There are many quite rational concerns. You are clearly right about room
for antagonisms, but of course that applies to us as well and to the
administration's assumption that it can simply demand agreement and
compliance rather than consult and come to agreement.
Date sent: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:21:28 -0600
Send reply to: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
From: Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Poets Against the War
To: [log in to unmask]
Nancy Gish wrote:
> And why the French should assume that a negotiation with us consists of
> listening and then agreeing I don't know. They don't agree. They are
> not stupid or children or mad. They just don't agree. And there is no
> reason why they have to.
The Cold War is over. That leaves room for the kind of antagonisms which
led to World War I.
Consider a simple fact. (I make no assertion as to subjective motives in
Washington, but merely note the public fact.) A U.S. Army occupying Iraq
would have its finger on the carotid artery of Europe and Japan. The U.S.
does not need Mideast oil for its own purposes: its oil comes from
Venezuela, Mexico, Canada, and Nigeria. So the coming war is not for oil
but for _control of oil_. That could be worrying France, and the concern
would be quite rational.