| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"jackkincaid" |
| Date: |
25 Sep 2003 04:25:00 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Why is France so anti-American? |
I shall now attempt to generalise about the French, British and
Americans *even more*.
"yabonn" <yabonn_fr@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bku8dg$5per9$1@ID-97028.news.uni-berlin.de>...
France will affect a bourgeois
faux-superior disinterest of Britain; Britain will take delight in
proletarian insults of the French. Same as ever.
Exactly. Tou can believe the disinterest is "affected" if you wish.
Oh, of course it is, and so are the insults of the Sun.
'Tou?'
-Shall we go to england for holidays at last this year, darling?
-Naaah. Let's fake disinterest this year too. That'll teach them!
Well, apart form the 'That'll teach then!' (no affected member of the
bourgeoise would say that) ... yes, that's about right.
France is the no1 destination for the British middle classes; the
French middle classes wouldn't *dream* of visiting Britain - but
London is stuffed with French would-be proletarian drop-outs, checking
out the clubs and the street violence.
I don't read the Sun, or the Telegraph, which are two of 10 national
daily newspapers published in the UK, of all shades of opinion.
And a solid common ground of hatred for the french for a few.
Why do you say that? I've already said, France is possibly the only
country in the world the British middle classes envy (because of its
working public sector and civilised rural towns). I don't think there
is really any genuine hatred at all - especially since Thierry Henry
and Patrick Vieira moved to England - but there is a ingrained need
for rivals here, especially in England, and France (and Germany) fits
the bill. And its a rivalry that is often expressed in fairly brutal
terms - its like the English football hooligans who trash bars and
cafes in Europe. They are *challenging* the local proles, just as the
Sun does with its commentary. British working class culture is similar
to American or Australian: brash, swaggering, essentially childish.
The French stereotype, or one of them, is of the patrician would-be
intellectual - the schoolmaster, and all kids like to take the *****
out of schoolmasters.
Har har, dem frogs
You're paranoid, friend.
(...And the sun with his "chirac is a worm" stuff last time.Trying to sell
it on champs elysées. Suppose they were looking for reactions, poor souls.
Don't they have anything else to think about?)
They weren't doing it for the French, they were doing it to give their
readers a laugh in England. Not terribly funny, I suppose - unless
they get that reaction. >
I didn't say that. I assume that the French 'position' on Iraq is
based in part on French popular envy and dislike of the USA, which I
suppose is an echo of the former French rivalry with Britain, 100-200
years ago,
Lol. Sure. And the one hundred war, and hastings and crecy and azincourt.
I was thinking more of imperialism in Africa, but ... I suppose so.
And jeanne.
Jeanne?
So, of course, irak. Makes sense.
It makes sennse if you assume that Chirac is not acting out of
principle any more than is Bush. If you assume that the reason Chirac
didn't want an invasion of Iraq was that France was owed a great deal
of money by Saddam, and had interests in Iraq's oil industry that
could be eclipsed by the USA - if you assume that none of the players
in this game are any more honest and starightforward as any other,
then the reasons for the extraordinary emotional reaction against he
US in France (or so it seemed) must have something to do with cultural
attitudes.
And I think that's what a lot of people have assumed. Maybe it's
another stereotype but the idea of a French president taking a true
moral stance over something is very hard to swallow (and when that
'moral stance' involves the continued oppression of the Iraqi people
by a brutal tyrant like Saddam, it becomes impossible).
Natural allies? Looks more like vassals to me. Still remember clinton caught
on camera before a meeting with major, laughing with his team "ah yes,
special relationships, how could i forget?"
Or rumsfeld putting his faithful "ally" blair in even deeper domestic doodoo
with his declarations about the ever-elusive wmd, and not giving a rat's *****
about it.
Yeah, I'm aware of the poodle charge, but it doesn't really stand up.
Rumsfeld also gave Blair every opportunity to back out - even
publicly. You shouldn't underestimate how much Blair believed in this
invasion; I'm certain he was 100% in favour of it, and for the same
reasons as Bush was, and is.
I'm also certain that Rumsfeld & co don't really care about what
happens to Blair, but then, why should they? They are politicians,
after all. By 'natural allies' I meant that each country is the first
that the other turns to when it is preparing a military adventure, or
in Britain's case, under threat.
This time around I think both Bush and Blair wanted to invade Iraq,
and Afghanistan. Last time, Thatcher was more keen than Bush Sr. In
Kosovo, Blair and Clinton seemed to be equally certain of their
actions. In Bosnia, the US had to persuade Major's government to get
off its collective arse and do something (you're right, Major was a
useless PM, and Clinton obviously thought he was a jerk). And of
course in 1940 the UK & commonwealth needed the USA alongside to
liberate France.
All in all, I think it's 7 or 8 wars fought together in the last 90
years. Probably the only other countries that has been involved in as
many conflicts alongside the UK are Australia, Canada and ... France.
In every recent case, the US could perfectly well have gone on alone,
but every time it would have much prefered not to. There was always a
majority in favour of war agaisnt Iraq in Britain, even though for a
while it was split by the 2nd resolution issue. I think 9/11 had quite
an effect here too. I guess that's really what I meant by natural
allies. >
I'll take your word for it. But that wasn't what I was asking. I was
asking: why did 33% of the French population want the USA (and
therefore the UK, even if their presence cannot be acknowledged by
French pollsters) to lose, and *therefore*, saddam to win?
That percentage looks silly to me. Maybe 20% showed their despise for bush
and disgust for this war, and 5% of pro saddam whackos and that's it.
Got link? I'd be interested the phrasing of the poll.
There's a breakdown an url elsewhere in this thread.
I don't recall a massive popular support for this war in the axis of poodles
neither, before the troops are in danger at least.
Aw, and you accused *me* of being insulting. If Britain and Aus are
poodles for sending their troops to fight alongside the USA's, what do
you think France looks like for refusing, and by doing so, prop up a
tyrant? Given the success of the soldiers in winning the war,
accusations of poodlehood to the Americans sit a lot better than
poodlehood to Saddam.
Must be some french lunacy, of course. How could anyone be against that war
if not out of some craziness, lunacy, or national stupidity? Or out of
an -ism of some sort : anti americanism, antisemitism, anti-angloism -you
choose?
Ergo, we must be crazy, and racist, because we didn't want to go bomb irak.
Christ, I wasn't trying to bully you or accuse you of something, I'm
genuinely curious.
Pretty much all of Europe was against this invasion. Even though a
majority in the UK supported it, it wasn't a large majority. I was
against it myself until I heard the arguments of the anti-war people
and realised I couldn't support them. I'm well aware of the arguments
against, and I find some persuasive. I'm not a supporter of Bush, and
I do agree that American isolationism might be dangerous (although I
don't regard this invasion as isolationist). And now that it has taken
place I think it will still be unjustifiable, *unless* the coalition
succeed in helping Iraq to create a genuinely representitive
government.
So I understand your position vis-a-vis the war. What I was asking you
was, what in your opinion accounts for the extrordinary, albeit
perhaps temporary, dislike of the USA in France? Do you genuinely feel
threatened by the USA? Or do you feel that the US may provoke an
Islamic backlash against all of thre west? Or is it more of a joke,
like the superficial cultural rivalries we were talking about earlier?
Or what?
I do have a hard time following the shifts in justification for that war.
Benladen, terrorrism, wmd, peace, middle east, regime change. Not oil,
nonono.
Justifications were as follows:
1. Islamic terrorism is the product of the failure of politics in the
middle east, which is in large part caused by a crisis of legitimacy
(caliphate v democratic nations v Arab federation), which is being
stoked up by the Wahhabis. It isn't primarily about poverty (all the
terrorists so far have been 'westernised' middle class educated
Arabs), but the Israel/Palestine situation is making things worse.
Therefore, the only superpowert in the world has to do something, and
that something (for want of anything else) is to rebuild the central
Arab state along 'western' lines, in te hope of a domino effect of the
kind we saw in E Europe 12 years ago.
2. Contrary to popular belief, Iraq is not a major oil producer, but
it does have potentially massive oil reserves. Saudi Arabia is, in
efect, bankrolling Islamic terrorism, generally against the wishes of
its own government (which is gradually being usurped by the Wahhabis);
the idea that Iraq too might become a sponsor of terrorism is too
frightening for words. Saddam was dying, his sons were gettimng ready
to take over. At the point at which they did, there may have been an
islamist revolution in Iraq, which would have been disasterous. We had
to get in there first.
3. We don't know if Saddam had WMD a few months ago, but we know he
had them a few years ago, and we know he had built an elaborate system
of subterfuge to fool UN inspectors. He appeared to be hiding
*something*, but we don't know what. It *might* have been WMD, or it
might not. Chirac and others implied that it wasn't; that Saddam was
bluffing, and wouldn't admit he had destroyed his own WMD for fear of
losing face. But did Chirac have access to the same intelligence? We
still don't know for sure if the WMD have been destroyed, but if
there's a possibility they exist, should we not do something about
them?
4. The USA and UK were spending $millions in maintaining the no-fly
zones in the north and south of Iraq, and their pilots were
occasionally being shot at. Neanwhile sanctions were being
circumvented, and were being used by Saddam to starve his own people,
and more and more western governments were beginning to ask us to end
them, and end the no-fly zones. In the south, the Marsh Arabs were
being driven out of their homes, their ancient rivers dried up, their
culture destroyed; in the north, the Kurdish (secular, democratic)
regional government, under US/UK protection, was being attacked by
al-Ansar al-Islami terrorists, funded directly by Saddam, and with
links to al-Qaida. We *couldn't*, in all justice, end the no-fly
zones, or we would risk another act of genocide. Something had to
change. In addition, Saddam wa sfunding Hamas in the occupied
territories, which was deliberately preventing the peace process from
working (and which has well known and long standing connections with
al-Qaida), and there was little chance of Israel making peace while
Saddam was around. And finally, thousands upon thousands of Iraqi
refugees were pouring westwards - mostly to London - which was putting
a huge burden on social services in the UK, while becoming the excuse
for a return of neo-fascism in Europe. Something HAD to change.
Those are the real justifications (though you may or may not accept
them). For Britain, there was one other wrinkle: Blair, I believe, was
always behind the invasion, but whether that was because he accepted
the justifications above, or because he knew Bush was going to invade
even before he (Bush) was elected, and knew that the UK *had* to go
along with its natural military ally, I don't know. But once the ball
was rolling, there was never any serious liklihood of the US turning
back, and therefore very little chance of the UK not going along for
the ride too (and therefore, Australia, etc.).
If the last one is the iraki people, cool. Now they tell the occupying
powers to get out. So let's get out of irak and go liberate, say, the chinese
people.
If they get out now, Saddam will be back (it's not impossible that
Saddam has been left alive for just that reason: to be the sword of
Damacles over the west's head. Though I doubt it). Is that what you
want? Wouldn't be much of a liberation, would it?
Tad less now the soldiers learned to stay in their camps.
I don't believe you really think the people bombing the UN, and
shooting at US soldiers, are representitive of all 25 million Iraqis.
If you do, you need another source of information. Saddam is supported
by 5% of Iraq - the same number who want Iraq to become the 51st state
of the USA. 75% want the coalition to stay until a government is
formed. that figure is dropping, but not *that* fast. meanwhile, there
are 100 new newspapers, new radioa nd TV channels, the services are
starting up again, new water pipelines have been laid, the oil is
being sold again... Iraq could have a very rosy future. Hopefully.
.
|
|
| User: "yabonn" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is France so anti-American? |
26 Sep 2003 03:21:06 AM |
|
|
"jackkincaid" <theovermind@another.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:eb35fbed.0309251325.624d3e30@posting.google.com...
I shall now attempt to generalise about the French, British and
Americans *even more*.
"yabonn" <yabonn_fr@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<bku8dg$5per9$1@ID-97028.news.uni-berlin.de>...
France will affect a bourgeois
faux-superior disinterest of Britain; Britain will take delight in
proletarian insults of the French. Same as ever.
Exactly. Tou can believe the disinterest is "affected" if you wish.
Oh, of course it is, and so are the insults of the Sun.
[...]
The disinterest is not affected. You're taking the uk situation you know
here :
Why do you say that? I've already said, France is possibly the only
country in the world the British middle classes envy (because of its
working public sector and civilised rural towns).
.... and you assume it should be somehow paid in return by the french.
Well no. There is no such thing, once again. In france, rightists (eeew) in
france look to usa, leftists to scandinavia, and stay in france or maybe
spain/italy for holidays. No rivalry, no ressentment towards england,
absolutely such reason for france's position on irak.
[...]
And jeanne.
Jeanne?
You call her joan. Y'know. Hears voices. Have horse, will travel. Early
barbecues. All that.
So, of course, irak. Makes sense.
It makes sennse if you assume that Chirac is not acting out of
principle any more than is Bush. If you assume that the reason Chirac
didn't want an invasion of Iraq was that France was owed a great deal
of money by Saddam, and had interests in Iraq's oil industry that
could be eclipsed by the USA - if you assume that none of the players
in this game are any more honest and starightforward as any other,
then the reasons for the extraordinary emotional reaction against he
US in France (or so it seemed) must have something to do with cultural
attitudes.
So now it's out of interest, not the rivalry/ressetment rubbish. Good.
Guess there was a part of interest. France was one of the first exporting
nation to irak. But :
- It was along with australia. Guess who's going to have more contracts now?
If you have money in mind, opposing the usa on irak was obviously not a good
idea.
- Before the mess began chirac said discretly to the us that if they went
without the un, he wouldn't move an ear. Just don't use the un as a pretext.
- Everybody was against that war, in france and the wolrd. People think that
war suck, and that a preemptive war sucks all the more. And that the
"proofs" presented of the threat are beyond suckiness. Chirac's
out-of-interest motive maybe was to listen to his electors -nice feature of
democracies hu? For rent-a-country reasons everyone couldn't do it. Spain
opposing war at 97%, and still going, lol.
And I think that's what a lot of people have assumed. Maybe it's
another stereotype but the idea of a French president taking a true
moral stance over something is very hard to swallow
Ah.
(and when that
'moral stance' involves the continued oppression of the Iraqi people
by a brutal tyrant like Saddam, it becomes impossible).
Us/uk continuously pushed, during 13 years to make the embargo on irak
stronger. Life expectancy dropeed during that period lowered by 10 15 years.
Millions dead (1? 2? we''l never know)
The "well being of the iraki people" alibi is laughable.
I'm also certain that Rumsfeld & co don't really care about what
happens to Blair, but then, why should they? They are politicians,
after all. By 'natural allies' I meant that each country is the first
that the other turns to when it is preparing a military adventure, or
in Britain's case, under threat.
Mutual defence is nato. Not "natural allies".
"Natural allies", as seen during the irak crisi, looked like chest pounding
by proxy from the uk side, and a gentle pat on the head from the us side.
But hey, if you still really really want to believe in the "special
relationship" theory i won't dispute. Not My Bussiness Anyways.
All in all, I think it's 7 or 8 wars fought together in the last 90
years. Probably the only other countries that has been involved in as
many conflicts alongside the UK are Australia, Canada and ... France.
But how can that be? Historic rivalry, blahblah? Ressentment and envy
because of the empire yadda? And napoleon? No?
That percentage looks silly to me. Maybe 20% showed their despise for
bush
and disgust for this war, and 5% of pro saddam whackos and that's it.
Got link? I'd be interested the phrasing of the poll.
There's a breakdown an url elsewhere in this thread.
Couldnt find it. Anyone?
Must be some french lunacy, of course. How could anyone be against that
war
if not out of some craziness, lunacy, or national stupidity? Or out of
an -ism of some sort : anti americanism, antisemitism,
anti-angloism -you
choose?
Ergo, we must be crazy, and racist, because we didn't want to go bomb
irak.
Christ, I wasn't trying to bully you or accuse you of something, I'm
genuinely curious.
Pretty much all of Europe was against this invasion. Even though a
majority in the UK supported it, it wasn't a large majority. I was
against it myself until I heard the arguments of the anti-war people
and realised I couldn't support them. I'm well aware of the arguments
against, and I find some persuasive. I'm not a supporter of Bush, and
I do agree that American isolationism might be dangerous (although I
don't regard this invasion as isolationist). And now that it has taken
place I think it will still be unjustifiable, *unless* the coalition
succeed in helping Iraq to create a genuinely representitive
government.
So I understand your position vis-a-vis the war. What I was asking you
was, what in your opinion accounts for the extrordinary, albeit
perhaps temporary, dislike of the USA in France? Do you genuinely feel
threatened by the USA? Or do you feel that the US may provoke an
Islamic backlash against all of thre west? Or is it more of a joke,
like the superficial cultural rivalries we were talking about earlier?
Or what?
From my point of view the us are not disliked.
Bush administration is ucsually blamed for being stupid (not seeing it's
going to be a mess), wrong (invading a country that did not coudl not attack
you), arrogant (you euro-weasels pussies), manipulated by complete crackpots
(our beloved pnac ers) and led by an slightly retarded moron.
Liking or disliking the us had nothing do with france's position about irak.
Would have been the same with switzerland invading.
I do have a hard time following the shifts in justification for that
war.
Benladen, terrorrism, wmd, peace, middle east, regime change. Not oil,
nonono.
Justifications were as follows:
1. Islamic terrorism is the product of the failure of politics in the
middle east, which is in large part caused by a crisis of legitimacy
(caliphate v democratic nations v Arab federation), which is being
stoked up by the Wahhabis. It isn't primarily about poverty (all the
terrorists so far have been 'westernised' middle class educated
Arabs), but the Israel/Palestine situation is making things worse.
Therefore, the only superpowert in the world has to do something, and
that something (for want of anything else) is to rebuild the central
Arab state along 'western' lines, in te hope of a domino effect of the
kind we saw in E Europe 12 years ago.
Let's fight islamic fondamentalism! Let's attack the only arab secular
states around (that won't share its oil)
Let's cosy with the exteme islamist crackpots in saudi arabia! (these ones
share their oil, their piloting skill's their only problem).
the idea that Iraq too might become a sponsor of terrorism is too
frightening for words. Saddam was dying, his sons were gettimng ready
to take over. At the point at which they did, there may have been an
islamist revolution in Iraq, which would have been disasterous. We had
to get in there first.
Yup. They had wmd too, that they could launch in 45 minutes.
snip the usual bedunked to the bone half baked official stuff.debunked
Those are the real justifications (though you may or may not accept
them).
Well, no.
For Britain, there was one other wrinkle: Blair, I believe, was
always behind the invasion, but whether that was because he accepted
the justifications above, or because he knew Bush was going to invade
even before he (Bush) was elected, and knew that the UK *had* to go
along with its natural military ally, I don't know. But once the ball
was rolling, there was never any serious liklihood of the US turning
back, and therefore very little chance of the UK not going along for
the ride too (and therefore, Australia, etc.).
If the last one is the iraki people, cool. Now they tell the occupying
powers to get out. So let's get out of irak and go liberate, say, the
chinese
people.
If they get out now, Saddam will be back (it's not impossible that
Saddam has been left alive for just that reason: to be the sword of
Damacles over the west's head. Though I doubt it). Is that what you
want? Wouldn't be much of a liberation, would it?
Tad less now the soldiers learned to stay in their camps.
I don't believe you really think the people bombing the UN, and
shooting at US soldiers, are representitive of all 25 million Iraqis.
If you do, you need another source of information. Saddam is supported
by 5% of Iraq - the same number who want Iraq to become the 51st state
of the USA. 75% want the coalition to stay until a government is
formed. that figure is dropping, but not *that* fast. meanwhile, there
are 100 new newspapers, new radioa nd TV channels, the services are
starting up again, new water pipelines have been laid, the oil is
being sold again... Iraq could have a very rosy future. Hopefully.
.
|
|
|
| User: "yabonn" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is France so anti-American? |
26 Sep 2003 04:10:26 AM |
|
|
"yabonn" <yabonn_fr@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:bl0sc0$6th95$1@ID-97028.news.uni-berlin.de...
"jackkincaid" <theovermind@another.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:eb35fbed.0309251325.624d3e30@posting.google.com...
I shall now attempt to generalise about the French, British and
Americans *even more*.
"yabonn" <yabonn_fr@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<bku8dg$5per9$1@ID-97028.news.uni-berlin.de>...
the idea that Iraq too might become a sponsor of terrorism is too
frightening for words. Saddam was dying, his sons were gettimng ready
to take over. At the point at which they did, there may have been an
islamist revolution in Iraq, which would have been disasterous. We had
to get in there first.
Yup. They had wmd too, that they could launch in 45 minutes.
snip the usual bedunked to the bone half baked official stuff.debunked
Obviously i'm writing in the morning, and not caffeinated enough. Bah. You
get the idea.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jackkincaid" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is France so anti-American? |
26 Sep 2003 06:20:46 PM |
|
|
"yabonn" <yabonn_fr@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bl0sc0$6th95$1@ID-97028.news.uni-berlin.de>...
[snip]
Why do you say that? I've already said, France is possibly the only
country in the world the British middle classes envy (because of its
working public sector and civilised rural towns).
... and you assume it should be somehow paid in return by the french.
No.
[snip]
It makes sennse if you assume that Chirac is not acting out of
principle any more than is Bush. If you assume that the reason Chirac
didn't want an invasion of Iraq was that France was owed a great deal
of money by Saddam, and had interests in Iraq's oil industry that
could be eclipsed by the USA - if you assume that none of the players
in this game are any more honest and starightforward as any other,
then the reasons for the extraordinary emotional reaction against he
US in France (or so it seemed) must have something to do with cultural
attitudes.
So now it's out of interest, not the rivalry/ressetment rubbish. Good.
What our political leaders do is out of self- or national interest.
What our people say in opinion polls is often due to some kind of
emotional reaction to someone else, IMO.
If you have money in mind, opposing the usa on irak was obviously not a good
idea.
I wouldn't be too sure.
My guess is, the USA will do best out of oil contracts, but France
will do well too. The relative loser will be the UK. I don't know why,
but it always seems to work out that way.
- Before the mess began chirac said discretly to the us that if they went
without the un, he wouldn't move an ear. Just don't use the un as a pretext.
Really? Yes, I can see the sense in that.
- Everybody was against that war, in france and the wolrd.
I wasn't. And most British people weren't.
I wasn't exactly in favour either, but the arguments against were so
pathetic, IMO, I felt I had no choice but to support it.
We liberated a country from a tyrant. Good for us.
People think that
war suck, and that a preemptive war sucks all the more. And that the
"proofs" presented of the threat are beyond suckiness. Chirac's
out-of-interest motive maybe was to listen to his electors -nice feature of
democracies hu?
If the US and UK electorates were in favour at the time, then Bush and
Blair were doing the same as Chirac.
But, question remains: why were the French electorate against the war
on Saddam?
For rent-a-country reasons everyone couldn't do it. Spain
opposing war at 97%, and still going, lol.
Yes, well, no comment.
Let's stick to the countries which actually have an army: USA, France,
Britain, Russia, China.
And I think that's what a lot of people have assumed. Maybe it's
another stereotype but the idea of a French president taking a true
moral stance over something is very hard to swallow
Ah.
I know, I know, but ... what can I say? We just can't buy it.
The French are too clever to be moral. :-)
(and when that
'moral stance' involves the continued oppression of the Iraqi people
by a brutal tyrant like Saddam, it becomes impossible).
Us/uk continuously pushed, during 13 years to make the embargo on irak
stronger.
Yes.
Life expectancy dropeed during that period lowered by 10 15 years.
Millions dead (1? 2? we''l never know)
Yes, but what else could we do? The sanctions were ruining life in
Iraq, so we couldn't keep them going - we had to do SOMETHING.
The "well being of the iraki people" alibi is laughable.
Would you support the return of Saddam?
No, of course you wouldn't.
Therefore, we have done a good thing - we have removed a tyrant - even
if we broke the law to do it (in some peoples' eyes). We are like
Robin Hood. ;-)
The well being of the Iraqi people is the *most* important thing
*now*, after the war.
I'm also certain that Rumsfeld & co don't really care about what
happens to Blair, but then, why should they? They are politicians,
after all. By 'natural allies' I meant that each country is the first
that the other turns to when it is preparing a military adventure, or
in Britain's case, under threat.
Mutual defence is nato. Not "natural allies".
Don't forget, France is not a full member of Nato.
The shared language must make a big difference - maybe Britain doesn't
mistrust the USA as much as its neighbours do.
"Natural allies", as seen during the irak crisi, looked like chest pounding
by proxy from the uk side, and a gentle pat on the head from the us side.
[shrug] I guess that's unavoidable. It *is* irritating, though. If the
UK is perceived as a poodle of the USA by the French, what does that
make France, which relied on British strength in 1940, and American
strength in 1944?
On the other hand, there is a grain of truth in it. The UK is not
entirely independent militarily - it relies on the USA more than does
France, and so has a greater obligation to aid the US if a UK interest
is at stake. But then, because both countries share a language and
(broadly) culture, this is not perceived as a burden, as perhaps it
would be in France.
Also, the British army did rather well in Iraq (this probably wasn't
reported in France - when it took Basra, one UK soldier was killed for
every 100 Iraq soldiers killed), and has done rather well since the
ceasefire.
No national army is going to be able to operate very well unless it is
tested, and the UK army is tested regularly. Which must be
advantageous to the country.
Seems to me, there is an obvious answer to all this: that Britain and
France should make allies of each other, in the EU and in Nato. But
this never seems to happen. Which is very strange.
[snip]
Bush administration is ucsually blamed for being stupid (not seeing it's
going to be a mess),
Yes, I agree, up to a point.
wrong (invading a country that did not coudl not attack you),
Don't agree with that. Saddam had already attacked the Kurds,
Kuwaitis, Iranians, Israelis, Marsh Arabs.
arrogant (you euro-weasels pussies),
Yup, I agree with that - but then that sort of thing doesn't apply to
Britain, which can claim that it's army is, man for man, better than
America's, and does.
manipulated by complete crackpots
(our beloved pnac ers)
Yes, but even crackpots can be right sometimes.
and led by an slightly retarded moron.
You did that one.
Liking or disliking the us had nothing do with france's position about irak.
Would have been the same with switzerland invading.
Oh, I REALLY don't believe that!
[snip]
Let's fight islamic fondamentalism!
Yes, if it threatens us.
Let's attack the only arab secular states around (that won't share its oil)
Iraq isn't the only Arab secular state (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt,
Morocco, Libya, all the Gulf emirates come to mind).
Let's cosy with the exteme islamist crackpots in saudi arabia! (these ones
share their oil, their piloting skill's their only problem).
This is a complex issue, but the fundies in Saudi want to take over.
They are not in governmet, even if the government appeases them at
every turn.
Are you suggesting that the USA invades Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq?
I guess I couldn't argue...
[snip]
snip the usual bedunked to the bone half baked official stuff.debunked
None of it has been debunked. All of it is legitimate.
Those are the real justifications (though you may or may not accept them).
Well, no.
You should, IMO, or offer some other solution for the ME - to prevent
another 9/11, Bali, Tunis, Riyadh, Nairobi etc. etc. etc.
You haven't offered any solutions, only complaints.
.
|
|
|
| User: "yabonn" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is France so anti-American? |
27 Sep 2003 05:51:47 AM |
|
|
"jackkincaid" <theovermind@another.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:eb35fbed.0309261520.2ddebcab@posting.google.com...
"yabonn" <yabonn_fr@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<bl0sc0$6th95$1@ID-97028.news.uni-berlin.de>...
[snip]
various snips
Also, the British army did rather well in Iraq (this probably wasn't
reported in France - when it took Basra, one UK soldier was killed for
every 100 Iraq soldiers killed), and has done rather well since the
ceasefire.
Iirc, it was reported they did well in basra and seemed to do better at
maintaining peace in a city than their gun totting over-the-pond
counterparts, if you want to know. Rememeber the polite disinterest in
france about uk i was telling you about?
Liking or disliking the us had nothing do with france's position about
irak.
Would have been the same with switzerland invading.
Oh, I REALLY don't believe that!
Oh sure. War supporters don't want to see the whole world was against it,
and that's the reason why this war was a diplomatic disaster for its
participants.
So it must, it has to be france. Going against the world would mean that
some stupid mistake has been made somewhere. Benign powers like the ones
invading irak don't do that.
So it has to be france, and the reason for france's "misbehavior" is? Some
french lunacy. Just insert the reason that resounds better in the target
opinion. Because we've "lost the empire and resentful" in uk, because we're
"envious of the us power" in the us.
Absolutely ridiculous.
Guess it's understandable after all : "we're in a mess because we're envied
by the french" definitely sounds better than "we're in an mess because we
made stupid decisions against the opinion of the whole world".
Let's attack the only arab secular states around (that won't share its
oil)
Iraq isn't the only Arab secular state (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt,
Morocco, Libya, all the Gulf emirates come to mind).
Gulf emirates, secular??? Forgot. Usa's buddies.
Syria was the target no long ago.
The fall of saddam reinforced islamists in the region.
[...]
Well, no.
You should, IMO, or offer some other solution for the ME - to prevent
another 9/11, Bali, Tunis, Riyadh, Nairobi etc. etc. etc.
You haven't offered any solutions, only complaints.
Let's push the irak "logic" to its end. I propose random nukes.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "yann" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is France so anti-American? |
26 Sep 2003 11:00:03 PM |
|
|
"jackkincaid" <theovermind@another.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:eb35fbed.0309261520.2ddebcab@posting.google.com...
- Everybody was against that war, in france and the wolrd.
I wasn't. And most British people weren't.
Sorry, I almost forgot that very recent poll :
The war was unjustified : 53%
It was right to invade Iraq. : 38%
(ICM, September 19-21).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1047894,00.html
It seems as though there is a major shift in Britain now.
Now I have a question for you : How come do 53% of the British support
Saddam ? Why are most British so anti-American ? Envy and dislike
probably. The historical explanation is plain to see : didn't they lose
in 1783 against the Insurgents and the French ?
You see what I'm getting at....
Yann.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "yann" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is France so anti-American? |
26 Sep 2003 10:27:09 PM |
|
|
"jackkincaid" <theovermind@another.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:eb35fbed.0309261520.2ddebcab@posting.google.com...
- Everybody was against that war, in france and the wolrd.
I wasn't. And most British people weren't.
Tss tss.... Rewriting polls, aren't you. Until the war was about to
start, most British were against that war.
*Approve or disapprove of a military attack on Iraq :
23-25 Aug. 2002 : 50% disapprove / 33% approve
20-22 Sept. 2002 : 46% disapprove / 37% approve
14 Oct. 2002 : 37% disapprove / 42% approve
21-22 Nov. 2002 : 40% disapprove / 39% approve
13-15 Dec. 2002 : 44% disapprove / 36% approve
17-19 Jan. 2002 : 47% disapprove / 30% approve
14-16 Feb. 2003 : 52% disapprove / 29% approve
14-16 Mar. 2003 : 44% disapprove / 39% approve
------- ICM Research, UK. ---------
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2003/guardian-march-2003.htm
[shrug] I guess that's unavoidable. It *is* irritating, though. If the
UK is perceived as a poodle of the USA by the French, what does that
make France, which relied on British strength in 1940
[...]
Oh, oh, "France[...] relied on British strength in 1940" ??? You mean
before June 1940 or after June 1940, when France was still France and
free, or when it was the lot of Britain that was at stake, not that of
France anymore?
If you mean before June 1940, you certainly must be joking or rewriting
history.
"Churchill suffered the terrible conviction (he wrote of his grief) that
the British had not played their proper part in the battle, throwing all
the burden and the losses on the French alone. He wrote to Eden (then
Minister for War) on 6 June that in the first year of the previous war
(1914-15) the British had put 47 divisions into action; in the first
nine months of this war they had managed only ten. In the face of this
grievous failure, they must at least do everything they could."
As a matter of fact, their failure became even more grievous when the
Battle of France really began. By the beginning of June 1940, the
British Expeditionary Force was already back from Dunkerque, safely at
home much thanks to the unstinting bravery of the French First Army, and
didn't come back to help its French Allies...
On several occasions the French asked their British allies to send back
the BEF and the RAF to support the French troops in the battle against
the Germans and the Italians. Mostly in vain.
As for the USA, the French also asked the brave, freedom-loving
Americans to send troops and come to the rescue of the Allies. In vain.
On 15 June, Roosevelt turned down the desperate call for help made by
France.
The French kept fighting till 25 June. Alone......
Battlefront : 10 May 1940
------------------------------------
136 German divisions against :
94 French divisions
22 Belgian divisions
10 British divisions
9 Dutch divisions
Battlefront : 5 June 1940
-----------------------------------
143 German Divisions
(+ 19 Italian divisions by mid June)
against :
65 French divisions
1 British division
Battlefront : 12 June 1940
------------------------------------
27 French divisions
Britain really became Great in WWII after June 1940, but definitely not
before that fateful date. Too bad for the French. That doesn't change
anything to the admiration Britain's tenacity during WWII and Winston
Churchill can inspire. That doesn't change anything to the vital, loyal,
admirable support the French Free got from Britain and Churchill. Yes,
liberated France owes pretty much to Britain, and - may I say - probably
even more to Britain than to the US. Yet, let's stick to facts and not
rewrite history.
Yann.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Locke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is France so anti-American? |
27 Sep 2003 06:08:45 PM |
|
|
Yes, but what else could we do? The sanctions were ruining life in
Iraq, so we couldn't keep them going - we had to do SOMETHING.
The "well being of the iraki people" alibi is laughable.
Would you support the return of Saddam?
No, of course you wouldn't.
Therefore, we have done a good thing - we have removed a tyrant - even
if we broke the law to do it (in some peoples' eyes). We are like
Robin Hood. ;-)
i'd rather draw a parallel with the major cultural difference between europe
mainly and the us regarding gun-owenrship and self defence. you know the
"what if the government can't secure my family, i have to defend myself blah
blah" stuff.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is France so anti-American? |
27 Sep 2003 07:03:50 PM |
|
|
In article <bl5597$3bg$1@news-reader3.wanadoo.fr>,
"Locke" <olivier.issy.nospam@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
i'd rather draw a parallel with the major cultural difference between europe
mainly and the us regarding gun-owenrship and self defence. you know the
"what if the government can't secure my family, i have to defend myself blah
blah" stuff.
I think these kinds of Americans feel like police power is like our cell
phone coverage. You know, pretty much in Europe for years now you can
get a full and reliable signal pretty much anywhere. I was recently in
England and in Germany and somewhere around 98% of the country is
covered. Here in the U.S. it sucks *****. Literally.
So I think that the "I have to defend my family" is a legacy concept
passed on from generation to generation that it will take days to get a
law enforcement official out to your house, just like you never know
when all of the grocery stores are going to close all at once and you're
going to need animal meat and pelts in order to survive.
Chris
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is France so anti-American? |
26 Sep 2003 10:54:29 PM |
|
|
In article <eb35fbed.0309261520.2ddebcab@posting.google.com>,
(jackkincaid) wrote:
I wasn't exactly in favour either, but the arguments against were so
pathetic, IMO, I felt I had no choice but to support it.
We liberated a country from a tyrant. Good for us.
Why is that the duty of anyone except the citizens of that country? No
one came and saved our bacon from the British. No one bailed out the
French during their revolutions. Why is it our problem?
What exactly should qualify for U.S. intervention in the future? There
was no U.N. mandate, so that's not it. The United States has created
tyrannic governments, the 30th anniversary of the overthrow of Chile's
legitimate government due to U.S. intervention was just a couple of
weeks ago - oddly September 11, 2003. What about the people in Chad?
There are 4 million who have died in three years. Four million. What
about the death toll across the entire continent of Africa next year
alone, expected to be more than 5 million. In one year.
The tyrant is still not confirmed dead, nor is he captured. The
liberation seems to be in stasis.
Life expectancy dropeed during that period lowered by 10 15 years.
Millions dead (1? 2? we''l never know)
Yes, but what else could we do? The sanctions were ruining life in
Iraq, so we couldn't keep them going - we had to do SOMETHING.
Why was the death of an additional 50,000 people the only alternative?
Why was it so important that the lack of a U.N. mandate was ignored? Why
was it so important that the U.N. charter was violated? So important
that it is OK to ignore the Geneva Convention? So important that our own
constitution be ignored?
Yes we had to do something, but it seems like we've made a deal with the
devil. We got Saddam, but at what cost? What's the cost of having pissed
off essentially the entire planet, mostly middle eastern countries with
whom we've had major trust issues (on both sides) going back a century
(but mostly in the last 55 years). What's the cost of dispensing with
human rights? Do you have any idea on how many survivors of the nearly
50,000 people killed in Iraq thus far will step over that line and
actively assist terrorist organizations?
The "well being of the iraki people" alibi is laughable.
Would you support the return of Saddam?
No, of course you wouldn't.
Therefore, we have done a good thing - we have removed a tyrant - even
if we broke the law to do it (in some peoples' eyes). We are like
Robin Hood. ;-)
Robin Hood didn't kill anyone first off, let alone a whole bunch of the
people he was trying to help. It's a bad analogy. Remember that twice we
acknowledged the legitimacy of having a U.N. blessing prior to the war.
The first one we got reluctantly and with conditions. The second one we
tried to push through was not going to happen and yet a week later we
started dropping bombs. So it's not like we were ignoring "the law" with
which we had a long standing disagreement. We didn't get our note from
mommy so we did what we wanted to anyway.
The well being of the Iraqi people is the *most* important thing
*now*, after the war.
Right. That's why they have abundant electricity, food, water, medical
attention, and security. We really show how important the important
things are. Oh I know, they're using Afghanistan as the model. We said
we'd take care of them too after bombing them back into the stone age
(even though they were already there).
[shrug] I guess that's unavoidable. It *is* irritating, though. If the
UK is perceived as a poodle of the USA by the French, what does that
make France, which relied on British strength in 1940, and American
strength in 1944?
France is perpetually embarrased because they lost to the Germans in
about 10 minutes, and are simultaneously in denial both about having
been defeated so quickly and then needing a huge bail out by the U.S. to
get their country back for them. France doesn't like to be reminded that
they don't really matter unless you need a negative opinion on
something. And yes this is painting France with a broad brush. I suspect
most French remember and are appreciative of the U.S. as an ally and
that the whiney Frenchie are relatively few in numbers but quite loud
and press their opinions on others through guilt or negative chatter.
wrong (invading a country that did not coudl not attack you),
Don't agree with that. Saddam had already attacked the Kurds,
Kuwaitis, Iranians, Israelis, Marsh Arabs.
Yeah a decade ago...so where is this mysterious machine that can deliver
a payload to the U.S.? It's not like Iraq's neighbors were particularly
concerned about Iraq as a threat. In 2001 before 9/11 Powell and Rice
said Iraq was not a threat to anyone including its neighbors, that he'd
been disarmed. Suddenly he's a problem.
Let's fight islamic fondamentalism!
Yes, if it threatens us.
How do you fight a non-entity?
You should, IMO, or offer some other solution for the ME - to prevent
another 9/11, Bali, Tunis, Riyadh, Nairobi etc. etc. etc.
Stop pissing people off around the world and stop exporting terrorism,
be it arming their enemies overwhelmingly or usingn economic
retaliation. It's amazing what happens when you export peace and command
respect, do real things to protect borders, and only trade with
countries who respect basic human rights (one of which is not a
democratic government). Yet we grossly violate our own rules. The world
is dangerous, it cannot be controlled, and the U.S. government and
taxpayers cannot enforce a guarantee of global security. It is flat out
not possible.
There are real world problems that need to be confronted seriously, but
this government has a tenacity and desire to turn problems into crisis.
You haven't offered any solutions, only complaints.
Complaints are the first step. If there is no complaining, status quo is
acceptable. Only after there is enough agreement that status quo is a
problem can there be any meaningful discussion on solutions.
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "yann" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is France so anti-American? |
26 Sep 2003 11:10:31 PM |
|
|
"Chris" <ihatespam@tinwhipme.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:ihatespam-675C09.21543126092003@netnews.attbi.com...
Why is that the duty of anyone except the citizens of that country? No
one came and saved our bacon from the British.
Hum....
I suggest you get acquainted with your country's history, Chris.
http://www.americanrevolution.org/frcon.html
No one bailed out the
French during their revolutions.
That part is true to say the least. Revolutionary France got immediately
attacked by the two most powerful continental kingdoms of that time,
Prussia and Austria, and ended up conquering Europe.
Yann.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is France so anti-American? |
27 Sep 2003 05:53:09 PM |
|
|
In article <3f750db7$0$10427$626a54ce@news.free.fr>,
"yann" <njord_pas_de_spam@netcourrier.com> wrote:
"Chris" <ihatespam@tinwhipme.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:ihatespam-675C09.21543126092003@netnews.attbi.com...
Why is that the duty of anyone except the citizens of that country? No
one came and saved our bacon from the British.
Hum....
I suggest you get acquainted with your country's history, Chris.
I stand by my original statement, but with a clarification. No one came
to save our bacon out of some sense of moral duty or benefit toward
American colonies. Clearly what France wanted more than anything was to
weaken England and reduce her influence in the world.
My point is that the "we're saving Iraqis from a bad man" is not a
compelling argument for going to war, nor is it a compelling
justification for war. The world is full of bad men. The world is full
of problems that cause humans to suffer. There are all kinds of worse
things we turn a blind eye to, and have even sponsored ourselves, for
this idea of having "saved Iraqis" to hold any water at all.
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "yann" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is France so anti-American? |
27 Sep 2003 11:40:56 PM |
|
|
"Chris" <ihatespam@tinwhipme.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:ihatespam-B49F66.16531127092003@netnews.attbi.com...
I stand by my original statement, but with a clarification. No one
came
to save our bacon out of some sense of moral duty or benefit toward
American colonies.
Read the ressources I have previously mentionned. You'd be surprised.
"On Friday the 6th of February, 1778, plenipotentiaries met in Paris to
sign a treaty for which there had been no precedent in history, and of
which there has been no imitation since. Three of them represented a
government that was independent only in its own estimation; they were
called Benjamin Franklin, Silas Deane, and Arthur Lee, and were
delegates of the new-born "United States of North America"; the fourth
represented the oldest monarchy in Europe, and was Conrad Gerard de
Rayneval, destined to be later the first diplomat ever accredited to
America.
Article II of the treaty provided that "the essential and direct end of
the present defensive alliance is to maintain effectually the liberty,
sovereignty and independence absolute and unlimited of the said United
States." By other articles France pledged herself not to lay down her
arms until this independence had been achieved, and, whatever be the
delay, cost, or losses, to neither claim nor accept anything for the
help thus provided. She even specifically consented that the harshest of
the conditions of the 1763 treaty of peace with England be maintained:
if conquests were made " in the northern part of America," the conquered
land would be annexed to the United States, and not to the country which
had settled Canada and possessed it until that peace.
[...]
The treaties signed on the 6th of February, 1778, were certainly
unprecedented. So much so that, in some minds, and for a long time (in
that of John Adams, for example, to the last), doubts remained. Was that
really possible? Were there no secret articles? No, there were none.
Would France keep her word, and, if success was attained, reserve for
herself nothing on a continent two thirds of which had been hers? She
would, and did, keep her word. Even Washington had had his doubts and
had wondered when, time and again, plans were submitted to him for an
action in Canada, whether there was not in them "more than the
disinterested zeal of allies" (Nov. 11, 1778). The event proved that
such fears were groundless."
by James Breck Perkins (http://americanrevolution.org/frcon.html)
Yann.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is France so anti-American? |
28 Sep 2003 01:00:38 AM |
|
|
In article <3f766658$0$20630$626a54ce@news.free.fr>,
"yann" <njord_pas_de_spam@netcourrier.com> wrote:
Read the ressources I have previously mentionned. You'd be surprised.
You are making an assumption based on the contents of a treaty which
obviously GB would have read. You'd need to cite something outside the
context of the words in a treaty which have been at least as much about
making political statements as they are about making agreements.
Chris
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is France so anti-American? |
26 Sep 2003 09:53:56 PM |
|
|
In article <bl0sc0$6th95$1@ID-97028.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"yabonn" <yabonn_fr@hotmail.com> wrote:
Us/uk continuously pushed, during 13 years to make the embargo on irak
stronger. Life expectancy dropeed during that period lowered by 10 15 years.
Millions dead (1? 2? we''l never know)
The embargo was a U.N. embargo. France could have veto'd it but did not.
Your criticism of the embargo is legitimate, but you single out the U.S.
and the U.K. as though France, and other members of the security council
had no hand in it.
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "yabonn" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is France so anti-American? |
27 Sep 2003 05:08:19 AM |
|
|
"Chris" <ihatespam@tinwhipme.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:ihatespam-D78598.20535826092003@netnews.attbi.com...
In article <bl0sc0$6th95$1@ID-97028.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"yabonn" <yabonn_fr@hotmail.com> wrote:
Us/uk continuously pushed, during 13 years to make the embargo on irak
stronger. Life expectancy dropeed during that period lowered by 10 15
years.
Millions dead (1? 2? we''l never know)
The embargo was a U.N. embargo. France could have veto'd it but did not.
Your criticism of the embargo is legitimate, but you single out the U.S.
and the U.K. as though France, and other members of the security council
had no hand in it.
The whole security concil voted that stupid thing, true.
But inside the council, in fact inside the 661 commission, the us/uk did
everything to make it harsher.
I'd agree the whole concil's responsability is engaged for that. It
nevertheless remains that hearing "iraki people's wellbeing" as a
justification by the ones that pushed for more starvation during a decade
seems a bit obscene to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is France so anti-American? |
27 Sep 2003 06:02:28 PM |
|
|
In article <bl3n0v$7s7vf$1@ID-97028.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"yabonn" <yabonn_fr@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Chris" <ihatespam@tinwhipme.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:ihatespam-D78598.20535826092003@netnews.attbi.com...
In article <bl0sc0$6th95$1@ID-97028.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"yabonn" <yabonn_fr@hotmail.com> wrote:
Us/uk continuously pushed, during 13 years to make the embargo on irak
stronger. Life expectancy dropeed during that period lowered by 10 15
years.
Millions dead (1? 2? we''l never know)
The embargo was a U.N. embargo. France could have veto'd it but did not.
Your criticism of the embargo is legitimate, but you single out the U.S.
and the U.K. as though France, and other members of the security council
had no hand in it.
The whole security concil voted that stupid thing, true.
But inside the council, in fact inside the 661 commission, the us/uk did
everything to make it harsher.
So who is worse, the fool or the fool who follows him? While it's
interesting that the U.S./U.K. "did everthing to make it harsher" I
don't see it as relevant. China, Russia or France could have veto'd it
but they did not.
What's incredible to me are those who continue to argue that sanctions
are an effective means of coercing states to comply with U.N. mandates.
Iraq proves that it is not only possible, but easily possible for the
innocent to suffer substantially while the leader at whom the sanctions
are intended to coerce is relatively unaffected. The proof is in reality
that sanctions is not inherently effective.
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "yabonn" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is France so anti-American? |
27 Sep 2003 07:12:08 PM |
|
|
"Chris" <ihatespam@tinwhipme.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:ihatespam-EFB8F7.17022927092003@netnews.attbi.com...
In article <bl3n0v$7s7vf$1@ID-97028.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"yabonn" <yabonn_fr@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Chris" <ihatespam@tinwhipme.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:ihatespam-D78598.20535826092003@netnews.attbi.com...
In article <bl0sc0$6th95$1@ID-97028.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"yabonn" <yabonn_fr@hotmail.com> wrote:
Us/uk continuously pushed, during 13 years to make the embargo on
irak
stronger. Life expectancy dropeed during that period lowered by 10
15
years.
Millions dead (1? 2? we''l never know)
The embargo was a U.N. embargo. France could have veto'd it but did
not.
Your criticism of the embargo is legitimate, but you single out the
U.S.
and the U.K. as though France, and other members of the security
council
had no hand in it.
The whole security concil voted that stupid thing, true.
But inside the council, in fact inside the 661 commission, the us/uk did
everything to make it harsher.
So who is worse, the fool or the fool who follows him? While it's
interesting that the U.S./U.K. "did everthing to make it harsher"
As pointed out in a whorld health organisation report, available somewhere
on the net.
don't see it as relevant. China, Russia or France could have veto'd it
but they did not.
You can make an embargo harsh, very harsh or genocidal. Seems like irak's
one was of the latest kind, and the russia/china/france would have prefered
not, while having voted it.
What's incredible to me are those who continue to argue that sanctions
are an effective means of coercing states to comply with U.N. mandates.
Iraq proves that it is not only possible, but easily possible for the
innocent to suffer substantially while the leader at whom the sanctions
are intended to coerce is relatively unaffected. The proof is in reality
that sanctions is not inherently effective.
Yup. Embargos don't work well at removing tyrants, i see there no
justification for the war in irak, and no justification for the "war for
well being of the iraki people" argument.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is France so anti-American? |
28 Sep 2003 12:56:19 AM |
|
|
In article <bl58f3$843s0$1@ID-97028.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"yabonn" <yabonn_fr@hotmail.com> wrote:
You can make an embargo harsh, very harsh or genocidal. Seems like irak's
one was of the latest kind, and the russia/china/france would have prefered
not, while having voted it.
Thenthey are complicit.
Yup. Embargos don't work well at removing tyrants, i see there no
justification for the war in irak, and no justification for the "war for
well being of the iraki people" argument.
Agreed.
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "Divin Marquis" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is France so anti-American? |
29 Sep 2003 03:52:09 AM |
|
|
Le Sun, 28 Sep 2003 05:56:19 +0000, Chris a écrit :
You can make an embargo harsh, very harsh or genocidal. Seems like
irak's one was of the latest kind, and the russia/china/france would
have prefered not, while having voted it.
Thenthey are complicit.
No, they have been buillied.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
