There were particular splits over policy in the Middle East, with Mr Vedrine calling the White House's actions a "tragic mistake".
Happens all the time, der kopf, ignore it if you like.
I can see what you are saying but it is false. No responsible government body is run by opinion poll, the whims of the populace are not of overwhelming importance when it comes to foreign affairs.
France and Germany are smart to remain nice to the US (to the extent they do), just as the US ignores the anti-French population and remains nice to France.
When was the last time before this the US strongly rebuked France?
I think the answer to your question is that it happens sometimes but generally not much because everyone has to be nice to each other, not just everyone has to be nice to the US.
Hey, the example you furnish is again, more of an argument in my favor than it is in yours. 2002? That is, as far as history is concerned, NOW. Moreover, it is about the same case as today: the legacy of 9-11. Now, again, you can get up on your hind legs and say Iraq has nothing to do with 9-11, but I guess you know it does.
Quote:
We caused the territorially aggressive and brutally tyrannical USSR?
Amazing. Simply astonishing.
Why, groverat? Again, you fail to provide compelling arguments. Throwing in a couple of randomly chosen adjectives does not work on people who got past primary school, or at least, such is my hope.
Quote:
You say that we blew up all Iraqi forces in Kuwait and subsequently they weren't at the airport. Ok, what's your point?
My point is that the American government should not be trusted when it is justifying actions against another government. Their spin doctors are rather good when it comes to playing the mindless masses.
Quote:
Tell me, kopf, what happens in Europe when a handful of evenly-matched nations get angry with one another and there is no clear world superpower who could easily dominate the situation? World wars happen.
But I can see how you would distrust nations more powerful than your own, the Belgians in Congo are a brutal lesson.
I do not agree with you on the World War thing. Here you have a big country who wished to swallow a lot of smaller ones. France was never the goal, occupation was strived for merely to subdue a very probable source of enmity. There is plenty to say on all the equally powered nations who DIDN'T start a world war, or any war, for that matter.
Also, this reference to Belgium and Congo is completely unclear to me. What lesson did Belgium learn? I do not see any connexion to what we are discussing, but I'm sure you'll enlighten me.
Quote:
It is no evidence at all. This is not the first time a foreign nation has been angry and openly disagreed with the US and it won't be the last.
There is nothing unique or telling about a foreign government disagreeing with or even criticizing the US.
Oh, but I do think it is rather unique that both an allied nation and a former arch-ennemy, both members of the UN security council, announce that they will use its veto in order to stop the world's biggest nation.
Quote:
Yes, but the war is temporary, and damned near over. And all in less than 3 weeks.
~1000 civilians killed in the war.
In the same time span, ~5480 dead from sanctions.
Hey, I hold the sanctions against the US, just as I hold the Cuba embargo against the US. There would not have been sanctions anymore if it was up to Europe. Also, I am principally against all war, and I think being the initiator of an uncalled-for war is not justifiable, in any case.
Quote:
Actually they are UN sanctions. The US has a large hand in it but they are UN sanctions. Again, avoiding blame for your own actions by pointing at the US instead. Europe is complicit in the sanctions-slaughter.
Mea culpa. I feel bad about that every day. I do. Let me repeat, however, that I and many with me feel that there would not be sanctions up to this day if it weren't for the tight-assedness of the US.
Quote:
Lifting the embargo without ousting Saddam would result in an Iraq free to build economic might, and with a madman like Saddam, military might. He siphoned what he could of the sanctions-money to build his military, do you honestly believe he would use a free economy for the good of his people?
Why always do you look at the others when you have the world's biggest loony at home. There is no country spending more on weapons of mass destruction on this globe. Still, you insist that Saddam is a madman who would use the little means his one-of-poorest-countries-of-this-world country has and spend them on rockets. Personally, I feel more threatened by your country than by Saddam's. I would hate to catch one of those rounds of friendly fire.
Quote:
Where do families from those slaughtered in the Congo look for help? Idle question.
Have you followed the many trials against Congo officials around here?
I don't have much faith in the US going for a removal of the sanctions.
So you think Bush is lying and will keep sanctions on a people he is trying to help rebuild with Hussein dead and/or gone?
The joint statement also said there would be a "swift" end to U.N. sanctions.
Bush has used this "swift end to economic sanctions" language multiple times, as has Negroponte, the US rep at the UN.
I know the sanctions will be lifted, if everyone else in the SC agrees.
--
der kopf:
Quote:
Hey, the example you furnish is again, more of an argument in my favor than it is in yours. 2002? That is, as far as history is concerned, NOW.
This is before any war with Iraq. This is even before we took the Iraq issue back to the UN.
Quote:
Moreover, it is about the same case as today: the legacy of 9-11. Now, again, you can get up on your hind legs and say Iraq has nothing to do with 9-11, but I guess you know it does.
Well Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (literally) but 9/11 has caused a major overhaul in the way we look at foreign policy. We once again recognize threats as legitimate and worth large-scale intervention, it's that simple. The fabled and probably fabricated "I'm afraid all we have done is to wake a sleeping giant" line finds a home once again.
Quote:
Why, groverat? Again, you fail to provide compelling arguments. Throwing in a couple of randomly chosen adjectives does not work on people who got past primary school, or at least, such is my hope.
I'd be interested to hear your logic on how the USSR is the US's fault. I am amazed and astonished by your claim, I am eager to see some backup for it.
Quote:
My point is that the American government should not be trusted when it is justifying actions against another government. Their spin doctors are rather good when it comes to playing the mindless masses.
Ok. My thought process on this issue has been fairly independent of the administration. I didn't watch Powell's big presentation to the UN and I can't stand to watch Bush's speeches most of the time.
I don't trust government, I don't really trust any speaker to the extent that I'll just take it as fact and walk on. Most of my disdain for the UNSC and the sanctions regime comes from Chomsky lectures to be quite honest.
Quote:
I do not agree with you on the World War thing. Here you have a big country who wished to swallow a lot of smaller ones. France was never the goal, occupation was strived for merely to subdue a very probable source of enmity. There is plenty to say on all the equally powered nations who DIDN'T start a world war, or any war, for that matter.
Germany had its eye on Russia, you telling me those nations weren't evenly-matched?
A few of the European powers could have matched Germany had they noticed that Hitler's rapid militarization might mean war. I'm reminded of an Eddie Izzard bit where the English are reduced to throwing pots and pans at them.
"No tanks? Get the ice cream vans out! Orange Fruities and Zooms, throw the Zooms at them! **** off you bastards!"
Of course evenly-matched nations have existed and not warred, but to say that's the ideal setting for peace is silly.
Quote:
Also, this reference to Belgium and Congo is completely unclear to me. What lesson did Belgium learn? I do not see any connexion to what we are discussing, but I'm sure you'll enlighten me.
It's a lesson all of Europe learned. Colonialism is bad. Most of these problems are traced directly to European colonial activity in Africa and the middle east. I'm not particularly fond of listening to the bodies who caused these problems and are doing little or nothing now to help.
Quote:
Oh, but I do think it is rather unique that both an allied nation and a former arch-ennemy, both members of the UN security council, announce that they will use its veto in order to stop the world's biggest nation.
"Allied" nation. France has been grumpy about US foreign policy for years. It's no surprise to me. Russia is sure as hell no surprise.
Again, France and Russia being pissed off at the US within the UN context is no surprise. Russia was against UNSC action in Yugoslavia and France has been biting us about sanctions for years.
Quote:
There would not have been sanctions anymore if it was up to Europe.
Europe = France & Belgium?
GB seemed to think they were a good idea, and as far as I'm concerned they are the premier European nation.
Quote:
Also, I am principally against all war, and I think being the initiator of an uncalled-for war is not justifiable, in any case.
Again you ignore the FACT that containment took a harsher humanitarian toll than a short war of liberation.
Quote:
Mea culpa. I feel bad about that every day. I do. Let me repeat, however, that I and many with me feel that there would not be sanctions up to this day if it weren't for the tight-assedness of the US.
If you take sanctions away with Saddam in power he restarts his weapons programs as soon as possible. I know France and Belgium don't care; France because that increases their sales and Belgium because they aren't responsible for keeping peace anywhere.
Quote:
Still, you insist that Saddam is a madman who would use the little means his one-of-poorest-countries-of-this-world country has and spend them on rockets.
I insist because it's fact. That's what's been happening in Iraq, were you born yesterday?
Why do you think the infant mortality rate has shot up? Why do you think Iraq had any military for us to quickly destroy? Because he spent the money on food and medicine for his people? How do you think he got that new palace and mosque built?
So you think Bush is lying and will keep sanctions on a people he is trying to help rebuild with Hussein dead and/or gone?
The joint statement also said there would be a "swift" end to U.N. sanctions.
Bush has used this "swift end to economic sanctions" language multiple times, as has Negroponte, the US rep at the UN.
I know the sanctions will be lifted, if everyone else in the SC agrees.
We were talking hypothetics remember?
What would have happened if there was no war.
I was saying that I have no illusions of a great war-less solution (because of US foreign policy). But that still doesn't give me an excuse to be pro-war.
If the choice was sanctions or war. Then it was only so because of US dictation...
If the choice was sanctions or war. Then it was only so because of US dictation...
So given the choice between sanctions, no sanctions & war you would just pick the removal of sanctions? Knowing what you know about how quick and effective removal of Saddam has been and what Saddam does to his own people?
You don't have to be anything, but don't bristle at the questions because they're uncomfortable. You can challenge my stances as well.
It's funny how even with said 'triple errors' we are kicking ass and taking names. Granted people have died, granted it has cost money, granted now french people rate below slugs in Americans mind. But you gotta admit it worked. Everything the war is/was supposed to do is proceeding according to plan. I see it as a resounding success.
Triple Success. (is what it sounds like to me.
1) We recognized that war was not one of many options, but instead that it was THE answer to a problem which has been avoided or ignored for years and years.
2) We quickly and effectively used our governmental procedures to insure the nation's security.
3) Having the guts/gumption to confront a known dictator when cowardly countries (not naming names) were afraid/unwilling to join us.
Sounds like a rather good score card if you ask me (which you didn't)
It's funny how even with said 'triple errors' we are kicking ass and taking names. Granted people have died, granted it has cost money, granted now french people rate below slugs in Americans mind. But you gotta admit it worked. Everything the war is/was supposed to do is proceeding according to plan. I see it as a resounding success.
Triple Success. (is what it sounds like to me.
1) We recognized that war was not one of many options, but instead that it was THE answer to a problem which has been avoided or ignored for years and years.
2) We quickly and effectively used our governmental procedures to insure the nation's security.
3) Having the guts/gumption to confront a known dictator when cowardly countries (not naming names) were afraid/unwilling to join us.
Sounds like a rather good score card if you ask me (which you didn't)
Sounds like typical sour grapes from France.
I am happy for you that you are so confident with the result of war. I'll give you the credit that there will be a military victory.
However i don't think that many bookmakers would have been ready to bet on Saddam's victory even in the first day of these war. It does not require a great courage to make this war, at the contrary of many others wars where US was involved in the past.
Now for rating the score card, you should have wait some times to do an analysis. Personally , i am waiting to see the next developpements and especially the afterwar, to make this analysis. These war will make big changes in the aera of the world, it will ask time to appreciate the consequences (good or bad) of such a politic. The management of afterwar will be also important for the future.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
Gladly. I even kept it recent for you.
There were particular splits over policy in the Middle East, with Mr Vedrine calling the White House's actions a "tragic mistake".
Happens all the time, der kopf, ignore it if you like.
I can see what you are saying but it is false. No responsible government body is run by opinion poll, the whims of the populace are not of overwhelming importance when it comes to foreign affairs.
France and Germany are smart to remain nice to the US (to the extent they do), just as the US ignores the anti-French population and remains nice to France.
When was the last time before this the US strongly rebuked France?
I think the answer to your question is that it happens sometimes but generally not much because everyone has to be nice to each other, not just everyone has to be nice to the US.
Hey, the example you furnish is again, more of an argument in my favor than it is in yours. 2002? That is, as far as history is concerned, NOW. Moreover, it is about the same case as today: the legacy of 9-11. Now, again, you can get up on your hind legs and say Iraq has nothing to do with 9-11, but I guess you know it does.
We caused the territorially aggressive and brutally tyrannical USSR?
Amazing. Simply astonishing.
Why, groverat? Again, you fail to provide compelling arguments. Throwing in a couple of randomly chosen adjectives does not work on people who got past primary school, or at least, such is my hope.
You say that we blew up all Iraqi forces in Kuwait and subsequently they weren't at the airport. Ok, what's your point?
My point is that the American government should not be trusted when it is justifying actions against another government. Their spin doctors are rather good when it comes to playing the mindless masses.
Tell me, kopf, what happens in Europe when a handful of evenly-matched nations get angry with one another and there is no clear world superpower who could easily dominate the situation? World wars happen.
But I can see how you would distrust nations more powerful than your own, the Belgians in Congo are a brutal lesson.
I do not agree with you on the World War thing. Here you have a big country who wished to swallow a lot of smaller ones. France was never the goal, occupation was strived for merely to subdue a very probable source of enmity. There is plenty to say on all the equally powered nations who DIDN'T start a world war, or any war, for that matter.
Also, this reference to Belgium and Congo is completely unclear to me. What lesson did Belgium learn? I do not see any connexion to what we are discussing, but I'm sure you'll enlighten me.
It is no evidence at all. This is not the first time a foreign nation has been angry and openly disagreed with the US and it won't be the last.
There is nothing unique or telling about a foreign government disagreeing with or even criticizing the US.
Oh, but I do think it is rather unique that both an allied nation and a former arch-ennemy, both members of the UN security council, announce that they will use its veto in order to stop the world's biggest nation.
Yes, but the war is temporary, and damned near over. And all in less than 3 weeks.
~1000 civilians killed in the war.
In the same time span, ~5480 dead from sanctions.
Hey, I hold the sanctions against the US, just as I hold the Cuba embargo against the US. There would not have been sanctions anymore if it was up to Europe. Also, I am principally against all war, and I think being the initiator of an uncalled-for war is not justifiable, in any case.
Actually they are UN sanctions. The US has a large hand in it but they are UN sanctions. Again, avoiding blame for your own actions by pointing at the US instead. Europe is complicit in the sanctions-slaughter.
Mea culpa. I feel bad about that every day. I do. Let me repeat, however, that I and many with me feel that there would not be sanctions up to this day if it weren't for the tight-assedness of the US.
Lifting the embargo without ousting Saddam would result in an Iraq free to build economic might, and with a madman like Saddam, military might. He siphoned what he could of the sanctions-money to build his military, do you honestly believe he would use a free economy for the good of his people?
Why always do you look at the others when you have the world's biggest loony at home. There is no country spending more on weapons of mass destruction on this globe. Still, you insist that Saddam is a madman who would use the little means his one-of-poorest-countries-of-this-world country has and spend them on rockets. Personally, I feel more threatened by your country than by Saddam's. I would hate to catch one of those rounds of friendly fire.
Where do families from those slaughtered in the Congo look for help? Idle question.
Have you followed the many trials against Congo officials around here?
Originally posted by Scott
So New all you seem able to do is stand on the sidelines and say "that's bad".
well, at least I don't eat children...
Originally posted by groverat
I'm not willing to admit it because it's a complete load of crap.
If you think it's a complete load of crap, why did you link to a U.N. article that says otherwise?
I don't have much faith in the US going for a removal of the sanctions.
So you think Bush is lying and will keep sanctions on a people he is trying to help rebuild with Hussein dead and/or gone?
The joint statement also said there would be a "swift" end to U.N. sanctions.
Bush has used this "swift end to economic sanctions" language multiple times, as has Negroponte, the US rep at the UN.
I know the sanctions will be lifted, if everyone else in the SC agrees.
--
der kopf:
Hey, the example you furnish is again, more of an argument in my favor than it is in yours. 2002? That is, as far as history is concerned, NOW.
This is before any war with Iraq. This is even before we took the Iraq issue back to the UN.
Moreover, it is about the same case as today: the legacy of 9-11. Now, again, you can get up on your hind legs and say Iraq has nothing to do with 9-11, but I guess you know it does.
Well Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (literally) but 9/11 has caused a major overhaul in the way we look at foreign policy. We once again recognize threats as legitimate and worth large-scale intervention, it's that simple. The fabled and probably fabricated "I'm afraid all we have done is to wake a sleeping giant" line finds a home once again.
Why, groverat? Again, you fail to provide compelling arguments. Throwing in a couple of randomly chosen adjectives does not work on people who got past primary school, or at least, such is my hope.
I'd be interested to hear your logic on how the USSR is the US's fault. I am amazed and astonished by your claim, I am eager to see some backup for it.
My point is that the American government should not be trusted when it is justifying actions against another government. Their spin doctors are rather good when it comes to playing the mindless masses.
Ok. My thought process on this issue has been fairly independent of the administration. I didn't watch Powell's big presentation to the UN and I can't stand to watch Bush's speeches most of the time.
I don't trust government, I don't really trust any speaker to the extent that I'll just take it as fact and walk on. Most of my disdain for the UNSC and the sanctions regime comes from Chomsky lectures to be quite honest.
I do not agree with you on the World War thing. Here you have a big country who wished to swallow a lot of smaller ones. France was never the goal, occupation was strived for merely to subdue a very probable source of enmity. There is plenty to say on all the equally powered nations who DIDN'T start a world war, or any war, for that matter.
Germany had its eye on Russia, you telling me those nations weren't evenly-matched?
A few of the European powers could have matched Germany had they noticed that Hitler's rapid militarization might mean war. I'm reminded of an Eddie Izzard bit where the English are reduced to throwing pots and pans at them.
"No tanks? Get the ice cream vans out! Orange Fruities and Zooms, throw the Zooms at them! **** off you bastards!"
Of course evenly-matched nations have existed and not warred, but to say that's the ideal setting for peace is silly.
Also, this reference to Belgium and Congo is completely unclear to me. What lesson did Belgium learn? I do not see any connexion to what we are discussing, but I'm sure you'll enlighten me.
It's a lesson all of Europe learned. Colonialism is bad. Most of these problems are traced directly to European colonial activity in Africa and the middle east. I'm not particularly fond of listening to the bodies who caused these problems and are doing little or nothing now to help.
Oh, but I do think it is rather unique that both an allied nation and a former arch-ennemy, both members of the UN security council, announce that they will use its veto in order to stop the world's biggest nation.
"Allied" nation. France has been grumpy about US foreign policy for years. It's no surprise to me. Russia is sure as hell no surprise.
Again, France and Russia being pissed off at the US within the UN context is no surprise. Russia was against UNSC action in Yugoslavia and France has been biting us about sanctions for years.
There would not have been sanctions anymore if it was up to Europe.
Europe = France & Belgium?
GB seemed to think they were a good idea, and as far as I'm concerned they are the premier European nation.
Also, I am principally against all war, and I think being the initiator of an uncalled-for war is not justifiable, in any case.
Again you ignore the FACT that containment took a harsher humanitarian toll than a short war of liberation.
Mea culpa. I feel bad about that every day. I do. Let me repeat, however, that I and many with me feel that there would not be sanctions up to this day if it weren't for the tight-assedness of the US.
If you take sanctions away with Saddam in power he restarts his weapons programs as soon as possible. I know France and Belgium don't care; France because that increases their sales and Belgium because they aren't responsible for keeping peace anywhere.
Still, you insist that Saddam is a madman who would use the little means his one-of-poorest-countries-of-this-world country has and spend them on rockets.
I insist because it's fact. That's what's been happening in Iraq, were you born yesterday?
Why do you think the infant mortality rate has shot up? Why do you think Iraq had any military for us to quickly destroy? Because he spent the money on food and medicine for his people? How do you think he got that new palace and mosque built?
"Saddam isn't that bad, really!"
Originally posted by groverat
So you think Bush is lying and will keep sanctions on a people he is trying to help rebuild with Hussein dead and/or gone?
The joint statement also said there would be a "swift" end to U.N. sanctions.
Bush has used this "swift end to economic sanctions" language multiple times, as has Negroponte, the US rep at the UN.
I know the sanctions will be lifted, if everyone else in the SC agrees.
We were talking hypothetics remember?
What would have happened if there was no war.
I was saying that I have no illusions of a great war-less solution (because of US foreign policy). But that still doesn't give me an excuse to be pro-war.
If the choice was sanctions or war. Then it was only so because of US dictation...
Originally posted by groverat
Why do you think the infant mortality rate has shot up?
Because the U.S. continuously vetoed allowing single use parts into Iraq so they could rebuild and maintain their water treatment plants?
If the choice was sanctions or war. Then it was only so because of US dictation...
So given the choice between sanctions, no sanctions & war you would just pick the removal of sanctions? Knowing what you know about how quick and effective removal of Saddam has been and what Saddam does to his own people?
You don't have to be anything, but don't bristle at the questions because they're uncomfortable. You can challenge my stances as well.
Originally posted by groverat
So given the choice between sanctions, no sanctions & war....
Groverat, can we add intelligent sanctions to your list?
Triple Success. (is what it sounds like to me.
1) We recognized that war was not one of many options, but instead that it was THE answer to a problem which has been avoided or ignored for years and years.
2) We quickly and effectively used our governmental procedures to insure the nation's security.
3) Having the guts/gumption to confront a known dictator when cowardly countries (not naming names) were afraid/unwilling to join us.
Sounds like a rather good score card if you ask me (which you didn't)
Sounds like typical sour grapes from France.
Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself
It's funny how even with said 'triple errors' we are kicking ass and taking names. Granted people have died, granted it has cost money, granted now french people rate below slugs in Americans mind. But you gotta admit it worked. Everything the war is/was supposed to do is proceeding according to plan. I see it as a resounding success.
Triple Success. (is what it sounds like to me.
1) We recognized that war was not one of many options, but instead that it was THE answer to a problem which has been avoided or ignored for years and years.
2) We quickly and effectively used our governmental procedures to insure the nation's security.
3) Having the guts/gumption to confront a known dictator when cowardly countries (not naming names) were afraid/unwilling to join us.
Sounds like a rather good score card if you ask me (which you didn't)
Sounds like typical sour grapes from France.
I am happy for you that you are so confident with the result of war. I'll give you the credit that there will be a military victory.
However i don't think that many bookmakers would have been ready to bet on Saddam's victory even in the first day of these war. It does not require a great courage to make this war, at the contrary of many others wars where US was involved in the past.
Now for rating the score card, you should have wait some times to do an analysis. Personally , i am waiting to see the next developpements and especially the afterwar, to make this analysis. These war will make big changes in the aera of the world, it will ask time to appreciate the consequences (good or bad) of such a politic. The management of afterwar will be also important for the future.