babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » US, UK want to punish France

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: US, UK want to punish France
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 20 April 2003 02:26 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
US, UK single out France for punishment

quote:
The US and Britain appear intent on continuing to "punish" France for its anti-war stance, in spite of recent gestures of conciliation by Jacques Chirac (pictured), the French president.


The diplomatic pressure on Mr Chirac contrasts with a softer tone towards Germany and Russia, the other two leading members of the "coalition of the unwilling".


[ 20 April 2003: Message edited by: rasmus_raven ]


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 April 2003 07:39 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
France deserves to be singled out.

Lets see wasn't it they who were building Saddam's nuclear power plant that would have made another nuclear power.

Didn't they negotiate a bunch of oil deals with Saddam even though sanctions prohibited these deals.

quote:
just as France again has enraged the British (and many others besides) by inviting Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe to an impending Franco-African summit in Paris. Mr Mugabe's murderous campaign to squash his black opposition and steal white farms makes him a British bête noire, and the EU has banned him from visiting any part of the Union, but the ban runs out on February 18th, albeit that it is expected to be promptly renewed. The French say they have asked him to their conference, starting on February 19th,

Sounds like France is gonna get what its been asking for. France knew that this situation could and likely would arise. They made their bed and now they will have to lie in it.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3912

posted 20 April 2003 08:19 PM      Profile for Zatamon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
France???
From: "The right crowd" | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 20 April 2003 08:36 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I heard France has Weapons of Mass Destruction and was recently testing them in violation of international treaties.
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 20 April 2003 09:09 PM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The UN should be voting on kicking the US out of the United Nations and imposing sanctions and world wide boycots of American and British goods and services.

I am also highly suspicious of the so called victory in Iraq. None of the goals they set out to accopmplish have yet been accomplished. They haven't changed the regime, they have simply eliminated it leaving behind anarchy and havoc. Are 1500 dead civilians an acceptable price for the "surgical war" Rummy and his goons promised?
Did they get Hussein? How did he escape along with every other top Iraqi official who were the target of all these smart bombs?

Were they bought off?

And they have the nerve to blame France for optiong for inspections and a peaceful process!


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743

posted 20 April 2003 09:59 PM      Profile for ReeferMadness     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are 1500 dead civilians an acceptable price for the "surgical war" Rummy and his goons promised?

The 1500 number is getting to be an accepted fact but if you look at the Body Count web site, you'll see the actual number of "reported deaths" sits between 1878 and 2325. And if you read the FAQ, it says that these numbers are just the "reported" deaths. The actual death toll is likely much higher and that doesn't address the injured (many of the injuries permanent).


From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 21 April 2003 12:42 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Markbo continues to plumb the murky depths of moral inconsistency, and to boldy ascend summits of sublime absurdity. His reflexive support of America, come what may, is simply breathtaking. It's been a solid two years now of persistence. Surely he deserves an award for lifetime achievement?
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 21 April 2003 12:55 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You've gotta admit, he's no quitter.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 April 2003 02:13 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
His reflexive support of America, come what may, is simply breathtaking.

Ah but this is unfair, I did not support military action and I acknowledged it would prove unjust if WMD are not found if given A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME.

But in this case you make France sound noble, they're not. Just because the U.S. may have been wrong, doesn't make France right. They had alterior motives up the wazoo. They didn't care about Iraq, they only cared about stopping what they deem to be a "Hyperpower". They cared about their oil contracts, they cared about becoming a power in themselves.

Do you defend their defiance Of the Will of Europe by meeting with Mugabe? Shouldn't they respect their European partners?

quote:
It's been a solid two years now of persistence. Surely he deserves an award for lifetime achievement?

[ 21 April 2003: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 21 April 2003 02:24 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I say we punish France by sending Markbo to Paris.
From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 April 2003 02:29 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'd love to go to France, never been there. I heard the French Riviera is simply amazing. Maybe Saddam's hiding there, didn't they offer him asylum?

But only for a vacation, I wouldn't want to live there, two isolationist for me. THey also have some very strange bedfellows. Hows their foreign policy working in Algeria BTW.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 21 April 2003 03:02 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But, but, but...
Isn't the UN supposed to be an international body, where every member has a right to vote on each proposition, according to its own perception of the worth of that proposition?

If the USA doesn't believe that it's a good idea to remove land-mines from other countries, the USA has a right to vote against that proposition, even if 128 other countries think it's a good idea. If the USA believes that Isreal should be allowed to settle territories that do not belong to it, the USA has a right to veto a resolution to stop Isreal settleing and defending those territories.
As far as i know, nobody has suggested punishing the USA for those decisions. Odd.

Yup, it's definitely time to move the UN someplace else and forget to leave the USA a forwarding addresse.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 April 2003 04:32 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Isn't the UN supposed to be an international body, where every member has a right to vote on each proposition, according to its own perception of the worth of that proposition?

But you know with the Security council, as Orwell said all countries are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Its a lot different from allowing those to vote vs. Allowing human rights abusers to sit on human rights committees. Allowing those who defy U.N. resolutions to cooperate with disarming to chair disarmament committess.

quote:
If the USA doesn't believe that it's a good idea to remove land-mines from other countries, the USA has a right to vote against that proposition, even if 128 other countries think it's a good idea.

I know this was just an example, but its a poor one. Just as a point of information. The U.S. does more to remove land-mines than any other country. They just want the ability to use ones that don't target civillians in the future. Mines that can be deactivated after 24 hrs.

quote:
If the USA believes that Isreal should be allowed to settle territories that do not belong to it, the USA has a right to veto a resolution to stop Isreal settleing and defending those territories.
As far as i know, nobody has suggested punishing the USA for those decisions. Odd.

I also don't recall the US supporting the settling of occupied territories.

quote:
Yup, it's definitely time to move the UN someplace else and forget to leave the USA a forwarding addresse.

So you would punish the U.S.

Anti american basher. Your prejudice is showing.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 21 April 2003 04:54 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
well, it happens that both the US and France are of the "more equal" category. They set it up that way; they have to live with the consequences.
"Allowing" is a nice choice of word. Who gets to do the allowing, among equals? Basically, whoever has the most guns. (Guess.)
Human rights is kind of a tricky subject; can be danced around in many ways. Plain old civil rights is becoming quite the tricky subject, too.

As it happens, i used to be strongly pro-American. It took an awful lot of lying and cheating and aggression and double-dealing and internal oppression and external arm-twisting and election-fixing and general dirty tricks to turn me against the US. The current prejudice is amply earned. Behave better, and i may turn again.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 April 2003 05:15 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
to turn me against the US.

and which country are you "for" which you believe has behaved better? France?

They've acted as bad if not worse than the U.S. when it comes to foreign policy and foreign aid.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 April 2003 05:15 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
to turn me against the US.

and which country are you "for" which you believe has behaved better? France?

They've acted worse than the U.S. when it comes to foreign policy and foreign aid.

They make an anti war claim and you simply ignore their alterior motives while making a big deal about those of the U.S. Kinda naive isn't it?

[ 21 April 2003: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 21 April 2003 08:31 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
and which country are you "for" which you believe has behaved better? France?

No. But it's irrelevant; i was only accused of being against the US.

quote:
They've acted worse than the U.S. when it comes to foreign policy and foreign aid.

Since i was never a fan of France, there was never an occasion to turn against it.

quote:
They make an anti war claim and you simply ignore their alterior motives...

I agree with this particular vote; i don't approve of anybody attacking anybody else, and i especially disapprove of a powerful nation making unprovoked war on a feeble one. But my feeling in the matter is not at issue; nor is France's motivation. Each UN member's right to vote is the issue.
quote:
... while making a big deal about those of the U.S.

Not making a big deal of the US's motives; only using its voting record for comparison, when it comes to punishment.
Punishing somebody for exercising their right to vote any way they want, for whatever reason, regardless of their history. One or two nations assuming the prerogative of judgment over the actions of others when they themselves are not without sin; meting out punishment for the same thing they themselves do with impunity.
Get it?

[ 21 April 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 22 April 2003 02:44 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
While not exactly on target, I felt that this article by John Lloyd, (who recently resigned as a columnist with the
New Statesman) published in the centre-left Italian newspaper Il
Riformista on Tuesday would be well worth digesting.
------------------------------------------------

A line has been crossed, and politics must deal with its crossing. Tony
Blair is the leader who, of all others in the world, has given himself and
his country the responsibility of dealing with it. And now the longer test,
of him and of us, begins.


The line he crossed that which has gone on since the end of the Cold War:
it went under many names, but the one which has stuck is that of
'humanitarian intervention'. This has been the realisation that, as Kofi
Annan, the UN secretary general, put it in a speech last February, 'human
rights and the evolving nature of humanitarian law will mean little if a
principle (of sovereignty) guarded by states is always allowed to trump the
protection of citizens within them'.


This is as clear and concise statement of the dilemma into which our own
preoccupation with human rights led us. State sovereignty developed in the
17th century to protect national communities from invasion. But sovereignty
could become, and has become, a shield behind which murderous rulers
sheltered, ruling in flagrant violation of all principles of human rights.
These murderous rulers could generally be dislodged only by invasion. But
invasion means a destruction of the principle of sovereignty...

The end of the cold war seemed to offer some escape from this endlessly
circular argument, in which, to use Annan's word, sovereignty always
trumped rights. More and more states had come to believe in and observe
democratic norms and in the observation of human rights. There had come an
end to the bi-polar stasis within which most kinds of brutalities were
tolerated as long as the ruling brute in question was at the service of one
power or the other. And thus there could be an evolving agreement that
brutes would be pressurised, sanctioned and in the end invaded out of
existence.

This was not an academic and diplomatic argument alone. The decade of the
nineties saw many brutes and brutalities - in Africa, in Europe, in Asia,
and in the Middle East. In broad terms, the African ones continued their
brutalities until sated or stopped by inter-tribal or inter-state wars
(though they continue still, notably in the Congo). The European brute,
Slobodan Milosevic, was stopped by US-led intervention in Kosovo, and is
now on trial in the Hague. The Asian brutes, the Taliban, were dispatched
last year by a US-led invasion of Afghanistan. The largest Middle Eastern
brute, Saddam Hussein, has just seen his rule crushed, by a US-led force.

There seems no pattern here. No-one cares enough to intervene in Africa:
the US, which had done so in Somalia, suffered a televised (rather than a
real) defeat in Mogadishu when marines were captured, and withdrew from
further engagement. Europeans were finally goaded enough by the US to
intervene in former Yugoslavia- though the Kosovan intervention was
bitterly contested by Russia, and by sizable chunks of opinion, mostly on
the left, in Europe and North America (and was not sanctioned by the UN).
The invasion of Afghanistan was tolerated by the UN because it was reckoned
the US was owed some slack after 9/11, and most states had some reason to
fear radical Islam, if in very different guises. Most states are against
the invasion of Iraq.

But there was an underlying pattern, and it was and is that only the US has
the power to determine an intervention of any size. And thus, well before
George W Bush came on the scene, a great resentment grew over the power of
the superpower - or, as the former French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine
termed it, the hyperpower. The other powers which could project a large
military force beyond their borders - Russia, Britain, France, China - were
faced with the problem of living in a world over which one power had
military hegemony of a kind never seen before.

The tensions in such a world were bound to be focussed on the use of that
military hyperpower, and the reasons for its use. And the tension has burst
out over Iraq. For its example - much more than any other intervention
taken or baulked - faces all states, especially the second tier military
powers, with an urgent question. Do we support this gross breach of
national sovereignty (which the invasion of Iraq certainly was)? Or do we
oppose it, ultimately in the same of just such a national sovereignty? Do
we, in other words, allow the sovereignty to trump human rights, yet again?

Only Tony Blair has decided the former route, of support. I write Blair
rather then Britain, for it must be doubtful if another British leader
would have done so. For all that the UK is the closest of European powers
to the US, that it has more to lose from a chill over the Atlantic than any
other large state, it was still Blair's call and he could have called it
differently. He could have refrained from persuading the US to seek the
approval of the Security Council, allowed it to proceed directly to war
with Iraq, and stood aside, while regretting - in the nicest possible way -
the haste and crudity of the US invasion.

But he chose more war rather than more jaw. At a certain point - it was
probably late last year - he took the big and solitary decision to throw
himself behind George Bush. In doing so, in articulating the rationale for
a humanitarian intervention against the settled opinion of much of the rest
of the developed world and the often militant opposition of the electorates
of Europe and of the other substantial military powers, he may have changed
the nature of politics forever.

First, he has thrown down the gauntlet to the international system. He has
said - stop your endless debates about sovereignty and human rights. Human
rights trump sovereignty. Realism would have to add - he sometimes adds
himself - that this will not be so everywhere at every time. He would also
add - this would only be so if it can also be aligned with British
interests. For many, these reservations are proof of hypocrisy. In fact
they are evidence only of inevitable restraints. Morality, in world as in
human affairs, is rarely pure: it never is when acted upon. Blair has acted
for as much of a moral cause as he can square with realism.

Second, he has set the Anglo Saxon cat among the continental pigeons.
Discussion of a common foreign and defence policy - an even more leisurely
and circular debate than that on human rights and sovereignty- can never
have the same fine careless languor it had before. European leaderships -
including those candidate members whom President Jacques Chirac told to
shape up or shut up - must now decide whether or not they wish to be
partners with the US, or counterweights. On these decisions hang the future
of NATO, of transatlantic relations and on the long term balance of powers.
For if Europe is to be a counterweight it is bound, at times, to use its
weight to counter the US. When these circumstances occur, Europe will seek
allies - in Russia, in China, in India and elsewhere. A counterweight thus
soon becomes opposition. Opposition can become hostile. Who needs reminding
of that these days, even if we still may believe that the present
rhetorical torpedoes swishing across the Atlantic will be de-fused by time
and diplomacy?

Third, Tony Blair has put another stake through the heart of socialism -
not, in this case, the theory as much as the sentiment. British socialism,
as elsewhere in the democratic world, has been suffused with pacifism since
its inception. It was at times a popular pacifism, stemming from the
experience of the First World War, and based on the harsh experience that
it was the working class which suffered most when war was declared by their
rulers. More recently, the remnants of that old feeling have merged with a
multilateralist, UN-led view of the world, which sees all conflicts as
capable of resolution by talk and all war as failure. That current has in
turn tended to merge with the presently hugely popular view that America is
the now the world's evil empire.

The question for Britain, and for the European left is how far a Blairite
centre leftism can any longer be a bedfellow with more traditional social
democracy which partakes of at least some of that mix of sentiments. Not an
ideological bedfellow- it long ceased to be that - but a political one,
capable of glossing over differences in the service of gaining and
retaining power through a parliamentary majority.

Blair has done what even Thatcher, the most prominent of the post-Churchill
British leaders, did not. He has put himself at the balancing point of a
series of interlocking international debates which are also real struggles
for power and between powers. The irony is that the Conservative leader's
international moment of fame came from persuading President Ronald Reagan
to believe the Communist Mikhail Gorbachev could bring an end to the Cold
War. Blair has seized the international stage because he is a centre left
European leader who is giving a rationale for an invasion led by a
right-wing US administration.

Leaders of consequence - good or ill consequence - tend to leave or destroy
the political vehicles which brought them to power. Blair is straining
beyond his beliefs and the organisation which has sustained him- even
beyond the nation which elected him. To follow or not to follow is now our
choice: for he has made his.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 22 April 2003 03:04 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Give me a break.

Blair cited WMD's as did Bush for this war. When he did raise the issue of human rights, Iraqi torture victims and Amnesty International slapped him down for Britain's complicity in Iraq's use of torture and human rights violations. It was Blair who prepared the forged and plagiarised dossier citing Iraq's WMD programs.

If Blair was concerned with human rights there are plenty of global opportunities to demonstrate this that would not have required war. Twenty-five million AIDS cases in Africa springs to mind.

Or, if war was the preferred method there are dictators around the globe just as bloody and brutal who do not also happen to be sitting on the world's second largest reserve of oil to muddy motives.

Interesting that historically, Britain has been as deeply involved in sinister activities within the mid-east, especially Iraq and Iran as the US.

Blair is doing anything new. He is following in the footsteps of those who preceded him in treating middle eastern people as expendable fodder in a game of control of resources.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 22 April 2003 09:07 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If Blair was concerned with human rights there are plenty of global opportunities to demonstrate this that would not have required war. Twenty-five million AIDS cases in Africa springs to mind.

Didn't Bush increase aid for this by a huge amount over previous levels. What are Fance's demonstrations that they care about human rights?
You tout them as being peaceniks anti war. They care the least about human rights along with Russia, China and Cuba.

Face it those you attack the most care more about human rights than anyone else.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 22 April 2003 09:57 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
...Orwell said all countries are equal, but some are more equal than others.

He did not.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 22 April 2003 10:37 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
How does one recognise Orwell's bastards? Whereas Orwell himself was acutely aware of historical complexities and constantly tested himself with searching criticism (perhaps most painfully in Homage to Catalonia), our new Orwellians deliberately twist facts, maintain selective silences, resort to outright lies, and are generally marked by a shameless pretence of piety and moral high-handedness.

Speaking of Orwellian bastards, can Markbo back up the claims he's been making about France having a horrible record on human rights?


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 22 April 2003 11:18 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
can Markbo back up the claims he's been making about France having a horrible record on human rights?

I did some research and I gotta admit I was wrong about france and Foreign aid which was part of what I am referring to. I guess they do give a lot.

But they also seem to have no problem doing business with the worlds worst human rights abusers. Iraq's regime, Zimbabwe (Even though the EU forbid it). What about Totalfinaelf and France's interest in the World's 4th largest oil company. Another large shareholder being Power Corp. How would you describe their involvement in Algeria?

How about this quote from an article in 2001

quote:
Fresh allegations have emerged about the use of torture by French troops during the Algerian war.

The torture debate has been reopened by senior officers, one of whom has admitted to executing more than 20 Algerians personally.

It has long been common knowledge that French troops tortured Algerians, but France has never acknowledged it publicly



From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 22 April 2003 11:39 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Perhaps a link to provide a context is in order?

You do recognise the value of context?
Context like the fact that the Algerian War for independence was fought more than 40 years ago.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 23 April 2003 12:17 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
All nations (like all persons) do, or have done, more or less rotten things.
So?
What has it got to do with the topic?
One or two nations "punishing" a third, for disagreeing with them.
It may be difficult to keep this single, simple fact in mind, even for a minute, but try.
France has the same indisputable right as Britain and the US, to support or oppose any resolution, at any time, for any reason.

From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 23 April 2003 12:28 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It wasn't their opposition to a resolution that pissed every body off.

It was the fact that they claimed they would veto any resolution without reading or considering it first. From what I understand this blindsided the U.S and U.K.

France also signed deals with Iraq for oil rights contrary to U.N. Resolutions. I thnk it also pressured them to abandon the framework of the U.N. altogether instead of attempting one last time to work within this framework. France's support for another resolution may have delayed military action. They never even offered this as a compromise.

But your right, every country has committed atrocities in the past. I just don't like France being made out as some kind of pacifist moral country when they are equally as guilty as the U.S. of alterior motives and working with Tyrants.

In fact theres a case to be made that their worse than the U.S.

I don't know about punishing, I think thats a strong word. I just think they will not be allowed to participate in Iraq's rebuilding. I wouldn't consider that punishment. Simply the consequences of their actions.

[ 23 April 2003: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 23 April 2003 12:30 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It was the fact that they claimed they would veto any resolution without reading or considering it first. From what I understand this blindsided the U.S and U.K.

So why aren't you equally pissed off that the US was going to war resolution or not, success of weapons inspections or not?

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 23 April 2003 12:32 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
In fact theres a case to be made that their worse than the U.S.

No, there isn't, or you'd try.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 23 April 2003 01:14 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
He has tried. It's just not relevant.
"Punish" is what it says at the top there.
I guess it means: "You didn't help us rough up this other kid, so you're not getting any of his lunch." Fair enough. Why beat around the bush?

[ 23 April 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 23 April 2003 01:19 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So why aren't you equally pissed off that the US was going to war resolution or not, success of weapons inspections or not?

I was unsupportive of the military action in Iraq. I listed three credible reasons for this
1. being no U.N. support
2. Being waiting 6-8 more months for inspections to yeild results.
(3 being the fear of creating a generation of new terrorists but not relevant here)

But then I think you ignore everything that comes out of my mouth that doesn't fit nicely with your categorizations of me.

BTW. France now supports the end of sanctions in Iraq. Good move, if they lobby other countries as much as they did to try to prevent the war, they might be a huge help.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 23 April 2003 01:46 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
An end to restrictions on how much Iraqi oil can be shipped is all that the 'end of sanctions' means now.

So now Iraq will be pumped dry as quickly as possible by American companies, to raise the money to pay other American companies for 'rebuilding' Iraq, the country that America has meddled in for decades, and bombed under two Bush presidencies.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 23 April 2003 01:49 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So now Iraq will be pumped dry as quickly as possible by American companies

I don't think they can pump the worlds second largest oil supply "dry" anytime soon.

But yes, they need the money now, not later.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 23 April 2003 02:02 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Haliburton and Exxon need the money?

Why? Are they going to have to buy another pocket presidency sometime soon?


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 23 April 2003 01:29 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why? Are they going to have to buy another pocket presidency sometime soon?

Apparently they're still paying for this one.

For 2004, Bush's Aides Plan Late Sprint for Re-election

quote:
President Bush's advisers have drafted a re-election strategy built around staging the latest nominating convention in the party's history, allowing Mr. Bush to begin his formal campaign near the third anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks and to enhance his fund-raising advantage, Republicans close to the White House say.

In addition, Mr. Bush's advisers say they are prepared to spend as much as $200 million — twice the amount of his first campaign — to finance television advertising and other campaign expenses through the primary season that leads up to the Republican convention in September 2004. That would be a record amount by a presidential candidate, and would be especially notable because Mr. Bush faces no serious opposition for his party's nomination.


My emphasis. Presidents cost money, you know.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 23 April 2003 04:30 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
$200 million? Jesus H. Baldhaired Ole Christ, that's just insane.

What in providence can he need with all that money? A saturation bomb.. uh, sorry, advertising campaign extolling the virtues of his Presidency? He's already got a free bully pulpit any time he wants in the form of virtually unlimited access to the media and his master of PR and spin, Ari Fleischer, and his pitbull John Ashcroft and his warning beacon Tom Ridge.

I suspect he will personally profit from all that money sloshing around.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eauz
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3057

posted 25 April 2003 09:48 AM      Profile for Eauz   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Punishing France

This is horrible. What the hell is going on in the world? I'd just like to point out a quote or 2...

quote:
Every country has the right to its own opinions, the official said. The difference between France and Germany is that France energetically tried to organize other countries against the United States, the official said on condition of anonymity.

Wasn't it at the same time that the US was encouraging countries themselves to vote for the resolution or face Sactions?

quote:
"The president will be overnighting in France. There were never plans for him to overnight anywhere else," presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters aboard Air Force One.

Ahhh! How can you have the President overnighting in a Terrorist country?


From: New Brunswick, Canada | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 25 April 2003 10:15 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But in any case the Shrub will have to visit France for the G-8 Summit in Évian...
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 27 April 2003 12:52 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
France being set up....
quote:
Papers found Saturday by journalists working for the Sunday Telegraph reveal that an al-Qaida envoy met with officials in Baghdad in March 1998, the newspaper reported.

The paper quoted an unidentified Western intelligence official as saying the find was ``sensational.''

The paper said the documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qaida based on their mutual hatred of the United States and Saudi Arabia.

The meeting went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad, the newspaper said.

Journalists found a three-page file on bin Laden inside a folder lying in the rubble of one of the rooms of the intelligence headquarters, the paper said.

....

Separately, The Sunday Times reported that its own journalists had found documents in the Iraqi foreign ministry that indicate that France gave Saddam Hussein's regime regular reports on its dealings with American officials.

The newspaper said the documents reveal that Paris shared with Baghdad the contents of private transatlantic meetings and diplomatic traffic from Washington.

One document, dated Sept. 25, 2001, from Iraqi foreign minister Naji Sabri to Saddam's palace, was based on a briefing from the French ambassador in Baghdad and covered talks between presidents Jacques Chirac and George W. Bush.



From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 28 April 2003 11:37 PM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The problem according to a recent Foreign Affairs article is that the US has the stated goal of being the uncontestable military superpower. They will use this power to gain political and economic advantage. France and Europe are looking to build a countereconomic and political superpower to the United States and if militarism remains the key to the US supremacy and the rest of the world wishes to oppose it then the implication is that they to must build up militarily and so we return to the cold war arms race scenario.

On the other hand France and the European powers see the folly of being drawn into such a dynamic. What they are looking to do is to make the moral superiority of the United Nations a real agent in the building of post war Iraq. The success of the military campaign will provide the hawks in the US a brief respite from criticism but now what will the US do?

The humaitarian crisis is looming in Iraq and it will be essential if the US is to solidify the "victory" (if you can call beating up an outclassed opponent a victory) to ensure that the benefits of US occupation are real and beneficial to Iraqis in general.

But the point here is that the real agenda behind this war is really war itself as a way to domesticate the US population and make them follow the leader. Look for more suspicious terrorist attacks against US citizens that will justify reprisals.

The Arab world knows that to keep their oil they must not allow terrorists to provoke the US into another attack. Therefore it is less likely that there will be attacks by thems or groups within those countries. Only if these attacks are scripted by sinister forces with in the circles of power in the US and elsewhere that have the power to subvert the security systems now in place will they be possible. In other words Osama Bin Laden, an enemy of secular Iraq, has won. He has manipulated the US into destroying his enemy.

Think 1984 and the fake wars described by Orwell in his classic novel. Was he really talking about the old USSR or was he taling about 21st C America?


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 29 April 2003 12:11 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
BAGHDAD, Iraq — France gave Saddam Hussein (search)'s regime regular reports on its dealings with American officials, documents unearthed in the wreckage of the Iraqi foreign ministry have revealed.

Dossier Shows France Briefed Iraq on U.S. Plans

Another Fauz headline... the article doesn't say official France briefed Iraq, just '"friends of Iraq" at the French foreign ministry'... without more information, I could use the same reasoning to state that the US passed secrets to the USSR during the cold war from "friends of the USSR in the CIA"...


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 29 April 2003 12:53 AM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ugh. Fox.

Anyhow, clockwork, you're saying you think that "friends of Iraq" phrase implies Iraqi spies in the French government?


From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pankaj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1040

posted 29 April 2003 01:22 AM      Profile for Pankaj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have never met France, nor the US. I have however met lots of people who live to the East of me across the ocean, and people who live south of me. When I have met them, they have struck me as just like myself, only peculiarly themselves. As I consider these people, these real people, the thought of punishing them seems unfitting.

I am glad that I have not been lobotomized into dividing the world into countries and its inhabitants into citizens of this or that country.

I wish others would similarly wake up.


From: London, ON | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 29 April 2003 01:25 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't know… I was just hashing a possibility. There may be elements within the foreign ministry that simply don't like the Americans, or, sure, are sympathetic with Iraq for whatever reason (Aren't the Iraqi ambassadors suspecting of spying, even the Canadian one?). Money and international intrigue makes for interesting bedfellows. Besides, the dossiers, as reported, don't seem to be earth shattering state secrets that were being passed. Hell, it could be the copy boy…

"Psst: Iraq, you're in for it."

"Really? We didn't think the Americans cared about us."

What could "friends of Iraq" mean? Was it translated properly? Could it be a euphemism? Why wouldn't it just say "the French"?


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Saladin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3663

posted 29 April 2003 03:42 PM      Profile for Saladin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
US, UK single out France for punishment

One would think that sending American Jerry Lewis movies to France was punishment enough.

From: damascus | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
libertyman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4028

posted 29 April 2003 11:42 PM      Profile for libertyman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
very true!
From: New york | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 29 April 2003 11:56 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It would be so easy to simply say that this was only France's opinion and they had their right to it if only:

TotalFInaElf didn't have contracts to develop all of Western Iraq's oil fields profiting France greatly. Oh yeah, Power corp as well.

If they get punished it won't be for their opinions, it will be for their actions.

But consequences aren't punishment. I think we're confusing the two.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 30 April 2003 12:33 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Paasing strange that you believe that legal contracts should have consequences, while illegal invasions should not.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 30 April 2003 12:36 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 30 April 2003 01:14 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Paasing strange that you believe that legal contracts should have consequences, while illegal invasions should not.

They will both have consequences. But the contracts weren't legal, they were signed in violation of U.N. resolutions. or do you now support them. Because if you do remember it next time U.S. does business with an oil country under economic sanctions.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 30 April 2003 01:58 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The 'Oil for Food' program was perfectly legal. If that Iraqi oil was contracted with France & Russia rather than the U.S. that was perfectly legal also.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca