GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

JeremySF · 02-18-2003, 02:35 AM

More or less Kenny you are right.....but it's not the "international community"......governmentally it's the axis of appeasement: france, germany, russia, etc.....all who incidentally have MAJOR business dealings in IRAQ........They do a shitload of biz w/Iraq....and, yes, the U.S. still does, but not to the same extent....

More interesting fodder from the World Socialist Website....read about the European dilemma......it's not about pacifism or morality....it's about what in their mind is the pragmatic choice:

The European dilemma

Europe is divided on the issue of war. The much-touted ?common foreign policy? is in tatters. The British, the Spanish and the Italian governments, as well as several eastern European states, have thrown in their lot with Bush. No small factor in this decision is a desire to strengthen their position vis-à-vis Germany. France and Germany, on the other hand, are trying to curb the U.S. by diplomatic means.

This stance has nothing in common with a principled opposition to war. Neither the German nor the French government is questioning the right of the great powers to move against Iraq. Both have agreed to UN Resolution 1441, which poses an ultimatum to Iraq, threatening it with ?serious consequences.?

The international community is agaisnt this war not for Iraq's good track record, but they are against american super power. I dont speak for all of the nations, but alot. France comes to mind [/QUOTE]They merely fear that too strong an American dominance will inhibit their own interests in the region.

If the U.S. won?t be stopped, they are prepared to agree to a second UN resolution that sanctions war, so as not to miss out on the division of the booty. Both French President Chirac and German Foreign Minister Fischer have made remarks to that effect.

Germany and France are old imperialist powers that pursue their own global aims?as demonstrated by the recent French military intervention in the Ivory Coast. The aggressiveness of the U.S. has thrown them into a dilemma. If they bow to the dictates of the U.S., they renounce any independent role in international politics for a long time to come. If, however, they put up some resistance, they run the risk of grave conflicts with incalculable economic and military consequences.

The other side of the criticism they voice about U.S. war plans is the intensification of their own rearmament. In order to stand up to Washington, Europe has to be capable of military action on its own accord. The disagreements on the fate of Iraq are merely the harbinger of a direct and open conflict between the imperialist powers themselves.

This is why it is wrong to place hopes in the German or French government, as some sections of the peace movement do. Their call to ?give moral support? to Schröder, Fischer or Chirac against the US is futile. You cannot fight imperialism by supporting one imperialist power against the other.

It is equally wrong to leave the decision on war or peace to the UN. Whether or not the U.S. has the official sanction of the United Nations when it attacks Iraq will not alter the imperialist nature of this war. Far from representing the ?world community," the UN constitutes?like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other international institutions?a tool of the imperialist powers. It is employed by them to force their will upon the world?s people."

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kenny

02-18-2003, 02:35 AM
JeremySF Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: San Francisco Posts: 1,236	More or less Kenny you are right.....but it's not the "international community"......governmentally it's the axis of appeasement: france, germany, russia, etc.....all who incidentally have MAJOR business dealings in IRAQ........They do a shitload of biz w/Iraq....and, yes, the U.S. still does, but not to the same extent.... More interesting fodder from the World Socialist Website....read about the European dilemma......it's not about pacifism or morality....it's about what in their mind is the pragmatic choice: The European dilemma Europe is divided on the issue of war. The much-touted ?common foreign policy? is in tatters. The British, the Spanish and the Italian governments, as well as several eastern European states, have thrown in their lot with Bush. No small factor in this decision is a desire to strengthen their position vis-à-vis Germany. France and Germany, on the other hand, are trying to curb the U.S. by diplomatic means. This stance has nothing in common with a principled opposition to war. Neither the German nor the French government is questioning the right of the great powers to move against Iraq. Both have agreed to UN Resolution 1441, which poses an ultimatum to Iraq, threatening it with ?serious consequences.? The international community is agaisnt this war not for Iraq's good track record, but they are against american super power. I dont speak for all of the nations, but alot. France comes to mind [/QUOTE]They merely fear that too strong an American dominance will inhibit their own interests in the region. If the U.S. won?t be stopped, they are prepared to agree to a second UN resolution that sanctions war, so as not to miss out on the division of the booty. Both French President Chirac and German Foreign Minister Fischer have made remarks to that effect. Germany and France are old imperialist powers that pursue their own global aims?as demonstrated by the recent French military intervention in the Ivory Coast. The aggressiveness of the U.S. has thrown them into a dilemma. If they bow to the dictates of the U.S., they renounce any independent role in international politics for a long time to come. If, however, they put up some resistance, they run the risk of grave conflicts with incalculable economic and military consequences. The other side of the criticism they voice about U.S. war plans is the intensification of their own rearmament. In order to stand up to Washington, Europe has to be capable of military action on its own accord. The disagreements on the fate of Iraq are merely the harbinger of a direct and open conflict between the imperialist powers themselves. This is why it is wrong to place hopes in the German or French government, as some sections of the peace movement do. Their call to ?give moral support? to Schröder, Fischer or Chirac against the US is futile. You cannot fight imperialism by supporting one imperialist power against the other. It is equally wrong to leave the decision on war or peace to the UN. Whether or not the U.S. has the official sanction of the United Nations when it attacks Iraq will not alter the imperialist nature of this war. Far from representing the ?world community," the UN constitutes?like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other international institutions?a tool of the imperialist powers. It is employed by them to force their will upon the world?s people." [QUOTE]Originally posted by kenny __________________ ICQ: 176050593 / AIM: JerSF2000 "Love is the answer - but while you're waiting for the answer sex raises some pretty good questions." ---------------------------------------------