Chirac (and his government) are responsible for France’s long-term vitality and strength as a nation. If they indulged their own contrary views on this Iraqi action (or decided to listen to the screaming masses within France) to the detriment of their country’s well-being, then they’ve blown it.
Determining foreign policy in today’s world via public opinion and emotion may not be effective. The French may like him for this today, but down the road, if France’s standing in the world community diminishes, if their economy or quality of life or security is degraded, and if they’ve generally been marginalized, they may regret their indulgences, and wish they’d been more realistic.
On the other hand, if France suffers nothing from all of this, then I guess Chirac achieved both popularity AND effective leadership, and his gamble will have been successful. I guess we’ll see.
The link was a joke, but there’s a grain of truth to it. The coalition acted in what it believes to be it’s best interest and the best interest of the world. Economic interests were among them. France opposed our efforts for it’s own interests, among them economic interests. I just think it’s a little disingenuous for Chirac to be spouting off about dictators and freedom, when he showed little concern about these ideals before the invasion.
I hope we have an even larger coalition (including France, Germany, and Russia) to assist the Iraqi people rebuild their rich country, and further hope the ends to this war justified the means.
Saddam has ruled Iraqi in a brutal fashion for 30 years. He would not release his grip on Iraq unless he died or someone overthrew him. His sons (even more brutal than him) were set to assume his role after he died. At the slightest sign of dissention, he’d murder his own people, so there was little chance of an internal coup. War was the only answer.
I am not saying liberating Iraq was the main reason for going to war. I do know that 12 years of sanctions did nothing to hurt the his barbaric rule. In this case, opposing war indeed equated to looking the other way on Saddam’s atrocities.
skankweirdall, when I speak as a moderator, you’ll notice I say so in the subject line of the post. Most moderators do this, by the way. If I don’t specifically state that I’m speaking as a mod, then I’m just voicing my opinion like any other poster. Whether or not my opinion makes me a Grade A Prick, as you seem to believe, I’ll leave up to the reader. Kudos to Cheesesteak and Fenris for explaining this.
Fenris said:
Well, there’s a hint of circular reasoning there, of course. When assuming that Iraq has WMD’s, then that scenario makes sense. However, the decision to go to war was made without evidence that it had, merely assumptions. It’s all hindsight now, and I’ll agree that being cautious is a good strategy for any military action, but merely saying “we had to go to war NOW because we had to wear these really hot suits” is a bit thin, IMHO. I’ll just leave your comments about the UN weapons inspections for what they are: we’ll obviously never agree on that.
Lizard said:
Let me put it this way, and trust me when I say I mean no offense. I know of no other nation in the world (barring particular lower classes in England and Germany) that has such a strongly patriotic populace as the US. And while I think patriotism is not necessarily a bad thing, I do believe there lurks a fair amount of danger in placing too much value in symbols like a stupid flag. Of course, there are not as many instances where Dutch flags are burned in public, but it does happen. Whenever I see it on TV, I tend to think it reflects poorly on the flagburners - in that they come across as hysterical fanatics. I don’t object to them burning “my” flag per se. It’s a shame when they do it whilst actually having a legitimate complaint, such as the East-Timor protestors a couple of months ago in The Hague: it makes them less credible, IMHO. But I’m not offended. I guess I just don’t take pride in the piece of land I happened to be born on: other than that it’s a safe and friendly place to live in, I don’t feel like it’s mine to defend or cherish. Well, I’ll make an exception for international football matches, but that’s it, really.
Never bothered to sell the war? I’ve seen various reasons for it from the Bush adminitration: liberating the poor Iraqis, overthrowing Saddam because he’s a direct threat to the US, overthrowing Saddam because he’s a threat to the US because he was involved in 9/11, overthrowing Saddam because he has weapons of mass destruction… given that most of those reasons are (at least up until now) largely unsubstantiated, I’d say Bush has done a hell of a job selling the war. And seeing how the American public’s approval for the war rose over time, he clearly succeeded at it, too. Iraq may or may not have been a threat, but I think most people here -on either side of the debate- will agree that Saddam could never have attacked the US directly, and that Saddam very likely had fuck-all to do with 9/11. The cynical part in me then wanders, and wonders if perhaps Bush needed an easy score (i.e. overthrow a regime that’s been handcuffed for a decade now) because he couldn’t get the real villain back in Afghanistan. Whether that’s true or not, time will tell. But I think there’s a grain of truth to it.
I’m not going to argue with that. It’s easy enough to counter it by saying “much like the US weren’t interested in overthrowing the Taliban until OBL decided to hide in an Afghani cave”. But you’re not incorrect when you suggest that both European nations as well as the US tend to prioritise by economic value rather than by violations of human rights at times. Still, I maintain that had the US decided to unilaterally storm Afghanistan without a reason as solid as 9/11, countries like France would certainly have objected as well. See what I’m saying?
Seeing as I was born in 1973, I personally don’t remember a Republican president before Reagan, no. What is your point?
And I’m not suggesting your country would be better off with a Democratic government: I’m merely remarking that with the scope of the political spectra on either side of the pond, it’s only logical that a Democratic administration will find more common ground with its European counterparts: what you guys regard as left-of-the-middle still translates as fairly conservative on the European political scale. Just a neutral observation: not a judgment. I see you’ve done some research, though: I’m afraid i have to disappoint you by announcing the Partij voor de Dieren (Party for the Animals) didn’t gain a seat in the house during the last elections.
I believe you. And while it’s only natural that the POTUS cares more about his own people than about those of other nations, I do feel that US-Euro relations have suffered since Bush came to power. For all the flack Clinton caught back home, he seemed to get along with his European counterparts a hell of a lot better than Bush. It’s part politics and part personality, I’m afraid. I really do think Bush has an isolationalist view, in that he cares about his allied ties too little.
Again: time will tell. But I won’t mourn for one minute if he doesn’t get re-elected, and joins his father in the hall of shame (that of presidents who didn’t get a second term).
I’m not surprised that France is “delighted” at the fall of Sadaam Hussein’s regime. The guy had to go, right? Although their timing is damned interesting…
One question, though, I recently heard that China was asking for rights to protect their interests in Iraq. Does anyone know what those interests are? How is China involved in all of this? I guess I’m looking to find out what ties China has to Iraq and why their interests <i>should</i> be protected.
(Someone may have addressed this already - but I was sooo lazy that I haven’t read the entire thread.)
I am amazed by the ignorance and idiocy of this post and of those which express similar sentiments. Look, it is not Chirac, it is close to 100% of those of us who opposed the aggression who are happy Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship has ended.
Let me explain something which you should know if you were not so ignorant: It is a basic tenet of western civilization that the ends, no matter how good and desirable, do not justify the means. Bad means are not made good by good ends. It is the rule of laws and not the rule of ends. Every government which has tried to use the ends to justify their means has been an oppresive dictatorship which had little regard for individual human rights. It is truly frightening to think how many people do not understand something so basic about our civilization. What the USA has done may have been for a desirable end but it undermines something much more important. The result is going to be that internationsl tensions are growing again.
So are you suggesting that the U.S. is obligated to unilaterally invade any country that we deem to be in violation of human rights standards? Should we have invaded the former Soviet Union? China? North Korea? Zimbabwe? Cuba? Rwanda? The list goes on and on. I see a big problem with one country (U.S.) declaring itself to be the champion of liberty, and unilaterally deciding when and where to throw its weight around under the guise of protecting the innocent.
Obviously, even Bush understands the problem with such a rationale. If the case for liberating the Iraqi people by force was as cut-and-dried as you say it was, he wouldn’t have bothered with making the tenuous connection to 9/11, or the WMD angle, would he?
So by your logic, if we fail to invade ALL of the above-mentioned countries (plus all the other oppressive countries in the world), then we are indifferent to human rights concerns. Plus, you’re forgetting that the Arab community doesn’t WANT our help. In fact, most of the world’s population was opposed to this war. To suggest that billions of people are unconcerned with human rights, while the good ol’ U.S.A. is the only altruistic country, is hogwash.
All I want to see: when the Iraqi government records are opened, we will see how much M. Chirac was paid in bribes by the Saddam regime.
I hope to see all of the swiss bank records, then Chirac will be seen for the fucking liar that he is.
Yeah, he REALLY was glad to see Saddam go…what a line of steaming crap!
Bullshit. This is not a hard and fast rule. Just because the means are less than palatable, does not mean they cannot ever be justified. The value of the “ends” CAN justify the means.
What you are saying is, if Saddam were openly running concentration camps, torturing and murdering tens of thousands of people a month, then removing him by force would still not be justified.
You see, intelligent people look at the situation and weigh the alternatives, they do not spout off silly little sayings as if they are universally applicable. I think the average Iraqi is far better off having to deal with a 1 month long war and the aftermath than another 20 years of Saddam’s rule, followed up by his sons.
If you wanted Saddam out, this was the only way it was ever going to happen. Period. To oppose this war is saying that it would be preferable to keep Saddam in power, because war is eeeeeeeeevil!
For far too long the western countries of the world stood by and watch dictators brutalize their citizenry, wringing their hands and saying “those poor people!” It’s like watching an old lady getting beat up and wishing that the assailant would stop. The right thing to do is hit the bastard over the head, only nobody has the nuts to do it. We just clocked Saddam on his noggin, over Chirac’s protestations, and now Chirac is saying “thank goodness the old lady is safe.” Excuse me if I tell him to piss off.
I just wish these things happened MORE often as opposed to less, with full UN backing and multinational support, of course, that’s a fucking pipe dream.
Huh? Have you been following this thread at all? The OP’s premise is that it is hypocritical to be both pleased with a result, AND opposed to the means by which that result was obtained. Sailor just pointed out that it is NOT hypocritical. It is perfectly reasonable to say: “I’m glad Saddam is out, but I don’t like the way it was accomplished”. In other words, the ends did not justify the means. We are talking about a SPECIFIC case. I’m not sure what YOU are talking about.
You do not understand the meaning of the expression: “The ends do not justify the means”. The idea is that evil cannot be justified merely by the ostensible positive result to be obtained. It does not mean that EVERY undertaking by man is prima facie evil. Don’t try to take on established tenets of philosophy when you don’t even understand what they mean.
That’s not what he’s saying at all. He’s saying that committing evil acts in order to discontinue the rule of an evil man is NOT justified. Since we are delving into ridiculous hypotheticals here, what if you had to kill a million innocent people to save 10,000 innocent people? Would you do it? You can’t just automatically say that something good happened, therefore the method by which it was accomplished is immune to criticism.
That’s specious reasoning. I could just as easily argue that to support the war is to say that you are in favor of killing civilians. Such simplistic arguments get us nowhere.
Yes, it is a hard and fast rule in civilized countries. You are just ignorant of that fact.
I am not saying that at all so please don’t argue such a stupid idea. If Saddam were doing something the entire world community found horrendous enough then things would have gone differently in the UN and the US would not be acting unilaterally.
Intelligent people around the world have rejected US actions by a great majority
Which is obasotuely irrelevant for the purposes of this thread which is whether there is a contradiction between opposing bad means to achieve good ends.
So, if at the conclusion of the OJ Simpson trial the sherrif pulled a gun and shot OJ in the head you would think that was justified? I don’t think so. Civilized nations recognize that the rule of law, even if it sometimes produces bad results, is on the whole, a lot better than deciding each case as we see fit.
With full UN backing? You just contradicted everything you said. The reason I oppose the invasion is precisely because it was done against the UN and the world community.
If you conduct a poll and ask “Would you favor the government using illegal means for good ends?” I hope most people would answer “NO” because anything else is very scary. Especially since it is the governmet who will claim to be the arbiter of what ends are considered good. Nothing but the rule of law will do.
In any case and to deal with the OP: anyone who does not understand the difference between means and ends and who does not understand that a person may agree a certain end is good and yet does not justify the evil means used to achieve it, anyone who does not understand that, as seems to be the case of the OP, is just too ignorant. This is the kind of stuff they teach in school.
Hmmmm…I wonder…
If France wants to be such a part of the restoration of Iraq (and share in the financial windfalls to be gained therein), then I suppose it can follow the exact same path it insisted the US follow:
Pass a resolution…
after resolution…
after resolution…
after resolution…
after resolution…
after resolution…
After all, we all have to follow the rules, now don’t we?
First they said it was about 9/11, then they said it was about WMD, then they said it was about liberating the Iraqi people…Now it’s about the money.:dubious:
I don’t suppose it was about the money all along, was it?
