An economic perspective on the war
Geoffrey Heard, Australia
It's not about oil or Iraq. It's about the US and Europe going head-to-head on world economic dominance.
Summary: Why is George Bush so hell bent on war with Iraq? Why does his administration reject every positive Iraqi move? It all makes sense when you consider the economic implications for the USA of not going to war with Iraq. The war in Iraq is actually the US and Europe going head to head on economic leadership of the world.
Read all about it :
http://www.radio4all.org/unwelcome/articles/gheard.html
Originally posted by ivanhoeIsh a Looney world out there. 🙄
An economic perspective on the war
Geoffrey Heard, Australia
It's not about oil or Iraq. It's about the US and Europe going head-to-head on world economic dominance.
Summary: Why is George Bush so hell bent on war with Iraq? ...[text shortened]... http://www.radio4all.org/unwelcome/articles/gheard.html
Banana Power!
orkyboy 🙄🙄🙄
This is a paid advertisment (I payed myself to let myself post this post) 😀
Originally posted by ivanhoeThis supposition is laughable! War was about 9/11 and oil.
An economic perspective on the war
Geoffrey Heard, Australia
It's not about oil or Iraq. It's about the US and Europe going head-to-head on world economic dominance.
Summary: Why is George Bush so hell bent on war with Iraq? Why does his administration reject every positive Iraqi move? It all makes sense when you consider the economic implicat ...[text shortened]... ld.
Read all about it :
http://www.radio4all.org/unwelcome/articles/gheard.html
Yeah only problem Bush lied about why we went to war. If he had just said Saddam was sitting on a shitload of oil and were going over there to take it I would be fine. Oh well doesn't matter now anyways.
I seriously doubt there is another coldwar between the US and all of Europe. The US just has to be the world's police because we know what happens if we don't supervise ex. World War II
Originally posted by OtisThere isn't a new cold war between the US and the EU. There is however a new rivalry. Part of the European countries, lead by France, want to form a counterweight against the US, being the only superpower left after the Cold War. Other European countries lead by the UK want to be a partner with the US within the framework of NATO in order to be able to communicate, advise, help and influence the US in his foreign policy, the so called Atlantic Partnership. The division in Europe has partly to do with this choice that has to be made in the European foreign policy towards the US.
Yeah only problem Bush lied about why we went to war. If he had just said Saddam was sitting on a shitload of oil and were going over there to take it I would be fine. Oh well doesn't matter now anyways.
I seriously doubt there is another ...[text shortened]... cause we know what happens if we don't supervise ex. World War II
My personal stance always has been to support the Transatlantic Partnership, the Blair policy. A European Union lead by France and Germany as a counterweight against the US could easily lead to situations that will stir up things rather than ease the tensions.
What are your thoughts on this subject ? Partnership or counterweight ?
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Has to be counterweight, no one nation should have absolute dominance, it is hardly fair for the citizens of one nation to "police" the rest of the world who have no political say that policing. America should not be trying to control the rest of the world, but lead through example.
The whole American system is built on checks and balances, and just so America itself needs a check and balance. At the moment the two candiates that are presenting themselves as possible future options seem to be Europe or China, which do you prefer?
Andrew
Originally posted by flexmoreDefer to the UN?...too bad there wasn't a UN to prevent the first and second world wars in which Europe started...wait, wasn't there the League of Nations or the Treaty of Versailles that Europe could have "deferred" too?...I see your point, and it wsn't a bad one, but I think old Nationalistic feelings would surface especially in France and Germany and one of these two countries would vie to the head honcho of Europe...old feelings are hard to put to rest...😉
i prefer europe - not because they would do it well - but because, unable to agree amongst themselves, i think they would simply defer to the u.n.
Originally posted by latex bishopI prefer the policy of creating partnerships instead of choosing to oppose other countries in the form of a "Counterweight".
Has to be counterweight, no one nation should have absolute dominance, it is hardly fair for the citizens of one nation to "police" the rest of the world who have no political say that policing. America should not be trying to contro ...[text shortened]... options seem to be Europe or China, which do you prefer?
Andrew
This question is also relevant in the Sino-American relationships:
See thread "China and US Foreign Policy":
http://www.fpri.org/enotes/americawar.20011109.goldstein.sept11china.html
the World Socialist Web site:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/fran-o24.shtml
published by the International Committee of the Fourth International.
"Villepin’s speech to the French Senate on October 9 shows that all the different sections of the French political elite are preoccupied by the geopolitical implications of the US war offensive. Villepin identified France’s three “responsibilities”: the elimination of Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction,” the preservation of stability in the Middle East and Europe, and defense of the “fundamental role of the UN.”
"The opposition to Washington’s war policy became more explicit in Villepin’s discussion of the UN. Only a few days after the US government announced its new foreign policy framework based on “pre-emptive” wars, Villepin declared: “[France] refuses to sanction any unilateral or pre-emptive action; it is persuaded that a new international order must be based on dialogue and cooperation. If the world today needs a strong America, it also needs a strong Europe.”
"Villepin’s wish for a “strong Europe” takes material form in an 11 percent increase in the French military budget and French insistence at European budgetary negotiations on tolerance of deficits resulting from increased military spending. Pushed to its logical conclusion, this perspective leads to armed confrontation between the major capitalist powers."
"French imperialism, which in 1991 fully participated in attacking Iraq and imposing sanctions on the country, cannot be trusted in the slightest to oppose the impending war. To hide the predatory character of French foreign policy, first under Socialist Party President Mitterrand and today under his right-wing successor Chirac, the French ruling elite must repeat the Bush administration’s lies, according to which Iraq is the aggressor and a menace to the international community."
Conclusions:
1. Not only Bush and Blair told the world that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, the French were telling the world the exact same thing. If Bush and Blair were lying the FRENCH WERE LYING TOO !
2. France wants to opppose the US in world politics. To underline this policy they want France and Europe to increase their defence spendings.
3.France's foreign policy is just as imperialistic and aimed at selfinterest as the US foreign policy.
The conclusion of the article on the World Socialist Web site:
"Pushed to its logical conclusion, this perspective leads to armed confrontation between the major capitalist powers."
Questions:
Why did progressive Europeans support the French position without any serious criticism during the prelude to the Iraq war ?
Having read the above, why do progressive Europeans support the French wish for Europe to become the political (and military?) opponent in world affaires ?
Any thoughts ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeHaving read the above, why do progressive Europeans support the French wish for Europe to become the political (and military?) opponent in world affaires?
the World Socialist Web site:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/fran-o24.shtml
published by the International Committee of the Fourth International.
"Villepin’s speech to the French Senate on October 9 shows that all the different sections of the French political elite are preoccupied by the geopolitical implications of the US war offensi ...[text shortened]... e to become the political (and military?) opponent in world affaires ?
Any thoughts ?
The answer, obviously, would be that the majority of progressive Europeans do not agree that armed confrontation between the major capitalist powers is a logical conclusion. The World Socialist Web Site is the Internet center of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). As the ICFI is a Trotskyist organization, it is doubtful that they have much cachet with most European progressives.
Originally posted by rwingett.... and that explains what ?
[b]Having read the above, why do progressive Europeans support the French wish for Europe to become the political (and military?) opponent in world affaires?
The answer, obviously, would be that the majority of progressive Europeans ...[text shortened]... tful that they have much cachet with most European progressives. [/b]
I mean if you oppose imperialism and egotistical foreign policy why support France ?