The US, The UN and Iraq

To the extent that the elected respresentatives of Maine are putting their jobs on the line in voting for such a resolution, and are, therefore, by any definition of a democratic republic, expressing the will of the people--i would say they have a perfect right to "take up national issues." Last i knew, the citizens of Maine are citizens of the United States as well.

Setanta - Elected representatives within their legislature certainly have a right to express their opinion that this is not an issue for the state legislature.

Kara

I would be very interested in seeing your son's notes as well. Would you please inquire of him whether you may post them here.

Re the Maine resolution...I am most pleased to see such vigorous debate going on. It is far easier for any administration to get things done when no one argues, but it isn't democracy.

timber

re the French...I don't think your confidence that the French will alter their position is likely to be rewarded. There were a couple of experienced foreign affairs chaps on Charlie Rose last night (one of whom worked in the Clinton team and who had had a number of recent talks with Villepin) and both saw the German/French/Russian/Belgian union as likely to be fairly solid. Both quite regretted the Atlantic division that was evolving, but both felt it would not have come about had not Donald and Dubya's Excellent Adventure been so arrogant and hubristic. And they noted that European populations are quite clearly against the American push for war. There is a clear element, they suggested, of 'no one voted in America as world boss' and that unilateral assumption of such a role is very much part of the problem. Villepin has been, according to the one chap who's met with him often, one of the most pro-American voices in the French government up until this issue.

(note added ... I should have mentioned that neither placed full blame on US policy or mindset, but accorded some to the European side as well)

Nor do i dispute that right--i consider it, however, a petty point of view, and one which is not in accord with democratic principles.

The States can do nothing but voice sentiment ... only The Congress and Senate of The United States, in concert with The Office of President can enter into binding foreign agreements ... that's a big part of the deal with the Federal form of government, and was rather conclusively validated during our own Civil War. I suppose however, Maine will not be placed on the US's "Enemies List". Federal Troops occupying Bangor ... quite a concept



timber

Yes, troop deployment really ought to be reserved for my house.

blatham, wouldn't that be an invasion?

justified...this household, though free of ANY connection to Sadaam or Usama even of a dietary nature, is leaking animus.

What would Cretin say? (Is spelling correct?)

The French in particular are caught between Iraq and a hardplace, to coin a phrase. What is paramount in the Gallic Political consciousness is the idea of French Independence and Autonomy. Having neither the power to directly influence World Affairs nor the mindset to form strong European Alliances (can't cede French Authority to anyone), they are on the horns of a dillema. French National Interest is not served by isolating herself from The World Economic Community, and The US, like it or not, leads The World Economic Community. Angering The US will prove most inconvenient for The French Economy. Her major allies in the present contretemps are not exactly surfing the wave of prosperity at the moment, nor does seem likely to become the case in the near future. Russia's economy is a mess that will take a couple generations to sort out, and Germany has massive internal economic problems. "The Old Europe" may well be left behind if it decides to hang together in opposition to new developments in The World Community.

Always a pragmatic sort, The French are IMO to be expected to shrug, pout, and put on their team jersey just before the starting gun. The Germans, or Schroeder, at least, have too much invested in Anti-US sentiment to be likely to change, then too there is the matter of German Commercial Complicity in Iraqi "Proscribed Programs" they are in for a bit of International Embarrassment either way, I fear. I don't envy them a bit. The Russians could go either way ... Putin is an opportunist, and will watch carefully to see if he might gain advantage one way or the other. Belgium is just along for the ride.



timber

I really don't want to ruffle your feathers here, but I would ask you to give some thought to that statement. You are stating that you do not feel that it is in accord with democratic principles for an elected representative to offer his opinion as to whether the state legislature should be engaged in this activity. I find a disconnect there.

Suppose we were talking about the federal legislature, and a representative made an argument that the issue being discussed (some hypothetical issue) was not an issue in which the federal government should be involved--physician assisted suicide, for instance. Would you be making the same argument that his comments ran contrary to the principles of democratic process?

timber, Don't you think that whatever animus is created between the US and France will disappear once this administration is gone? c.i.

c.i., The French are still pissed off about Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower. They are inherently "Anti-US" as they feel that The US renders them inconsequential in World Affairs ... a huge blow to their pride and sense of soveriegnity. There has been little reason for them to not "Trust" The US, or anyone else, either. Since The Fall of Napoleon, The French have pretty much been The World's Football. They don't like getting kicked around ... they'd rather be a player than a game piece. The only influence they have in The Game is to obstruct US aims. They really have no choice, and they will most likely bite the bullet and get aboard at the last moment in some wonderfully pragmatic Gallic FAce Saving Manner.



timber

timber, setanta, blatham....thanks for the laughs, and the insights.

Ul, thanks for posting the news from the Maine legislature. As you know, the far northeastern states of the US harbour a stubborn individualism that is often rebellious and refreshing. You will recall that the Vermont legislature was the first in the country to legitimize same-sex unions. There was almost a divorce in our household over the issue. Guess who was on which side.

Blatham, I will indeed post my son's comments, after getting his permission.

Kara, My ideas mirrors yours. You agree with same sex marriage. c.i.

I think its the waiting that's getting to me. It'll be all right once we go over the top. Just having this last cigarette before H hour. You know there are elements of this whole saga which if it was not so serious would be quite funny.

A British Government minister friend of mine tells me the war has nothing to do with oil.

But we all know we drew the boundaries of Iraq with oil in mind. Iraq has the second largest proven oil reserves in the world. Moreover who knows how much more lies beneath the western desert....it could be more than Saudi.
Kirkuk sweet light crude is low in sulphur. Great, low refining costs and no awkward sulphur mountains to get rid of.
Now Kuwait drills laterally into Iraq and steals Iraqi oil. Iraq invades Kuwait and would have got away with it had they just taken the northern oil fields instead of Kuwait City. But Gulf war 1 was nothing to do with oil either.
"Crude oil prices rocket as war fears grow over Iraq" and similar headlines. Why should crude oil prices and Iraq be linked?
Lord Browne CEO of British Petroleum expresses his concerns that American big oil has already divided up Iraqi oil fields for future exploitation. "Its not fair, don't forget BP"

Its easy oil, the stuff is just below the surface, and you don't need a billion dollar oil rig towed into the middle of the North Sea.

But this war has got nothing to do with oil

Those disparaging the French and Russian positions say its only because they fear their existing oil contracts with Saddam will not be honoured. So its the same as ever, fear and greed, the animal instinct, the oil money adrenalin rush to fight or flight.

Bernard Jenkins (Conservative mp) said this morning on BBC that the French should clearly be told that there will be no room for French oil and construction companies in post war Iraq if they don't get on board now. (Hastily adding that the reconstruction of Iraq was primarily for the benefit of the Iraqi kids).

But the war has nothing to do with oil.

The Russians are the second biggest oil exporters, and their shaky economy increasingly depends on oil revenues. So they don't want the Iraqi oil flood gates opened and the corresponding drop in the price of crude.

Then there's American. Ah good ol' America. Land of the free and the SUV. The land that now imports 60% of its oil consumption. Where the oil- ogarchy rule. Are the Americans going to sit back and watch Iraq become a regional super power? With Saddam sitting on and in the middle of all those energy resources...you know Tengiz and all that new stuff in the Caspian? Just what has those trillion dollars or so spent on military hardware actually achieved if its not used?

But as I keep saying its got nothing to do with oil. Except of course that its got everything to do with oil and for this simple reason. Oil is unlike any other strategic resource. It underpins the modern world's industrial economies. Oil makes the link between the stone age and the nuclear age.

Tress, i am saying that the opinion expressed with regard to the propriety of the assembly in Maine passing a resolution on national policy is not in accord with democratic principles. I am certainly not saying that the expression of the opinion is not in accord with democratic principles. Certainly those who feel that way have a right to express that opinion, as is the case in the examples which you have provided. The distinction i am making is that the expression of such an opinion disregards the right of the citizens to comment upon the national policy of the nation of which they are a part. I am not opposed to the debate per se, rather, i am taking a position within the context of the debate to the effect that the statement in question is not in accord with democratic principles. I think the example you provide about physician assisted suicide is a stretch, however, for the sake of argument, i would opine that the representative in question was not speaking in accord with democratic principles, in that those electing representatives to the Congress who are concerned with this issue would express their approval or displeasure at the polls.

I would like to underline, once again, that i don't dispute the right of the assemblyman to express the opinion, but, rather criticize the opinion.

Steve, If it's oil, then timber's thesis on Ike et-al are not all that important. Is that it? c.i.

Steve, I have heard all of these arguments on both sides. It is hard to deny that oil is involved, but it is not the main reason for the war, in my opinion. Our country seems unable to find a better way of dealing with Saddam than by striking at Iraq with all of our mighty power. Control of oil would be a bonus. How sad. Whom will we attack next? North Korea is an obvious target. The Saudi's, for spawning bin Laden?

c.i. Shhhhh. We are not supposed to speak of such irreverant things in public. We are supposed to abhor the very idea of two men or two women having the economic advantages and safeguards of a long-time bond. It might make some of us feel less superior and, uh, married.

Setanta - Okay, I see the distinction you are making, and I think the disconnect here is that I have been inadvertently inserting constitutional (in my brain) where you wrote democratic. So I guess you may be right that the point of view expressed is anti-democratic, but then I would see that as a non-issue. The issue to me is whether it is appropriate within the constitutional guidelines of the body in question.

I would also challenge you (just once more, and gently!) to consider this hypothetical: what if the constituency of the representative who spoke out against this specifically asked him to do so? Would you still consider it anti-democratic for an elected representative to express the opinion of his constituents in the legislature?

(This is an interesting distinction you've made here, and I'm enjoying exploring it!)