I wouldn't go that far. Have you read that editorial? It complained about America's sole status as superpower and claimed that we had basically brought 9/11 on ourselves because of our support of Israel and because we had trained bin Laden, which was false. I wouldn't say it was professing any love to the US, even on the day after.
Did you read it?. I was able to find a copy here (Google cache of what appears to be a Japanese weblog - and the only place I was able to find the full text).
If you re-read it, you will find that nowhere does Colombani complain about America's 'sole status as superpower' or imply that we 'brought 9/11 on ourselves.' Rather he writes about the isolation inherent to being the sole remaining superpower in a once multipolar world...how this makes it easier for the US to attract enemies than friends. In the first paragraph he refers to the US as 'this country to which we are so close and to whom we owe our freedom.' He proceeds to discuss the 'repugnance' of the terrorists' actions and the 'monstrous hypocrisy' of those who would attempt to justify them. If you don't see the love and solidarity, then you are reading a different article.
Oh, and deny it as much as you like - but it is a documented fact that Bin Laden was a 'client' of the CIA in its operations in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
English translations of that editorial are pretty easy to find. Here are the specific quotes to which I was referring.
Quote:
The reality is more certainly that of a world with no counterbalance, physically destabilized, and thus more dangerous since there is no multipolar balance.
The world is more dangerous with no multipolar balance. I call that complaining about America's status as the sole superpower.
Quote:
But the reality is perhaps also that of an America whose own cynicism has caught up with. If Bin Laden, as the American authorities seem to think, really is the one who ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, how can we fail to recall that he was in fact trained by the CIA and that he was an element of a policy, directed against the Soviets, that the Americans considered to be wise? Might it not then have been America itself that created this demon?
Yes the article was mostly positive toward the US, or more accurately, mostly negative toward the terrorists. But even that article, supposedly the epitome of French love for Americans, published the day after one of the worst days in American history, was not without some pretty serious... qualifications.
ohhh the days when Rummy was working for Reagan arming Saddam and the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan...
damn... the cold war doesn't look so bad after all... being on the brink of nuclear war was scary, true but we don't have to worry about that anymore... oh wait...
It's time we Americans came to terms with something: France is not just our annoying ally.
We'll be annoying each time you won't have your feets in you shoes. In French: "Les yeux en face des trous". And we expect you'll do the same with us if we happen to make big mistakes or become irrelevant.
Quote:
It is not just our jealous rival. France is becoming our enemy.
We're not your jealous rival. Jealous of what ? Rival in what ?
Quote:
If you add up how France behaved in the run-up to the Iraq war (making it impossible for the Security Council to put a real ultimatum to Saddam Hussein that might have avoided a war),
We were just explaining you that there was no link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. Actually the whole world was reminding you that you'd been attacked by Osama (a God Fanatic), not by Saddam (the founder of a fundamentaly atheist regime Â? Ã* la 'communist').
Oh! Your President finally confirmed that a few days ago. Certainly a result of the excellent work of his intelligence services ;-)
Quote:
and if you look at how France behaved during the war (when its foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, refused to answer the question of whether he wanted Saddam or America to win in Iraq),
Ha! That was a very cinical question to ask to such an angry man. Isn't it ? And it's still very cinical to remind this in your article. You're a very cinical man aren't you.
Quote:
and if you watch how France is behaving today (demanding some kind of loopy symbolic transfer of Iraqi sovereignty to some kind of hastily thrown together Iraqi provisional government, with the rest of Iraq's transition to democracy to be overseen more by a divided U.N. than by America), then there is only one conclusion one can draw: France wants America to fail in Iraq.
No. Now that Bush is asking UN's help we're very dissapointed. The UN is not a 'tool', an abstraction, a money pump, or an military force you can ****-Off one day and Suck another day. The UN is a very important an fundamental institution that rules and does its best to avoid potential conflicts on our planet. It's not perfect but it works. Remember the Cuba crisis. The whole thing was resolved here. Now remember when Dominique de Villepin got applauses after his speech and after Colin Powell made his (fake Â? and everyone knew it) 'demonstration' of how Irak had developed Weapond of Mass Destruction.
So don't ask us to be fair now, especially NOW that
1 - it's a fact that there were no WMDs and
2 - GWB admitted that there was no link between 9/11 and Saddam.
Quote:
France wants America to sink in a quagmire there in the crazy hope that a weakened U.S. will pave the way for France to assume its "rightful" place as America's equal, if not superior, in shaping world affairs.
No-one want you to sink in the blablabla... Everyone just told you that you were making a big mistake, and that the consequences localy (in Irak) were highly improbable. The fact is that... We were right.
And as for our 'Rightful place as America's equal... blablabla' this is something we just really don't care. Really. Even Chirac. The time of colonies is far, far away. We're (and we know we are) a small country occupied at building our small community of European countries ;-)
We're just not impressed by Bush (and the Bushies) rhetoric. We just expressed our views. It made a clash ? Current events justify our views.
Quote:
Yes, the Bush team's arrogance has sharpened French hostility. Had President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld not been so full of themselves right after America's military victory in Iraq Â? and instead used that moment, when the French were feeling that maybe they should have taken part, to magnanimously reach out to Paris to join in reconstruction Â? it might have softened French attitudes. But even that I have doubts about.
Oh Really ???
Quote:
What I have no doubts about, though, is that there is no coherent, legitimate Iraqi authority able to assume power in the near term, and trying to force one now would lead to a dangerous internal struggle and delay the building of the democratic institutions Iraq so badly needs. Iraqis know this. France knows this, which is why its original proposal (which it now seems to be backtracking on a bit) could only be malicious.
Placing the bar too hight is the best way to negociate ;-)
Quote:
What is so amazing to me about the French campaign Â? "Operation America Must Fail" Â? is that France seems to have given no thought as to how this would affect France. Let me spell it out in simple English: if America is defeated in Iraq by a coalition of Saddamists and Islamists, radical Muslim groups Â? from Baghdad to the Muslim slums of Paris Â? will all be energized, and the forces of modernism and tolerance within these Muslim communities will be on the run. To think that France, with its large Muslim minority, where radicals are already gaining strength, would not see its own social fabric affected by this is fanciful.
Radicals are not gaining strength. Sorry but they aren't.
Quote:
If France were serious, it would be using its influence within the European Union to assemble an army of 25,000 Eurotroops, and a $5 billion reconstruction package, and then saying to the Bush team: Here, we're sincere about helping to rebuild Iraq, but now we want a real seat at the management table. Instead, the French have put out an ill-conceived proposal, just to show that they can be different, without any promise that even if America said yes Paris would make a meaningful contribution.
But then France has never been interested in promoting democracy in the modern Arab world, which is why its pose as the new protector of Iraqi representative government Â? after being so content with Saddam's one-man rule Â? is so patently cynical.
Ok. Back to reality. We now know that (the Bushies) used the events of 9/11 to put a (big) foot in the Middle-East to try to implant democracy in an arab world where Islamism is slowly but surrely growing. Nice intention and noble goal.
This is a real question: Can Democracy be Implanted In A Country That Has No Experience Of It ?
Or is it something you have to learn by yourself by making your own revolutions, own civil wars, having your own heroes of your won freedom. I DON'T KNOW ! This is sad but true.
And I think no-one knows. History tells us that you rarely accept what's not coming from the inside (your own nation). That's what makes you a Nation actually: Your fights against the outside. See Julius Ceasar and his 'Pax-Romana' who was invading territories to help them gain civilisation (including France named at that time 'La Gaule'). Additionnaly Irak is a 'virtual' country made of different ethnies who hate each other. It's an opened place for civil wars. See what happened in Yougoslavia after the Wall felt out.
Conclusion: It's a very dangerous game.
Quote:
Clearly, not all E.U. countries are comfortable with this French mischief, yet many are going along for the ride. It's stunning to me that the E.U., misled by France, could let itself be written out of the most important political development project in modern Middle East history. The whole tone and direction of the Arab-Muslim world, which is right on Europe's doorstep, will be affected by the outcome in Iraq. It would be as if America said it did not care what happened in Mexico because it was mad at Spain.
Wrong. At least the people were. Remember that UK had its biggest civil manifestation in London streets ever. Something like 70-80% of the people were against the war. I'm not sure if 'they' told you on FoxNews. The same goes to Spain opinion (90%), German, Italy, etc...
Quote:
Says John Chipman, director of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies: "What the Europeans are saying about Iraq is that this is our backyard, we're not going to let you meddle in it, but we're not going to tend it ourselves."
Irak was a British Backyard.
Quote:
But what's most sad is that France is right Â? America will not be as effective or legitimate in its efforts to rebuild Iraq without French help. Having France working with us in Iraq, rather than against us in the world, would be so beneficial for both nations and for the Arabs' future. Too bad this French government has other priorities.
translations of that editorial are pretty easy to find.
Didn't ever occur to me that it might be available in English. And it took me a while to find and then struggle though with my rusty French...dang.
Quote:
The world is more dangerous with no multipolar balance. I call
that complaining about America's status as the sole superpower.
I see it as nothing more or less than a simple statement of fact. There was a balance - albeit an uncomfortable one - when the USSR remained a superpower. An imbalance of power exists now and focuses those who would blame others for all problems on the US.
non sequitur, again. That should be your new name - non sequitur Scott, (100% irrelevant)
So after the first gulf war, when Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire, violated the UN mandates, violated oil for food, committed untold numbers of crimes against his people after all that fact that france and germany are ready to jump into bed with him and fund his activities with sweetheart oil deals is irrelevant to the discussion of what countries were up to before GW2?
So after the first gulf war, when Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire, violated the UN mandates, violated oil for food, committed untold numbers of crimes against his people after all that fact that france and germany are ready to jump into bed with him and fund his activities with sweetheart oil deals is irrelevant to the discussion of what countries were up to before GW2?
So after the first gulf war, when Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire, violated the UN mandates, violated oil for food, committed untold numbers of crimes against his people after all that fact that france and germany are ready to jump into bed with him and fund his activities with sweetheart oil deals is irrelevant to the discussion of what countries were up to before GW2?
No, it's irrelevant to the discussion of what Iraq had to do with 9/11. That's the topic of this thread and the question Harald asked AFTER you said "it's amazing how quickly people forget about 9-11" We've repeatedly asked you to answer that question and you keep avoiding it.
No, it's irrelevant to the discussion of what Iraq had to do with 9/11. That's the topic of this thread and the question Harald asked AFTER you said "it's amazing how quickly people forget about 9-11" We've repeatedly asked you to answer that question and you keep avoiding it.
So, what does Iraq have to do with 9/11?
I ALREADY ANSWED THAT. READ THE THREAD PLEASE.
Also for those who are ignorant of France's underhanded dealing with the extreme anti-Semitic dictator read this. A nice CBS news link for those that like their information slanted and biased.
And while I'm here... Weren't you supposed to spend your summer holidays in Paris, France...? You talked about that a few mounth ago... Have you seen many Jews beatten in the streets... while among us? (As it supposedly 'happens' frequently)
Also for those who are ignorant of France's underhanded dealing with the extreme anti-Semitic dictator read this. A nice CBS news link for those that like their information slanted and biased.
I have been reading it and I still don't see an answer. So, if you would indulge me in reposting your astute reply, I'd be much obliged. you can even just copy and paste it. It shouldn't take more than 2 seconds if you actually did respond.
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
I wouldn't go that far. Have you read that editorial? It complained about America's sole status as superpower and claimed that we had basically brought 9/11 on ourselves because of our support of Israel and because we had trained bin Laden, which was false. I wouldn't say it was professing any love to the US, even on the day after.
Did you read it?. I was able to find a copy here (Google cache of what appears to be a Japanese weblog - and the only place I was able to find the full text).
If you re-read it, you will find that nowhere does Colombani complain about America's 'sole status as superpower' or imply that we 'brought 9/11 on ourselves.' Rather he writes about the isolation inherent to being the sole remaining superpower in a once multipolar world...how this makes it easier for the US to attract enemies than friends. In the first paragraph he refers to the US as 'this country to which we are so close and to whom we owe our freedom.' He proceeds to discuss the 'repugnance' of the terrorists' actions and the 'monstrous hypocrisy' of those who would attempt to justify them. If you don't see the love and solidarity, then you are reading a different article.
Oh, and deny it as much as you like - but it is a documented fact that Bin Laden was a 'client' of the CIA in its operations in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Edit: fixed link
The reality is more certainly that of a world with no counterbalance, physically destabilized, and thus more dangerous since there is no multipolar balance.
The world is more dangerous with no multipolar balance. I call that complaining about America's status as the sole superpower.
But the reality is perhaps also that of an America whose own cynicism has caught up with. If Bin Laden, as the American authorities seem to think, really is the one who ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, how can we fail to recall that he was in fact trained by the CIA and that he was an element of a policy, directed against the Soviets, that the Americans considered to be wise? Might it not then have been America itself that created this demon?
Yes the article was mostly positive toward the US, or more accurately, mostly negative toward the terrorists. But even that article, supposedly the epitome of French love for Americans, published the day after one of the worst days in American history, was not without some pretty serious... qualifications.
Originally posted by Scott
Um? No. France and Germany had deals with Saddam just before Gulf War 2.
As opposed to before Gulf War 1 when, presumably, Saddam was a REALLY NICE GUY.
Oh, and answer the question: what did Iraq have to do with 9-11?
Priceless.
Did you see that, Scott?
Priceless.
damn... the cold war doesn't look so bad after all... being on the brink of nuclear war was scary, true but we don't have to worry about that anymore... oh wait...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/saudi/stor...044402,00.html
Iran, Korea... and now Saudi Arabia... nothing like keeping you eye on the ball.
: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/18/opinion/18FRIE.html
Wow ! A very hostile Article...
Our War With France
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
It's time we Americans came to terms with something: France is not just our annoying ally.
We'll be annoying each time you won't have your feets in you shoes. In French: "Les yeux en face des trous". And we expect you'll do the same with us if we happen to make big mistakes or become irrelevant.
It is not just our jealous rival. France is becoming our enemy.
We're not your jealous rival. Jealous of what ? Rival in what ?
If you add up how France behaved in the run-up to the Iraq war (making it impossible for the Security Council to put a real ultimatum to Saddam Hussein that might have avoided a war),
We were just explaining you that there was no link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. Actually the whole world was reminding you that you'd been attacked by Osama (a God Fanatic), not by Saddam (the founder of a fundamentaly atheist regime Â? Ã* la 'communist').
Oh! Your President finally confirmed that a few days ago. Certainly a result of the excellent work of his intelligence services ;-)
and if you look at how France behaved during the war (when its foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, refused to answer the question of whether he wanted Saddam or America to win in Iraq),
Ha! That was a very cinical question to ask to such an angry man. Isn't it ? And it's still very cinical to remind this in your article. You're a very cinical man aren't you.
and if you watch how France is behaving today (demanding some kind of loopy symbolic transfer of Iraqi sovereignty to some kind of hastily thrown together Iraqi provisional government, with the rest of Iraq's transition to democracy to be overseen more by a divided U.N. than by America), then there is only one conclusion one can draw: France wants America to fail in Iraq.
No. Now that Bush is asking UN's help we're very dissapointed. The UN is not a 'tool', an abstraction, a money pump, or an military force you can ****-Off one day and Suck another day. The UN is a very important an fundamental institution that rules and does its best to avoid potential conflicts on our planet. It's not perfect but it works. Remember the Cuba crisis. The whole thing was resolved here. Now remember when Dominique de Villepin got applauses after his speech and after Colin Powell made his (fake Â? and everyone knew it) 'demonstration' of how Irak had developed Weapond of Mass Destruction.
So don't ask us to be fair now, especially NOW that
1 - it's a fact that there were no WMDs and
2 - GWB admitted that there was no link between 9/11 and Saddam.
France wants America to sink in a quagmire there in the crazy hope that a weakened U.S. will pave the way for France to assume its "rightful" place as America's equal, if not superior, in shaping world affairs.
No-one want you to sink in the blablabla... Everyone just told you that you were making a big mistake, and that the consequences localy (in Irak) were highly improbable. The fact is that... We were right.
And as for our 'Rightful place as America's equal... blablabla' this is something we just really don't care. Really. Even Chirac. The time of colonies is far, far away. We're (and we know we are) a small country occupied at building our small community of European countries ;-)
We're just not impressed by Bush (and the Bushies) rhetoric. We just expressed our views. It made a clash ? Current events justify our views.
Yes, the Bush team's arrogance has sharpened French hostility. Had President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld not been so full of themselves right after America's military victory in Iraq Â? and instead used that moment, when the French were feeling that maybe they should have taken part, to magnanimously reach out to Paris to join in reconstruction Â? it might have softened French attitudes. But even that I have doubts about.
Oh Really ???
What I have no doubts about, though, is that there is no coherent, legitimate Iraqi authority able to assume power in the near term, and trying to force one now would lead to a dangerous internal struggle and delay the building of the democratic institutions Iraq so badly needs. Iraqis know this. France knows this, which is why its original proposal (which it now seems to be backtracking on a bit) could only be malicious.
Placing the bar too hight is the best way to negociate ;-)
What is so amazing to me about the French campaign Â? "Operation America Must Fail" Â? is that France seems to have given no thought as to how this would affect France. Let me spell it out in simple English: if America is defeated in Iraq by a coalition of Saddamists and Islamists, radical Muslim groups Â? from Baghdad to the Muslim slums of Paris Â? will all be energized, and the forces of modernism and tolerance within these Muslim communities will be on the run. To think that France, with its large Muslim minority, where radicals are already gaining strength, would not see its own social fabric affected by this is fanciful.
Radicals are not gaining strength. Sorry but they aren't.
If France were serious, it would be using its influence within the European Union to assemble an army of 25,000 Eurotroops, and a $5 billion reconstruction package, and then saying to the Bush team: Here, we're sincere about helping to rebuild Iraq, but now we want a real seat at the management table. Instead, the French have put out an ill-conceived proposal, just to show that they can be different, without any promise that even if America said yes Paris would make a meaningful contribution.
But then France has never been interested in promoting democracy in the modern Arab world, which is why its pose as the new protector of Iraqi representative government Â? after being so content with Saddam's one-man rule Â? is so patently cynical.
Ok. Back to reality. We now know that (the Bushies) used the events of 9/11 to put a (big) foot in the Middle-East to try to implant democracy in an arab world where Islamism is slowly but surrely growing. Nice intention and noble goal.
This is a real question: Can Democracy be Implanted In A Country That Has No Experience Of It ?
Or is it something you have to learn by yourself by making your own revolutions, own civil wars, having your own heroes of your won freedom. I DON'T KNOW ! This is sad but true.
And I think no-one knows. History tells us that you rarely accept what's not coming from the inside (your own nation). That's what makes you a Nation actually: Your fights against the outside. See Julius Ceasar and his 'Pax-Romana' who was invading territories to help them gain civilisation (including France named at that time 'La Gaule'). Additionnaly Irak is a 'virtual' country made of different ethnies who hate each other. It's an opened place for civil wars. See what happened in Yougoslavia after the Wall felt out.
Conclusion: It's a very dangerous game.
Clearly, not all E.U. countries are comfortable with this French mischief, yet many are going along for the ride. It's stunning to me that the E.U., misled by France, could let itself be written out of the most important political development project in modern Middle East history. The whole tone and direction of the Arab-Muslim world, which is right on Europe's doorstep, will be affected by the outcome in Iraq. It would be as if America said it did not care what happened in Mexico because it was mad at Spain.
Wrong. At least the people were. Remember that UK had its biggest civil manifestation in London streets ever. Something like 70-80% of the people were against the war. I'm not sure if 'they' told you on FoxNews. The same goes to Spain opinion (90%), German, Italy, etc...
Says John Chipman, director of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies: "What the Europeans are saying about Iraq is that this is our backyard, we're not going to let you meddle in it, but we're not going to tend it ourselves."
Irak was a British Backyard.
But what's most sad is that France is right Â? America will not be as effective or legitimate in its efforts to rebuild Iraq without French help. Having France working with us in Iraq, rather than against us in the world, would be so beneficial for both nations and for the Arabs' future. Too bad this French government has other priorities.
Who knows 8-(
Originally posted by BRussell
English
translations of that editorial are pretty easy to find.
Didn't ever occur to me that it might be available in English. And it took me a while to find and then struggle though with my rusty French...dang.
The world is more dangerous with no multipolar balance. I call
that complaining about America's status as the sole superpower.
I see it as nothing more or less than a simple statement of fact. There was a balance - albeit an uncomfortable one - when the USSR remained a superpower. An imbalance of power exists now and focuses those who would blame others for all problems on the US.
Originally posted by torifile
non sequitur, again. That should be your new name - non sequitur Scott, (100% irrelevant)
So after the first gulf war, when Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire, violated the UN mandates, violated oil for food, committed untold numbers of crimes against his people after all that fact that france and germany are ready to jump into bed with him and fund his activities with sweetheart oil deals is irrelevant to the discussion of what countries were up to before GW2?
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Did anybody see that clip of Donald Rumsfeld's face when that chatshow host showed video footage of him shaking Saddam's hand? Did you see his face?
Priceless.
Did you see that, Scott?
Priceless.
Yea and I all saw the picture of Chiraq with him. People change. France didn't though. Still the same self centered pricks.
Originally posted by Scott
So after the first gulf war, when Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire, violated the UN mandates, violated oil for food, committed untold numbers of crimes against his people after all that fact that france and germany are ready to jump into bed with him and fund his activities with sweetheart oil deals is irrelevant to the discussion of what countries were up to before GW2?
You forgot to add cheney to your list.
Originally posted by giant
You forgot to add cheney to your list.
He had an oil deal with Saddam after the first gulf war? One that was outside of Oil for Food and ready to go once that pesky UN went away?
Originally posted by Scott
So after the first gulf war, when Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire, violated the UN mandates, violated oil for food, committed untold numbers of crimes against his people after all that fact that france and germany are ready to jump into bed with him and fund his activities with sweetheart oil deals is irrelevant to the discussion of what countries were up to before GW2?
No, it's irrelevant to the discussion of what Iraq had to do with 9/11. That's the topic of this thread and the question Harald asked AFTER you said "it's amazing how quickly people forget about 9-11" We've repeatedly asked you to answer that question and you keep avoiding it.
So, what does Iraq have to do with 9/11?
Originally posted by torifile
No, it's irrelevant to the discussion of what Iraq had to do with 9/11. That's the topic of this thread and the question Harald asked AFTER you said "it's amazing how quickly people forget about 9-11" We've repeatedly asked you to answer that question and you keep avoiding it.
So, what does Iraq have to do with 9/11?
I ALREADY ANSWED THAT. READ THE THREAD PLEASE.
Also for those who are ignorant of France's underhanded dealing with the extreme anti-Semitic dictator read this. A nice CBS news link for those that like their information slanted and biased.
The Politics Of Iraqi Oil
What does Iraq have to do with 9/11?
And while I'm here... Weren't you supposed to spend your summer holidays in Paris, France...? You talked about that a few mounth ago... Have you seen many Jews beatten in the streets... while among us? (As it supposedly 'happens' frequently)
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=25512
Originally posted by Scott
I ALREADY ANSWED THAT. READ THE THREAD PLEASE.
Also for those who are ignorant of France's underhanded dealing with the extreme anti-Semitic dictator read this. A nice CBS news link for those that like their information slanted and biased.
The Politics Of Iraqi Oil
I have been reading it and I still don't see an answer. So, if you would indulge me in reposting your astute reply, I'd be much obliged. you can even just copy and paste it. It shouldn't take more than 2 seconds if you actually did respond.
Originally posted by zounic
Link: Scott goes to Paris, France ;-)
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=25512
Paris was nice. Not great. I'm not sure why my wife likes it so much. She's taking French lessons like a mad woman. Some here would call it justice.
Mohamed Atta Was Here
. . . And met with Saddam Hussein's man in Prague.
I'm sure this wont make it into Moore's movie.
Remember ?