[escrutador]

Hi there!

First, the context for Rob's declarations is a world about to explode in 
a war, commanded by George W. Bush.

Bali's terrorist attacks are terrible and are also terrible Bush 
declarations about that attacks and the next war, he's using people's 
fears to justify military actions around the globe (he's not only 
thinking in Irak).

So Rob's declarations are against the war and he said that Bali attacks 
are not a good reason for any war. Maybe could be useful to read John 
Howard's declarations about the next war after Bali attacks to 
understand Oil's position.


> 
> Its always fascinating to see the differences between the rants in Oz 
> and PG ranting that goes on elsewhere, particularly the US.
> 
> When Pete rants in Australia, there seems to be a lot of declarations of 
> individuality and the need for cultural autonomy.  When Pete rants on 
> North American stages, he seems to wander toward internationality, 
> harmony, and universal respect sorts of themes.  The same broad brush 
> generalities may be more or less applied to Rob's comments to the press.
> 
> Now I recognize that the message gets tailored to the audience, and 
> there is a strong comfort level factor in the things they say abroad.  
> What I'm trying to get a handle on is this:  what distinguishes the "One 
> Country" internationalist sentiments from "51st (52nd,53rd...) State" 
> laments voiced in Oz?  I know that some important differences lie in the 
> areas of consent and franchise versus domination and colonization.  But 
> how are the impulses toward global unity and national autonomy reconciled?


I guess it's the band, not just Peter. The band has a lot of songs about 
One World (not one country) and also a lot of songs about Australia. 
Some of them are a guide to your question. We have US Forces, Power and 
the Passion, Short memory, Cemetery in my mind and what to say about 
Bedlam Bridge where the boys talk clearly about the White House Gangsters.


A people's world is far beyond now, we need to do a lot of things to get 
there, hope future generations can do that. menawhile you have the right 
to defend your land and your people from devastation, poverty, 
violence... some of the things that the US business and policy has 
developed in so many countries maybe for a century, it seems to me 
obvious that the Oils don't want that for their country. Nevertheless 
they still believe in humanity, so they go to the US and call people to 
change the world, to fraternity, and that is not contrary to 
sovereignity and dignity.


I also agreed with Greggy about economics and open markets ideology:


 >I don't think it is necessarily true that isolationism brings about a 
poor result for the world. I think a free flow of ideas, news and 
ethical technology is a good thing.

 >The US goes out of its way to protect many strategic industries from 
outside influence: farming, steel manafacturing, high tech, and military 
research and production.

 >Japan became industrialised and wealthy on the back of protectionism.

 >On the other hand, because of the war against isolationism waged by 
the WTO, IMF and similar organisations Australia now almost had no 
merchant navy and a devastated textiles industry as two examples.

 >I think the argument for open markets is over-simplified and, as I 
think you were suggesting, there is a lot more to the argument.

 >Wealthy nations tend to only argue for open markets in the markets 
where they can dominate and the result is that poor countries stay poor.


See yas!


"There's no end in the world that I see"

Oils!