Europe-US Split ... Ramifications May Last For Years

[Ned]

Blair triumphant!

It looks like Blair had a very good day in Commons. The rebels are suppressed. But, the rift with Chirac is getting personal even in Britain.

Blair KO's his rebels

[ahenobarb]

Originally posted by Agathon


Well, it isn't a conspiracy theory or you don't understand what "conspiracy theory" means. In fact it is you who are providing the half a$$sed objections because it is clear that you aren't familar with the facts.

A "conspiracy theory" is a theory that fits the available evidence but makes wild and unsubstantiated claims about motive. In other words it deliberately ignores the methodological principle of Ockham's razor.

What I offered is nothing of the sort. I offered publicly available information from pro-war sources. I suggest you go check out the sources yourself. Zbigniew Brezinski is well thought of in Washington and his book The Grand Chessboard is widely respected. I suggest you read it. I don't think stating the well known and published opinions of a foreign policy guru counts as a conspiracy theory. Roughly, Brezinski's argument is that American hegemony is vital and that aggressive pursuit of American interests in Eurasia is justifiable in the face of alternatives (I disagree, but that's what he says).

As for the rest I suggest you look read some of the material published by Wolfowitz, Perle et al. It's not secret stuff. In fact it's the sort of thing one sees a lot if one reads foreign policy stuff. They seem to agree with Brezinski in broad outline although they are much more hawkish than he is.

Similarly, the "pre-emptive strikes" policy is also available online.

Perhaps looking before you leap would help.

Glad you also liked the book. BTW it’s Brzezinski not Brezinski. You are right that is what he says in the book, which makes questionable your agreement with the “out of the blue” claim. This is a threat the US has been concerned about for some time.

Your conclusion from his book however was erroneous. You concluded: “there is ample reason, from its very own proponents, to think that this war is motivated by unilateralist impulses that are not in the interest of the rest of the world.”

Motivations first. “Unilateralist impluses?” Brzezinski said, “a comprehensive and integrated geostrategy for Eurasia must also be based on recognition of the limits of America's effective power and the inevitable attrition over time of its scope … the US policy goal must be unapologetically twofold: to perpetuate America's own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still; and to create a geopolitical framework that can absorb the inevitable shocks and strains of social-political change while evolving into the geopolitical core of shared responsibility for peaceful global management.” That does not sound like a unilateralist impulse, nor do the actions of the current administration look that way otherwise it would not have gone to the UN. Yes, we have said we will remove Saddam with or without them, but let’s take that in a second.

Not in the interest of the rest of the world? “America's withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival would produce massive international instability. In effect, it would prompt global anarchy.” It is the position of the US that by not facing the threat today, the threat will grow worse. WMD multiply state power, these states are not currently a direct threat to the US (and we have no desire to wait for them to be) they are however a threat to their neighbors and when their neighbors get into trouble they call on us to do the dirty work. We have no desire to let the states that depend on us for their military security to wait while their enemies grow stronger before asking us to slog it out with a force that has been allowed to grow stronger -- we let Europe do that during the 30’s and we won’t do it again. The US believes the effort to remove Saddam is both in the interest of “the world”, or more precisely the states that are closest to and most likely to be threatened by the regime or its successor. It is also in the interest of the US because there is little doubt that we will be asked to deal with it sooner or later. And if the UN is unable or unwilling to enforce its decisions, the tyrants of the world will understand that there is no one willing to confront their aggression and we go back to the future (so to speak) of the 30’s. No one wants to see a WMD amplified World War III. No one. Not you, not me, not anyone on this board, not Wolfowitz, not Perle, not Brzezinski, no one.

That is why the US has stated that the regime in Baghdad while the costs of action is still low must go and we will work with any other state willing to do so. It is in the interest of the world to remove regimes that are stockpiling these weapons and the US will act to prevent a destabilizing force in the world from gaining the ability to threaten its neighbors with impunity.

Regarding the conspiracy theory, that came from the word “needed” as in “a domestic attack is precisely what is needed [for the US to preserve its global preeminence]”. Brzezinski said, “Given the reality of American democracy, an effective response will require generating a public understanding of the continuing importance of American power in shaping a widening framework of stable geopolitical cooperation”. The people of the US are no more trigger happy cowboys than Europe, we do have an interest in preventing problems from festering because everyone turns to us to solve their problems. It however takes a great deal to get our attention, it’s easy to duck responsibility and avoid problems. This is the attitude of many, not all, in Europe currently – the problems not big enough – let’s wait. He said that it would take a Pearl Harbor type event to get Americans to focus on the problem. I assume you are Puerto Rican, so you should know that just about everytime someone in the US thinks there’s a major problem that isn’t being addressed they say we could face another Pearl Harbor (in the 90’s we were concerned about a cyber-Pearl Harbor). This doesn’t mean that Brzezinski thought that a horrendous attack on America at home “is precisely what is needed”. He said it would be difficult to get the American public to understand the problem and their interest in addressing it short of some attention grabbing event. Didn't mean to come on too strong, but it's frustrating to keep hearing the "bin Laden didn't do 9-11" theory, which is what I read in "needed".

Also, if you disagree with the assesment that is being made by the administration doesn’t make them “deranged” with “lunatic ravings”. You obviously have an interest in the subject and have done a fair amount of reading. You just have arrived at different conclusions.

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Agathon
I never said that the polls equalled democracy. I said that the vast majority of public opinion throughout the world opposes this ridiculous war.

Tell me how can you tell that.

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Agathon
A system that imprisons such a huge proportion of its population and a huger proportion of its black population and among other things cannot provide decent health care to its citizens cannot be anything but a failure.

It's funny to see someone with a flag like yours write this. Is maybe Cuba your idea or freedom? Are you telling me that there are no innocent people in Cuba? Are you telling me that Cuba provides a decent health to their citizens?

Are pro-war or anti-war people being threatened with blacklisting in Canada? No.

Are pro-war people being threatened with blacklisting in Spain? Yes. Are radicals trying to spoil every single act the Spanish party in goverment does? Yes. Are anti-system people all around the world using the goodwill of people who don't war to attack our civilization and the western values? Yes.

Lack of press freedom.

I suggest you to check again the newspapers in the western countriesm and I challenge you te present an example of lack of freedom after that.

Look in the UN human development index, where this is measured. The US is, surpisingly for a country with such a stated committment to free speech, quite far down the list.

UN is anti-US. Everybody knows. Even you.

A political system in which a candidate's brother can disenfranchise thousands of legal voters and engage in other nefarious activities and where the winner is not decided by the simple expedient of counting the votes and in which less than half the population votes is a joke.

Well, at least they have elections. Something that I'm still waiting to be seen in Cuba. And... you fail to remember that, even if what you say was true (which I sincerely doubt) Bush gained widely in the last elections, which were presented as an evaluation of his government so far.

Ah! Selective memory!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by ahenobarb


Glad you also liked the book. BTW it?s Brzezinski not Brezinski. You are right that is what he says in the book, which makes questionable your agreement with the ?out of the blue? claim. This is a threat the US has been concerned about for some time.

That's what I meant. It appeared completely out of the blue for the US to suddenly be worried about weapons of mass destruction, but in fact there had been agitation for such a move in years. To the rest of us it looked rather strange - suddenly Bush has a hard on for war - that's odd.

Your conclusion from his book however was erroneous. You concluded: ?there is ample reason, from its very own proponents, to think that this war is motivated by unilateralist impulses that are not in the interest of the rest of the world.?

That's an astonishing inference. I don't quote Brzezinski [sic] in support of that thesis. I quote him in support of the thesis that the stern actions that will be required (on his account) would be easier to square with public opinion were there some perceived large scale threat.

Here's my conclusion about his book from my earlier post:

"Roughly, Brezinski's argument is that American hegemony is vital and that aggressive pursuit of American interests in Eurasia is justifiable in the face of alternatives (I disagree, but that's what he says)."

This is pretty much what you go on to say. So I fail to see how I can be accused of misinterpreting him. My claim that this is not in the interest of the rest of the world comes from my disagreement with Brzezinski over the necessity for American hegemony (in short I think he's off his rocker on that one - though I don't doubt the moral probity of his motives). As you say he thinks that the "alternatives" I mentioned will all be far worse.

It is also true that his overall argument could be used to support the unilateralist invasion of Iraq as a means to shoring up American power in what he calls "the hole" left by the collapse of the Soviet Union. I think that is roughly speaking the main reason why this war will take place. The weapons of mass destruction hoo-haa is a sideshow because it isn't clear that Iraq is any real danger on this account - or at least no proof has been given that it is. And even if it does have WOMD it is not clear that the Iraqi regime is not deterrable.

So insofar as ZB calls for action to preserve American hegemony (whatever his ultimate motives are) I think that he provides a better explanation of why the US is going to war than what the administration is publicly declaring every day (that it's primarily about disarmament, etc.)

The French, those on the left, et al. tend to say it is about preserving and expanding American primacy, I find it dishonest of their opponents to say that it isn't (whatever the ultimate reasons are).

That is why the US has stated that the regime in Baghdad while the costs of action is still low must go and we will work with any other state willing to do so. It is in the interest of the world to remove regimes that are stockpiling these weapons and the US will act to prevent a destabilizing force in the world from gaining the ability to threaten its neighbors with impunity.

I don't buy this. I think they couldn't care less about the interests of the neighbours and that a conquered Iraq will be spattered with US military bases as a means of exercising control over the region. Saddam Hussein is painted as some major threat to world peace, which in light of the current facts is rather ridiculous. And the attempt to say it is about liberating the Iraqi people is frankly risible.

Regarding the conspiracy theory, that came from the word ?needed? as in ?a domestic attack is precisely what is needed [for the US to preserve its global preeminence]?. Brzezinski said... ...which is what I read in "needed".

That's what I meant, which is why I found the "conspiracy theory" comment rather galling.

Also, if you disagree with the assesment that is being made by the administration doesn?t make them ?deranged? with ?lunatic ravings?. You obviously have an interest in the subject and have done a fair amount of reading. You just have arrived at different conclusions.

No I think the administration is clearly deranged. I don't think ZB is a lunatic (I just disagree with him over the need for American primacy). I have other reasons for thinking that Wolfowitz and Perle are crackers. Particularly Wolfowitz because he is a Straussian. In my professional life I come across Straussians occasionally (I'm doing a PhD in ancient philosophy - if you know about Strauss the connection should be clear). They are to all intents and purposes, insane. I'll try to find an online copy of an article about Strauss and his influence which explains it better. One clear implication of Strauss' ideas is that it is fine for the "politically elect" to lie to the populace, which is what i think is going on here.

Moreover there is the famous "project for a new American century" which I think goes further than ZB would be willing to and demonstrates an astonishing degree of hubris (a word that is being used more often these days). But more on that later.

BTW I'm not a Canadian, although I do live there.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by OliverFA

Tell me how can you tell that.

I take it you don't do too well in school.

Polls do not equal democracy because that's not the representative system actual democracies have. It is conceivable that there could be so called "direct democracy" but there isn't.

On the other hand, scientifically conducted polls with well formed questions are the best means of discovering the state of public opinion. Politicians conduct polls so that they have a better idea of what is going to go over well at the time the poll is taken. A politician that ignores polls has a better chance of losing than one who doesn't since when voting time comes people tend to choose the candidate who has annoyed them the least.

Most of the reputable polls I have seen confirm massive anti-war sentiment, particularly in your country. This is an orthodox line among all the english speaking media outlets I have looked at.

Large protests like the ones in Spain are also a good indication of overall public opinion. When you take out all the people who don't care either way (a surprising amount in many countries) and the people who have other things to do and those who can't attend for other reasons and those who are anti war but don't want to attend it gives you a better account of how intense the anti war feeling is. Large protests are the tip of the iceberg.

For example in Britain at least 1 out of every 60 people went to the demonstration in London (it was probably more like 1 out of every 45). When you consider the amount of travel required and take out those who can't go, the very young and the old, etc. you start to get some idea of who big the thing was and why Blair has looked so scared lately. It is even worse in Spain.

[OliverFA]

Oooooooh. Are you calling polls conducted by the anti-systems scientific polls?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by OliverFA

It's funny to see someone with a flag like yours write this. Is maybe Cuba your idea or freedom? Are you telling me that there are no innocent people in Cuba? Are you telling me that Cuba provides a decent health to their citizens?

You will have to do better than that, you right wing hack. Cuba has one of the healthiest populations in the world due to its excellent health care system. Cubans also have the best teeth in the world. If the ridiculous embargo was lifted I'm sure that many of Cuba's economic problems would be eased.

Are pro-war people being threatened with blacklisting in Spain? Yes. Are radicals trying to spoil every single act the Spanish party in goverment does? Yes. Are anti-system people all around the world using the goodwill of people who don't war to attack our civilization and the western values? Yes.

Oh no! Radicals want their own way. How can they be radicals when the majority of the population is anti-war. And as for our western values they are supposed to include human rights and just war theory which our lords and masters habitually ignore.

UN is anti-US. Everybody knows. Even you.

Or the US is anti-UN. There is a conflict, at least in this situation. And hell, I'm going to put everything on the line and go with the proponents of international democracy.

Well, at least they have elections. Something that I'm still waiting to be seen in Cuba. And... you fail to remember that, even if what you say was true (which I sincerely doubt) Bush gained widely in the last elections, which were presented as an evaluation of his government so far.

What's the point of an election when the candidate with the most votes doesn't win?

You just seem to be a Spanish version of the typical whiner and moaner who is always going on about "liberals" and "communists", surely you can do better than this.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by OliverFA
Oooooooh. Are you calling polls conducted by the anti-systems scientific polls?

I'm calling the BBC poll someone mentioned not scientific because that's what it says on their site.

Face it, the majority of Europeans don't want the war. The majority of Spanish don't want the war. The only person I have seen disputing this is you - which makes you an amusing crank. Americans who say that in their country feelings are mixed are also correct, there is not the degree of anti-war sentiment there that there is elsewhere.

Get used to being in the minority.

[Dauphin]

Re: Blair triumphant!

Originally posted by Ned
It looks like Blair had a very good day in Commons. The rebels are suppressed. But, the rift with Chirac is getting personal even in Britain.

Blair KO's his rebels

Of all the papers you could have quoted. The Sun?

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Agathon
Large protests like the ones in Spain are also a good indication of overall public opinion.

You seem to know better than me what it is happening in Spain. That's remarkable considering how far you are from my country.

When you take out all the people who don't care either way (a surprising amount in many countries) and the people who have other things to do and those who can't attend for other reasons and those who are anti war but don't want to attend it gives you a better account of how intense the anti war feeling is.

people that have other things to do? On Saturday? Well, if they have other things to do on Saturday I guess they are not very worried about that. Again I'm fascinated by how homogeneous you consider the crowd manifesting, and how heterogeneous you consider the crowd not manifesting. The fact is that lot of people there was against the war, but not against US nor the Spanish government. And the irresponsible parties at the oposition are counting all them as the same thing. For example: The Vatican is against the war, so a lot of catholics were in the demonstrations, and they felt indigned (the less) when they saw it was turned into a political demonstration.

And I ask to you again. Which ways have the people that, using you terms, "want war"? If they cannot manifest there is no way you can count them and exagerate their number as you do with the others.

Large protests are the tip of the iceberg.

I agree with that. They are the tip of the iceberg of all the attacks that the enemies of the western civilization are ready to throw at us. Too sad lots of goodwill people don't see this and allow themselves to be manipulated. But not the tip of a "public opinion" iceberg made just for your convenience.

[The Viceroy]

Agathon,

By all means debate, but try to lesson the insults, they serve nothing but to discredit your opinion, which im sure is worth listening to.

You talk of scientific polls, but do you not agree that they are purely subjective, and the question can skew the result ??

My other thought was, you say that "Most of the reputable polls I have seen confirm massive anti-war sentiment"
by what judgement do you count reputable .. do you not like us all occationally choose to take note of the polls that support your opinion, and hope that the ones that don't are merely blips, or not "Reputable". The only confimation here, is in your mind.

That politicians choose to ignore polls at their own risk, is certainly true, and as Democratically elected politicians, that is their right. As an electorate I can punish any politician who ignores my opinion, and if you are, you can. That is our right, this does not give polls any significance, it gives our personal opinion significance to us.

Polls are simply statistical tools, and as all good BBC polls state, they are merely indicative, and not representative of the population as a whole. Neil Kinnock will remember all the polls which forcast him to be the next Labour prime minister, and George Bush senior will remember the polls which gave him 90% approval only a year before the election.

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Agathon
You will have to do better than that, you right wing hack.

You are the one putting the labels here. I didn't say anything about right, left, or wathever.

Cuba has one of the healthiest populations in the world due to its excellent health care system. Cubans also have the best teeth in the world.

Ok, send your submission to become a Cuban citizen right now!

If the ridiculous embargo was lifted I'm sure that many of Cuba's economic problems would be eased.

If Cuba's system is so great why they need help from abroad?

Oh no! Radicals want their own way. How can they be radicals when the majority of the population is anti-war.

Did I say they are all radicals? If you understand everything as my posts then you have a problem. I'm complaining just about the contrary! I'm complaining that interested people misunderstand in purpose all the demonstrators against the war as demonstrators against the government!

And as for our western values they are supposed to include human rights

Human rights? Like the ones respected in Irak maybe?

Or the US is anti-UN. There is a conflict, at least in this situation.

If the US supported the organization that is always trying to bash them they would be plain stupid.

And hell, I'm going to put everything on the line and go with the proponents of international democracy.

Democracy? Like the one in Irak? Like the one in many many countries who have membership in the UN? Like several UN-council members? The UN is a joke! How can a democratic country vote have the same value as a dictatorship?

What's the point of an election when the candidate with the most votes doesn't win?

Again, you forget the later election in which they won

You just seem to be a Spanish version of the typical whiner and moaner who is always going on about "liberals"

As I said, you put the labels.

[Sava]

It seems to me that this "rift" is simply between the politicians currently in power. Once Bush is gone in 2004, I think relations will be a lot better because we'll have a president that knows to treat our allies with respect rather than insult them over some stupid political mess.

[randomturn]

I have to disagree with Sava. France has removed itself from the list of nations the United States will confer with in a crisis. What future President would want to repeat Bush's diplomatic errors -- which certainly include Kyoto and cracks like "old Europe" -- but also very much include giving the French any say in world affairs. That is clearly just an invitation for them grandstand and play at being Leader of the World. Avoiding the French means avoiding the UN, so theat is going to be a huge casualty of this process. Some administration types are actually talking about the US withdrawing "temporarily" from the UN until that organization is reformed. The rift is far deeper than anyone in Europe seems to understand, and the consequences for the Atlantic alliance will be enormous.