It's all about Iraq! No it's about Europe

Undertoad · 03-14-2003, 02:15 PM

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.p...-03-15&id=2882

Mark Steyn explains why the last two months of negotiation and diplomacy have not been about Iraq after all, but about Europe - by framing the entire picture as another stage in European decline.

"What we’ve seen in the last few weeks is that for Europeans the real clash of civilisations is not between Islam and the West but between what the French call 'Anglo-Saxon' capitalism and Eurostatism."

Further summary: Europe's welfare state is slowly failing, due to an aging population and declining birth rates. It is completely dependent on immigrants to survive, but its actual standard of living is stagnating while the third world gets its act together. Arab reformation would be bad for them, because it could stop the Arabs from moving to Europe. Its pride gives it an unrealistic view of itself, but history has not been kind to similar cultures.

jaguar · 03-16-2003, 06:26 AM

pfffft...
And you think i go off the deep end?
That guy has a rather patchy set of blinkers on.

For a start, France's fuss is caused almost purely by it's existing oil interests, and signifigant they are, in Iraq and certainly not by and lofty moral principles.

Secondly i would not called the size and required length of time of stay of US forces in Afghanistan and now Iraq 'travelling light' by any means, in fact last i checked the cost of such forces was keeping the US budget dripping red ink at what? 2.7% of GDP now?

I think the biggest oversight is the lack of perception in Europe in leadership circles about the death of the Un and similar power structures, rather than rallying round usch pillars instead NATO is finally about to toppe - we are returning to a 19th centuary international climate, to think that European leaders are not aware of this is frankly, naive or stupid.

The "death of Europe" is like "death of Apple", they keep publishing, we'll all keep laughing.

Phrases like "fundamentalist as the radical secularism of post-Christian Europe" are rather funny, until they're justified by statements like " Why would anyone think a disinclination to breed or to defend oneself is the recipe for success?" at which point they become well...rather sad really. Certainly worse than the article he is referring to which itself i'll admit was silly in parts.

It's one of those issues you can play any way you want, i mean there is certainly an arguement that the dramatic falls in US R&D and moving of signifigant volumes of jobs as well as large sections of manufacturaing overseas is going to.......

But then i guess i don't write wanky articles for second rate british newspapers.

russotto · 03-18-2003, 01:06 PM

Skip it, Jag. We'll make up that 2.9% in spades when we take over Iraq and set up a nice puppet state run by the US oil industry. The direct effects -- a guaranteed source of high-quality oil -- will be good enough, but the bonus of damage to OPEC via the removal of one of the major players will be enormous. Even after Bush's friends take their cut, there will be plenty of benefit for the rest of the American economy. Plus there's the "stick it to the Euro" factor of once again accepting DOLLARS for Iraqi oil rather than Euros.

Not only that, things will be better for the Iraqis as well. Peace will be kept (by force) between the Kurds and the other groups, and between the Shi'ites and the Sunnis, and between any other disputing groups. The people will have jobs building oil infrastructure, roads, pipelines -- it'll be hard and dangerous work, but they'll be fed well. And the secret police will be much kinder and gentler than under Saddam's reign.

jaguar · 03-18-2003, 02:48 PM

*sighs*
I'd advise you to look into Iraq's oil production before saying that. At the very most Iraq has prodcued 3mill bpd, the issue being the geology it's oil exists in. Improved tech will increase that but only so far. Furthermore removing that oil from the Iraqi economy would utterly nuke it, not good if you're on a 'nationbuilding' mission is it? Taking Iraq for oil is not an ecnomically viable option, it will require hundreds of thousands of troops for years, that's going to cost far, far more than money the US could make out of Iraq in anything but the very long term and then the lifespan of oil comes into play.

How exactly is a 'democratic' state going to heace peace by force? Sounds like a dictatorship to me.... Iraq is a mass of tensions and age old feuds which will explode the second Saddam is gone, there is no central opposition and the guy who's name they've been throwing around is already under heavy attack. Anyone who thinks they can keep the peace for long without putting a gun to people's head has another thing coming. All that infrastructure you're talking about? Where is the money going to come from? Afghanistan still needs massive fund injections to survive too.

I've been trying to dig up a report in one of the financial mags recently talking about the longer term effect of mass outsourcing of jobs overseas and a trend of signifigantly cutting back R&D by US companies. Made for interesting reading i'll tell you that much, it was either BRW, Fin Review or Fin Times, can't remember which.

russotto · 03-19-2003, 01:20 PM

Iraq's oil production actually hit 3.5 million barrels per day, using very old-technology techniques. This is not small, considering the #1 producer (Saudi Arabia) has a capacity of 10.5 million bbl/d -- and uses better technology.

Who said anything about removing the oil from the economy? The US-backed regime will go on producing it and selling it, continuing to provide cash for the Iraqi economy. Minus the cut for George's pals, but hey, that's probably less than Saddam & Co's cut. No need for hundreds of thousands of troops -- the people are already used to being kept down under Saddam, and a few bones thrown the way of some of the lower-level functionaries of oppression can even keep them working for the US.

The infrastructure funds come from, of course, the United States -- Bush's pals again. With their investments guaranteed by the US military, they'll be all too happy to invest in Iraqi oil.

wolf · 03-19-2003, 01:46 PM

Was watching Fox News last night (there's a big surprise, eh?) and Neil Cavuto was doing a story indicated that the French (remember them?) are already maneuvering to get a piece of the pie after the daughter of all battles is over (the last one was the 'mother of all', right? and this one's newer ... soo ......)

Anyway, damn lot of nerve those French Bastards have, eh? "No, Monsieur les Americain, we will not support, approve, or assist your war, but we'll happily make a tidy profit after ..."

jaguar · 03-19-2003, 05:51 PM

Where did you get 3.5 mil?
My figures came from the Financial Times about 2 weeks ago.

I think you're also underestimating the resulting unrest in Iraq, there is a real danger of the entire country - the heavily armed country that is - falling apart completely and disintergrating into chaos a bit like say....Afghanistan? We all know what a resounding success that has been in terms of peace and stability. All the analysis i've read indicates a large and sustained deployment as well as a massive injection of funds, i think it was Time that had the figure of $105B, that's a lot of money in anyone's language and far larger than oil profits over the same time.

The thing with the French is they *already* have a decent chunk of the pie, they just don't want to lose it, that's why there has been so much opposition to the war in the first place.

russotto · 03-20-2003, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wolf

Anyway, damn lot of nerve those French Bastards have, eh? "No, Monsieur les Americain, we will not support, approve, or assist your war, but we'll happily make a tidy profit after ..."

The US will just go all Little Red Hen on them...

"Who will EAT the bread?"
"I will," said the cat.
"I will," said the rat.
"I will," said the pig.
"I will," said the dog.
"Oh, no, you won't," said the Little Red Hen. "I will!".

Jag: my source is the US Department of Energy website. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html

And if you haven't noticed, Afghanistan is not currently in chaos with the US there, not like it was after the Soviet withdrawal. While it's not what you'd call stable, if it had oil it'd be plenty stable enough to pump it.

You're right about the French. Too bad for them; they should have played ball. Now we're going to give their cut to Spain. BWAHAHAHAHA.

jaguar · 03-20-2003, 04:55 PM

Stable is a relative term. Afghanistan is still not a coherent state, it's infrastructure is still a mess, it's army a joke, it's government weak. They've got taliban dudes wandering all over the place, it's still a warzone.

I've been trying to track down the Fin Times article but their site is pay-only and i threw the paper itself out long ago, i'll hunt around a bit.

03-16-2003, 06:26 AM	#2
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	pfffft... And you think i go off the deep end? That guy has a rather patchy set of blinkers on. For a start, France's fuss is caused almost purely by it's existing oil interests, and signifigant they are, in Iraq and certainly not by and lofty moral principles. Secondly i would not called the size and required length of time of stay of US forces in Afghanistan and now Iraq 'travelling light' by any means, in fact last i checked the cost of such forces was keeping the US budget dripping red ink at what? 2.7% of GDP now? I think the biggest oversight is the lack of perception in Europe in leadership circles about the death of the Un and similar power structures, rather than rallying round usch pillars instead NATO is finally about to toppe - we are returning to a 19th centuary international climate, to think that European leaders are not aware of this is frankly, naive or stupid. The "death of Europe" is like "death of Apple", they keep publishing, we'll all keep laughing. Phrases like "fundamentalist as the radical secularism of post-Christian Europe" are rather funny, until they're justified by statements like " Why would anyone think a disinclination to breed or to defend oneself is the recipe for success?" at which point they become well...rather sad really. Certainly worse than the article he is referring to which itself i'll admit was silly in parts. It's one of those issues you can play any way you want, i mean there is certainly an arguement that the dramatic falls in US R&D and moving of signifigant volumes of jobs as well as large sections of manufacturaing overseas is going to....... But then i guess i don't write wanky articles for second rate british newspapers. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

03-18-2003, 01:06 PM	#3
russotto Professor Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 1,788	US Imperialism, Bwa-ha-ha-ha Skip it, Jag. We'll make up that 2.9% in spades when we take over Iraq and set up a nice puppet state run by the US oil industry. The direct effects -- a guaranteed source of high-quality oil -- will be good enough, but the bonus of damage to OPEC via the removal of one of the major players will be enormous. Even after Bush's friends take their cut, there will be plenty of benefit for the rest of the American economy. Plus there's the "stick it to the Euro" factor of once again accepting DOLLARS for Iraqi oil rather than Euros. Not only that, things will be better for the Iraqis as well. Peace will be kept (by force) between the Kurds and the other groups, and between the Shi'ites and the Sunnis, and between any other disputing groups. The people will have jobs building oil infrastructure, roads, pipelines -- it'll be hard and dangerous work, but they'll be fed well. And the secret police will be much kinder and gentler than under Saddam's reign.

03-18-2003, 02:48 PM	#4
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	sighs I'd advise you to look into Iraq's oil production before saying that. At the very most Iraq has prodcued 3mill bpd, the issue being the geology it's oil exists in. Improved tech will increase that but only so far. Furthermore removing that oil from the Iraqi economy would utterly nuke it, not good if you're on a 'nationbuilding' mission is it? Taking Iraq for oil is not an ecnomically viable option, it will require hundreds of thousands of troops for years, that's going to cost far, far more than money the US could make out of Iraq in anything but the very long term and then the lifespan of oil comes into play. How exactly is a 'democratic' state going to heace peace by force? Sounds like a dictatorship to me.... Iraq is a mass of tensions and age old feuds which will explode the second Saddam is gone, there is no central opposition and the guy who's name they've been throwing around is already under heavy attack. Anyone who thinks they can keep the peace for long without putting a gun to people's head has another thing coming. All that infrastructure you're talking about? Where is the money going to come from? Afghanistan still needs massive fund injections to survive too. I've been trying to dig up a report in one of the financial mags recently talking about the longer term effect of mass outsourcing of jobs overseas and a trend of signifigantly cutting back R&D by US companies. Made for interesting reading i'll tell you that much, it was either BRW, Fin Review or Fin Times, can't remember which. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

03-19-2003, 01:46 PM	#6
wolf lobber of scimitars Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phila Burbs Posts: 20,774	Was watching Fox News last night (there's a big surprise, eh?) and Neil Cavuto was doing a story indicated that the French (remember them?) are already maneuvering to get a piece of the pie after the daughter of all battles is over (the last one was the 'mother of all', right? and this one's newer ... soo ......) Anyway, damn lot of nerve those French Bastards have, eh? "No, Monsieur les Americain, we will not support, approve, or assist your war, but we'll happily make a tidy profit after ..." __________________ wolf eht htiw og "Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis

03-19-2003, 05:51 PM	#7
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	Where did you get 3.5 mil? My figures came from the Financial Times about 2 weeks ago. I think you're also underestimating the resulting unrest in Iraq, there is a real danger of the entire country - the heavily armed country that is - falling apart completely and disintergrating into chaos a bit like say....Afghanistan? We all know what a resounding success that has been in terms of peace and stability. All the analysis i've read indicates a large and sustained deployment as well as a massive injection of funds, i think it was Time that had the figure of $105B, that's a lot of money in anyone's language and far larger than oil profits over the same time. The thing with the French is they already have a decent chunk of the pie, they just don't want to lose it, that's why there has been so much opposition to the war in the first place. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

03-14-2003, 02:15 PM	#1
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	It's all about Iraq! No it's about Europe http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.p...-03-15&id=2882 Mark Steyn explains why the last two months of negotiation and diplomacy have not been about Iraq after all, but about Europe - by framing the entire picture as another stage in European decline. "What we’ve seen in the last few weeks is that for Europeans the real clash of civilisations is not between Islam and the West but between what the French call 'Anglo-Saxon' capitalism and Eurostatism." Further summary: Europe's welfare state is slowly failing, due to an aging population and declining birth rates. It is completely dependent on immigrants to survive, but its actual standard of living is stagnating while the third world gets its act together. Arab reformation would be bad for them, because it could stop the Arabs from moving to Europe. Its pride gives it an unrealistic view of itself, but history has not been kind to similar cultures.

03-19-2003, 01:20 PM	#5
russotto Professor Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 1,788	Iraq's oil production actually hit 3.5 million barrels per day, using very old-technology techniques. This is not small, considering the #1 producer (Saudi Arabia) has a capacity of 10.5 million bbl/d -- and uses better technology. Who said anything about removing the oil from the economy? The US-backed regime will go on producing it and selling it, continuing to provide cash for the Iraqi economy. Minus the cut for George's pals, but hey, that's probably less than Saddam & Co's cut. No need for hundreds of thousands of troops -- the people are already used to being kept down under Saddam, and a few bones thrown the way of some of the lower-level functionaries of oppression can even keep them working for the US. The infrastructure funds come from, of course, the United States -- Bush's pals again. With their investments guaranteed by the US military, they'll be all too happy to invest in Iraqi oil.

03-20-2003, 04:55 PM	#9
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	Stable is a relative term. Afghanistan is still not a coherent state, it's infrastructure is still a mess, it's army a joke, it's government weak. They've got taliban dudes wandering all over the place, it's still a warzone. I've been trying to track down the Fin Times article but their site is pay-only and i threw the paper itself out long ago, i'll hunt around a bit. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)