ANTI-WAR/USA BASHERS: WHERE ARE YOU NOW, MFERS?!?!
- Thread starter FRuiTY PeBBLe
- Start date
nothing wrong with the free expression of whacky socialist views in a free society - imo
besides:
there are more readers than posters here - and the Euro is sharply up today, trading at $ 1.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letters
Time is right for Britain to join the euro
Tuesday April 22, 2003
The Guardian
Last week you carried three helpful pieces on the euro and the Treasury tests (PM still eyes pre-election referendendum, April 14; Hugo Young, April 15; Brown-Blair deal sidelines euro, April 16). My fear is that the vital tests will be buried by those which matter least. It is vital that the currencies converge at the right exchange rate and the recent drop in sterling brings us to a rate at which industry could again be competitive, but which is not so low as to breed inflation.
Our marginally higher rate of growth seems much less important. Selling houses to each other at inflationary prices is not real growth and the rate of consumer spending has given us a record trade deficit of $55bn - compared with the eurozone surplus of £95bn. Our trade deficit is partly off set by the dividends of British companies that have shifted their investment to the euro-zone, but that does nothing for our unemployed workers or for potential engineering apprentices who now earn a living by serving in burger bars.
The unmentioned test is, of course, the British people. From my experience on the stump, I do not believe the government has anything to fear. Our local hi-tech industries seem strongly in favour. At four meetings with farmers in the last month, they seem to accept, in the end, that if they are to stay in business there is no alternative. The only audience with a majority against were in the building trade, their business being almost all domestic. But even they seemed to be having second thoughts.
There is no US alternative. I was for 10 years on the US delegation of the European parliament, having done business there for years. The US is a foreign country, speaking the same language (up to a point) and we have no votes on Capitol Hill. Congress listens to the prejudices of middle America, not to us. As a high state department official once told me: "We do not want an impoverished cousin hanging on to our coat-tails, we want you in Europe, where you belong."
He was right. My 15 years as an MEP showed what Britain could do in Europe - the single market was our idea. And if we want to make sure Europe does not try to become a federation, we should switch from our semi-detached status to full commitment.
Fred Catherwood
Balsham, Cambs
MEP = Member of the European Parliament
Cambs = Cambridgeshire
Kymar, sometimes "generalities" are all that's required. I don't need to know (or discuss) the angle of the blow and exact moment of impact to admit reviling domestic violence. (BTW, I could (but I won't) just as easily call your posts "incessantly repeated apologetic for justifying your approval of US foreign policy.)
Sorry about "withdrawing in a huff". It wasn't that I was offended (really), I was just getting sick of disccusing Iraq, felt it was taking up too much of my time. But I guess I can find a few moments to pop in from time to time, but I probably won't be replying to everything -- hell, it's lil ole me against the lot of you.
Re the sanctions, I went through it elsewhere with Max, but I don't remember exactly where, so I'll briefly re-state my views for you.
Firstly, unless you plan to plead naivete, we can assume the sanctions were US imposed (rather than UN).
The idea was that Iraq is going to suffer and the Iraqis will rise up and demand an overthrow of the Saddam regime, or that Saddam, aggrieved at the plight of his people would agree to cooperate. (Or something along those lines.)
Well, wouldn't you agree that it became painfully obvious to all and sundry that Saddam just did not give a hoot the suffering the sanctions were causing? Upon witnessing the suffering of the Iraqis, especially the children, who you allegedly care oh so much for (but, given the actions of past US regimes, you obviously, in reality, do not), why persist with such a disastrous policy?
Isn't it analogous to a gang of terrorists, having hijacked a plane (or building or whatever), announcing they are going to start shooting the hostages, one by one, until their demands are met?
Wasn't the US essentially doing the same thing with Iraqi lives by persisting with the sanctions for so long? Did they really need 12 years and 500k-1million+ (depending on whose estimate you believe) dead Iraqis before reconsidering? Would it have really been such a shot to US pride to withdraw them, implicitly admitting they were a disaster?
I just don't see how I could not hold the US responsible.
Well, there you have it. Influential Brits consider us the "enemy" and are plotting how best to undermine our economy, the better to restrain our unchecked power. Their solution? Full UK membership in a single currency EU, with the initial objective of forcing euro pricing of crude oil. I'd hate to hear the views of our real enemies in France and Germany.
One hardly know where to begin. For sure, a trade war with the US is the last thing Europe should hope for. We could do for their economies pretty much what we did for the Rpublican Guards. One of the ironies of the current system of unfair global trade is that we are supremely able to live without the EU. We run ahuge deficit with them, and their exports are things like expensive cars, ie the biggest value-added components of their feeble industry. Their 12% unemployment rates would double overnight if they truly tried to use the trade weapon on us.
The plan to use the euro as their secret weapon is also laughable. First, they have no influence with the Arab oil producers, now that Saddam is gone. Second, they could price Brit and Norwegian oil in euros, but they could have done this a long time ago. Ever wonder why they did not? Maybe the idea of a higher euro terrifies their industrial sector. They are already uncompetitive in most industrial areas, and a significantly higher euro would probably impose a huge recession on euroland. Slow or no growth, high unemployment, a looming pension crisis, exploding immigrant populations, really sounds like the prescription to challenge the dynamic US doesn't it?
The Brits have one chance to save their country, their culture and their sovereignty. They should withdraw from the EU and instead use the gratitude they have won with Washington to negotiate a free trade pact with the US. Over time, it could encompass the major english-speaking countries. It would be immensely popular with the British people, who have no love for the French or Germans, and could stimulate a second Thatcher revitalization for the UK economy.
One hardly know where to begin. For sure, a trade war with the US is the last thing Europe should hope for. We could do for their economies pretty much what we did for the Rpublican Guards. One of the ironies of the current system of unfair global trade is that we are supremely able to live without the EU. We run ahuge deficit with them, and their exports are things like expensive cars, ie the biggest value-added components of their feeble industry. Their 12% unemployment rates would double overnight if they truly tried to use the trade weapon on us.
The plan to use the euro as their secret weapon is also laughable. First, they have no influence with the Arab oil producers, now that Saddam is gone. Second, they could price Brit and Norwegian oil in euros, but they could have done this a long time ago. Ever wonder why they did not? Maybe the idea of a higher euro terrifies their industrial sector. They are already uncompetitive in most industrial areas, and a significantly higher euro would probably impose a huge recession on euroland. Slow or no growth, high unemployment, a looming pension crisis, exploding immigrant populations, really sounds like the prescription to challenge the dynamic US doesn't it?
The Brits have one chance to save their country, their culture and their sovereignty. They should withdraw from the EU and instead use the gratitude they have won with Washington to negotiate a free trade pact with the US. Over time, it could encompass the major english-speaking countries. It would be immensely popular with the British people, who have no love for the French or Germans, and could stimulate a second Thatcher revitalization for the UK economy.
The sanctions were not designed to produce a revolution. They were put in place so that an irresponsible dictator would not have access to billions of dollars a year to develop and deploy WMD. Despite the best efforts of the French, Germans, Russians and Syrians to cheat on the UN-imposed program, they were at least partially successful. Hardships suffered by the Iraqis were regrettable but could have been avoided by taking the required steps to have the sanctions lifted.
And which is worse, the US acting without yet another UN resolution authorizing force, or France, Germany, Russia and Syria defying clear UN prohibitions on trade with Iraq?
I agree with much of your post, AAA. As you may know, a group of anti-integrationists have been loudly urging Britain to offer a European Free Trade Area pact with the EU countries plus Russia and Turkey, with possible accession by the US at a later date. Where exactly Blair comes down on EU matters and the Euro will be closely watched - as there are many potential gradations between total Europhilia its opposite.
One point where I disagree with you, however, is the idea that Monbiot counts as an "influential Brit." From his website, it appears that he's very far left, loony even by European standards - much closer to Chomsky than to Blair in his outlook.
Actually, it's just about as amusing as it is disgusting to read someone like him offering "moral" advice, as he does, regarding US power. Amidst numerous discussions of the Iraq crisis on his site, I could not find a single reference to, for example, Saddam's genocidal oppression of the Kurds and Shia in Iraq, his advancement of repeated wars of aggression, his support for terrorism, or his operation of a grotesquely oppressive police state. I was able to find, however, a discussion of World War II, in which he appeared to show sympathy for the point of view that puts the blame for the Holocaust on the Allies - for having fought Hitler too strenuously, and thus having imposed an exaggerated logic of war on the Nazis.
It is no doubt this kind of moral thinking that gives comfort to the msfe's of the world after a long day cutting-and-pasting to ET. I don't think, however, that we have to worry too much about it taking hold in Britain - except perhaps among a very small group of Labour backbenchers and other Saddam collaborators.
Perhaps by you. Over the months, war supporters here and elsewhere have advanced numerous highly specific justifications for US policy regarding Iraq. Opposing these arguments with a generalized "whole-hearted" "hatred" for US foreign policy historically does not strike me as an adequate response. Indeed, I believe it merely underlines an inability to see past your preconceptions and prejudices, and to confront a current issue on its own terms.
But I guess I can find a few moments to pop in from time to time, but I probably won't be replying to everything -- hell, it's lil ole me against the lot of you.
You appear to me to have numerous allies on ET.
As for the sanctions:
I don't know where you get ideas like this. I doubt you will find any sanctions supporter who stated a belief that sanctions, by themselves, were likely to cause Saddam's overthrow. At most, you might find someone stating hopes that they might contribute to such a turn of events, but the principal justification was always along the lines of those stated above by AAA: To prevent Saddam from re-building his war machine or otherwise extending his ability to commit aggression. Some sanctions advocates may also have believed that Saddam might have complied with UN resolutions - on disarmament and oppression of his own people - in order to get the sanctions lifted.
You are stating what eventually became, for many of us, one of the clearest justifications for regime change. To the extent that those who opposed the war ever unified around any particular policy alternative, it was "containment," which implied indefinite continuation of the sanctions or something like them. The only other choice would be not only to ignore Saddam's defiance, but to reward him for it by lifting the sanctions and withdrawing militarily from the region, thus granting him an immense political victory while leaving him free to re-build his war machine and pursue his long-held dreams of conquest. Even setting aside the threats to Saddam's neighbors and the rest of the world that such a policy would have allowed, there is no reason at all to believe that it would have benefited Iraqis on balance - least of all the Kurds and Shia who depended on US and UK operations for what security from Saddam's reprisals they had.
The supporters of the war were the only ones in the entire argument that had a coherent and morally supportable answer to the dysfunctionality and inequity of the sanctions policy.
No. Saddam and his gang had done the hijacking. Letting them fly away with plane would have posed unacceptable risks both to the plane's passengers and to many others as well.
Of course, you don't. Your insistence on blaming the US first makes it impossible for you to deal with specific issues fairly and objectively. As ever, it causes you to look past the everywhere apparent evidence of Saddam's evil, and instead try to find an indictment of American policy.
Whom some in Britain refer to as "Moonbat":
http://www.stephenpollard.net/viewstory.php?ID=0831
Frankly, I don't know enough about international monetary policy to address the merits of the argument. I do, however, enjoy seeing "Moonbat"'s thinking described as "heartrendingly stupid" - words that would, in my opinion, apply to much on his website.
Like I said, AAA, I do think you may be doing him too much credit by referring to him as "influential."
http://www.stephenpollard.net/viewstory.php?ID=0831
Frankly, I don't know enough about international monetary policy to address the merits of the argument. I do, however, enjoy seeing "Moonbat"'s thinking described as "heartrendingly stupid" - words that would, in my opinion, apply to much on his website.
Like I said, AAA, I do think you may be doing him too much credit by referring to him as "influential."
The Iraqi branch of the Baath party was established 1954 after merging with another Arab nationalist party headed by Akram Al Hurani. In 1963, the United States CIA recruited the Iraqi Baath Party (including a young Saddam Hussien) to assassinate Abd al-Karim Qassim, a nationalist army officer. On February 8, 1963, the Baath party assumed power in Iraq after a bloody coup against the government of Abdel Karim Qassim. Then, quickly rounded up thousands of people mostly communists, communist sympathizers and socialists and sent them to makeshift detention camps. Many believe that the CIA was behind the coup after seeing the Iraqi communist party gaining support with Qassim's government. James Critchfield, then head of the CIA in the Middle East, said. "We regarded it as a great victory." Later, Ali Saleh Al-Sa'adi, the Baath Party secretary general said "We came to power on a CIA train."
Saddam Hussien=Evil
Saddam Hussien=US Foreign Policy
US Foreign Policy=Evil*
*Unless you were long Halliburton Subcontractor WEL from ~.35 to 2.00
Then it's all good. Right? Pro-war, anti-war, whatever. Whichever one is the money side of the trade. Saddam, Bush, Rumsfeld... pricks of a feather. At least Saddam was honest and open about being a prick. Anyway, thank God for the mighty victory so our glorious leaders can now turn their attention to rebuilding our schools, giving us some health care, paying back the people ripped off by Enron, getting the 2 million homeless off the street, making programs to teach NYSE specs to use a shovel or hammer so they can get new jobs etc. I know those of the benevolent regime are very impatient to get busy on these important tasks.
**Disclaimer: I was only in WEL from 1.35 to 1.95 then got out 'on principle' not dwindling volume and a lack of well fires.
Saddam Hussien=Evil
Saddam Hussien=US Foreign Policy
US Foreign Policy=Evil*
*Unless you were long Halliburton Subcontractor WEL from ~.35 to 2.00
Then it's all good. Right? Pro-war, anti-war, whatever. Whichever one is the money side of the trade. Saddam, Bush, Rumsfeld... pricks of a feather. At least Saddam was honest and open about being a prick. Anyway, thank God for the mighty victory so our glorious leaders can now turn their attention to rebuilding our schools, giving us some health care, paying back the people ripped off by Enron, getting the 2 million homeless off the street, making programs to teach NYSE specs to use a shovel or hammer so they can get new jobs etc. I know those of the benevolent regime are very impatient to get busy on these important tasks.
**Disclaimer: I was only in WEL from 1.35 to 1.95 then got out 'on principle' not dwindling volume and a lack of well fires.