In an attempt for peace to occur in Israel, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia offered a proposal. His proposal-Israel will give up territory gained in the 1967 war.
The Israeli government is receptive to the proposal.
The American government says the proposal is sound.
There is no comment from the Palestinians.
Edited by Tom in the name of the spelling gods and for the honour of greyskull
[ February 25, 2002, 13:50: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
If you're going to misspell "Saudi", at least misspell it consistently.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
It sounds like a fair, reasonable, return-to-the-beginning proposal.
What the combatants (and others in the region) say/do in response will, IMHO, conclusively demonstrate who should be aided, and who should be stomped upon.
But as of yet, I make no predictions on who will fall into which category.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Can I just say I'm not optimistic, Baldrick?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The most cunning foreign policy since that of President Fox McCunning?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Yes.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Well, it wasn't the US's idea. And as I recall, the same proposal was floated a few weeks ago by certain EU parties.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Figures. The EU is the most successful attempt to unify Europe ever. Since Adolf Hitler.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Great. We say we need more Brits here, we get a Little Englander. They'll take your Pound when thery pry it from your cold rotting fingers, right?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poet: Great. We say we need more Brits here, we get a Little Englander. They'll take your Pound when thery pry it from your cold rotting fingers, right?
Yep!! I'm British Not Europoean!! Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
The British aren't European?
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Must be a new continent.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
*sigh* Don't ask.
Posted by Orion Syndicate (Member # 25) on :
No, you see we are Europeans and an influencial part of Europe. It's just that some people wish that weren't the case because apparently we have lost way too much sovereignty to Brussels with regard to making our own decisions. If we join the Euro, we'll be further losing our national sovereignty and we can't allow that to happen at all, because everyone knows that we should leave our national sovereignty firmly where it belongs - in Washington.
[ March 05, 2002, 14:09: Message edited by: Orion Syndicate ]
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orion Syndicate: No, you see we are Europeans and an influencial part of Europe. It's just that some people wish that weren't the case because apparently we have lost way too much sovereignty to Brussels with regard to making our own decisions. If we join the Euro, we'll be further losing our national sovereignty and we can't allow that to happen at all, because everyone knows that we should leave our national sovereignty firmly where it belongs - in Washington.
ROFL! Just like with British nukes! Bonn and Brussels will both be smoldering pits of high radioactivity before the UK turns over its sovereignty-ensuring nuclear arsenal to a joint European command.
Personally, I'm tickled pink by the fact that the EU's actually getting involved in these things. People get tired of Washington this, Washington that, day in and day out.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Won't be any difference.. the EU's just a smaller squabbling bloc than the UN.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Which of course is a very bad thing, as all attempts to unite humanity are. Why, even this "United States" thing is a bit suspect. 8)
Well, guess what? Robert has issues - with the EU, or the UN, or both. I'm sure he'll rush to enlighten us as to what his beef is.
Temply - about the nukes you mentioned; ironically enough, we can't fire nukes without the US' permission. I'm not sure of the details, it's not something they publicise, but since most of our active arsenal consists of British weapons, loaded on American missiles, on British submarines, it's kinda complicated. But the upshot is, Blair couldn't nuke anyone if he wanted to - thank Christ for small mercies. . .
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Wow, you're right, the Nassau treaty is rather ambiguous when it comes to actually using the nuclear weapons.
Thanks for the info Vogon, I'm actually doing a paper of EU defense integration, and this helps quite a bit.
Oh yeah, I'd love to hear your objection against a new European Defense Community, complete with its own military composed of personnel drawn from all member states, and commanded by a supranational authority. That is if you have any, First of Two. And I'd be absolutely grateful if you could provide citable sources.
[ March 05, 2002, 21:32: Message edited by: David Templar ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, there's another difference between the US and Britain. The Brits think they aren't even part of their continent, while we think we're the entirety of ours...
Posted by Orion Syndicate (Member # 25) on :
Yeah, we're all xenophobes....FUCK! That's a Greek word, I shouldn't be using that should I.....
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Well, I don't have any citable sources but there are some fairly evident ones:
1) Equipment imcompatability. The member states of the EU use a wide range of weapons and support equipment, varying from ex-Soviet to new 5th generation fighters. While the introduction of the Eurofighter and A400M (if it ever gets off the ground) will help to rectify this, at least in the air forces, problems will still be caused by differing systems. The two aircraft mentioned are already running into problems with orders for both dropping (Germany has just pulled out of the A400M and the RAF say they would rather have the C-17). Also the immense cost of stadardisation would prevent this for at least 20 years, which is approximately when new defense systems will have to be replaced.
2) The language barrier and beaurocracy. Most of the EU states have their own languages; communicating with officers or troops from other nations in an international force would be hard. While most people in the EU speak English it would not be politically correct for orders to be issued in this language as it would be seen as anglicisation of the EU. It is likely, therefore that large numbers of interpreters would be needed. This is already the case in the civvie parts of the EU and in NATO. This would reduce the combat effectiveness of the force and increase the likelihood of misunderstood orders.
3) NATO/UN. This mainly applies to British troops as none of the other European countries seem to care; troops from nations with commitments to NATO and the UN (particularly those with small armed forces) would find their forces overstretched if a new set of duties was added. British armed forces are already in this situation (I know this as i am from an armed forces family); additional assignments would probably be too much to handle. To dissolve NATO would mean an end to the organisation that has kept peace in Europe for the past 50 years.
Finally I would just like to say that I am not a rabid anti-European but I do not believe the EU should be given any more power without being reformed to make it more democratic.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Well, I had posted something about the EU yesterday, but apparently the network here went down while I was posting it. Damn.
Anyway, I have no objections to the formation or existence of the EU, in its various forms. I think a unified Europe is a good idea.
The obstacles I see to it, however, are another story.
From the accounts I've heard, the squabbling that goes on between the various member "states" of the EU makes the Articles of Confederation-Era US look like Utopia. Everybody wants things on their terms, or they won't join that part of the Union... which leads to a lot of organizations, ununifiable because some of the countries don't belong to certain ones, and thusly acting independently rather than united.
Of course, the AC-Era US had advantages that the EU doesn't, such as a common language, (hard to see a Spaniard giving commands to Greek-speaking soldiers - you'd need lots of interpreters and bilinguals to accomplish anything with speed)common value system (compare the values of a Turk and a Brit), and mostly common monetary systems (at least you've cleared up that one) Plus common enemies.
As it is, it appears that the EU's varied member states have agendas that conflict more than they coincide, which is what keeps Europe from being involved in any united way, as a force to be reckoned with.
Hopefully that will change. I think that aside from the oil, most of us would be willing to leave most of that hemisphere to you to keep house over.
Posted by Orion Syndicate (Member # 25) on :
Those are decent arguments mate, but all of that can be overcome. The thing about the world today is that economics rules the roost, and pretty much determines domestic policy. What is more important - maintaining our sovereignty or maintaining the status quo? Sterling is pretty strong and our exports are suffering because our goods are increasingly more expensive than everyone elses. Add to that the 30% tariffs just imposed on world steel by the US, and we're pretty well fucked. Companies are having problems here because we can't provide any stability. Why should they manufacture here and then expose themselves to exchange rate risk every time they export to Europe and the world when they can reduce that risk by basing their operations in the mainland and importing the stuff back here? Just look at James Dyson - he's upped sticks because he just isn't competitive by being here. The Nissan plant (in Sunderland I think) had to be bailed out by the government because they were losing so much aswell. This is what's happening whilst we argue amongst ourselves about this. We're a tiny little union of countries compared to what's out there and events have shown that economically, we can't do well on our own. We'll probably survive on our own but is that enough?
I know your arguments were about the military and mine are economics but surely maintaining a sense of stability for business and therefore safeguarding jobs here is a worthy enough reason for further integration. I do agree that there are problems with joining but that doesn't mean that we give up every time we hit a dead end. We need to face those problems and find ways to tackle them because the benefits of joining IMHO are far more greater than what we could lose. I know that we may lose some power over decision making but it's the price we have to pay for maintaining our national sovereignty - as an influencial member of a strong and prosperous Europe.
That doesn't mean that I agree with the way Europe is designed and run. Many of the institutions and the old farts that run them need overhauling. We can't change anything from the outside however, so we need to go in and then be a key reformer as part of the institution/s. It will take time, it will take a lot of effort but for fucks sake lets not give in to the warped arguments of the Save the Pound campaign. These same people were probably out campaigning to keep the Shilling and the rest of that old currency back in 1971. We changed then and got a lot out of it, we can get a lot out of it this time too, even if some people do believe that we should stay out in principle, even if it is in our intersts to join.
[ March 06, 2002, 13:05: Message edited by: Orion Syndicate ]
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
*takes notes*
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Equipment incompatibility is not an issue. It doesn't hinder NATO. A combined military could be introduced gradually, with tough decisions to be made regarding what equipment would be used (Eurofighters, British tanks, Belgian small arms. . .). It would be a long and politically-fraught process, which would make squabbles over Maastricht, the Exchange Rate Mechanism and Monetary Union look staid by comparison. But it's do-able.
Likewise, the language barrier. Right now there are two languages that get used in the day-to-day running of the EU: French and English. How do I know? Because I've worked at the EU in Brussels. The French Foreign Legion is effectively multilingual. English would likely end up as the lingua franca of such a force, whether officially or not. I'm all in favour of of it because if nothing else it'll really annoy the French. 8)
And to say that it's a bad idea because it interferes with NATO. . . well, bollocks to NATO quite frankly. It's served its purpose, all it does is give the US a wider field for its military adventures.We may stick with it for now out of gratitude and obligation, but that's got a very short shelf life.
Sure, there are loads of obstacles, just to a stable European Union, let alone a unified defence force. But obstacles are there to be overcome. "We do these things not because they are easy but because they are hard" as someone once said.
And as for the steel tariff, well - it doesn't help matters. The fact is, many countries - especially European members of NATO - while they may have felt a moral obligation to support the War Against Terror, in some cases it was a less than spiritual commitment to the cause. Only such constraints as Clause 4 (I think that was the one) of the NATO charter helped ensure cooperation. We were told that this issue surpassed questions of race, nationality, religion or politics, and by and large we agreed. Now, all of a sudden it's six months later and back to business as usual.
Should a trade dispute interfere in (or even be associated with) the War On Terror? Probably not. But I'm afraid it's going to be. As reported, Blair was so concerned about it he brought it up with Bush in a telephone conversation where the agenda was meant to be Iraq. And that won't be the only instance where these two issues collide. Ethics once more enters the argument as the EU slams the US for these tariffs, then is forced to levy them themselves to protect European markets.
Sure there are political realities Bush has to face up to. The September 11th bubble is deflating rapidly. America's still A-OK, still Number One, you even won a land war in Asia - yet that doesn't pay the bills. Take West Virginia, a steelworking state which traditionally votes Democrat, yet went for Bush last time out. They have to be kept happy. Thirty mills closed in the past year? That's a lot of people out of work.
But tariffs on imports isn't necessarily the answer. The US steel trade is notoriously inefficient. It's a simple economic fact that someone, somewhere, is always going to be able to produce the same things you do better or cheaper. You can either stop them producing, stop their products from getting to your markets (or the ones your products dominate), or, you can find some other way out.
The first option - well, let's see how countries like Turkey (exempt as a military ally) or Argentina (currently bankrupt) react when they find out what price their exemption might carry; even Canada & Mexico (exempt as part of the North American free Trade Agreement) might find themselves in an awkward position. The second option, that's where we are right now. Option three, I have no idea, not being an economist. Other people have faced it with certain responses - like Dyson buggering off to Malaysia for one - but it's not an insurmountable problem.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Damn Vogon, you should write my paper for me! Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poet: English would likely end up as the lingua franca of such a force, whether officially or not. I'm all in favour of of it because if nothing else it'll really annoy the French. 8)
I agree totally (finally, common ground!! ). However the new EU 'constitution' they're knocking up at the moment is worrying; it apparently has very strong parrallels to that of a certain Union that was not the world's most loved country. That's right the good ol' USSR. I'm in a bit of a hurry so I can't type the whole article (I have it in front of me) but I may do at the weekend if you lot have an interest in it.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Actually, the constitution of the USSR was widely seen by political scientists as a plan for a thouroughly fair and modern state, where regional and national interests are balanced, free and fair elections take place, and an independent judiciary performs fair trials.
Unfortunately, the constitution strangely enough omitted any reference to it being a one-party state and the fact that essentially no part of the consitution was ever followed.
Posted by Orion Syndicate (Member # 25) on :
Who wrote the article? William Hague, Bill Cash, maybe even Iain or Duncan Smith.
With regards to the limited mention you've made to it so far, I seriously doubt anyone is going to create or even attempt to create a Stalinist state in Europe where someone like Jacques Santer or Romano Prodi is god and kills anyone he suspects of threatening his power. Anyway, Tony Blair will be well in first to ensure that he is elected god before the others get a look in. These anti-left wing arguments were used to discredit Tony Blair prior to the 97 elections(remember the devil eyes ads), fat lot of good they did. These new arguments will (hopefully) go the same way. Europe is attempting to create a social-democratic type of system which extends to economics, politics, legal structures, etc. There's nothing wrong with this and parallels being drawn with communism are misguided and quite frankly suggest desperation on the part of the author.
Oh, and I write this as someone of a centre-right political background. Any references I've made to anti-left wing stuff shouldn't be taken literally to mean that I'm a leftie and thus am defending the political system that I love. I just believe that this can work, given enough time and effort.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
On an unrelated matter, Ham, what's the likelihood of your being in the neighbourhood of East London on the evening of Saturday May 4th? I sent you an email about my wedding party, but I wasn't sure how current your address was. . .
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Oh, what, I don't get an invitation?
I guess Rob agrees with you guys.
Posted by Orion Syndicate (Member # 25) on :
Following on from that unrelated matter, assuming the e-mail address you used to send me the invitation from is still active, you should have received my rather cryptic and inconclusive response by now. If the address is different, mail me back and I'll get back to you.
[ March 08, 2002, 10:47: Message edited by: Orion Syndicate ]
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Yes, I suppose I was exaggerating a little bit; the existance of a similarity between two things doesn't mean they will be the same. Interestingly the main difference is that states had the right to secede from the USSR but not in the new EU 'constitution'. I'll type up the article tomorrow. BTW I'm 15 so show some mercy!!
Also the equipment incompatibility thing? It may not be insurmountable but it'd be logistically inefficient.
[ March 08, 2002, 12:29: Message edited by: Wraith ]
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Hardly. All the equipment will be replaced anyway, eventually - all they need do is try to expand the Eurofighter multi-national concept into other categories of military equipment. There's a common NATO cartridge, in theory anyway. . .
OS: Gotcha. 8)
Posted by Orion Syndicate (Member # 25) on :
"You have the right to break away from the USSR but if you do, we'll fucking well kill you" (made up phrase which could be attributed to any Soviet commander of the time)
Hungary found that one out during their briefly successful uprising in 1956.
...and you are right, logistically the equipment incompatibility would be weird and difficult, but as Lee said earlier, difficult decisions would have to be made. That doesn't make it impossible, just a nightmare trying to compromise all the differing interests into one whole. If it works though, the end result would be worth it. The potential benefits however mean that we have to pursue this.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)