[QUOTE=lieu]
I heard a report on CNN a little while ago that apparently the US aid isn’t being well received. In fact, it’s being outright refused by some based on the reasoning they’ll not accept hypocritical assistance from the same country that supplied Israel with the bombs that put them in this predicament in the first place.
Now as to how widespread this sentiment/ refusal is, the report didn’t say. I don’t know if it’s a indignant few or if it has become a more widespread phenomenon. But, to some degree, it’s more certainly happening.
[/QUOTE]
If they can refuse it, they don’t need it. Fuck em. I canstill get my 20 winks tonight. I just hope no children are suffering becaus eof ignorance.
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Ale, it’s pretty clear why US troops aren’t especially suited for UN peacekeeping missions. Ideal peacekeepers are from countries that don’t have a stake in the outcome of the war. US troops would be seen as favoring one side over the other. The US can’t send “peacekeeping” troops to keep Hezballah and Israel from bombing each other, because we’d be on Israel’s side bombing Hezb’allah. We wouldn’t be peacekeeping troops, we’d be warfighting troops. Which is fine if continuing the war is what you want, no so good if you’re trying to stop the war.
[/QUOTE]
I whole heartly agree with that, but I think I was proper to point out the beam on Weirdave´s eye in respect of the commitment of a country to a peacekeeping mission.
It´s pretty hard for a govermente to put people on a war situation with the sole purpose of restoring peace with nothing gain to from it, efforts in that direction, small as they may be, are to be respected and praised, not ridiculed.
Yeah, we Americans just can’t live up to the high standards of the Iranian government. We gave them aid w/o conditions. If they want to think we were trying to buy their friendship, then that’s up to them. They’ve done little but spit in our faces for years. You hear “Death to America” in Iran, not “Death to Iran” in America.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
You hear “Death to America” in Iran, not “Death to Iran” in America.
[/QUOTE]
C’mon John, the animosity isn’t really all that one sided. I’ve heard plenty of calls to nuke Tehran in the years since the hostage crisis. Heck, we helped Saddam fight Iran in the 80’s. Putting aside the bizarre Iran-Contra affair, the hostility’s been mutual for three decades now.
The terrorists who the UN force is expected to keep the peace against are going to attack the peace keepers. That is pretty much a given. I seriously doubt they will be any harder on the French than anyone else.
[/QUOTE]
Precisely, the french government doesn’t think so. As I mentionned, it suspects that french peacekeepers could be specifically targeted, as a paypack for french policies re Iran and Syria (France has had a very active anti-Syrian policy, in particular), and even apparently believes that such attacks are already planned.
Besides and more generally, if, as you say, peacekeepers are going to be shot at, it would be nice to know what they are allowed to do in this situation : nothing? defend themselves? fight back? attack? Will they be allowed to disarm the Hizbullah? Required to do so? Forbidden to? What are the respective jobs of the UN and Lebanese forces? Who decides what? What if the fight resume? What if the Hizbullah fire missiles? If Israel bomb the area? What level of autonomy will this force have? Will its commander need an UN resolution each time he wants to take a dump? What regard will France (and all other countries involved) have regarding the use of its troops? And so on… There are an endless list of questions, and it seems to me that indeed, given the tense and complicated situation, the mandate given to the UN force should be clear and consistent. And according to the french government, it’s currently neither.
Anyway, France wasn’t very interested in having its army involved significantly in this mess at the first place (the 200 men proposed were actually military engineers that would be sent as a support for the UN force and to help in the rebuilding, not even any kind of combat unit) . It seems it’s only due to the international pressure that it’s considering doing so. Or maybe it just plays “hard to get” so that it will be easier to impose its views of what the mandate should be before commiting troops. But I don’t think so.
By the way, in response to comments by other posters I read in the thread, this has nothing to do with internal french issues, in particular with the french muslim ppulation. I didn’t notice/read/heard anything that would let me suspect that the french muslims would have an issue with a french involvment in Lebanon. It doesn’t seem, either, that the french population at large is warry of such a commitment (at least not yet). Lebanon is generally perceived quite positively over here, and the reaction to the Israeli attacks was quite bitter. People tends to be very saddened by what happened (I mean that if the same thing had happeed, in say, Jordan, instead, people would have been much more indifferent. French people have a weak spot for Lebanon) and as a consequence, I think the population woul be quite supportive of a french involvment (as long, of course, as it doesn’t turn into some ugly mess).
[QUOTE=A Monkey With a Gun]
France was supposed to be on a peacekeeping mission in the Ivory Coast, yet decided to destroy the Ivorian air force after a friendly fire accident killed some French troops.
[/QUOTE]
It wasn’t any kind of friendly fire accident, but a deliberate attack.
Besides, France had been very involved and influential in Ivory Coast for a long time, sent troops when the civil war broke out before it became an UN operation (at the time at the request of the Ivorian president, though since, he changed his mind a lot), has interests at stakes, its neutrality in the issue is at best dubious (at first it seemed to clearly favor the president’s side, apparently guarding the cease-fire line much more closely one way than the other, then changed its mind when the Ivorian president became less compliant than expected) , etc… IOW France is operating in Ivory Coast as a neutral peacekeeping party in name only. It’s pursuing its own goals, has its own idea of what should be done, and otherwise, wouldn’t even have been involved. It’s perceived in Ivory Coast as much a neutral party as, regarding the issue at hand, the USA or Syria would be in Lebanon.
[QUOTE=Squink]
C’mon John, the animosity isn’t really all that one sided. I’ve heard plenty of calls to nuke Tehran in the years since the hostage crisis. Heck, we helped Saddam fight Iran in the 80’s. Putting aside the bizarre Iran-Contra affair, the hostility’s been mutual for three decades now.
[/QUOTE]
I dunno, man. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a demonstration in America where the Iranian flag was burned, thousands of people screamed anti-Iran curses, and where Iran was vilified as “the Great Satan.” It simply doesn’t happen. Most “nuke Tehran” talk is water-cooler bluster, idle talk, and simply does not rise anywhere close to the level of venom of the anti-America demonstrations I’ve seen.
[QUOTE=Ogre]
I dunno, man. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a demonstration in America where the Iranian flag was burned, thousands of people screamed anti-Iran curses, and where Iran was vilified as “the Great Satan.” It simply doesn’t happen. Most “nuke Tehran” talk is water-cooler bluster, idle talk, and simply does not rise anywhere close to the level of venom of the anti-America demonstrations I’ve seen.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. The stuff in Iran is state sponsored– not some redneck yahoo trying to impress his drinking buddies.
The US supported “state sponsored terror” for many a year. Pinochet, Uguarte, Batista…the list of monsters is long. If we are reformed, so much the better, but it is too recent for us to pretend to be shocked! shocked! at terror applied to civilians for political reasons. Like the reformed whore come to church, it may be a while yet before we can insist on leading the choir.
As for spurned generosity…didn’t that Venezualan fellow offer to help out with heating oil for the needy in the recent winter? Refresh my memory…what degree of grace was that offer accorded?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Exactly. The stuff in Iran is state sponsored– not some redneck yahoo trying to impress his drinking buddies.
[/QUOTE]
Wasn’t the 2002 state of the union speech state sponsered?
[QUOTE=Squink]
Wasn’t the 2002 state of the union speech state sponsered?
[/QUOTE]
Can you point out the place where it says “nuke Tehran”. That was the phrase you used in the post that started this little side discussion. Are you moving the goal posts now? I don’t share Bush’s view that there is an axis, but I do share his view that those 3 governments are evil-- in the same way that Reagan was right about the USSR being evil. None of those governments could survive a legitmate democratic election in its respective country. Not one. The psuedo-democracy in Iran is a sham-- it’s a coutnry ruled but the unelected clerics in the Coucil of Guardians.
With all due awe, John, how the hell do you know that? By what means do you derive such certainty as to the opinions and desires of the Iranian electorate? Might not the ruling cadres of Iran whip up a hollow but real public support by playing on the fears and prejudices of the citizenry?
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Did I miss the anti-Iran rallies, the Iranian flag burnings and other general anti-Iran mayhem?? Damn…
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, because Yahoos in marching the streets are so much more threatening than heads of state putting your country’s name on a list of targets. Clearly we are the forces of freedom, logic, sweetness and lght, and the Iranians are all criminally insane islamofascist madmen.
That doesn’t mean that Iran rejected our help after the Bam earthquake, as duffer claimed. They thanked us for it. Why is that so hard to accept?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
With all due awe, John, how the hell do you know that?
[/QUOTE]
Because I’m really smart.
I think anyone who’s read about the situation in Iran would share my view. The Iranians themselves typically vote for the moderate candidates-- when they’re given the choice. And given the demographics of Iran (highly skewed towards < 30 years old), it doesn’t take a genius to see why the clerics keep a tight rein on the choices the electorate gets.
[QUOTE=Squink]
Yeah, because Yahoos in marching the streets are so much more threatening than heads of state putting your country’s name on a list of targets. Clearly we are the forces of freedom, logic, sweetness and lght, and the Iranians are all criminally insane islamofascist madmen.
[/QUOTE]
Its not like Iran hasn’t similiary put the US on ITS target list, or officially blasted out its venom at the US time and time again. Would that it WAS simply a bunch of yahoo’s marching about in the street, Squink. From my own reading MOST Iranians aren’t all that worked up about the US…it mainly comes from a small but fervent minority incited by…yep, the government of Iran.
[QUOTE=Squink]
That doesn’t mean that Iran rejected our help after the Bam earthquake, as duffer claimed. They thanked us for it. Why is that so hard to accept?
[/QUOTE]
Are you talking to me here? I didn’t make a claim one way or the other on this. I certainly didn’t dispute it anywhere that I’m aware of.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Are you talking to me here? I didn’t make a claim one way or the other on this. I certainly didn’t dispute it anywhere that I’m aware of.
[/QUOTE]
Nope. I posted some info refuting duffer’s claim that the Iranians refused or were ungrateful for the Bam aid, and got bashed by the USA cheerleading squad. Sure, Iran is teh evil, but that has fuck all to do with whether the claim was accurate or not.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Because I’m really smart. :D…
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, me too. Like you, when I’m wrong, its for very complicated reasons.
But you know as well as I that there is nothing easier than to generate support by generating fear. We seem determined to fit neatly into that role. Yes, the Iranians are young and somewhat sophisticated. But when they start pounding the war drum, the brains go right out the window.
