Tweet
Monetary union, common defense. Of course, there is little the US can do about it, but the little it tries....
-
“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324) -
Monetary union, common defense
Your perceptions are really odd. We have always been encouraging on these matters.
You're looking for opposition where none exists.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
huh?Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Monetary union, common defense. Of course, there is little the US can do about it, but the little it tries....
"When you ride alone, you ride with Bin Ladin"-Bill Maher
"All capital is dripping with blood."-Karl Marx
"Of course, my response to your Marx quote is 'So?'"-Imran SiddiquiComment
-
Ned, when all that crap begun last year, Schroeder just said "We will not support...". Means, we'll neither participate in this war, nor will we pay the bill. Perhaps, because we overpaid the bill in Gulf War one, or hell knows for what reason. Mind you the difference between "we don't support" and "we oppose". The former means, you do it without us, and we won't disturb you. The latter means, we'll do everything we can to make it not happen. A big difference, you see.Originally posted by Ned
NYE, This captures the essence of the problem. On its face, it does not appear that French and German vital interests are involved in maintaining Saddam in power. However, the US has stated that US (and even UK) vital interests are involved. Under these circumstances, one should at a minimum expect allies to defer to the judgment of their ally even if they disagreed with the policy.
In fact, the upcoming war in Iraq is a war of aggression. May be not for you, but for us it is, because we were not involved in Gulf War one. And as such it is against of our constitution.
Now came the overblown reaction from Washington. "Axis of Weasel", "Old Europe", "Germany along with Libya and Cuba" and so on, over several months. So do you wonder why we are pissed? And do you wonder why we now not only "don't support", but "oppose"? The public opinion about the US and their willing lackeys has reached a new low in the rest of Europe.
There were severe diplomatical mistakes, that's true, but they were at both sides of the Atlantic ocean. To blame it all at France and Germany, is a bit blue-eyed.
Yes, so what?Henry Kissinger said as much Saturday in an interview. He said that the current situation will call for a fundamental reexamination of our alliances. He also expects there to be a period of very cool relations between the US and France and Germany.
See page 3 of this thread. Summary: we wouldn't care.Rumsfeld is already talking about redeploying our army out of Germany.Comment
-
"Your perceptions are really odd. We have always been encouraging on these matters."
You are talking from lala-land. Do you really believe the superficial rhetoric of support?“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
Mind you the difference between "we don't support" and "we oppose".
That's a bit facile. When Godwin's Law is invoked, I would hardly call that "we don't support".
Do you really believe the superficial rhetoric of support?
Yep. Why would we oppose?I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
"Yep. Why would we oppose?"
Because an alternative reserve currency limits the games the Fed and the Treasury can play for financial interests.
Because a CDP could in effect limit US strategic options; a common foreign policy will have the same effect we know from the common trade policy - Washington can only a fraction of the games it was able to play before.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
HO, this is one of the most stupid things you ever said. The only reason Saddam has allowed the inspectors to return and has been cooperating to a degree is the threat of force. Your statement seems to assume that Saddam would have been cooperative without the US threat.Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"The damage done to US-French and US-German relations is severe"
Both sides ****ed up diplomatically. But at the core of the dispute is one thing: If the Bushies had been content with disarming Iraq instead of being hellbent on having a war, we could have done without all the crap.
The is more of the Alice in Wonderland thinking that Dominique de Villepin espoused last Friday. He said that inspections were working, in part, due to the presence of an allied force ringing his country. What he should have said is that only reason he has been cooperating is that force.
We know that if the inspections continue without a definite end, that the US and Britain will have to stand down. Saddam would then stop cooperating. What are we to do then. Put the forces back?
This could become a yo-yo, with the allied troops moving in and out of the region depending on Saddam.
Can't you see just how ludicrous this is?http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=enComment
-
"Your statement seems to assume that Saddam would have been cooperative without the US threat."
Think again, it does not.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
Because an alternative reserve currency limits the games the Fed and the Treasury can play for financial interests.
While true, the benefit to having another stable currency outweighs any dings we take.
Because a CDP could in effect limit US strategic options
We're going to attack Europe now?
What US strategic options in the current situation would a CDP limit? Certainly nothing in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, or Afghanistan.
a common foreign policy will have the same effect
How would a common foreign policy stop the US from doing what it thinks it needs to do? You might be able to take the UK off the table, but the outcome would be no different.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
"We're going to attack Europe now?"
Who knows.
"What US strategic options in the current situation would a CDP limit? Certainly nothing in Iraq, Iran"
Without a direct conflict? Denial of bases, counterbribing Turkey, putting pressure on the gulf states, etc.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
HO,
I disagree. The US has interest in the improvements to the European economy. I think you are just foolishly assuming otherwise."When you ride alone, you ride with Bin Ladin"-Bill Maher
"All capital is dripping with blood."-Karl Marx
"Of course, my response to your Marx quote is 'So?'"-Imran SiddiquiComment
-
Godwin's Law was invoked by a dumbass minister, who was promptly removed from the list of ministers for the new government and thus, removed from power (when will Rumsfeld be fired for the comparison of Schroeder with Ghadafi and Fidel Castro?). This incident has absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq question.Originally posted by DanS
That's a bit facile. When Godwin's Law is invoked, I would hardly call that "we don't support".Comment
-
This incident has absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq question.
Sure it does. And don't tell me that this sort of atmosphere wasn't encouraged by Schroeder.
The US was fully prepared for Germany to sit this one out. Indeed, Germany has been taking a low profile lately on the issue...I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
On a global economic level, it is clear, but when you look at it at individual markets level, we are simply competing; example : Airbus.Originally posted by DuncanK
HO,
I disagree. The US has interest in the improvements to the European economy. I think you are just foolishly assuming otherwise.Statistical anomaly.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.Comment
Comment