A View of Iraq From Big Ben

[Bill Marsh]

Article from: London's Daily Mirror

When one of the world's most liberal, left wing newspapers writes a great article like this, there is hope for everyone. A thoughtfully written piece in one of the most left wing newspapers in the UK. Just a word of background for those of you who aren't familiar with the UK's Daily Mirror. This is one of the most notorious Left wing, anti-American dailies in the UK. Hard to believe that the Daily Mirror actually published it, but it did.

THE ARTICLE bears repeating and I quote

"A VIEW OF IRAQ FROM BIG BEN

"ONE year ago, the world witnessed a unique kind of broadcasting. the mass murder of thousands, live on television.

As a lesson in the pitiless cruelty of the human race, September 11 was up there with Pol Pot's Mountain of skulls in Cambodia or the skeletal bodies stacked like garbage in the Nazi concentration camps. An unspeakable act so cruel, so calculated and so utterly merciless that surely the world could agree on one thing -- nobody deserves this fate. Surely there could be consensus: the victims were truly innocent, the perpetrators truly evil.

But to the world's eternal shame, 9/11 is increasingly seen as America's comeuppance [deserved reprimand or punishment]. Incredibly, anti-Americanism has increased over the last year. There has always been a simmering resentment to the USA in this country. too loud, too rich, too full of themselves and so much happier than Europeans - but it has become an epidemic.

And it seems incredible to me. More than that, it turns my stomach. America is this country's greatest friend and our staunchest ally. We are bonded to the US by culture, language and blood. A little over half a century ago, around half a million Americans died for our freedoms, as well as their own.

Have we forgotten so soon?

And exactly a year ago, thousands of ordinary men, women and children. not just Americans, but from dozens of countries -- were butchered by a small group of religious fanatics. Are we so quick to betray them? What touched the heart about those who died in the twin towers and on the planes was that we recognized them. Young fathers and mothers, somebody's son and somebody's daughter, husbands and wives. And children. Some unborn. And these people brought it on themselves? And their nation is to blame for their meticulously planned slaughter?

These days you don't have to be some dust-encrusted nut job in Kabul or Karachi or Finsbury Park to see America as the Great Satan. The anti-American alliance is made up of self-loathing liberals who blame the Americans for every ill in the Third World, and conservatives suffering from power-envy, bitter that the world's only superpower can do what it likes without having to ask permission.

The truth is that America has behaved with enormous restraint since September 11. Remember, remember! Remember the gut-wrenching tapes of weeping men phoning their wives to say, "I love you," before they were burned alive. Remember those people leaping o their deaths from the top of burning skyscrapers. Remember the hundreds of firemen buried alive. Remember the smiling face of that beautiful little girl who was on one of the planes with her mum.

Remember, remember -- and realize that America has never retaliated for 9/11 in anything like the way it could have. So, a few al-Queda tourists got locked up without a trial in Camp X-ray? Pass the Kleenex. So, some Afghan wedding receptions were shot up after they merrily fired their semiautomatics in a sky full of American planes? A shame, but maybe next time they should stick to confetti.

AMERICA could have turned a large chunk of the world into a parking lot. That it didn't is a sign of strength. American voices are already being raised against attacking Iraq - that's what a democracy is for. How many in the Islamic world will have a minute's silence for the slaughtered innocents of 9/11? How many Islamic leaders will have the guts to say that the mass murder of 9/11 was an abomination? When the news of 9/11 broke on the West Bank, those freedom-loving Palestinians were dancing in the street.

America watched all of that -- and didn't push the button. We should thank the stars that America is the most powerful nation in the world. I still find it incredible that 9/11 did not provoke all-out war. Not a "war on terrorism." A real war.

The fundamentalist dudes are talking about "opening the gates of hell" if America attacks Iraq. Well, America could have opened the gates of hell like you wouldn't believe. The US is the most militarily powerful nation that ever strode the face of the earth. The campaign in Afghanistan may have been less than perfect and the planned war on Iraq may be misconceived. But don't blame America for not bringing peace and light to these wretched countries.

How many democracies are there in the Middle East, or in the Muslim world? You can count them on the fingers of one hand. assuming you haven't had any chopped off for minor shoplifting.

I love America, yet America is hated. I guess that makes me Bush's poodle. But I would rather be a dog in New York City than a Prince in Riyadh. Above all, America is hated because it is what every country wants to be -- rich, free, strong, open, optimistic. Not ground down by the past, or religion, or some caste system.

America is the best friend this country ever had and we should start remembering that. Or do you really think the USA is the root of all evil?

Tell it to the loved ones of the men and women who leaped to their death from the burning towers. Tell it to the nursing mothers whose husbands died on one of the hijacked planes, or were ripped apart in a collapsing skyscraper. And tell it to the hundreds of young widows whose husbands worked for the New York Fire Department.

To our shame, George Bush gets a worse press than Saddam Hussein. Once we were told that Saddam gassed the Kurds, tortured his own people and set up rape-camps in Kuwait. Now we are told he likes Quality Street. Remember, remember, September 11. One of the greatest atrocities in human history was committed against America.

No, do more than remember.

Never, never forget.

 

[Rusty]

Thanks, Bill, for posting that.

 

[Berkley]

Bill,
The editorial you reprinted from 9/11/02 shows how far the Bush administration's macho diplomacy has driven us from the world-wide support of 9/11/01 (Le Monde: NOUS SOMMES AMERICAINES) to our current status as international outcasts (not counting our "coalition" allies such as Bulgaria and Eritrea). From today's Daily Mirror:

TROOPS ARE HEROES, THE WAR'S INSANE

Tony Blair addressed the nation last night with passion and conviction as he justified sending thousands of British troops into war.

It is beyond doubt that the Prime Minister believes what he is doing is right, and he has deployed all his legal skills to emerge as a powerful advocate for George Bush and his right-wing policies.

It is also beyond doubt that we don't agree with him or Mr Bush.

But none of us can do anything now but wait for the war to end - our collective fates lying in the hands of generals.

Last night the allied forces launched what was described as the biggest assault in military history. The intention was obvious: to smash Saddam Hussein's army to pieces quickly.

British Marines and Paras led the attack against Iraqi troops.

Their courage, spirit and professionalism was praised by Mr Blair and we agreed with every word he said about them.

But it is not in our view acceptable to use the troops as an excuse for the country to "unite" behind this war. The country does not feel united at all. Most of us feel worried sick about what is happening in our name.

It is true that we all support our forces. It is not their decision to be there and we know that many of them and their families share our concerns on this conflict.

We feel sad and angry that they are there at all - both for the obvious, grave risk to their own lives and to the inevitable "collateral damage" their actions will cause.

We also feel a desperate sense of unease and helplessness at the fate awaiting Iraqi civilians as they lie in their homes hiding from the fearful bombardment.

All we see on television is endless green flashes, orange balls of grainy flame. But each of those represents bombs. Huge missiles raining down on densely populated cities such as Baghdad and Basra.

Many civilians will die in a war being fought without the will of the United Nations and on a series of unproven reasons.

And the repercussions will surely reverberate for years.

Mr Blair talks of Europe being "at peace" and the Cold War being a distant memory. And he says the new world faces a new order of "brutal states and terrorist groups" who hate us.

But the truth is that Europe is now split in a way it has not been for decades. And all we confidently predict as a certainty of this unprecedented onslaught against a sovereign state is a proliferation in terrorists who hate us.

Tony Blair is a decent man who genuinely thinks what he is doing is justified.

But when he sees men such as George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld smirking and boasting as they announce their Shock And Awe offensive, we hope he understands why we believe we have been dragged into something we should have been fighting tooth and nail to stop.

God help our troops and the Iraqi civilians in the days to come.

 

[Stephen Hamilton]

Well, here is something that just cracked me up, an article in today's Scotsman: http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/scotland.cfm?id=345822003 . When I got down to the entry for Thursday, I couldn't stop laughing; in fact, if I could find out that little Iraqi boy's name I would gladly send him a "Big Dawg" tee shirt!
----------------------
Diary of a twelve-year-old war protester

Sylvia Law


MONDAY
I’m not the kind of person who skives off school but I walked out on Monday. We are not skiving, we are demonstrating for something we believe in. The government, the police and the council are not listening to us, so we are going to make their job much harder.

We all met at the Parliament at 11.30am. There were lots of people there from Gillespie’s, Portobello and Trinity. We went up to the castle and lay down at the entrance as if we were sleeping. Some people threw eggs at the police. Afterwards we went up Calton Hill and tried to march to the American Consulate, but the police stopped us.

They told us what we were doing was illegal, so we shouted: "It’s an illegal war."

I told my Mum what I had done and she wasn’t that worried. We went together to the big anti-war demonstration in Glasgow, so she is anti-war.

My mum’s friend said: "What about your education?" But a few days won’t make a difference. Besides, we may not be learning about maths or science but we are finding out about the world we live in, which is also important.

TUESDAY
The teachers called us in at school and said: "Although we know you have your own opinions about it, we don’t want you to leave the school."

We were told we would get into trouble. They told us it was illegal for us to demonstrate. But it won’t stop me. Every day I go into work with ‘No War’ written on my face and my badge saying ‘Stop Bush’s War’. People should know more about what is going on in the world. I never thought I would live in a period of war.

I don’t know whether Tony Blair really wants to go to war but I think George Bush is just insane. I think that is one of the reasons people are so against the war, because they see it as something that George Bush wants. No-one understands why we are supporting him. It is just crazy.

WEDNESDAY
It was amazing. Three thousand schoolchildren stopped the traffic in Princes Street. At the one o’clock gun, we all fell and pretended we were dead. It was so sad.

A girl wrapped a scarf around her head so she looked like an Iraqi. You thought, "imagine what the Iraqi people must be feeling".

We were in Princes Street Gardens when a friend of mine got a phone call saying war was going to start that night. We were all really upset and hugged each other. Some people said there was no point in marching any more, but I said: "No, now we need to do it more than ever." We aren’t going to give up now, we still need to tell people how we feel.

Being on a march makes you feel better, you feel as if you are doing something and you feel part of something. We are here because we want to be here, not because people have told us to come. The Socialist Party people throw ideas at us, but they don’t tell us what to think.

THURSDAY
I was so upset that bombing had started. I phoned my friend and we talked about how we were feeling. But an Iraqi boy in my class, who supports the war, came in saying: "Ha, in your face, war has started."

He wants Saddam to be got rid of and says his family pray to Bush and Blair to get rid of him.

I often stay with a group of my friends and we all paint our faces and carry placards and hand out leaflets. Even when I see someone I don’t really like and they are on the march as well, I feel we are on the same side and it makes me feel happy.

We met at noon at Parliament Square. I have been handing out leaflets about the number of people who could die in Iraq. I think it makes a difference. The other day a woman challenged me about my ‘Stop the War’ badge and said we had to do something to stop the Iraqis because they killed so many people in the World Trade Centre.

She was an adult and she didn’t even know that it was terrorists who did that. I hope after talking to me she might have changed her mind.

FRIDAY
I stayed at school today. I don’t want to get into too much trouble over all this. Everyone is just getting ready for the big demonstration [today] . We are going to march up to the castle and stop the traffic again. Loads of people from school are going to be there.

I’ve been really upset watching the news today. I went into the chip shop earlier on and I saw on their TV that at least 20 people had died. The news has been really sad. Watching the bombing on television is bringing it all home. All my friends are really upset.

Even though the war has started we are still going to be out there with our slogans and placards to let people know we are completely against it. It still seems like people are not listening to us but we are going to let Bush and Blair know that we haven’t given up.

Sylvia is a pupil at James Gillespie’s High School in Edinburgh.
-------------------

Admit it, you want to send that Iraqi kid something too!

Stephen

 

[Bill Marsh]

I appreciate forum mods are leaving this thread in the HI Forum and hope that we can all continue to state our opinions in an open way, but without "flaming."

I firmly believe that this freedom to speak our opinion is one of our greatest freedoms, rights and responsibilities as American citizens.

Personally I have friends who are from Iraq. I like the individuals, but the goverment they describe has an outlook that is dark ages medieval and can be incredibly destructive to indviduals.

I have heard stories from these ex-Iraqi friends that tell of terrifying reprisals by Iraqi government forces for what we would not even consider a crime.

Hey, now in Georgia, we are offering jury trials for minor traffic offences. Can you believe that?

I quote a current news article from ABC's 20-20 that eloquently outlines some of the stories I have been told from my Iraqi friends living here in Atlanta Georgia. AND they are scared of reprisals against themselves.

I am very impressed by the bravery of these women who speak out so boldly.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/World/2020_iraqiwomen030321.html

The four women — Maha Hussain, Zainab al-Suwaij, Katrin Michael and Roz Rasool — told ABCNEWS' Barbara Walters stories that could be punishable by death in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Even Iraqis in the United States are terrified to speak frankly about Saddam's regime, largely because they are terrified of reprisals against family members.
The women are speaking out because they feel they are speaking for the voiceless people living under Saddam's regime.

"We know how it looks like inside Iraq," al-Suwaij said on 20/20. "We saw the torture. We saw our relatives and our friends disappearing day after day."

Human rights groups estimate that at least 290,000 Iraqis have disappeared since Saddam took power 34 years ago. Hussain was just a schoolgirl in Baghdad when the reality of life under Saddam hit home. She recalls riding on a school bus at age 13 and seeing a crowd gathered in the center of the capital, around bodies of men hanging from poles. "I remember the blue faces, the long necks," she said.

Saddam's reign of terror extended far beyond public executions. He established a strategy of brutalizing women in order to control their men. Although the stories these women tell are horrific and difficult to substantiate, they are consistent with a pattern of cruelty toward women documented by various human rights groups.

Routine Rapes, Human Meat Grinders, Chemical Baths

Al-Suwaij knows firsthand how even young girls were imprisoned for what seem to be trivial offenses. Al-Suwaij says she had a 16-year-old cousin who was beaten and tortured with electrical shocks for having written something against the government in her school notebook.

And if a man is a dissident or if a man writes a letter or makes a joke about Saddam, these women said, authorities would rape his wife or female relatives in front of him.

"Rape is used as a tool to humiliate the woman, but to also bring men into submission," Hussain said. To compound the humiliation, authorities would videotape the torture and rape and send the tape to family members.

Saddam's contempt for human rights extended to his well-documented use of poison gas against his own people. The horror of one of those chemical attacks still haunts Michael 16 years later.

"Children, women, men … vomiting, screaming, crying with swollen eyes. Everybody was … screaming, 'We are blind. We cannot see,' " Michael said. She said she still has difficulty breathing, because of her exposure to the gas.

Al-Suwaij has seen the inside of an Iraqi prison, and she describes horrific scenes. She said she was shown "human meat grinders" in which people were shredded and disposed of in a septic tank, and chemical baths in which people were literally dissolved.

"You cannot exaggerate about these things. People were slaughtered," she said.

All four women met earlier this month with members of the Bush administration.

They raised the issues they feel need to be addressed in Iraq. They say there needs to be a clear commitment to democracy in Iraq, and that the United States and its allies will need to chaperon the transition.


Protesters Missing the Point

The anti-war demonstrations happening all over the world are disturbing for these women. Rasool believes the protesters are missing the point.

"Knowing what we've been through, knowing what the people in Iraq are going through up to now, and then when we see protesters, that they don't know the reality of the people who are suffering right now," she said. "They don't know about torture, they don't know about rape."

Although these women support U.S. military action, they say they felt betrayed after the 1991 Gulf War when they heeded then-President George H.W. Bush's call to arms. The elder Bush said Iraqis must rise up on their own and force Saddam to step aside. So these women joined with many other Iraqis who risked their lives because they thought that the Americans were going to back them up.

"That was the first time I saw Iraq liberated. I saw the joy and the happiness of the people," al-Suwaij said.

But the uprising was short-lived. The allied army went home, clearing the way for Saddam to regain control. It is estimated that 30,000 Iraqis perished in the ensuing bloodbath.

"After the failed uprising I was hiding for two months until I left Iraq," said al-Suwaij.

These women are saddened that America and its allies backed off and let Saddam continue his brutal reign after the 1991 war. They ask, Where was the United Nations then? Where were all these human rights activists?

Where are they today? the women ask. Just two weeks ago, a Kurdish mother of eight was splashed with gasoline and set ablaze by military police for no reason, she told Kurdish television.

"We're asking the, the whole world, to see our suffering inside Iraq. We ask them to participate in our freedom and liberty," Rasool said. "Iraqi people suffered enough during 35 years, and they deserve freedom."

As U.S. and British troops advance toward Baghdad, these women say their friends and loved ones will welcome the coalition troops with open arms.

 

[Berkley]

From The Times of London:
March 22, 2003

Rimbaud meets Rambo on the eve of battle
Ben Macintyre


The Second Gulf War has already produced its first great work of oratory, a battlefield speech that could stand, in an unassuming way, alongside Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and Churchill’s inspiring wartime rhetoric.

A century hence, people will still be reading the speech written by Lieutenant-Colonel Tim Collins, the 42-year-old commander of The Royal Irish battle group, which he delivered to his troops in Kuwait on Wednesday afternoon, just hours before they went into battle. Colonel Collins has a history degree, but does not look like a poet. Readers of The Times will have seen his photograph, in shades and combat gear, a cigar clamped between his teeth. He has the air of a Rambo, but the literary touch of a Rimbaud.

Imagine you are in the Kuwaiti desert, your face sandpapered raw, scared to your bowels and stoned on adrenalin, knowing you are about to fight, and kill, or die. And hear this:

“The enemy should be in no doubt that we are his Nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction. There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls and they are stoking the fires of Hell for Saddam. As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place. Show them no pity. But those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send. As for the others, I expect you to rock their world.

“We go to liberate, not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country. We are entering Iraq to free a people, and the only flag that will be flown in that ancient land is their own. Don’t treat them as refugees, for they are in their own country.

“I know men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts. They live with the mark of Cain upon them. If someone surrenders to you, then remember they have that right in international law, and ensure that one day they go home to their family. The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please. If there are casualties of war, then remember, when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day. Allow them dignity in death. Bury them properly, and mark their graves.

“You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest, for your deeds will follow you down history. Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood, and the birth of Abraham. Tread lightly there. You will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis. You will be embarrassed by their hospitality, even though they have nothing ...

“There may be people among us who will not see the end of this campaign. We will put them in their sleeping bags and send them back. There will be no time for sorrow. Let’s leave Iraq a better place for us having been there. Our business now, is north.”

The words of Colonel Collins will long survive this war, for in their raw clarity, they capture its essence, and a military sensibility that is peculiar to our time. In sharp contrast to the gusts of war rhetoric from politicians we have been hearing for the past month, Collins spoke of history, family, respect, dignity, and the individual moral choice between killing justly, and just killing. Saddam may merit the fires of Hell, but Collins’s men will also remember the ordinary man who got dressed this morning in tattered Iraqi uniform, with a culture older than ours.

Collins’ oration echoes the King James Bible, but it is also the language of the Playstation: rock their world. It comes without demons, or plastic martyrs; he does not promise Dulce et decorum, but sharp modern irony: we aim to please. Put out fewer flags, he urged them, and tread lightly. This is precisely the reverse of the battlefield oratory used to motivate British troops a century ago.

The language of war was changed forever by the First World War. Before 1914, battle rhetoric strictly followed the cadences of Henry V and Henry Newbolt: “We few, we happy few”; “Play up and play the game.” But after four years of carnage, the holy abstractions of honour, patriotism and duty, framed into set-piece epitaphs by Rudyard Kipling and carved on numberless gravestones, seemed grotesque.

“I was always embarrassed by the words ‘sacred’, ‘glorious’, and ‘sacrifice’,” wrote Ernest Hemingway in A Farewell to Arms. “Abstract words such as ‘glory’, ‘honour’, ‘courage’ or ‘hallow’ were obscene beside the concrete names of villages, the numbers of regiments and the dates.”

The language of the Second World War was more honest, but it still harked back to an ancient tradition of patriotic warrior poetry, while introducing the grim dishonesty of military euphemism, memorably lampooned by Joseph Heller in Catch-22, that continues in such cowardly combinations as “collateral damage” (dead people) and “target-rich environments” (lots of dead people).

Collins, by contrast, spoke in an emotive modern vernacular: ferocious, but also slangy, ironic, and gentle. God and country are there, but in undertone. The valour lies not in bloodshed, but in decency; not in winning, but in leaving well. And at its heart, his speech offers this unlikely truth: that war is not glorious, or fun, but complicated and morally messy; not a matter of sacred shrouds, poppy fields and noble deaths, but of dead friends, wrapped in sleeping bags.

Millions of war words will be spilled in the coming weeks, but none more powerful than these. Perhaps Collins does not know it (Lincoln genuinely thought few would remember his speech at Gettysburg), but he has written a simple and stirring prose-poem for the 21st-century soldier.

You will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright evocation of what modern war means.

 

[ichor]

Bill Marsh wrote: "This is one of the most notorious Left wing, anti-American dailies in the UK. Hard to believe that the Daily Mirror actually published it, but it did."

Are you sure we're talking about the same Daily Mirror, Bill.

Do you know the date of the article, I can't seem to find it with a Google search.

 

[ichor]

Originally posted by Bill Marsh
Article from: London's Daily Mirror

"When one of the world's most liberal, left wing newspapers writes a great article like this, there is hope for everyone. A thoughtfully written piece in one of the most left wing newspapers in the UK. Just a word of background for those of you who aren't familiar with the UK's Daily Mirror. This is one of the most notorious Left wing, anti-American dailies in the UK. Hard to believe that the Daily Mirror actually published it, but it did."

Thanks again for posting this, Bill. I do feel strongly that Tony Parsons should get byline credit for this beautifully stated view. After checking with a seasoned reporter pal of mine, in Washington DC, I came up with yet another pro American article, by Tony Parsons, that I think our forum will appreciate:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/columnists/tonyparsons/#top>Top

 

[Bill Marsh]

1) Between President Bush and Saddam Hussein ... Hussein is the bad guy.

2) If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right thing, keep this in mind, they have Libya heading the Committee on Human Rights and Iraq heading the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own math here.

3) If you use Google search and type in "French Military Victories,"
click on "Im feeling lucky" your reply will be "Did you mean French Military Defeats?"

4) If your only anti-war slogan is "NO WAR FOR OIL," sue your school
district for allowing you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the education you deserve.

5) Saddam and Bin Laden will not seek United Nations approval before
they try to kill us.

6) Despite common belief, Martin Sheen is not the President. He only
plays one on TV.

7) Even if you are anti-war, you are still an "Infidel" and Bin Laden
wants you dead too.

8) If you believe in a "vast right-wing Conspiracy" but not in the
danger that Hussein poses, quit hanging out with the Dell computer dude.

9) We are not trying to liberate them.

10) Whether you are for military action or against it, our young men and women overseas are fighting for us to defend our right to speak out. We all need to support them without reservation.

 

[ichor]

Originally posted by Bill Marsh

3) If you use Google search and type in "French Military Victories,"
click on "Im feeling lucky" your reply will be "Did you mean French Military Defeats?"

10) Whether you are for military action or against it, our young men and women overseas are fighting for us to defend our right to speak out. We all need to support them without reservation. [/B]

Bill, I'm not singling you out, just using part of your post as a header to point out the general sentiment on the forum, as of late.


My late wife was French and I'm as disappointed with the *official* position of the French Gov. as anyone and I'm not defending it in any way. However, I think it's important to remember that the average French guy on the street doesn't necessarily support that position anymore than everyone on the streets of the U.S.A supports each and every position taken by our government.

Yesterday I emailed Laguiole-Knife, in France, to ascertain the authenticity of a Laguiole pocket knife, on ebay, that was not drawing much interest and I thought that it might be because the seller had mispelled the name in his title. This knife looked suspect for a number of reasons so I decided to write the best source. Below is the reply I received and I don't think Mr. Jean-Pierre Anselmo, of Laguiole-Knife, would mind if I shared it with you.

Quote:

"Dear Mr Dunn,
I don't think it is a genuine Laguiole manufactured in France, I think it is a copy made in Pakistan and unfortunately the value is very poor.

I remain at your disposal.

Best wishes for the American guies in Iraq.

Best regards.
JP.Anselmo"

Not earth-shattering to be sure, but I think that this one line, eight words, says reams about the average Frenchman.

I'm not sure if Mr. Anselmo meant "guys" or "GI's" but, regardless, the sentiment is there and I think it clearly illustrates that the French gov. is speaking for itself (as politicians tend to do), not every person in France. When an average, everyday French businessman makes such a remark, completely unsolicited, to a U.S citizen, who he doesn't know from a bale of hay, you can bet that it is only the tip of the iceberg and that there are many other average Frenchmen and women, who feel the same way.

I also don't think it would hurt, before we get too carried away in our damning of the "cowardly" French (and I've been the biggest duck in the puddle, the last week or so), to give some thought to people in the French Resistance, who fought and died. A few of them while sheltering American soldiers in France. Not everyone was a collaborator. Cabbies and waiters in Paris aside, on average French people are extraordinarily decent and civil, and the vast majority have not forgotten for a moment the role Americans played in their liberation from the Nazis. At least in my experience.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[Bill Marsh]

Thank you John,

This is a tiresome situation and I agree with you. Individually I like the French people. I also have some friends from Iraq who are fine people.

Though I loath to lump these together, it is their governments that I dislike, both the French and the Iraq.

I correspond regularly with people from all over the globe as I am developing business and personal interests in other countries. With a very few exceptions it is the same --- individuals I like --- political systems no.

When I say "the French" I should perhaps expand this to say "the French government."

my two francs

 

[beoram]

'We are risking a gulf between the West and the Islamic world'

In hearings in the Senate in Washington last week, Richard Lugar, the Republican chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, recalled the words of President Teddy Roosevelt. 'Roosevelt prescribed that America should "speak softly and carry a big stick",' Lugar said. 'In the present age, we are carrying an incredibly big stick, but we must be willing to spend more resources on the ability to speak softly.'

A few thousand miles away in the upstairs drawing room of 1 Carlton Gardens, London, Robin Cook, former Cabinet member, former Foreign Secretary and the first person to resign from Tony Blair's Cabinet on a point of principle, sat and considered the wreckage of a political career.

Next to him on a small table was a stuffed stoat, given to him during the arms to Iraq scandal of the Nineties. Cook led the Opposition assault on the Conservative Government when the Scott Report revealed that Ministers had turned a blind eye to possible weapons exports to Iraq without bothering to inform the public.

In his first major interview since he resigned last Monday, he looked at the dead animal and said: 'It's my good luck charm. I suppose there is a symmetry to it all. I gained my reputation on the issue of Iraq and I have left the Government over the issue of Iraq.'

Cook's position is based on more than a disagreement over whether and when military action should have been taken against Saddam. He questions the legitimacy of the war, arguing that with more time for inspectors it could have been avoided.

But there is also the larger issue of America's role in the world and how Britain should relate to the elephant over the water. Cook believes he is seeing a crisis in the world order, once based on an acceptance that the UN was the ultimate custodian of international law and now replaced by the desires of the world's first hyper- power.'America is a hyper-power, it can afford to go it alone,' Cook said. 'Britain is not a superpower. It is not in our interests to contribute to a weakening and a sidelining of international bodies like the Security Council. The Security Council and the system of world order governed by rules has been badly damaged.

'There is a suspicion that the speed with which this has moved has been dictated by American military preparations rather than by the needs of Britain's diplomatic campaign. That is why it has been so difficult for Tony to mobilise public opinion and indeed international opinion.'

Cook makes it clear that he supports the troops. 'Now the conflict has started I hope that the operation is successful and that all our troops will come back,' he says.

After walking the Norfolk Broads last month and deciding that without a second UN resolution he could not stay in Cabinet, he says he 'has been at peace'. There was a clarity, finally, to what he was doing.

'When I saw Tony last week I made it clear I had made up my mind,' he said. 'He respected that.' Cook refused to comment on the change of heart by Clare Short, the International Development Secretary, who threatened to resign if there were no second resolution.

But, why did Blair expend so much effort urging Short to stay? 'I think you put your efforts into persuading people you think are open to persuasion.'

Now Cook has been released from Cabinet responsibility, he can say what he believes: Britain must heal the wounds with Europe, particularly France and Germany, for any chance of creating a balance to hyper-power politics, he says. Britain wasbounced into a conflict in Iraq because of an American military imperative, he says. The Bush administration does not share the values of Britain or Europe, he says. If Britain does not find a way to say no to the US then the concept of international solidarity is dead.

Cook knows the world is dealing with a new reality of 'pre-emptive diplomacy', the new American doctrine held dear by Bush and his inner circle.

The policy is clear: America will act whenever and wherever it believes that the target threatens US interests. And the biggest threat is the support for interna tional terrorism. Any rogue state is now a legitimate target.

Within this doctrine is the argument that, if affairs are left to international institutions such as the UN, there is a greater chance of prevarication and diplomatic stalemate. America wants to act, and quickly. Every day that a dictator is left in power, runs the argument of the American conservatives, is another day when the very fabric of America is at stake. America will act - with a coalition of the willing if necessary. On its own if not. Impatience runs through the thinking.

'The events of 11 September created an entirely new sense, not only in America but around the world, of the priority and urgency of dealing with international terrorism,' Cook said. 'It had a particularly powerful effect on American society because they are not accustomed to war coming to them.

'But, if you take a response to 9/11 as being a driving force of the American approach to international affairs, I would strongly argue that one of the greatest assets that came out of that was the extraordinarily rich and powerfully diverse coalition against international terrorism.'

That coalition, according to Cook, has now been shattered on the altar of pre-emptive diplomacy. America has long planned to attack Iraq and splits in the UN, Nato and in the European Union were a price worth paying.

'Now, I'm not an American politician but if I was I would be inveighing against the extent to which the Bush administration had allowed that terrific asset to disintegrate,' Cook said.

'Instead the US is left embarking on military action from a position of diplomatic weakness, unable to get any major international organisation to agree with it. We are heading for a very serious risk of a big gulf between the Western and Islamic world. That seems to me to have thrown away a powerful asset for the US which relates to its number one security concern.'

How far away Cook must feel from those heady days after Labour's 1997 election victory. Then, in an interview with The Observer, Cook, just installed as the first Labour Foreign Secretary for 18 years, spoke of a new world order built on international consensus.

'We want to take Britain out of a position of isolationism,' he said. '[We want to be] a leading member of the international community. Personally I think we are entering a period when international politics is coming of age.'

He believes there were a number of years of progress when Blair shared a world vision with Bill Clinton, whose administration agreed with Britain's 'fundamental values'. But Britain's closeness to the Bush administration over Iraq is flawed.

'What changed in the last two years is that we are dealing with the Bush administration and there are people in that administration who don't care for any multilateral system committed to security and development,' he said.

'The State Department [the US Foreign Office] is very weak. The Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld axis is the motor of the Bush administration. They do not allow much space for [Colin] Powell [Secretary of State].'

Of Bush's Axis of Evil speech, when he named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the enemies of the free world, Cook says, archly, that 'whoever wrote it' was ignorant of the realities.

'The immediate effect of the speech was to achieve a major reverse for the reformers in Iran,' he said, pointing out that the ayatollahs used the speech to attack America and democratic forces at home. 'If we are going to have a multilateral system we've all got to have ownership of what the priorities are going to be.'

Cook says that Britain now finds itself in a diplomatic position 'that it will come to regret'. Too close to America, too far away from Europe.

'Where should we be looking for the future direction of Britain's strategic international relations, for me the answer is Europe, to make sure that we are a major player and we are passionate that Europe speaks with a strong voice which means we try and speak without a divided voice,' he said.

'There are many reasons for that but the need to have an alternative pole, not a rival, but an alternative pole within international affairs is one of them. I have always been strongly committed to a multilateral system. We must respect international institutions.

'We need to engage in an international community that can bring to international forums and state with clarity the type of European values that are certainly not shared by many of those in the Bush administration,' he said.

'Firstly a respect for multilateral protocols, secondly if we are going to achieve a world governed by rules then we need to respect international process. There are two other European themes: a respect for global environmentalism and that the priorities of the international community reflect the massive priority of tackling poverty.

'We are not going to win the international war against terrorism unless we also win the international war against poverty.'

He suggests that when Bush decided push had come to shove, Britain should have said no. The inspectors needed more time, and Britain should have been strong enough to say so. 'Tony genuinely believed he could deliver unity behind the US for confrontation and that this unity in itself would produce sufficient progress on the part of Iraq that would have averted war,' Cook said.

'One of the reasons we didn't get that unity was because people felt that there was an impatience on the part of America to push the pace at which other countries would not readily go.

'Also, there were some noises off from the US which undermined our diplomatic effort. Calling France and Germany Old Europe was not helpful to what the British diplomats were trying to secure.

'One lesson is that although we must maintain our traditional alliance with America while it has an administration which does not share our world view or our values we have to make sure that we keep enough distance, that there is an option for Britain to come to a different conclusion.'

Cook and his stuffed stoat will soon be moving out of the Government apartment he has lived in since 1997. He expects that resignation is 'a one way street' and it is unlikely that he will ever return. And each day he will watch the bombing live on television certain in the belief that it could all have been avoided.

 

[munk]

20 million Iraqi's will be happy the conflict was not avoided and their freedom given back to them. This is a bottom line regardless of WMD, the legality of preemption, or Britain's uncomfortable diplomatic positon. This is a good thing.


munk