>>US already enjoys the stranglehold over the supply of oil to Europe and
>>Japan on account of US navy's domination over sealanes in Indian ocean
>There's a difference, in dealing with your allies, between exerting
>economic >force against them and resorting to direct military force. An oil
>emargo against >Japan, in the late 1930s, led to Pearl Harbor. And the
>French have the Bomb.
It is necessary to show that the conflict between the "old Europe" and the US not merely over tactics. Is the conflict between France and the US is so fundamental to the expansion of French capitalism that France may attempt "a Pearl Harbour"? Use or threaten to use nukes against the US? IMO, US is the only truly global power: a power with a global reach, in economic, military, technological and ideological/cultural terms.
As for Japan, Japan needs the US power in the Pacific to counter China and N.Korea.
>>(assuming such stranglehold is desirable from the US viewpoint.)
>Why assume it is not? Because the US is such good pals with Europe?
What is this entity called "Europe"? Does Europe exist is an independent centre of power today?
>> One would also have to explain why Europe and Japan can not get their oil
>>supplies from Russia.
>Actually I have been speculating, since the recent nadir in US-European
>relations, that in the medium term, the current NATO may give way to a
Paris->Berlin-Moscow axis, based on Russian oil, German economic might, and
the >French Bomb (course the Russians have the Bomb too, but their
technology is >primitive).
What do they lose if Saddam is removed? Chirac has suggested that Saddam agree to go in exile.
>If I were GWB and his advisers, I'd be seriously concerned about this. The US >has antagonized Russia by cozying up to the 'stans; it has obviously seriously >daamged relations with the French and ther Germans, and the parties may see >that they have more in common with each other than with the US, especially >inits current unilateralist mode.
Surely France, Germany and Russia have many things common with the US, differences over tactics not withstanding.
>I wouldn't expect "old Europe" to try to completew ith the US as an
>imperialist >hyperpower, but rather to pursue a very independent path.
Why does European capitalism require an independent path?
Ulhas