Hi Grosscurth,
I have no particular desire to defend the American press, which I also do not find particularly impressive. Nor would I contend that the French press is the worst in the western world.
However, I think you badly overestimate the independence of the European press. For example, El Pais, the Independent and a couple of other major European papers are part of a news-sharing cartel.
In Italy one man currently controls all the state and most of the private media.
In France the press fails spectacularly to make any impact on brazen public corruption to such an extent that Edith Cresson's personal standards were so reduced that she could not understand that giving European-funded jobs to her dentist while an EU commissioner was wrong, because it is OK in French municipal politics. I forebear to even mention the public, let alone private, scandals besetting Giscard, Mitterand and Chirac. France has had three blatantly corrupt, dishonest and self serving heads of state in a row. Even the American press, for all its multiple faults, would not be as supine in the face of similar corruption. I see no French Watergate on the horizon, just immunity for Chirac while in office!
In Germany strict personal privacy laws make genuine investigative journalism extremely difficult. Recently one award winning reporter was exposed for inventing a long series of "scoops". Why? Because he claimed it was too difficult to get real, ones!
The old "oil war" refrain is the simplistic chorus of instinctive anti-Americanism. I personally think that oil has little to do with the war. I think it was primarily to do with the fact that the USA had tied its prestige to the UN route for ten years aftervthe First Gulf War, but Saddam Hussein had openly defied 17 successive UN resolutions during that period. As a result, US prestige and influence was sinking with the UN. The war was fought to recover US prestige by demonstrating renewed independence of action.
The US did not need Iraqi oil before the war. There is no evidence that it is stealing either Iraqi oil or Iraqi oil money after the war. Iraqi oil is sold on the free market and is just as likely to end up in France or Germany as the US. The oil receipts are still paid into the UN oil-for-food account. In fact, the Iraq situation is costing the US a fortune, not making it one.
(A question: Which North American head of government has family connections with oil interests in Iraq? Answer: The Prime Minister of Canada, who is married to the daughter of a director of ELF-Acquitaine!)
There are no EU ministers in equal positions. EU posts are not the equivalent of those of a sovereign state like the USA or Germany.
My foreign press reading in the UK is restricted to El Pais (perhaps the best of all newspapers) and regional French newspapers if I am over there. The best British paper for serious news reporting is probably the Financial Times, but this is outrageously expensive.
Phew! Got all that off my chest!
Cheers,
Sid.
Nationalism - as Hitler saw it...
Moderator: Commissar D, the Evil
-
Enrico Cernuschi
- Patron
- Posts: 1086
- Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 2:05 am
- Location: Pavia
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
-
Groscurth
- Contributor
- Posts: 332
- Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 4:49 pm
- Location: Couloir Gervasuti,east side of Mont Blanc du Tacul.
[quote="sid guttridge"]
.
In France the press fails spectacularly to make any impact on brazen public corruption to such an extent that Edith Cresson's personal standards were so reduced that she could not understand that giving European-funded jobs to her dentist while an EU commissioner was wrong, because it is OK in French municipal politics.
--> Edith Cresson is a former and 1st French female PM.
Yes, a corrupt affair, but a small one whe I regard the cleptocracy with the Bush-club. Hope she necer comes back.
I forebear to even mention the public, let alone private, scandals besetting Giscard, Mitterand and Chirac. France has had three blatantly corrupt, dishonest and self serving heads of state in a row.
Even the American press, for all its multiple faults, would not be as supine in the face of similar corruption. I see no French Watergate on the horizon, just immunity for Chirac while in office!
---> Everybody could read in Germany, Belgium, Luxemburg, Holland etc about the Chirac thing. In fact it handels over the renting off luxury appartments that were owned by the city off Paris to Party-friends.
I know puritan america didn't like Mitterand for his love- affairs and doughter Mazarine. When a journalist asked him if it was true he had an affair, he replied "Et alors?" Great answer off a great president that made the US conservativs angry because he and Kohl really continued on the path set by De Gaulle and Adenauer. So the EU became the largest consumer market in the world with a strong relation based on the friendship between the former enemies Germany and France.
Watergate is a typical US-republican affair that has nothing in common in the EU.
But let me tell you this if people like Pinochet, Bush, Sharon, Saddam Hussein or such big democrats and nothing to hide or fear for, why were they threatening the Belgian gov. because off the genocide law?
Father Bush is accused for crimes against humanity in Dessert Storm (the to heavy loses off civilians in airraids) Sharon is accused for his role in Shabra and Shatilla, Pinochet for the killing off French, Belgian, German and Dutch people living there, Saddam waits not only a Kurdish but also a Sjiite plain. Think Bush is in good company there.
This guy is downsizing in public spending and spends this money on his extremist buissinessfriends (you know Bin Laden was a buissiness partner off the Bushes, his family STILL is) in the oil and defence industry.
So don't tell me that the Us press "would not be that supine in corruption"
They just close their eyes for the fact that this countries people aere allways getting poorer and a small corrupt bunch off leaders is abusing the Gov on such a large scale that it even plans wars for its own profit.
People who think different or don't want to see this or the best naiive sheep any politician prays for or worse a part off this profitariat.
The old "oil war" refrain is the simplistic chorus of instinctive anti-Americanism. I personally think that oil has little to do with the war. I think it was primarily to do with the fact that the USA had tied its prestige to the UN route for ten years aftervthe First Gulf War, but Saddam Hussein had openly defied 17 successive UN resolutions during that period. As a result, US prestige and influence was sinking with the UN. The war was fought to recover US prestige by demonstrating renewed independence of action.
--->
Israel defied 100's off resolutions, did not here you guy's.
And excuse me there was and is no resolution that gives memberstates the right to attack an other member (in this case irak).
The US did not need Iraqi oil before the war. There is no evidence that it is stealing either Iraqi oil or Iraqi oil money after the war. Iraqi oil is sold on the free market and is just as likely to end up in France or Germany as the US. The oil receipts are still paid into the UN oil-for-food account. In fact, the Iraq situation is costing the US a fortune, not making it one.
Ha ha, this is hilarious!
Not only are all the oil contract and
rebuilding contracts for Bushes friend Cheney and Halliburton.
Today i could read an article that by coincidence the US dept off Justice aquited Halliburton for fraud during Cheney's period as director off the company. The company was just given an gigantic contract for the controll of Iraqui oil fields.
"Itis costing the costing the Us a fortune" No,no it is making
Bush's stealing friend rich and the poor even more poor.
No you guys wanted this black gold so hard that you would pact with the devil for getting a hand on it and that is the story wich is heard fom the majority off paople in the world.
This constant abuse off regulatians or blackmail off big institutions ass the UN, third world countries and the hate against muslims is creating an isolated US withouth a normal view on the world. The main US TV-channels and newspapers have diminued their foreig newsitems with almost 60% regarding '90.
There are no EU ministers in equal positions. EU posts are not the equivalent of those of a sovereign state like the USA or Germany.
--->
You should now that there are no EU ministers at all only 15 commissionars. I asked an example wich you could not give because off the lack off information in US. And btw by EU ministers I mean the ministers off a member state, know them?
My foreign press reading in the UK is restricted to El Pais (perhaps the best of all newspapers) and regional French newspapers if I am over there. The best British paper for serious news reporting is probably the Financial Times, but this is outrageously expensive.
Phew! Got all that off my chest!
I agree that there are also conglomerates here in the press but we can hardly speek off an ollipoly as by Murdoch or Foxmedia.
BtW last weak I heard the difference in % off payings for "the peace process" in Palestine-Israel (ridicule name, p.process) The EU is paying each year more than tripple the US budget. Off course it is selling less arms. The hospital off Rammalah wich was build as the airport with money off EU countries where destroyed in 2001 by Israeli tanks from US origin.
Don't think this is the way to make yourself popular in the world. In fact I think some people in the extreme conservative surroundinfgs off Bush just hope for a second 9/11. Good buissines for them.
And that's how mighty people act, not for freedom or peoples sake.
Regards,
PS can you give me an other source in magazine form than Newsweek or Time magazine (see above) because I really do want to buy something else off US mag's.
.
In France the press fails spectacularly to make any impact on brazen public corruption to such an extent that Edith Cresson's personal standards were so reduced that she could not understand that giving European-funded jobs to her dentist while an EU commissioner was wrong, because it is OK in French municipal politics.
--> Edith Cresson is a former and 1st French female PM.
Yes, a corrupt affair, but a small one whe I regard the cleptocracy with the Bush-club. Hope she necer comes back.
I forebear to even mention the public, let alone private, scandals besetting Giscard, Mitterand and Chirac. France has had three blatantly corrupt, dishonest and self serving heads of state in a row.
Even the American press, for all its multiple faults, would not be as supine in the face of similar corruption. I see no French Watergate on the horizon, just immunity for Chirac while in office!
---> Everybody could read in Germany, Belgium, Luxemburg, Holland etc about the Chirac thing. In fact it handels over the renting off luxury appartments that were owned by the city off Paris to Party-friends.
I know puritan america didn't like Mitterand for his love- affairs and doughter Mazarine. When a journalist asked him if it was true he had an affair, he replied "Et alors?" Great answer off a great president that made the US conservativs angry because he and Kohl really continued on the path set by De Gaulle and Adenauer. So the EU became the largest consumer market in the world with a strong relation based on the friendship between the former enemies Germany and France.
Watergate is a typical US-republican affair that has nothing in common in the EU.
But let me tell you this if people like Pinochet, Bush, Sharon, Saddam Hussein or such big democrats and nothing to hide or fear for, why were they threatening the Belgian gov. because off the genocide law?
Father Bush is accused for crimes against humanity in Dessert Storm (the to heavy loses off civilians in airraids) Sharon is accused for his role in Shabra and Shatilla, Pinochet for the killing off French, Belgian, German and Dutch people living there, Saddam waits not only a Kurdish but also a Sjiite plain. Think Bush is in good company there.
This guy is downsizing in public spending and spends this money on his extremist buissinessfriends (you know Bin Laden was a buissiness partner off the Bushes, his family STILL is) in the oil and defence industry.
So don't tell me that the Us press "would not be that supine in corruption"
They just close their eyes for the fact that this countries people aere allways getting poorer and a small corrupt bunch off leaders is abusing the Gov on such a large scale that it even plans wars for its own profit.
People who think different or don't want to see this or the best naiive sheep any politician prays for or worse a part off this profitariat.
The old "oil war" refrain is the simplistic chorus of instinctive anti-Americanism. I personally think that oil has little to do with the war. I think it was primarily to do with the fact that the USA had tied its prestige to the UN route for ten years aftervthe First Gulf War, but Saddam Hussein had openly defied 17 successive UN resolutions during that period. As a result, US prestige and influence was sinking with the UN. The war was fought to recover US prestige by demonstrating renewed independence of action.
--->
Israel defied 100's off resolutions, did not here you guy's.
And excuse me there was and is no resolution that gives memberstates the right to attack an other member (in this case irak).
The US did not need Iraqi oil before the war. There is no evidence that it is stealing either Iraqi oil or Iraqi oil money after the war. Iraqi oil is sold on the free market and is just as likely to end up in France or Germany as the US. The oil receipts are still paid into the UN oil-for-food account. In fact, the Iraq situation is costing the US a fortune, not making it one.
Ha ha, this is hilarious!
Not only are all the oil contract and
rebuilding contracts for Bushes friend Cheney and Halliburton.
Today i could read an article that by coincidence the US dept off Justice aquited Halliburton for fraud during Cheney's period as director off the company. The company was just given an gigantic contract for the controll of Iraqui oil fields.
"Itis costing the costing the Us a fortune" No,no it is making
Bush's stealing friend rich and the poor even more poor.
No you guys wanted this black gold so hard that you would pact with the devil for getting a hand on it and that is the story wich is heard fom the majority off paople in the world.
This constant abuse off regulatians or blackmail off big institutions ass the UN, third world countries and the hate against muslims is creating an isolated US withouth a normal view on the world. The main US TV-channels and newspapers have diminued their foreig newsitems with almost 60% regarding '90.
There are no EU ministers in equal positions. EU posts are not the equivalent of those of a sovereign state like the USA or Germany.
--->
You should now that there are no EU ministers at all only 15 commissionars. I asked an example wich you could not give because off the lack off information in US. And btw by EU ministers I mean the ministers off a member state, know them?
My foreign press reading in the UK is restricted to El Pais (perhaps the best of all newspapers) and regional French newspapers if I am over there. The best British paper for serious news reporting is probably the Financial Times, but this is outrageously expensive.
Phew! Got all that off my chest!
I agree that there are also conglomerates here in the press but we can hardly speek off an ollipoly as by Murdoch or Foxmedia.
BtW last weak I heard the difference in % off payings for "the peace process" in Palestine-Israel (ridicule name, p.process) The EU is paying each year more than tripple the US budget. Off course it is selling less arms. The hospital off Rammalah wich was build as the airport with money off EU countries where destroyed in 2001 by Israeli tanks from US origin.
Don't think this is the way to make yourself popular in the world. In fact I think some people in the extreme conservative surroundinfgs off Bush just hope for a second 9/11. Good buissines for them.
And that's how mighty people act, not for freedom or peoples sake.
Regards,
PS can you give me an other source in magazine form than Newsweek or Time magazine (see above) because I really do want to buy something else off US mag's.
Last edited by Groscurth on Wed Sep 10, 2003 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-"Two things are unendless: the universe and human stupidity. But I am not so sure about the universe" Einstein
-Question: "Why do mountain climbers rope themselves together?" Answer: "To prevent the sensible ones from going home!" Anonymous
-Question: "Why do mountain climbers rope themselves together?" Answer: "To prevent the sensible ones from going home!" Anonymous
-
Groscurth
- Contributor
- Posts: 332
- Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 4:49 pm
- Location: Couloir Gervasuti,east side of Mont Blanc du Tacul.
Hi Enrico,
I forgot to say one thing, the US are still a heaven for reporters in comparision with the new little Duce's state. In theory state and press are separete and independent (the instrumants work different there,see above). In Italie we can see a man that as a head off state replaced all reporters with a critical view on him by his puppets at the ARTE stations.
For the rest he has all the private stations in his hands wich only adorehim.
Berlusconi is the man with all his marionets on a string that write him laws "A la carte" so he can do what he want.
Judges with cases against him are, strangly enough threathened by the maffia.
I thought there was no such a relation between Sivio and Dons. Well they gave us in fact an other impression.
I forgot to say one thing, the US are still a heaven for reporters in comparision with the new little Duce's state. In theory state and press are separete and independent (the instrumants work different there,see above). In Italie we can see a man that as a head off state replaced all reporters with a critical view on him by his puppets at the ARTE stations.
For the rest he has all the private stations in his hands wich only adorehim.
Berlusconi is the man with all his marionets on a string that write him laws "A la carte" so he can do what he want.
Judges with cases against him are, strangly enough threathened by the maffia.
I thought there was no such a relation between Sivio and Dons. Well they gave us in fact an other impression.
-"Two things are unendless: the universe and human stupidity. But I am not so sure about the universe" Einstein
-Question: "Why do mountain climbers rope themselves together?" Answer: "To prevent the sensible ones from going home!" Anonymous
-Question: "Why do mountain climbers rope themselves together?" Answer: "To prevent the sensible ones from going home!" Anonymous
-
Enrico Cernuschi
- Patron
- Posts: 1086
- Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 2:05 am
- Location: Pavia
-
Enrico Cernuschi
- Patron
- Posts: 1086
- Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 2:05 am
- Location: Pavia
Hello Sid,
just to make happy Groscurth I'll quote you a famous Mussolini sentence (but it could have been said by any Italian premier since 1861): "To dominate Italians is not impossible, it' s unuseful", 1927.
Do not believe at what you read in the press. An evening tv switch on the Italian networks will be more than enought, I think. Bye EC
just to make happy Groscurth I'll quote you a famous Mussolini sentence (but it could have been said by any Italian premier since 1861): "To dominate Italians is not impossible, it' s unuseful", 1927.
Do not believe at what you read in the press. An evening tv switch on the Italian networks will be more than enought, I think. Bye EC
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Groscurth,
I will have to be brief.
My point about Watergate was that it was exposed by the US press, specifically the Washington Post. As a result the US President had to resign. His Vice President as well.
By contrast, the French press has had three successive demonstratively corrupt presidents and failed to nail any of them because they apparently have virtual immunity while in office. As statesmen they have often been effective by ruthlessly using France's effective veto over the development of the EU and real veto in the UN. However, probably none of them would have survived the attentions of the US press had they been US presidents.
The Mazarine affair was not the root cause of the problem with Mitterand. It was personal and institutional corruption and dishonesty going back decades. Furthermore, was it not his administration that blew up Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand? French patriot? Yes. Man of wider principle? No!
I think the problem with the Belgian genocide law was that it claimed jurisdiction beyond Belgium. I think you would have a much better point regarding US resistance to an international court empowered to try US citizens for such crimes. Lucky for Chirac really. France supported and armed the perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide.
If Bush senior is accused of crimes against humanity in Gulf War I, presumably so is the UN in whose name it was fought.
When was bin Laden a business partner of the Bushes? Before or after he became a fanatic anti-American? Is all his family guilty if he is? Isn't there a German word something like "sippenschaft" that covers family guilt? I wonder who last used it?
The UN resolutions against Israel are under a different and less serious chapter of the UN constitution, for which enforcement by armed force is not an option. The main UN resolutions against Iraq were enforceable by armed force. One lot are under Chapter 5 and the other under Chapter 6. I forget which is which.
The rebuilding contracts you are talking about come out of the US aid budget and are paid for by the US tax payer. They may or may not have a case against Cheney etc., but Iraq doesn't.
If Iraq isn't costing the US a fortune what was Bush doing on television for two nights ago asking Congress for 87 billion dollars?
Why would you expect an American to be as familiar with 15 EU foreign ministers when the EU only has to remember one American one? Can you name the governors of 15 US states? There are fifty to chose from so it should be easier. Or even the foreign ministers of the applicant states to the EU? Come to that, what do their names actually matter. It is their policies that are important.
As a matter of fact I am not American and have no particular brief for the country. However, if it is going to be attacked I would rather it was done on more rational grounds than many of those that you are offering.
Cheers,
Sid.
I will have to be brief.
My point about Watergate was that it was exposed by the US press, specifically the Washington Post. As a result the US President had to resign. His Vice President as well.
By contrast, the French press has had three successive demonstratively corrupt presidents and failed to nail any of them because they apparently have virtual immunity while in office. As statesmen they have often been effective by ruthlessly using France's effective veto over the development of the EU and real veto in the UN. However, probably none of them would have survived the attentions of the US press had they been US presidents.
The Mazarine affair was not the root cause of the problem with Mitterand. It was personal and institutional corruption and dishonesty going back decades. Furthermore, was it not his administration that blew up Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand? French patriot? Yes. Man of wider principle? No!
I think the problem with the Belgian genocide law was that it claimed jurisdiction beyond Belgium. I think you would have a much better point regarding US resistance to an international court empowered to try US citizens for such crimes. Lucky for Chirac really. France supported and armed the perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide.
If Bush senior is accused of crimes against humanity in Gulf War I, presumably so is the UN in whose name it was fought.
When was bin Laden a business partner of the Bushes? Before or after he became a fanatic anti-American? Is all his family guilty if he is? Isn't there a German word something like "sippenschaft" that covers family guilt? I wonder who last used it?
The UN resolutions against Israel are under a different and less serious chapter of the UN constitution, for which enforcement by armed force is not an option. The main UN resolutions against Iraq were enforceable by armed force. One lot are under Chapter 5 and the other under Chapter 6. I forget which is which.
The rebuilding contracts you are talking about come out of the US aid budget and are paid for by the US tax payer. They may or may not have a case against Cheney etc., but Iraq doesn't.
If Iraq isn't costing the US a fortune what was Bush doing on television for two nights ago asking Congress for 87 billion dollars?
Why would you expect an American to be as familiar with 15 EU foreign ministers when the EU only has to remember one American one? Can you name the governors of 15 US states? There are fifty to chose from so it should be easier. Or even the foreign ministers of the applicant states to the EU? Come to that, what do their names actually matter. It is their policies that are important.
As a matter of fact I am not American and have no particular brief for the country. However, if it is going to be attacked I would rather it was done on more rational grounds than many of those that you are offering.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Groscurth,
I will have to be brief.
My point about Watergate was that it was exposed by the US press, specifically the Washington Post. As a result the US President had to resign. His Vice President as well.
By contrast, the French press has had three successive demonstratively corrupt presidents and failed to nail any of them because they apparently have virtual immunity while in office. As statesmen they have often been effective by ruthlessly using France's effective veto over the development of the EU and real veto in the UN. However, probably none of them would have survived the attentions of the US press had they been US presidents.
The Mazarine affair was not the root cause of the problem with Mitterand. It was personal and institutional corruption and dishonesty going back decades. Furthermore, was it not his administration that blew up Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand? French patriot? Yes. Man of wider principle? No!
I think the problem with the Belgian genocide law was that it claimed jurisdiction beyond Belgium. I think you would have a much better point regarding US resistance to an international court empowered to try US citizens for such crimes. Lucky for Chirac really. France supported and armed the perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide.
If Bush senior is accused of crimes against humanity in Gulf War I, presumably so is the UN in whose name it was fought.
When was bin Laden a business partner of the Bushes? Before or after he became a fanatic anti-American? Is all his family guilty if he is? Isn't there a German word something like "sippenschaft" that covers family guilt? I wonder who last used it?
The UN resolutions against Israel are under a different and less serious chapter of the UN constitution, for which enforcement by armed force is not an option. The main UN resolutions against Iraq were enforceable by armed force. One lot are under Chapter 5 and the other under Chapter 6. I forget which is which.
The rebuilding contracts you are talking about come out of the US aid budget and are paid for by the US tax payer. They may or may not have a case against Cheney etc., but Iraq doesn't.
If Iraq isn't costing the US a fortune what was Bush doing on television for two nights ago asking Congress for 87 billion dollars?
Why would you expect an American to be as familiar with 15 EU foreign ministers when the EU only has to remember one American one? Can you name the governors of 15 US states? There are fifty to chose from so it should be easier. Or even the foreign ministers of the applicant states to the EU? Come to that, what do their names actually matter. It is their policies that are important.
As a matter of fact I am not American and have no particular brief for the country. However, if it is going to be attacked I would rather it was done on more rational grounds than many of those that you are offering.
Cheers,
Sid.
I will have to be brief.
My point about Watergate was that it was exposed by the US press, specifically the Washington Post. As a result the US President had to resign. His Vice President as well.
By contrast, the French press has had three successive demonstratively corrupt presidents and failed to nail any of them because they apparently have virtual immunity while in office. As statesmen they have often been effective by ruthlessly using France's effective veto over the development of the EU and real veto in the UN. However, probably none of them would have survived the attentions of the US press had they been US presidents.
The Mazarine affair was not the root cause of the problem with Mitterand. It was personal and institutional corruption and dishonesty going back decades. Furthermore, was it not his administration that blew up Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand? French patriot? Yes. Man of wider principle? No!
I think the problem with the Belgian genocide law was that it claimed jurisdiction beyond Belgium. I think you would have a much better point regarding US resistance to an international court empowered to try US citizens for such crimes. Lucky for Chirac really. France supported and armed the perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide.
If Bush senior is accused of crimes against humanity in Gulf War I, presumably so is the UN in whose name it was fought.
When was bin Laden a business partner of the Bushes? Before or after he became a fanatic anti-American? Is all his family guilty if he is? Isn't there a German word something like "sippenschaft" that covers family guilt? I wonder who last used it?
The UN resolutions against Israel are under a different and less serious chapter of the UN constitution, for which enforcement by armed force is not an option. The main UN resolutions against Iraq were enforceable by armed force. One lot are under Chapter 5 and the other under Chapter 6. I forget which is which.
The rebuilding contracts you are talking about come out of the US aid budget and are paid for by the US tax payer. They may or may not have a case against Cheney etc., but Iraq doesn't.
If Iraq isn't costing the US a fortune what was Bush doing on television for two nights ago asking Congress for 87 billion dollars?
Why would you expect an American to be as familiar with 15 EU foreign ministers when the EU only has to remember one American one? Can you name the governors of 15 US states? There are fifty to chose from so it should be easier. Or even the foreign ministers of the applicant states to the EU? Come to that, what do their names actually matter. It is their policies that are important.
As a matter of fact I am not American and have no particular brief for the country. However, if it is going to be attacked I would rather it was done on more rational grounds than many of those that you are offering.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
Groscurth
- Contributor
- Posts: 332
- Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 4:49 pm
- Location: Couloir Gervasuti,east side of Mont Blanc du Tacul.
Hi Enrico,
Iwatch RAI sometimes and must say that an evening off Italian TV is indeed overwelming. (Beautifull women)
Good phrase off Mussolini, in fact I traveled there a lot in '96 and '97 to export wines from Piemopt (Barbaresco and Barolo) and White .from Venezia-Gulia (Collio and from Cividale). Still have contacts there.
Salute
Iwatch RAI sometimes and must say that an evening off Italian TV is indeed overwelming. (Beautifull women)
Good phrase off Mussolini, in fact I traveled there a lot in '96 and '97 to export wines from Piemopt (Barbaresco and Barolo) and White .from Venezia-Gulia (Collio and from Cividale). Still have contacts there.
Salute
-"Two things are unendless: the universe and human stupidity. But I am not so sure about the universe" Einstein
-Question: "Why do mountain climbers rope themselves together?" Answer: "To prevent the sensible ones from going home!" Anonymous
-Question: "Why do mountain climbers rope themselves together?" Answer: "To prevent the sensible ones from going home!" Anonymous
-
Henrik Krog
- Contributor
- Posts: 363
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 12:50 pm
- Contact:
[quote="sid guttridge"]The old "oil war" refrain is the simplistic chorus of instinctive anti-Americanism. I personally think that oil has little to do with the war. I think it was primarily to do with the fact that the USA had tied its prestige to the UN route for ten years aftervthe First Gulf War, but Saddam Hussein had openly defied 17 successive UN resolutions during that period. As a result, US prestige and influence was sinking with the UN. The war was fought to recover US prestige by demonstrating renewed independence of action.[quote]
If the goal was to demonstrate independence of action, why in all the world try to get UN blessing for the war in the first place?
Your explanation may be good for the post- UN phase, but over the last 55 years, the US has shown a perfect willingness to see states defy UN resolutions if that defiance is in its interests (or is perceived to be).
For the slow: instead of "states" read "Israel"
[quote="sid guttridge"]The US did not need Iraqi oil before the war. There is no evidence that it is stealing either Iraqi oil or Iraqi oil money after the war. Iraqi oil is sold on the free market and is just as likely to end up in France or Germany as the US.[quote]
Like most pro-war people you fail to realize that excess Iraqi production
1) Frees up oil closer to the US than the Middle East
2) Lowers the price of that oil
While the US could have done without Iraqi oil, its a nifty thing to have on hand, especially if you want to speed up your slacking economy. You dont have to actually consume it yourself.
[quote="sid guttridge"]The oil receipts are still paid into the UN oil-for-food account.[quote]
Wrong, Sid. From the time resolution 1483 was passed on May 22, all revenue has been flowing into the Development Fund for Iraq which is, incidentally, rund by the US Secretary of the Treasury and the head of the Iraqi occupation government.
In addition, the Oil for Food program also handed over 1 billion $ from the pre-war revenue.
Add further Iraqi government funds seized by other governments during the lead-up to Gulf War II in 1991, who according to the resolution are to be handed over to the fund.
The Oil for Food programme, pursuant to resolution 1483, began its own suspension on May 22, and will finish it on 22 November. Until then, it is finishing delivery of the goods the US, thanks to its seat in teh conrolling body of the program, slapped holds on. When it is finished, any revenue left will also be handed over to the Development Fund for Iraq.
Interestingly enough, the US also wants foreign donors to hand over their money to the US-controlled fund. So far, they are not having that, though.
And I didnt mention that the funds in the Development Fund for Iraq, while carried on the books of the Central Bank of Iraq, will actually be deposited in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York?
You can find the relevant UN resolution ending the UN program here: http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/ ... penElement
You can find the executive order by Bush establishing the Development Fund for Iraq here: http://www.useu.be/Categories/GlobalAff ... tFund.html
And you can find the relevant Regulation by the Coalition Provisional Authority here:
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/regulations/REG2.pdf
Funny thing is: while the funds of the Development Fund for Iraq is carried on the books of the Iraqi Central Bank, they are without control of the money. Only Bremer, the head of the occupation government can use the money. He even has made it illegal for the Central Bank to loan money to the Iraqi government/ministries, so that he basically sits on their sole source of revenue.
For that, see Coalition Provisional Authority Order 18:
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/regulations/CPAORD18CBI.pdf
[quote="sid guttridge"] In fact, the Iraq situation is costing the US a fortune, not making it one.[quote]
Here we agree. I guess the whole thing misfired badly
Henrik
If the goal was to demonstrate independence of action, why in all the world try to get UN blessing for the war in the first place?
Your explanation may be good for the post- UN phase, but over the last 55 years, the US has shown a perfect willingness to see states defy UN resolutions if that defiance is in its interests (or is perceived to be).
For the slow: instead of "states" read "Israel"
[quote="sid guttridge"]The US did not need Iraqi oil before the war. There is no evidence that it is stealing either Iraqi oil or Iraqi oil money after the war. Iraqi oil is sold on the free market and is just as likely to end up in France or Germany as the US.[quote]
Like most pro-war people you fail to realize that excess Iraqi production
1) Frees up oil closer to the US than the Middle East
2) Lowers the price of that oil
While the US could have done without Iraqi oil, its a nifty thing to have on hand, especially if you want to speed up your slacking economy. You dont have to actually consume it yourself.
[quote="sid guttridge"]The oil receipts are still paid into the UN oil-for-food account.[quote]
Wrong, Sid. From the time resolution 1483 was passed on May 22, all revenue has been flowing into the Development Fund for Iraq which is, incidentally, rund by the US Secretary of the Treasury and the head of the Iraqi occupation government.
In addition, the Oil for Food program also handed over 1 billion $ from the pre-war revenue.
Add further Iraqi government funds seized by other governments during the lead-up to Gulf War II in 1991, who according to the resolution are to be handed over to the fund.
The Oil for Food programme, pursuant to resolution 1483, began its own suspension on May 22, and will finish it on 22 November. Until then, it is finishing delivery of the goods the US, thanks to its seat in teh conrolling body of the program, slapped holds on. When it is finished, any revenue left will also be handed over to the Development Fund for Iraq.
Interestingly enough, the US also wants foreign donors to hand over their money to the US-controlled fund. So far, they are not having that, though.
And I didnt mention that the funds in the Development Fund for Iraq, while carried on the books of the Central Bank of Iraq, will actually be deposited in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York?
You can find the relevant UN resolution ending the UN program here: http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/ ... penElement
You can find the executive order by Bush establishing the Development Fund for Iraq here: http://www.useu.be/Categories/GlobalAff ... tFund.html
And you can find the relevant Regulation by the Coalition Provisional Authority here:
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/regulations/REG2.pdf
Funny thing is: while the funds of the Development Fund for Iraq is carried on the books of the Iraqi Central Bank, they are without control of the money. Only Bremer, the head of the occupation government can use the money. He even has made it illegal for the Central Bank to loan money to the Iraqi government/ministries, so that he basically sits on their sole source of revenue.
For that, see Coalition Provisional Authority Order 18:
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/regulations/CPAORD18CBI.pdf
[quote="sid guttridge"] In fact, the Iraq situation is costing the US a fortune, not making it one.[quote]
Here we agree. I guess the whole thing misfired badly
Henrik
-
Groscurth
- Contributor
- Posts: 332
- Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 4:49 pm
- Location: Couloir Gervasuti,east side of Mont Blanc du Tacul.
Hi Sid,
I don't think we'll ever agree on the US.
Grosscurth, for the moment in land off "the chocolatemakers", a form off speaking off a US official.
Glad those Kim and Justine (called "Christine by a very bright official after the final) choclatemakers gave him the best answer at the US Open.
I don't think we'll ever agree on the US.
Grosscurth, for the moment in land off "the chocolatemakers", a form off speaking off a US official.
Glad those Kim and Justine (called "Christine by a very bright official after the final) choclatemakers gave him the best answer at the US Open.
Last edited by Groscurth on Wed Sep 10, 2003 4:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-"Two things are unendless: the universe and human stupidity. But I am not so sure about the universe" Einstein
-Question: "Why do mountain climbers rope themselves together?" Answer: "To prevent the sensible ones from going home!" Anonymous
-Question: "Why do mountain climbers rope themselves together?" Answer: "To prevent the sensible ones from going home!" Anonymous
-
Groscurth
- Contributor
- Posts: 332
- Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 4:49 pm
- Location: Couloir Gervasuti,east side of Mont Blanc du Tacul.
Hi Sid,
I don't think we ever agree on the US.
But some thougts: thank's to people like Mitterand and Kohl the EU is what it is now: the largest consumermarket in the world, they followed the path off De Gaulle and Adenauer. The old enemies are really the base with the Benelux off the EU.
I know this hurts the US, a reaseon why their pet (the UK) is always blocking things and not Fance (where does that come from? Tatcher, Major and other Blair are rather stiff upper liped). Mitterand a corrupt men? He died as a rather financial dwarf in comparision to Bush and other Rumsfeld.
I gave examples off the way mass coruption works in theUS and would add Halliburton that had Cheney as a director and received enormous contracts for the controll off the oilindustry from the White house. The dept off justice off Texas (were all his partyfrieds are in juridacal and politic power) just aquited them after a plaint from 3 investors for massive fraud during the time he was a CEO there. Independence off justice? My ass!
Off course Bush asked congress for another 87 m., do you think this kind off people would give 1 $ from their own pocket. It is obvious that the poor (biggest amount off poors in the Western world, off course withouth payable form off healthcare, medicare has become a joke under the Bush cutting in it's budget, as anykind off budget for social affairs) and middle class again will pay for this. Al this to get the Cheneys off this world more rich. I saw some critical explanations off US soldiers their going this way...I gess those images aren't showed in the us.
I understand why people like Pearl, Rumsfeld and Bush are against a good educationsystem,I would do the same in their place. Educated and critical people are much more dangerous, imagine they would vote or worse ask a little bit off social justice....
People like Cheney or Bush never have a chance here.
For me it is still Israel that violates the most UN resolutions.Nice regime there.
Can you imagine the US army aresting your family and blowing up your house, just because a familymember did a suicide attack. Well this kind off all humanrights violating is done there by the Israeli's, armed with US weapens.Wich civilised country does this? They learned well fom Nazi Germany, how can a people that suffered so much act liked her ow torturers in WWII? The only chance for them is a new Rabin (Likoed is poisson).
I refer here to the Rwanda arms wich were in fact most US weapons since Kagame is a friend off the US and making for sure that allied rebels still control the biggest part off Kivu where strategic mines for gold, diamond and Coltan are in the possesion off canadian and US conglomerates. A form off exploitation withouth any benefit for Congo as a lot off blood and a humanitarian disaster.
Perhaps this is a reason why the US is against an independent EU corps than can act on it's own like the French and (small) Belgian force in Africa now. They should be glad, a lot off US citizens where saved and evacuaded by that same French in Liberia . Never saw those Ami's so happy to see come to the so hated French. Think that those people will have an other regard on it.
Now, a country deserves here own leaders but I would be ashame to have that bunch.
Still I don't understand that only 40 or 50% off people vote in a country that claims to be the champ off the free.
Regards
I am glad the gap between US and EU view on the world and human rights, Arabs, is growing. So other people in the world can't accuse me off being in favor with this mass violating off any convention, threaths to thirld world states and the UN etc...)
BTW the EU is spending three times more money on the peace process in the Middle East while the US is still the largest armsdealer in the region.Arms that blew up the hospital off Ramalah last year, build with that money (and much more examples). A big part off that money is given to the Israeli gov. that uses it for some investment in Palestine ,the training off a Palestinian police is also payed by it etc..So you understand most people in the world can't see those countries as an example and look for other states like France, with all his good and off course bad sides, now seen ass more sympathic by the third world countries, especcially now with it's position versus the USA.
BTW Leni Riefenstahl died yesterday at age 101.
I don't think we ever agree on the US.
But some thougts: thank's to people like Mitterand and Kohl the EU is what it is now: the largest consumermarket in the world, they followed the path off De Gaulle and Adenauer. The old enemies are really the base with the Benelux off the EU.
I know this hurts the US, a reaseon why their pet (the UK) is always blocking things and not Fance (where does that come from? Tatcher, Major and other Blair are rather stiff upper liped). Mitterand a corrupt men? He died as a rather financial dwarf in comparision to Bush and other Rumsfeld.
I gave examples off the way mass coruption works in theUS and would add Halliburton that had Cheney as a director and received enormous contracts for the controll off the oilindustry from the White house. The dept off justice off Texas (were all his partyfrieds are in juridacal and politic power) just aquited them after a plaint from 3 investors for massive fraud during the time he was a CEO there. Independence off justice? My ass!
Off course Bush asked congress for another 87 m., do you think this kind off people would give 1 $ from their own pocket. It is obvious that the poor (biggest amount off poors in the Western world, off course withouth payable form off healthcare, medicare has become a joke under the Bush cutting in it's budget, as anykind off budget for social affairs) and middle class again will pay for this. Al this to get the Cheneys off this world more rich. I saw some critical explanations off US soldiers their going this way...I gess those images aren't showed in the us.
I understand why people like Pearl, Rumsfeld and Bush are against a good educationsystem,I would do the same in their place. Educated and critical people are much more dangerous, imagine they would vote or worse ask a little bit off social justice....
People like Cheney or Bush never have a chance here.
For me it is still Israel that violates the most UN resolutions.Nice regime there.
Can you imagine the US army aresting your family and blowing up your house, just because a familymember did a suicide attack. Well this kind off all humanrights violating is done there by the Israeli's, armed with US weapens.Wich civilised country does this? They learned well fom Nazi Germany, how can a people that suffered so much act liked her ow torturers in WWII? The only chance for them is a new Rabin (Likoed is poisson).
I refer here to the Rwanda arms wich were in fact most US weapons since Kagame is a friend off the US and making for sure that allied rebels still control the biggest part off Kivu where strategic mines for gold, diamond and Coltan are in the possesion off canadian and US conglomerates. A form off exploitation withouth any benefit for Congo as a lot off blood and a humanitarian disaster.
Perhaps this is a reason why the US is against an independent EU corps than can act on it's own like the French and (small) Belgian force in Africa now. They should be glad, a lot off US citizens where saved and evacuaded by that same French in Liberia . Never saw those Ami's so happy to see come to the so hated French. Think that those people will have an other regard on it.
Now, a country deserves here own leaders but I would be ashame to have that bunch.
Still I don't understand that only 40 or 50% off people vote in a country that claims to be the champ off the free.
Regards
I am glad the gap between US and EU view on the world and human rights, Arabs, is growing. So other people in the world can't accuse me off being in favor with this mass violating off any convention, threaths to thirld world states and the UN etc...)
BTW the EU is spending three times more money on the peace process in the Middle East while the US is still the largest armsdealer in the region.Arms that blew up the hospital off Ramalah last year, build with that money (and much more examples). A big part off that money is given to the Israeli gov. that uses it for some investment in Palestine ,the training off a Palestinian police is also payed by it etc..So you understand most people in the world can't see those countries as an example and look for other states like France, with all his good and off course bad sides, now seen ass more sympathic by the third world countries, especcially now with it's position versus the USA.
BTW Leni Riefenstahl died yesterday at age 101.
-"Two things are unendless: the universe and human stupidity. But I am not so sure about the universe" Einstein
-Question: "Why do mountain climbers rope themselves together?" Answer: "To prevent the sensible ones from going home!" Anonymous
-Question: "Why do mountain climbers rope themselves together?" Answer: "To prevent the sensible ones from going home!" Anonymous
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Grosscurth,
I agree that the old enemies France and Germany coming together is a thoroughly good thing. However, it does not mean that they can be allowed to run the EU alone in case the rest of us upset them.
Of the two, the Germans have always been under represented in the European insitutions and have poured billions of marks/euros into the other major EU countries including France, but excepting Britain which has always more than paid its own way, even when poorer than France. I personally think that the growth of Europe has been largely due to German willingness to subsume its national self interest in favour of the wider interest of Europe. (In financial terms, so has the U.K.)
France had a stanglehold on the EU for its first thirty years because when it was founded Germany and Italy were still politically and militarily impotent after WWII and the Benelux countries were insignificant. De Gaulle stopped British entry in the early 1960s. The result was that EU institutions were originally largely modelled on French originals and disproportionately staffed by French bureaucrats. This set the tone and culture of the EU's central institutions, which remain under responsive to democratic control and are corrupt by most northern European standards.
Until the accession of Austria, all overland trade between Italy, Iberia, Britain and Germany had to pass through France and most British ferry routes went to France, as does the tunnel now. Thus the French government doesn't much mind if its farmers or lorry drivers occasionally block the autoroutes because it reminds the rest of Europe that France's co-operation is key.
Why is the European Airbus headquarters in France? Why is the European Space Agency based on French territory? Why is there that ridiculous second parliament building in Strasbourg? Why did the French try to blackmail their way to the presidency of the European Central Bank? Why have the French not paid their fines to the EU over banning British beef? Why are the French always amongst the slowest to ratify European legislation? (By contrast to the supposedly "uncommunitaire" British).
The answer is because France's central position gives it an effective veto over the development of the EU. It is not in any legislation, but it has been very reql. That is why France is reluctant to see the expansion of the EU eastwards (unlike Britain for example). If the EU centre of gravity shifts eastwards France could end up on the edge of the Union, not it centre. The central position would then fall to Germany, thus weakening the importance to Berlin of the Paris alliance.
France is a country that has advanced over the last 60 years by virtue of the disruptive potential of its real veto in the UN and its effective veto in the EU. It even tried the same trick by pulling out of the NATO command structure - but it bluff was called on that one. France is without pro-active policies itself. It is ruled entirely by self interest. The only "communitaire" thing about France is the word "communitaire" itself!
What must be admitted is that the continued French pursuit of old fashioned self interest has been generally effective for it inside Europe and in terms of real politique the likes of Giscard, Mitterand and, to a lesser extent, Chirac have been pragmatic and effective presidents.
As I said before, I have no particular brief to defend the US, but if you think that the likes of Bush or Cheney couldn't happen in Europe you are deeply mistaken. You just have to look at Italy now, or Kohl's receipt of French money off Mitterand's slush fund to realise that.
Israel does violate most resolutuions, but as I explained, they are of a different severity to those against Iraq. I too am deeply unimpressed by Israel, but I haven't time to go into that now. However, It is unlikely that Israel has killed one tenth of the Moslems in 55 years that Saddam Hussein alone did in the last 25. It may have killed less than Nasser in Yemen. Personally, I don't think Israel is a democratic country in the western mould and its very exclusivity makes it fundamentally "un-American" as well. The state should never have been founded in 1948, but now it is there it has to be found a place in the world.
I have seen no evidence that the Americans hate the French. They do not respect them enough at present to waste such an intense emotion on them!
Personally I think it is good that the EU is putting money into Palestine. However, as France is only a marginal net payer into the EU coffers (i.e. for the first time in EU history in recent years it takes almost as much out as it puts in) it is actually German, British and Dutch money that the EU is spending.
Cheers,
Sid.
I agree that the old enemies France and Germany coming together is a thoroughly good thing. However, it does not mean that they can be allowed to run the EU alone in case the rest of us upset them.
Of the two, the Germans have always been under represented in the European insitutions and have poured billions of marks/euros into the other major EU countries including France, but excepting Britain which has always more than paid its own way, even when poorer than France. I personally think that the growth of Europe has been largely due to German willingness to subsume its national self interest in favour of the wider interest of Europe. (In financial terms, so has the U.K.)
France had a stanglehold on the EU for its first thirty years because when it was founded Germany and Italy were still politically and militarily impotent after WWII and the Benelux countries were insignificant. De Gaulle stopped British entry in the early 1960s. The result was that EU institutions were originally largely modelled on French originals and disproportionately staffed by French bureaucrats. This set the tone and culture of the EU's central institutions, which remain under responsive to democratic control and are corrupt by most northern European standards.
Until the accession of Austria, all overland trade between Italy, Iberia, Britain and Germany had to pass through France and most British ferry routes went to France, as does the tunnel now. Thus the French government doesn't much mind if its farmers or lorry drivers occasionally block the autoroutes because it reminds the rest of Europe that France's co-operation is key.
Why is the European Airbus headquarters in France? Why is the European Space Agency based on French territory? Why is there that ridiculous second parliament building in Strasbourg? Why did the French try to blackmail their way to the presidency of the European Central Bank? Why have the French not paid their fines to the EU over banning British beef? Why are the French always amongst the slowest to ratify European legislation? (By contrast to the supposedly "uncommunitaire" British).
The answer is because France's central position gives it an effective veto over the development of the EU. It is not in any legislation, but it has been very reql. That is why France is reluctant to see the expansion of the EU eastwards (unlike Britain for example). If the EU centre of gravity shifts eastwards France could end up on the edge of the Union, not it centre. The central position would then fall to Germany, thus weakening the importance to Berlin of the Paris alliance.
France is a country that has advanced over the last 60 years by virtue of the disruptive potential of its real veto in the UN and its effective veto in the EU. It even tried the same trick by pulling out of the NATO command structure - but it bluff was called on that one. France is without pro-active policies itself. It is ruled entirely by self interest. The only "communitaire" thing about France is the word "communitaire" itself!
What must be admitted is that the continued French pursuit of old fashioned self interest has been generally effective for it inside Europe and in terms of real politique the likes of Giscard, Mitterand and, to a lesser extent, Chirac have been pragmatic and effective presidents.
As I said before, I have no particular brief to defend the US, but if you think that the likes of Bush or Cheney couldn't happen in Europe you are deeply mistaken. You just have to look at Italy now, or Kohl's receipt of French money off Mitterand's slush fund to realise that.
Israel does violate most resolutuions, but as I explained, they are of a different severity to those against Iraq. I too am deeply unimpressed by Israel, but I haven't time to go into that now. However, It is unlikely that Israel has killed one tenth of the Moslems in 55 years that Saddam Hussein alone did in the last 25. It may have killed less than Nasser in Yemen. Personally, I don't think Israel is a democratic country in the western mould and its very exclusivity makes it fundamentally "un-American" as well. The state should never have been founded in 1948, but now it is there it has to be found a place in the world.
I have seen no evidence that the Americans hate the French. They do not respect them enough at present to waste such an intense emotion on them!
Personally I think it is good that the EU is putting money into Palestine. However, as France is only a marginal net payer into the EU coffers (i.e. for the first time in EU history in recent years it takes almost as much out as it puts in) it is actually German, British and Dutch money that the EU is spending.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Henrik,
The US spent some ten years following the UN route and having its freedom of action limited by this voluntary compliance.
I say "voluntary" because, since the demise of the USSR there has been absolutely no physical restraint that could be put on the USA by the rest of the world to force its compliance. This unipolar world is likely to last until China get its nuclear/technological act together and starts throwing its weight about internationally. (God help us then, if the US and China clash!)
The attempt to get explicit UN backing for the war on Iraq was simply the tail end of this voulntary compliance policy. The US still argues that it had UN authority for the war on Iraq on the grounds of Iraq's earlier failure to comply with UN resolutions it had agreed to in order to gain a cease fire after the first Gulf War.
I wouldn't argue for a moment that historical US backing for Israel, the existence of which is the main cause of the Western:Islamic divide, has been counter-productive. However, it would be naive to assume it is the only cause of Western:Islamic friction or that the problem only lies on the Western side.
I wouldn't describe myself as "pro-war". I simply feel it was justified on this occasion, although probably not for all the reasons advanced by the UK government. The trouble is that there is no effective international mechanism for identifying and getting rid of demonstrably monstrous regimes such as that of Saddam Hussein.
I am perfectly well aware that the arrival of Iraqi oil on the market will take the pressure off other producers and tend to help keep the price of oil down. However, that does not necessarily mean that this was the central US motive. Nor does it guarantee a fall in the price of oil (which, incidentally, would benefit not just the US and its supporters, but its opponents as well), because OPEC is not yet dead and demand is not falling.
That'll teach me not to have kept informed on this subject since our last discussions in March/April. You are right. The UN oil-for-food account is now finished.
Is the Development Fund for Iraq UN approved? It seems to be willing to channel money into it.
The fact that Iraqi overseas funds are held by other countries does not of itself mean they will be misappropriated. The fact that their whereabouts is publicly known should be some reassurance on this point.
Surely the fact that so much reconstruction activity in Iraq that would normally fall directly under the UN has now instead fallen under US control with grudging UN compliance is the perfect illustration of the total miscalculation of those opposing the overthrow of Saddam Hussein within the UN security council? They have effectively exposed their own vetos as worthless and the UN now has even less influence than it would have had if it backed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
The US is hardly innocent in the demise of the UN, but the blindness of its opponents has been equally damaging. At least the US has the overthrow of Saddam Hussein to show for its efforts. What would they have had to show if successful in blocking the US? Saddam Hussein's survival?
The whole thing hasn't misfired badly, but it has misfired and could still do so badly. It has taken much longer than expected to get Iraqi infrastructure back to pre-war levels of efficiency, and it is proving far more expensive than anticipated. That said, the material situation of Iraqis is likely to improve, not deteriorate, once local administrative and security structures are back in place and have gained some popular legitimacy. However, whether the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites can be relied upon to live together passively in a unitary state is another matter.
Cheers,
Sid.
The US spent some ten years following the UN route and having its freedom of action limited by this voluntary compliance.
I say "voluntary" because, since the demise of the USSR there has been absolutely no physical restraint that could be put on the USA by the rest of the world to force its compliance. This unipolar world is likely to last until China get its nuclear/technological act together and starts throwing its weight about internationally. (God help us then, if the US and China clash!)
The attempt to get explicit UN backing for the war on Iraq was simply the tail end of this voulntary compliance policy. The US still argues that it had UN authority for the war on Iraq on the grounds of Iraq's earlier failure to comply with UN resolutions it had agreed to in order to gain a cease fire after the first Gulf War.
I wouldn't argue for a moment that historical US backing for Israel, the existence of which is the main cause of the Western:Islamic divide, has been counter-productive. However, it would be naive to assume it is the only cause of Western:Islamic friction or that the problem only lies on the Western side.
I wouldn't describe myself as "pro-war". I simply feel it was justified on this occasion, although probably not for all the reasons advanced by the UK government. The trouble is that there is no effective international mechanism for identifying and getting rid of demonstrably monstrous regimes such as that of Saddam Hussein.
I am perfectly well aware that the arrival of Iraqi oil on the market will take the pressure off other producers and tend to help keep the price of oil down. However, that does not necessarily mean that this was the central US motive. Nor does it guarantee a fall in the price of oil (which, incidentally, would benefit not just the US and its supporters, but its opponents as well), because OPEC is not yet dead and demand is not falling.
That'll teach me not to have kept informed on this subject since our last discussions in March/April. You are right. The UN oil-for-food account is now finished.
Is the Development Fund for Iraq UN approved? It seems to be willing to channel money into it.
The fact that Iraqi overseas funds are held by other countries does not of itself mean they will be misappropriated. The fact that their whereabouts is publicly known should be some reassurance on this point.
Surely the fact that so much reconstruction activity in Iraq that would normally fall directly under the UN has now instead fallen under US control with grudging UN compliance is the perfect illustration of the total miscalculation of those opposing the overthrow of Saddam Hussein within the UN security council? They have effectively exposed their own vetos as worthless and the UN now has even less influence than it would have had if it backed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
The US is hardly innocent in the demise of the UN, but the blindness of its opponents has been equally damaging. At least the US has the overthrow of Saddam Hussein to show for its efforts. What would they have had to show if successful in blocking the US? Saddam Hussein's survival?
The whole thing hasn't misfired badly, but it has misfired and could still do so badly. It has taken much longer than expected to get Iraqi infrastructure back to pre-war levels of efficiency, and it is proving far more expensive than anticipated. That said, the material situation of Iraqis is likely to improve, not deteriorate, once local administrative and security structures are back in place and have gained some popular legitimacy. However, whether the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites can be relied upon to live together passively in a unitary state is another matter.
Cheers,
Sid.