Chirac was´t a blind pacifist after all...

komencanto

Thinker
K
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
168
I was just disgusted to read this:

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/badmovesprint.php?num=19

I was tricked by a mass bad and selective quotation into thinking that France would never support a war on Iraq regardless of the circumstances (which is a bad idea).

"My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote 'no'."
Jacques Chirac, President of France, 10 March 2003

Turns out that actaully the full quote was this:

The problem is (as has been noted by BBC radio's World at One and the Guardian newspaper) that Chirac has been the victim of selective quotation. What he actually said, in full, was: "My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote 'no' because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, i.e. to disarm Iraq."

Somebody should be freedom fried for this one.

Read the other Bad Moves section on that website if you want, it´s a great fortnightly column on bad argumentative techniques brought to you from the editor of The Philosophy Magazine (not that I´m committing the atrocity of calling on authority there =D ).
 
Strangely enough, I never saw this misquote and I am quite a news junkie.

Also, I never thought Chirac was a true pacifist.

I thought that Chirac would most likely always say no because he sees France as balance to US hedgemony of western international politics.

I'm sorry if you felt decieved, my guess is that not everyone who thinks Chirac would have always voted no based it on one misquote as you did. Some of us looked at a repeated pattern of behavior and made a speculative assumption about future behavior.
 
Tony said:
You tell me, Im the one who asked the question.
Click to expand...
I don't know of the treatment from the french media. I guess you don't know either. So what's your point?
 
komencanto said:
"My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote 'no'."
Jacques Chirac, President of France, 10 March 2003

Turns out that actaully the full quote was this:

"My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote 'no' because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, i.e. to disarm Iraq."
Click to expand...

Sorry if my logic is failing me here, but I don't see that these two statements are fundamentally different.

In the first, Chirac is saying that regardless of the circumstances, France will say no. In the second, he is simply elaborating on why France will say no regardless of the circumstances.

Either way, the two statements seem functionally equivalent to me. They both state that France would vote 'No' no matter what happened at that time.
 
Re: Re: Chirac was´t a blind pacifist after all...

richardm said:


Sorry if my logic is failing me here, but I don't see that these two statements are fundamentally different.

In the first, Chirac is saying that regardless of the circumstances, France will say no. In the second, he is simply elaborating on why France will say no regardless of the circumstances.

Either way, the two statements seem functionally equivalent to me. They both state that France would vote 'No' no matter what happened at that time.
Click to expand...

Functionally similar for that point in time, which is where the difference lies; the popularised version of the quote is that Chirac would never ever ever ever vote for a war on Iraq; the actual quote makes it clear that at that point in time, Chirac felt there weren't sufficient grounds to invoke "serious consequences", let alone seek a new resolution to authorise "all means necessary". Bearing in mind the resolutions in question related to WMDs, with the benefit of hindsight, it appears he was right...
 
I don't know of one country in the world that can take the moral high ground. "Let he who is without sin", etc.

France has done plenty of it's own dirty work over the years, from Vietnam to Rainbow Warrior.

It just happens that in this case, it chose not to fight a war for the wrong reasons.
 
Re: Re: Re: Chirac was´t a blind pacifist after all...

BillyTK said:


Functionally similar for that point in time, which is where the difference lies; the popularised version of the quote is that Chirac would never ever ever ever vote for a war on Iraq; the actual quote makes it clear that at that point in time, Chirac felt there weren't sufficient grounds to invoke "serious consequences", let alone seek a new resolution to authorise "all means necessary". Bearing in mind the resolutions in question related to WMDs, with the benefit of hindsight, it appears he was right...
Click to expand...

Well, maybe my recollection is off. But at the time, I recall that the UK and USA were pressing for a resolution to start a war ASAP, and the French said that under no circumstances would they back that resolution. We already knew that the French wanted to wait and see if inspections would do the trick before using the military option, so the "At this time" part was, I had always assumed, implied. The hoo-hah was simply because the coalition wanted to go now, and the French and Germans wanted to wait.

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't find anything particularly new or surprising in the whole quote. Besides which, the media (or at least, the BBC) was dead-set against the war before it started, and I'm sure that if they thought it was a significant difference they'd have flagged it at the time.
 
Re: Re: Re: Chirac was´t a blind pacifist after all...

BillyTK said:


Functionally similar for that point in time, which is where the difference lies; the popularised version of the quote is that Chirac would never ever ever ever vote for a war on Iraq; the actual quote makes it clear that at that point in time, Chirac felt there weren't sufficient grounds to invoke "serious consequences", let alone seek a new resolution to authorise "all means necessary". Bearing in mind the resolutions in question related to WMDs, with the benefit of hindsight, it appears he was right...
Click to expand...

Well, when you say "regardless of the circumstances, France will vote 'no'". That (In English) is very hard to read as ' at this particular moment in time the circumstances are not auspicious'.

That whole "regardless" seems to imply an unwillingness to be shifted as events unfold.
The "this evening" would, if my grammar is correct, imply that he took the decision at that point (which would then be held in perpetuity).
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Chirac was´t a blind pacifist after all...

richardm said:


Well, maybe my recollection is off. But at the time, I recall that the UK and USA were pressing for a resolution to start a war ASAP, and the French said that under no circumstances would they back that resolution. We already knew that the French wanted to wait and see if inspections would do the trick before using the military option, so the "At this time" part was, I had always assumed, implied. The hoo-hah was simply because the coalition wanted to go now, and the French and Germans wanted to wait.

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't find anything particularly new or surprising in the whole quote. Besides which, the media (or at least, the BBC) was dead-set against the war before it started, and I'm sure that if they thought it was a significant difference they'd have flagged it at the time.
Click to expand...

I think the novel aspect is the way that the popularised version was used to spank France as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys"; the full version makes that less tenable.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Chirac was´t a blind pacifist after all...

Giz said:


Well, when you say "regardless of the circumstances, France will vote 'no'". That (In English) is very hard to read as ' at this particular moment in time the circumstances are not auspicious'.
Click to expand...
You think so? Maybe something's been lost in translation, but for me, the use of the definite article is the giveaway.

That whole "regardless" seems to imply an unwillingness to be shifted as events unfold.
The "this evening" would, if my grammar is correct, imply that he took the decision at that point (which would then be held in perpetuity).
Click to expand...
Perhaps it's a matter of finding an interpretation which supports your attitude towards the issue; I'm trying to understand how use of "this evening" suggests "in perpetuity". This evening I'm not having sausages for tea; that doesn't mean I'm bound by that decision in perpetuity.
 
I for one never expected Chirac to be a pacifist (blind or otherwise).

While he was opposed to the war, that is hardly the same thing being a pacifist. Chirac essentially said that the USA did make an adequate case for the war at this time, and events have borne out that conclusion.

Iraq was not working on biological weapons.
Iraq was not in league with terrorists.
Iraq was not planning to attack the USA.
Iraq was not using remotely piloted vehicles to deliver weapons.
Iraq was not using aluminum tubes to enrich uranium.
Iraq was not building an atomic bomb.
Iraq was not ... (well, you get the idea).

I for one, had the impression that Chirac would have liked to been with Bush on this issue, but the USA failed to make a good case for the war, so he was unwilling to risk his country in order to further US foreign policy (as occurred when President Reagan repeatedly acted against Libya).
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chirac was´t a blind pacifist after all...

BillyTK said:

Perhaps it's a matter of finding an interpretation which supports your attitude towards the issue; I'm trying to understand how use of "this evening" suggests "in perpetuity". This evening I'm not having sausages for tea; that doesn't mean I'm bound by that decision in perpetuity.
Click to expand...

Ah, but if you'd said

"My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, I will not eat sausages because this evening I have decided that there are no grounds for eating animal products in order to achieve the goal of becoming vegetarian"

It becomes blurry...


"Perhaps it's a matter of finding an interpretation which supports your attitude towards the issue" - Oh yes, but doesn't everything!
 
Tony said:


You tell me, Im the one who asked the question.
Click to expand...

Man are you stupid!

No one can read your mind, therefore if you have a point to make then you have to be the one to make it.
 
plindboe said:

I don't know of the treatment from the french media. I guess you don't know either. So what's your point?
Click to expand...


I dont have a point, I was asking a fuc*ing question, got that Crossbow you piece of $hit? I was asking a question. Need to hear it one more time? I WAS ASKING A QUESTION.
 
Giz said:


Ah, but if you'd said

"My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, I will not eat sausages because this evening I have decided that there are no grounds for eating animal products in order to achieve the goal of becoming vegetarian"

It becomes blurry...
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, because the availability of vegetarian sausages makes such a claim illogical. A more accurate reading would be:

"My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, I will not eat sausages because I considers this evening that there are no grounds for sausage-eating in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, i.e. to have our tea"

"Perhaps it's a matter of finding an interpretation which supports your attitude towards the issue" - Oh yes, but doesn't everything!
Click to expand...
But we're skeptics. We seek the truth.
 
Tony said:



I dont have a point, I was asking a fuc*ing question, got that Crossbow you piece of $hit? I was asking a question. Need to hear it one more time? I WAS ASKING A QUESTION.
Click to expand...

Yes you asked a question.
Then you were asked to clarify your question.
Then you refused to clarify your question.

Therefore, if you want an answer to your question then you need to clarify it.

OK now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom