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

French foreign minister speaks out - Page 7

post #241 of 369
[quote] Hmmm. The pipeline was not possible BECAUSE of the Taliban and yet the US chose not to intervene. Obviously the Afghan pipeline was no longer something that was being seriously pursued. And yet you make it central to the US's motives. From my first reply to you I knew this was a waste of time...<hr></blockquote>

because things cannot change in 3 years?

I've not made it central to the US' motives. Yet again you fail to see the scope of what happened. I know very well there are thousands of things that have influenced the US foreign policy throughout the years, most of which we can't even begin to fathom. You're the only one capable of saying en empire came down because it was called evil...All I'm saying is this pipeline was one of the major issues that influenced the US policy, Afghanistan's natural ressources have attracted the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and now the US.

Anyways, the debate has drifted far, far away from where it should have. You've failed to demonstrate any level-headedness whatsoever regarding the US foreign policy. And this is exactly why I posted in the first place. Even ScottH has returned to his calm, level-headed state... And you get to vote...
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
post #242 of 369
As far as I know there is NO oil in Afghanistan. Some people want to run a pipe to the port in Pakistan. THAT'S the real reason the Soviets wanted it. Because they wanted a warm water port to that ocean. You'd know that if you'd do a little research of your own and stop parroting what you read in your anti-US web sites.

Think for yourself for once.

[ 02-16-2002: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
post #243 of 369
SYN:

You have thrown far more off-subject personal attacks around than roger_ramjet, if you wish to ascribe blame for this thread derailing then you need to look no farther than yourself.

--

The support the United States recieved for her actions in Afghanistan were amazingly weak. Timo, I don't know if that article (the one under the picture of Chirac) is supposed to dissuade me because it seems to make my point entirely valid. It was 20 days after thousands of our citizens had been brutally murdered that our "allies" were demanding things of us before we acted to go after those that attacked us.

I don't remember us demanding proof of Germany's actions against France before we sent hundreds of thousands of men to defend her and die for their troubles.
(I can just hear FDR: "I haven't yet seen video of Hitler saying, 'I am responsible for the attacks on France.' so we're just going to hold off for a little longer until we can get all the facts straightened out.")

And I don't mind that they are slow-footed and weak, that's fine with me. They can deliberate and appease and procrastinate all their lives if they like, but there's no way I'll give creedence to the words of those who offer such conditions on their support for their "allies".
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #244 of 369
<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson021502.shtml" target="_blank">Parallel Universe</a>
A Parody.

By Victor Davis Hanson

[quote]Paris, September 11, 2001

Reuters reported today that unknown terrorists have crashed three Air France jetliners into the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre. Preliminary reports suggest that the Eiffel Tower collapsed a few minutes after the attack, followed an hour later by a massive explosion at the Louvre.

Nablus, Palestine, September 12 - "Chirac Livid"

While visiting Chairman Arafat in occupied Palestine, the French President Jacques Chirac fired off a firm response to yesterday's suicide bombings: "At attack on us is an attack on the culture of all of Europe. The world shall soon see the fury of an aroused European Union. We shall either have an apology - or, my God, we shall have war!"

Paris, September 20 - "The EU Strikes Back"

EU Foreign Minister Policy Chief Javier Solana outlined a "radical agenda" of "punitive" measures to "bring to immediate justice" the terrorist architects of the 9/11 massacres. It was resolved by the EU to: (1) cease immediately all flights between Kabul and the European capitals; (2) insist on a boycott of all Afghani products; (3) freeze all assets of the Taliban government currently in French banks; (4) issue warrants for Mr. bin Laden and his top lieutenants to turn themselves in at the World Court at the Hague; (5) introduce a binding resolution at the United Nations calling for "global condemnation of terrorism;" (6) demand a "full accounting" from the Pakistani and Saudi Ministers of State as to the complicity of their nationals in the affairs of September 11; (7) expel immediately any al Qaeda members from all EU territory.

Paris, October 7 - "NATO Is Shoulder-to-Shoulder"

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, visiting the still-smoldering craters, sounded a sober and judicious note about invoking Article V of the NATO Charter. "It has been less than a month since that dastardly act. This is no time for precipitate heroics at the expense of careful consultation. We are in full agreement with our allies that we must be very careful about assessing blame until all the facts are in. Although our French friends postulate that Mr. bin Laden is a suspect, there is as yet no real proof of his culpability. The last thing the Europeans want us to do is, like reckless Texas cowboys, to send in a bunch of F-16s to aggravate an already-delicate situation in the Middle East. Leadership, not braggadocio, is America's role in all of this."

Rumsfeld noted that, despite the destruction of nearly 20 acres in the heart of Paris, "The French people are nuanced enough to know that this act of depravity may well have no real military solution. It really is a much deeper problem arising out of postcolonial poverty and historical grievances about Europe's past imperial presence abroad."

And in yet still another show of solidarity, Rumsfeld promised that the United States "would cede to the greater French expertise in a region historically better known to its former colonial powers." Dismissing rumors that the United States might help to transport French ground troops to Afghanistan or allow French pilots to use American carriers, Rumsfeld nevertheless left his French hosts without any doubt of "full" American support: "No French diplomat, good golly, thinks that you can solve something like this by sending in B-52s and Special Forces to bomb a bunch of caves."

Paris, December 24, 2001 - "Enough Pain to Go Around"

Ex-President Clinton, who earlier toured Ground Zero on Christmas Eve, expressed his deep-felt sorrow to the French people in an impromptu address at the Sorbonne. "The tragedy is that I was hours away from getting bin Laden, anticipating throughout my administration just such an event. Had the Congress passed my anti-terror legislation we would have had 100,000 federal marshals at every world capital to stop this nonsense."

Clinton, Europe's best-loved American president, then in polite tones of admonition reminded his hushed audience in both French and English, "L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers. So we must conceptualize barbarity in its proper historical landscape. Your gallant Gallic hands nevertheless also have been equally bloodthirsty. In the not too-distant past Vercingetorix in some sense was a terrorist himself. And we are all big enough to recall that not long ago the Franks - both at Poitiers and then on Crusade most recently in Jerusalem - butchered thousands of Muslims. So we are seeing a historical context of past grievance married to the more recent colonial fallout from Algeria. No one is perfect. We all grieve. There is pain. Pain there is all around."

Brussels, November 11 - "Anchors Away"

The EU Foreign Minister, Louis Michel, promised pan-European "collective" action to "stamp out these illegals" at their source, threatening to galvanize the entire continent in an "overwhelming" response. "Unless these terrorists set things right, they may see something bigger than Trafalgar." The Irish defense minister warned al Qaeda that they were on the verge of "receiving an awfully bloody nose." And the Dutch defense command upped the ante with some saber-rattling of its own: "The blood will be on Mr. bin Laden's hands, not ours - if in the end we are persuaded or even forced beyond our control to actually in many cases intrude and perhaps even attack for long or perhaps extended periods of time including and not limited to many days in duration."

At the time of the Michel communiqué, anonymous sources reported that a "huge" European armada of two frigates and an auxiliary helicopter carrier were said to be reconnoitering off Malta on their way to patrol the coast of Pakistan. The Carrier Task Force ("Force de Frappe" #16a3) will be under seasoned Italian command, with veteran Spanish pilots, and Norwegian gunnery officers, supported in depth by crack Portuguese reconnaissance and sophisticated Finnish telecommunications. The Belgian military attaché issued a final ultimatum to Mr. bin Laden: "Al Qaeda will quickly learn that the entire coast of Pakistan is soon to be closely watched. The perpetrators of this foul deed are now bottled up and soon will find themselves pretty much confined within the Asia-Africa land mass."

Paris, November 9 - "Lafayette We Are Here"

The American Secretary of State, Colin Powell, visiting the cinders of the Louvre, reiterated the solidarity of the American people with their French allies. Powell announced to cheering throngs afterwards on the Champs de Élysées that help would be "massive" and "just might include" four search-and-rescue teams - all equipped with dogs; more than 100 American riot policepersons; a mobile Medivac company; and - if the situation "worsens" - a "sophisticated" canteen unit...<hr></blockquote>

[ 02-16-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #245 of 369
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
The support the United States recieved for her actions in Afghanistan were amazingly weak.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not true. NATO acknowledged it as a article five situation and all countries I have heard of in the alliance offered help. And not just intelligens but ships, air support, fighter planes, everything up to ground troops. The big mystery in many european countries is why US didn´t use the help offered

[quote]<strong>
Timo, I don't know if that article (the one under the picture of Chirac) is supposed to dissuade me because it seems to make my point entirely valid. It was 20 days after thousands of our citizens had been brutally murdered that our "allies" were demanding things of us before we acted to go after those that attacked us.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not true. When shown secret proof of Al Quadas responsibility for the attack from the US very soon after the attack they officially put the blame on AQ and OBL. Face it: Europe was with you all the way with Afghanistan. It is the broadening of the war Europe have something against.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #246 of 369
[quote] The seizure of power of Muscharraf was actually greeted with demonstations of joy throughout the country <hr></blockquote>

so was Musolini's seizure of power in Italy...

Look, I'm not saying that pakistan was such a great democracy, but a louzy quasi-democratic government is still preferable to dictatorship. Look at Arafat, having been elected by the palestinian people is the only thing that keeps him in position today. Milosevic was brought down by an election.

Anyway, my point is was actually this: Where will these "allies" of the US be in couple of years? By "befriending" undemocratic regiems like Saudi Arabia, Usbekistan, Tajikistan and Pakistan (etc.) in the "war on terror" you have several potentially new "afaganistans" and "irans" waiting. Why do you think the regims in Iran, Cuba, North Korea etc. bears a grudge agianst the US?
If the royal family of Saudi Arabia is thrown out of power. How will the new government behave towards the US, with the strong ties that are between the royal families of Saudi-Arabia and the US today?
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #247 of 369
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
so was Musolini's seizure of power in Italy... </strong><hr></blockquote>

And Hitler was democraticaly elected.

[quote]<strong>Look, I'm not saying that pakistan was such a great democracy, but a louzy quasi-democratic government is still preferable to dictatorship.</strong><hr></blockquote>

All things being equal, yes. But it was under a democratic government that Pakistan decided to back the Taliban. Musharef is trying to undo that disastrous wrong turn.

[quote]<strong>If the royal family of Saudi Arabia is thrown out of power. How will the new government behave towards the US, with the strong ties that are between the royal families of Saudi-Arabia and the US today?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Those "strong ties" are looking rather frayed these days. Given that most of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi nationals I think the nature of our relationship with the Saudis should be an open question.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #248 of 369
No, hitler was never voted into office. He had the biggest party in 1932 with roughly 30% of the votes. But if the demcratic system haden't been set aside, he would never have been able to do what he did.... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

[quote] But it was under a democratic government that Pakistan decided to back the Taliban. Musharef is trying to undo that disastrous wrong turn. <hr></blockquote>

yes, my point exactly. Pakistan (the democracy) backed Taliban (not very democratic), just like the US backs several undemcratic regims around the world.

[quote] Given that most of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi nationals (...) <hr></blockquote>
Like I said, they probably wern't very happy with the US ties to their government. OBL has stated that he consider Saudia-Arabia under US occupation. He wouldn't be able to make that point if the government was elected by the people would he?
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #249 of 369
It seems pretty obviouse that when we need allies, we close our eyes to the internal politics of our potential 'friends' . . . up to a point, that is.

THis is just real politik. If we didn't do this we would have no friends but Europe.

Also, many of us know, and have seen as much with the case of Algeria, that if we had free elections in many of these countries we would immediately have a dictatorship of the 'street', or, a theocratic tyranny.

anyway,
[quote] I don't remember us demanding proof of Germany's actions against France before we sent hundreds of thousands of men to defend her and die for their troubles.<hr></blockquote>

No Groverat, it pains me to say this as I'm very proud of my father who was among the very first US troops to fight oversees, flying B-17s before extended air support and also who lead the first daylight raid on Berlin and also on German soil, but, we didn't offer any real help except supplies to Britain until Pearl Harbor.

I think Anders is making a good point: Europe supported us firmly and still does but has reservations (and just ones) about the language we are using, partly, because it sounds as if we are going to do something stupid without consulting any other country, and we are making matters worse in the countries that we have called 'evil'
"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 #250 of 369
[quote] You have thrown far more off-subject personal attacks around than roger_ramjet, if you wish to ascribe blame for this thread derailing then you need to look no farther than yourself. <hr></blockquote>

Suit yourself. I guess ScottH never used abusive language then

[quote]As far as I know there is NO oil in Afghanistan. Some people want to run a pipe to the port in Pakistan. THAT'S the real reason the Soviets wanted it. Because they wanted a warm water port to that ocean. You'd know that if you'd do a little research of your own and stop parroting what you read in your anti-US web sites.<hr></blockquote>

Gas??? GAS??? I'm the one reading anti-US web sites? Even though I've not provided a single link to one of those? I've repeated again and again I admire the US on many points? Or perhaps YOU are completely and hopelessly brain-washed by propaganda?

[quote]
The support the United States recieved for her actions in Afghanistan were amazingly weak. Timo, I don't know if that article (the one under the picture of Chirac) is supposed to dissuade me because it seems to make my point entirely valid. It was 20 days after thousands of our citizens had been brutally murdered that our "allies" were demanding things of us before we acted to go after those that attacked us.<hr></blockquote>

We invoked Article 5 of the NATO agreements. Intelligence was shared. The investigation would probably never have been so quicky if it weren't for the help of Germany, England and France dismantling the local networks. The first missiles fired were IIRC from a British sub. Do not twist reality as you see fit.

[quote]
don't remember us demanding proof of Germany's actions against France before we sent hundreds of thousands of men to defend her and die for their troubles.
(I can just hear FDR: "I haven't yet seen video of Hitler saying, 'I am responsible for the attacks on France.' so we're just going to hold off for a little longer until we can get all the facts straightened out.")<hr></blockquote>

LOL. This is saddening. This is ridiculous. First of all the US waited for being attacked at Pearl Harbor before acting during WWII. It didn't really seem to care about the holocaust before being attacked. Furthermore, war was officially declared, the US didn't need to ask for proof. What kind of argumentation is this? Please do tell me what kind of point you're trying to make by saying the US didn't ask for proof of germany attacking? You aren't implying the involvement of OBL was as clear initially as that of Hitler in WWII? Are you?

I'm having trouble believing the arguments I've been reading in this thread. It's getting ridiculous. Some of the posts are so impregnated with blind patritotism and typical "I'm the center of the world, **** the rest I can do whatever I please"... I'm starting to believe some things will never change, history will keep on repeating itself again and again. I'm afraid if this kind of arrogance doesn't stop quickly, then the attacks we saw on 9/11 are going to turn out being only the prelude to something far greater in scope. When will you people learn from your mistakes? When will you people learn some humility? Will this never end?

You can repeat again and again that you are right, that you can do no wrong, that you are the school bully. Nothing will protect you from attacks. I thought perhaps after the 9/11 attacks, Bush would reassess the relevance of Star Wars, but it didn't.

Just like I'm not anti-american, the threats aren't where you think they are. My point posting here was not simply criticize the US freely. I was trying to perhaps make people understand that the postition the US is in today is not eternal, and that the arrogance is not justified. But clearly, I've failed, because 13 year old rhethoric seems to predominate here against reasoned and documented arguments. Clearly talking about an "axis of evil" will, just as "the evil empire" thing brought the Soviet Union to its knees, help the US dismantle a world-wide network of organized methodical, and highly trained terrorists. Surely this will hide all the monstrous creatures the CIA has created over the years.

So be it. Keep on thinking you're the king of the world and acting like you are, keep on alienating the rest of the world, keep the arrogance up. Well done. This is what will ultimately bring you to your knees, and this is what will have wasted perhaps the greatest potential in recent history.

Sad.

[ 02-16-2002: Message edited by: SYN ]</p>
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
post #251 of 369
What will bring us to our knees is begging the Frogs for permission to protect our country. You just can't take it that the US has the sovereignty and strength to act alone.
post #252 of 369
More grist for the mill:

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/17/international/asia/17ALLI.html" target="_blank">Allies Hear Sour Notes in 'Axis of Evil' Chorus</a> (registration required)

By DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 As a new and glaring rift emerges between the White House and America's allies over how to pursue the next phase of the war on terrorism, something odd has happened: President Bush and his top aides now seem to welcome, even to egg on, the sharp differences prompted by Mr. Bush's determination to expand his battle against what he calls "evil" regimes.

In private, his friends and closest aides report, Mr. Bush fumes about weak-kneed "European elites" and scared Arab leaders who, in his view, lack the courage to stand up to states that may one day provide terrorists with nuclear or biological weapons.

Today Mr. Bush departed for Asia saying that the goal of his trip was to strengthen his antiterrorism coalition. But it was telling that even before Air Force One departed, the South Korean press was filled with denunciations of his inclusion of North Korea as part of the "axis of evil," protesting that Mr. Bush was undercutting years of diplomacy aimed at luring the Stalinist North out of its frightfully armed shell with economic incentives.

In China, where Mr. Bush is making a delayed state visit, the country's leadership has warned in the past few weeks of "serious consequences" if the president takes military action against Iraq. Beijing has voiced worries about a re-emergence of American unilateralism, which it thought had faded in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks.

But in the last two weeks, Mr. Bush's strident tone has suggested just the opposite. In appearances across the country, he has built on the "axis of evil" phraseology of his State of the Union address, knowing full well that each repetition irritates and divides the countries he once hailed as his great coalition partners.

His national security aides usually more attuned to how Mr. Bush's words play Poland or Peru than Peoria have begun to cite evidence that Americans are behind the broader mission of rooting out rogue states seeking weapons of mass destruction, even if the allies are not.

They compare Mr. Bush's mission to Ronald Reagan's single-minded goal of ridding the world of Communism. They describe their boss as a man who emerged from the first phase of the war more convinced than ever that the United States alone has the power to complete its task, with the coalition if possible and without them if necessary.

It is an America-first position that Vice President Dick Cheney voiced with particular clarity on Friday to the Council on Foreign Relations.

"America has friends and allies in this cause, but only we can lead it," he said in a ballroom filled with many of his old friends and former colleagues. "Only we can rally the world in a task of this complexity against an enemy so elusive and so resourceful. The United States and only the United States can see this effort through to victory."

When America's allies have begged to differ in recent days, they have found themselves engaged in open, public bickering with even with the most diplomatic members of Mr. Bush's war council.

It started when France's foreign minister, Hubert Védrine, dismissed Mr. Bush's approach to Iran, Iraq and North Korea as "simplistic," and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell shot back that his French colleague was "getting the vapors."

Then, all this week, there has been a far more telling war of words between Mr. Powell and Christopher Patten, the European Union's foreign affairs minister. Until a few days ago, he was a favorite of Washington conservatives for the tough line he took against China while serving as Britain's last governor general to Hong Kong.

When Mr. Patten started off the tiff by accusing Mr. Bush of taking an "absolutist" approach to the world, Mr. Powell shot back that his old friend deeply misunderstood and said, "I shall have a word with him, as they say in Britain."

Before he had a chance, Mr. Patten published a lengthy rebuke of the administration in The Financial Times, saying that American success in Afghanistan had "reinforced some dangerous instincts," including the belief that "the projection of military power is the only basis of true security," that "the U.S. can rely only on itself," and that allies were "an optional extra."

He is hardly alone in that view. The German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, said this week that the Bush administration was treating coalition partners like "satellites," a term clearly meant as a comparison to the old Soviet Union and its Eastern Bloc.

And then President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, Mr. Bush's newest strategic partner, weighed in with the observation that the members of the antiterror coalition signed up to battle the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and "Iraq is not on this list."

Even Canada America's closest allies save for Britain warned that any effort by the United States to act unilaterally in the next phase of the war "will go nowhere."

What makes these exchanges particularly notable, apart from their bluntness, is the shift they reflect in foreign views of Mr. Bush and Mr. Bush's evolving views of his allies.

For the first nine months of his presidency, whenever Mr. Bush was tempted to act on his own dumping the Kyoto Protocol on global warming with barely a warning to Japan or Europe, for example he usually followed up with an intensive round of fence-mending. By this summer, he was moderating his language, paying off America's dues to the United Nations and talking about the future of new partnerships.

Then came Sept. 11 and a new spirit of alliance. European and Asian leaders said they thought they were seeing a George W. Bush emerge. This was a president who invited foreign leaders to the Oval Office for long conversations, who dialed around the globe the way his father once had, whose go-it-alone tendencies were being sanded down by the realities of operating in a complex world that provided many physical and financial havens for terrorists.

Now, they fear, the old Mr. Bush may be re-emerging. The change in view began with his decision to withdraw from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, but since Russia seemed to react mildly, so did Europe. It accelerated when he declared that Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters were not "prisoners of war." Then came the "axis of evil," a phrase that European and Asian allies alike said dangerously lumped together three countries that pose very different challenges.

What bothers the Europeans the most is not entirely clear: Mr. Bush's goals, his missionary zeal, or the thought that Washington sees its role as wiping out bad governments and the allies' role as one of cleaning up with aid and peacekeepers.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage has little patience for that kind of hand-wringing. "It's very hard to attack something like `axis of evil,' " he said, "because Mr. Bush was not talking about people, but about regimes."

At the core of the debate lies a deeper question about American foreign policy that now bedevils Mr. Bush and his aides: is America stronger when it acts in an unfettered manner and defends its national interests directly, or when it acts with allies whose interests may frustrate Washington's goals?
post #253 of 369
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>. You just can't take it that the US has the sovereignty and strength to act alone.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes , US has the sovereignty and strenght to act alone. But is it the best way ? If you are so stronght do you need anymore allies ?.

Here is an interesting question for the US citizens (take in the article show by TIMO) : At the core of the debate lies a deeper question about American foreign policy that now bedevils Mr. Bush and his aides: is America stronger when it acts in an unfettered manner and defends its national interests directly, or when it acts with allies whose interests may frustrate Washington's goals?

Un another fact that you have to take in account : as long as the time go, all the countrie will try to have some influence in foreign politics. We don't have the right to intereact in internal politic of a democratic countrie, but all the countrie have the right to have their own foreign politic. As far as the US is the predominant state of the world and the only one superpower, many foreign politics will deal with what US wants to do. That does not mean that US is supposed to ask permission , but allies are supposed to talk to each others.

Just my 2 cents of Euro from a frog that sings like a toad.

[ 02-17-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
post #254 of 369
[quote] Just my 2 cents of Euro from a frog that sings like a toad. <hr></blockquote>

LOL

IMHO, Bush is going to put the US in a very awkward position, where it's waging a war throughout the world, without seeing it necessary to inform its allies, and it still has to secure its own territory.

This is bound ot failure, just like Viet-Nam was bound to failure.

Go figure.
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
post #255 of 369
[quote] You just can't take it that the US has the sovereignty and strength to act alone. <hr></blockquote>

But has it got the competence?
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
post #256 of 369
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>SYN:

The support the United States recieved for her actions in Afghanistan were amazingly weak.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Maybe this was true initially, but I remember Rumsfield and others saying that they had recieved a lot of support, even from Arab countries like Saudi Arabia (which might be diplomatic fluff). I've been mostly pleased with the support we have been getting for our actions in Afganistan.

NOTE: Because I'm lazy, I have only read page 7, so, my apologies if I'm missing some critical point.
post #257 of 369
[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>

Yes , US has the sovereignty and strenght to act alone. But is it the best way ? If you are so stronght do you need anymore allies ?.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Are we strong enough? In the absolute, Yes. But that's a bit like saying we could survive on our own without global trade. We could *survive* alone, but things would be better with partners.

Is it the best way? No. (see above) But if it's the only way, so be it. I don't want terrorist nations having weapons of mass destruction.

That said, I am a little stumped as to why our government didn't consult our allies before we anounced our position toward "the axis of evil". What harm could a simple heads up bring?

[quote]<strong>
Here is an interesting question for the US citizens (take in the article show by TIMO) : At the core of the debate lies a deeper question about American foreign policy that now bedevils Mr. Bush and his aides: is America stronger when it acts in an unfettered manner and defends its national interests directly, or when it acts with allies whose interests may frustrate Washington's goals?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

In this case, I think washington's goals take presidence. As I mentioned above, weapons of mass destruction in rogue nations hands is inexcussable. I should add, though, that I don't believe that a full out war against the "axis" is the best solution. Fortunately, from what I have been hearing on the news, it doesn't look like washington believes in a full out war either.

[quote]<strong> allies are supposed to talk to each others. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I Agree.

BTW nice article Timo.
post #258 of 369
finally somebody with reason...
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
post #259 of 369
[quote]Originally posted by Timo:
<strong>They compare Mr. Bush's mission to Ronald Reagan's single-minded goal of ridding the world of Communism.</strong><hr></blockquote>It does seem that Bush is patterning his presidency after Reagan, both domestically and now internationally.
post #260 of 369
Yes BRussel, and that's why what I predicted before Bush came to office about dark days ahead will come true: many of the younger people here don't know what it was like: despair and divisiveness, fear of not being able to make a living, the blatant abuses by the rich and powerfull and all of it backed by a rhetoric of moral righteousness that was really a thinly vieled aggression that permeated all of our culture at the time, a culture of racism in the guise of self reliance.
I think Bush will be different, he is not a racist, but his corporate politics, deficit spending, big military, tax cuts for the wealthy are all the same... well ... very similar.
but I'm just a reactionary I guess.....at least with this post
"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 #261 of 369
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:

<strong>Yes BRussel, and that's why what I predicted before Bush came to office about dark days ahead will come true: many of the younger people here don't know what it was like...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Laying it on awfully thick there, pfflam. Disagreeing with Reagan's policies is one thing but painting it as if it was the coming of the apocalypse shows a loss of perspective. He was extremely popular. If his Presidency was at all the way you describe it, how was his popularity possible? BTW, I had an opportunity to vote for him and I didn't. (I've never missed an election.) I have since changed my mind about him.

[ 02-17-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #262 of 369
perhaps
"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 #263 of 369
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13338-2002Feb15.html" target="_blank">The Transatlantic Rift Is Getting Serious</a>

By David Ignatius
Friday, February 15, 2002; Page A33

[quote]Maybe it's because this is an election year in Europe and politicians there are more likely to make inflammatory remarks. Or maybe it's because America - at once victorious and vulnerable after its Afghan success - is talking belligerently as it gropes toward the next phase of its war against terrorism.

But whatever the causes, the rift between the United States and its European "allies" is getting serious. You could hear the NATO alliance tearing at the seams on Tuesday as Germany's foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, denounced the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policy and warned that Europeans will refuse to be treated like "satellite" states. That followed similar comments from the French prime minister, Lionel Jospin.

For President Bush, it must be a relief to be heading across the Pacific this weekend, toward Asia and away from those pesky Europeans. At least Beijing supports his anti-terrorism policy.

It's tempting to regard the recent Euro-American friction as simply a dispute over Bush's "axis-grinding" State of the Union speech. Or to believe that, in the memorable words of the prison warden in "Cool Hand Luke" to Paul Newman: "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

But I fear it's something considerably worse. What is driving a wedge between the United States and Europe isn't simply a lack of dialogue but a growing divergence of interests and capabilities. If this imbalance is not addressed quickly, both sides will soon find themselves on very unstable ground.

The imbalance begins with military power. The United States is getting stronger, relative to Europe. It's like a marriage that has gotten out of sync - with one partner feeling left behind as the other becomes more successful...<hr></blockquote>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #264 of 369
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>but I'm just a reactionary I guess.....at least with this post</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, you're right. I vaguely remember a thick fog over the country at the time. Or, that could have just been the pot smoke...
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
post #265 of 369
[quote]"What we've got here is failure to
communicate.
Some men you just can't reach...
So, you get what we had here last week,
which is the way he wants it!
Well, he gets it!
N' I don't like it any more than you men." <hr></blockquote>
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
post #266 of 369
It would be nice if things always worked smoothly, but the fact of the matter is that sometimes we must act alone because noone else is brave enough to help us. Europe likes to wait around for a disaster then react to it(or allow us to react to it). I think Bush (in more strident than necessary terms in my opinion) is trying to get across that we will not sit back and wait for another attack, we will try to prevent it.

I'm not a big fan of his, but a true leader doesn't just react, he acts. We will go it alone if need be, I don't think we need to sacrifice another few thousand lives to appease the 'Head in the Sand' crowd.........................................
post #267 of 369
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

It happens all the time. I've had "you ignorant American" thrown at me for as little as saying that I think the EU might be inherently flawed.

It's a common sentiment from a highly xenophobic region. It's kind of like having John Goodman run up to me and start calling me "fatty", somehow I just don't take it seriously.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think I'm the guilty one. First of all i was to fast - I was really pissed about Bush and then you posted a thread about the EU wouldn't last because we hated eachother. It was a simple overreaction. By the way I wasn't generalizing all americans only you - which wasn't fair. And I see now that it really was intended on Scott H who is a ignorant american.

So sorry Grooverat
Look at my sexy body
Reply
Look at my sexy body
Reply
post #268 of 369
Why am I ignorant? Because I see france for what it is? A has been country. Also that the French foreign minister has no business publicly insulting our president. I thought France was the world leader in diplomacy? So why then is the foreign minister hurling public insults at Bush? Why not be diplomatic and take care of it in private? Might I suggest that he send an apology? A public one?
post #269 of 369
Public insults? is it always an insult to say that what is in fact simplistic appears simplistic?

simplism (s&lt;=m2pl&lt;=z1úm) n. 1. The tendency to oversimplify an issue or a problem by ignoring complexities or complications.
[ French simplisme from simple simple from Old French; See simple ]


This is NOT an insult. Not like everyone of your posts to anybody not as$licking Bush's monomania.

"What you don't see it my way... you insult me!! . . . I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you!!!"
"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 #270 of 369
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>Why am I ignorant? Because I see france for what it is? A has been country. Also that the French foreign minister has no business publicly insulting our president. I thought France was the world leader in diplomacy? So why then is the foreign minister hurling public insults at Bush? Why not be diplomatic and take care of it in private? Might I suggest that he send an apology? A public one?</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) France is not a has been country
2) the foreign minister has not insulted your president (this was hard criticicism but not insult)
3) as i already stated i don't know why
4) you should also ask, public apology from england your best allies since the war of independance, germany, and many others europeans countries.
5) France is not the world leader in diplomaty (where did you catch that : you are the leader because you are the stronger, there is no leadership whithout economic and military power behind)

And for apologies Scott you should starting by your self : i remember differents minor insults : - french are toads,
- french are xenophobic
- french are your worst allies
- France is has been countrie
and many f*** words about my countrie.
Personaly i never insulted your countrie , i just reply to Anders who ask me a question and then i gave my opinion. I respect your opinion Scott , but i don't like insults. I respect Groverat who has sometimes a different opinion from mine, but there was no insult. So i find nice to speak with him.
You have the right to criticize France, but you should better say that there is xenophobic people in France (true) instead of France is xenophobic , etc etc. If you make specific critics about France, i shoud reply if i have a different opinion, but i would not take that for a personnal attack.
post #271 of 369
I don't remember posting all that. Why don't you toads get busy fixing skating events and leave us the **** alone.
post #272 of 369
A tangent,but I don't know where elde to post it:
that Russian woman who skated for, and won, for France in the dancing pairs was soo unbelievably beautifull!!! Beautiful in a super intensly eerie way...... . . so georgeous!!!!
"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 #273 of 369
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>I don't remember posting all that. Why don't you toads get busy fixing skating events and leave us the **** alone.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry ,it must has be your alter ego.

I remember a tale about toad. Some people like to have the apparence of a toad in order to test persons. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
post #274 of 369
[quote]It would be nice if things always worked smoothly, but the fact of the matter is that sometimes we must act alone because noone else is brave enough to help us. Europe likes to wait around for a disaster then react to it(or allow us to react to it). I think Bush (in more strident than necessary terms in my opinion) is trying to get across that we will not sit back and wait for another attack, we will try to prevent it.

I'm not a big fan of his, but a true leader doesn't just react, he acts. We will go it alone if need be, I don't think we need to sacrifice another few thousand lives to appease the 'Head in the Sand' crowd......................................... <hr></blockquote>

LOL

IIRC, the US waited for 9/11 to take matters regarding the taliban into its hands...

So you might want to revisit your statement...

And Vedrine did not publically insult Bush. Calling a dog a dog is not an insult. Bush's state of the union adress was, indeed, simplistic. And Bush doesn't need the help from anyone, he ridicules himself quite well on his own, just like he did in his blunder last week in Japan... Such a Manichean view of the world stands to be criticized.

[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: SYN ]</p>
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
Soyons réalistes, Demandons l'impossible.
Reply
post #275 of 369
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:

<strong>Why am I ignorant? Because I see france for what it is? A has been country. Also that the French foreign minister has no business publicly insulting our president. I thought France was the world leader in diplomacy? So why then is the foreign minister hurling public insults at Bush? Why not be diplomatic and take care of it in private? Might I suggest that he send an apology? A public one?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Get over it, Scott. The criticism is only supposed to go one way. The idea that Bush's critics are themselves being simplistic will never occur to them.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #276 of 369
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>Get over it, Scott. The criticism is only supposed to go one way. The idea that Bush's critics are themselves being simplistic will never occur to them.</strong><hr></blockquote>Yeah, Scott's really been the voice of reason. But now it's just time to throw up your hands and say he'll never get through their thick heads with his rational discourse. Oh well, at least he tried.
post #277 of 369
SYN:
IIRC, the US waited for 9/11 to take matters regarding the taliban into its hands...
So you might want to revisit your statement...

You may be correct, even though the FBI and CIA were trying to watch their every move(and failed miserably).

But let me ask you this: If we had acted against Afghanistan before sep 11 what would have been the reaction from Europe? France? I think you know the answer to that..........................................
post #278 of 369
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:

<strong>Yeah, Scott's really been the voice of reason. But now it's just time to throw up your hands and say he'll never get through their thick heads with his rational discourse. Oh well, at least he tried.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Okay, Scott can be blunt, undiplomatic, even abrasive. I get it. But why limit your criticism to him? When Scott wrote, "France=irrelevant," I understood why people reacted the way they did but at least he was amusing. The same can't be said for some of those who have dumped on him. IMO, the only person here who has earned the right to give Scott a hard time was groverat because he didn't single Scott out.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #279 of 369
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>

Okay, Scott can be blunt, undiplomatic, even abrasive. I get it. But why limit your criticism to him? When Scott wrote, "France=irrelevant," I understood why people reacted the way they did but at least he was amusing. The same can't be said for some of those who have dumped on him. IMO, the only person here who has earned the right to give Scott a hard time was groverat because he didn't single Scott out.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's difficult to know when chating on internet ,to know if people are amusing or are serious. Instant graemlins are made for that.

If you write your are irrelevant with , it's a different than write you are irrelevant without any graemlins comment. Poker is not interesting if you play it via internet, you have to see the others gamers.
post #280 of 369
[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>
It's difficult to know when chating on internet ,to know if people are amusing or are serious. Instant graemlins are made for that...
</strong><hr></blockquote>

He was being serious in a way that was amusing because it was so blunt. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't beat up on him because of what he said. I'd be surprised if you didn't. But if your problem is also with the way he said it, well, there are others here who have been just as abrasive. Dump on them too.

One more thing: In that post where you said you respected groverat and then made a list of insults that Scott has used, you said that Scott called France xenophobic. Groverat said that about Europe. Scott didn't write that.

[ 02-20-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › French foreign minister speaks out