What happens with the next Axis Of Evil target?
-
Wait till the war starts, then watch Tonys popularity shoot up. This is exactly what happened for all prime ministers concerned during The Falklands, The Gulf and Kosovo. Once the fighting starts, public opinion will swing around. Also, with UN approval, there is still a majority in favour of military action in the UK - granted it is only ~60%, but it's still a majority. However, without UN approval this figure drops to 15%! Tony should be very careful here - UN approval is crucial IMHO.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
I read somewhere (sorry, a while ago, while the troops were still in Afghanistan), that Bush Snr actually warned his son about basing his term on war, as he believed that was the reason he was back out again so quickly after the Gulf War. That is why this seems so strange to me. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: UN approval is crucial IMHO I don't see how they can go ahead and still call themselves civilized without this. In fact, if they do, surely the UN would be obliged to intervene against them? The UN, not the US/UK combined is supposed to be the worlds peacekeeping force.
A pack of geeks, pale and skinny, feeling a bit pumped and macho after a morning of strenuous mouse clicking and dragging, arriving en masse at the gym. They carefully reset the machines to the lowest settings, offer to spot for each other on the 5 lb dumbells, and rediscover the art of macrame while attempting to jump rope. -Roger Wright on my colleagues and I going to gym each day at lunch
-
Paul Watson wrote: What can the rest of us do? Nothing. The only people that could stop this would be the US electorate. We can whine, bitch, slag off the USA until we're blue in the face - but it wouldn't do us any good. I recently read a very well written book on this subject called "Why do people hate America?" - and it described America as the first "Hyperpower". Certainly no-one will be able to touch them militarily for a long, long time. Perhaps China will be in a position to challenge them in a few decades, but even this is unlikely.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Nothing. The only people that could stop this would be the US electorate. And you can discuss the issue with US citizens who can change the focus of their electorate. So I do not buy "Nothing" as an answer. It may very well seem small but it is not nothing, I will not accept hopeless as an answer. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
KaЯl wrote: We could ask for economical sanctions against the US This and your following question is why I asked my question. Economic sanctions won't work IMO. We are too dependant on them (and they on us.) Cut out the US consumer market from most countries exports and just watch the chaos. And the US knows this. One more reason for them to not give a toss what we think.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: And the US knows this. One more reason for them to not give a toss what we think. Reminds me of something I saw on a site David Stone recommended to me yesterday (nothing to do with war however). It had this quote at the top - "The avalanche has started, it's too late for the pebbles to vote." :|
A pack of geeks, pale and skinny, feeling a bit pumped and macho after a morning of strenuous mouse clicking and dragging, arriving en masse at the gym. They carefully reset the machines to the lowest settings, offer to spot for each other on the 5 lb dumbells, and rediscover the art of macrame while attempting to jump rope. -Roger Wright on my colleagues and I going to gym each day at lunch
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Nothing. The only people that could stop this would be the US electorate. And you can discuss the issue with US citizens who can change the focus of their electorate. So I do not buy "Nothing" as an answer. It may very well seem small but it is not nothing, I will not accept hopeless as an answer. "I will find a new sig someday."
You have more faith than I do then. Since when has the rest of the worlds opinion made a big difference to the average US voter??? I didn't say is was hopeless though Michael. Paul questioned what could be done if the US starting taking out anyone it didn't like, and in a situation like that I have every faith US voters would stand up and be heard.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
-
I read somewhere (sorry, a while ago, while the troops were still in Afghanistan), that Bush Snr actually warned his son about basing his term on war, as he believed that was the reason he was back out again so quickly after the Gulf War. That is why this seems so strange to me. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: UN approval is crucial IMHO I don't see how they can go ahead and still call themselves civilized without this. In fact, if they do, surely the UN would be obliged to intervene against them? The UN, not the US/UK combined is supposed to be the worlds peacekeeping force.
A pack of geeks, pale and skinny, feeling a bit pumped and macho after a morning of strenuous mouse clicking and dragging, arriving en masse at the gym. They carefully reset the machines to the lowest settings, offer to spot for each other on the 5 lb dumbells, and rediscover the art of macrame while attempting to jump rope. -Roger Wright on my colleagues and I going to gym each day at lunch
-
Paul Watson wrote: And the US knows this. One more reason for them to not give a toss what we think. Reminds me of something I saw on a site David Stone recommended to me yesterday (nothing to do with war however). It had this quote at the top - "The avalanche has started, it's too late for the pebbles to vote." :|
A pack of geeks, pale and skinny, feeling a bit pumped and macho after a morning of strenuous mouse clicking and dragging, arriving en masse at the gym. They carefully reset the machines to the lowest settings, offer to spot for each other on the 5 lb dumbells, and rediscover the art of macrame while attempting to jump rope. -Roger Wright on my colleagues and I going to gym each day at lunch
Megan Forbes wrote: "The avalanche has started, it's too late for the pebbles to vote." How charming. :| Thanks for the quote though.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa -
Ok sorry, more war and terrorist talk. At least I put it in the Soapbox :) Very simple question: Everyone agrees that something must be done about Iraq. The what and how though is a bit more contentious. But still the target and the need for war can be argued for. My question though is what happens when the US turns to someone that no other country agrees is a threat? Hypothetically, what if the US just decides and starts invading some country without any support from anyone else, not even Blair? What can the rest of us do? Is bitching all we can do to stop the US? Just curious.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: Is bitching all we can do to stop the US? Does the U.N. have teeth or not, Paul? If it doesn't, than it should just shut-up and get out of the way and let a country that does have teeth deal with the worlds problems. If it does, than it should damn well stand up and bite somebody. That is up to you guys to decide. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
You have more faith than I do then. Since when has the rest of the worlds opinion made a big difference to the average US voter??? I didn't say is was hopeless though Michael. Paul questioned what could be done if the US starting taking out anyone it didn't like, and in a situation like that I have every faith US voters would stand up and be heard.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Paul questioned what could be done if the US starting taking out anyone it didn't like, and in a situation like that I have every faith US voters would stand up and be heard. Understand, I was a bit on the quick side. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: You have more faith than I do then. I will gladly agree on being an optimist for this. As I said I can not accept other options. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Since when has the rest of the worlds opinion made a big difference to the average US voter??? Agreed, but here is the plus, the average voter also does not take the time to be heard. So by taking that time you can make more of a difference than the average voter. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
Paul Watson wrote: Is bitching all we can do to stop the US? Does the U.N. have teeth or not, Paul? If it doesn't, than it should just shut-up and get out of the way and let a country that does have teeth deal with the worlds problems. If it does, than it should damn well stand up and bite somebody. That is up to you guys to decide. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan you are obviously angry about the whole situation and not being your usual well thought out self.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa -
So? Either do I, but since when has the opinion of the UK electorate actually mattered? My point is that there will be spoils for the victors - and that has certainly been taken into consideration by the UK government, though they'd never admit this publically. Cheap oil is a very powerful incentive to go to war... :(
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
-
It worked for Thatcher. X| Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
-
Christian Graus wrote: Simple - we stop buying their goods. America has always been about money, stop giving them ours. Hmmm. But for instance a lot of our exports go to the US, and our exports are big money. If we boycotted US goods you can be sure they would boycott ours. The US is a massive consumer, we take lots of their money too. Also apart from entertainment and IT related goods we buy hardly any US made goods, too expensive. We get European or far east goods mainly. I don't think we can cut the US out economically and survive. They depend on us and we depend on them.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: I don't think we can cut the US out economically and survive. They depend on us and we depend on them I'm not so sure it would be the same for the European Union. For example, France make 60% of its trade with other countries of the EU. Germany is our first partner, as client and as supplier Seen the US trade deficit, it wouldn't be long before a boycott began to have major effect.
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
A trade war? I don't think this would work - it would harm the countries that were taking part in the boycott as much as it would the US. No-one can oppose the US militarily/economically at the moment - and perhaps not for decades to come. The only handbrake that can be applied will come from the US electorate.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
-
Stan you are obviously angry about the whole situation and not being your usual well thought out self.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaI'm very angry about it, and as frustrated as you are. I don't think we should invade Iraq, but I also don't think we (the U.S.) can set around waiting for the world's opinions on things of this sort. We have the right to defend ourselves - without asking permission from you. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Nothing. The only people that could stop this would be the US electorate. And you can discuss the issue with US citizens who can change the focus of their electorate. So I do not buy "Nothing" as an answer. It may very well seem small but it is not nothing, I will not accept hopeless as an answer. "I will find a new sig someday."
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: And you can discuss the issue with US citizens who can change the focus of their electorate So you see, even "Those that sit back and do nothing (i.e. do not offer other solutions or compromises)" may actually do something which may change the situation ;) IMO the ones who do nothing are the ones who sit back and say nothing.
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
Megan Forbes wrote: That is why this seems so strange to me. Hey, it worked for Thatcher in the 1983 election! :-D
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Hey, it worked for Thatcher in the 1983 election! Hmmm... and then she went on to win two more without a war. Makes sense. You don't think that breaking the unions, hacking income tax, North Sea oil and Michael Foot had anything to do with her winning in '83? There's no denying that the Falklands helped, but any war stopping an invasion (especially of home-owned soil) is going to work for the Prime Minister. It's a bit different when you're preempting an attack. However, as much as people in the UK are against a war without UN backing, it won't hurt Blair in the next election. Ian Duncan-Smith is doing a great job of securing another Labour landslide (to be fair, the battle for "opposition status" isn't helping). However, next term we will probably have a new opposition, one without the stigma still attached to the Tory party. Blair will have to be a lot more careful then; that's probably why he's not too keen on waiting for UN backing. X| Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
-
Don't you have oil anymore in the North Sea :confused: ?
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
KaЯl wrote: Don't you have oil anymore in the North Sea ? Not enough, unfortunately. Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
-
Paul Watson wrote: Is bitching all we can do to stop the US? Does the U.N. have teeth or not, Paul? If it doesn't, than it should just shut-up and get out of the way and let a country that does have teeth deal with the worlds problems. If it does, than it should damn well stand up and bite somebody. That is up to you guys to decide. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Does the U.N. have teeth or not As long as 5 countries will have a veto power, UN will keep its dentures in a glass!
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
And therein lies the source of the problem. I believe the U.S. should force the issue. Maybe if we can make the UN bold enough to do something about us, it will finally become bold enough to do something about the Saddam Husseins of the world. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Hey, it worked for Thatcher in the 1983 election! Hmmm... and then she went on to win two more without a war. Makes sense. You don't think that breaking the unions, hacking income tax, North Sea oil and Michael Foot had anything to do with her winning in '83? There's no denying that the Falklands helped, but any war stopping an invasion (especially of home-owned soil) is going to work for the Prime Minister. It's a bit different when you're preempting an attack. However, as much as people in the UK are against a war without UN backing, it won't hurt Blair in the next election. Ian Duncan-Smith is doing a great job of securing another Labour landslide (to be fair, the battle for "opposition status" isn't helping). However, next term we will probably have a new opposition, one without the stigma still attached to the Tory party. Blair will have to be a lot more careful then; that's probably why he's not too keen on waiting for UN backing. X| Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
Paul Riley wrote: Hmmm... and then she went on to win two more without a war. Makes sense. Actually, before the Falklands invasion, the Tories were way behind in the polls. The changes to the economy that they introduced were at the very difficult early stages and we were in the middle of a severe recession. By 1987, the pain was over, but in 1983, without a victory in the South Atlantic, the election would not of been a clear-cut Tory victory. Both my parents lost their jobs in 1982, and had both changed their vote from Labour to Tory in 1979 - they were VERY disenchanted with the Tories at this time, as were many others. Paul Riley wrote: However, as much as people in the UK are against a war without UN backing, it won't hurt Blair in the next election. Unless it all goes horribly wrong of course, and the price of oil goes through the roof. Without UN backing however, I think he could be in trouble - especially so if casualties are high and the war drags on (though I admit this is unlikely). Paul Riley wrote: Ian Duncan-Smith is doing a great job of securing another Labour landslide How true. We are effectively living in a one-party state. IDS is a joke. I'm no fan of the Tories, but man, do we need an effective opposition! This government is starting to take the piss and they are getting away with it. Paul Riley wrote: However, next term we will probably have a new opposition, one without the stigma still attached to the Tory party. If the Tories gain an effective leader before the next election, then they can still make a big dent in Tonys majority. If IDS is still leader this time next year, then they'll probably LOSE even more seats! Perhaps we'll see the current Tory party splitting into two - creating an anti-European party and a pro-European party - after all, Europe is all they bloody care about (unlike the majority of the electorate who couldn't give a damn). P.S. QOTSA ROCK!
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.