New New World Order?

shotamoose

Well, to sum up what I think on the topic: I would say that the present US administration not only believes that it can bully or bribe anyone else into acting in accord with it but also that this means it does not need to take any notice of any dissenting voices. The first proposition may be true, but the second one is a fundamental miscalculation. Maybe you can threaten and cajole, but to instantly dismiss any disagreements you meet as futile and ignoring the inevitable will eventually earn you the dislike of everyone you meet. For me, this was the real meaning of the massive anti-war marches around the world last weekend. Since many of the people marching would support a war against Iraq in the right circumstances and if it had the full and active support of the Security Council and the support of a significant portion of the wider UN membership, those marches (estimated to total around 15 million people worldwide) were most of all protesting against the Bush regime. The majority of sensible people I know who have an opinion on it genuinely despise the Bush regime. Why? Because its attitude is that it just doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, and not just on war but on trade, finance and the environment too. Your opinion will not make a jot of difference to the course of action the US takes.

This is just not a good idea in the long run. Many of the countries the US deals with are democracies, and in those countries governments are being distinctly uncomfortable by the gulf between official and public attitudes to the US - in Turkey, 90% of the people are reportedly against a war, and even the promise of $26bn in loans and aid and a free run at the Kurds doesn't seem to have convinced the government to ignore that. And as I said the US is finding that it in fact is reliant on the opinions of others, most notably in the Security Council. But as I also said above, I just don't think the present regime is able to learn from this, especially if its belligerent reactions to disagreements is anything to go by.

The upshot may well be that the present regime becomes increasingly politically isolated, but not necessarily any less interventionist in the rest of the world. And this can only be a bad thing.

The Corinthian

"Let us be the wise Greeks to the bumptious Romans" - Harold Macmillan.

Our balkanised nature as Europeans (the fact that many of us don't even like being described as such) is ultimately the reason why Pax Americana shall succeed. The British have, perhaps wisely, already realized this and are following the path of becoming the "wise Greeks" or a European equivalent to Puerto Rico. I am slowly and sadly coming to the conclusion that the rest of us have little alternative but to follow suit.

SloanerF1

Originally posted by shotamoose
Leaving aside the arguments over the rights and wrongs of the Iraq issue, I'm beginning to wonder whether, in a practical sense, America is dangerously over-reaching itself. What I mean is that while America is certainly the most powerful country in the world (and perhaps is more dominant than any other singular force has been in history, though that's a whole other argument), some in the present administration seem to believe that this means they can do what they like, when they like and how they like without having to consider the consequences; simply, that power is its own excuse and its own answer to every protest.

In my view, the main problem is that they are now the world's only real Superpower. No-one can really afford to hold them to account, even their own people

Von

The Statement Of Principles on the New American Century site pretty much says it all. Almost every name on the list of signatories now figures in the news around Iraq -- and most controversially of all, Dan Quayle is there

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Cork

France opposes the war, yes along with it's public, but it may also benefit from the continuation of Sadam's regime if it has an oil contract with him.

We should Bertie not safegaurd our economy and for US assistance is getting the Peace Process going again?

It is hard enough to get jobs out there.

It is so easy for opposition TDs to harp on. France is minding its economic interests.

We should not be afraid to safegaurd our own.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
If the French people were baying for the Iraqis to be liberated much as they were by the americans 60 years ago then yes, the French leadership would eventually crumble and fall into line.

Originally posted by Sand
The will of the people does not guide political and international strategies - France has not held a referendum on what their policy should be, have they?

I'd love to continue this discussion (and maybe ask one or two of my French co-workers to offer their input), but before we go any further....

could you make up your mind please?

Either the French government does, or does not, follow public sentiment. You're alternating from one to the other here to back up your various arguemtns, and its difficult to decide which one of these two positions I'm supposed to be listening to

jc

Sand

My opinion is that the French government follows the path it feels best for France, often without consulting the people of france - this is what it is elected to do.

Should a policy be so wholly unpopular that the french engage of their favourite past times of polluting their rivers, and burning animals alive then a politician thinking of the next election may be forced into a U-Turn. This is obvious, no?

You cant argue the French government is going with the will of its people when it has not consulted its people. All you can say is that the French media and "rent a protest" havent come out against their decision so there has been no pressure on the French to make a choice.

Bertie Aherns government operates on a similar principle - it is so deeply unpopular that it cannot be said to act on the will of the people ( it would resign if it did ), but rather acts in what it considers to be Irelands ( and of course Fianna Fails ) best interests - and hopes to drag the people along with them.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
My opinion is that the French government follows the path it feels best for France, often without consulting the people of france - this is what it is elected to do.
/B]

OK...so you didnt mean what you were saying earlier :

To become a rival to the US would require economic idealogies and convictions which are not populist or practical for a career politician such as the French practically breed.

I mean - when I tackled you on it you were quite adamant that not only were the French obnocxious, but that yes...this is indeed the type of politican that they create.

Now you want me to believe that your opinion is that France does not create populist-dependant politicians. That they rule without bowing to the populist demands.

Now come on Sand....this isnt even over two threads. Its not over discussing two seperate points. Its the same argument we've been following from page one, and you've pulled a complete 180 on your stated beliefs here.

You started from the French politicians not having the courage to buck populism, and yet now turn around and tell us that it is not influenced by the people of France.

So can I now accept your new stance? That your earlier arguments are, in fact, not your current ones, because you've certainly reversed your underlying stance.

jc

Sand

You started from the French politicians not having the courage to buck populism, and yet now turn around and tell us that it is not influenced by the people of France.

Bonkey - in all politeness youre truely exasperating me here, do you experience difficulty with the english language or something? Im unsure how to dumb it down for you bar pictures and hand puppets tbh.

/me sighs.

Okay *one* more time

A Politician will try to do what they think is best - usually for them first, their country second. Agreed?

*IF* they cant get away with it - i.e. 1968 all over again any smart politician will forget their principles and do whatever flip flopping and u turning is required. Agreed?

Now lets compare two cases.

Case One - Europe has a series of deep fundamental economic problems. Solving them would lead to 1968 all over again. Hence otherwise fairly intelligent politicians keep passing the buck.

Case Two - France wants to keep its oil contracts in the Gulf. Opposing a war which threatens their contracts is not leading to the summer of 1968 all over again. Hence politicians can get away with it quite happily.

Case One = Case Two? False!

Why?

In case one the politicians know they wont get away with it. They bow to populist sentiment and just let the whole sorry mess drag on for another government to solve when it can no longer be ignored.

In Case Two theyre going for their strategic interests and not only are they getting away with it theyre the shining virtuos heroes of all thats right and true. Win, win.

Relationship between the two? Answers on a postcard to the usual address.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Case One = Case Two? False!

Why?

...

Relationship between the two? Answers on a postcard to the usual address.

The relationship between the two is that the public opinion happens to co-incide with what the politicians want for political/economic reasons in this specific case.

If the public wanted war, and the government didnt, what would happen?

In this, the government would have to choose between appeasing the public and keeping their oil. One would win over the other.

Ergo, it is reasonable to conclude that either oil or populism would carry the day if the two aims did not coincide.

You have seperately argued that the government acts in its own (i.e. the nation's) interest (in this case, oil contracts), and that French politicians are pretty much unable to make non-populist decisions.

This is patently impossible - either they listen to the public, or they dont. If the public agrees with them, then great - there's no problem, and it is impossible for an observer to determine whether the decision is made for one reason or the other. Fine - I have accepted this. I have no problem with this.

However, you have made general statements about the French politicans/government to the effect that they do both - run the country without referring to the public, and at the same time are incapable of making decisions that are not populist.

This is a patent contradiction - not in the case in hand (the Iraqi situation) but in general, and you have been throwing these contradictory generalities around to back up your argument for this specific case..

So let me make this even clearer, because clearly you are misunderstanding me as much as you claim I dont understand you :

I am not referring specifically to the Iraqi situation. I am referring to your general comments about French politicians which are contradictory.

Look over your posts :

A Politician will try to do what they think is best - usually for them first, their country second. Agreed?

My opinion is that the French government follows the path it feels best for France, often without consulting the people of france - this is what it is elected to do.

Shall I provide more? Note, that in neither of these situations are you specifically referring to Iraq. In fact, my apparently pathetic grasp of English extends far enough to be able to tell that both of these statements are structured as generalisations, and therefore cannot be specifically and solely referring to the Iraqi situation.

This is what I have an argument with. I have no argument about the wishes of the French people and the French government on this specific issue. There is no contradiction in this specific case....but you cannot refer to a specific case with generalities...at least not in the version of English that I learned.

Then again, apparently you seem to think that this is where the fault is (my weak grasp of the english language), so maybe you'd like to correct me and explain how, in fact, generalities are meant to be only applied to your chosen specific examples.

jc

Jes'Shout!

RE: What I'm saying is that the US seems willing to piss FAR more people off than ever before, in fact seems to think that the number of people with serious objections is a matter of no consequence whatsoever.............

I agree. The hump politicians drawing dust in the US system really don’t care who they piss off but pissin’ they are. And they are pissing off many of their own citizens but good. Lest we forget, Baby Bush did not win the popular vote of the people. He’s proven himself to be a real swashbuckling nit-wit.

I have relatives living in the US so I’ve spent a fair amount of time there. People are tired of being fed the sheep dung spewed out by the political propaganda machine. People are protesting in the streets. “No war in Iraq” signs are up in the most unexpected places. But of course, those who dare to go out on
a limb to exercise their right to Free Speech are labeled "unpatriotic", “bad Americans”, "agitators", and "dangerous" by the “mainstream cattle”. It is my understanding that ability to dissent and the ability for the people to stand up for change are essential to American democracy. How good of an American is the politician who is a whore for corporations which are devoid of morality and humanity? (And I’m not just speaking of US corps but the world-wide network of greed motivated businesses.) There are many in the US who are furious with the political status quo. It makes no sense why the military is allowed to spend billions on missiles, jets, and toilet seats when a large portion of the population can’t afford to get even a little bit sick because of the price of health care. I know that the people of the US are pissed; I marched next to many of them at the Seattle WTO protest. (AHHHHH, there’s nothing like pepper spray for your sinuses!) Sadly, though, there are many who are yet too comfortable to be moved to action; I guess that they’ve never been “hungry” enough. If they continue to sit on their butts and do nothing, they will be someday.

Sand

If the public wanted war, and the government didnt, what would happen?

Yes, Id love to see what would happen then to see how principled Chirac and co would then be in their defence of the rights of small nations to disagree, the dominance of the UN, and the more inspections/more time plans. It would be interesting to see.

You have seperately argued that the government acts in its own (i.e. the nation's) interest (in this case, oil contracts), and that French politicians are pretty much unable to make non-populist decisions.

Ive argued that the French will oppose war in Iraq because its benficial for them to do so. Ive argued that a French politician will let his principles and intelligence be overridden by the angry mobs burning and terrorising that the French specialise in. This isnt either/or. A french politician can make a non-populist decision so long as he doesnt actually anger enough people so much that the populist cause becomes reversing his decision or bringing him/her down. Ive provided an example (actually the whole "sub argument" were having came from the point I made that the French havent the balls to go against the people and make the economic reforms that are required, and that they know are required to match the US as an economic power ) of where the politicians could make a decision thats in the best interests of France, but wont because it would be extremely unpopular and lead to the fall of the government.

Now, regardless of whether or not you feel this caving in to the wishes of the majority is a good or bad thing for a democratic society, it completely strands at odds with the implication that the French position is about oil unless it is the populist opinion that war be avoided to keep the oil contracts.

There is no other way that I can see that both of these two arguments remain valid, relevant, accurate, and consistent.

I have no argument about the wishes of the French people and the French government on this specific issue. There is no contradiction in this specific case

Bonkey, someones performing acrobatic 180s in style, and it isnt me.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Yes, Id love to see what would happen then to see how principled Chirac and co would then be in their defence of the rights of small nations to disagree, the dominance of the UN, and the more inspections/more time plans. It would be interesting to see.

I didnt ask if it would be interesting. I asked you to apply your logic about French political behaviour to it and conclude what the outcome would be.

Interesting that this is the reply from the person who accused me of having difficulties understanding english.

jc

Sand

I didnt ask if it would be interesting. I asked you to apply your logic about French political behaviour to it and conclude what the outcome would be.

Interesting that this is the reply from the person who accused me of having difficulties understanding english.

jc

Sorry Bonkey, I thought that you were actually employing your ability to understand english when you read one of my early posts in the thread. One more time.....

No, Id argue that the French want to keep their oil contracts. They do this best by supporting Saddam, indirectly at least and in simple terms they get no advantage from dealing with a democratically elected Iraqi government. If the French people were baying for the Iraqis to be liberated much as they were by the americans 60 years ago then yes, the French leadership would eventually crumble and fall into line. However the French people at best seem to feel liberating Iraq is not in the best interests of the Iraqi people. Youve chosen a bad example as popular will and the elites will have a similar end result - opposition to the Americans intervention in Iraq - if differing reasoning.

Not only have I answered your question, I did so before you asked it because Ive already covered this ground before in the thread and youre merely going back over and over and over it trying to "prove" that its wrong to say that the French politicians are basing their policies not on idealism but on self interest, that they would crumble if they were faced with massive public discontent etc etc. Youve been so eager to do this youve contradicted yourself, and for the record I dont believe your command of English is as poor as you seem to be pretending it is - If I didnt know better Id have assumed you were trolling.

Éomer of Rohan

Just out of interest, why quote me, Sand?

Sand

Ah I just thought it a memorably ironic quote. You should be happy:)

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
youre merely going back over and over and over it trying to "prove" that its wrong to say that the French politicians are basing their policies not on idealism but on self interest, that they would crumble if they were faced with massive public discontent etc etc.

No, I started this by questioning the assertion that the French were kowtowing to their oil contracts - an assertion you made - as well as to the public and my point is that you cannot do both.

Despite beginning from a position where you insisted they were doing both, you are now saying what I started with - that following public opinion is the key factor when dealing with an issue such as this where public opinion is so strong.

and for the record I dont believe your command of English is as poor as you seem to be pretending it is - If I didnt know better Id have assumed you were trolling.

No, I was responding to the following remark made by you :

do you experience difficulty with the english language or something?

Which did you want me to do? Take it as an insult, or as a genuine comment?

jc

Sand

No, I started this by questioning the assertion that the French were kowtowing to their oil contracts - an assertion you made - as well as to the public and my point is that you cannot do both.

And you ended it with.....

I have no argument about the wishes of the French people and the French government on this specific issue. There is no contradiction in this specific case

A complete U-Turn. Thanks. Was there anything else?

do you experience difficulty with the english language or something?

Which did you want me to do? Take it as an insult, or as a genuine comment?

Take it as a sign of exasperation with an otherwise seemingly intelligent person who seems either incapable - or more likely- unwilling to understand a fairly straightforward position laid out multiple times with examples. It seems theyre so eager to argue for the sake of arguing thatll theyll completely reverse their position if need be.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
A complete U-Turn. Thanks. Was there anything else?[/bn]

Yes. If you actually read what I wrote, rather than just trying to pull snippets out of context to avoid having to admit that you have argued to diametrically opposed positions, you would see theat in one case, I stated htat I had no problems with the wishes of either group while In the other, I said I had problems with the offered reasons for their choices.

In a single sentence - the French government may wish to keep their oil contracts, but it is not these cintracts which drives their position - it is the overwhelming public opposition to war.

See - their wish and their reason are two seperate things here. No contradiction from me.

Care to try again?

Take it as a sign of exasperation with an otherwise seemingly intelligent person who seems either incapable - or more likely- unwilling to understand a fairly straightforward position laid out multiple times with examples. It seems theyre so eager to argue for the sake of arguing thatll theyll completely reverse their position if need be.

Are you talking about me or you here, Sand?

I wasnt the one who arbitrarily switched from saying "its only cause theyre kowtowing to their oil contracts" to saying "French politicans cannot make decisions which upset too many people", and then insisted that these two positions do not actually conflict.

And talking about exasperating - I notice that you, in another thread, have taken Von to task for making petty remarks about you. I suggest you look over your allegations about my english ability, your recent comments about arts students to Eomer or Rohan, and so on before you open your mouth on the subject again.

The last thing you want right now is the moderator's coming down hard on regulars handing abuse to each other (or to newcomers), because you wont be far from the front of the line if we go looking for culprits.

jc

Sand

See - their wish and their reason are two seperate things here. No contradiction from me.

LOL boneky old chum - now youre trying to switch ground again. My position has always been that the French are basing their position on the fact they get a better oil deal from saddam than froma democratic regime. It would not be smart for the French to go against the oil benfits AND the mob . Howerver, they have NOT held a referendum on their Iraqi policy - they cannot claim to be following the peoples wishes here. Theyre following their wishes, and the mob ( who arent always an accurate reflection of the majoritys opinion ) is out in support of the actions they have taken.

How is these oppose each other? From reading the news you must surely have caught on to the fact that the French government are serving their own interests, and doing it without bringing the wrath of the mob down upon them.

I wasnt the one who arbitrarily switched from saying "its only cause theyre kowtowing to their oil contracts" to saying "French politicans cannot make decisions which upset too many people", and then insisted that these two positions do not actually conflict.

They arent conflicting? Read the news lately?

And talking about exasperating - I notice that you, in another thread, have taken Von to task for making petty remarks about you. I suggest you look over your allegations about my english ability, your recent comments about arts students to Eomer or Rohan, and so on before you open your mouth on the subject again.

Ah yes, about me (personal )

Questioning your ability to comprehend english ( A question, asked in all politeness - and probably a nicer thing to think than thinking you were so eager to argue for the sake of arguing.....was I wrong? )

And giving my opinion on arts students - Im sorry I cant comment on my view of a large bloc of people ( i.e not personal )?

The last thing you want right now is the moderator's coming down hard on regulars handing abuse to each other (or to newcomers), because you wont be far from the front of the line if we go looking for culprits.

Youll have to look long and hard for me calling posters names, and/or personally abusing them. Im sure despite that though, that I wont be far from the frontlines as you say.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
LOL boneky old chum - now youre trying to switch ground again. My position has always been that the French are basing their position on the fact they get a better oil deal from saddam than froma democratic regime. It would not be smart for the French to go against the oil benfits AND the mob .

Yes, but I look at it slightly differently.

If the mob had a different stance on the war, we both agree that this would - in all likelihood - cause the French government to change their position. So, were the public opinion different, the French government would base their decision on public opinion, rather than on their own wants.

When the public dont care enough, the government can make their own decisions, but if a change in "strong" public opinion would lead to a change in government stance, then despite what the government may wish to believe, they are basing their decision first and foremost on the blessing of the people.

I look on it like an equation. If you have multiple factors, but the setting of one of them (public opinion) will always match the outcome (government decision), then the prime determinator is that factor.

Here, its sligtly more complex, because to be accurate we would have to say that public opinion is the prime factor only when it rises above a certain level. We both have effectively agreed that it is above that level, because we agree that if the public were baying for war then the government would toe the line. Theyre not...theyre baying for no war...but theyre definitely baying.

So, we have :

Strong public pro-war == governemnt pro-war
Indifferent public == government free to choose
Strong public anti-war == government anti-war

I will readily admit that the French government are quite happy to allow public opinion to run the way it is, and are probably desperately grateful that they dont have to spend a fortune on trying to spin opinion because they want to keep oil contracts, but I still firmly believe that the reality is that the public's opinion is the prime factor here.

I guess I see it a bit like (say) a teenager who believes[/] it is his/her decision as to whether or not they are going out on a Friday night with their mates, but the reality being that they are dependant on the goodwill of their parents. What is the prime decider? Well - if the parents say "youre not staying in the house this evening", you can be damned sure that the kid is going out, and if they say "you are not going out", then (sticking to our analagy, we have an sulkily obedient kid just like a reluctantly populist government) the kid is not going out unless he can argue his/her case enough to swing the parent's decision.

So is the kid in charge of deciding whether or not he goes out? Not in my book - at least not when the parents choose to express an opinion, and this is the exact same type of scenario in my book.

Thats I look at it. You dont. Guess we should just agree to differ,

jc