Not "officially," anyway.
But who knows what government officials will do for cheap, black market oil, eh?
Registered User
Not "officially," anyway.
But who knows what government officials will do for cheap, black market oil, eh?
"It's hard being an evil genius when everybody else is so stupid" -- Quantum Crook
Registered User
I really couldn't see any nation hamper the U.S.; okay well maybe North Korea, but their leader is on a power binge.
Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the other smaller nations would like nothing more than to see Hussein go down. They've been threatened by him before and their elites despise him, especially Iran. Jordan is in a precarious position because its dependent on smuggled Iraqi oil, but militarily their weak. Syria is pro-Iraq, but like First of Two said, not suicidal.
As for embargoes and some such, why would anyone want to embargo the world's primary consumers?(The economy is down, but its still very big). The U.S. could just counter by slapping on harsher trade barriers. And I wouldn't be "moved" if say Syria embargoed the U.S..
Just my opinion.
"The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all."
-Joan Robinson, economist
Moderator
Because of ethics and morality, as Dan said. It would be the consequence of telling certain points of view.Originally posted by Lt.Khrys Antos
As for embargoes and some such, why would anyone want to embargo the world's primary consumers?(The economy is down, but its still very big). The U.S. could just counter by slapping on harsher trade barriers. And I wouldn't be "moved" if say Syria embargoed the U.S.
We came in peace, for all mankind - Apollo 11
Registered User
I think it will be a situation where nobody will lift a finger to protect Iraq - I certainly wouldn't, and I'm opposed to unilateral US action.
Why? Because I'm opposed to unilateral US action because of the precedent it sets, not the end result. I'm in favour of a UN-led invasion of Iraq to remove Hussein and establish a democracy! If the US goes it alone, well, it concerns me and worries me, because the US may decide next week they don't like the Australian administration and invade us -- pushing the idea of encouraging a hostile America to do just this would seem like sheer lunacy to me.
First of Two really just summed up what the rest of the world is worried about. The scorched-earth-policy he mentioned really concerns me. The mention that 5% of the world's population would be quite willing to wipe out 95% in 'self defence' concerns me a great deal.
Thanks, First. You've just given new grounding to my worry over the direction the world is taking.
When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead. It is difficult only for others.
It's the same when you are stupid...
Registered User
Great reason for destroying the global economy & wrecking a lot more lives than those in Iraq.Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
Because of ethics and morality, as Dan said. It would be the consequence of telling certain points of view.
"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
John Stuart Mill
Moderator
Some interesting ideas... As most of you know, I'm of the belief that war might be the only way to resolve the mess with Iraq - I hope it is not, but I am not hopeful of a peaceful resolution - so in a way this thread is a "devil's advocate" thread - i.e. "if the side I disagree with is right". Or, to put it another way, I'm trying to follow the "other guy's" side to what I see as a logical conclusion...
Given that, if I were to take a stance opposite the one I have with regards to Iraq, I would agree with Evan's stance. Let me explain.
If the US and UK are truly totally unjustified in a war against Iraq...
And given that France, Germany, China, and Russia have said so on numerous occasions...
Then if the US and UK do indeed attack Iraq, on their own, those countries have, in my opinion, an obligation to react. Like I said, it need not (and probably shouldn't be military actions). But to not do so is at best blustering and cowardice. And if they do not act, they risk losing relevance.
To put it in other words, if the US and UK do attack Iraq and Germany and France simply "fall into line", then they will have blustered without purpose and be difficult to take seriously on such issues in the future. "Germany and France don't approve? Pshaw, like they'll ever do anything." Evan has gone on many times about the questionable alliances the US made during the Cold War - alliances with dictators like Hussein, Pinochet, etc.
In effect, if the US and UK are that much in the wrong in launching a war of agression against Iraq, will not Germany and France be similarly guilty of alliances of convenience (or realism, depending on your perspective)?
The Cold War...
"Of course we of the US have to be support Iraq - Iran is a worse threat."
"Of course we have to support Pinochet - a communist Chile would be a disaster for the world and for Chile. The people of Chile will some day thank us."
Today...
"Of course we in France and Germany regret what the US and UK have done against Iraq, but we have to recognize how dependent we are on the US for trade."
AKA Breschau of Livonia (mainly rpg forums)
Gaming blog 19thlevel
Moderator
It totally agree, Dan. If my government does not react it will become clear that all the words of our Chancellor were not only in vein, they were lies. I do not mean we need directly to set up sanctions and the like, afterwards the US made clear what happens to those who oppose the US. Its been not only one time that Mr. Rumsfeld threatened us along with the US ambassador. But e.g. Germany could set up high customs on US goods, thus showing the not support of the US without making an already instable situation more critical.
We came in peace, for all mankind - Apollo 11
Registered User
I also agree with Dan (hey, something must be wrong), but sadly, I don't think anything would be done by France or Germany. Any custom taxes against the USA would instantly be followed by other, stronger taxes from the USA side, and Europe is more dependant of USA than the opposite. So there would be some formal disagreement and nothing more.
Beside, I think the last person to say "France won't go to war" was Hitler before invading Poland. Don't really want to go back there...
"The main difference between Trekkies and Manchester United fans is that Trekkies never trashed a train carriage. So why are the Trekkies the social outcasts?"
Terry Pratchett
Registered User
Actually, I'm betting it's the American administration that will use economic leverage to strongarm objecting nations into falling in line.Not "officially," anyway.
But who knows what government officials will do for cheap, black market oil, eh?
Sad that, in personal relationships, friends should understand if you cannot go along with a course of action because it's against your principles, but among nations it leads to threats of embargos and non-cooperation. America and Europe have a long history of friendship. To say that one disagreement because European nations genuinely cannot in good faith support unilateral action will lead to "consequences" for trade and diplomacy is childish and leaves me despairing of the whole human species...
"That might have been the biggest mistake of my life..."
"It is unlikely. I predict there is scope for even greater mistakes in the future given your obvious talent for them."
Vila and Orac, Blake's Seven
Registered User
Actually, it would have to be the EU, as single-nation tarrifs on non-EU imports are not permitted IIRC.Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
Germany could set up high customs on US goods, thus showing the not support of the US without making an already instable situation more critical.
Personally, I think things would be a lot clearer if the US and UK governments simply said "Look, this guy Hussien is an unstable nut who happens to be sitting on 20% of the world's oil reserves. The nations in the Middle East look like their going to implode due to fundamentalist pressures within the next decade, so we want to make sure that we can control that oil and make sure that our economies can remain stable. It's that simple. If you want a piece of that, feel free to join us. Oh, and since we sold him the WMD in the 80's, the least we can do is go in there and take them away again." No pussy-footing, no fuzzy spin, just the bald truth. At least then the debate could focus on the actual practicalities, and various European and US politicians couldn't hide their true opinions behind moral outrage or jingoistic altruism (can't see GWB or Chirac allowing that, though - might throw a light into too many dark corners of their power-bases and motives
).
Should nations stand against the US over Iraq? As a pragmatist, I feel that where a stand should be taken is over how the regime change will be handled, to ensure that the Iraqi people get a just and fair administrative structure, not a new de-facto dictatorship keen to show its gratitude with a few sweet deals for certain corporations with a keen interest in Iraqi national resources (all of whom happen to be domiciled in the US...). That's the real moral question here.
“Maintain the mystery, and don't try to think unthinkabilities...”
Iain M Banks, 2003, on the Art of writing good SF.
Registered User
Posted by Qerlin:
Couldn't have said it better myself. No politician would hurt his nations economy over morality or ethics. They'll simply suck it up and live with it. Imposing embargoes on the U.S. is only good so long as Congress doesn't get pissed off and revokes certain trade benefits to said nation.Great reason for destroying the global economy & wrecking a lot more lives than those in Iraq.
Though I must agree with Capt.Hunter, I'd see the Americans using trade restrictions/benefits as a means to persuade nations to join the U.S..
"The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all."
-Joan Robinson, economist
Registered User
Problem there is that it's "pay-to-play". If we're risking casualties, and taking the heat for collateral damage, while they are just kibbitzing from the sidelines and throwing banana peels at our feet, why should we give them a voice in how the post-Saddam government is formed? For that matter, why should they get to keep their own sweetheart oil deals they made with the current dictatorship?Originally posted by Cdr Scot II
Should nations stand against the US over Iraq? As a pragmatist, I feel that where a stand should be taken is over how the regime change will be handled, to ensure that the Iraqi people get a just and fair administrative structure, not a new de-facto dictatorship keen to show its gratitude with a few sweet deals for certain corporations with a keen interest in Iraqi national resources (all of whom happen to be domiciled in the US...). That's the real moral question here.
"If it ain't the Devil's music, you ain't doin' it right" -- Chris Thomas King
"C makes for an awfully long lever." - H. Beam Piper
Banned
This message has been removed on request by the
poster
Registered User
We'll see how long that lasts when it hits your pocketbook...Originally posted by StyroFoam Man
So you see, I view trade embargos against the USA as a good thing.
"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
John Stuart Mill
Registered User
I guess THAT would depend on how much styrofoam is imported, and how much is exported, and whether styro exports or imports or is totally domestic...Originally posted by qerlin
We'll see how long that lasts when it hits your pocketbook...
"It's hard being an evil genius when everybody else is so stupid" -- Quantum Crook
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote