These are definitely uncertain times we're living in. I for one cannot overlook the eloquence of the responses of the French President. He makes very good points about how the situation should continue to be handled. I can't see a good reason why more dialogue can't be effective. I also understand why the present administration has deemed it neccessary to take a hard line towards the despots in the region. Saddam Hussein is no Hitler, however even in these times appeasement and flouting of International interdicts should not be allowed.
The French jealous & resentful
by JH 22 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
rmayer32
Being a veteran of the first Gulf War I would love to see the Iraq situation solved peacefully, however I also understand the type of individual Saddam is and always has been. That being said you don't want to wait for him to get nukes, because then he becomes a nut with leverage and that is dangerous to everyone. As far as France goes, I did find this article sort of interesting.
-Rickhttp://www.theunionleader.com/articles_show.html?article=18829
-
Farkel
teejay,
First, I think the reporter who questioned Chirac was a muck-raker. All of his questions were loaded. He wasn't looking for truth, only to produce some sensational interview. I spit on that reporter.
France has always been a friend and an ally of the USA. Without them we would not have won the War of 1812. Thomas Jefferson loved the French and so has anyone who's actually taken the time to know them. At the same time, many French folks are arrogant, xenophobic bastards. Doh! So are many Americans!
When and if (there is no "if", by the way) the USA-led invasion of Iraq begins, the French will be solidly on our side. Bet on it.
That being said, this comment by Chirac was most telling. Keep in mind when you review this that it was NOT France who had 3,000 of their citizens murdered by a terrorist attack on French soil as we from the USA did:
: Why do you think the fallout from a war would be so much graver than Tony Blair and George bush seem to?
I simply don't analyze the situation as thy do. Among the negative fallout would be inevitably as strong reaction from Arab and Islamic public opinion. It may not be justified, and it may be, but it's a fact. A war of this kind cannot help giving a big lift to terrorism. It would create a large number of little Bin Ladens. Muslims and Christians have a lot to say to one another, but war isn't' going to facilitate that dialogue. I'm against the clash of civilizations; that plays into the hands of extremists.
So.... basically his argument boils down to this: There are terrorists who currently have no problem with attacking countries on their own soil, because they hate their culture. If you attack Iraq, you will piss them off even more. Therefore, don't attack Iraq (which is one of the biggest terrorist regimes in the world) and piss them off even more. Just let them go on terrorizing as they've been terrorizing before, but DON'T piss them off.
Idiocy.
There is a problem--the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right to be disturbed by this situation, and it's right in having decided Iraq should be disarmed. The inspections began, and naturally it is a long and difficult job. We have to give the inspectors time to do it. And probably--and this is France's view--we have to reinforce their capabilities, especially those of aerial surveillance. For the moment, nothing allows us to say inspections don't work.
After TWELVE years of trying to do it and being stonewalled for those twelve years, I think its about time to say, "okeee dokeee, fine. Sadaam won't let us do it."
Because of people like Neville Chamberlain and idiotic American pacifists, 70,000,000 people were killed who wouldn't have been killed had France marched into Berlin in 1939 or a little earlier and taken care of Hitler. France had the superior army at that time and Germany was no match for it.
Let's hope we don't repeat this mistake. Sadaam is building more weapons of mass destruction as I'm typing this, and he lives and has thrived on deceit and lies.
It's time to take him out and liberate his people. And if the terrorists get pissed off about this, SO WHAT? They've been pissed off at the Western way of life for as long as the Western way of life has existed.
Chirac's argument can be reduced to a local situation: Don't attack the Crips and the Bloods. If you do that, you'll REALLY piss them off and they will kill even MORE people than they are killing every day. (Just let them go on killing as they are currently going on killing.)
Rubbish! You cannot negotiate with insane people and Sadly Insane is just that: insane. He dies, and the world will be better off for it.
Farkel
-
teejay
>> There are terrorists who currently have no problem with attacking
>> countries on their own soil, because they hate their culture. If you
>> attack Iraq, you will piss them off even more. Therefore, don't attack
>> Iraq (which is one of the biggest terrorist regimes in the world) and
>> piss them off even more.
Farkel,
I think the issue is more complex than simply pissing off / not pissing off Iraq. Obviously, if someone is dead, who cares if they are pissed off at you? The issue, as Chirac pointed out, is how the war might very well inflame the emotions of people of other nations in the region. I think it will.
Despite how other Arab nations view Saddam, I tend to think that they feel a kinship with the Iraqi people. I think that even moderate Egyptians and Jordanians and Syrians will have deepening anti-American reactions when nightly news reports begin to show the mangled bodies of Iraqi women, children, and old folks laying dead in the streets -- having been killed by our "smart" bombs. And that says nothing about the reaction from places the world over that lay outside of the Middle East who even now -- before a shot has been fired or a bomb dropped -- feel that the war is wrong.
>> You cannot negotiate with insane people and Sadly Insane is just that:
>> insane. He dies, and the world will be better off for it.
As I said tonight to a friend as we soberly discussed this very topic, I think that is a very simplistic view of an extremely complex problem, particularly considering the war's likely aftermath -- both short- and long-term.
Bush's view of the world, I think, can be characterized by a 1950s western where there are no shades of gray, only black and white, good or evil. He sees himself as the morally centered sheriff (with the white hat, of course) and, along with too many others, sees Saddam as the bad guy with the black hat who has ridden into his quiet western town. Kill the bad guy and your problem is solved. Or so Bush seems to think.
I hope he's right but I HIGHLY doubt it. I think preemptively invading a foreign country that can't be clearly demonstrated as presenting a clear and imminent danger to us -- violating international law in the process -- with the stated intent of assassinating a world leader is going to have severe and long-lasting ramifications. It would also set a precarious standard for member nations of the U.N. -- that it's okay to violate U.N. resolutions (which Israel has done for decades, btw) with impunity. The overall effect is that the looming military action is going to be like putting out a campfire with a baseball bat.
IMO (and I hope I turn out to be very wrong) Bush is on the verge of opening a humongous can of worms, the likes of which the world hasn't seen for a long, long time.
-
-
Englishman
Farkel said:
France has always been a friend and an ally of the USA. Without them we would not have won the War of 1812.France has always been a friend and an ally of the USA.
Was this the war when the US declared war on Great Britain?
Englishman.
-
Guest 77
I'm with you on this one TJ. Whenever YOUR personal life is on the line, you'll sing a different tune.
Guest 77
-
Crazy151drinker
Pat Buchanan is Deepthroat from Watergate..............
-
heathen
oops ,silly me I must have forgot the foreign legion troops that are helping plant crops and find fresh water in the balkans .
-
pharisee
Got this email today.
> Sent to me by an American lady!!
>Enjoy.
> My favorite bumper sticker in Washington D.C. right
> now is the one that says 'First Iraq, then France'."
> -Tom Brokaw
>
> "The French announced today that they would not help
> us remove Saddam from Iraq. Well Duh! They didn't
> even help us remove Hitler from France."
> -Jay Leno
>
> "France said this week they need more evidence to
> convince them Saddam is a threat. Yeah, last time France
> asked for more evidence it came rollin thru Paris with a
> German Flag on it."
> -Dave Letterman
>
> Why are all the highways in France lined with trees?
> So the Germans can march in the shade!!!
>
> Going to war without France is like going deer hunting
> without an accordion. All you do is leave behind a lot of noisy
> baggage.
> -unknown
>
> France has neither winter, nor summer, nor morals.
> France is miserable because it is filled with Frenchmen,
> and Frenchmen are miserable because they live in France.
> -Mark Twain
>
> Only thing worse than a Frenchman is a Frenchman who
> lives in Canada.
> -Ted Nugent
>
> The only way the French are going in with us is if we tell
> them we found truffles in Iraq.
>
> War without France would be like ..... World War II
>
> What do you call 100,000 Frenchmen with their hands up?
> The Army
>
> Q. How do you stop a French Tank?
> A. Shoot the guy pushing.
>
> Q. how many Frenchman does it take to defend Paris.
> A. We don't know, it's never been tried.
>
> The best French bashing line heard over the last week is:
> "We can count on the French to be there when they need us."
>