Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 78
  1.    #1  
    Listening to NPR this morning a particular comment struck me as odd. Paraphrasing Chirac they said "France is disappointed that the war was not backed by a UN mandate." Setting aside issues of past resolutions still being in effect, it seems to me that this statement is extremely telling. On the surface it would seem to show that France likes to work in multilateral institutions, taking input from all the worlds' peoples. Dig a bit deeper, and when you realize France was going to veto any resolution supporting war, their dissapointment seems hard to justify.

    In one breath they urge multilateralism, but in another threaten (along with others) to use the unilateral veto.

    Those who have followed my thoughts on this matter know that I indeed do not know whether this war is just. I am not sure the US has the moral high ground here (they probably do not), but I would be shocked if anyone can convince me France does.

    Let me further say that any efforts to harm France through ridicule, boycotts or any other means are stupid (of this much I'm sure). France is only doing what it believes is right. It is not killing people. It is not spreading danger throughout the world. They have an honest disagreement with other countries. Just as any French hostility toward the US I find nausiating, changing the name of French Fries, boycotting French wine and making French jokes (which are not in good fun--jokes can be harmless, of course) is not only useless but will only go to harm both countries.
  2. #2  
    It's not clear how you can rectify that France does not have the moral high ground while simultaneously saying that they're only doing what they think is 'right'. IOW, either you believe their professed reasons for opposing things (which is the only way that they can be perceived as opposing things and doing what they think is 'right') and hence would deserve some sort of moral high ground, or you dispute their professed reasons of opposition, and hence they're not doing what they think is right, but are rather opposing action for some ulterior motive (which doesn't seem to be any sort of higher ground).

    My thought on this is that there is no moral high ground on this one, but that we're closer to sea level than they are. In my estimation, UN resolutions at this point are no more useful than a run of the mill restraining order. It will only stop someone who is already a relatively law-abiding person (which after all this time, it should be relatively obvious that Saddam is not). If you're dealing with a real violent offender, though, the only thing it's good for is toilet paper in most cases.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3.    #3  
    Originally posted by Toby
    It's not clear how you can rectify that France does not have the moral high ground while simultaneously saying that they're only doing what they think is 'right'. IOW, either you believe their professed reasons for opposing things (which is the only way that they can be perceived as opposing things and doing what they think is 'right') and hence would deserve some sort of moral high ground, or you dispute their professed reasons of opposition, and hence they're not doing what they think is right, but are rather opposing action for some ulterior motive (which doesn't seem to be any sort of higher ground).
    Actually, I can easily say I have no clue. Because I see a mix of motives in their actions, the net result is ambiguity. You say because I highlight conflicting statements I have to believe one or the other. The fact of the matter is I believe both, and therefore do not feel comfortable making a judgement.

    Originally posted by Toby
    My thought on this is that there is no moral high ground on this one, but that we're closer to sea level than they are. In my estimation, UN resolutions at this point are no more useful than a run of the mill restraining order. It will only stop someone who is already a relatively law-abiding person (which after all this time, it should be relatively obvious that Saddam is not). If you're dealing with a real violent offender, though, the only thing it's good for is toilet paper in most cases.
    You, like me, have trouble finding the moral high ground, and what it should be.
  4. #4  
    (See my other post in the war thread...)

    You do not seem to be aware of the fact that France did NOT announce a veto against an attack on Iraq IN GENERAL, but ONLY against a short term ultimatum at this point in time. OF COURSE war was always a possiblity as a last measure also for France, Germany, China, Russia, and the majority of nations, but since inspections were making progress (as everybody apart from Bush, Blair and Aznar agrees upon), there was/is clearly no good reason to start killing iraqi civilians right now (collateral damage, sorry guys and gals, tried to hit Saddam, no bad feelings, we come back to bury you later, together with your children....).

    There is no doubt that without the threat of troops the inspections would have not made progress, but there is no excuse for starting the war right now.

    clulup
  5.    #5  
    Originally posted by clulup
    [BYou do not seem to be aware of the fact that France did NOT announce a veto against an attack on Iraq IN GENERAL, but ONLY against a short term ultimatum at this point in time.[/B]
    Again, how much time, in addition to 12 years, do you think is needed? My big grief with the way things were being carried out is no one set a deadline. And (I believe) no one was ever going to set a deadline. Countries were reacting with veto threats to the idea of a deadline. For that they should be ashamed. The US perhaps moved a bit too quick.
  6. #6  
    That is not quite correct either. France originally suggested a 3 months ultimatum last fall, but got no support of the US.

    And: France, Germany, Russia and many other nations supported strenghthening and increase of numbers of the inspectors in order to speed up the whole process, but Bush and Blair wanted none of it.

    clulup

    P.S.: I'm not French, just in case
  7.    #7  
    Originally posted by clulup
    That is not quite correct either. France originally suggested a 3 months ultimatum last fall, but got no support of the US.
    Okay, so we're three months on. Why no French support?

    Originally posted by clulup
    And: France, Germany, Russia and many other nations supported strenghthening and increase of numbers of the inspectors in order to speed up the whole process, but Bush and Blair wanted none of it.
    Of course not. The number of inspectors sent were more than enough to enforce the UN mandate, that Saddam come forth with evidence he destroyed his banned weapons. The inspectors weren't there to find anything. To send in armies of inspectors would to concede defeat in allowing the game to continue.

    Originally posted by clulup

    P.S.: I'm not French, just in case
    No, you're swiss, as you said in another post. I can read.
  8. #8  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Actually, I can easily say I have no clue. Because I see a mix of motives in their actions, the net result is ambiguity.
    If the net result is ambiguity, I find it hard to resolve how you think they're doing what they think is right.
    You say because I highlight conflicting statements I have to believe one or the other.
    No, I didn't say quite that.
    The fact of the matter is I believe both, and therefore do not feel comfortable making a judgement.
    Considering that one of them _is_ a judgement (one shouldn't harbor any resentment to France because they're only doing what they think is right), this doesn't make much sense either.
    You, like me, have trouble finding the moral high ground, and what it should be.
    Not at all, but I've not the time to get into where I see this going.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  9. #9  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer

    Of course not. The number of inspectors sent were more than enough to enforce the UN mandate, that Saddam come forth with evidence he destroyed his banned weapons. The inspectors weren't there to find anything. To send in armies of inspectors would to concede defeat in allowing the game to continue.

    The number of inspectors was certainly not enough to finish the job before summer, when it gets too hot for fighting. It was not the inspector's or the UN's fault that Bush wanted to start war now, but it was the Bush administration's last chance to occupy Iraq. If the inspectors would indeed have finished their job and Iraq would have been officially disarmed, it would have been even more difficult to find an excuse for war and to occupy a major country in the Middle East with all the oil. Who did Bush work for before he went into politics?
  10. #10  
    Said by KRamsauer: ". . . And (I believe) no one was ever going to set a deadline. . ."

    Just to set the record straight, and for what it's worth, last week President Chirac publicly stated that France would agree to either a 30 or 45 day period for the inspectors to finish their work. If it were set at either length France would not, he said, veto the resolution.

    Caveat - This is not to say that I agree with France or the position their government had/has taken. Just wanted to get the facts out.
    Jonathan
  11.    #11  
    Originally posted by jhappel

    Just to set the record straight, and for what it's worth, last week President Chirac publicly stated that France would agree to either a 30 or 45 day period for the inspectors to finish their work. If it were set at either length France would not, he said, veto the resolution.
    I'd not heard that. Would France still have opposed the resolution?
  12. #12  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Let me further say that any efforts to harm France through ridicule, boycotts or any other means are stupid Just as any French hostility toward the US I find nausiating, changing the name of French Fries, boycotting French wine and making French jokes (which are not in good fun--jokes can be harmless, of course) is not only useless but will only go to harm both countries.

    I agree with this bit..

    I think our elected officials should be spending their time on other more important things rather than taking votes to change the name of french fries and french toast on the menus.. for goodness sakes people.. has everyone lost their minds..?

    And I am not even going to go into the South Carolina House and their resolution on the Dixie Chicks.. have they nothing better to do like run their state government?

    Geeeshh... I think there are now more important matters at hand to be spending time on..
    "One of the most important things you learn from the internet is that there is no ‘them’ out there. It’s just an awful lot of ‘us’." -- Douglas Adams
  13. #13  
    Originally posted by EricG
    And I am not even going to go into the South Carolina House and their resolution on the Dixie Chicks
    No one I talked to knew what you were talking about. And given that we're in Columbia, South Carolina, you'd think we would have heard something. Anyway, I did some digging--from The State newspaper (Knight-Ridder paper in Columbia)

    House asks 'Chicks' to perform for troops

    S.C. House members say the Dixie Chicks can apologize for criticizing President Bush by performing a free concert for troops.

    State Rep. Catherine Ceips, R-Beaufort, introduced a resolution Wednesday calling for the country music group to perform for South Carolina troops and their families.

    The Dixie Chicks are scheduled to perform the first concert of their U.S. tour in Greenville this May.

    Lead singer Natalie Maines told a London audience last week, in reference to President Bush's push for military action against Iraq, "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas." Maines is a Texas native.

    Radio stations nationwide are boycotting the Dixie Chicks, even though Maines publicly apologized for her statement in London. A phone message left with the Dixie Chicks' publicist Wednesday was not immediately returned.

    A free concert for troops would be a good way for Maines to show she's sorry and could address concerns of people who say they don't want the group to perform in South Carolina at all, Ceips said.

    "It's an olive branch to the Dixie Chicks," she said.

    "But only after they apologize first for exercising their free speech, is that correct?" asked House Minority Leader James Smith, D-Richland.

    The measure passed the House on a 50-35 vote.

    .. have they nothing better to do like run their state government?
    Dear Lord, you have to be kidding me? We *like* for them to entertain themselves with this kind of stuff.
  14. #14  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon
    Dear Lord, you have to be kidding me? We *like* for them to entertain themselves with this kind of stuff.
    Same goes for the feds. They're much less likely to be wasting our money when they're busy wasting their time with this kind of stuff.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  15. #15  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Same goes for the feds. They're much less likely to be wasting our money when they're busy wasting their time with this kind of stuff.
    Yes, it's really sad that we (taxpayers) are not upset at the bu**sh**---I mean, c'mon Freedom Fries v. French Fries. Dixie Chicks, play for free.

    It's the result of years of pandering to special interests and toadies (of all kinds of political persuasions) and now they can't tell how to "court the electorate" without resulting to 'emotional' issues Gay-Run-Teed to win the voters over.
  16. #16  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon
    Yes, it's really sad that we (taxpayers) are not upset at the bu**sh**---I mean, c'mon Freedom Fries v. French Fries. Dixie Chicks, play for free. [...]
    Well, just because I'd rather them waste their time than waste our money doesn't mean that I'm not upset about it. Do I need to resurrect my Mojo Nixon sig?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  17. #17  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Do I need to resurrect my Mojo Nixon sig?
    Nope, the one you have right now will do just fine, mon ami.
  18. #18  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    No one I talked to knew what you were talking about. And given that we're in Columbia, South Carolina, you'd think we would have heard something. Anyway, I did some digging--from The State newspaper (Knight-Ridder paper in Columbia)
    I should have given the link I was thinking about.. for the record here it is..

    http://launch.yahoo.com/read/news.asp?contentID=212720
    "One of the most important things you learn from the internet is that there is no ‘them’ out there. It’s just an awful lot of ‘us’." -- Douglas Adams
  19. #19  
    Originally posted by EricG


    I should have given the link I was thinking about.. for the record here it is..

    http://launch.yahoo.com/read/news.asp?contentID=212720
    Well, if it makes you feel any better (or worse ), the newspaper here in the capital city of South Carolina relegated the "story" to a small back page article. Perhaps it got more attention in Representative Ceips' own district.

    At least that was my tax dollars at work, not yours!
  20. #20  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    At least that was my tax dollars at work, not yours!
    I fear ultimately we all pay.. eventually some how some way at sometime.
    "One of the most important things you learn from the internet is that there is no ‘them’ out there. It’s just an awful lot of ‘us’." -- Douglas Adams
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions