France and Germany, upholding democracy for us all.

I don’t consider democracy the fundamental issue here. Germany, Belgium or France would not that in no circumstances must Iraq be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction. However I do share Fischer’s scepticism that a war is the right strategy. (Though does anyone seriously think Saddam would be letting the weapons inspectors in at all without the US Army breathing down his neck?).

If you hold the view that this is all simply a convenient pretext for US geo-political expansionism and securing future oil supplies then any military pressure on Iraq must seem reprehensible. Unlike many in the peace-movement I do think there is a genuine threat from Iraq; I just don’t think the policy of containment has failed.

Scepticism about the justification of a war is one thing. Germany-Belgium-France’s refusal of Turkey’s request for defensive Patriot missiles is another all together. I’ve tried justifying this to myself a number of ways but Turkey *is* a NATO ally, has its own serious reservations about a war, does not wish to participate in an attack, so to then deny them defensive capabilities strikes me as a major error of judgment.

PS why is NATO falling apart a ‘good thing’?

Its just disappointing to see this nationalistic streak rear its ugly head every time there's a squabble between supposed Allies - the Belgians were referred to as 'those chocolate makers' by one tablid, as if that was somehow something to be ashamed of (its a patronising statement of course) and as Ed says you can be sure there will be numerous references to striped-jersey/garlic-smelling/goose-stepping/sausage-eating ungrateful cowards over the next few days/weeks, sigh...

WOOP! WOOP! NAIVETY ALERT!

Do you really think there's going to be an Iraqi attack on Turkey? Of course not. Turkey is just being beefed up (temporarily) to make it worthy to be used as an airbase for the US invasion, an invasion which Washington has made clear will go ahead whether the UN, NATO, the weapons inspectors, 'old Europe', or anyone else approves or not. The veto is nothing to do with Turkey specifically, it's just a timely reminder to the US that international organisations are not just there to rubberstamp whatever US policy happens to be at the time -- even the few international organisations they actually approve of, like old NATO (it's only the new, liberal int orgs they dislike -- the ICC etc. But they're ready to declare 'irrelevant' any org that thwarts their lust for 'blood and oil'.)

I am concerned about the future though. Plainly NATO will collapse, Britain will withdraw from the European Union and US-UK will form their own special alliance, probably with Turkey as well. But Ireland will find its two major trading partners in an anti European alliance! so we will either stay with Europe and become impoverished, or join the axis of cockfarming. Personnally I'm thinking of learning Swedish and moving up north.

Because if Iraq were to launch the tiny, tiny number of remaining missles at someone, it would be Israel. Was it just patriots Turkey was asking for, or ground troops as well? Turkey is far more likely to be attacked by a resurgent Kurdistan than Saddam, and I doubt NATO wants to go about blowing up Kurds.

Actually, I agree, its hard to see the NATO thing as anything other than "old europe" thumbing its nose at the US and is pretty undefenseable.

I am completely against the war, but what Turkey is asking for from NATO are purely defensive measures against the (very unlikely) event of Saddam attacking Turkey. Its very different to not join an ally in an offensive war of dubious means and aims and to not help an ally defend himself from the possible effects of said offensive war.

Momus – As you know Saddam was prepared to gas Iraqi Kurds during the war with Iran (that ‘the west’ idiotically supported him then is not the issue here). The B’aath Party machinery that backs him uses terror on a daily basis to crush any signs of opposition (recommended reading Kanan Makiya Republic of Fear).

Faced with an overwhelming US military attack intent on unseating this elite from power I wouldn’t discount them from doing anything that might help their cause, and yes that includes lobbing missiles at Turkey (especially the NATO bases) just as Scuds were fired at Israel.

I need no convincing that a majority of Europeans are opposed to the war. I’m far from convinced myself. However on this specific issue I don’t see the request for Patriot missiles as another demand to rubber-stamp overassertive cack-handed US policy. Given most of the world already shares Franco-Belgian-German reservations I don’t think this particular decision helped their cause. One of many tragedies in the making here is increasing divisions not only between the US and Europe, but between European states themselves at a time when there remains a real threat of terrorist attacks.

(which is why i dislike the default position — on either side — that this is an argument between idealism and cynicism: when it comes to actual real politics, anti-war manouevres will get just as down-and-dirty ie "tactical")

(which i have no great problem with, seeing as the war will be a catastrophe: the lack of forethought evidenced by US leaders in re the European political as it unfolds before us is just a hint of how little this project has actually been thought through in the white house, how incredibly fatuous and hubristic it is... of course the worst that will likely happen to bush is no second term and the bush name a joke for decades; in the rest of the world, lots of ppl will die to no coherent or attainable purpose)

If you don't think it's tactical rubberstamping on the part of USUK, look at the way George Robertson tried to sneak the NATO Turkey missiling resolution, making Monday 900 am the cut-off point for objections/vetos. Pretty sneaky to rush the measure through at the end of the week and make the cut-off point Monday morning bright and early, wasn't it?

That would only be my position if I thought Turkey were threatened by Saddam. In fact, they are threatened by being an ally of the US (just as, for different reasons, Britain is -- see unprecedented deployment of army throughout London and at Heathrow today -- fucking scary.)

A London street today, thanks to Tony's pro-Bush policies.

They are trying to nip an expensive and destabilising war in the bud. Where are Musharaff's textile deals? Where are Karzai's American bodyguards? The US is a fickle friend, incapable of dealing with the humanitarian and political chaos that follows its 'surgical strikes'. Where is the after-sales service? These are questions Europe has learned, post-Kosovo, to raise. The US is apparently not thinking much past 2004.

The people say 'Iraq doesn't directly threaten us. But America wants our nation on its side in a war against Iraq, to spread the costs and risks of its war.'

The people then ask 'Will this make life in our country more dangerous?' They have to answer that with 'Yes, it will. Terrorism will be a threat even if Iraq's scuds aren't.'

The people then ask: 'Will the US protect us from this higher level of risk?' And the people will have to conclude 'The US will protect us, but only for a very limited period. They will try to fob the protection off onto international organisations like NATO (although in general they're against the world being run by such organisations), and they will abandon us as soon as some other conflict obsesses them. Also, the US will continue to be pretty ineffective against Al Quaeda, which worries us a lot more than Saddam Hussein. Helping the US will make us even more of a target for an organisation the US seems unable to find, let alone defeat. And the US' war against a target they can find, Iraq, will only make Al Quaeda stronger.'

So the people decide 'Let's stay out of this. Saddam is already contained.' Unfortunately, the government of the people's country does not appear to be listening. Hence this thread title. Right to veto = a democratic instrument, to be exercised in the name of the people. In this case the people of Europe, massively, approve.

Germany, Belgium, France and the rest of the UN, all agree that Iraq must not be allowed to posses weapons of mass destruction. That would make “life in our country more dangerous”. Saddam is a tyrant who wished to turn Iraq into a super-power in one of the most sensitive geo-political regions on earth. Had Saddam held onto Kuwait without UN intervention (opposed by Belgium incidentally who refused to sell the UK armaments) he would have been a considerable step closer to his goal. Lest we forget Saddam has already directly supported terrorism in the UK –Iraq flew in, armed and supported the hijackers responsible for the Iranian Embassy Siege.

The people then ask: 'Will the US protect us from this higher level of risk?' And the people will have to conclude 'The US will protect us, but only for a very limited period. They will try to fob the protection off onto international organisations like NATO (although in general they're against the world being run by such organisations), and they will abandon us as soon as some other conflict obsesses them.

Without US military support NATO would have little credibility. There is little balance between US capabilities and the rest. When NATO engaged in military action for the first time in its history, in Europe, in Bosnia, in Kosovo, with backing from ‘the people’ it was predominantly US aircraft that flew in those air campaigns. Without US involvement those conflicts would have been lost. I’m glad they weren’t. Without US involvement Milosevic wouldn’t be sitting in a prison cell not far from where I’m writing this.

Also, the US will continue to be pretty ineffective against Al Quaeda, which worries us a lot more than Saddam Hussein. Helping the US will make us even more of a target for an organisation the US seems unable to find, let alone defeat. And the US' war against a target they can find, Iraq, will only make Al Quaeda stronger.'

This is one of the strongest arguments against a war in my view . Namely the damage it will do to ‘the war on terrorism’ by turning much moderate Arab opinion into radical anti-Western Arab opinion and exasperating an already running sore between the west and the arab world.

So the people decide 'Let's stay out of this. Saddam is already contained.' Unfortunately, the government of the people's country does not appear to be listening. Hence this thread title. Right to veto = a democratic instrument, to be exercised in the name of the people. In this case the people of Europe, massively, approve.

Ok I agree. So long as

a) we don’t pretend that there is no threat that needs to be addressed from Iraq possessing WMDs and defying UN weapons inspectors.

b) that don’t taint our anti-war arguments with anti-Americanism.

I spoke with an Iraqi refugee recently. He can’t wait for Saddam to be disposed. He just doesn’t want his family in Baghdad to be vaporised in the process.

France and Germany are standing up for the multilateral approach to problems that more or less works within the EU. (Germany is in better position to assume the moral high ground in this not having blocked reform of the CAP, plus they were very magnanimous in agree to be under represented in QMV decisions).

NATO's role is over, its time for Europe to look after its own security and it can best do this through ensuring that a gap as wide as that between the US and the third world does not open between Europe and the rest of the world.

Maybe I misunderstood, but according to what I heard from the news, outright denial of protection is not what is being discussed here; Germany, France & Belgium only want to wait until war is inevitable to deploy these missiles, and fear that deploying them *now* would be a provocation. The USA, meanwhile, already sees war as inevitable, and thus sees no reason to wait. So it's not about *denying* Turkey protection, it's just about when we'll do it (and if doing it will even be necessary); in the case that war starts, I think no one will deny Turkey those missiles (if NATO still exists by then of course.)

the Belgians were referred to as 'those chocolate makers'

That's the oddest fucking insult I've ever heard. I mean, everyone loves chocolate, no?

Protection racket vicous circle = 'Become our ally because you're going to need our protection from the people who will attack you because you're our ally'.

Anti-American vicious circle = 'Join with America as it tries, in a couple of short years, to turn previously-friendly nations against it and betray some of the most fundamental tenets of its own constitution -- otherwise you are anti-American'.

Is this (to paraphrase Hitchens) the France that sent troops to Rwanda to try and rescue a client-regime that had just unleashed ethnocide against the Tutsi? The France that currently treats the people and nation of Cote d'Ivoire as their colonial posession? The France who ordered the destruction of the Rainbow Warrior? The France that ignored world opinion and carrried out those nuclear tests? The France that recently torpedoed attempts at reforming the CAP to protect its own farmers?

Any strike on Iraq, and it's a British general strike!

Momus, I'm skeptical that you know all that much about Iraq. Perhaps you do, if so please elaborate. It's just that I hear so many Anglo-American pundits on all sides of the debate waxing "definitive" about Iraq when their seems to be a very severe dearth of knowledge regarding contemporary Iraqi society.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2277145.stm

Don't take it from me, take it from Iraqis themselves, like the Iraqi artists interviewed in this NPR piece:

http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=990448

Don't take it from me, take it from Eric Boehlert in Salon, who thinks that 'chemical weapons, civil war and Arab rage could turn an invasion into a disaster.'

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/01/22/iraq_doom/index_np.html

do you think Iraqis are better off under Saddam Hussein than they will be after him?

'The Americans' plan is to occupy the oil fields, to overthrow the Iraqi national government, to divide up Iraq, and to solve the Palestinian question to the benefit of the Israelis. It will allow the Americans to control the whole world because if we talk about oil, Iraq is a lake of oil. The last drop of oil in the world will be in Iraq. Really sometimes their speeches and these threats are disgusting. It's not right. When they say they want to protect human rights, they actually want to overthrow the national government. This is interfering in our internal affairs...

What do you do with rockets and airplanes bombing you? You sit with your family at home. Civilians can do nothing.'

Dr Mohammed Muthaffar Adhami

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/voices_from_iraq/html/adhami.stm

Momus - you realize that these statements to the press are made with govt' monitors in the room right? and that Hussein isn't exactly tolerant of dissent? (ask Tariq Aziz; better yet ask his family)

If there is a war, I'm staying right here in my home in Baghdad. Where would I go? I don't have friends or family in the country who can put me up. I'd rather die at home than anywhere else. If I leave my home in a war, we'll be thrown around the country and get lost as refugees. Of course there's a danger in staying in Baghdad, but I'd rather be here and my family will stay with me. Most people in the city will do the same.'

Emanuel Shamoun, resident of Baghdad

If the war takes place we will leave this area because we don't know what the government is going to do. We know that he killed hundreds of thousands of people. No matter what he says we can never trust him.'

Gulzar Ahmad, kurd

is it even worth pointing out how full of shit this remark is?

A week or two ago, PBS aired a dicumentary on the Gulf War, which was shown as a Frontline (well-regarded news show) piece. During the show, Israel revealed that their research suggested that the Patriot missles were not effective at all. Additionally, Cheney himself admitted that the Patriots were a tool to keep Israel out of the war. The ineffectiveness of the missles was a fact hidden from the Israelis in order to make the general populace think that they were being defended. This documentary was made in the mid-90s and aired originally in 1996, which is why participants such as Cheney, Powell and Tariq Aziz were so amazingly honest. I think that if some of these figures had known that they would return to power, they would not have even participated.

(NB even the GAO released figured saying that the Patriots did not really work, and that, at best, they might have been 25% effective)

and yeah, patriot missile ineffectiveness has been (or should've been) argument number one against sdi

'As for the often-stated goal of creating a democratic Iraq, that too could go badly in unpredictable ways. If the Iraqis were given a genuine voice in a post-Saddam government, the majority might vote to elect a Shiite ayatollah as their leader, who might promptly sign a mutual defense pact with the Shiite majority in Tehran. For decades, Washington has worked from the assumption that America's best interest lies in those two Shiite nations not becoming allies, since it was the Shiites in Iran who launched the Islamic revolution during the late 1970s and overthrew America's longtime ally, the shah.'

As for the BBC I don't see where you get this idea that the BBC is against democracy?

Two camps, yes. Hostile? Not necessarily.

It would be a terrible shame if whatever postwar events occured in Iraq should serve to reinforce the domestic power of the hardliners in the Iranian government (the mullahs and their thugs).

The potential for Iran's opening up further to the rest of the world (not that they have ever been nearly as isolated as North Korea, nor as pariahlike as Iraq) is one of a few things that fills me with optimism.

I've thought for years that the US should thaw out its relations with Iran, though it's not too likely with this administration.

Meanwhile, in Iraq...

'President Saddam Hussein is moving large amounts of explosives to the country?s oil fields, in apparent preparations to destroy them in case of a US-led military invasion, NBC News reported late Monday.'

And here are what the polls are finding about my fellow Europeans' views:

'In Germany, central to Europe's anti-war bloc, an opinion poll this week makes it look almost as if the Germans now see the US - not Iraq - as the main threat to world peace.

The Forsa poll found 57% of Germans held the opinion that "the United States is a nation of warmongers". Only 6% said they thought President George W Bush was concerned with "preserving peace".

A new Emnid poll conducted in Berlin found that 54% percent of Berliners under 30 years old had a "mostly negative" association with the US as a country, against 36% who saw it as "mostly positive".

A BVA poll for Paris Match found that:

79% of French people think Paris 'should use its right of veto' at the UN Security Council to stop a US attack on Iraq.

76% of French people think 'US dominance' is 'a bad thing'.'

It really looks like the end of our collective dream of a benign America. And I am sad about that.

William Pfaff Crushing German dissent: Why the U.S. fears Europe in today's IHT.

Doesn't that contradict the military review in 2001 which identified China as their main enemy? But of course things changed and then it was 'International Terrorism'. Then it was Iraq. And now, apparently, it's Germany. I wish they'd make their minds up. It's like a bear swinging at wasps.

Ha! Great! A paraphrase of that Brecht poem that ends:

'Why doesn't the government then dissolve the people and elect a new one?'

it also depends on how you view rival - I think neocons are looking at ideologies, and playing out usual anti-'old Europe' resentments (this plays pretty well to the public also - ie. Tom Brokaw made a joke about bombing France on Letterman the other night and it got a big laugh). The post-cold war military has always been built toward the idea of fighting two wars - one in Iraq, one in North Korea - simultaneously (the possibility of this ever occurring was always dismissed by alot of media analysts - go figure), with the understanding being that this was just to keep up a force big enough to contain China (number of troops-wise, in terms of technology the gap between China and America is almost as big as the gap between Europe and America). Economically the real rival is, or will be, China.

I fear the incompetence of the US left more than anything. Columbia disintegrating because its left wing broke up might be the most lasting symbol of a very symbolic disaster.

There was an article in the Nation that stated that European anti-Americanism was overstated by the right (they hate Bush, not America was the jist of the Nation piece); not very convincing

Europeans have mixed feelings about America, always have. But one thing's for sure, the America emerging from the 'womb' of Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft is not a place many Americans will recognize as America, let alone Europeans.

As far as 72 Olympics or Paris terrorism go, as terrible as those attacks were, they simply do not compare to 3000 dead, etc.

This is all too depressingly true.

Speaking of which, did anyone else read about the super-secret "Patriot Act II" draft? Bye bye constitution.

>Economically the real rival is, or will be, China.

China ain't shit. It will learn fast that there are not enough resources in the world to get it up to western standards, meanwhile its rural population is on the verge of famine. In the short term future, the EU poses the biggest threat, mainly through a strong Euro. The Euro is quickly becoming a reserve currency on par with the dollar, and if the currency used to purchase oil is switched from dollars to euros, as OPEC has been hinting at, the value of the dollar will plummet (as it should), ending US economic hegemony.

In theory, but the small problem is that the US has a pitiful manufacturing base since it moved so much of it overseas. It will take a few years to build new factories, etc, meanwhile things could get very ugly.

It's always the same, really:
Random classmate/relative/acquaintance: "I hate America"
Me: "I have friends in America"
They: "Well, I don't mean I hate all Americans..."

And five minutes after that it always boils down to "I hate American foreign policy and/or Bush". I just wish they'd make that clear the first time 'round instead of playing into the hands of U.S. isolationists.

I don't think it always boils down to only that. Usually, people hate McDonalds and Friends too.

Agreed, whole-heartedly. It's that (apparently) inevitable "divided we fall, together we fall," concept that the left in the U.S. has embraced, whether consciously or not. The left is better at dividing things into smaller and smaller special-interest issues rather than practicing the umbrella practice as occurs on the political right. If the left is going to rise and be heard, then it must learn to be embracing of many issues and many people and not concentrate so heavily on the individual issues. The right looks at the left and laughs, these days, deservedly so. We are fractured. We do not have a common voice. We do not have a common solution. We have many voices for many concerns and many solutions. But they do not meld - the right sees the left as squabbling within, instead of presenting a united front, and it is to the detriment of the peace process that the American left is unable to become a cohesive whole.

Columbia disintegrating because its left wing broke up might be the most lasting symbol of a very symbolic disaster.

I feel disgusted by this analogy. However "witty" or "catchy" it may be, we are talking about the deaths of seven people who gave their lives furthering our knowledge of our world. Have some sensitivity here, please. The funeral-baked meats have not yet cooled, the remains have not been interred, and many are still in shock. This is a thread about war and peace and the need to come together to stop a horrible event. This is not a thread for making such thoughtless comments that create even further division.

I read it and re-read it and kept trying to figure-out if I was over-reacting in my anger, and all I could conclude was that I wasn't - the comment really hit me in the wrong way. Yes, I realize that I am in the minority on here, having met the crew and having worked on some of the experiments that they conducted (in the very early documentation process, of course). I feel a close tie to the space program, which explains at least part of my reaction.

Yes, the comment can be taken as being ironic and Nick is obviously feeling disheartened about the current world situation, as I think many of us are feeling. But that doesn't justify a thoughtless comment, in my mind. And I do see it as being thoughtless and inadvertently painful.

I read your thoughtful posts following the Columbia accident, and all I can say that Momus' comments were apt, and, while perhaps overly dry, considering your personal relationship to the situation, quite thoughtful in their own right.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. *grumble, grumble, grumble*

I should know better than to write when feeling emotional and not able to open-mindedly assess the situation. I still can't see everyone else's point of view on this one, but I've been beat over the head by a few friends who say that I was being irate and irrational and that while emotions are always valid (yeah, they're from California) that perhaps my reaction was a bit overblown considering the situation.

So. Humph. *Exasperatedly blowing a lock of hair from my eyes* I am relatively certain that it was an appropriate statement that Nick made and that my reaction to said comment was a knee-jerk lashing-out instead of being thoughtful, meditated upon, and so forth.

So I apologize. Sorry.

Sorry I'm late. Also, France can suck it. I'd be more comprehensive but I'm afraid we're coming mighty close to LUPIN III time, here next to the root of all evil.

About Iraq. The U.S. shafted the anti-Saddam revolutionary groups within Iraq after the cease fire of the Persian Gulf War. The U.S. government abandoned them at a crucial time. Many are dead and/or exiled now.

Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/and co. are clearly in it for the spoils of such a war -- OIL. Before he was VP and after he was Secretary of Defense Cheney headed Brown & Root, a subsidary of Haliburton that continues to make a fortune getting fat contracts from the DOD to build/rebuild infrastructure in militarized regions. People like Cheney and Rumsfeld are beltway insiders who have devoted their lives to the military/oil complex and they are incapable of understanding the lives of ordinary people.

War in Iraq is inevitable. The "finishing where daddy left off" rhetoric is just propaganda. It's strictly business. The business of empire.

And it's a decision I reservedly support. America owes it the Kurds and those in the resistance who lost family and comrades to their causes.

Namely: if NATO supports an immediate move to provide military assistance to Turkey, that will be seen as an endorsement of not only war, but of Bush's timetable (which really is just NOW!), and will make it far more difficult to approach alternatives.

I don't get the sense that Belgium, et al., are oppose to supporting Turkey in this fashion, but want restraint on any military action. If for some reason they would support military regime change in Iraq or feel that war is inevitable and immediate and that the risk to Turkey, other than from the Kurds, is plausible, then they'll act. I understand there's a lot of Ifs there, but an oppositional move such as this may be necessary to at least drag out the timetable, if not also allow for alternatives.

Has anyone noticed the nations most opposed to war and kicking up a fuss have first hand experience of the repercussions of war on their people? Before I get lynched by the my-grandad-fought-in-the-war mob, I know Britain has experience too, but not to the extent of France, Germany and Russia.

I just think that's very telling and wanted to point it out.

'The House committee's top Democrat, Rep. Tom Lantos of California, said in remarks prepared for the hearing that he was "particularly disgusted by the blind intransigence and utter ingratitude" of France, Germany and Belgium, which have blocked a U.S.-backed plan to improve Turkey's defenses against any attack from neighboring Iraq. The three countries, which favor giving U.N. weapons inspectors more time in Iraq, see the plan as making war more likely.

"If it were not for the heroic efforts of America's military, France, Germany and Belgium today would be Soviet socialist republics," Lantos said. "The failure of these three states to honor their commitments is beneath contempt."

The committee's chairman, Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., said in his prepared remarks that "America has fought distant wars to defend whole continents from a succession of aggressors, but the beneficiaries of the safety we have ensured often devote their energies to impeding our efforts to help others."

(Salon)

I just love this picture of the US fighting distant noble wars of principle, defending distant people from other distant people attacking them, only to find the 'beneficiaries of the safety' stopping the US providing the same assistance to other distant peoples when their hour of need comes! I mean, why would they do that? It could only be some sort of client state sibling rivalry. France and Germany, having been 'saved' from Adolf and Joe, are just jealous of Turkey, now its turn has come to be 'saved' from Saddam. Sour grapes! And then, don't you know it, no sooner will the US have 'saved' Turkey and be preparing an invasion of Iran, than Turkey will probably turn round and say 'Hey, you can't do that! Lay off!' Extraordinary ingratitude! Why it's enough to make a benign old superpower just leave the rest of the world to their own devices! But not quite enough.

One way to look at WWII is as a partial loss for the United States, in that we let a dictator as brutal as Hitler end up with 1/2 of Europe.

The U.S. and Soviet Union did indeed break the back of the Third Reich. Now, I don't know about France and Belgium ever being Soviet satelites. That's totally hypothetical and irrelevant.

Saddam is no modern-day Saladin either.

As Chirac said yesterday, there is a difference between a friend and a sicophant. A friend tells you when he disagrees with you. A sicophant never disagrees. It's much better to have a couple of good friends than any number of sicophants.

Now THAT'S a turn-up for the books...

Here's the inauguration speech he should have given:

'Thank you for the trust you, and my party's appointees on the supreme court, have put in me. My fellow Americans, there is a lot to be done now.

There are new federal jobs to be created, on an unprecedented scale, to make big government even bigger than it ever has been. By 2003 I want to see the public sector as the only growth area in new jobs for this country.

There are new depths to be plumbed in the economy. I'd like, within a couple of years, to see the Dow and NASDAQ indexes at their lowest levels since the 80s.

I'd like to see monopolies like Microsoft go scot free. I'd also like to see some of our major corporations fall like dominos as a result of fraudulent accounting practises. I'd like to see any implications of impropriety on the part of prominent figures in my administration left uninvestigated.

I'd like draconian new legislation that lets government spy on people to an unprecedented degree. I want to see new death penalties, deportation rights, and a real erosion of civil liberties.

I will create new sandmen and bogeymen. Some will be really dangerous, others will just scare you.

And I will create new wars! Let's create new enemies, then massively increase our defence spending, all the while cutting health and welfare programs for the weak, the sick and the elderly and making tax cuts which benefit tiny minorities of the rich.

Let's create new enemies, I say, by turning many of our old allies in Europe against us!

I'd like to see a new willingness to lower the threshold to nuclear war, together with a new tactical policy of pre-emptive strikes and invasions of other sovereign states. And I'd like to see all this justified by Colin Powell in the most laughably transparent terms, so that the message that comes through loud and clear to the world is: 'Our country, right or wrong'.

While all this is going on, I want to see our dependence on foreign oil increased, environmental legislation loosened, international agreements scrapped, and our nation's energy policy dictated by meetings with a handful of my and Dick's friends at meetings nobody will ever see the notes to.

Thank you for the trust some of you have placed in me, America! We've got a lot of damage to do, so let's get to work!'

To be pedantic, Cheney was CEO of Haliburton. The actions of their Brown & Root subsidiary don't bother me nearly as much as the actions of their European subsidiary, which engaged the Burmese military's help in providing slave labor for projects in that country (as reported by the Wall Street Journal before the '00 election).

My conspiracy theory senses are now in overload and I fear my tinfoil hat as been rendered useless.

Asa regards the franco-german plan we should wait until tomorrow when it is presented to the world. I am for anything that will avert war.

he has surely got himself into the current fix by sticking to his convictions

(i think it's a mainly good thing — pragmatically speaking — when govts do listen btw, but the principle involved is primarily "i don't want to be voted out of office" mixed in somewhat with "huge numbers of voters so alienated from the system that they take to the streets is a bad situation to have got into")

(when i can work out how to word it i will maybe start a "does idealism suck as politics?/why and how i am a pragmatist" thread...)

France has a lot of money tied up in Iraq (50 billion dollars?).

Russia doesn't want cheap Iraqi oil flooding the market.

Belgium has been promised the Congo back, and access to the waffle mines etc.

stuart, france isnt being principled. and as soon as the war starts france will do a 180 and be right in on the gravy train behind you.

and why should any country necessarily follow what america says? america seems to think that all of the other countries of the world are duty bound to agree with it on this! well i dont for a start

lawrence is correct. the other countries are pursuing their own ends just as america is pursuing its. the only difference this time is that they dont coincide

I would happy to discuss it if you would explain this a bit more. (I read the article upthread.)

i'm due to meet and probably argue with a friend (protest marcher) later on today (it's 5am, and i'm tired and emotional) - i will find it interesting to explore the areas of acts/omissions and double effect theory which are involved in this horribly difficult issue.....
(sort of surprised it's taken so long for govt./media to finally start mentioning them)

MPs are elected and they should have had the vote on this issue no?

>>Belgium has been promised the Congo back, and access to the waffle mines etc.<<

In between various pieces of truth, you have managed to insert utter comedic genius. I salute you and your clear OTM status.

-
Alan

possible brightside to all this: NATO falls apart
― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 11 February 2003 bookmarkflaglink

Its happening

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-us-troops-europe-nato-2019728

Well the other Donny T seems into it.

linking to newsweek?

I love links.

I don't think NATO falling apart is a good thing. That being said, functionally its probably already been happening since Obama's second term, though only Poland and the Baltics seem to have realized (Finland a separate case who already made their own plans prior to joining)

It does seem like there's a certain amount of denial in Europe about this, even with the exceptions Poland's belated realisation about a changed landscape has been pretty late. In most countries it feels like there's an assumption that its still 2006 and big dog US will ride in and protect, but this hasn't felt like a particularly reliable assumption in at least a decade.