Falstaff

[COLOR=skyblue]http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/UK/04/27/britain.blair.reut/index.html[/COLOR]

[COLOR=limegreen]Tony Blair has again demonstrated typical British pluck and gone back to the table to unite those opposed before the victory in IRAQ, and is seeking to lace up the torn political fabric of the U.N. as well. In his defense he makes a good case for sticking together no matter what, there are other more difficult battles ahead before the terrorists are rooted out like a viper and it's head cut off.
Surely history will judge Blair as good and just man, who stands by his values and principals and told the British Parliment what the needed to hear, and not what they wanted to hear...
I believe the partnership of Blair and Bush will be regarded in a positive light. Where Bush fails in foriegn policy, Blair will surely be the one to mend the fences and get the free world back on track. As it stands, IRAQ is like France after the great revolution. vulnerable and unprotected it could slide down a slope of dispair and economic disaster for years unless Blair and the partners of the EU get back on track..
[/COLOR]

__________________

bluelight

I believe that Blairs biggest test is about to come this very week.

He will have to show wheter he is from Europe or if he will move to Washington and stay there.

Blair has stated that the UN must have a major role in Iraq after the war.

Next week Usa will present another dictate in the UN that will give Usa the complete control of the reconstruction of Iraq and its oil.

Usa has said that they might consider giving te control of the oil to the world bank...to avoid any suspicions of Usa acting in their owen interest.

Only problem with that is....Usa practically controls the world bank.


Now.....that will be Blairs ultimate test.


Bluelight

Falstaff

[COLOR=limegreen]I know the world bank began after a meeting of 44 countries in Brettonwood New Hampshire in 1944, presumably to relieve world hunger. but the tenants of the agreements of all the components are the burden and the domain of all 174 members? The United States has no more power than any other powerful nation as far as I know.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=limegreen]I am please that Tony Blair has assumed this awesome task before him, perhaps after his political crisis is over, there will not be a "vote of confidence" and he will assume his role as other great Prime Ministers..[/COLOR]

__________________

bluelight

Usa has a very very very strong influence in the world bank.Itis in practice run by Usa.

Had it not been.....Usa would have nor been a part of it.

Just like what is now happening with the UN.


I think his political crise is not at all over because he has now to proove if he is a european prime minister that follows the needs of Europe.


Bluelight

Falstaff

www.worldbank.org

just spent a few minutes back at the site, couldn't find anything that remotely says that America runs the world bank, or the IMF...can you post something? a link perhaps..
[COLOR=limegreen] heres what I found though
Security Council Extends

Resolution to Ship Priority

Supplies to Iraq

Provisions for the Secretary-General to accelerate the delivery of priority items in the Oil-for-Food pipeline to Iraq have been extended to 3 June.

The extension under resolution 1476,(2003) adopted by the Security Council today (24 April) gives the Office of the Iraq Programme and UN agencies, valuable time to identify and ship additional goods and supplies.

In a briefing to the Security Council on 22 April, the Executive Director of the Programme, Mr. Benon Sevan indicated that with an extension of the 45-day period ending 12 May under resolution 1472 (2003), it would be possible to ship an additional $139 million worth of food as well as other important items. As of 22 April, the Programme had already identified $454.6 million worth of priority items that were "shippable" within the Council’s timeline. The 15-member Security Council voted unanimously to extend until 3 June.

The technical rollover of the resolution coincides with the end of the mandate for the current phase XIII of the Oil-for-Food programme.

For more information

Value of “Shippable” Priority Items for Iraq Reaches $455m
The value of priority goods and supplies that can be shipped to Iraq from the Oil-for-Food pipeline within the 12 May timeline offered by Security Council resolution 1472 (2003) reached $454.6 million this week. Most of these supplies, covered by 160 contracts, are in the food ($236.4 million), electricity ($119.3 million) and health ($53.1 million) sectors and are already in transit to Iraq. Resolution 1472 (2003) of 28 March gives the Programme a 45-day window for shipping priority items identified as food, medicines, health supplies and water and sanitation supplies.

The Office of the Iraq Programme and UN agencies and programmes are continuing to identify the most easily accessible priority items in the pipeline and negotiate with suppliers to speed the shipment of supplies under already approved contracts.

Dredging Equipment Approved for Iraqi Ports
The Security Council Sanctions Committee has given the Oil-for-Food Programme approval to contract for dredging equipment valued at $19.7 million to deepen waterways to Umm Qasr and other Iraqi ports. The equipment includes two dredgers and spare parts to recommission six others. The dredgers will be used to clear silt from the entry channels and main berths to Umm Qasr, Basrah and Khor El Zabair. Heavy silting already places significant limits on the size of vessels that can dock and could seriously hamper attempts to deliver humanitarian aid.

Other Programme News

The Office of the Iraq Programme regrets that it is unable to respond to requests for information from companies or their representatives. The primary point of contact for companies is the Permanent Mission of their respective countries to the United Nations.

_____________________________________________

Iraqi Oil Sales Fund Humanitarian Action

The Oil-for-Food programme was established by the Security Council on 14 April 1995. Some 3.4 billion barrels of Iraqi oil valued at about $64 billion have been exported under the programme since December 1996. Of this amount, 72 per cent of the total has been allocated towards humanitarian needs nationwide since December 2000. The balance goes to: Gulf War reparations through a Compensation Fund (25 per cent since December 2000); UN administrative and operational costs for the programme (2.2 per cent) and costs for the weapons inspection programme (0.8 per cent).

Almost $27 billion worth of humanitarian supplies and equipment have been delivered to Iraq under the Oil-for-Food Programme, including $1.6 billion worth of oil industry spare parts and equipment. An additional $10 billion worth of supplies are currently in the production and delivery pipeline. The Programme has some $3.2 billion in unencumbered funds and approved contracts worth $7.0 billion that are unfunded. (18 April 2003) [/COLOR]

__________________

bluelight

Usa uses its huge economical influence to run the world bank.

It is a common known thing that usa has this influence and...just as with the UN....had it not been like that then Usa would not have been part of the world bank or...they would have treated the world bank the same way as they do and have ...treated the UN.

The upcoming vote about lifting the sanctions against Iraq is in reality a vote about showing the UN out of Iraq and leave for Usa to decide by themselves....

I sincerely hope the one of the european countries or someone else votes against that in the security council.


Bluelight

bluelight

Frankrike, Tyskland, Belgien och Luxemburg.....................

Im just reading....these four countries have decided to start working on a common defense...which means that two of the three main military forces of Europe will no longer emphasize on Nato or similar...


Bluey

Falstaff

[COLOR=skyblue][COLOR=limegreen]
You know, I knew this was coming, like the Maginot line, the Siegfried line, the Berlin wall, so too the old alliance will crumble and become an anachronism like the Great Wall of china...I think the U.S. can substantialy improve the lives of the IRAQI people, but all the worms have not crawled out of the mud (Cladius-last of the ceasars)..
We must still root out he vipers in this nest....Ali babba and his forty thieves have taken on a new meaning...the IRAQI's may complain, but in true arabic fashion, manage to prosper in turmoil...[/COLOR]

__________________

bluelight

I dont think that anyone here has any problems with that but from now on this is not so much a question about that .....it is now a question about who will dominate and set the rules.

I sincerely think the current development is bad but i see no way out of it unless your conservatives quits listening to the hawks standing in the shadows.Initially this thing works...getting Iraq on its knees (i also hear now that North Korea will not develop nuclear arms...) but in the long run..a world with one nation dominating and not taking others opinions in concideration...will not work.It never has.


Bluelight

Falstaff

[COLOR=limegreen]Economic euphoria following a victory in IRAQ should follow in the United States, now that elections aren't that far away, campaigning by republicans and democrats will accelerate and they may not want to give up the momentum created by the our efforts in IRAQ, and the subsequent focus may shift to how we will heal America's economic woes. If the Bush administration is successful and the American public is happy then certainly Bush will be reelected, base on what I know about him, he will more bold the next administration. When America is doing well economically perhaps this will influence the world bank, and perhaps all it's components and further promote a more positive climate for other countries to assist in the task of pursueing all the original tenants and task of the World Banks Charter.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=limegreen]You mentioned the word "Hawks", there are many, and they lurk in every single political form within the political machine of the U.S. With so many stunning victorys in the last decade Americans have confidence in their military again. The post vietnam perception that the military is bloated and inefficient hasn't really gone away. Two republicans "Gramm and Rudman" initiated reforms that trimmed the cost of maintianing our forces by eliminating redundent bases abroad and here in the united states, servicemen were sent home and sent away with cash settlements, bases were converted to civilian properties, leases were allowed to expire, and weapons were allowed to become...well obselete, even secret "Black" programs that were funded without restriction suddenly became a political hot potato. When Bush Senior went to war in 1991, it seemed that the military needed the support of a broad coalition to attain victory over a huge third world army, but that proved to be false, I won't quote Gen. Norman Swarztkof, but we achieved a remarkable victory, that lesson wasn't lost, we can influence the world political climate, and quietly and efficiently, the military might of our U.S. was trimmed, toned and rebuilt to achieve this one goal in mind, a battle in the middle east, we trained and trained and trained. Democrats and Republicans learned some lessons and this colored the lense that they view the world in now. There are many of course that would choose peace over war anyday, and they would fight for the chance to win their arguments among their peers, but when it comes down to it, Americans vote for winners, and with the current objective being rebuilding IRAQ and domestic economic reform and rooting out terrorism, well I am sure you can see that regardless of the party that wins in the next election...the hawks will definitely call the shots. This isn't pre WW2 Italy, and we don't have a Mussilini in charge, or a Franco, or a Hitler, or even a Stalin, but we are more confident and ready to endorse military action now than ever before. In our country we have one man than can decide the fate of the military, our president, and as it stands now and perhaps in the next administration...the "hawks will rule"....
Vini - Vidi - Viche....................We came - We saw - We conquered........old words but consistent with our feelings about the power of the U.S., so we americans and perhaps europeans regardless of their opinions know that we will influence world politics more dramatically now than ever. But I believe it will come slowly, insidiously, carefully and with some caution, changes will occur within the next 6 years...
South America will become stronger, and dominate world opinion as well, just as the countries that rejected NATO in favour of their own triumvirate..it will happen soon....[/COLOR]

__________________

bluelight

Well this is 2003 and Mussolini does not have to look and sound....like Mussolini anymore..he doesnt even have to show as "one person".

Im not..confident that youn arent going in tne wrong direction.Not confident at all.

Im confident in tne American people but that isnt always what is relevant....Mussolini and his buddies...never really asked and the future ones will not either finally the way they do take over may...just may not look as it did 1933.

So im gonna keep my eyes wide open....continually cause some of what is going on now is ...dark.

Bluelight

Falstaff

[COLOR=limegreen]I think that a comparison with Bush and Mussolini has flaws, if your being literal. IRAQ isn't ETHOPIA, and Bush isn't a fascist. And yes dark days are ahead for sure...I read the bible and ponder the last days...but that is my religiously focused ideology....[/COLOR]

__________________

bluelight

Im not comparing Bush and Mussolini...Im comparing states of societys that makes it possible for totaltarian control.

Im also saying..totalitarian rule...probably isnt gonna look the same tomorrow as it did 1933.


Bluey