Chirac called the President today. "Let's let bygones be bygones" Germany says they're the only ones with no economic interests, thus making them "honest brokers" Russia says they may agree to forgive the $8mm in armsales money Saddam owes them if they can get a cut. All the Moral Compasses, the ones whose opinion of "legality" was so important, whose sense of rightness and goodness and fairness was offended by our military actions - they're all now lining up at the Reconstruction Trough. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...id=578&u=/nm/20030415/ts_nm/iraq_opponents_dc
The Germans have usually been very strong in their support of us recently, it's only on this issue that they've really strongly opposed us, so I'm willing to let it slide. The Russians have also been strong allies of ours in most phases of the war on terror, plus they haven't signed a treaty of alliance with us, so there's no need for them to support us in everything (altho it's certainly nice to have their support). On top of which, I feel that they, along with India, will be our most important strategic allies 10 years from now (all 3 nations share the same primary and secondary security threats--Islamic fundamentalism and Chinese expansionism, respectively). So I'm willing to let it slide. The French, on the other hand, have shown a consistent pattern of anti-Americanism over the past several decades...from not allowing NATO troops to be stationed there, to not allowing us overflight rights when we hit terrorist targets in Libya in 1985, and now this. I'm willing to let them redeem themselves but I don't trust them and I won't be counting on their support in the future, nor could they expect ours if I had anything to do with it, aside from when it also benefited our national interest.
Chirac was the first foreign leader to visit Ground Zero at the World Trade Center, and there were French troops in Afghanistan since the day that war began. So he doesn't buy that Saddam=9/11. That makes him right, not evil. It's cute to make fun of France and all, but Chirac is actually closer to Bush philosophically than Tony Blair. These constant demands to ostracize France because of the junta's childish petulance are pointless.
Well I think calling Chirac's government a "junta" is a little harsh, but I guess you could say that they HAVE displayed "childish petulance" in regards to trying to recover some of the weapons money Saddam owes them. Can't argue with you there. But coming from a guy who said he's only seen ONE picture of celebrating Iraqis (and it might have been a Kurd, so it didn't count) I'm afraid really sort of dilutes the weight of your opinion here. (PS: Dan, baby, poopsie, buddy, pal; nobody has said, is saying or will be saying that "Saddam=9/11. It's a straw man, Dan, and the more you keep repeating it, the less intelligent you sound. Word)
It's gonna be a money grab for sure. I am all for telling those 3 countries to piss off. Find and freeze the billions Saddam and company rat holed and use that cash as a starting point to letting the Iraqis feed and provide medical care for themselves. Then let the UN (necessary) help distribute food donations- and that's it! Once the Iraqis get around to awarding contracts, let them decide who gets them. Hopefully they'll do the right thing by the countries that helped free them.
So this is what it comes down to? Every other argument you guys had has been pounded into the sand under an M1A2 Abrhams, and the Scary Halliburton Monster is the best you've got left. Pitiful.
Totally unfair. I also saw the one taken from overhead. You know. The one that looked like a San Jose home game, but not as crowded. Apparently Bob Fosse couldn't have stage-managed that statue pull-down any better. Any truth to the rumor Bush plans to replace "In God We Trust" with "I Must Not Think Bad Thoughts"?
You guys have so much trouble sticking to one topic. We're only a few posts into the thread and we're already playing "Baghdad Bob" and some bizarre "It's all a Hollywood Fake" routine. If that's how you justify it to yourself, enjoy. Nobody else int eh world buys it, but hey - you know best, right? Funny how a couple weeks ago Germany, France and Russia were all you guys could talk about, being the paragons of virtue and the signals of humanism. Now that it's been proven they're nothing but craven money-grubbers and are crawling back, now you have nothing to say except some ridiculous fantasies about how so very, very few Iraqis celebrated the US arrival. Deeper and deeper into denial. You oughtta stick with Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton. Or maybe "Al Gore was robbed". Cause you guys have flat out lost this Iraq thing.
I didn't realize a treaty of alliance required our allies to give us head on demand. What do we do in return, give them the option of spitting?
I'm asking myself why Germany's opposition is so silenced. No retaliations like the freedom fries story and so on. It is the first time since WW2 that a german government denies its approval to US decisions. This is the news, not France's opposition. And yet very few attacks (compared to France) against german position from US admin, senators/congressmen and mainstream medias. Might be that this is what's really scary for US diplomacy?
@ Bill Archer To you the Iraq-war is part of the war against terrorism, right? Germany takes part in this war, but didn´t take part in the Iraq-battles. Now Germany is offering help to rebuild Iraq and to install a new order there (which is not a bad idea since not all the peple in Iraq are THAT happy about the US-troops, even opposition-groups). What do you expect Germany to do? Shut up and stay at home? Withdraw the troops from Afghanistan, Kuwait, Horn of Africa? What would you suggest should the german government do? Tell us! domingo
The difference is that their support for us, which I appreciate greatly, in Afghanistan was the exception. Their non-support for us in Iraq is the rule. With Germany, their support in Afghanistan was the rule and non-support in Iraq is the exception. I never said Chirac was evil, I said he is unforgivably hypocritical. If I was British, I wouldn't care for Blair's domestic policy either. But see, Blair has these things called "balls", and I will forever respect him for that even tho I disagree with him on many things (and if I was British he would have my vote for as long as terrorism continued to pose a threat to the civilized world). Chirac is a weasel. Dictionary.com defines a "junta" as: 1.A group of military officers ruling a country after seizing power. 2.A council or small legislative body in a government, especially in Central or South America. How exactly does the Bush Administration fit this definition? I can maybe see how he and his team of advisors could possibly fit the second definition, but no more so than any other President and their advisors.
Like I said, German opposition is the exception, French opposition is the rule. German opposition is a minor disagreement amongst good friends, French opposition is yet another example of a so-called "friend" stabbing us in the back at every opportunity.
Great answer! Well, since the question wasn´t directed to you, I shouldn´t expect a descent reply. Maybe next time you discuss and don´t just throw stupid posts in the ring? domingo
Well I mean, if you're going to question people's credibility on these boards, you're gonna have to take it to. You got caught fibbing. Deal with it. It's the American way.
BEAUTIFULLY! Back on point. To say France and Germany have dissimilar foreign policies is kind of, well, wrong. Germany was far more strident about Iraq than even France was. The only difference was that France was on the Security Council. Just like Russia and ChiComistan, by the way. The idea that France singlehandedly derailed a truly multinational coalition in Iraq is completely inaccurate. The issue now is whether Bush is apparently going to "let" other nations into the big big rebuilding profits. Since the American taxpayer is going to foot the bill for this, I'd just as soon have competitive bids than go straight to breaking out the hookers and scotch for Dick Cheney's cronies, but then again, I'm still bitter that we weren't Dunkirked by the Republican Guard, right? As far as the statue pull-down - it might as well have been the Face on Mars for as close as the coverage came to objective reality. Not only didn't Baghdaddians not line the street for it, it drew only as much as a Kansas City Wizards Wednesday night home game. Wait - I'm sorry, it drew 25% of a Kansas City Wizards Wednesday night home game. Although it did have as many men kissing each other. But I realize that's a totally misleading comparison...after all, the Wizards don't have to fly in their fans from another hemisphere at taxpayer expense.
Alex, it's no use man. I've already posted that definition at least twice in response to Loney. Loney just doesn't get it. This from the guy who thought "shock and awe" meant Hiroshima.
It's okay, I'll post this again, until it finally sinks in. While "Shock and Awe" is out of print, it is available online in the publications section of the Web site of the Pentagon's Command and Control Research Program. In perhaps the most controversial passage of their 106-page text, Ullman and Wade wrote, "Theoretically, the magnitude of Shock and Awe Rapid Dominance seeks to impose (in extreme cases) ... the non-nuclear equivalent of the impact that the atomic weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had on the Japanese. The Japanese were prepared for suicidal resistance until both nuclear bombs were used. The impact of those weapons was sufficient to transform both the mindset of the average Japanese citizen and the outlook of the leadership through this condition of Shock and Awe. The Japanese simply could not comprehend the destructive power carried by a single airplane. This incomprehension produced a state of awe." Blink if any of this is getting through to you.