<strong>But it really is a myth that the US is acting unilaterally. For all the talk, the actions are perfectly multilateral, entirely UN-centric. 1441 passed unanimously. Rght now, there's probably only a few members of the security council against military action - not enough to vote down a new resolution. So if France vetoes, who is really acting unilaterally, the US or France?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have heard that France will not vetoe. She will try to have a majority at the security concil but she will not use his right of veto.
[quote] The attorney has spoken,France is eternally doomed to silence because they lost WW2.
What do you suggest for UK then ? If UK wasn't an island she had been defeated in a couple of days also. The join army of UK and France have been defeated in three days. <hr></blockquote>
haha.. unfortunately it's not really a legal matter.... lol
not eternally, but they really don't have the right to speak out on this matter... they are horribly biased considering they do over 100 billion dollars worth of business with IRAQ every year.... and not just oil.
American's have every right to protest - the french do not.
You know I'm all for educated dissention and such with this war business - I have little issue with France and Germany voicing their disapproval and engaging in international debate over it. However, Chirac is clearly more arrogant than Mr. Strategery ever was.
WTF is he to tell the Czech Republic and others (quoting the NYT - somewhat more reliable than Yahoo) that they "missed an opportunity to shut up."?? And then all his crapola about how it is unwise to oppose France and Germany, otherwise you may not get into "the club". What a pompous fuk.
I guess it's OK for him to dissent on international matters like this, but not OK for non-EU nations in Europe to take an opposing view. Yet another reason to rip on France (no offense Powerdoc).
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Sorry I said anything!
The problem isn't with individuals like Powerdoc or whomever. That's never been the problem so I wouldn't worry about apologizing to other French citizens, or Americans and such. The problem we're talking about is Chirac's comments specifically, or more generally the words of a person with his clout and responsibility. It cuts both ways.
Chirac might be the biggest prick but Mitterand and De Gaulle and perhaps others chafed under their geopolitical inferiority to the US as well. I think it is a manifestation of the emasculation of an entire generation of French men based on the way the Germans made them their bitch. Also French wines are mediocre these days so really they have little to offer the world except the Eiffel tower and a case study in the value of bathing. And plastic surgeons too.
The "EU Underlings" are starting to speak up regarding Chirac's statements. Tonight on BBC World News ( the version that they run on PBS) they had the President of one of the EU candidate countries (possibly Bulgaria?) who was in studio to address Chirac's statements. She touched upon what the membership candidates expect from the EU insofar as speaking with equal voices. She deflected possible concerns by the EU at sharing membership with formerly communist states, but since it seems that France is rife with communist politicians, this argument seems (from the outside) as a little hollow.
I can imagine the myriad concerns of established member nations and their desire to hold high standards for potential new members. What President Chirac said or implied about these pledge nations is little different in tone from what President Bush said regarding "old Europe".
<strong>Chirac might be the biggest prick but Mitterand and De Gaulle and perhaps others chafed under their geopolitical inferiority to the US as well. I think it is a manifestation of the emasculation of an entire generation of French men based on the way the Germans made them their bitch. Also French wines are mediocre these days so really they have little to offer the world except the Eiffel tower and a case study in the value of bathing. And plastic surgeons too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is no comparison possible between Miterrand and De Gaulle. De Gaulle was a great president, and perhaps the only one of post WW2.
Before 1939, he was a colonel in the defense minister, and he make a report asking to organize the army in a different way : aka making tank division like the german, and not one or two tank supporting infantry. It means that he has a vision.
After the terrible defeat of 1939, he refused to resign and went to UK, where he organise the resistance in France.
In post WW2, he organise the independance of France, investing in nuclear research, letting France to become a nuclear power (civile and military). His analysis that there where not great countrie with great foreign policiy without an effective army, and that the best way to have security is to organize your-self your defense, and to not wait the help of the great brother in case of need, like in WW1 or WW2.
At the contrary of what he was supposed to do, he let become Algeria independant, letting stop this war, thinking that it was the end of the colonia aera.
The man was only dedicated in the highest interest of France rather than his own career, and do not hesitate to resign after being put in minority in a referendum in 1968 (unlike Chirac in 1995, and unlike Mitterand who was a liar). He was clean in his private lifes, never giving advantages to his friends or family, and has never been implicated in legs party. That not was really the case of Mitterand : secret child, official liar about his health, and many others hidden aera in his life.
I have read some parts of his memories, he was admirative of the US, but as the french first supporter, he wanted that France was independant and he do what was necessary to achieve that goal. The time has passed, and the french army has declined, due to the lack of money invested (< 3% of the PIB). He never appear to me as an emasculate man.
The communist are representing now just 5%. They are not anymore in power, except in some little towns.
Even if Chirac was pissed by the letters of support of this ex commies nations (not a good idear of this nation however, when you need the French vote to enter in the EU) , it was stupid to publically complain about this.
There is no comparison possible between Miterrand and De Gaulle. De Gaulle was a great president, and perhaps the only one of post WW2.
Before 1939, he was a colonel in the defense minister, and he make a report asking to organize the army in a different way : aka making tank division like the german, and not one or two tank supporting infantry. It means that he has a vision.
After the terrible defeat of 1939, he refused to resign and went to UK, where he organise the resistance in France.
In post WW2, he organise the independance of France, investing in nuclear research, letting France to become a nuclear power (civile and military). His analysis that there where not great countrie with great foreign policiy without an effective army, and that the best way to have security is to organize your-self your defense, and to not wait the help of the great brother in case of need, like in WW1 or WW2.
At the contrary of what he was supposed to do, he let become Algeria independant, letting stop this war, thinking that it was the end of the colonia aera.
The man was only dedicated in the highest interest of France rather than his own career, and do not hesitate to resign after being put in minority in a referendum in 1968 (unlike Chirac in 1995, and unlike Mitterand who was a liar). He was clean in his private lifes, never giving advantages to his friends or family, and has never been implicated in legs party. That not was really the case of Mitterand : secret child, official liar about his health, and many others hidden aera in his life.
I have read some parts of his memories, he was admirative of the US, but as the french first supporter, he wanted that France was independant and he do what was necessary to achieve that goal. The time has passed, and the french army has declined, due to the lack of money invested (< 3% of the PIB). He never appear to me as an emasculate man. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, he was pretty ballsy. Tried very hard to make France and French culture influential again. I know english Canada didn't like his little "vive le Quebec Libre" statement when he visited here.
Yeah, he was pretty ballsy. Tried very hard to make France and French culture influential again. I know english Canada didn't like his little "vive le Quebec Libre" statement when he visited here.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, and i do not see why it will be bad. Every countrie try to protect and take care of her own interest.
And for the Quebec thing, it's a Canada thing, a rivaltry between some provinces of Canada. It could explain why that some canadian people are so happy to bash the french here.
Powerdoc, I was going on a little fishing expedition. I thought that the latter comments would make that clear.
The emasculation comment was mostly in that vein. But I will say this. You are comparing DeGaulle and Mitterand and others in terms of the resistance or personal issues or domestic issues etc. Defining differences there is easy. Nevertheless, when it comes to Franco-American relations there is a strong tradition dating from DeGaulle and carried on through D'Eistang, Mitterand, Chirac and whoever else I might be forgetting. Their governments have fought the US on many issues often doing so in order to try to bring prestige and importance to France. In some cases even when their was no substantial disagreement; asserting disagreement in some cases where there was none just to show that they were not subordinate to the US in anyway. It's an engrained tradition of the Fifth Republic. And judging by Chirac's statements I don't expect it to end any time soon.
In the end, France has no chance to regain its status as a world power unless they renounce and outlaw anything related to Jerry Lewis. Likewise for the Germans and their disturbing fondness for David Hasselhoff.
[quote]Even if Chirac was pissed by the letters of support of this ex commies nations (not a good idear of this nation however, when you need the French vote to enter in the EU) , it was stupid to publically complain about this.<hr></blockquote>
You're not suggesting that France would seriously considering derailing various candidacies because those countries don't agree with French policy are you? You're not suggesting that France would go for a unilateral power play to maintain a greater influence in a smaller EU rather than sacrificing power in a diluted EU for hte good of a united prosperous and peaceful Europe are you?
Chirac's comments were idiotic. Those contries do not forfeit their rights to a foreign policy just because they are applying to the EU. Their statements were not an attack on France or the EU, simply a position on a world issue. Many EU members like Britain, Spain, Italy etc hold the same position. Even Rumsfeld and Fleischer have never told the French or Germans to shut up, repeatedly stating that they have the rights to their opinions though the US disagrees and thinks that they are mistaken. Arrogance and unilateralism indeed.
Chirac and Rumsfeld should simultaneously bust caps in each other's asses, the world would be a better place if they did.
haha.. unfortunately it's not really a legal matter.... lol
not eternally, but they really don't have the right to speak out on this matter... they are horribly biased considering they do over 100 billion dollars worth of business with IRAQ every year.... and not just oil.
American's have every right to protest - the french do not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know who is horribly biased. Where did you get this 100 billion dollars worth with Iraq each year ?
Here is a link with the amount of exchange per nation with Iraq, import and export (sorry it's in french) the source of this article is the FMI (perhaps IMF in english) :
US is the first customer of Irak (he buy under UNO control 52 % of the iraq oil), canada is ranked number two, and EU number three. France is ranked fourth with 327 millions US $ (USA more than 2500 millions US $).
US do not sell anything to Irak at the contrary of others like France : 298 millons US $.
We are very far from your 100 billions dollars. And your way of thinking is irrelivant, if we follow it, that's US who will not have the right to have an opinion.
Comments
<strong>But it really is a myth that the US is acting unilaterally. For all the talk, the actions are perfectly multilateral, entirely UN-centric. 1441 passed unanimously. Rght now, there's probably only a few members of the security council against military action - not enough to vote down a new resolution. So if France vetoes, who is really acting unilaterally, the US or France?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have heard that France will not vetoe. She will try to have a majority at the security concil but she will not use his right of veto.
France will get on board.
What do you suggest for UK then ? If UK wasn't an island she had been defeated in a couple of days also. The join army of UK and France have been defeated in three days. <hr></blockquote>
haha.. unfortunately it's not really a legal matter.... lol
not eternally, but they really don't have the right to speak out on this matter... they are horribly biased considering they do over 100 billion dollars worth of business with IRAQ every year.... and not just oil.
American's have every right to protest - the french do not.
<strong>How did Harald edit Tulkas' post?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just leftovers from the previous post that he failed to delete I bet.
Learn to spell you Muppet...
[ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: Harald ]
Thanks so much Harald.
[ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</p>
[edit: No I'm not - Harald.]
[ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: Harald ]
[ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: Harald ]
[Damn you Harald! - groverat]
[ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: groverat]
<strong>
Just leftovers from the previous post that he failed to delete I bet.
Learn to spell you Muppet...
[ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: Harald ]
Thanks so much Harald.
[ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
yup..cleaned up now
WTF is he to tell the Czech Republic and others (quoting the NYT - somewhat more reliable than Yahoo) that they "missed an opportunity to shut up."?? And then all his crapola about how it is unwise to oppose France and Germany, otherwise you may not get into "the club". What a pompous fuk.
I guess it's OK for him to dissent on international matters like this, but not OK for non-EU nations in Europe to take an opposing view. Yet another reason to rip on France (no offense Powerdoc).
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
The problem isn't with individuals like Powerdoc or whomever. That's never been the problem so I wouldn't worry about apologizing to other French citizens, or Americans and such. The problem we're talking about is Chirac's comments specifically, or more generally the words of a person with his clout and responsibility. It cuts both ways.
I can imagine the myriad concerns of established member nations and their desire to hold high standards for potential new members. What President Chirac said or implied about these pledge nations is little different in tone from what President Bush said regarding "old Europe".
[ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: drewprops ]</p>
<strong>Chirac might be the biggest prick but Mitterand and De Gaulle and perhaps others chafed under their geopolitical inferiority to the US as well. I think it is a manifestation of the emasculation of an entire generation of French men based on the way the Germans made them their bitch. Also French wines are mediocre these days so really they have little to offer the world except the Eiffel tower and a case study in the value of bathing. And plastic surgeons too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is no comparison possible between Miterrand and De Gaulle. De Gaulle was a great president, and perhaps the only one of post WW2.
Before 1939, he was a colonel in the defense minister, and he make a report asking to organize the army in a different way : aka making tank division like the german, and not one or two tank supporting infantry. It means that he has a vision.
After the terrible defeat of 1939, he refused to resign and went to UK, where he organise the resistance in France.
In post WW2, he organise the independance of France, investing in nuclear research, letting France to become a nuclear power (civile and military). His analysis that there where not great countrie with great foreign policiy without an effective army, and that the best way to have security is to organize your-self your defense, and to not wait the help of the great brother in case of need, like in WW1 or WW2.
At the contrary of what he was supposed to do, he let become Algeria independant, letting stop this war, thinking that it was the end of the colonia aera.
The man was only dedicated in the highest interest of France rather than his own career, and do not hesitate to resign after being put in minority in a referendum in 1968 (unlike Chirac in 1995, and unlike Mitterand who was a liar). He was clean in his private lifes, never giving advantages to his friends or family, and has never been implicated in legs party. That not was really the case of Mitterand : secret child, official liar about his health, and many others hidden aera in his life.
I have read some parts of his memories, he was admirative of the US, but as the french first supporter, he wanted that France was independant and he do what was necessary to achieve that goal. The time has passed, and the french army has declined, due to the lack of money invested (< 3% of the PIB). He never appear to me as an emasculate man.
<strong> but since it seems that France is rife with communist politicians, this argument seems (from the outside) as a little hollow.
[ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: drewprops ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
The communist are representing now just 5%. They are not anymore in power, except in some little towns.
Even if Chirac was pissed by the letters of support of this ex commies nations (not a good idear of this nation however, when you need the French vote to enter in the EU) , it was stupid to publically complain about this.
<strong>
There is no comparison possible between Miterrand and De Gaulle. De Gaulle was a great president, and perhaps the only one of post WW2.
Before 1939, he was a colonel in the defense minister, and he make a report asking to organize the army in a different way : aka making tank division like the german, and not one or two tank supporting infantry. It means that he has a vision.
After the terrible defeat of 1939, he refused to resign and went to UK, where he organise the resistance in France.
In post WW2, he organise the independance of France, investing in nuclear research, letting France to become a nuclear power (civile and military). His analysis that there where not great countrie with great foreign policiy without an effective army, and that the best way to have security is to organize your-self your defense, and to not wait the help of the great brother in case of need, like in WW1 or WW2.
At the contrary of what he was supposed to do, he let become Algeria independant, letting stop this war, thinking that it was the end of the colonia aera.
The man was only dedicated in the highest interest of France rather than his own career, and do not hesitate to resign after being put in minority in a referendum in 1968 (unlike Chirac in 1995, and unlike Mitterand who was a liar). He was clean in his private lifes, never giving advantages to his friends or family, and has never been implicated in legs party. That not was really the case of Mitterand : secret child, official liar about his health, and many others hidden aera in his life.
I have read some parts of his memories, he was admirative of the US, but as the french first supporter, he wanted that France was independant and he do what was necessary to achieve that goal. The time has passed, and the french army has declined, due to the lack of money invested (< 3% of the PIB). He never appear to me as an emasculate man.
Yeah, he was pretty ballsy. Tried very hard to make France and French culture influential again. I know english Canada didn't like his little "vive le Quebec Libre" statement when he visited here.
<strong>
Yeah, he was pretty ballsy. Tried very hard to make France and French culture influential again. I know english Canada didn't like his little "vive le Quebec Libre" statement when he visited here.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, and i do not see why it will be bad. Every countrie try to protect and take care of her own interest.
And for the Quebec thing, it's a Canada thing, a rivaltry between some provinces of Canada. It could explain why that some canadian people are so happy to bash the french here.
The emasculation comment was mostly in that vein. But I will say this. You are comparing DeGaulle and Mitterand and others in terms of the resistance or personal issues or domestic issues etc. Defining differences there is easy. Nevertheless, when it comes to Franco-American relations there is a strong tradition dating from DeGaulle and carried on through D'Eistang, Mitterand, Chirac and whoever else I might be forgetting. Their governments have fought the US on many issues often doing so in order to try to bring prestige and importance to France. In some cases even when their was no substantial disagreement; asserting disagreement in some cases where there was none just to show that they were not subordinate to the US in anyway. It's an engrained tradition of the Fifth Republic. And judging by Chirac's statements I don't expect it to end any time soon.
In the end, France has no chance to regain its status as a world power unless they renounce and outlaw anything related to Jerry Lewis. Likewise for the Germans and their disturbing fondness for David Hasselhoff.
[quote]Even if Chirac was pissed by the letters of support of this ex commies nations (not a good idear of this nation however, when you need the French vote to enter in the EU) , it was stupid to publically complain about this.<hr></blockquote>
You're not suggesting that France would seriously considering derailing various candidacies because those countries don't agree with French policy are you? You're not suggesting that France would go for a unilateral power play to maintain a greater influence in a smaller EU rather than sacrificing power in a diluted EU for hte good of a united prosperous and peaceful Europe are you?
Chirac's comments were idiotic. Those contries do not forfeit their rights to a foreign policy just because they are applying to the EU. Their statements were not an attack on France or the EU, simply a position on a world issue. Many EU members like Britain, Spain, Italy etc hold the same position. Even Rumsfeld and Fleischer have never told the French or Germans to shut up, repeatedly stating that they have the rights to their opinions though the US disagrees and thinks that they are mistaken. Arrogance and unilateralism indeed.
Chirac and Rumsfeld should simultaneously bust caps in each other's asses, the world would be a better place if they did.
<strong>
haha.. unfortunately it's not really a legal matter.... lol
not eternally, but they really don't have the right to speak out on this matter... they are horribly biased considering they do over 100 billion dollars worth of business with IRAQ every year.... and not just oil.
American's have every right to protest - the french do not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know who is horribly biased. Where did you get this 100 billion dollars worth with Iraq each year ?
Here is a link with the amount of exchange per nation with Iraq, import and export (sorry it's in french) the source of this article is the FMI (perhaps IMF in english) :
<a href="http://www.journaldunet.com/afp/eco/030214162858.f9pmsdch.shtml"; target="_blank">http://www.journaldunet.com/afp/eco/030214162858.f9pmsdch.shtml</a>;
some extracts :
US is the first customer of Irak (he buy under UNO control 52 % of the iraq oil), canada is ranked number two, and EU number three. France is ranked fourth with 327 millions US $ (USA more than 2500 millions US $).
US do not sell anything to Irak at the contrary of others like France : 298 millons US $.
We are very far from your 100 billions dollars. And your way of thinking is irrelivant, if we follow it, that's US who will not have the right to have an opinion.
<strong>Someone should "edit" Chirac.
I recommend Rabbi Cutdickski.