Have you considered that opposition to the US demand for a War against Iraq was payback for the US unilaterally withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and refusing to join the International Criminal Court? Granted, the ABM was with Russia, and not France, but it still sent a clearly agressive signal to other nuclear powers.
There’s a reason the United States has problems on an international level. Very often its government takes the attitude that it should not ever be accountable to anyone else-- and yet other governments must agree to U.S. wishes or be considered traitors.
This would mean that France really agreed with the need to use force to replace Saddam’s regime. They understood that his WMDs and missiles were a threat to many countries. They knew that he supported terrorists. They understood that his regime tortured, imprisoned, maimed and killed thousands of Iraqis each year.
But, because they were miffed about the ABM Treaty (were they even a signitory?) and the ICC, they used their veto power to stop the US from dealing with these enormous problems.
Barbarian, your theory is the meanest anti-French comment in this entire thread.
Well, this is darn simple. All you gotta do, Scylla, is quote yourself in this thread wherein you made direct reference to these obligations. Nothing to it, case closed.
Well, not quite. A bit short of the mark, actually. If I understand friend Elvis correctly here…
he is asking for you to point out our obligations toward the French. I hardly think stern rebukes qualify under that standard as an “obligation”. None of the quotes you have posted come any where near that. Unless I’m badly mischaracterizing Elvis, he meant something along the lines of hearing thier point of view and respecting thier right to disagree without making accusations of disloyalty. After all, the French people were firmly opposed to our actions. Surely you are not going to suggest that the French governments committment to the US supercedes its committment to its own people?
So I think what you need here is quotes that illustrate the cordial respect and consideration due an ally. That should clear things up nicely, and I have little doubt that Elvis will quite honorably recognize that.
I think that the ambiguity of “serious consequences” is exactly what was intended. It could mean war but it still leaves the door open to other unspecified actions. It is quite different from “all means necessary.” These terms are not tossed about casually.
Someone commented on how undemocratic the rules for Security Council votes seem to be. Is there anything in the UN Charter that says that it is a “democratic” institution?
Ultimately, we have to think of the possible long-term consequences of “punishing” France. Can anyone name a country other than the U.S. where a majority of the citizens believed we were doing the right thing to go to war at that time in Iraq? Just curious about how highly regarded the U.S. will be if we “punish France.” Maybe we should give some credit to the State Department’s opposition to punitive measures.
To address the question of whether or not the UN was deliberately lied to:
I can’t provide a date or the exact wording, but in one of the Pentagon briefings, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff seemed totally unfamiliar with a certain area that had been specifically mentioned in Colin Powell’s speech to the UN as a possible place for storage of WMD in Iraq. If there had been any legitimate concern about that particular site, why wasn’t the Chairman familiar with it?
That strongly suggests either deception or ignorance.
I think everyone should punish the French by cancelling all their vacations to Paris [sub]so that travel and hotel prices will fall and I can afford to go.[/sub]
Obligation means obligation. Obligation does not mean cordial respect and consideration. If Elvis had meant something other than obligation he should have said that what word.
I gave you and he exactly what you asked for.
I have been arguing that we have an obligation to the French to address their behavior because we are allies with them.
I can’t imagine why on earth you would expect me to be talking about the cordial respect and consideration we owe the French as allies in a thread focusing on punishing them.
No, it is that you consider insults arguments and personal opinion facts.
Because you don’t like it doesn’t make it unallylike.
Hardly. An ally is not a vassal, but that seems hard for you to grasp. An ally has no obligation whatsoever for UNCONDITIONAL support.
In other words, you state that reciprocity means that the US is the only one entitled to being an arrogant asshole, and anyone facing them down has to be punished.
What you are talking about isn’t acting like an ally, it is acting like a moron.
It seems to be a tough concept for you to grasp that what you are saying boils down to nothing more than ‘The US has the right to be dicks with impunity.’
Hardly. Your failure to educate yourself on the French position speaks volumes. I would suggest you acquire some basic knowledge on what the french actually said before whining how mean they are.
Your claim doesn’t make it true. Sorry that it is so hard for you to grasp, but your wishful thinking doesn’t change reality. You are the only one here relying on nothing but assertions. Anyone reading the actual documents can see that you’re wrong on the French position. They are available online.
Too bad that what you say has very little to do with the course of action you advocate, after all you demand that the US can act any way it wants with impunity, does not need to support its allies, can violate its allies’s sovereignty, demand that they ignore their constitution and break international law wholesale with impunity, but telling the US that such conduct is unacceptable should be punished.
Thanks for demonstrating that you lack fundamental understanding on the concept of integrity. But that was shown already by your resorting to insults and typical rumpelstiltskin behavior. You will find that no sort of consequences whatsoever will resort in behaving like a high school bully in puberty the way you and Rumsfeld have been behaving being met with respect and support abroad.
Maybe because you claim to be aware that being an ally is a two-way street but fail to address why the French should have supported the US instead of vice versa? You only speak of obligations of the French, not obligations of the US as an ally.
You’re right. Perhaps I’m wrong. Just because I don’t understand how blocking your ally’s major course of action and denouncing them is the actions of a true friend, doesn’t mean that it isn’t. Perhaps you could explain to me how it is. I had also thought that being an engendered pretty specific obligations both overt and implied concerning military action of an alliance member.
In short, I don’t understand how active adversarial opposition and denouncement is the action of an ally. Apparently you do. Want to explain?
Where did I say they did? Where have I argued that? This is getting stupid. What is it with you dipshits that you seek to rebut viewpoints nobody has espoused?
Those are indeed “other words.” They bear no fucking resemblance to any argument that I’ve made. And, in fact, I have directly espoused the opposite. What the hell is with you morons?
You’ve demonstrated a pretty fucking poor understanding of what I’m talking about. Don’t paraphrase me, tell me what I am saying or restate my arguments in “other words.” If you want to attribute something to me, quote me directly.
Don’t make shit up and pretend I say it.
You think?
Listen, you incredible fucking asshole, I have never said nor implied anything of the kind. There is a certain minimum of integrity for even idiots like you before there can be something called “communication.” In order to make this thing “communication” work, your statements need to relate to what the other person you are communicating with has said.
If you are going to try to argue with me that your twisted misattribution is actually my viewpoint, you’re a bigger idiot than I thought.
I didn’t say that. I don’t mean that. My argument doesn’t “boil down” to that, or anything else you care to make up off the top of your head.
You make arguments up out of whole cloth and have the nerve and stupidity to attribute them back to me, and I’m supposed to your word about what the French’s viewpoint? I wouldn’t trust you to tell me the ingredients in ketchup.
Your simple assertion otherwise doesn’t rebut it.
Beautiful!
Follow me on this:
The only way you can determine the course I advocate is through the words I say.
If, as you say, “what you say has very little to do with the course of action you advocate.”
then:
How is other than through my words that you are determining what course I advocate?
Are you claiming to read my mind?
Where? This bears no relation to anything I’ve said. You have made it up, and are pretending I say or think it.
You have even admitted in the quote above that the words I say don’t bear resemblence to what you claim I’m suggesting.
I’ll ask you again:
If not through my words, how are you figuring out what I’m saying?
I think it’s a fair question.
You made that up to. I never said nor implied that.
I certainly haven’t said that.
I guess the part of the thread where I said these things has suddenly become invisible.
Now that’s an ironic statement.
Deliberate false attribution deserves to be treated with contempt.
When I make sense of that incoherent statement maybe I’ll respond. In the meantime Rummy and I are gonna go back behind the shed, smoke cigarettes and taunt nerds.
Hey look! I actually said that! That’s a first.
You want me to explain why we shouldn’t have supported the French in blocking us and denouncing our actions?
This is not true. I have been speaking of the US’s obligation to address the behavior of its ally towards it. We are so obligated to address it specifically because they are our ally.
We are obliged to seek a measure of reciprocal retribution from the French for their actions because they are an ally.
Doubtless what you are complaining about is why I’m not talking about all the nice and friendly obligations we owe our allies. That’s because the topic of discussion is not about those niceties, it’s about the more uncomfortable obligations.
I’ll put it another way that you can understand: You will notice that I have not spoken about ice cream either. This is hardly surprising and you can hardly fault me because ice cream is not the topic of discussion.
Deja vu in an echo chamber. How does this keep happening? Time and again, we are in the Pit as friend Scylla points out how he is being relentlessly and heartlessly misattributed, mischaracterized, and generally slandered by lesser minds. Cruelly hounded by the petty and insolent, he is forced to a state of belligerance quite out of character for one so benevolent and avuncular.
We should all examine ourselves deeply, and perhaps understand how we have consistently failed to appreciate the clarity and acuity of his postings. Has he not, in no uncertain terms, stated the utter correctness of his position?
It has been expressed, publicly and peevishly. Nobody missed it. Now the meaning it took on is one of the goddamned problems.
See, my dear fellow, as far as I can see from my following things on an international front and rapping with the international diplo corps, the Iraq issue is not being understood in isolation, as I said it is not a single transaction, it is being understood as part of a longer series of ‘my way or the highway’ type deals, and worse yet, a growing view the US will talk the talk but not walk the walk – free trade is good for you, not me….
Fair or not, the impression has gotten real credence in solid circles, not just the usual anti-American suspects. Gratuitously engaging in ‘pay-back’, I see little upside to this in the context of the big picture.
Well, that is the motherfucking problem in the end, now isn’t it?
Scylla my fellow, do live on the same planet? The US treats France as a privileged ally? I am hard pressed to think of a rational for this characterization. Allies, sure, but hardly privileged. GB, yes GB is privileged. France?
Now, I have to think, how does France need the US more than we need them? The bulk of French trade is EU and Med Basin, although the US market is very important on the margin for key sectors. France is a net creditor nation as I recall so their monetary position, ex-Euro of course which obiviates that, is in not great danger. Where is the greater need I ask myself?
We could think of official sanctions, but where does this get us? Well first this gets us into violation of WTO rules and further this plays further into a general EU zone annoyance with US preaching free trade but not playing by the rules (the tax issue, e.g.), so I am hard pressed to see sanctions not provoking a unified EU position counter, out of strict self-interest if nothing else. Unilateral US sanctions driven by transitory political disputes are not going to win friends.
Consumer boycotts and unofficial actions against French firms certainly could be painful for those firms exposed to the US, but again if they take on a quasi-official character they run into WTO issues, and further antagonize.
I do see mutual need on trade issues, and on certain global political issues. I am hard pressed to conclude France needs the US more than the US needs France in any manner that gives one or the other vast leverage.
Well, we have upcoming trade neg. following on Doha, and the sticky issue of Agriculture and other sensitive items that need to be dealt with, in re developed countries lowering barriers in key sectors.
More directly there are a number of outstanding issues between the EU and the US on application of WTO rulings, e.g. in regards to the taxation issue decision (2nd round even), the tariffs etc. It would be helpful not to have a yet more antagonized EU, esp. France and Germany, driving hard for WTO authorized trade sanctions against the US for non-application of the rulings.
Further, returning to upcoming neg., France has already demonstrated no small degree of diplomatic savoir-faire (de Villepin is quite good no matter what one thinks of him) that the present Administration clearly lacks, it would be helpful to have France working Asia and Africa for positive positions, not against.
Well then that is your ignorance. I am beginning to think you worked for Sally. One can indeed manage image and manage perception to achieve positive results. You can call it diplomacy, you can call it building a buzz, you can call it a number of things, but the idea one can not control one’s image is just pure ignorance.
Sure one can not entirely control an image, nor force everyone to love you, or even like you, but a good PR campaign combined with judicious private relations management works wonders. I am sure you understand very well that a firm’s rep on the market is important – in the same manner the US rep on the market matters. It matters on the ‘pricing’ we get, it matters on who will deal with you and on what terms. It matters in the sense of whether other important players think you can be trusted, and whether they begin to see it in their interest to collaborate against your position, to prevent you from getting too big and damaging their interests.
And?
I presumed when working on the biotech seeds that some percentage of folks were going to be screaming Frankenstein Food no matter what, but only a moron would think you don’t work against that. You fucking manage the image, manage the goddamned brand as it were. Part of that may be spin, a lot of it has to be honest effort, which people should know about and be able to trust. That way you minimize the basis on which you can get whacked and minimize the numbers of the screamers. You never eliminate the screamers, but one certainly fucking can manage the numbers. Simply declaring you don’t fucking care gets you fucked in the end. Sainsbury’s learned that when they moved into Egypt and didn’t pay attention to their god damned street image, and they a fuck load of money because of it.
Don’t give me fucking bullshit and spare me the fucking decemberisms.
Better than the most optimistic people hoped, what the fuck are you reading? The most optimistic statements has Baghdad falling in days, Americans being welcomed as Liberators and nice clean confirmation of the American position Iraq was a clear threat via NBC evidence.
Instead we had a moderately longer armed conflict than expected, although not disastrously so, and to date no confirmation of the pretext for war, the famous lacking NBC. Now I am sure some will turn up, however the Administration case for the war was sold on a clear and present danger – instead it appears fairly clear that the NBC stocks were not what the Admin convinced themselves they were. Militarily this is a mere detail, on the global political front, this is an embarrasement. Now for the apologists of course, you can hand wave this away – I doubt the pretext was ever really more than that – but on the international image front, in conjunction with the faked Nuclear dossiers, it damages US cred., and cred. is an important thing to have.
On the political front, internally it also doesn’t look so terribly happy. There hasn’t been no fucking outpouring of welcome for US presence, the fucking Shiites have proven a surprise with a quick fucking move to religiously based political organization that has caught Rummy and company flat-footed (however predictable this was for anyone with experience in the region), with calls for an Islamic state being quite the little surprise for those who thought Iraq was still frozen in the 1970s, secular fucking Iraqis indeed.
There is further no small degree of anger over the inability or lack of willingness of US troops to protect ‘national treasures’ and for the Anglo-American troops having allowed initial looting of ‘symbols of power’ to get out of hand – a clear tactical error that has turned into a strategic error.
Quite fucking wrong indeed. The situation is not disastrous as of yet, but many of the elements of Lebanon c. 1980 are in place. This is not better than expected, this is moderately worse than envisioned, and dangerous. Although salvageable – presuming someone gets Rumsfeld to stop saying stupid things and riling people up.
A good portion of the risk is now gone? Are you smoking crack? What fucking situation do you think there is now? This ain’t fucking Kansas my man, the risk has just goddamned begun. The war was not the risk – although it could certainly have gone worse – the risk is the aftermath. Not even people here thought the war was going to be won by Iraq, although they hoped for a better show of it. The risk is Baghdad becomes like Beirut, c. 1980, or a number of other ugly things. It ain’t Kansas, it ain’t even Bed Stuy. The problem is the population, and the population is no where near as friendly as the Neo-Cons had managed to convince themselves, and now the country is awash in arms, in chaos and lord the fuck knows what happened to the NBC programs. If you think a good portion of the risk is gone, I have a nice fucking super company out here to sell you, priced just fucking right. I need more suckers.
The UN coming in on the deal was a British condition so I hardly see it as relevant to your argument, while Chirac et al are naturally concerned for protecting a position – at the same time they hold cards, including no small ability to help spread the risk. France is pretty popular in the region right now, they hold cards in re Iraqi sov. debt and have influence. They also hold some precious street cred on principal, which the US with our lack of NBC’s and the less-than-super situation on the ground, could use right now.
Bullshit. That’s fucking bullshit, and stupid bullshit at that. Don’t try to peddle ignorant bullshit to me of all people. Are you trying to pimp to me that fucking French oil firm story, motherfucker, they had some useless MOUs – rather TotalFinaElf had them – that weren’t terribly actionable until sanctions went away, which was clearly not happening. They hold some $8b in sov. to sov. debt, which wasn’t going to be paid anytime soon under the old regime.
Now the French did have some nice influence with Iraq they thought they could play – the history by the way ain’t so different from that with Rummy et al, 1980s chumminess when Sadaam was more kosher.
What the French position actually derived from, laying aside dumbass bullshit insinuations, was a different read of the situation. Sitting a whole lot fucking closer to the region, the French did not see an Iraq war as being a particularly great calculation right now, given the pandora’s box it would open. They also did not like the ‘my way or the highway’ approach of the Bush Admin, nor the piss-poor and ever shifting justifications for the policy – that clearly played into pre-existing resentments in re high-handed, and ham-handed policy actions.
So, yes, they clearly saw – and I would say see – the war as being a bad fucking calculation given Sadaam was containable, the NBC a mere theater threat in his hands, and the supposed benefits pure hypothesis that looks pretty damned speculative when you know the region and its history.
Obviously given their interests, simply sitting on the sidelines with their thumb up their ass doesn’t make much sense.
Don’t repeat bullshit december arguments to me, it annoys me. Treachery, no fucking treachery. Serious differences. The US came to the table with a shaky set of arguments, a timetable driven by internal politics and bullshit justifications. The fact the majority of the Sec. Council was unwilling to by the compromised goods is hardly due to French ‘treachery,’ however comforting and easy the explanation may seem.
Both sides played to perceived self interest, and frankly I find it moronic to argue the French ‘betrayed’ the US. They played hardball on the same basis the US played hardball. We came to the table with clearly trumped up and disingenuous arguments that very clearly convinced almost nobody from the get go. The US neg. state was clearly driven by a pre-set military time table, and it showed – it was the present Administration’s sheer incompetence, driven by navel-gazing arrogance, that lost the Sec Council vote, as it lost Turkish participation and almost lost British particip. had Blair not been so bloody talented at home and abroad.
The French, in short, are simply a bouc émissaire, a convenient scapegoat for the sheer incompetence of this Admin in managing its international image.
Yeah, I can tell, just like the Administration is strictly big picture, long view. I guess we must have different ideas on the benchmarks then.
Well, I guess we can assert such views all we want, can’t we? However, all I can see is some poorly informed assertions on the nature of the Sec. Council conflict, some resentment for the French opposition, and assertions that the French have to be taught a lesson, w/o regard to the wider situation, abstracting away from the multilateral nature of the opposition to the US. I don’t see any clear argument or support for an argument that there is any reason to believe that ‘punishing’ France sends the kind of message you presume it does. If you can convince me you have a clue in regards to the dynamics we are facing I might be inclined to give your argument more credence – I do respect the points in regards to ensuring respect for US ‘cojones’ however I do not see an understanding of the larger picture. Perhaps, then, we shall just have to differ.
In any case, I am getting far too sucked into these convos so I shall have to beg off digging into this further, and shall have to enforce that on myself given my excessivly argumentative nature.
Don’t inflict consequences and they can be dicks with impunity.
and who has the power to inflict consequences on the United States? An international Security Organization cannot stop the US from going to war, against its wishes. Who then, pray, will ever punish the Americans if/when they act like dicks?
have they not already placed themselves above the law?
