or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › French foreign minister speaks out
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

French foreign minister speaks out - Page 5

post #161 of 369
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1998-2002Feb12.html" target="_blank">As Good As Doctrine Gets</a>

[quote] Assume that George W. Bush is serious about projecting force around the world to eliminate the threat from states that meet three criteria: institutional hostility to the United States and to a liberal respect for life, liberty and law; support for anti-American terrorists; and a demonstrated hunger for weapons of mass destruction. Is this a good idea?

I would argue that Bush's new doctrine is as good as doctrine generally gets -- necessary and workable, although not perfect. The chief points for the "axis of evil" doctrine may be seen in considering the chief points against it:

It is "simplisme." It is simplistic, or simple-minded, as the French foreign minister, whose name is Petain or Maginot or something, sniffed last week. C'est vrai. It is indeed "simplisme" to pick fights with evil regimes just because those regimes want to kill you or enslave you or at least force you to knuckle under and collaborate in their evil, when one might choose the far safer and far more profitable path of shrugging one's shoulders in a fetchingly Gallic fashion and sending one's Jews off to the camps, as one's new masters in government request.

On the other hand, as the foreign minister might have noticed, the French may today enjoy springtime in Paris without the annoying sounds of jackboots all over the place, and the reason for that was the simple-minded determination of the British, the Russians and the Americans to fight the Nazis and to die by the millions, in order to make the world safe for, among other creatures, future French foreign ministers. "Simplisme" works. Against evil, it is the only thing that does.

It is a confusion between war and police work. This argument holds that terrorism is a crime (as opposed to the official belligerence of a state) and that the terrorist groups we wish to destroy are criminal enterprises (as opposed to states), so war (which is between states) is wrongheaded. Yes, terrorists are criminals. But they are, in specific cases, state-sanctioned and -supported. The specific cases involve, as Bush noted, the states of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. The state support of terrorism vastly magnifies its threat. Without the Taliban and Afghanistan, al Qaeda would have been an evil without a country -- fundamentally vulnerable, weak, baseless. Terrorists supported and hidden by nations enjoy not only the wealth of nations but also the protection of nations: They enjoy a shield of sovereignty that effectively puts them outside the law of other nations -- outside the realm of police forces and courts.

Only military force can pierce this shield (the Hague got Slobodan Milosevic in the end, but only because the U.S. Air Force got him first). It is not possible to end terrorism. It is possible to end the state support that raises terrorism's danger to levels that threaten other states. But only by going after the states: war, not police patrols.

Our allies will abandon us. However will we manage without the Saudi navy? Yes, they will abandon us -- until it is clear we have won. This will work out fine.

The Arab Street will rise in flames. The "street" in any given Arab country consists of 278 state-sanctioned mullahs already preaching death to the Americans and the Jews, five state-controlled newspaper opinion columnists preaching ditto, 577,000 state security officers making sure nobody says anything to the contrary and 73 million people who would very much like to be living in New Jersey. In Kabul, they cheered and kissed our soldiers. In Baghdad, they'd love to have the chance.

Ground troops, quagmire, body bags. Amazing, the power of cliche. Of the past six American adventures in force, four -- the Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan this year -- largely if imperfectly succeeded. In each success, doomsayers had predicted failure on the grounds that wars cannot be won from the air and cannot be won by superior technology. And so they cannot -- fully. But they can be won enough -- when you have armed forces that are by an order of magnitude technologically superior to the armed forces of the rest of the world.

It is dangerous, expensive and may end in disaster. True. But what is the better alternative?
<hr></blockquote>
post #162 of 369
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>...

Part of what has alienated these countries is not whether the 'axis' countries are doing bad things and are dangerous or not, nor is it whether something more active should be done in relation to them or not, but is, that America is threatening to move forward without any consensus of international scope, and doing so with a justification which definitely sounds more like a fanatical's call to arms than that of the leader of the most technologicaly advanced nation in the world.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well you're just wrong. The US can't/won't/doesn't have to wait for a timid France to come around. We have to protect ourselves before 9-11 happens again. Al Queda (sp?) are said to be regrouping in Iran. What are we to do? Ask France for permission to act? That only gets more Americans killed. Iraq is known to be making nukes. What are we to? Wait until the drop one on the Jews to do something? France is willing to wait. I'm sure the Jews aren't.
post #163 of 369
sure the US is willing to wait, as long as the genocide isnt happening on its soil.

Al Quaeda has been active for over 10 years. The taliban have been torturing women and men alike in Afghanistan since 1997. Did the US give a shit? No. There's a pipeline to be built. And I know France didn't do anything, that's not the point.
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
post #164 of 369
[quote]Originally posted by SYN:
<strong>
Al Quaeda has been active for over 10 years. The taliban have been torturing women and men alike in Afghanistan since 1997. Did the US give a shit? No. There's a pipeline to be built. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Remind me again why you think you are so well informed. Unocal's hoped-for trans Afghan pipeline project had unraveled by 1998. How is a failed pipeline proposal an explanation for anything? And the French think President Bush is simplistic!

This is from <a href="http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.HTM" target="_blank">testimony</a> given on FEBRUARY 12, 1998 before the Committee on International Relations. Robert W. Gee, Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Energy gave testimony. (There were only two other witnesses before the committee, Unocal's Chairman John J. Maresca and Professor S. Frederick Starr of Johns Hopkins University.)

Nebraska Congressman Doug Bereuter (chairman of the Subcommittee) began:

[quote]... Stated U.S. policy goals regarding energy resources in this region include fostering the independence of the States and their ties to the West; breaking Russia's monopoly over oil and gas transport routes; promoting Western energy security through diversified suppliers; encouraging the construction of east-west pipelines that do not transit Iran; and denying Iran dangerous leverage over the Central Asian economies...

... Central Asia would seem to offer significant new investment opportunities for a broad range of American companies which, in turn, will serve as a valuable stimulus to the economic development of the region... It is essential that U.S. policymakers understand the stakes involved in Central Asia as we seek to craft a policy that serves the interests of the United States and U.S. business.

On the other hand, some question the importance of the region to U.S. interests, and dispute the significance of its resources to U.S. national security interests. Others caution that it will take a great deal of time and money to bring these resources to world markets. Still others point to civil and ethnic conflicts in Tajikistan and Afghanistan as a reason to avoid involvement beyond a minimal diplomatic presence in the area...<hr></blockquote>

Mr. Robert W. Gee testifies:

[quote]... Four factors frame our policy. First, promoting multiple export routes. The Administration's policy is centered on rapid development of the region's resources and the transportation and sale of those resources to hard-currency markets to secure the independence of these new countries. Accordingly, our government has promoted the development of multiple pipelines and diversified infrastructure networks to open and integrate these countries into the global market and to foster regional cooperation.

We have given priority to supporting efforts by the regional governments themselves and the private sector to develop and improve east-west trade linkages and infrastructure networks through Central Asia and the Caucasus. A Eurasian energy transport corridor incorporating a trans-Caspian segment with a route from Baku, Azerbaijan, through the Caucasus and Turkey to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan is inclusive, providing benefits to transit as well as energy-producing countries...

... In general, we support those transportation solutions that are commercially viable and address our environmental concerns and policy objectives. Based on discussions with the companies involved, a Baku-Ceyhan pipeline appears to be the most viable option. We have urged the Turks to take steps to make Baku-Ceyhan a commercially attractive option. For our part, we are also looking at steps the United States can take to provide political risk guarantees and to foster cooperation among the regional States on an approach that can lead to a regional solution for the longer term...<hr></blockquote>

In other words, by this testimony it's obvious that the Afghan option wasn't very high on the list.

[quote]<strong>And I know France didn't do anything, that's not the point.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Of course it's not the point. The only point of your posts is to criticize the U.S.

[ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #165 of 369
SYN said:
sure the US is willing to wait, as long as the genocide isnt happening on its soil.

Seriously, do you think if something like 9/11 or a direct attack happened to one of our (US) allies we would just sit twiddling our thumbs singing "doodoodoo duhroo doodoodoo duhroo....". Hell no and you know it. Even if they attacked France we would come help you guys counter attack and protect your people (probably while being spat upon in Paris but spit doesn't kill).
post #166 of 369
[quote]Originally posted by SYN:
<strong>sure the US is willing to wait, as long as the genocide isnt happening on its soil.

Al Quaeda has been active for over 10 years. The taliban have been torturing women and men alike in Afghanistan since 1997. Did the US give a shit? No. There's a pipeline to be built. And I know France didn't do anything, that's not the point.</strong><hr></blockquote>

France did nothing to. That is the point. They didn't ask us to do anything either. But your here now to point fingers.

Also your insinuation that the US did nothing because they wanted an oil pipeline is an insult. You have no PROOF (i keep asking for it and get none) that that's the case.

But that's how people like you work. Toss a bunch of shit on the wall and hope some sticks.

[ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
post #167 of 369
The points of my post is not to criticize the US. My point is to demonstrate that the US is not flawless, that it is not the end all be all of all countries, that the world does not revolve around it.

ScottH you're getting tiring with your proof requests, ignoring them everytime I point you to proof. I've pointed out links, book references etc.

The pipeline and other economical interests of the US in Afghanistan that (in part, of course, one has to be moderate and reasoned) are responsible for the US not acting earlier (because and in fact also paradoxically acting so quickly (ie the war against the taliban has been planned ever since Bush got elected regarding that pipeline) is here:

Ben Laden, la vérité interdite

<a href="http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/ASIN/2207253201/qid%3D/sr%3D1-21/402-6013799-4678531" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/ASIN/2207253201/qid%3D/sr%3D1-21/402-6013799-4678531</a>

written by an ex CIA agent along with a former aid to some american senator.

I shit you not.

And this is not the average ex-CIA-cold-war-nostalgic-in-desperate-need-for-money kind of book either, it was proeminently featured in Le Monde.

This proof will of course get dismissed by ScottH, just like the fact that a few days ago a missile was fire at a convoy in afghanistan on the sole asumption that one of the men was quite tall and seemed to be treated as a chief, thus it could have been ben laden. To this day though, the US is still not sure.

Now to make my points very clear:

I could criticize in that manner any country in the world, including France. I admire the US just like I admire other countries on certain aspects. However, I critized the US here because I saw people it is better than country Y, or that the world revolves around it, or even that country W is irrelevant.
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
post #168 of 369
[quote]The points of my post is not to criticize the US. My point is to demonstrate that the US is not flawless, that it is not the end all be all of all countries, that the world does not revolve around it.<hr></blockquote>

It demonstrates that the U.S isn't flawless, yes, but no one claimed that the U.S. was flawless.

The U.S. is still the most important nation in the world, despite this. What other nation spends so much time in foreign media?

Obviously, that importance to each individual person changes, but as a whole, the U.S. is the top dog, I don't even know why this is disputed.

[quote]The pipeline and other economical interests of the US in Afghanistan that (in part, of course, one has to be moderate and reasoned) are responsible for the US not acting earlier<hr></blockquote>

Or maybe because the had given us no provocation?
Is that even a possibility?

Would it have been wise for us to start blowing Taliban sites up in Afghanistan in 1999 because they were being naughty to women?

[quote]because and in fact also paradoxically acting so quickly<hr></blockquote>

Thousands of our civilians were killed. That may be a small reason that we attacked them "so quickly" (correct me if I'm wrong, but it was at least an entire month if not more of enduring Taliban uncooperativeness).

[quote](ie the war against the taliban has been planned ever since Bush got elected regarding that pipeline)<hr></blockquote>

Help me understand what you're saying here, SYN:

First you say that we didn't do anything in Afghanistan because we wanted the pipeline.
Now you say that Bush planned on attacking Afghanistan pre-9/11 because of the pipeline.

Are you just making things up as you go along?

Which is it?

[quote]However, I critized the US here because I saw people it is better than country Y, or that the world revolves around it, or even that country W is irrelevant.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

I don't remember anyone saying the U.S. is "better" than any other nation. But it is the most important nation and the world and, as far as this situation goes, quite a few nations are irrelevant.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #169 of 369
My point is to demonstrate that the US is not flawless, that it is not the end all be all of all countries, that the world does not revolve around it.

I don't know.. for the last 50 years, it seems like it has...
post #170 of 369
[quote]Originally posted by glurx:
<strong>On the other hand, as the foreign minister might have noticed, the French may today enjoy springtime in Paris without the annoying sounds of jackboots all over the place, and the reason for that was the simple-minded determination of the British, the Russians and the Americans to fight the Nazis and to die by the millions, in order to make the world safe for, among other creatures, future French foreign ministers. "Simplisme" works. Against evil, it is the only thing that does.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some precisions about WW2 are needed.
there where a treaty including France , Great britain with Poland.
Germany invade Poland, and therefore Great britain and France attack germany to respect the treaty. At this time russia was with Germany, and USA was neutral even if is president was for the war but the publical opinion was not ready (before sending your sons to the death you have to think it twice).
Quickly germany invade France and defeat french and great britain army. The rest of the great britain army rejoing great britain, France capitulate : vichy governement with Petain.
Then germany attack russia, who become allies of France and Great Britain after have being his ennemy (one said that STaline did that in order to have more time to organize his defense). Japan attack USA in 1941 (japan was the allies of germany) . USA attack japan and become immediatly the ennemy of germany too. The us president was happy of that because he see there a good occasion to stop the nazis and to have the public opinion with him.

ManyÂ*historians have said that Great britain and French know that they where not able to defeat germany and should have done nothing to help polland. I am proud that both Great britain and France respected the treaty, even if France loose.
post #171 of 369
It pains me to see, as in one of teh posts above, that Americans just think that the French hate them and that they spit on us. THat is stupid and wrong, and it creates a feeling here in the states that its OK to hate the French: I know many French people and citizens that like America and Americans . . . and it saddens me that a general appeal to well rounded rhetoric should foster this kind of reactionariness.

There is an interesting article in todays Times which really says what I think: in it, there are South Koreans responding to the Bush Rhetoric: they know that something is correct about what he says, but, they KNOW that the way he said it was wrong, and do not like the fact that there was no talk with them before he 'shouted' his phrase.

THey feel that it jeopardizes the 'Sunshine' policy which is the one thing that the head of SKorea is most proud of having accomplished.

They know that NKorea is sevirely 'Evil', but that calling names and threatening will only do two things: one, it will warn them not to mess (which is the good side) and two; it will close off what gains have been made as far as exchange of information and openness and dialogue. and. further increase their (NK's) sense of isolation and need for defensiveness . . . this isn't just mamby pamby psychologisms here, this is the reality of delicate foreign policy...a subtle thinking is needed not 'drunken shouts'

So, if you look backon all the addendums that I have posted in this thread you will see that perhaps the only country that hasn't voiced some form of disaproval of Bush's phrasing is probably Venezuela.... but they seem a little distracted right now.

By the way, if anybody doesn't know how bad Nkorea is, they should read Pico Iyer's travell book about lonely places (title?): it has a great chapter describing life in a truly Orwellian Nightmare.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #172 of 369
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>There is an interesting article in todays Times which really says what I think: in it, there are South Koreans responding to the Bush Rhetoric: they know that something is correct about what he says, but, they KNOW that the way he said it was wrong, and do not like the fact that there was no talk with them before he 'shouted' his phrase.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The Times coverage of Iran was shown to be bias. The refused to publish the full story because they are pushing their agenda. Why would we trust coverage on Korea now?
post #173 of 369
Scott is that supposed to be a responce?!?!?

As far as the Times goes, it is a very balanced newspaper: consevative at times as well as liberal.... but mainly its reporting a real attitude that I have also seen reported in other sources: the other time I made note of South Korea's responce and you asked it it was a joke . . . I wasn't pulling out of my hat, though I neglected to site a source its still true . . .

don't forget that Japan also feels like SKorea -- that he was right in content but wrong in timing and approach. Something that is potentailly very serious


besides the fact that it is revealing as far as teh over-all attitude of the administration . . . in the same way that the BJ of Clinton revealed a personality defficit with regards to his sex-life: (too healthy for its own good ?!?)
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #174 of 369
The Times is bias. They select on what to cover and how to spin the story. They'll give you the half of the news that they want you to hear. How are we to know what Japan and S. Korea realy feel when we can't trust the times to get the full story?
post #175 of 369
No, your skirting the issue. Other sources have concurred, do I need to go in search . . . can't you respond to the point and not the source?!

What would you offer as alternative: USA today
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #176 of 369
that's quit typical of ScottH. First denial, then when presented with proof, he walks on to some other subject.

[quote] The U.S. is still the most important nation in the world, despite this. What other nation spends so much time in foreign media? <hr></blockquote>

This makes it the most important nation? It's the most proeminent, sure, it's the loudest, yes, but that's it.

[quote] Or maybe because the had given us no provocation?
Is that even a possibility?

Would it have been wise for us to start blowing Taliban sites up in Afghanistan in 1999 because they were being naughty to women? <hr></blockquote>

Aside from not recognizing the taliban government, the US didn't exactly help massood or the northern alliance earlier. In fact, it helped the taliban drive massood out of Kabul in 97, as reported in "Massood, L'afghan". There's a thousand things the US could have done that it didn't. The VietKong didn't exactly provoke the US, nor did Cuba.

[quote] Help me understand what you're saying here, SYN:

First you say that we didn't do anything in Afghanistan because we wanted the pipeline.
Now you say that Bush planned on attacking Afghanistan pre-9/11 because of the pipeline.

Are you just making things up as you go along?<hr></blockquote>

No.

The taliban came to power in 97 amidst chaos and civil war, in part with the help of the US.

Ever since, the US has been negotiating for this pipeline, and other things (Afghanistan, for those that hadn't ever heard of the country prior to 9/11, is a very gas/oil rich country).

However, it became apparent circa Bush coming to power that the negotiations were going nowhere.

Thus the Bush administration started making up a plan to oust the Taliban.

Have I made myself clear this time? English is not my first language, so be tolerant.
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
post #177 of 369
[quote]Originally posted by SYN:
<strong>that's quit typical of ScottH. First denial, then when presented with proof, he walks on to some other subject.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Typical? Since when have I failed to come back. If you want to speed me on my was proved a link to a book in english.
post #178 of 369
[quote]Seriously, do you think if something like 9/11 or a direct attack happened to one of our (US) allies we would just sit twiddling our thumbs singing "doodoodoo duhroo doodoodoo duhroo....". <hr></blockquote>

That's not what I'm saying. However, historically:

a) The US didn't act in WWII until Pearl Harbor
b) The debt of Kuwait to the US ($ speaking) because of the Gulf War could almost make it the 51st state.
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
post #179 of 369
Syn you need to stop reading French tabloid reporters and also Indy Media.


<a href="http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20011015.html" target="_blank">http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20011015.html</a>
post #180 of 369
post #181 of 369
[quote]Originally posted by SYN:
<strong>
... The pipeline and other economical interests of the US in Afghanistan that (in part, of course, one has to be moderate and reasoned) are responsible for the US not acting earlier (because and in fact also paradoxically acting so quickly (ie the war against the taliban has been planned ever since Bush got elected regarding that pipeline) is here:

Ben Laden, la vérité interdite...

written by an ex CIA agent along with a former aid to some american senator.

I shit you not.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, yes you are shitting us. Why would a book written by an ex CIA agent and an aid to a US Senator be written in French and not in English?
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #182 of 369
[quote]Typical? Since when have I failed to come back. If you want to speed me on my was proved a link to a book in english.<hr></blockquote>

Why? Are books in french not relevant? Are you so brain-washed that not only do you want the references, the author being clearly competent, the books listed being featured in arguably France's most respectable newspaper, but you also want to be able to pretend that you read it?

I think I've prooved my points enough. Clearly, I'm well versed in American culture, something you can't even begin to pretend to be. Now I'm waiting for your come-back, because it's been a while since I've heard something substancial from you. Perhaps you've understood, by realizing that this (interesting) debate is going pretty well with other Americans here, even though I disagree with them, and that your constant trash-talking has no effect whatsoever outside a basketball court and in the real world when faced with people over 13.

Bring it on. I appreciate the patriotism of groverat or outsider, because it personifies what pride in one's nation should be. Yours on the other hand is just blind zealotry. 2M3R1C4 R0XX!!! FR4NC3 SuX0Rz!!


Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
post #183 of 369
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:

<strong>It pains me to see, as in one of teh posts above, that Americans just think that the French hate them and that they spit on us...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't think the French hate us but clearly SYN does. He says things that aren't true and expects us to "buy into" his poorly researched fantasies. It's more than a little contemptible.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #184 of 369
[quote] Well, yes you are shitting us. Why would a book written by an ex CIA agent and an aid to a US Senator be written in French and not in English?<hr></blockquote>

Perhaps because those people were not competent enough to write a book of this scope and they needed a journalist with the righting skills, and were fearing prosecution in the US?

Your point is ridiculous.
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
post #185 of 369
I DON'T KNOW FRENCH! I TOOK LATIN AND SOME SPANISH IN SCHOOL!
post #186 of 369
[quote]Originally posted by SYN:
<strong>
Why? Are books in french not relevant?</strong><hr></blockquote>

No. It's just that if it was written by an ex-CIA person and a US Senator's aid it doesn't make sense that there isn't an English version.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #187 of 369
[quote]Originally posted by SYN:
<strong>
Perhaps because those people were not competent enough to write a book of this scope and they needed a journalist with the righting skills, and were fearing prosecution in the US?

Your point is ridiculous.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Prosecution in the US? For a book? Who is being ridiculous?
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #188 of 369
[quote] I don't think the French hate us but clearly SYN does. He says things that aren't true and expects us to "buy into" his poorly researched fantasies. It's more than a little contemptible.<hr></blockquote>

I don't hate any nation, I'm not that short sighted. I've said it before, and I'd say it again, I admire the US. I don't think a corporation like Apple could have existed outside the US.

Calling my facts poorly researched fantasies, or repeating "Proof! PROOF! ****ING PROOF" does not make the false.

You on the other hand, insisting that the USSR came down because of a Reagan speech, have indeed made a fool out of yourself.
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
post #189 of 369
[quote]Prosecution in the US? For a book? Who is being ridiculous?<hr></blockquote>

I said perhaps, I'm making asumptions.

If this book was shyte, it wouldn't have been featured in Le Monde.
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
post #190 of 369
The autor's name is Jean-Charles Brisard.

I'm making the asumption he's french.

Of course, only you would assume an aid to a senator is obviously american... [quote] Prosecution in the US? For a book? Who is being ridiculous?<hr></blockquote>

And I'm no lawyer, but wouldn't divulging state secrets be a crime in the US????

[ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: SYN ]</p>
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
post #191 of 369
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
There is an interesting article in todays Times which really says what I think: in it, there are South Koreans responding to the Bush Rhetoric: they know that something is correct about what he says, but, they KNOW that the way he said it was wrong, and do not like the fact that there was no talk with them before he 'shouted' his phrase.

THey feel that it jeopardizes the 'Sunshine' policy which is the one thing that the head of SKorea is most proud of having accomplished.

They know that NKorea is sevirely 'Evil', but that calling names and threatening will only do two things: one, it will warn them not to mess (which is the good side) and two; it will close off what gains have been made as far as exchange of information and openness and dialogue. and. further increase their (NK's) sense of isolation and need for defensiveness . . . this isn't just mamby pamby psychologisms here, this is the reality of delicate foreign policy...a subtle thinking is needed not 'drunken shouts'...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Complaining about Bush's rhetoric you describe it as "drunken shouts". In another post you described him as a demagogue. Physician, heal thyself.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #192 of 369
Here's one reader review translated by alta-vista

[quote]Like all the books having for source the secret service, this one swarms with new indications, very precise, but impossible to check. What is awkward, on the other hand, they are glaring errors, as that which consists in saying that prince Turki Al Fayçal is the son of king Saoud, whereas, as its name indicates it, it is that of king Fayçal. In the same way, it is a nonsense of saying that Turki belongs to the clan of Soudayri. A beautiful blow of edition, but the rigour is not with go.<hr></blockquote>
post #193 of 369
I think, unfortunately that the point has been sidetracked by what I have to agree are unproductive allegations about some sort of US responcibility for 911 . . . .

I think that 911 IS more complex than simply they did it, we are completely copletely innocent . . . but we are not to blame


The point was: the rhetoric is inapropriate and it may mirror an inapropriate course of action on the part of the US . . . in many people's eyes.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #194 of 369
[quote]Originally posted by SYN:
<strong>
Of course, only you would assume an aid to a senator is obviously american... </strong><hr></blockquote>

I made no such assumption. You wrote: "written by an ex CIA agent along with a former aid to some american senator. " Now I confess that I am assuming that such an aid would be proficient in English. I see no reason why such an assumption would be reckless...
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #195 of 369
No. The point is that these countries for too long have skated by and gotten high marks from the corrupted world judges, France et al.. Finaly someone called them what they are. It helps a lot.
post #196 of 369
wrong thread scott. . . . and if not, then a really bad analogue
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #197 of 369
I don't think so. Why nomalize relations with terrorist states? Since the state of the union these countries have been on thier heals. They have not changed. They will not change. So why bother to place nice and why not call it like we see it? Like it is?
post #198 of 369
Is this the book that quotes Dubya as saying, "Give us the carpet of gold or we will give you a carpet of bombs." and other such Satanic-sounding things?

I remember the fervor a few months ago.

Conspiracy books, movies, thoughts, pamphlets, etc... are allowed in the U.S.
We have that "freedom of the press" thing.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #199 of 369
You guys ougta knock off the French bashing. I mean really, aren't there more important and obvious injustices that demand our attention?

SYN obviously does not hate America, no matter how you provoke him. He hasn't taken the bait, so why not lay off?

I was intrigued by this quote from Scott's link:
[quote]Up until 1997-1998, the US government's position on the Taliban was muddled and at times came close to tacit support. Why? Soskis cites a lack of good intelligence; deference to Pakistan, a key ally which backed the Taliban; hope for stability in the region and, possibly, a crackdown on opium production; and, finally, the possibility of building the pipeline.<hr></blockquote>

Talk about a mess...my favorite is the "crackdown on opium production." Apparently the herion supplies are now disrupted, but never under the Taliban...
post #200 of 369
The Sunshine policy was by no means normalization, in the sense of treating NKorea as just a 'normal' country . . . it had the benefit of continued vigilance but with the sideline of offering teh possibility that the NKoreans could see a little of what they are missing, and policy might therein be effected.

And it sure wasn't tis useless provocation.

as far as 'shout' goes, that was the phrase used by the Iranian . . . also hyperbolic and guilty as charged.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › French foreign minister speaks out