Well, since Germany is not on the UN Security Council and had no veto, I’d say a “Schroeder thread” is unlikely. And your own link to a story mentioning Russia’s opposition said it was opposed to the resolution “in its current form,” while France was opposed “to any resolution authorising automatic military action.” There is a difference there.
I don’t think any European is a jackass for oppsing war. The continent has seen enough conflict to make anyone heartily sick of it. But I think what booka said in his last lengthy post supersedes much of what you have said here. Iraq, and much of the rest of the Middle East, represented a long-term thorn in the side of the U.S. that had to be dealt with. I have no problem believing the Bush administration never thought inspections would achieve anything, and intended to invade all along. As for why that doesn’t bother me, see my last sentence. The Bush administration took a gamble they were doing the best thing for the most people in the long run. Crowds of cheering Iraqis would seem to say that, so far, its gamble paid off.
I wouldn’t expect Europeans in general to think our reasons were good enough. After all, they aren’t burning French or Dutch flags on the streets of Tehran, or flying airplanes into buildings in Amsterdam or Paris, either. Lest anyone think I’m making a cheap play to emotion here, let me add that I don’t think Americans in general can appreciate European knowledge of the true human
costs of war, either.
But do I think for one minute France would do anything different, were it in our shoes? Absolutely not, and I’ll bet a few million Algerians would agree with me. French opposition was not about being principled. It was not about any pacifist philosophy, or respect for the international “system,” or even for the UN. I think it was all about trying to control the U.S. by every means at its disposal. Like booka said, one day Chirac saw that one position was in his country’s self-interest, another day he saw it differently.
There is plenty more I could say here. I’m sure I could add more detail, explain more thoroughly, etc. But I’m at work.
Well, the real proof lies a little further ahead. Sure, there’s happy faces now, but what will happen to Iraq? And just as important: who will facilitate this process?
For one thing, I think the average Dutchman would react very differently to someone burning their national flag, when compared to an American. Hell, I don’t think this, I KNOW this. Furthermore, and more importantly, the reasons weren’t good enough because the Iraqi regime never flew any planes into any US buildings either. Note how not one European nation objected to the US action in Afghanistan. And why not? Because there was sufficient reason, in spades. Not so, this time 'round.
I don’t think it’s an issue of just France trying to control the US, but the mere existence of the Bush administration certainly seems to mobilise a large part of the European contingent in the UN. Perhaps they feel someone needs to be kept in check, perhaps even for reasons as banal as “national interests”? After all, just how many times exactly has the US used its veto right in the past 50 years, when a certain resolution didn’t suit its interests? Surely then, other nations have that same right, annoying as it might be? And let’s face a simple fact of life: a Republican POTUS will usually have a harder time interacting with his European allies as would a Democratic one. The fact that GWB has a hard time interacting in the first place doesn’t aid this.
Alternatively, one could move to abolish the veto right in the Security Council altogether (and I do stand corrected on Germany not being a member of the SC, although it was more of a typing slip-up than a knowledge deficit, but there you go).
What the fuck. You’re a moderator around here? He has said alot more than this. Besides this is The Pit. It’s my opinion he’s back pedalling, free speech and all that. I must say though that I don’t think he’s a Grade A prick. I don’t think you’re a jackass for opposing the war. I do think that Chirac is a jackass and that you are a Grade A prick. I might expect that kind of vitriol from other members of this board, but from a moderator? You just shattered my illusions. It was probably my fault though for thinking that moderators held themselves to a higher standard.
The billion dollar a year Oil for Food Program (now defunct) was almost entirely administered by French and Russian banks and the food supplied by French and Russian companies. The war ended that program. Now that the war is over, the French Gov’t wants back into the money part without ever having to get their hands dirty or upset their large Moslem populations. One can agree or disagree with the war but to say that the Frence Gov’t (as opposed to the French people) had humanitarian goals is asinine.
skankweirdall, moderators around here are free to hold whatever opinions they like, and be as vitriolic as they please (in full accordance with the rules, of course) Remember, the moderators here were posters first, and shouldn’t be asked to give that up just for the “pleasure” of being a mod.
Bull. The window of opportunity for the war was rapidly closing: given that we needed to allow for the possiblity of fighting in those anti-chem suits (MOPPS) and you can’t wear them in a 100 degree Iraqi summer. The only times we could attack were from (approx) October-May. A chunk of that overlapped Ramadan, and we couldn’t attack then either.
If we had waited for the inspectors to finish playing their “Just Oooooonnnee more month! He’s SURE to comply with us THIS time!”/“Oops. Well, this time we mean it! Just one more month! We’re SURE Saddam will comply THIS time”) dicking around, we would have had to wait another year.
As I said it was probably my fault for thinking that. I hadn’t seen any other mod telling any other poster that they can’t speak their minds or;
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Coldfire *
**It is NOT OK to accuse Chirac of back-pedaling when all he does is express his delight for the Iraqi people, now that they’re free. **
Get over it. He wasn’t speaking “Ex Cathedra”, he was speaking as a poster.
Coldie and I disagree pretty strongly on most issues regarding this situation and he’s never, not once even hinted at using his mod powers to shut me, or any poster he disagrees with, up (assuming that they’re in the right forum, of course.) He has behaved completely ethically and going on about it isn’t going to make you look any better.
Besides backpedaling implies that Chirac wanted the Iraqi people to remain under a dictator. What he did do was try to avoid the removal of the dictator on US terms.
Well if there is any truth to what Hajario posted then it would indeed look like he’s back pedalling. I think other posters here have expressed the same sentiment in different words. He was vehemently opposed to the war, but now that it has done it’s job he is all happy. That is bullshit. Me thinks his personal convictions might have been at odds with his responsibilities for the welfare of his country.
Those are important questions. I have already said I think the U.N. should be put in charge, but only countries whom we (meaning the U.S. and Britain) trust should run the show. That means pretty much anyone except France, Russia, or China. It would be a grand political gesture indeed for Bush to allow those countries key roles, but it’s unrealistic to expect that level of grace from anyone, under the circumstances.
**
Well, how is that? Would they just not care? And we’re not just talking about flag burning here. I have a clear memory from my childhood of seeing a huge crowd in the Middle East (it was either Iranians or Libyans) writing “Reagan” in blood on a flag and setting it on fire, all the while chanting “Death to America!” I also recall seeing Palestinians dance in the streets on hearing the news of the World Trade Center’s collapse.
Those people were making a statement, and with the Iraqi invasion, the U.S. establishment was making a statement in return. There is a good reason why Bush never bothered to sell the war to the American public, yet 60 percent of the populace backed it (a far higher percentage than voted for him): because that many people fundamentally agreed Iraq was a threat. In their minds, Iraq didn’t pull off something like 9/11 because of a lack of means, not because of a lack of motive or desire. (No, I am not unaware that large portions of the U.S. public has long believed, erroneously, that Iraq was behind 9/11. But I’m saying they might not have cared even had they believed otherwise.)
After all, how much can a nation absorb? Our historical involvement in the Middle East is far less than that of Britain, Russia, or yes, France, yet WE are “The Great Satan.” The amount of aid we give to Israel annually is far less than the net profits of General Motors in any given year, yet “the Jews” are somehow manipulating our every move as a country.
**
Humph. And I was cynical enough to believe Europe didn’t care about Afghanistan because it is an economic and political backwater of no strategic importance, whereas Iraq is a large modern state with significant business connections to many European nations.
**
Of course France had the right to use its veto if it wished. And in retrospect, all the effort the U.S. expended to get U.N. approval to do something, anything was a colossal waste of time. Not only that, but diplomacy still counts. The Bush administration has been accused of arrogance, it has been accused of all sorts of things, but in reality, its strategic policies are not all that different from those Bill Clinton pursued. (Here’s a column by Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post detailing exactly what I mean.)
**
You are making a statement on U.S. politics that you are in no way qualified to make. I might as well claim your country would be better off if Partij voor de Dieren ran things. I doubt you even remember a Republican president before Reagan. And as that column by Hiatt shows, Democrat or Republican, U.S. presidents are constrained by the same geopolitical realities. The current schism has less to do with Bush personally than it does with the end of the Cold War. France has long thought it didn’t need the U.S.–how else to explain the withdrawal of military forces from NATO, or the pompous grandstanding over the Iraqi issue?
But for the first time in 60 years, we genuinely don’t need France. I’m sure this isn’t a possibilty Chirac thought much about while he was denouncing Bush as a “cowboy,” an “imperialist,” or “a bully.”
And Bush knows what side his bread is buttered on. He cares a lot more about the American public’s opinion than he does about all of Europe combined, believe me.
Exactly. What do you people WANT Chirac to say? That he’s sorry Saddam is no longer in power? Give me a freakin’ break - if he said that, you’d be bitching twice as loud.:rolleyes:
As far as I’m concerned the actions that Chirac was in favor of would do exactly nothing to remove Saddam. The only way to remove that guy from power is to take it from him by force, which is what the US and UK did. Being against the war, in my mind, was being against the removal of Saddam, because war is the ONLY WAY to remove him.
If Chirac really wanted Saddam to be deposed, what was his plan to do so? Wait for Saddam to break UN resolutions for the umpteenth time? At some point, tanks had to roll into Baghdad, do it now, rather than wait interminably.
Has the concept of pragmatism ever entered anybody’s head?
I can hate the way the war came about, and be outraged that it happened the way it did, fear for the future of international relations, yet that doesn’t change the fact that the war happened (is happening) and that the change it brought about appears to be good for the Iraqi people. Nor does the method by which that change was brought about affect the fact that Iraq is in critical need of aid now to rebuild itself.
Whether or not the ends justify the means, (an) end has been accomplished. The means by which it was accomplished are matters for review, and alternatives that could have been used can only be subjects of speculation.
Saying that Chirac shouldn’t be allowed to capitalize on our “good decisions” is shortsighted and purile. Not that I’m surprised - that type of response seems to be de riguer, pardon my “freedom”.
Which brings me to pragmatic point #2: do you honestly think that America can afford to wage a war and then rebuild the Iraqi economy and government without aid from other countries? If you view the reconstruction of Iraq as a gigantic revenue-machine, do you believe that the U.S. was being altruistic in invading Iraq in the first place? Or is this the cue to redirect the thread to Al Queda/WMD rationales?
If you’re going to be cynical about Chirac’s motivations, at least be equinanimous enough to be cynical about everyone’s motives.
On preview re: the red hen. This last supposition of mine seems to be dead on. Apparently, the mood is “We beat the shit out of Iraq - to the winner go the spoils”. Hard to see why the Arab nations are concerned about our colonial intentions.
Yes, it’s a cute story, and a good parable which has nothing to do with this situation.
If you’re suggesting that it relates to this, then you’re suggesting that Iraq’s economy is a gold-mine to be exploited by it’s liberators - I don’t think I have to explain the parallels.
If you’re suggesting that Iraq is /not/ the spoils of war, then the red hen story is just a quasi-amusing distraction.
Either way, in the context of this thread, you need to be aware that your comments suggest you see a link between The Little Red Hen and this situation, hence my comment. How you choose to present yourself is entirely up to you.