So France was RIGHT...?

[Nyarlathotep]

For the last time, they are NOT "fries" they are "chips".

Will you people never learn?

Only when served with fish

 

[Cain]

Re: Re: Re: So France was RIGHT...?

Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth, eh?

Why do you hate America?

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Phrance might been right about the wait and see stance, but if anyone thinks that it was motivated by any sense of humanitarian concern or any thing else, they are woefully mistaken. Phrance has historically (WW ll), today and in the future only been motivated by what is good for Phrance and little else. For them to invoke a diplomatic stance for a reason for thier non-involvment is nothing but expediency. They sure screamed loud enough for thier involvement in the rebuilding , didn't they?

 

[DrChinese]

Phrance might been right about the wait and see stance, but if anyone thinks that it was motivated by any sense of humanitarian concern or any thing else, they are woefully mistaken. Phrance has historically (WW ll), today and in the future only been motivated by what is good for Phrance and little else. For them to invoke a diplomatic stance for a reason for thier non-involvment is nothing but expediency. They sure screamed loud enough for thier involvement in the rebuilding , didn't they?

So it is better for the US to be wrong for the right reasons than for France to be right for the wrong reasons? I am getting so confused.

We were wrong about Iraq's WMD threat - agreed? But we were still right to attack a foreign country posing no threat to us because we had "good intentions".

On the other hand: France correctly assessed that Iraq was not a danger and our invasion would tend to de-stabilize the region - which seems to be the case. But they advocated that position out of "self-interest", therefore their decision was bad and their argument lacked merit.

Sounds like the equivalent of an ad hominem attack to me. And don't I recall President Bush advocating the self-interest of the US in his rationale for war?

 

[King of the Americas]

'I' LOVE...

...in that I am in love with the concept of America- Freedom & Liberty for all, and that those include Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

I wrap myself in the knowledge or belief that until I infringe upon someone else's liberity...I am FREE to do what I want.

And when you attack these basic core values, that I deem to be American, then you have tresspassed on ME.

The newly adopted policy of 'pre-emption' IS an attack on these basic values.

To be silent, as Leaders mis-represent potential dangers, to send American Troops into harm's way, is to truly not understand that which is "America", and whom are its attackers.

 

[Ziggurat]

Phrance might been right about the wait and see stance, but if anyone thinks that it was motivated by any sense of humanitarian concern or any thing else, they are woefully mistaken. Phrance has historically (WW ll), today and in the future only been motivated by what is good for Phrance and little else. For them to invoke a diplomatic stance for a reason for thier non-involvment is nothing but expediency. They sure screamed loud enough for thier involvement in the rebuilding , didn't they?

I don't even think "wait and see" was really France's attitude. I think it was "wait and stall". I don't think weapons inspections were ever a concern for France, I think they just wanted something that would keep us busy. I pretty much agree with this take on Chirac:

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/310

"Liberating the people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein's evil tyranny is a noble cause. History might remember Mr. Chirac as the man who prevented France from playing its part in it."

 

[King of the Americas]

"Freedom"

...can't be 'given' to you. It is a process of self-realiztion, and an awareness for the basic need for self determination.

Freedom is something you have to desire and fight for.

America's Freedom wasn't installed by some do-gooder host nation. No one came in and told us we needed to be Free from King George...

Granted, others nations DID aid in our initial victory, but they weren't the instigators, nor did they deserve the title of liberators

So let us lead by example. And annouce to the world that if you wish to be Free, then come HERE and live as We, OR take up arms against your oppressors and LIVE Free or Die. The choice is YOUR's, and We will no longer play the decisive role in any nation's evolution.

If you wish for Freedom, then fight for it. Don't expect that anyone could or should happen by to give it to you...

 

[DrChinese]

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/310

"Liberating the people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein's evil tyranny is a noble cause. History might remember Mr. Chirac as the man who prevented France from playing its part in it."

Isn't looking that way right now, and I doubt the French are unhappy with Chirac's role. I think it is more likely that George Bush will go down in history as "the boy who cried wolf" over WMDs, clearly a much bigger miss.

At any rate, quotes like the above sound great but are analytically meaningless. Looking to the future, all outcomes are theoretically possible. For example, here's my version:

"Advocating democracy by example is a noble cause. History might remember Mr. Bush as the man who prevented the US from playing its part in it."

 

[Ziggurat]

"Advocating democracy by example is a noble cause. History might remember Mr. Bush as the man who prevented the US from playing its part in it."

What I find amusing about this speculative quote is that in the context of France, they weren't even doing that. France doesn't give a crap about democracy in other countries. Not to mention that leading by example and liberating by force are not mutually exclusive. And it's really hard to see how simply advocating democracy could ever do anything to change the situation in Iraq. But nevermind, it still sounds nice.

The quote I gave is somewhat speculative, in the sense that we don't know yet how Chirac will be remembered. But what he did was exactly what the quote describes. The same cannot yet be said about Bush.

 

[Jocko]

France doesn't give a crap about democracy in other countries.

Why should they, when they don't even give a crap about it at home? *cough*nannystate*cough*neosocialism*cough*

The only significant difference between Iraq and France, as far as I can see, was the public beheadings.

EDITED TO ADD: Just to keep it clear, the beheadings were in Iraq.

 

[Jocko]

Isn't looking that way right now, and I doubt the French are unhappy with Chirac's role. I think it is more likely that George Bush will go down in history as "the boy who cried wolf" over WMDs, clearly a much bigger miss.

You seem very quick to write history. As the uranium-enriching centrifuge buried in some poor schlub's backyard shows, the search will be a long one - despite your obvious eagerness to declare some kind of moral victory.

At any rate, quotes like the above sound great but are analytically meaningless. Looking to the future, all outcomes are theoretically possible. For example, here's my version:

"Advocating democracy by example is a noble cause. History might remember Mr. Bush as the man who prevented the US from playing its part in it."

Opinions and *ssholes. Everyone's got one. For my part, I'll wait to hear what the grandchildren say, rather than assume.

 

[DrChinese]

You seem very quick to write history. As the uranium-enriching centrifuge buried in some poor schlub's backyard shows, the search will be a long one - despite your obvious eagerness to declare some kind of moral victory.

Opinions and *ssholes. Everyone's got one. For my part, I'll wait to hear what the grandchildren say, rather than assume.

I was saying exactly the opposite. Predictions of "Chirac going down as the one opposed to a better Iraq" were premature. The story of Iraq is not over, I certainly agree. And there is no "moral victory" for me in seeing my country as the agressor overseas.

However, your comment about the centrifuge is funny. WMD? Get real. If you want to hold your breath waiting for the smoking gun, go ahead. We have not found a Hershey bar's worth of WMDs in 7 months of determined searches.

 

[Ziggurat]

The only significant difference between Iraq and France, as far as I can see, was the public beheadings.

That's a pretty big exageration, and since I've been calling the anti-war loons on that sort of thing (like calling Bush history's worst dictator), I'm afraid I have to call you on it too. However, you're correct that they aren't paragons of democracy. And on the Iraq issue itself, it's quite noteable that France's parliament never had a single debate about the Iraq invasion. Iraq policy (or lack thereof) came solely from Chirac and his apointees, without any input from the legislature. Kind of ironic given the criticism of Bush policy as being driven by secretive republican think-tanks who operate without the input of the democratic process, n'est pas?

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Dr.chinese:
'So it is better for the US to be wrong for the right reasons than for France to be right for the wrong reasons? I am getting so confused."

No sir you misapprehend me , i was narrowly sticking to the topic at hand , for a more representitive view of my feelings twords the war one of my past posts:
begin quote ( hate to quote myself ):

Afghanistan was necessary as that was the breeding ground for al quida and other terrorist organizations. It was a direct response to the people responsible for 9-11

That Saddam was a bad man is a given, that is no reason to war. What changed the dynamic so drastically that the United States had to initiate a war immiediatly without that consent ( or silence ) of it's major allies?

President Bush's answer was that Saddam possessed WMD which were able to be activated within 15 mins and we have definitive proof, not iffy, not uncertain but concrete. That was a falsehood the White house knew it was a falsehood, in fact Bush and his advisors had been planning to engage Iraq as far back as 2000.

The article quote: Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President
CUT-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Neil Mackay

A secret blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'
End cut------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The document:<http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf>

Wether or not this was the case (as it appears to be) Bush and his cabinet were warned 3 times not to use the so called "intelligence" background as it was at best completely suspect.
As it turns out it was exactly that. The declaration of WMD was and continues to be a fiction. Dual use items are now being acclaimed as the smoking gun (of which claim is also tenuous at best) which were not used in the supremely declarative State of the Union Address.
The alleged infiltration and cooperation between Iraq and Al Quida is now also an admitted exaggeration . ( I prefer the term falsehood altho some say lie)
So as we see the whole justification for the war was a non existent manufactured crisis. Attempts at post war justification are smarmy at best. I believe Pres.Bush expected to have a new improved version of daddy's war , where, after rolling through Bhagdad and killing Saddam, the Iraquis would love us and no one would notice the lack of WMD. Unfortunately it work out that way.
To answer Your question , yes to do nothing since nothing had changed in 10 yrs would have been a better stance. We could have had our allies join and would have placated the Arab population quite a bit more..
end quote ---------------------------------------------

However your analysis of Phrance as some sort of moral model in regards to these events is false.

 

[DrChinese]

Dr.chinese:
'So it is better for the US to be wrong for the right reasons than for France to be right for the wrong reasons? I am getting so confused."

No sir you misapprehend me , i was narrowly sticking to the topic at hand , for a more representitive view of my feelings twords the war one of my past posts:
begin quote ( hate to quote myself ):

...

The alleged infiltration and cooperation between Iraq and Al Quida is now also an admitted exaggeration . ( I prefer the term falsehood altho some say lie)
So as we see the whole justification for the war was a non existent manufactured crisis. Attempts at post war justification are smarmy at best. I believe Pres.Bush expected to have a new improved version of daddy's war , where, after rolling through Bhagdad and killing Saddam, the Iraquis would love us and no one would notice the lack of WMD. Unfortunately it work out that way.
To answer Your question , yes to do nothing since nothing had changed in 10 yrs would have been a better stance. We could have had our allies join and would have placated the Arab population quite a bit more..
end quote ---------------------------------------------

However your analysis of Phrance as some sort of moral model in regards to these events is false.

Actually I agree with most of your analysis. I personally don't think it is wrong to act in one's self interest as long as those actions don't cross the line. It was not immoral for Chirac to have a different assessment than Bush, or to vote their UNSC accordingly. I am not saying France acted only with altruism.

 

[Ion]

Why should they, when they don't even give a crap about it at home? *cough*nannystate*cough*neosocialism*cough*

The only significant difference between Iraq and France, as far as I can see, was the public beheadings.
...

Regarding:

"...The only significant difference between Iraq and France, as far as I can see, was the public beheadings...",

I say:

.) the only significant difference between an idiot like Jocko and Jocko himself, as far as I can see, is that there is none;

.) both they don't speak French and both they don't know how life was and it is in France;

.) but man, they talk about it, like if they know it...

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Dr.Chinese:

Actually I agree with most of your analysis. I personally don't think it is wrong to act in one's self interest as long as those actions don't cross the line. It was not immoral for Chirac to have a different assessment than Bush, or to vote their UNSC accordingly. I am not saying France acted only with altruism. [/B][/QUOTE]

No self -interest is not nessisarly a bad thing , all humans are motivated by that concept. The difference here is that they proclaim a motive greater then le cause actual which is and remains a financial reality . I can understand the poor buffeted Russians with billions owed them from Iraq, I can understand the schizophrenic relationship that Ze'German's have with war and use of force.
The Phrench however are a different animal.

Edit : dropped carrier

 

[Jocko]

However, your comment about the centrifuge is funny. WMD? Get real. If you want to hold your breath waiting for the smoking gun, go ahead. We have not found a Hershey bar's worth of WMDs in 7 months of determined searches.

It's not funny in the least. It demonstrates the lengths to which the deceptions were systematically carried out. They had the poor guy bury the thing in his azaleas, or whatever they grow in gardens over there.

I did not say it was a smoking gun. But what is undeniably true is that it's a banned device that was hidden - not in a government basement, or warehouse, or palace, but in a guy's backyard - by the very Iraqi regime which you have had such faith in.

What do you think a uranium enriching centrifuge is used for? Making "Hershey bars"? It's used (admittedly, among FEW other purposes) for obtaining weapons-grade fissile material.

Not that it matters. It was banned, for good reason, by the UN resolutions that dictated the terms of Iraq's surrender in 1991. You can rationalize it away, along with the al Samoud missiles (BANNED), the drone aircraft (BANNED) and a dozen other examples as being individually insignificant.

You may even be right in saying each is individually insignifcant. But only a fool would fail to see the pattern... and the beautiful things about patterns is that they allow you to make accurate guesses about things to come.

Pointing to a flimsy drone or a missile that only exceeds allowed distance by 10% and claiming that they prove Iraq WASN'T in the WMD business is just naive. You couldn't be more wrong, dude. They strongly suggest that there will be much more found.

Don't blow a gasket because they're not keeping to your idea of a timetable. There's a lot of azalea patches in Iraq.

 

[Jocko]

I say:

.) the only significant difference between an idiot like Jocko and Jocko himself, as far as I can see, is that there is none;

.) both they don't speak French and both they don't know how life was and it is in France;

.) but man, they talk about it, like if they know it...

It's a joke, dude. I know the wildfires have probably gotten your panties in a bunch, but you have to let the humor flow when it comes your way.

Besides, how do you know I don't speak French, been to France, know French people, etc.?

The only difference between my blanket generalization and yours is that mine was funny.

Lighten up, Francis.

(BTW, for the humor impaired, this is a pun. I selected a well-known movie quote that expressed the sentiment while incorporating a variation on France, i.e., "Francis." This has been a public service announcement, we now return you to your regularly scheduled ranting)

 

[Jocko]

That's a pretty big exageration, and since I've been calling the anti-war loons on that sort of thing (like calling Bush history's worst dictator), I'm afraid I have to call you on it too.

See my response to Ion. I forget how easily feathers get ruffled when the "F" word is used. But I appreciate your polite response to a perceived slight.

Excellent point about the French legislature being locked out of the process - I wasn't aware of that.

BTW, in retrospect, what I meant to say is that beheadings haven't been popular in France since their big heyday in 1789.