Bush's dog...just like those march posters say.
[quote]Originally posted by Harald:
<strong>
If America acts against Iraq, it is doing so against international will and for its own interests -- which MIGHT even be fine as Saddam is a bastard -- if hundreds of thousands of people weren't going to die, vast areas weren't going to be contaminated with depleted uranium, Osama wouldn't have to fend off recruits with a shitty stick, the Muslims wouldn't REALLY hate us, the US / EU alliance wouldn't fall apart, peace in Israel would be impossible, terrorist attacks on my city wouldn't increase, democracy would actually come to Iraq, and the ability of the UN to have any control over unilateral action by states wouldn't end FOREVER.
All of which is going to happen.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thousand are dying now. But that doesn't matter right? So long as they die by Saddam's will and not in a war. Depleted Uranium? If he manages to get bio/chemical weapons smuggled out, vast aras of Europe and US may well become contaminated. Osama has no problems finding recruits right now. Muslim extremists and many non-violent Muslims already hate you. How would take make peace in isreal any more impossible? Short term there would be more difficulty. Long term, it's already looking pretty grim. What, war in Iraq would make Muslims hate Jews more? terrorist attacks in you city increasing...unless you all convert to Islam, Osama and his kin will attack you regardless...don't feel safe in your cocoon. Democracy isn't currently in Iraq right now either. UN losing it's ability to control unilateral action of states. You mean like a state invading another, being pushed out by the UN and then being allowed to flagrantly violate agreed upon ceasefires and the UN takes no action? To me, sounds like the UN is doing just fine in abdicating it's responsibilities on it's own.
oh and as far as touching a nerve. I ain't a yank, so your comments about the evils of the US don't really bother me, other than in their arrogance. In another thread you accuse some US politician of bigotry because he said something like Europeans are wimps. I think you even implied there should be a law against it or action taken against him for it. (thankfully freedon of speech protects him) and yet you launch into tirade after tirade about the evils of US decisions. How is what you say about the US any different than what he said about Europe?..oh yeah, he is American so his is subject to different rules than you.
[ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: Tulkas ]</p>
<strong>You would be wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not "could be", "is".
He is wrong.
To say the U.S. is alone on this is just blind ignorance.