I thought it might be good to have a discussion on the matter of the war, in a forum where it won't drop like a smelly stone.

I was thinking about the ramrifications of an action like the one that we are involved in at the moment ('we' is the US and UK, primarily, although support is semingly widespread throughout the West). It occurred to when I was seeing a news story about the problems that the Japanese Prime Minister was having in Korea (where Japan already has all the popularity that Jesse Jackson might expect at a clan rally) relating to their changing their laws to allow military support for the risibly titled 'War on Terrorism', which caused fears in Korea of a return to Japanese imperialism. Even Japanese joining the anti-terrorism club causes problems...

There are loads of things that I could write about but no one wants to read a gigantic post. I just wondered whether the outlook seems good to people for the world as a whole, with Europe's support potentially fragmenting (although I think that only Belgium have broken ranks so far), the moslem world afire and particularly Pakistan potentially unstable (funny that we now love their military dictator) and the risk of problems in tih arab world.

I think that this action in Afghanistan is necessary, but find myself wondering if we're losing the opening rounds of the propaganda war. If this war becomes unpopular, it'll be hard to keep it up, so I think that it is important to keep as much of the rest of the world on board.

Just wondered what people thought

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

A forum where a thread about war won't sink like a stone, exactly, we are at war afterall, it is somewhat important to keep an eye on things.

Let this be a forum (by proxy) to discuss the war and it's consequences......
........if I'm I not taking it too far.

Enter, or ignore at will, may keep the bombings and cut and paste out of TLF and also the MFC (Mammouth Fear Complex it's a foreign thing) where threads also disappear overnight.


OK, that being said.......

Taking furthur something out of your post, it seems like almost every Western/ Dodgy country in the World is using 911 to arm up and get ready to go to war. I can just see them in their secret war rooms wondering what they can get away with with their definitions of "terrorism"........

.......wondering what terrorist acts they can inflict on their own citizens in order to have an excuse to declare some war of convenience.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

War is good for the economy, and for presidents. I don't know why everyone has such a problem with it. You don't usually see the average capitalist nation letting a little thing like morality get in the way of making a profit. Besides, hasn't America been killing middle easterners for year? Christ, you go and give something a little title like *war* and all of a sudden everyone gets on their soapbox and develops a sense of intergrity.
Hell, people are trying to adopt children who have been orphaned as a result of the WTC bollocks - in the meantime their next door neighbours are beating their wives and diddling their kids, old people are eating catfood and dying of hypothermia, and homeless people are begging for shelter - But no - they are not the morally worthy victims of a war-come-socialtrend. But remember folks, charity dosn't start in the home, it starts where the selfrighteous says it does.
Nothing like a bit of greed, bigotry and holier than thou bullshit to bring a country together!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

It is certainly true that there are all sorts of evil going on that are pretty much ignored. I remember the Gulf War, when we only really got involved for our own economic reasons, but I might be inclined to say that it was a 'just' war and that we had left many other 'just' wars alone when we might have got involved. Of course, the Gulf War was a simple matter (not like a civil war, say) and well-suited to US military technology. This war will probably not turn an obvious profit though, surely, although I guess that it might stimulate economies short term; I expect that it will bite us in the economic arse soon enough though.

It is true that the WTC attack is good cover for other things (like lay-offs and anti-privacy measures); I wonder what it's historical significance will be, long-term. Will it be a defining moment, or a footnote? Will it all go to shit?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
I wonder what it's historical significance will be, long-term.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by skalie


The excuse they needed to implement Big Brother.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I agree that governments could definitely use this (rightly or wrongly) as cover for new laws, but I don't know about 'new world order'. Most countries in the world feel that the US is trying to take over the world and impose on them; many wouldn't want any 'power-sharing' with the US for fear of being swamped by American power and with the despised US culture. Even in the UK, probably one of the closest friends to teh US, there are a significant number who think like this (not me, I like merkins and I trust myself and others to ignore or avoid such pieces of Americana that might cause offence). The recent trend seems to be towards countries breaking up rather than joining up, with the evil exception of the disturbingly increasingly federalist looking European Union.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

the name says it all
the war on terroism

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mute
the name says it all
the war on terroism

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Yeah Mute, could you elucidate a little?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

i just think it sounds weird

terroism is war...

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mute
i just think it sounds weird

terroism is war...

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

that's what i mean... like you said it's silly, and right now it shouldn't be taken as silly...

errr, i make no sense nor do i think about what i'm saying..

one thing i know is it's gonna get more fucked up everyday, week, month, year(if we last that long)

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Smug Git,

Your signature is my favorite line to a Smiths song. Many thanks.

You're right support for these US gov't actions has been generally widespread in the west for fear that the sort of mass-terrorism that characterized 9-11 will be widespread against Western cultures in general, not just the US.

ALthough Mass Terrorism has been predicted in defense circles for years now, and many attempts actually stopped, it took a successful attack to garnder global support for an all out effort against terrorism because of the sensitive political issues involved.

The fact is, this isn't a "war" in the traditional sense, so it doesn't support industry in the traditional sense. Southeast Asia's rubber industry is doing particularly well with the increased sales of latex gloves, but it isn't exactly what we define as the military/industrial complex.

Militaries will be regeared toward lighter, more flexible trooops, but this has been in the planning for years, and was already being deployed in many countries. This situation may have given more support for the changes, however. Heavy artillery of the past is no longer suitable. The war is not so much affecting these military changes as is the desire to focus toward "capabilities" and away from set "threats" (in the US case that would refer to no longer being able to war game against Russia, and not wanting a heavy, difficult to move and ship force that is made for a stable enemy that might encourage military planners to MAKE an enemy to fit the forces, for example making China the next big enemy). and towards CAPABILITIES. That means a light, maneuverable force that is highly networked. New focus has to be put on Critical Infrastructure Protection. that sort of thing.

anyway...point being...as far as the military industrial complex, this war is hurting the vested interests, the status quo and past which were already being phased out by showing the sorts of future threats that we will face. These will be amorphous and difficult to identify. This shows the weakness of an intelligence system and defense system still geared to the Cold War.

Regarding the Japanese law: it passed. This means Japanese defense force can send humanitarian aid, doctors and supply line support out of Japan, but cannot go to the front lines. Koizumi and Korean Pres discussed it and came to agreement. Even CHina came out in favor, although it introduced a caveat about Japan not offensively remilitarizing.

Now remember, China also is extremely worried about terrorism in this situation. The 'stans (pakistan afghanistan kerblakistan) sit right on its Western border.

Japanese participation is largely in answer to their lack of participation in the Gulf War. Constrained by their constitution, they could contribute little, and eventually just wrote a check. They were seen as free riders on the system. It is a desire to be seen as equally carrying their peacekeeping and peacemaking burden. It is also a response to the fear of Mass Terrorism attacks in Japan. Japan was the first locationof high profile attempts at mass terrorism (Aum Shinrikyo cult was responsible for the anthrax attacks in the Tokyo subway in 1994 or 5 and tried a number of other even less successful attempts at biological weapons attacks)

The return to Japanese imperialism is a constant problem in East Asian relations. This particular situation must be and has been thus far handled delicately. Restraint in this situation may help Japanese to be more trusted in the future. In the long term, the Asia Pacific region needs more institution building, confidence building measures, etc. ASEAN and the ASeAN +3 talks are a good start but not enough. Japan and South Korea ESPECIALLY must be kept in regular dialogue in a multilateral sphere. If kept low key, not made official, and not publicized, US/AUstralian/SK/Japan talks could be helpful. If publicized, however, they would just frighten the CHinese, who have a fear of encirclement.

As far as whether the outlook seems good in the world as a whole?

The biggest problem with this action is that countries are unable to openly state what they are offering for fear of a negative public reaction. This is, of course, mostly true in countries with large Islamic populations. FOr this reason, building a networked coalition isn't possible. Instead, we have to build a sort of wheel with spokes leading to each ally and the US being the hub. This means the right hand may not know what the left is doing. It also keeps other states from fully participating in the planning process which may be resented in the long-term. Naturally, participating states have representatives at US planning headquarters, but it is still a lot more difficult than it otherwise would be if force contributions and support contributions were not so politically sensitive.

At any rate, this could undermine coalition support as other countries feel like they are not part of the effort.
In addition, getting overflight permission, base access, etc, for every participating country's forces to every necessary country may prove both difficult and trying.

Despite the actual bombing campaign, it seems clear that this incident will

1--increase international intelligence cooperation and coordination
2--increase many state's domestic interagency networking
3--increase public health infrastructures
4--increase attention paid to transnational crime issues which also link to terrorism (smuggling, trade in humans, piracy, money laundering)
5--increase international police cooperation and coordination.

All of these are good things for the long-term war on terrorism, and have positive secondary effects.


Regarding the current campaign on Afghanistan, it is somewhat necessary. It is the first all out sign to people who would be willing to do an attack like this that there are consequences. It is the stick approach.

Certainly, there should be carrots, for example, improving the world economy is essential to stopping the sort of instability that breeds terrorism esp. in countries like Indonesia, malaysia, and the Phillipines which have substantial Islamic populations and active terrorist cells linked to Al Quaeda. I can say that more attention has been given to humanitarian aid and distributing food than a lot of people who are justifiably skeptical would believe. There are many things to consider, one of which is reports that the Taliban may have tampered with red cross food supplies in order to sow domestic distrust for the aid workers and western world. pretty sick idea, but osmething that the workers and USGov't have to take seriously and account for.

Because of a responsible, concerned citizenry, as well as a real political and military need to befriend the residence of Afghanistan against their government, the USG has no option but to minimize casualties and increase humantarian aid.


If the operations are a disaster, this could be worse for teh alliance. However, the bush admin and blair admin have not been hyper-confident nor have their expectations been too high.

As far as the current success of the war, we cannot tell. The media, as someone stated, cannot be trusted. MOst reports are biased in slant, or perhaps just in what they happened to see.

MOreover, US media seems incapable of giving moderate even sided reporting. It goes from flag waving to showing two dead Afghani citizens, the day's collateral damage. The two juxtaposed are ridiculous because neither are the full story.

For example, the reports don't tell about which plans were not picked that would have killed many more civilians: it isn't a full story. It is very limited information. and the inflamed rhetoric that is generally used on either the flag waving or the death and destruction side are made to evoke emotion rather than allow viewer to draw an informed judgement.
The flag waving just sets people up for disillusionment.

At any rate, often the press just doesn't know that many details that it can report, I suppose. but the point is we can't really judge how successful it will be at this point. I personally think there is a good chance of some level of success, although the likelihood of getting Osama Bin Laden is slim. MOre importantly, I think the people involved now in war planning may be sensible enough to know when this tact will no longer garner positive benefits and when it is time to switch approaches to the situation (rather than air bombing, another alternative, for example)

Are we losing the war on propaganda, yes, pretty handily. Part of it is because the best propaganda is truth, unadulterated and presented and some schmuck out there always has to try to make the truth better which just makes it sound like lies. Also because many people simply will not trust the US under any circumstances.

Keeping the world on board is important not just for the war but for the long term efforts and the five previous improvements in intn't intll and policing.

Next quest was : will every country use the events of 9-11 to get ready for war and justify their various plans, sure.

One reason for recent improvement in Missile Defense plans with the Russians is after 9-11 we stopped criticizing their efforts in Chechnya so much and said yeah, they ARE terrorists.

China is hoping that this will lend credibility to its efforts against Uighur separatists in Xinjiang and Tibetan separatists. Philippines is glad to get additional help against Abu Sayaf. ANd everyone is calling any domestic infighting or separatist movement "terrorists." The good news is that most domestic political movements with a legitimate bone to grind recognize that violence is not a good way to gain attention or support at this point in time, which may help decrease traditional small scale terrorist attacks. I think that a definition of this terrorism will arise that separates legitimate separatist movements and civil wars from terrorists. There will be smudgy parts of the definition, but a general acceptance will eventually arise.

Again, this war is highly unlikely to stimulate the economy, in fact it is distracting from international economic recovery efforts, since 9-11 most industries have suffered, especially the tourism industry.

WTC probably will be a historic turning point between Cold War thinking (threat based) and post cold war thinking (Challenge based). It will also be the turning point between border centered thinkers on defense and police issues (as well as other) and the recognition that TRANSNATIONAL issues are TRULY the focus.

won't be immediate, but it was a shock to the systems of many countries that has caused realignment of cabinets, etc.

....and don't forget New World Order.

Because of the current difficulties
The war that has been staged against terrorism is going to be a long one. The plan so far has been to totally eradicate (sp.) terrorists from every corner of the Earth. As time goes on in the battle, I see it being "convenient" for Congress to pass more laws and resolutions that would make us a part of one world government. We'll swallow it blindly as they shove pictures of 9-11 down our throats and tell us it's in our best interest.

...and don't forget the New World Order

Regarding the NWO: probably not from the war. It will have a lot of devisive effects. May draw treaty allies (US/UK/Australia/ Japan/SK/NATO) closer together, but other countries, it is too devisive. However, the long turn re-alignment of views on the importance of terrorism related issues like money laundering is going to be a big deal.

anyway, That's all for now.

Thanks for listening.

--Indigo

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Is it possible to "totally eradicate terrorists"?

If there are extremists who are willing to die for what they believe in, how is one to stop them?

OK, the fundamentalist Taliban are a bunch of raving nutters, but this bombing campaign is just helping them gain support.

Why, oh why, didn't the US call a halt to the whole thing for Ramadam, it would have given them a way to back out while saving face, while accumulating many brown nose points amongst the world's muslim population into the bargain.

It is becoming more and more apparent that the only solution to this whole scenerio is for the New World Order to actually consider looking after the populus of the Whole New World in a humane manner.

McWorld is not an option anymore, hopefully.

Way impressive post BTW Indigo.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Exilent post, lots of interesting information in there.

I, myself, see no convincing evidence of a New World Order or One World Government. You might point to various internation issues and see its footprint, but it seems to me that it is just as possible that they are part of the tangled web weaved by countries looking out for their own interest. My 'working hypothesis' is that it is the latter, but that is my own opinion. Most Europeans dislike everything about America, I can't imagine that they want anything to do with them in terms of government. Only the UK is reliably pro USA; there is even a small movement here in the UK that wants the UK to become part of the USA.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Globalisation, World bank, Internet.

Not since the first photo was taken of the Earth from outer space has it been so apparent that political solutions have to be global solutions.

The US of fucking A, the richest country in the world, has had a few anthrax scares, killing a few, wounding a few more. Already there is legistration going through to bring down the cost of pharmaceuticals.

There are nations on the breadline that have had millions die due to lack of health care, they have been crying out for years for such legislation.

It is possible that world opinion will eventualy go against the US on this one, carpet bombing caves is not even approaching a solution, only adding to the unrest. Or is that the plan?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by skalie


It is possible that world opinion will eventualy go against the US on this one, carpet bombing caves is not even approaching a solution, only adding to the unrest. Or is that the plan?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Thank you for the kind words.

No offense, but they aren't "carpet bombing" Afghanistan.
inflamed, misleading rhetoric. They are bombing it, but precision bombing.

They moved from aiming for "fixed targets" things like known training grounds, etc., to "battlefield targets" meaning troops on the move, tanks, etc. The bombing is "precision" when compared to carpet bombing. In alliance planes are flying low after criticism in Kosovo that the desire to avoid any NATO casualties led the planes to fly too high so that precision was impossible and "collateral damage" was higher than necessary. In this case they are flying lower so that the precision weapons can do the job they are supposed to do which is to hit with some level of precision. mistakes will be made, naturally.

I think that right now,t he bombing campaign is doing some good.

The US forces are likely to have the advantage in the tough Afghan winter because of our modern equipment. For example, the rebel troops body heat will stand out very clearly against the snow. which is always helpful.

WHy not stop for Ramadan? because the "war" aspect is still making gains. As noted before, information for the public is limited. Were we not making headway, the government probably would not have stopped continued using Ramadan as an excuse to rethink adn regroup. However, the Taliban regime is falling apart. Top generals are defecting. And there is even more evidence that the bombing is having the desired result. therefore it continues. WHen it ends, the effort is unlikely to end but to shift to different techneiques.

The biggest problem is integration Taleban forces into the cities to use teh people as human shields in order to bring popular opposition to the war. Now that is fucking disgusting.

Re: is it possible to totally eradicate terrorists.

No, just like it isn't possible to totally eradicate war, but that doesn't make it a bad thing to try to stop war and aggression. People are existential things able to change their minds at the drop of a hat. For that reason, they cannot be trusted and anyone could be a terrorist.

However, mass terrorist attacks take a good deal of planning. It ain't easy to get hold of weapons grade anthrax properly coated just as it ain't easy hijack 4 planes almost simultaneously. These are things we can work at.

Right now, there is a massive infrastructure built up that terrorists linked to the Osama bin Laden cause use. Funding along is a huge network to attack. It is linked to money laundering and passport smuggling in the pacific islands, drug running in Africa, Europe and south central america...and many more illegal activities. Training camps exist, and state links to labs and that sort of thing.

WIth international support these links can be unearthed and attacked, but as long as states that allow these activities to go on can escape under a veil of "sovereignty" that is internationally recognized, we can't stop it.

We can't stop someone from killing him/herself, but we can make it harder to make the attack, break down teh network so that it is attacks are less sophisticated and coordinated, and discourage people from doing such things in teh future.

It is very beneficial to have statemetns from governments saying that terrorism is evil, despite their lack of support for teh war itself (ie Indonesia), because it means they may cooperate in rooting out people responsible and preventing future attacks.

New World Order is not around the corner. As previously noted still lots of interstate rivalry and distrust.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Here's a view point anti-bombing that just maybe you haven't seen yet, Indigo.

There has been little in the media that shows justifiable evidence that the current bombing campaign in Afghanistan has done anything more than strengthen the support for the Taliban.

If that was not the case I'm sure it would be thrust down our throats with glee.

Bombs past their sell by date, politicians put in power from the proceeds of arms manufacturers, and doing what they have to to stay in power.

Countries armed and educated in the art of warfare and then left in a state of poverty and political chaos.

No-one, and I repeat no-one in this world is going to condone the events of 911, but there is a very large pool of thought that thinks that it is well time for the good ol US of A to stop thinking that they can rule the world and hold the steering wheel as it turns it into a environmental cesspit in the name of the Yankee dollar.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Interesting points in the link. I'd like to respond but probably won't have time for a while. I apologize for the rudeness.

Regarding the food drops, US is up to about 750,000 units. It does not sound like a lot compared to the total hungry population, but it is an important good will sign and it is an effort. What is it that the US should do or could do that critics would not say is not enough, or interpret in a bad way. I mean here's the thing about the food drops: THey don't hurt. They do good. more good could be done, but push for that rather than criticizing current efforts that have some positive aspects.

So much more to say but I can't time is too short I'm sorry. but just to respond to your post itself:

You are right, there has been little in the media that shows justifiable evidence that the current bombing campaign in Afghanistan has done more than strengthen the support for the Taliban: all I can say to that is that the media is limited in what information it has access to because much of the success is intelligence related and making the information public could hurt near term efforts. Sounds like a cop out answer, but it is true. Unfortunately, it makes getting a good US "pro-propaganda" campaign hard. These operations are more intell linked than any we've done before.

Therefore I disagree with your following statement:
"If that was not the case I'm sure it would be thrust down our throats with glee."

"Bombs past their sell by date, politicians put in power from the proceeds of arms manufacturers, and doing what they have to to stay in power. "

I will say this, the bombs past their sell date issue means that ammunitions that are not particularly well suited for the particular mission may be used becuase we HAVE them in stock. this is a real dilemna. Not that I believe that we bomb JUST to use them, but you use what you have. certainly.

"Countries armed and educated in the art of warfare and then left in a state of poverty and political chaos. "

hrm. interesting. Our biggest problem in Afghanistan are the stinger anti-aircraft missiles we gave to the Afghans in order to fight the Soviets in the mid 80s. It took many years to offer them that capability because it is very threatening to our own forces. However, it turned the tide against the Soviets.

Leaving Afghanistan to its own devices was probably not the best idea, but I would be interested in alternative ways that you thinkt he situation should have been handled. Aside from "the US should not have gotten involved in the USSR-Afghan conflict" beyond that. I'm talking after the end of the war what should have happened. basically, the US chose to break ties with the taliban becuase of its human rights abuses. SO maybe some level of constructive engagement would be better than isolating abusive regimes? I'm asking and putting these suggestions forward as food for thought rather than proporting them.

"thinks that it is well time for the good ol US of A to stop thinking that they can rule the world and hold the steering wheel as it turns it into a environmental cesspit in the name of the Yankee dollar."

harsh language. certainly seems that way at times. I have some things to say about this, but you make your comment with such emotional vehemence I don't think anything that I say will make a difference.

I will say this, environmental interests must be defended by the people and by the consumer, by the CITIZENRY because the companies and governments will only be responsive to consumer demands. Grassroots movements are essential on environmental efforts to hold governments and businesses accountable for their actions.

In addition, this argument about the environment and the dollar ...
well it is a little off target in the security realm becuase I would argue that there are places where US forward deployment ansd involvement helps to maintain security and were the US to suddenly pull out it would create a dangerous power vacuum. Perhaps there are alternative solutions, but these need to be discussed on a realistic case by case basis.

regarding sponsoring foreign forces: there are trade offs in decision making between long term and short term stability. s ome times short term stability is a prerequisite for LT stab. Often long term stability is overlooked and this was ESPECIALLY true in the Cold War when everything appeared black and white. US exercises in that time did more to undermine US's moral high ground than any other time and all done in the name of democracy and freedom. You're right to think it is fucking ridiculous it is. but instead of being enslaved by past mistakes we should try to avoid making the same mistakes int the future and give more weight to long term stb.

In afghanistan, however, there is so little basis for long term stab. you need a domestic movement/foundation for that stab. it is an extremely hard question, so hard that the US gov't is shying away from any commitment to nation building or helping out beccause critics, perhaps like yourself, would criticize any effort the US could possibly make because it would most certainly be inadequate.

I guess I just think instead of JUST criticizing people should think hard and offer REAL WORKABLE alternative solutions of what COULD be done to help more. Recognize that giving aid to neighboring countries to take in refugees nad dropping food is positive, but admit that it isn't enough and suggest ways to improve those efforts.

Anyway, hopefully more proactive constructive crticism will start coming out, but it is much easier to tear things down than to build up new things.

anyway okay okay too much time. thanks again.
--Indigo

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Hehehehehe...

Meet my friend Indigo. Just as PaintChips brought me in as a sort of Prussian mercenary for the Libertarianism threads, Indy is here to rule the earth where military affairs are concerned.

Despite our common background, there are differences between me and Indy. She is smarter and nicer, for two things. Fear her.
Her busy schedule is your only hope of argumentative survival.

Isn't it fascinating, though, that having been dropped into this recurring forum war, she finds herself asking that same question that the pro-force crowd has been asking the anti-war people for weeks, to wit: what's your alternative?

Still haven't heard an answer to that one.

Don't believe I will.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Isn't it fascinating, though, that having been dropped into this recurring forum war, she finds herself asking that same question that the pro-force crowd has been asking the anti-war people for weeks, to wit: what's your alternative?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I was referring to 'tax harmonisation' and similar measures (not straight bananas or whatever else is currently vexing the Daily Mail). Personally, I also opposed the human rights legislation that came from Europe (although not that vociferously). On the other side of the coin, I am not particularly in favour of the decentralisation that is now a part of British politics, at least not in the way that it has been done. I am not against change in principle but I would like the alternatives to be better thought out first (and nowhere is this more obvious than in the shambolic House of Lords reform) and these cogitations to be made widely available to the public rather than the government abusing its power to sell the idea to the public (for example, putting money into a 'yes' campaign would be extremely offensive); admittedly, a government may be politically hurt if it calls a referendum and gets a 'no' vote, but tough shit in my opinion.

When I am concerned about federalism I am looking far ahead, not at the people currently in office in Britain or in Europe (although there have been calls from French and German politicians for greater integration, there is no power to do it at the moment). I do accept, as do you, that our relationship with Europe now is critical to the way our future will unfold. And frankly, the French smell (well, the Sun says so, so it must be true). I would oppose us joining the Schengen agreement (although no government dares raise that anyway) for which pressure may increase from the European (mainland) side. We shall at least have something to argue about tomorrow (don't be late!).

Also, in response to Indigo's post:

quote:

---

I will say this, environmental interests must be defended by the people and by the consumer, by the CITIZENRY because the companies and governments will only be responsive to consumer demands. Grassroots movements are essential on environmental efforts to hold governments and businesses accountable for their actions.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged