What's up with the French now???
 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104229,00.html

French Join In on Anti-France Bandwagon

Thursday, November 27, 2003
By Greg Palkot

PARIS — France's opposition to military action in Iraq sparked a backlash around the globe, but criticism of the country is now coming from an unlikely source — the French themselves.



In the last few months, there have been a slew of books published in the country slamming French policy with titles that translate to: "The Arrogant French," "The French in Disarray," and "France in Free-Fall."

"France has a great obstructive power, destructive power and this is very dangerous for France itself," said Andre Glucksmann, author of "West Versus West."

Readers are snapping up books that question whether or not the policies of French president Jacques Chirac are hurting their homeland.

"A great many French officials hoped that we would fail in Iraq," said Richard Perle, former chairman of the Defense Policy Board .

"With the help from the United Nations and the European Union, Chirac wants to revive France's glory days, an effort that some wonder if he's overreaching."

France's policies on war aren't the country's only controversial decisions these days. Protests by workers are frequent and a worrying wave of anti-Semitism is spreading.

"There are a number of challenges," said Laurent Cohen-Tanugi, author of "An Alliance at Risk: The United States and Europe Since September 11." "The question is whether the government is going to wake up to those challenges.

Kinda' interesting - hope something constructive comes out of it!

It's called a free and open debate, and evolving public opinion.

Kind of like when US public opinion turned against the war in Vietnam and, I suspect, is slowly turning against the war in Iraq.

:)

The public are a fickle lot...

Mr Mephisto

It is only going to get harder for France in the coming years. Their desire to get back to the glory days of world (or at least Continental) influence by partnering with Germany is building resentment in other EC countries. The German/French plan targets GB in a big way while Italy, Spain, and the other EC countries don't want to be governed by the French/German policies.

I'm really kinda' surprised that you all have chosen to leave this one alone - Where are all of those that were defending France a few months ago? Where are those that lambasted us for wanting to boycott French products? Where are those of you who laughed at us when we took French wines and liquers off the shelf and dumped them? Are France's fairweather supporters somehow at a loss for words now that criiticism of their action is even coming out of France? I purposely posted the above with very little comment just to see what the ultra-liberal and anti-US views of those who post on this board have to say. Apparently nothing.

France and the rest of the usless UN are now realizing that they are, in fact, defunct. A colleague of mine went to France recently, and was told by many people how they wished they had supported the US and how they hated Chirac. Whether or not they had these BEFORE we kicked some ass is unknown, so they could have just been playing it up. Like the article said, France has out-lived it's "glory days", so it should just get the hell over it! Oh, if any of you other Conservatives would like the "Military History of France", let me know and I'll email it to you. It's too long to post here... GO BUSH!! (btw, I got to see him when he was in town on Tuesday... it was AWESOME!)

OK. Here I am. I defended France (once I realized the war was a crock of shit) and I respect their opinion.

You see, the funny thing is, turns out they were right.

Opps...

***STANDS UP WAVING HAND***

Freedom Fries? That just made your politicians look laughable.


I guess I would be one of those. And laugh I did. And still do.

I travel to the US quite a bit and trust me when I say that it's as easy as ever to get Frence wine etc. I think you'll find the rampant "anti-French" opinion in the US has probably subsided quite a bit. The same way as rampant "anti-US" opinion in France has subsided.

I wouldn't describe myself as ultra-liberal. Neither would I describe myself as anti-US. Indeed, I often argue in [b]favour[.b] of the US with many of my European and Australian friends. But I am unashamedly anti-Bush.

I can't really understand the basis of your rant above.

A few books have been published in France offering an alternative opinion to the silly anti-Americanism that swept the country earlier this year.

Guess what mate? Have you heard of the US bestsellers "Stupid White Men", "Dude, Where's my country?", "Lies and the lying liars who tell them" etc. Actually I could go and on.

Does this mean there's a groundswell of public opinion in the US against Bush? Are we seeing the beginning of a grass-roots revolution?!!

No.

We see public debate.

Mr Mephisto

DEFUNCT??!

ROFL

Yes, thank you for your insightful geo-political analysis. France is defunct. The UN is defunct.


I went to the US recently and I heard a lot of anti-war talk. That must mean the American public hate Bush and the war, right? Because if your friend... you know... reports that a few people he spoke to... you know... well... then what I heard must mean you Americans HATE Bush.... Right?

France bashing is pretty passe by now, don't you think?

Sorry, can't use a French word! Maybe I should say "boring", "out of date", "so last year..." :)



Mr Mephisto

Most of those reports about Anti-American sentiments come out of Paris anyways. It is probably the most liberal stronghold in France, much like L.A. is to the United States. For the most part, the people in the country and those that still remember that they owe their ability to speak French and not German to the Americans, while may not be all gung-ho for the US and Bush, but they understand us and support us to a degree. Like I've said before, I have no problem with the French people, I have the problem with the French government.

Damn! You musta' went to San Francisco or somewhere else out on the the left coast!

"Kind of like when US public opinion turned against the war in Vietnam and, I suspect, is slowly turning against the war in Iraq."


Exactly the americans have gotten themselves in the shit once again, they can't find saddam, they can't find osama, do the know where dick cheney is? maybe the americans now know what the israeli's feel like with suicide bombers behind every corner, the people who will ultimately suffer are the soldiers who are only doing thier jobs, and the civillians. i am Canadian and i also don't think that we should have troops in afghanistan all you americans must remember that place where this whole war on terror started. why can america not finish a problem that they start like afghanistan. much like Vietnam public and world opinion will turn as the resistance attacks escalate and more people die Iraq and Afghanistan will go back to the warlords and dictators who once ruled them and the american occupiers will be home looking for thier next target. (North Korea)

LOL

Bingo. San Francisco. San Jose to be exact.

:-)

Mr Mephisto

Story from Faux News? There is nothing up with the French except that if Rupert Murdoch can convince people that the French have a problem maybe they will forget that current events have not been kind to conservative <strike>journalists</strike> novelists lately, and that Iraq is looking less like Vietnam and more like Northern Ireland circa 1968 with each passing day.

I refuse to get into flamewars here, though; that's what Fark is for. So carry on with your bad self and I will not likely post on this thread again. (Unless something is crying out for flippancy.)

Fox news stories don't carry much weight especially with this line "France's opposition to military action in Iraq sparked a backlash around the globe". Maybe a backlash in the US, but around the globe, I doubt it.
I'm sure there are just as many neo-cons in France as in the US and that they'll publish books just like uber-liberals.

Re: What's up with the French now???
 

the ability to tolerate dissent - notably absent in many countries - is a sign of a strong democracy.

Just because France, an independant state that chooses to exercise it's political rights through and within her democratic will, doesn't mean it is inferior in whole to the U.S or any other country because of the decisions it makes because of itself.

Maybe France as well as other countries simply do not jump like the U.S does when they are told to jump. And the U.S just doesn't jump. They ask "How high." Especially in the Middle East. After the U.S gets sucked into Iran because of 'iron clad' proof of WMD, Vietnam just might look like a footnote. And all for who? I'll let you guess.

I won't defend France's irresponsible stance on the veto, but this criticism of France FROM France is no surprise. It happens here all the time, why shouldn't it happen there? Every administration has their critics. Its just not surprising at all.

Did fox news miss that almost every country in the world with few exeptions was behind France on this?

I didn't see this story as a big deal when I first read it. France is bound to have a FEW sane people after all.

I think the point is that there are indeed quite a few among the French who realize that their nation has become somewhat irrelevant in the geo-political arena. The whole debate about Iraq neatly summarized it for them. You don't have to "love" or "hate" the French, nor do you need to support or oppose US policy towards Iraq to recognize this.

The single greatest concentration of power within the governance of the UN security council is the veto. Through the veto, one single nation can effectively dictate what the rest of the member nations can do. The veto - as with any form of power or influence - must be respected and used in good faith. France, however, abused its veto power when it unequivocally stated that it would block any and all efforts by the UN to enforce its own resolutions (some seventeen of them, if my memory serves correctly).

Within the EU, France is resented by most of the Eastern European nations, as well as the smaller Western European nations that have been disenfrachised by France and Germany's attempts to marginalize them. France and Germany are often described as bullies by these smaller nations, but collectively, they have more influence than France has alone. Many do indeed believe that France abused its veto power in the UN to obstruct any action for apparently self-serving interests. So, within both Europe and the larger international arena, Chirac's attempts to broaden France's influence have backfired. Instead of earning the respect of their piers, they tried to assume it. They are guilty of precisely that which they accuse the Americans of having done - acting unilaterally. Their policies have indeed been arrogant, and it has cost them much credibility and influence. There should be no surprise that many among the French are critical of the policies and attitudes that have caused them this harm.

Awesome post apechild.

why is everyone so shocked about a free country like france not going to war along with the US. Canada didn't and i think that is great why should all these free countries be bullied by the US it happened with Afghanistan and the Americans hoped it would work in Iraq. No Sadaam, No Osama = No Support for Iraqi Occupation.

First off Afganistan is completely different then Iraq. Secondly most people don't mind that the French didn't go to war with us, thats great, besides like Stormin' Norman said going to war without the French is like going hunting without your accordian.

What most people including myself are not pleased with is how they were such goons about it.

how is Afghanistan different from Iraq? is it not all part of the war against terrorism? or is that still what bush is calling it maybe he should change the name to the war against whoever seems bad today.

The US did NOT bully anyone into going into Afghanistan. In fact, we would be better off doing this alone. Let's look at the past, shall we? At the end of WWII, we took care of the rebuilding in Japan ourselves. At the end of 5 years, Japan had a democracy, a Congress, a Constitution, etc. The country that no one EVER believed could be a democracy is now a strong ally who begs us to buy their good products at a cheap price. On the other hand, in Germany, where the Allies (that's the US, Great Britian, France, and the Soviet Union for all you non-history majors) worked together, it was a mess! It took 6 years for them to just get a Constitution!! And it took another 45 years to clean up the Communist mess there too! The US has always been better off without the UN (there's a REASON why we were never part of the League of Nations pre-WWII) and I say kudos to our government for thumbing their noses at them! We are always taught to not care what other people think of us, this is just that on a larger scale, lol. Anyways, for all you liberals out there, keep bringing it on, and I'll keep knocking ya down!

[typically american comment when people don't agree with you insult them. Afghanistan can't be that justified because bush seems to think if he doesn't mention it no one will talk about it.

supersteph how many years late was america when they joined ww2 and they were the saviors of the allies. don't make me laugh. if america is better off without the un then why do they have 2 wars going on (Iraq is separate from Afghanistan) and they can't seem to find these people they said they would catch and bring to justice. if that's all you got for knocking people down you better keep reading because it's kinda lame.

Just out of curiosity, do you think the UN would have been more successful in finding "these people"?

If you don't think Afganistan was justified you need a serious reality check, what action is justified after such a horrific attack? Oh wait the European response would be to try and "understand those poor misunderstood Muslims" after all it must be America's fault that 3000 innocents were murdered. Perhaps appeasement? Europe is pretty good at being a bunch of gutless cowards and doing nothing...

Oh dear...

Here we go again. Hurling insults at each other, instead of trying to understand the other side, respectfully debate the issues.

I don't know why I care... (but for some reason I do).

You both all do a disservice to your position and the value of your argument by invective, insult and pointless or unrelated verbal attacks.

Mr Mephisto

Yeah well, thats like your opinion man....

we finally agree on something. you have your opinion, i have mine and nothing that is said on this forum is going to change our minds. sept. 11 was a tragedy that should of never happened there were security lapses all over the place. i honestly don't think that afghanistan is a justified war or is it another occupation. what justification is there in killing innocent civilians and the taliban and al-quaeda are still thriving in afghanistan. as for iraq that is one train wreck that i wouldn't want my hand's anywhere near when public opinion finally boils over.

i never said that th UN would be able to find these people but all i've heard bush say is were closing in on the terrorists and were hot on thier tail but this has been going on for 3 or 4 months now so i have taken these comments to mean that no one really knows where they are but if they told the public the crap would hit the fan.

and one last thing what about major combat being over in Iraq? sounds like a lie to me. i wonder if Mr. Bush is regretting this.

personally, i hope the french keep right on beeing irritating to other western contries, particularly the US, if only so i can contenue to make fun of their military history and accent (just kidding, for all you haters of silly americans like me).

type 'french military victories' into google and hit 'i'm feeling lucky'...

to be fair to bush (and i dont like the guy much, btw), the fact that he declared major combat over and yet deaths contenue is not as stupid as it sounds. what bush meant was that the army regulars of Iraq had finished fighting as a united fighting force. he did not mean that nobody in Iraq would ever shoot at an american soldier ever again.

Do you have some sort of inside scoop, which allows you to know "what bush meant"?

you may have a point, i may be assuming bush isnt retarded when he really is.

I don't deny that one can certainly interpret the events like you did. Given the results of his actions, however, I don't think that interpretation too likely.

After Bush declared our victory, the media began to wind down its coverage. Shortly thereafter, the 24/7 coverage ceased and we now only receive sporadic accounts of what is occurring over there. I don't think we can attribute this to short attention spans because, during the two weeks where we essentially steamrolled our way to Baghdad, a large segment of the population was glued to the television.

In respect to the size of the country, the incidents between our forces and their enemies, and the amount of reporters we have (had?) over there, we really know absolutely jack shit about what is occurring.

Meanwhile, the country we know was a terrorist hotbed slips out of our consciousness and into stateless oblivion. At the same time, we decide to order 40% of our forces into a state of inactivity so the soldiers can recuperate.

SparHawk,
According to the link in your signature, some 446 US servicemen have lost their lives in Iraq since the war began.

Now kindly allow me put things in perspective for you.

An average of 15 soldiers died every day during the Vietnam war.

An average of 30 soldiers died every day during the Korean war.

An average of 214 soldiers died every day during World War II.

410 US soldiers were killed when U.S. gunners in Sicily mistakenly downed 23 American transport planes in 1943.

243 US soldiers were killed when terrorists bombed the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983.

There were 474 people murdered in Los Angeles in 2002, and there have never been "major combat operations" there.

This military campaign in Iraq has been the most successful ever waged by any military. Please, don't act too disappointed.

We stopped flying a billion sordis, bombing the fuck out of them and running people over with tanks.

Sounds like major combat's over to me.

More perspective for Sparhawk:

Link to source

Here's some perspective right back at ya:

1972, Burundi
100,000-200,000 dead

1975-79, Cambodia
Approx 1-3 million killed

1965-6, 1972, 1999 East Timor
Approx. 500,000 killed in Indonesia, 500,000 arrested; 200-300,000 killed in East Timor

1994, Rwanda
Approx 500,000-1 million killed, 1.5-2 million refugees

1983 to present, Sudan
Approx 2 million killed, 4-5 million refugees

Present, Democratic Republic of the Congo
3.5 million+ dead over the last 4 and a half years, 30,000 deaths PER MONTH
500,000 to 600,000 internally displaced persons, with another 100,000 refugees

Info from The Campaign to End Genocide

Number of U.S. troops sent to the above countries: 0

None of those countries ever posed any threat to the US. That's a huge distinction.

Iraq posing a threat to the US was certainly given as the reason for invading- too bad it hasn't been backed up by evidence...

I also just figured out how to stop the genocide in the Congo: We manufacture documents and refugees who say the government there hates America and is building chemical and biological weapons and is an imminent threat! Kick ass!

The fact remains whether it is Iraq or Congo or East Timor and I quote ,"All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

With Saddam gone thats one less horrific evil in the world.

I just outlined, in another thread, how Iraq posed a threat to the US.

If I may, I'll re-post an excerpt here:

...this war was necessary to preserve our global security... war was necessary because all diplomatic means had been exhausted.

The UN, through the empty rhetoric of 16 resolutions over the course of 12 years, proved itself unwilling or unable to enforce the will of the international community. It became irrelevant. As a result of this irrelevance, perhaps even in direct response to its proven inability to act, other nations became emboldened, audacious, and belligerent.

The order that exists when strong leaders have the conviction and fortitude to defend free nations from the threat of attack by tyrannical megalomaniacs had been deteriorating rapidly. The order that exists when people have reason to believe that their actions have consequences, that their wrongdoings will not go unnoticed, that their threats, provocations, and attacks will be resisted, was evaporating.

When Saddam Hussein first attacked Kuwait, he was quickly and soundly defeated. The Gulf War sent a very powerful message to others who might have entertained the thought of invading weaker nations to increase their wealth and power. And for many years we lived a relative peace.

But we allowed the internal squabbling of the UN member nations to weaken our resolve. Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright specifically sought the avoidance of conflicts - not their resolution - no matter what the long-term costs. Saddam soon began to realize that without effective leadership among those who might resist him, he could get away with almost anything.

Others came to the same conclusion. 16 resolutions and 12 years and nothing had changed.

On September 11th, 2001, Osama bin Laden and his followers sought to take advantage of our perceived apathy and weakness. That morning we learned that a couple of cave-dwelling half-wits dressed in rags actually believed they could destroy America. Now we stand to witness the escalating belligerence of Kim Jong-Il.

What have we learned from this?

Order can not exist when there is no one around to defend it and tyrants remain in power.

Indeed, a large portion of the threat posed by Iraq was its continued defiance of the US and the UN, and the effect that belligerance had on those who would seek our harm.

the us didn't think these countries posed any problem to them war crimes are war crimes wether they are a threat or not

And neither did Iraq.

I realize that you have posted the party line on why it did and I may come back and pick it apart some time, but how many UN resolutions Iraq was in violation of has diddly-squat to do with the threat or lack their of they pose to America.

If being in violation of UN resolutions were a threat to the US, we would have to nuke Israel. (It's called <i>reductio ad absurdum</i>, I don't really think we should nuke Israel, or even send troops, though a stern talking to might be in order.)

And Iraq did ? If you have any evidence that Iraq was harboring terrorists, creating WMDs or other "anti-american" activities please do post. I think that Bush guy might also be intrested in what you have to say.

Are you guys serious?

Tell me you haven't seen this article yet: (link)

And what about the fact that virtually every member of the UN asserted that Saddam had indeed posessed WMD and had failed to produce any information about their whereabouts?

And what about the fact that Saddam was, to put it plainly, an enemy and had attempted to assassinate our President?

And what about my previous point about the importance of precedent, credibility, and the folly of appeasement?

Tophat, you wrote "I may come back and pick it apart some time."

Fine. Bring it.

I forgot that "top secret" leaked memo's are the epitome of truth.

Your hasty dismissal of that first example notwithstanding, allow me to repeat my three other points in the hope that perhaps you'll at least acknowledge them:

Virtually every member of the UN asserted that Saddam had indeed posessed WMD and had failed to produce any information about their whereabouts

Saddam was, to put it plainly, an enemy and had attempted to assassinate our President

One must consider the importance of precedent, credibility, and the consequences of appeasement

More, courtesy of Mr. Mojo in [this thread]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

Remember, I'm only responding to your previous challenge, when you wrote: "if you have any evidence that Iraq was harboring terrorists, creating WMDs or other "anti-american" activities please do post."

You're welcome.

France mellows????
 

PARIS — France said Monday it will work with other nations to cancel billions of dollars in Iraqi debt and suggested that Saddam Hussein's capture would open the way toward mending relations with Washington.

Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin of France, one of the most persuasive and persistent critics of the U.S. decision to wage war in Iraq, said he hopes the capture will allow the international community to "regain its unity."

France's commitment toward reducing the outstanding debt came a day before U.S. special envoy James A. Baker was to arrive in Paris, one of five European capitals he will visit this week as part of an effort to encourage such moves.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105856,00.html

Actually the Iraqi government stopped by Paris on their way back to Iraq monday and assured France in a meeting with 80 industrials that France will be needed for the reconstruction of Iraq and that it's their will to involve France, so France decided to whipe out the 3 billions debt during 2004

I was informed that this site was more intelligent than the average site and less prone to be led by propoganda yet this another french bashing thread that if anything highlights political diversity and interest in france, does the US fear political opposition so much that it must bash it at every occasion possible?

Do you wish to discuss the issue and the article that was presented for discussion, or would you rather just criticise the forum and its membership?

I critqued the french bashing, this seems a tad more enlightened than the standard spam board however educated some of the posters are, there is still french bashing, am I not allowed to question unwarrented criticism of a country?

We do, however attempt to bash them with an enlightened and intelligent approach.

LOL.

OK, but the question remains, a political power questions the Bush administration and is bashed on an international level.

The US did not meet them on a world wide political forum and present a convincing argument dispite influencing the weaker nations, Mexico, Turkey, England etc. But ignored all political avenues and issued thinly vieled insults with there routes in an occupied nation.

France attempted, unsuccessfully to start an international power struggle - I assume trying to restore some place for themselves other than the basement. They attempted to bully other nations in Europe to stand with them - sorry, but things didn't work out the way they wanted. I can give my views on why they didn't want anyone going into Iraq other than the UN or something of the like that wouldn't upset their apple cart, but I'msure you are aware of them by now. The apples spilled. We met the world on and in an international forum - the UN - the UN passed toothless resolutions and wimped out on enforcing them - I would imagine that France assumed that once the UN demonstarated once again that it has no balls the matter would be over and they could resume their dealing with Hussein. We are now at perhaps Plan B or maybe C. Noticed today that Both France and Germany want to talk about debt - now that they know they aren't going to get paid. If what happened in Iraq was a "thinly veiled threat", I'd hate to see what the results of all out pissed off would be.

Just because the UN wouldn't back military action doesn't reflect their lack of "balls".

Yeah it does, what LEGITIMATE authority do they have when they can't even properly and effectively enforce their own resolutions? League of Nations and Hitler ring a bell?

They can't because we won't give them the authority to. Wanna know why? Because Libertarian gun-nuts start frothing at the mouth at the idea of superceding national sovereignty.

If you don't want the UN banging down your door, how the hell can you say in the same breath that you want it banging down someone else's? They can only go in when they are invited by all parties, or when the Security Council approves it-and there has to be a strong case for superceding sovereignty to get it through there (ie invading another country...).

yes thank you. people seem to think that the UN should invade no questions asked reminds me of something......but there is a protocol to follow and unilateral action against a nation is not it

I agree that there is protocol to follow, but when you blatantly violate international law such as Saddam did 16 times, being found in material breach of said resolutions on more then one occasion, something has to be done.

something yes but it wasn't the right time, to this day there have been no WMD found and this is going to be a big selling point on the success of the war. Saddam's capture helped a lot intelligence wise, let's face it the CIA know what they are doing when they interrogate someone. But if there are no WMD the success of the war will always be in question. It was the main selling point for invasion.

There has been no "smoking gun" found yet, what the Kay report has found was that Saddam did indeed have an ongoing WMD program running, that puts him in material breach of resolution 1441.

that is true. things have been misconstrued between a weapons program and actual nukes, this is due to the media not being specific when the mention WMD it all seems to fall into the same catagory. was he not trying to buy something from Africa? i can't remember. i see your point but is that enough to go to war?

Depends on your perspective. For example the French said nothing could account for us going to war, not even if he had said weapons. Bottom line regarding the WMD's, if they aren't there (which I'll bet my life that they are) then this whole ordeal has been the biggest most massive failure of world intelligence. Saddam played the same games in 98' when Clinton was president, said he didn't have them. Then Hussein Kammel defects to Jordan and we find thousands of liters of anthrax. Nothing really happened to him then, Clinton flew in dropped a few bombs and left it at that.

well that's just wrong if they said it no rogue nation should be in possession of WMD

Get a snack we may be here a while...
 

Frankly none of this is very specific or very damning. Do you actually think that our intelligence isn't involved with Al Qaeda or similar groups? We'd be stupid not to be trying to keep an eye on them from the inside and there's little reason to assume Saddam wasen't doing the same thing.

Quote:

And what about the fact that virtually every member of the UN asserted that Saddam had indeed posessed WMD and had failed to produce any information about their whereabouts?

What about it? What the hell are you trying to say here? Whats your point? It seems like you're trying to say "since every memeber of the UN said this it must hold some weight." which leads me to some questions. If the UN holds such weight why did we blatantly ignore them? Why, when the UN inspection team reported that there were no WMD in Iraq, didn't that hold any weight?

Quote:

And what about the fact that Saddam was, to put it plainly, an enemy and had attempted to assassinate our President?

Where should I begin with this horrible argument. Since we've tried to assassinate Castro numerous times he's clearly entitled to invade us right? Since we've killed the leaders of a number of South American countries we should be expecting an attempt at occupation soon right?

Since when is it the avowed policy of the United States to invade enemies. It sounds like the America you live in needs to grow the heck up. To bring the thread back to France and opposition to the war this may help clarify things. When dealing with serious issues it helps to at least act serious. The problem is the Bush administration wants to do big boy things but still act like little children. They want the responsibility to kill thousands without considering the consequences or opposing points of view.

Well it's time for a wake up call, the world isn't black and white. We weren't attacked on 9/11 because Al Qaeda hates freedom. We were attacked, and will be in the future, because of our patronizing and irresponsible policies in the Middle East.
(BTW, America should be blamed first when we're the ones responsible)

America is neither specifically blessed nor chosen by any god. Ignoring the truth doesn't make it go away and the sooner conservatives learn that the better off (and more liberal) we'll all be.

Quote:

And what about my previous point about the importance of precedent, credibility, and the folly of appeasement?

What about it, it's irrelevant. No one was appeasing Saddam. Bringing inspectors to his country is hardly appeasing him. If precedent is so important why did we violate the precedent against invading soverign nations? The precedent against being the aggressor.

If credibility is so important then why have we been caught in so many lies relating to even just the Iraq war? Too bad we lied about buying weapons materials from Niger. Too bad we lied about our plans for reconstruction. Too bad there are no WMD despite saying we knew where they were.

Quote:

Tophat, you wrote "I may come back and pick it apart some time." Fine. Bring it.

Consider it brought. Served right to you with a side of your ass on a plate.

Re: Get a snack we may be here a while...
 

If I decipher your rantings correctly, you're stating that you think the CIA has most likely infiltrated Al Queda, that perhaps Saddam has as well, and that due to your speculation, any evidence linking Saddam and terrorists should be dismissed?

I think you should be dismissed. :rolleyes:

There was no dispute that Iraq had violated some 16 UN resolutions. Even those who had opposed US calls to enforce those resolutions agreed that Iraq was in violation of them. Despite your sad attempts to restate my point and twist my logic, I think it makes a pretty plain case. Virtually everyone agreed that Iraq had WMD. Virtually everyone agreed that Iraq had failed to account for those WMD. A select few of those, however, thought that despite that, we should not hold Iraq accountable.

However, neither this, nor the fact that we have not yet found those weapons, negates the fact that Iraq had WMD and had failed to account for them. Hence, the threat.

Would you disagree with the assessment that the US is a threat to Cuba?

Again - the question was asked, what threat did Iraq pose to the US. I pointed out that, among other things, Saddam Hussein had tried to assassinate our president. That's a fucking threat, OK?

This ranting contains plenty of emotion-filled hyperbole. When you can present some rational, objective discourse, I'll be gald to respond in kind.

Ah yes, resort to blaming the victim of a horrific, cowardly act of indiscriminate mass murder.

Anyone who believe the US is to blame for 9/11 is a vile, disgusting, miserable being. May God have pity on you.

Saddam Hussein relinquished his soveriegny when he willfully violated the agreed to conditions of his surrender. Our action was not that of an aggressor, but of a defender.

What lies? We obtained evidence suggesting a possible link to Niger that was later discredited. We didn't lie about that. We certainly didn't lie about our plans for reconstruction either. Nor did we lie about WMD.

I can see clearly that you're quite fragile and extremely vulnerable to emotional arguments, but before you recklessly fling unsubstantiated accusations, float improbable conspiracy theories, and scream about how thousands of innocent men, women, and children should bear the blame for being ruthlessly murdered, your should take a moment to reacquaint yourself with reason.

Re: Re: Get a snack we may be here a while...
 

:rolleyes: I think it's time for a look in the mirror...

Re: Re: Re: Get a snack we may be here a while...
 

Sparhawk, if you address my points and actually contribute to the discussion, I will actually pay attention to your comments.

If you want to troll around and heckle me, I will continue to ignore you.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Get a snack we may be here a while...
 

:lol: Oh how the irony drips...

http://www.starfish.govt.nz/shared-g...d/trolling.jpg

I don't mind trolling, but it just doesn't really feel like fishing. Give me a 2lb rainbow on a flyrod over a 10lb one caught trolling in lake Michigan anyday.

who to blame for sept. 11 is a tricky thing to discuss, the blame should fall on many different people and countries. i really don't want to get into that here at the risk i might be chastised for my opinion, but the US is not totally to blame for this tragedy.

More -

I wrote:
Now, having dealt with that threat, the landscape has changed.

Iran is allowing the IAEA unfettered access to its nuclear sites.

Libya is abandoning its weapons programs and allowing international agencies unfettered access to it's sites.

The war in Iraq showed the world that the US would no longer rely upon empty UN resolutions to protect itself. The war in Iraq showed the world that the US knows that a resolution is nothing without resolve.

Regardless of one's political ideologies, one has to see that the Bush administration has achieved extraordinary foreign policy victories since it began its prosecution of the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. And the threats against Americans and free people everywhere have been weakened.

No we don't have to see that because many of us don't believe that foreign nations have the right to impose their will on other sovereign nations.

I find your position--that imposing one's will on another somehow secures the threats against "free people"--internally inconsistent.

I don't agree that bullying people into acquiescence (as our actions have done to the Iranians and Libyans) is a ringing endorsement of freedom.

Iran, for example, has claimed that their nuclear program is an attempt to seek alternative power sources. So far, I don't have any evidence to suggest otherwise. I don't even know that I would care if I did have any. I don't think the human race would have gotten very far had some powerful nation-state roamed around squelching any technical advances it felt were contrary to its long-term interests--I mean, we wouldn't have ever gotten out of the damn stone age if that had happened!

I also don't understand why people think that other leaders of other nations are so irrational that they won't be able to stop themselves from nuking the Western world once they achieve the capability to do so. I don't even see how people believe that the leaders don't realize that their economic interests are tied to our economic well-being. It's the non-government actors that we ought to be concerned over--and that includes Western corporations as well as Eastern terrorists. Both are challenging our current model of nation-state governance.

For as much hatred as we're taught the Eastern world has towards us, it's amazing to me how little damage has actually been accomplished. We know that people have access to dirty bombs, suitcase devices, and etc. since we've been warned of the possibility for over twenty years now. I haven't seen one go off anywhere around the world, however. In fact, no one has even set off a large conventional bomb in LA.

Whether or not you agree with the game, you must at least be able to acknowledge that we're winning.

Imposing one's will is invading neighboring countries to steal their assets, as Saddam Hussein did in Kuwait. Imposing one's will is killing anyone who disagrees with you, as Saddam Hussein did for decades while he was in power.

Defending oneself against threats from one's enemies is not exactly "imposing one's will."

Agents of the Libyan government blowing up civilian jumbo-jets - that's bullying. Agents of the Iranian government sponsoring terrorists and encouraging terrorism - that's bullying.

Sitting down at the bargaining table and talking - that's diplomacy.

Remember, you didn't call it bullying before the war when you and your ilk told us to pursue "diplomatic means" in Iraq.

Um, Iran is sitting on more natural energy resources than they could every possibly need. Their OPEC's number 2 exporter. Why would they need nuclear energy? Please.

Consider it gun-control on a macro scale.

Gun rights advocates have used the exact same argument as yours above, substituting "leaders of nations" with "individuals" and "nuking the Western world" with "shooting people." Do you agree that felons and the mentally ill should not be allowed to own guns?

So, um, are you suggesting that we abandon our efforts to curb state sponsorship of terrorism and nuclear weapons proliferation and instead go after corporations? Dude, are you for real?

Hey don't sound too disappointed, smooth.

Whether you like it or not, the good guys are winning. Consider yourself lucky to have George Bush at your back.

I acknowledge that things certainly look like they are going according to plan. I don't agree that this is best for our long-term interests. Who is "we" in this statement?



Forcing a foreign nation to open itself to foreign inspection under threat of invasion is exactly bullying and imposing one's will. I don't know why you listed the examples you did other than to imply that I don't think those behaviors are inappropriate.

I actually do think those two examples that you cited were inappropriate. I also think our behavior is analogous. Regardless, Saddam's actions are irrelevant to our current dealings with Iran and Libya. Your point of posting them in response to my comments is lost on me.



Nice, "ilk"--I started a trend :). Anyway, I certainly did call our demands at the bargaining table "bullying" then as I do now. What exactly are you "remembering" that indicates otherwise?

However, once again, the relevance of your points of example are lost on me. Either the government sponsored such attacks (war) or non-government agents did so (terrorism). I don't support either type of behavior, but that doesn't mean I condone analogous acts by my own government to curb theirs.



First of all, we aren't in any position to dictate whether someone else "needs" nuclear energy. Freedom (which you claimed to be in support of) includes the right to do what one pleases, not what one wants.

Also, given the free-market apologist that you are, I'm surprised you would fail to see how one would want to create alternative energy and sell the "old" tech to us while we continue to sit around with our thumbs up our asses, subsidizing the oil companies rather than pursuing alternative energy sources ourselves.




Well, I'm not a gun control advocate in the manner you are using the term. I believe we should use technology to make weapons and their uses more safe.

I also understand the distinction between controlling one's own population and attempting to "control" someone else's. We may argue about gun control in another thread, if you'd like. Personally I think it's ridiculous to keep bringing it up and arguing over it. I also wonder how you make the leap of logic from a perceived right to control the weapons our citizens own and use to the right to control weapons on a global scale.

Oh, and I do believe that felons should be able to possess weapons. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise if they really believe citizens have a fundamentally, deity-given right to possess them. I think that they have as much right to protect their families and selves as much as the next citizen. I haven't ever considered whether mentally ill people should carry weapons--but I haven't ever met one who did want one. I don't see any legitimate reason to deny them--we can't keep them from speaking regardless of how irrational them may sound. I don't think we should be inconsistent with how we establish a criteria for rights--either they are inaliable or they aren't.



Yes, I am for real. But I don't understand how you read my post to mean that we should abandon efforts at creating more peaceful international relations.

Odd how you twisted my statement, now that I've re-read it. Please don't do that anymore or I won't reply to you. I explicitly tied the economic well-being of devleping nations to ours and claim that their leaders are aware of those links. It wouldn't serve their purpose to start a nuclear war. Only one nation has used a nuclear bomb--and it wasn't the freedom hating Nazi's, Commies, Islamic fundies, or any other massive group of people our government often reduces to a caricature.


Interesting shot.

How do you infer that I'm disappointed? Following your logic, I would be pleased if a bomb destroyed my city and everyone in it (including me and my family). That's doesn't even make sense. I was pointing out that terrorists are not acting as irrationally or spontaneously as we are being led to believe.

George Bush does not have my back. The sooner you realize this the better off our country will be. He has never seen nor experienced anything like my lifestyle, and I doubt he has anything in common with you, either. He is set to secure the interests of the ruling party at cost to the people he likely believes to be insignificant to world affairs. He might care, on some level, if LA was nuked because of how that would adversely affect him, but he wouldn't mourn me or my family.

I agree that those in power are achieving their goals. I just don't think that their goals are in line with mine. This shouldn't be surprising since my group isn't in power. The surprising thing is that people like you, those who the group in power doesn't give a shit about, support their actions.

I would argue that it is a successful defense strategy. Bullying implies that we are the aggressor. I will submit that we are the defender (more on this later).

Saddam's actions were a threat to world stability and, either implicitly or explicitly, a threat to America. It is relevant because Iran and Libya, having seen what the US will do to protect itself from such threats, have reduced or ceased making similar threats.

Here again you use the word "analogous."

I disagree that these acts were analogous. Aggression and defense are only analogous to the moral relativist, which I am not. In fact, I'm more than a bit amazed that anyone can equate unprovoked war and indiscriminate terrorism with active self defense.

I agree. However, I don't believe Iran when they say they are pursuing nuclear technology just to compliment the hundred billion or so barrels of oil reserves.

We're not trying to impose gun control laws on other nations. I presented the example as a microcosm. On a global scale, the "individuals" are the nations, and the "guns" are biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons.

First, you're assuming that folks like Kim Jong-Il and Muammar Qaddafi are rational individuals. I'm not sure I would make that assumption. However, if they are rational, they might consider the nuclear threat a strategic bargaining tool and attempt to use it blackmail us into lifting sanctions and providing aid, as Kim Jong-Il did successfully with Bill Clinton.

A cynical viewpoint indeed, but one that I can understand given history's lessons. These fears notwithstanding, I feel that his policy of active self defense benefits Americans much more than the alternative policy of appeasement.