Boycott France

I heard this, and me blood ran cold. Anybody remebmer "Liberty Cabbage?" Ominous parallels for a new century...

Keith
 
Good post, Kahuna.

France being used...

I thought Britain could punch out of her weight class because she has the presence and materials, historical reputation, and of course it allows her more influence than either her economy or military could muster in the present world by sticking to the US. I like to believe there is friendship and similar perceptions with us too.

You remind me of much when you observe the quiet of the Chinese.

munk
 
Originally posted by munk
You should have some trust in me by now, Beoram.
Click to expand...


I do. ?

On Blair- your links are all BBC, like our PBS. Left.
Click to expand...


No, BBC is pretty much centre -- the BBC is the main media in the UK, unlike marginalised PBS. The Guardian (which has a very good online site with interesting articles http://www.guardian.co.uk ) is much more 'left'.

Temporary concerns- once we've ended Saddam, many will come aboard for the rebuild, at least philosophically. No one credibly argues Afganistan is not better off today.
Click to expand...


How do you know? What's to say a Saddam 'clone' won't just become the next leader? And the USA hasn't exactly the best track record at picking 'puppet' leaders for Iraq now does it? I agree about Afghanistan though -- even if the actual motives for Afghanistan weren't quite the right ones, the result is better than the Taliban-government (though still not great).

Blair's insured his place in history, which will prove him correct, regardless of political tides. If he is removed he can go out in Churchillian manner. None of the stories in the links say Mr. Blair is doomed, only that he has troubled waters.

You might be amused to know I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister congratulating him on his courage. An underling responded to thank me. I wonder if they shared my high opinion of their Boss?
Click to expand...


Neither Blair nor Bush is Churchill though. If Blair truly believes he's doing the right thing (I rather sceptical on this point though), then I'll respect his courage too -- doesn't mean I think he's right though... You realise Blair is theoretically 'left' himself (being of the Labour party)?

I've disliked Blair from before the Iraq situation -- actually for reasons you might agree with (or maybe not). When he became prime minister he had a programme of 'routing out conservatism' (his words, not mine), which has included attacking fox-hunting (which, aside from anything else, is important for rural economies in certain areas) and dismantling the House of Lords (without any real plan for what the reformed chamber should be...).

I talked of post embargo fingerprints on WOMD. You responded with the 'Iran days" of the US. Granted, but not the issue today.

-But I don't think that France's primary motive is self-interest, so it still seems to turn into not liking France for her not agreeing with the USA. - Beoram

I have no idea why you wouldn't think this. Perhaps France has evolved unto a higher spiritual platform, one where self interest has been made secondary to?
Click to expand...

OK. Say that France did sell Iraq weapons post-embargo. Her best move would be to side with the USA who surely would be happy to overlook this in return for support (I don't mean military, just political). How is opposing the war and calling for more weapons inspections going to help France cover up weapon-sales to Iraq (if this is true)??? And, anyway, it might be hard to prove that any particular weapons found in Iraq were sold post-embargo by France (unless Iraq saves its receipts :p ).

As for France's 'higher spiritual platform' -- no I don't think this. But there is 'short-term' self-interest and 'long-term' self-interest, the latter often co-inciding with a greater good. In the long-term, if the USA & UK go to war with Iraq, the economies of both countries will become much worse, which negatively affects France and the rest of the world as well...

And I don't see how removing Saddam will necessarily 'liberate' the people of Iraq -- it's a nice idea, but probably not even what the USA govt has in mind... Kuwait was 'liberated' as we recall, but liberation in this case meant returning the government to the hands of the rich Saudi-derived family which runs Kuwait...and who consigns the other residents of Kuwait to second- or third-class citizenship... Hardly a real democracy...

I like your idea of adding India to the Security Council. Germany? I don't know. Would we be adding and subtracting based upon GNP or military might? Some of these former Soviet Block nations will make it in ten years.
Click to expand...

Aren't GNP & military might the main criteria for Security Council membership? (aside from the post-WWII situation) I think Germany would be a good addition too, but India definitely -- the largest democracy in the world...assuming the Security Council retains any real power after this Iraq business...


--B.
 
Originally posted by Ferrous Wheel
I heard this, and me blood ran cold. Anybody remebmer "Liberty Cabbage?" Ominous parallels for a new century...

Keith
Click to expand...

And 'french fries' aren't French anyway -- they're English (=chips). I think the word derives from 'french-cut fried potatoes'. All rather silly, if it wasn't so scary...
 
to the Poster who said Tony Blair is polically dead because of Rumsfeldt's comments- Nonsense. Wishful thinking by left leaning Europe and America pundits.
Click to expand...

It is nonsense. If anything Rumsfeldt's comments have helped Blair. The British people have been given a clear choice. The war will go on with you or without you. If you want a seat at the peace table you should support Blair, otherwise you will just have to live with the consequences.

That should make the choice pretty easy, since attacking Blair becomes a purely lose-lose proposition.

As for France; the consequences of their stupidity are unavoidable. It is one thing to object, but quite another to obstruct; and, to so bluntly highlight a fundamental structural problem within the UN, especially when the structural issue works entirely to your benefit, is pure dumb. The UN will probably be reformed after this, if it doesn't die all together, and France's veto will probably turn out to be their last. France will from now on have little political significance in the international realm. Their veto should probably be reassigned to Japan which is a far more powerful and significant state.

I wouldn't worry too much about the boycott. The real fun is going to begin when we start hearing about their numerous violations of the of the UN sanctions. There is going to be some major payback for their recklessness.

n2s
 
Originally posted by The Big Kahuna
Hey Munk, it's good to see that your back and spirited as ever!:D

Beoram: "But I don't think that France's primary motive is self-interest"

....

In any case, given her track record and the somewhat "unique" French motivation for doing what she does, perhaps the town sheriff shouldn't listen to much to what the loudmouth, busybody old lady says. But learning the little courtesy gestures that old ladies love helps keep the town's noise level down (ever had to deal with a crabby grandmother?). And above all, keep a sharp eye on those townspeople who are drifting around quietly, whispering softly into her ear.
Click to expand...

There needs to be more than one 'town sheriff' in any case.... that's part of a larger problem, which stretches from France to Iraq to the World Trade Centre attack ('9-11').
 
As the original poster of this link, it is fascinating to drop a rock in the water and watch the ripples spread!

As a businessman I feel that economic motives underly most present military movements and that much of our worldwide politics revolve around this simple principle. I certainly trust self-interest much more than altruism.

But knowing very well how this works at a grass roots poitical/business level, I also have no illusions that neither I, nor anyone not directly involved, could ever really know what is behind the decisions of world leaders to war or not to war.

It is obvious that they can easily tie altruism publicly, to self-interest privately. Unfortunately this is what happens.

For the most part I like the average man and try to make my decsions on him personally and individually rather than an ethnic or national heritage.

I can understand, but not approve, of the long term disdain America faces for short term help of supposed allies that is quickly forgotten.

I was in London when John Lennon was shot here in America.

I remember sitting in a beautiful London pub, all dark woods and brass, drinking a warm beer. Three British chaps sat behind me loudly declaiming all Americans as gun carrying "gangsters" and "hoodlums."

Unable to stand it anymore I stood and walked over to them and said, "I grew up with the Beatles music and I love it. John Lennon's death was a tragedy --- BUT if it were not for us Americans and our guns, you would all be speaking German --- TWICE!"

Maybe being 6'2" and 200 pounds helped. But they did shut up and got quite interested in their warm beer.

I guess I reinforced their attitude about us "obnoxious" Americans, but I get tired of this disrespect for our country and forgetfullness of our help when they needed it so desparately.
 
well we are a nation of capitalists. Time=Money=Economic Power. Hel, we take a loss on most exports and cut breaks on imports, we're that eager to grease the wheels of world commerce. Ain't always pretty. Like wen we sold Iraq all that Sarin and VX, then hoped they'd be nutty enuf to use it on Iran and Ayatollah.

The big powers backed Iran and Iraq or Vs. each other for many many years.

Keith
 
Beoram, you've left out my most salient quote on the BBC stuff and Blair- I'd said I'd read them and there was none of the Blair is out you'd suggested, but only he was troubled. BBC not left? Doubt that, but I don't pick up on all British nuances, what's a screech and what's subtly undermining. The Guardian is rabid.

As for the French joining us to cover their tracks on post embarbo weapons programs- Why? They've done good. If they'd managed to halt the war then their lucrative oil contracts could continue at our expense- our troops in Quwait implicitly providing the muscle for the inspectors to slowly plod on and 'contain' Saddam. Containment is at US cost, war is at US cost; why enrich the French who have stabbed us in the back? We would have given some contract guarentees....

In other words, Beoram, that's an idea or trial balloon that doesn't work- that France should join us to hide. The stakes are too high. Remember, France is the number one trading partner of Iraq.

You are insightful to worry about a fresh thug to replace Saddam.

I disliked Blair very much before this and do not like his politics. All the more reason I support him now. Is he craven and a calculator? I hope not. Not all friends of Bill were, were they?

I'm sorry you dont trust me. I have the advantage of you- I've seen your photograph. When those impressions are balanced with your writing, I conclude favorably in your regard. If things got out of hand in our discussion I am a notorious rescuer. I'd probably be the one needing rescue anyway. I admire the way you package information. It is very clean, usually.

Actually Beoram, you're an excellent candidate for a mystical experience.

regards,
munk
 
Hey Kahuna; I see your welcome back and 'spirited' description of me has been reprinted several times now...and I got to thinking:

Aren't ponies supposed to be spirited?


Anyway, I'm probably 20 years older than Beoram. If I can't tease him a little, who can?

... ....

N2sharp; I'm getting worried about the war and the post war. For one thing, the favor to Blair, (going back to the UN) has gone on long enough. Summer is here.

The status quo always lines up against reform; now they say democracy is impossible in Iraq. Maybe they're right. Course, if they're wrong, it will seem so simple, so right, everyone will seize upon it as a good thing, the whole world will come on board as friends of democracy in Iraq!



munk
 
To tell you the truth I'm thinking farther ahead than just Iraq. I have North Korea and Iran on my mind and know there will be other fires to put out after these. And then perhaps the final chapter -- China. I'm glad I'm 70.
 
Originally posted by munk
Beoram, you've left out my most salient quote on the BBC stuff and Blair- I'd said I'd read them and there was none of the Blair is out you'd suggested, but only he was troubled. BBC not left? Doubt that, but I don't pick up on all British nuances, what's a screech and what's subtly undermining. The Guardian is rabid.
Click to expand...

The basic thrust is that the political pundits believe that if Blair sends UK troops to fight in Iraq against the UN resolution he will face not only a disgruntled populace, but revolt from within the Labour party -- they'll probably call for a vote of confidence, and he would be replaced. They could be wrong of course, but that's the thrust of the articles.

As for the French joining us to cover their tracks on post embarbo weapons programs- Why? They've done good. If they'd managed to halt the war then their lucrative oil contracts could continue at our expense- our troops in Quwait implicitly providing the muscle for the inspectors to slowly plod on and 'contain' Saddam. Containment is at US cost, war is at US cost; why enrich the French who have stabbed us in the back? We would have given some contract guarentees....

In other words, Beoram, that's an idea or trial balloon that doesn't work- that France should join us to hide. The stakes are too high. Remember, France is the number one trading partner of Iraq.
Click to expand...

These lucrative oil contracts....Iraq owes France $30 billion -- as they owe Russia vast sums. In the case of Russia, the US offered to make arrangements for the debt to be settled (or as much as is feasible) if Russia 'signed' on. Presumably the same sort of offer would/could have been made to France. But Russia still hasn't been bribed by this yet, and neither apparently France.

Look, I'm not holding up France as a paragon of virtue -- and I don't think that much of Jacques. But whatever their motives, I'm glad someone is standing up....

You are insightful to worry about a fresh thug to replace Saddam.
Click to expand...

And I worry about the Turks. It outrages me that the US would 'give aid' of billions of dollars to Turkey (who has received, at least in Europe, much more 'aid' than any other country from the US already, during the Cold war times). And Turkey wants to send their own troops into northern Iraq...anyone recall the Ottoman Empire?? When the Arabs were the 'good guys' and the Turks the 'bad'?

I disliked Blair very much before this and do not like his politics. All the more reason I support him now. Is he craven and a calculator? I hope not. Not all friends of Bill were, were they?
Click to expand...

Bill seems to particularly annoy the 'Right'. Makes one wonder what he did right? ;) But Bill isn't the issue here. I tend to think that more (all?) modern politicians are craven calculators, but perhaps I'm overly cynical...

I'm sorry you dont trust me. I have the advantage of you- I've seen your photograph. When those impressions are balanced with your writing, I conclude favorably in your regard. If things got out of hand in our discussion I am a notorious rescuer. I'd probably be the one needing rescue anyway. I admire the way you package information. It is very clean, usually.

Actually Beoram, you're an excellent candidate for a mystical experience.
Click to expand...

I don't mind a little teasing :) I'm not sure what you mean about me not trusting you though -- I don't believe you're completely correct about the Iraq-France-etc. situation, and that's what we're discussing, right? If I didn't think you were a decent, intelligent fellow, I won't bother debating the issue with you...

cheers,
B.
 
Originally posted by Bill Martino
To tell you the truth I'm thinking farther ahead than just Iraq. I have North Korea and Iran on my mind and know there will be other fires to put out after these. And then perhaps the final chapter -- China. I'm glad I'm 70.
Click to expand...


North Korea particularly worries me. Kim Jong-il strikes me as completely insane. And I think that once the US has troops committed in the Gulf, N. Korea will make a move.

And the reports I've read suggest that Iran is much closer to have nuclear weapons (of mass destruction) than Iraq.

And why Iraq? Yes, Saddam is a nasty and dangerous leader. But he's not the only one. What about Pakistan? Pakistan claims to have nuclear capability, and they're not exactly a friendly democracy. Terrorists of various affiliations hide out in Pakistan. Iraq is largely spin -- Bush couldn't conclusively catch bin Laden, so he found a substitute who people already know as a 'nasty Arab', Saddam.

Whether a 'war' on Iraq turns out to be a good idea or not, this is the wrong time.
 
If anything Rumsfeldt's comments have helped Blair. The British people have been given a clear choice. The war will go on with you or without you. If you want a seat at the peace table you should support Blair, otherwise you will just have to live with the consequences.
Click to expand...

munk,
I think it was meant that way - but it turned out the other. Blair did everything to support the US. I war started now and the British would fight together with the US Blair would loose his ministers and the coming election. He fights to get the second resolution, he fights to convince the Brits even on MTV (he really looks sick these days because he works that much - And Rumsfeld says: "Well after all, we really do not need the British to make war..." It really did not help Blair.
As a German I said that some oft the German politicians are honest in being pacifist - because we are governed by a red/green coalition - the green party has its roots in pacifism - and they have the power since 1998 and the export of weapons from Germany (some big companies here - Krupp, Thyssen, Heckler&Koch etc.) was reduced on a large scale - I really do not think you would find many German fingerprints there, Germans burnt their fingers earlier (we had two bigger trials after the second Gulf war against companies who sold Saddam weapon-technology).
On the other hand the German military is the largest in the EU (compulsory military service as one of the last - it is not the most powerful, the French are because of the nukes and the modern structure) and we have the second largest number of soldiers (first is of course the US) in peace keeping/enforcing or antiterrorist missions (Kosovo, Bosnia, Cambodja, Navy near Djibouti, Afghanistan etc.). Just a few facts.
Trading partner No. 1 is not France but Russia. France is second.

I still think the US is right to fight that war (many more would be justified - lots of dictators left - but fighting them would bring chaos to the world) but boycot France is wrong and, sorry to say that, US diplomacy these days is not very brilliant.

Andreas
 
Andreas, don't you think once the troops are committed from Britain and fighting, that all bets are off? If it goes well, so will Blair.


As for Beoram's idea that the labor party would then hold a vote of confidence, I don't think it can take place now. That's what Fox News pundits thought, and I like them. I did not see that as the thrust from Beoram's BBC links. If the war goes bad, we'll see. 5000 poisened troops might do it, or a series of reprisatory bombings in England by terrorists.

If Germany meets the criteria the other security council members do I have no problem with her in there. I don't understand why China and not Japan.

munk
 
Beo the Turks are worried that a Saddamless Iraq will lead to a Kurdish push for an independent Kurdish homeland. Given the large Kurdish population in souther Turkey, who have already been grumbling about remaing part of Turkey, the Turks are worried that a Kurdish homeland right on thier border will lead to a Kosovo type rebellion among the Kurdish population. That worry was the main reason Saddam was originally left in place, since the Turks lobbied hard to have a stable Iraq, and for better or worse at the time the only way to have a stable Iraq at the time was to leave Saddam in place as the only other alternative to the power vaccuum of his ousting was a strong Kurdish resistance movement. Also throw in the fact that the big contention over Iran and Iraq was the Kurds, with Iran wanting to support thier fellow Shia brothers. So a destabalized Iraq at the time may have led to a larger conflict involving Turkey, Iran, and the Kurds (there are a few other countries in the region with large Kurdish populations that I cant remember off hand at the moment that would probably have been involved in the scenario). Hence the desire of the current administration to replace Saddam with a military ruler. For better or worse, when Britain formed Iraq after WWI they united very disparate (read enemies) ethnic groups under a strong dictatorship. The big fear is that without a strong dictator like Saddam Iraq turns into another Yugoslavia, but involving much bigger players. Also considering the global significance of the region that would spell a giant catastrophy for the Western world.

Now with all these cons against a de-stabalized Iraq (which is very possible if Saddam is ousted and the disparate groups he has been keeping under heal decide to take revenge) what are some pros?

Firstly, as has already been listed the US military presence in Saudi Arabia could be reduced. The big bone that many of the terrorist groups have against the US, is that we have a strong military presence in the holiest of holy Islamic places. Even our support of Israel, doesnt bother many muslims as much as our presence in Saudi (anti-US hatred didnt start growing till after our presence in Saudi, and at this time Clinton had been very pro Palestinian concerns which did nothing to lessen anti-US sentiment). For all the hype that terrorists put on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in the bigger scheme of things, it is not as significant. Its a difference between the mistreatment of Islamic brothers, versus a perceived threat against Islam itself. Anyways the whole reason we are in Saudi is to contain Iraq. A pacified Iraq would need heavy US involvement, so rationally we could still keep a strong military presence in the Middle East in a post-Saddam Iraq, with the added benefit of not being stationed in the holiest of holy lands.

Secondly, the message of ousting Saddam will send strong signals to Iran and Korea. While Iran and Korea may seem a bigger threat for weapons of mass destruction, unlike Iraq neither have lost a war. If we cant discipline a crippled enemy like Saddam, who lost the war, what more can we do against a strong dug in enemy like North Korea. Ousting Saddam places us in a position of strength in any future talks with North Korea or Iran. It proves we have the bite behind our bark so to speak.

Thirdly, everyone keeps talking about the economy of oil when speaking of Iraq. However, there are bigger markets in Iraq, than just its ability to produce oil. A post Saddam Iraq needs big investment in infrastructure. Much of the infrastructure damage post Gulf War has never been addressed due to sanctions. Upgrading Iraq's outdated telecommunication network alone is estimated to be worth in the billions to potential contract winners. Something that France is also worried about. One of France's strongest exports is its telecommunication technology, and its biggest competitor is the US.

One must remember though that economics and culture are the building blocks of colonialism. Colonialism/empire building was not a military phenomena but one of trade. What worries alot of countries (particularly developing nations) about US might is that of all the world powers today, we are the most capable of putting the economic/cultural muscle into changing the world. While these may not intentionally be our motives, countries like France are worried (especially because theyve done it themselve) that we may be trying to hedge into thier colonial property. As for what colonial property Im talking about, if you analyze trade between many former colonies and thier colonial overlords, not much has changed. Colonialism did not end in freedom, but it evolved to such a finessed level that the trade relations that it fought so hard to established have now been so deeply emeshed in the cultural views of the colonized that it appears natural.

hmm...I seem to have moved off topic into neo-colonialism....oh well I need to go back to school...:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top