French foreign minister speaks out - Page 2

>>Who is John Goodman?

He's an actor. He was on the hit TV show Roseanne:
<a href="http://www.eonline.com/Facts/People/Bio/0,128,6205,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.eonline.com/Facts/People/Bio/0,128,6205,00.html</a>

[quote]Originally posted by lolo:
<strong>Most people in France (and in the world in general) don't have a clue who John Goodman is, nor do they know what baseball and american football are. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That must be the reason the French have never won the World Series.

&gt;&gt;That must be the reason the French have never won the World Series.

Why is it called "World Series" again? Is anybody besides America playing?

As a US resident (and French citizen), my knowledge of American sports is pretty pathetic, I have to admit. I have no interest whatsoever in baseball and football. I happen to know that the World Series is about baseball, but that's pretty much it. I don't know the rules of either baseball or football and I've never watched a game.

Hey arn't you guys aware of the fact that China has labeled itself "the center of the world" since long before europe was civilized... The title is already taken...

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
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.
<hr></blockquote>

Eh. I've gotten this too, but it's easy to take in stride. Real easy to counter, actually, when you know even a little about their own country.

Part of the problem is that some Americans still feel (perhaps subconsciously) culturally inferior to their European cousins -- ours being a relatively young country that doesn't have the cultural monuments et al. of Olde Europa. But that's mostly hype. We have a dynamic, interesting culture that's different than one with kings, castles and Leonardos. I won't say better, but definitely not anything to complain about.

I've only met a few obnoxious Euros in my day, but ocassionally when I do they need reminding that a large number of Americans' ancestors left the rotten stinking cesspools of Europe for a better life.

Finally, the vast majority of Euros I've met have lives that really resemble mine more than they don't. They all want to move out to the 'burbs, have two cars, watch sports and vacation in sunny hot places. The differences between our cultures are telling and interesting, but they are hardly good reasons for bitter vitrol or angry denounciations.

Your results my vary.

[quote]Originally posted by Timo:
<strong>


Finally, the vast majority of Euros I've met have lives that really resemble mine more than they don't. They all want to move out to the 'burbs, have two cars, watch sports and vacation in sunny hot places. The differences between our cultures are telling and interesting, but they are hardly good reasons for bitter vitrol or angry denounciations.

Your results my vary.</strong><hr></blockquote>
here is an excellent conclusion Timo. I can't say better, and i a m glad that you made it, because now i can go to bed and stop this terrible discussion !

Do we care? Why not. Lived in Japan, SE Asia, in various bits of Europe, in the US. Learned from the all, loved most of them, have yet to sample the Middle East or Africa. May hold off a while on that

[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>
I don't think US foreign policy is simplistic, but the declarations of Georges W. Bush are in a way simplistic when he speak about the axe of evil...</strong><hr></blockquote>

There is evil in the world. A faux sophistication doesn't annihilate that fact.

[quote]<strong>When G. Bush speak of axe of evil, people can think he said that everypeople here is evil, and thus must be neutralized....</strong><hr></blockquote>

No. Bush was attempting to speak directly to the people and over the heads of the mullahs and Saddam Hussein and Kim Il Jong.

[quote]<strong>... I don't think it's the case...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Then you understood his point. As did apparently did the Iranian people. I already posted a link to this article in another thread but apparently you didn't see it. This was written by an Iranian expatriate.

<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001828" target="_blank">Iranians for Bush</a>
The president sides with the people, who aspire to freedom.

BY S. ROB SOBHANI

[ 02-07-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>

&gt;The ignorance of this post is astounding. Its amazing how you generalize an entire population as cowards, anit-semites, and anit-American. You are almost as ignorant as the bastards responsible for 9/11. To call France a nation of cowards is a gross misjustice. Need I remind you of the French resistance durring WWII? Thousands of resistors where tortured and killed in the pursuit of the freedom for their country. To call them a nation of cowards and against everything except frogs is a slap in the face. &gt;

And MILLIONS of them collaborated with the Germans.
&gt;

In fact our Independance would not have been possible without the French comming in on our side. You should watch your comments more carefully, and try not to give us a bad name.&lt;

Give us a bad name? Do you think it matters what we do or don't do? No matter what you can be sure than France won't be by our side. If they aren't directly against us they will support us with words and then sit on the sidelines. France is worthless 'ally' and always have been...................

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>

Then you understood his point. As did apparently did the Iranian people. I already posted a link to this article in another thread but apparently you didn't see it. This was written by an Iranian expatriate.

<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001828" target="_blank">Iranians for Bush</a>
The president sides with the people, who aspire to freedom.

BY S. ROB SOBHANI

[ 02-07-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
i did not read this info. The problem of media is that they are found of big declarations , Bush make a speech , and the only one thing that the media let us remember is "Axe of Evil"
Media at least in Europe are very aware of this way of proceding, putting words out of context.
You know you are oblige to make your own opinions with the informations given by the media. That's why we have europeans and americans divergent point of vue concerning foreing politics : we haven't really got the same info.

Steve 666 : Calm down, France is not your ennemy, and thats from the beginning of history, of course they are minor conflicts like with every others states (US is not always OK with israel and the contrary also, even if they are very close). But France was with US in every major conflicts since the beginning of history.
France was with US during the Koweith war, the helps was far less more important than what did US , but we send la "légion etrangère" one of our best troups in the first line of the front (15 000 mans,) , we where third behind US and GB for the participation.
France was behind US during the kosowa wars.
You will have problem, to find contrary examples. Futhermore, they are lot of americans In France, and French people in USA, they are some exchange of culture also.

BTW Europe is doing a bang up job with Milosevic. Our air men risked their lives (again) to solve Europe's problems and it's looking like it's ****ed up.

Now someone remind me why they know more than we do?

I think that a reasoned approach to foriegn policy is all that is being asked for. We do not run the world, and if we (the US) start a war in a region far from our lands that effect many lands near to that region, without taking into consideration those effected by our actions then it might be said of us that we are acting rashly and arrogantly.


So I think that they are asking that we take that into consideration, and maybe also, a semblance of diplomatic tact:
Note that the labelling of Iran as 'Evil' has shown signs of backfiring as far as boosting support for reform and support inside Iran for the moderates.

the Chief cleric called Bush's words "the drunken shouts" (which, unfortunately, insults his words by characaturing them in a somewhat revealing manner: by exagerating their totally innapropriate nature) "that revealed the truth that the enemy is the enemy"

Its unfortunate that Bush's rhetoric justifies this kind of rhetoric in the eyes of Iranians.

[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:

<strong>i did not read this info. The problem of media is that they are found of big declarations , Bush make a speech , and the only one thing that the media let us remember is "Axe of Evil"

Media at least in Europe are very aware of this way of proceding, putting words out of context.

You know you are oblige to make your own opinions with the informations given by the media. That's why we have europeans and americans divergent point of vue concerning foreing politics : we haven't really got the same info...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, yes and no. Obviously we aren't using the same info because several times now you have quoted Bush as saying "axe of evil". He said "axis of evil". Even so it's clear that his words have had some resonance which is the point of it all. There's always a lot of "static" whenever one is trying to communicate. To cut through the noise it helps to use words that are unambiguous.

I saw Tony Dolan, the speechwriter who wrote the "evil empire" speech for Reagan, on CSPAN a while ago. He said that with every subsequent draft of that speech someone from State or the NSC or wherever would strike that phrase. It was too inflamatory. Reagan kept putting it back in.

Michael Novak remembered this in a <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001831" target="_blank">WSJ op-ed</a> yesterday. Novak then showed a consequence of such language:

[quote]... Some years afterwards, in fact, U.S. arms negotiators, reminiscing over the bad old days with their now-no-longer Soviet counterparts at a happy dinner, were interrupted by a fist slamming down upon the table. "You know what caused the downfall of the Soviet Union? You know what did it?" demanded a senior general, a little flush with vodka.

Some racked their brains with thoughts of missile defense, perpetual shortages of everything from soap to vodka, the U.S. military buildup. The general banged his fist again. "That damn speech about the evil empire! That's what did it!" The general was standing now, and to the questioning eyes of one American he added: "It was an evil empire. It was."

Hardly anyone today will say the Soviet Union was a good example of the socialist ideal (or any other). So it's hard to remember how shocking Mr. Reagan's terminology was. The words were everything. The whole point was those two words: Good and Evil...<hr></blockquote>

[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:

<strong>... Note that the labelling of Iran as 'Evil' has shown signs of backfiring as far as boosting support for reform and support inside Iran for the moderates.

the Chief cleric called Bush's words "the drunken shouts" (which, unfortunately, insults his words by characaturing them in a somewhat revealing manner: by exagerating their totally innapropriate nature) "that revealed the truth that the enemy is the enemy"

Its unfortunate that Bush's rhetoric justifies this kind of rhetoric in the eyes of Iranians.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, I'm sure that chief cleric was real fond of us before Bush made that speech.

quote :


. Some years afterwards, in fact, U.S. arms negotiators, reminiscing over the bad old days with their now-no-longer Soviet counterparts at a happy dinner, were interrupted by a fist slamming down upon the table. "You know what caused the downfall of the Soviet Union? You know what did it?" demanded a senior general, a little flush with vodka.

Some racked their brains with thoughts of missile defense, perpetual shortages of everything from soap to vodka, the U.S. military buildup. The general banged his fist again. "That damn speech about the evil empire! That's what did it!" The general was standing now, and to the questioning eyes of one American he added: "It was an evil empire. It was."

Hardly anyone today will say the Soviet Union was a good example of the socialist ideal (or any other). So it's hard to remember how shocking Mr. Reagan's terminology was. The words were everything. The whole point was those two words: Good and Evil...

Quote :


According to many historians , the fall of the soviet empire is the result of the competition for armement, The soviet system was ruined , because he has not the economical power to compete with USA for is army and armement. The project Star wars from Reagan in particular, was too mutch a match for the soviet (they where never competitive in computers and informatic).
I think this point is much more important than a single speech about the evil empire.

[ 02-08-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>I think that a reasoned approach to foriegn policy is all that is being asked for. We do not run the world, and if we (the US) start a war in a region far from our lands that effect many lands near to that region, without taking into consideration those effected by our actions then it might be said of us that we are acting rashly and arrogantly.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Maybe Bush is the reasoned one? Maybe dealing with an "evil" government (dictatorship) is, in fact, unreasonable. The French think that dialog is the success of diplomacy. Dialog doesn't free oppressed peoples. What is the poor starving North Korean to think when the US lavished his well fed leaders with "aid". That poor starving North Korean might think "you are with us or you are with our government"...

Reagan's policy did not win the cold war: the long line of policy of containment set in place by A DEMOCRAT!!!!, and carried through by all succeeding presidents....this long standing policy won the Cold war.

That, and the fact that Communism inherently restricts the organic needs of people and the the flow of economics: ie, it was just a matter of time, the over-restriction of Communism was bound to implode.

As far as North Korea is concerned, I am not refering to the rhetoric in that case. . . .also not in the case of Iraq. The problem is, is that the name calling turned towards a soveriegn state that is clearly in the midst of a power struggle where subtle issues such as the public perception of moderation versus theocratic rule is easily swayed by the slightest of forces . . . this kind of thing demands a diplomacy that recognizes subtlety, not the alienating name calling that can be seen so easily as the myopia of arrogance . . .

"your the great Satan"
"no your the Great Satan"
"See that my people, they can't be worked with, they called us the Great Satan!! which means they are clearly the Great Satan!!"
"you see what a Satan they are, what a twisted logic thier Satanicness makes them spew...what a Satan they are"

etc etc

France needs to worry about selling defective Airbus Industrie products to the US.

If they continue handle foreign policy like they build aircraft, God help them.

[quote]Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:
<strong>France needs to worry about selling defective Airbus Industrie products to the US.

If they continue handle foreign policy like they build aircraft, God help them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes and France sell tires for the space Shuttle, you should remove them immediatly !

A question about planes, do you know the name of a plane that have never crashed ? DC 10 , boeing 757, airbus, Antonov , Concorde ...any suggestions ?
May i suggest you to never take a plane, and to die like everybody in a car accident.

[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>
According to many historians , the fall of the soviet empire is the result of the competition for armement, The soviet system was ruined , because he has not the economical power to compete with USA for is army and armement. The project Star wars from Reagan in particular, was too mutch a match for the soviet (they where never competitive in computers and informatic).
I think this point is much more important than a single speech about the evil empire.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This was a former Soviet General who saw a connection between Reagan's speech and the fall of the Soviet Union. It's kind of silly to simply ignore his pespective just because it conflicts with yours. Yes, I would say competition between our 2 systems also exposed key weaknesses of the USSR. Others (Gorbachev in particular) have maintained that it was Reykavik that signaled the beginning of the end. But words matter too and Reagan's words mattered a lot.

[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>


...The problem is, is that the name calling turned towards a soveriegn state that is clearly in the midst of a power struggle where subtle issues such as the public perception of moderation versus theocratic rule is easily swayed by the slightest of forces . . . this kind of thing demands a diplomacy that recognizes subtlety, not the alienating name calling that can be seen so easily as the myopia of arrogance . . .

"your the great Satan"
"no your the Great Satan"
"See that my people, they can't be worked with, they called us the Great Satan!! which means they are clearly the Great Satan!!"
"you see what a Satan they are, what a twisted logic thier Satanicness makes them spew...what a Satan they are"

etc etc</strong><hr></blockquote>

I still think your worng. Bush helped to drive a (more of a) wedge between the leaders of Iran and it's young movement. That's a good thing. We don't have relationships with Iran now. So how could it get any worse?

It was the perfect message to the people of Iran.

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>

This was a former Soviet General who saw a connection between Reagan's speech and the fall of the Soviet Union. It's kind of silly to simply ignore his pespective just because it conflicts with yours. Yes, I would say competition between our 2 systems also exposed key weaknesses of the USSR. Others (Gorbachev in particular) have maintained that it was Reykavik that signaled the beginning of the end. But words matter too and Reagan's words mattered a lot.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes words matters, but words cannot make fall an empire alone.

Saddam Hussein is still there, words did nothing against him, a bullet will be certainly more efficient for his case, but the Occident lead by the USA did not want to kill him during the koweit war, because US expert (and many europeans too i suppose) think that Saddam was a wall against Islamists. I don't know if it a wise decision or not : we will never know.

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:

This was a former Soviet General who saw a connection between Reagan's speech and the fall of the Soviet Union. It's kind of silly to simply ignore his pespective just because it conflicts with yours.<hr></blockquote>

It's also kinda silly to subsitute his "connection" for your own thinking. Nothing wrong with us having opinions that we don't share with a Soviet general, now is there?

OK, let's see, what do generals really know about:
the economic health of their country?
the sociology of propaganda?
the finer points of history?
politics?
I'd be more inclined to say instead that they know about
fighting wars (and sometimes only the last wars at that)

Two things. First, I find it odd to defend a Reagan idea with the opinion of a Soviet general. I mean, if we didn't care what their opinions were during the cold war, why should we care about them now?

Second, just 'cause he's a Soviet General doesn't mean he knows why his government fell apart. Sure, there have been some generals with their finger on the pulse of things outside the military (Grant, Eisenhower, come to mind) but there's no guarantee he's one of 'em. In fact, because he's a general, I'd bet he sees history et al in romantic ways -- just the type who would be swayed by stirring words.

I think Reagan turned up the heat on the Soviet Union, yes, but rhetoric had little to do with it. And it was Gorbatchov who let the djinni out of the bottle.

[ 02-08-2002: Message edited by: Timo ]</p>

But why did he let it out?

[quote]Originally posted by Timo:
<strong>
It's also kinda silly to subsitute his "connection" for your own thinking. </strong><hr></blockquote>

That's more than a little presumptuous. You mean to say that I never thought that Reagan's rhetoric played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union until I read that story? Wow! That's really assinine.

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:

That's more than a little presumptuous. You mean to say that I never thought that Reagan's rhetoric played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union until I read that story? Wow! That's really assinine.<hr></blockquote>

Whoa there tiger. I make and have made no assertions about what you think; I don't need to: you'll tell me what you think in no time.

Let's go one step at a time.

powerdoc wrote [quote]According to many historians , the fall of the soviet empire is the result of the competition for armement, The soviet system was ruined , because he has not the economical power to compete with USA for is army and armement. The project Star wars from Reagan in particular, was too mutch a match for the soviet (they where never competitive in computers and informatic).
I think this point is much more important than a single speech about the evil empire.<hr></blockquote>

You told him [quote]It's kind of silly to simply ignore his pespective just because it conflicts with yours.<hr></blockquote>

I wrote [quote]It's also kinda silly to subsitute his [the soviet general's] "connection" for your [i.e., one's] own thinking.<hr></blockquote>

Seems to me powerdoc's done his homework by suggesting that a number of historians see the break-up of the Soviet Union as resulting from a variety of structural reasons. It a defensible argument and not outlandish. I don't see how he ignores our Soviet General's perspective by merely disagreeing with it.

Unless you think the Soviet General was some kind of infallible knowledge source, in which case he should have bent his considerable brain power towards winning the Cold War.

Watch it with the name calling, Bub.

[quote]Originally posted by Timo:
<strong>
Seems to me powerdoc's done his homework by suggesting that a number of historians see the break-up of the Soviet Union as resulting from a variety of structural reasons. It a defensible argument and not outlandish. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Where did I disagree with this? All I've done is is put on the table the important role that rhetoric played in what was also a political struggle.

[quote]<strong>I don't see how he ignores our Soviet General's perspective by merely disagreeing with it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

There's been a consistent attempt in this thread to minimize the impact of Reagan's words.

[quote]<strong>Watch it with the name calling, Bub.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What are tou talking about? I didn't call anybody any names. Watch it with the false accusations, Bub.

[quote] Bush helped to drive a (more of a) wedge between the leaders of Iran and it's young movement <hr></blockquote>

I hope your right.

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:What are tou talking about? I didn't call anybody any names. Watch it with the false accusations, Bub.<hr></blockquote>

Nah, you're right. You merely put words in my mouth ("You mean to say..." -- um, no, I don't mean to say. If I meant to say I would have said it) and then called those words "assinine" [sic]. You labled my assertion that someone might want to make up their own mind rather than take the word of a Soviet General "presumptuous" without demonstrating how. Perhaps it's not name-calling -- but it's still slinging shit around.

I don't agree that "[t]here's been a consistent attempt in this thread to minimize the impact of Reagan's words." I think instead there is a disagreement about what degree his words have had an impact in the political struggle. Perhaps you think they had a great deal of power (another thread somewhere talked about the rhetorical power of "naming evil") or perhaps even you think the efficacy of Reagan's speeches are beyond debate.

I'm skeptical of such claims.

[ 02-08-2002: Message edited by: Timo ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Timo:
<strong>


I don't agree that "[t]here's been a consistent attempt in this thread to minimize the impact of Reagan's words." I think instead there is a disagreement about what degree his words have had an impact in the political struggle. Perhaps you think they had a great deal of power (another thread somewhere talked about the rhetorical power of "naming evil") or perhaps even you think the efficacy of Reagan's speeches are beyond debate.

I'm skeptical of such claims.

[ 02-08-2002: Message edited by: Timo ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks Timo, that's exactly what i think

It is not just France, by the way, you guys. The French foreign minister expressed the general feeling of the entire civilized world's leaders, and more importantly our best allies, in his criticisms.

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1810000/1810615.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1810000/1810615.stm</a>

Get used to this sort of thing, because the USA is no longer "the good guy" in the eyes of the world.

Sure France may be "irrelevant" to you, but is France+China+Italy+Spain+Germany+the UK+Every Latin American country+Every Middle eastern country= irrelevant?

Bush is just as much a danger these days to world stability as Saddam Hussein, now that Bush is on his own personal Jihad.

Let's see... Hussein has an increasingly militaristic state, was put into power by democratically illegitimate means, supports summary executions of "guilty" criminals, has possibly nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons at his disposal and doesn't give a damn about world opinion to how he conducts his business, inside or outside his country.

Sound like anybody you know?

The line between Good and Evil is not as clear cut as Bush would like you to believe. The rest of the world seems to understand that simple fact, and that is why they are frankly worried when the world's most powerful loose canon talks publicly using the Beavis and Butthead "it's cool / it sucks" logic of a third-grader.

(By the way, the poster above keeps saying "axe" of evil not because the event was badly reported, but because "axe" is the French word for "axis".)

Thanks for the laugh ricain.

[quote]Originally posted by ricain:
<strong>
(By the way, the poster above keeps saying "axe" of evil not because the event was badly reported, but because "axe" is the French word for "axis".)</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is the right explanation, it's because of my "not so good" english.

Here is an another interesting link in the same web site.
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1804000/1804281.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_18040 00/1804281.stm</a>

Last point, France is not the anti-american state many of you suppose to be, of course you will find anti-american people here, but you'll found them in another country and perhaps a lot more.
I never see an important manifestation against USA in France.
France is not the leader of the Antiamericanism in Europe either, France try like the others states of europe or simply the others states of the world, to be independant for their foreign policy.

I beg your pardon, but speaking of axis of evil is just scaring for me. I was never scared by what did say Clinton, or Georges Bush senior. Anti americanism as nothing to do with this.

I am not antiamerican my self, I enjoy the 2 trips that i made there a few years ago : Four weeks and three weeks. USA is a great and a varied country. But finding nice the US doesn't mean that I find nice everything that came out from it.
Should I be obliged to find nice Windows because it come from US ? (perhaps it's the only exception permitted )

[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Timo:
<strong>
Nah, you're right. You merely put words in my mouth ("You mean to say..." -- um, no, I don't mean to say. If I meant to say I would have said it) and then called those words "assinine" [sic]. You labled my assertion that someone might want to make up their own mind rather than take the word of a Soviet General "presumptuous" without demonstrating how. Perhaps it's not name-calling -- but it's still slinging shit around.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Okay, remove my attempt to clarify what you said. This:

[quote]It's also kinda silly to subsitute his "connection" for your own thinking. <hr></blockquote>

is still assinine. Who is substituting the Soviet general's thinking for their own? That story is merely a telling anecdote as to the forceful consequence a speech can have.

You found it "odd to defend a Reagan idea with the opinion of a Soviet general." That's not what I was doing. Reagan's description of the Soviet Union was accurate but the point of this thread was to discuss Bush's rhetoric. By telling that story I was showing the power that words can have on a (former) adversary. I was defending the idea of strong oratory.

This is interesting. The power of rhetoric and oratory. Bush fils is reaching back not to his father's model -- who did say things like "This will not stand" -- but to Reagan's model, the "Evil Empire." Looking for the same results, eh?

I would be foolish to discount the power of words...it's easy to see their majesty in, for example, the Gettysburg address (OT: now there's a good Republican).

There are words that powerfully invoke but also there are words that clumsily flatten.

To my ear Bush's "axis of evil" sounds clumsy. If Bush is borrowing rhetoric how 'bout more Teddy Roosevelt and less Ronald Reagan?
__
__
Oh, and "asinine" has one "s".

[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: Timo ]</p>

Just a note: today a visit to North Korea, that has been planned (and looked forward to by everybody concerned, particularly the South Koreans,) for a long time, by several American Diplomats was cancelled due to the rhetoric of Bush. This was an important meeting that would have allowed closer communication and, yes, more openness therefor more assuredness of what, if anything NKorea is planning and developing.

The people of South Korea are PISSED OFF by the language that Bush has used, and are scared that he will provoke a war where millions of them stand to die but none of them have a say in its provocation.

this after even more news of backfiring in Iran: Iran has nixed a choice of British diplomats for Iran . . . . Someone who had been agreed upon earlier and discussed with Khatami (the moderate) is nixed by the hard liners - - which means their power is consolidating. . . . probably rallied and strengthened by the 'clumsy' diplomacy of Bush's speech. --this doesn't look like a wedge to me....

[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Timo:
<strong>
To my ear Bush's "axis of evil" sounds clumsy. If Bush is borrowing rhetoric how 'bout more Teddy Roosevelt and less Ronald Reagan?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Why TR instead of Reagan?

[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>Just a note: today a visit to North Korea, that has been planned (and looked forward to by everybody concerned, particularly the South Koreans,) for a long time, by several American Diplomats was cancelled due to the rhetoric of Bush. This was an important meeting that would have allowed closer communication and, yes, more openness therefor more assuredness of what, if anything NKorea is planning and developing.

The people of South Korea are PISSED OFF by the language that Bush has used, and are scared that he will provoke a war where millions of them stand to die but none of them have a say in its provocation.

this after even more news of backfiring in Iran: Iran has nixed a choice of British diplomats for Iran . . . . Someone who had been agreed upon earlier and discussed with Khatami (the moderate) is nixed by the hard liners - - which means their power is consolidating. . . . probably rallied and strengthened by the 'clumsy' diplomacy of Bush's speech. --this doesn't look like a wedge to me....
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Is this post a joke?

For the life of me I can't see why you would write this question.

Your constant and consistantly simplistic answers to complex issues astounds me

Perhaps that's why you don't see anything wrong with the hyperbole in Bush's rhetoric . .. you want the world to be as simplistic as he. And, perhaps that is something that, apparently, the rest of the world understands and you don't.

Real diplomacy is taking place while Bush name calls.... which appears to others as : "drunken shouts". Well, it was taking place until his blurtings.

Perhaps you think it is a joke that we have any sort of communication with North Korea . .. .well Japan and South Korea certainly do not think so.

Communication does not mean capitulation, nor does it mean legitimation on our part for their form of government. It is important that we know our enemies and we know what they are doing.

actually, I think Scott is just trying to piss everybody off. He doesn't even care to make an argument...
Is this your idea of a fun evening in front of your mac Scott? *hehe, I wonder how those frogs will react to THIS one... hehe*

[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>
Yes and France sell tires for the space Shuttle, you should remove them immediatly !
<hr></blockquote>

Yes we should

[quote]
A question about planes, do you know the name of a plane that have never crashed ? DC 10 , boeing 757, airbus, Antonov , Concorde ...any suggestions ?
accident.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The Airbus has a serious design and manufacturing flaw. Just like the rushed to production DeHaveland Comet in the 50's.
It has just recently come to light that you can not move the rudder a certain amount at certain speeds. The American jetliners can be full ruddered at full throttle to the point of inversion with no damage. American jetliners are looped, rolled and inverted recovered before they are ever put into production.

The Concorde accident was not a design flaw and it was brought down by parts falling off the Airbus in front of it.

The 2 DC 10s that came down were from poor maintainance practice.

[quote]
May i suggest you to never take a plane, and to die like everybody in a car <hr></blockquote>

I hold a pilot's certificate and fly an aerobatic American Champion Aircraft Super Decathlon.
I know the reality of turning the fan off, so go pound some pebbles up your ass with a pick axe, ground dweller.