Not got time or energy to jump into this right now. But go FayJay! Go FayJay! Go FayJay!

after all, equally adolescent Americans refusing to buy French wine

But we have been mocking them ruthlessly for weeks.

supporting mocking no big dif.

even Romanian peasants get satellite TV (along with their wood-burning stove, their scythe-cut grass and their milk squeezed fresh from the cow)

Stereotype much. Hillbillies get satellite too.

Here's the thing: Europe isn't a country. Europe isn't one ideology or one political system. So if you're going to base an argument on a US/Europe dichotomy we may have some problems, because Europe doesn't have or express one unified opinion about, well, pretty much anything. What with Europe comprising a shitload of different countries.

FayJay, you know people are using the phrase “United States of Europe” with a straight face now yes?

Hello, we are the UK, Rock, please let me introduce you to Hard Place.

I bet Marlboros (cigarettes) are all over the place, but giving those up would be too hard.

Not. Really now if I can anyone can. Slainte mhath!

But they seem to making it very clear what they're against without saying what they're FOR. What will they do against Saddam?

Nothing. The pressing need to do NOTHING AGAINST SADDAM. Monarchs / ultimate rulers / dictators NOT a new concept here no-one else is scared of him. Wheels need axles and all that jazz.

Oh, FayJay Re: European Union. The Queen of England is in a strong position here what with Germany being all dominaty.

IMO & IJS.

FayJay, you know people are using the phrase “United States of Europe” with a straight face now yes?

No, they're not. It was mentioned, in passing, in a list of about 20 possible names for an integrated EU (which, given that it would require a common foreign and defence policy, is dead in the water right now) in the appendix of Descardin's report on suggested development of the Union. Then the EUphobe press spotted it and turned it into a Big Fat Issue over here.

Oh, FayJay Re: European Union. The Queen of England is in a strong position here what with Germany being all dominaty.

In a pig's arse. A) Germany won't be dominaty in a (notional) eurosuperpower - it'll be the countries with nukes, seats on the Security Council, massive links outside Europe and internationally significant financial markets. German power has been restricted since WWII, and still is. Germany will be important, but the idea that they'll "Dominate" is laughable; they're the last country on earth to want to; more than anyone, they know where "domination" leads. B) WHy does the fact that the Hanoverians have German ancestry mean a fuck to the republic that is Germany? They were never kings over there - it'd be like a german relative of, say, the Dukes of Devonshire trying to exert influence in the UK. And C) The Queen has no powers in this country that she can use. The survival of the Monarchy depends on the Monarch not exerting the prerogative, and on him/her leaving it to the PM. Hence why Charles's political interventions are so embarrassing for Royalists.

even Romanian peasants get satellite TV (along with their wood-burning stove, their scythe-cut grass and their milk squeezed fresh from the cow)

Stereotype much. Hillbillies get satellite too.

Eh? Fay was making a specific point about the penetration of US monoculture far ahead of other tech - I could make the same point by talking about watching MTV in a shack in the Sumatran highlands with a petrol generator, while coffee beans dried in the mud and the wife of the chap I was watching with pounded clothes in the river. Or a 70-year-old guy on Pulau Siberut, 5 days walk from the nearest road, whose never seen a petrol engine, talking about how the Americans have walked on the moon. Now that's cognitive dissonence!

Folks - if you are in the middle of doing something wrong, and realize it is wrong, you stop doing it. You lose face - yeah you blew it, you lose face.

Gar, I agree with the above, as far as it goes. But losing face isn't the only problem here, nor is it the most deadly.

As to what to you do; you negotiate; you take advantage of ending to war to get the inspectors back; you end the civilian sanctions that have killed so many Iraqis over the past 12 years, and have military only sanctions, backed by inspectors. You provide aid thorugh aid organizations to rebuild the water supply and ability to grow food; none of it goes to the Saddam regieme, but you do capital in investment in Iraq to rebuild water stations, sewers, hospitals, schools, so that people are no longer just living (and dying) on charity. And given contact with the outside world, with no 12 year siege or attack to rally people around Saddam he will fall. It wil take longer than if we had not had the war, because he gains cred for having survived the attack - but it still leads to a better result for Iraq and for the world than if we finish the war.

Do you think that the above is do-able with Saddam in power? And would he fall, really? This is what I wonder about. Like you said, it's not going to happen; we're not taking our ball and going home. But if we were to, part of me thinks invading, wreaking havoc and then stopping would rally people behind him all the more, especially if then there was an end to sanctions and a rebuilding of their infrastructure, with him still in.

And that you don't balance the budget by cutting veterans' services. And that you pay privates a wage sufficient that they don't need food stamps.

This probably belongs in Natter at this point, but this is an issue that is so very much burning my ass. We're sending young people (and I'm with you Betsy, I look at these soldiers and I just see my kids) to war, as we cut veteran services to their Grampies. It's an outrage. Where's our sense of duty. It makes me ill.

Gar, really, you're so very reasonable and logical that you've fallen into the trap of believing everybody thinks like you do! Saddam and his cronies have no interest in the Iraqi people. They don't want to save them, they just want to rule over them. If they lose a million or so during this war, that's fine with them.

Any withdrawal Saddam will see as a victory. That's all there is to it. Hell, he managed to spin GW I as a victory to his people! Betrayed a second time, the Iraqi opposition will wither, as well as many democratic movements across the region who will be stunned that three of the most advanced democracies in the world folded so quickly and shamefully. Exactly what incentive will he have to even let the inspectors into the country again, let alone let them do their work properly? He'll merrily shuffle around the missiles and chem weapons (and won't those be easy to build with the sanctions gone and stuff pouring in from hundreds of miles of borders) and rope-a-dope them at the best, actively repel them at the worst. And when he hurts one of them, what will the team do? Ask for military guard? From the same countries who were within an hour's drive of Baghdad and then threw up their hands and went home?

He'll merrily shuffle around the missiles and chem weapons

These would be the weapons of mass destruction that haven't been found yet and haven't been used yet?

These would be the weapons of mass destruction that haven't been found yet and haven't been used yet?

moonlit ... no, those would be the missles that apparently everyone but the US, saw being destroyed right before Fuckface Dubya launched his attack.

Scott Hope is gay and now on Queer as Folk !!

How cute is that? :)

thanks Jimi I was obviously confused.

I have just watched an interview with someone who's name I didn't catch but who was a spokesperson for the humanitarian side who was being asked about the US/coalition stated aim of having the wealth of the Iraqi oilfields used for the rebuilding of Iraq etc.

He pointed out that Iraq is already in debt to the international community to the tune of $130 billion and is still under compensatory debt of $44 billion for the last Gulf War, both debts the US has already said will be paid off as soon as they are in control of the oil revenue.

Fair enough. However he then went on to say that the US govt is illegally (?) demanding all Iraqi money that is held in banks around the world and that this money is part of what has already been earmarked for the contracted US corporations to rebuild and clean up Iraq.

I hadn't heard that last part. I'll put up a link when it becomes available, the program puts its transcripts up on the website a few hours after the show goes to air.