France issues 'please explain' to US - Page 9

chequita guevara · May 17, 2003, 17:01

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I suppose we are.

Democracies are 'of the people, for the people, by the people', etc., so I suppose the people do bear the responsibility of their leaders' actions -- in a way that those under a dictatorship don't.

In that case, we deserved 9/11.

Ned · May 17, 2003, 17:03

Quote:

Originally posted by gsmoove23

Well, I for one am offended by that remark, but I guess it doesn't matter since less then 50% of the American people didn't vote for me.

Of course, gsmoove, I agree that Bush didn't get exactly half the votes. He split virtually evenly with Gore. Minor party candidates got several percentage points. But still, today, 70% approve of Bush's job performance.

The Mad Monk · May 17, 2003, 17:03

Only if you concede that we did something worthy of that response, che. I don't.

Inverse Icarus · May 17, 2003, 17:03

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

In that case, we deserved 9/11.

... right.

HershOstropoler · May 17, 2003, 17:06

* waits for "America is a republic, not a democracy" line *

chequita guevara · May 17, 2003, 17:09

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Only if you concede that we did something worthy of that response. I don't.

Our government has caused directly and inirectly the deaths of 11 million people since WWII. Since the US government has just proved that Iraq had no WMD, that means the million children who died in Iraq because of the sanctions died for no reason, let alone no good reason. Given the fact that the US-led coalition was killing 5,000 Iraqi children a month on the pretext that Iraq was hiding WMDs, the massacre of 3,000 Americans and others is a quite tepid response.

The truth is, government do stuff behind their people's backs and without their permission all the time, even so-called democratic ones. Even in the US, the amount of control we have on our government's foreign policy is extremely limited. Democrat or Republican, we still had war in Vietnam, an embargo with Cuba, and uncritical support for Israel.

Holding civilians responsible for the actions of their government is wrong.

Ned · May 17, 2003, 17:10

HO, I do not hate the French. But, I like many Americans, was very upset that an "ally" that we had helped twice in the last century with the loss of a great number of American lives, was not there with us when the chips were down and we asked for their support. Not only did we not get their support, we got their opposition. This may have been acceptable and understandable for a country that has not had the history we two have had, but it was not acceptable in the case of France. We, at least on this side of the Atlantic, thought we had a long and special relationship with the French. But, it looks like we were wrong.

Ned · May 17, 2003, 17:12

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Our government has caused directly and inirectly the deaths of 11 million people since WWII.

This post is almost demented.

SlowwHand · May 17, 2003, 17:12

It's your opinion, Che.
The fact remains, Hussein had the obligation of proof, not the U.N.; of which the panty-waist French were supposed to be a part.

chequita guevara · May 17, 2003, 17:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
HO, I do not hate the French. But, I like many Americans, was very upset that an "ally" that we had helped twice in the last century with the loss of a great number of American lives, was not there with us when the chips were down and we asked for their support.

See, this is where the problem lies. The chips weren't down and we didn't ask for their support. We demanded obedience and we've just proved that Iraq had no WMDs, let alone was preparing to attack the US with them.

Could you at least make your lies credible?

HershOstropoler · May 17, 2003, 17:14

"But, I like many Americans, was very upset that an "ally" that we had helped twice in the last century with the loss of a great number of American lives, was not there with us when the chips were down and we asked for their support."

That's odd. If the French asked you for your help in the recolonization of Algeria, would you say "gosh yeah, for old times sake, let's go!" ?

DinoDoc · May 17, 2003, 17:15

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
* waits for "America is a republic, not a democracy" line *

America is a republic, not a democracy.

I must say that this thread turned out differently than I had hoped but it has been quite entertaining.

The Mad Monk · May 17, 2003, 17:16

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Our government has caused directly and inirectly the deaths of 11 million people since WWII. Since the US government has just proved that Iraq had no WMD, that means the million children who died in Iraq because of the sanctions died for no reason, let alone no good reason. Given the fact that the US-led coalition was killing 5,000 Iraqi children a month on the pretext that Iraq was hiding WMDs, the massacre of 3,000 Americans and others is a quite tepid response.

The truth is, government do stuff behind their people's backs and without their permission all the time, even so-called democratic ones. Even in the US, the amount of control we have on our government's foreign policy is extremely limited. Democrat or Republican, we still had war in Vietnam, an embargo with Cuba, and uncritical support for Israel.

Holding civilians responsible for the actions of their government is wrong.

Holding civilians responsible in a democracy (OR republic) is legitimate. Are you saying we should have no accountability at all for the leaders we elect?

HershOstropoler · May 17, 2003, 17:16

Thanks, Dino. Now I can get rid of my "America is not a Republic, it's a Kleptocracy".

SlowwHand · May 17, 2003, 17:19

Let's just cut to the chase, shall we?
Screw France. They did deals with Iraq, rather than the U.N.
Iraq has not proven jack, and are better off than they were 2 month's ago.

Quit whining.

chequita guevara · May 17, 2003, 17:20

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
It's your opinion, Che.
The fact remains, Hussein had the obligation of proof, not the U.N.; of which the panty-waist French were supposed to be a part.

It's impossible to prove a negative. Iraq could not prove it didn't have WMDs. The US could always say they were hiding them (and we did).

Let my put it this way. The US government knew that Iraq had no WMDs. Prove they didn't know.

chequita guevara · May 17, 2003, 17:22

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Iraq has not proven jack, and are better off than they were 2 month's ago.

Except for the lack of electricity and clean water and the lack of security and the thousands of dead and wounded.

DinoDoc · May 17, 2003, 17:24

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It's impossible to prove a negative. Iraq could not prove it didn't have WMDs.

They could have at least attempted to help thier case by giving a verfiable accounting of the weapons UNSCOM was never able to verify the destruction of in its reports.

PS You're welcome Roland. Always happy to be of service.

The Mad Monk · May 17, 2003, 17:25

...che?

HershOstropoler · May 17, 2003, 17:26

"They could have at least attempted to help thier case by giving a verfiable accounting of the weapons UNSCOM was never able to verify the destruction of in its reports."

Like it would have made a difference.

DinoDoc · May 17, 2003, 17:27

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Like it would have made a difference.

We'll never know now.

SlowwHand · May 17, 2003, 17:28

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Except for the lack of electricity and clean water and the lack of security and the thousands of dead and wounded.

How many did Hussein kill?
Or are you going to deny the legitimacy of that, too ?

Ned · May 17, 2003, 17:30

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"But, I like many Americans, was very upset that an "ally" that we had helped twice in the last century with the loss of a great number of American lives, was not there with us when the chips were down and we asked for their support."

That's odd. If the French asked you for your help in the recolonization of Algeria, would you say "gosh yeah, for old times sake, let's go!" ?

You know, HO, I think this is the real problem between the French and the US. Our price to the British for our support was an end to colonialism. (We had to be seen as fighting for Democracy, not for a British Empire.) We never got that same agreement with the French. After the war was over, the French alone among our allies wanted to keep their colonies. The fought in Africa and in SE Asia. They retook the Suez canal.

But, even while they were fighting to retain their colonies, our overall policy was still anti-colonialism. When the French asked us for support at Dien Bien Phu, we said no, even though we had two minds about it, given that the French opponent was communist. We insisted, I believe, that the French settle the war and get out.

I think all this must have set off a wave of anti-Americanism among the French right that we still see today in Chirac's Gaullist party.

Whaleboy · May 17, 2003, 17:31

Do Americans view their nation and its system of government as superior to the Iraqis?

If so, bare in mind that France was the mother (post greek) of that system (in the modern sense).

If so, then that would go some way to explain the following...

Do most Americans believe in toppling totalitarian regimes that it finds to be immoral?

If so, then you are abusing your position of power to force your subjective point of view, valid as it may be for your own society, on another, who has no experience, culturally or historically with democracy. Our disdain for totalitarianism is subjective. Their totalitarianism is subjective. The objective thing to do is not to force one subjective over another.

The objective thing to do would be to let it be. If you wish the Iraqi society the best success, then you should not have gone in all guns blazing (in a figurative and literal sense), but instead have worked with the existing government, using compromise and diplomacy to help a gradual change. Obviously this requires some wounds to be healed, but history has shown cooperation to be far superior to competition when it comes to solving a problem.

If the Iraqis dont want your help, as their current reaction would seem to indicate, then you should not have anything to do with that nation.

I doubt somehow that America is concerned with defeating totalitarianism, considering that it is, and has been friendly with totalitarian regimes for so long, in order to achieve its ends. Neocolonialism and globalisation have shown that, look at General Soeharto in Indonesia.

How many people in the West are aware of the massacre of innocent communist civilians in 1965-66, in which over 1 million, some estimates say 2 million people died (a scale simliar to the holocaust). How many people in the West are aware that the CIA provided the names of many of these victims, because these people were opposed to US companies moving in and exploiting the cheap workforce.

How many people in the West, before the '90s, were aware that for decades, women and children as young as 6 were forced into 18 hour days, salaries per day that I could earn in 10 minutes, under armed guard with no rest breaks.

How many people in America knew that these poor souls were working for US companies, who, and that nation, were growing fat of the blood, sweat and tears of these people (these conditions have hence been described as sweatshops).

No, I doubt that America has no problem with totalitarianism, especially since it is introducing draconian measures at home with the USA PATRIOT act. Its as egocentric, as short sighted, and as PR'd as the name suggests. Its to the extend that it gives unprecedented power to the government and intelligence to spy on its own citizens. Almost.... communist isnt it!

I think the founding fathers would turn in their graves.

Speaking of graves, the many mass graves found in Iraq, are terrible indeed, no-one is denying that, but that is NO justification to go in and force ones will on another, another example of anti-libertarianism on an international scale, that I doubt the likes of Franklin and Washington would approve of.

The Iraqi people made two attempts to overthrow Saddam Hussein, both failed because the Americans refused to help (the political and economic timing was not right). Since those attempts, Saddams regime had loosened somewhat its control over the people, still totalitarian, still deplorable IMO, but the people did not rise up, although they now had a little more opportunity to do so. The reaction of the Iraqi people now would seem to confirm this, as would the disdain held in the Muslim world towards the Americans and British after these acts. It is ironic, but entirely probably that far from dealing a blow in the war on terrorism, America and Britain have generated more.

Terrorism is an odd one. A people, feeling oppressed (the perception and objective act of oppression are the same to victim), at a severe tactical disadvantage. They have no aircraft carriers, no jets, no body armour, no tanks. All they have is desperation and pain and years of pent up aggression to those who would oppress them. Understanding the human condition, it is surely not suprising that they resort to terrorism. I am not condoning it, I merely understand it, which is something I recommend our respective governments to do.

The Wests hatred of terrorism is in part due to the fact that billion dollar warships will not stop a few determined individuals, and that it is showing that all are not happy with their PR, their ruthless capitalism, their corporate ethics, and their pain free existence for a lucky few.

One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Two subjectives. The objective solution that is best in the long term? Not to force one over the other, but to understand the phenomenon, and change the conditions that create it. That requires a hefty foreign policy and culture shift, but it will be better in the long run.

Do the Americans believe that they can act as the worlds policeman?

The UN is the body set up to deal with this. It is objective, as all police should be, it is multi-national, as all international forces should be, and it is experiences, which is needed in these situations.

The US has the power to circumvent the UN, of that there can be no doubt. The question is, whether it is justified to do this, to disregard the policeman and take the law into its own hands (and interpretation), and become a vigilante, a sort of 800 pound gorilla that can sit anywhere it wants, never mind the undergrowth.

Yes, this is world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.

By the way, I do believe that if the survival of the USA was threatened, then France would help. However, the survival of the US is not threatened by terrorism. Look at the word.

Terror -ism. A weapon for causing terror, not damage. For scaring the people, making them paranoid, fearful, knee-jerk reactions to justify more terrorism. In this sense, the Americans have played right into the hands of the terrorists. America is a big nation. It is a rich, resourceful nation. It can repair the damage from sporadic attacks. Terrorism is more of a thorn in its side, not a gunshot to the chest.

Terrorism, even state sponsored, is a weapon of an oppressed people. It is not military. Aircraft carriers cant fight it. Warplanes cant fight it, tanks cant fight it, and infantry cannot fight it (efficiently). What can fight it? Good internel security, good intelligence, and a foreign policy that does not incite it. Of course, this does not win votes... or oil.

Saddam Hussein has been stockpiling oil for decades. You want an explanation for the recent slump in oil prices? Its the expectation that there will be a huge glut of oil mysteriously appearing from the Americans, who as soon as they get their sanctions lifted, will sell this oil. At this cheaper price, US companies will move in, signing contracts with oil producers.

Cheap oil, and lots of it. What more could a society that lives on black gold want?

Meantime, the money generated will go into the UN trust fund, no doubt. It will be less than what it could be. Meantime, the reconstruction of Iraq will be paid for by this oil, whereas it should be the invading nation who pays reparations to repair their damage.

Surely Bush's mother taught him that if he makes a mess, he clears it up.

HershOstropoler · May 17, 2003, 17:33

Look Ned, you are spouting so much historical bullshit that it almost hurts physically.

"the French alone among our allies wanted to keep their colonies."

And Britain, after the decolonization of India in 1947, had a strategy of maintaining its colonies west of Suez.

"The fought in Africa and in SE Asia. They retook the Suez canal."

And Britain had nothing to do with the Suez adventure? Britain was not fighting in say Kenya?

"our overall policy was still anti-colonialism"

Yes, you always preferred indirect control as a method of imperialism. Usually it is the better way.

chequita guevara · May 17, 2003, 17:34

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand

How many did Hussein kill?
Or are you going to deny the legitimacy of that, too ?

Hussein certainly killed a lot of people. He was a horrible monster. That doesn't mean that people are necessarily better off than before. They can be just as bad off but in a different way. No instead of having to worry about the knock at the door in the night, they have to worry about cholera or the fact that the hospitals were totally overwhelmed by the invasion and simply have no capacity to help Iraqis anymore (though they certainly went out of their way to help Jessica Lynch).

We can't even be sure that the future of Iraq will be better, since the most likley outcome is a fundimentalist Shi'ite state.

SlowwHand · May 17, 2003, 17:34

How much time did it take you to type out a dissertation filled with crap?

Should I dismantle point-by-point, or leave that to Doc, who won't be as nice in doing it ?

chequita guevara · May 17, 2003, 17:35

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
...che?

Yes?

Lefty Scaevola · May 17, 2003, 17:35

Quote:

Originally posted by elijah
If so, bare in mind that France was the mother (post greek) of that system (in the modern sense).

Seriously defective on your history. The first French republic was 16 years after the USA republic, and there was much more democratic process under the British contituional monarchary, more than a centruy earlier, than their was under most forms of the French First Repubic.

The Mad Monk · May 17, 2003, 17:36

Really? What parts of French democracy did we pick up?

I think you're selling your own traditions short.