And then, there are some Frenchmen...

[ravital]

(...And women of course)

Sampling music on the web last night, I came across this purely by accident. Written by a Frenchman (as far as I can tell), composed and recorded in by a Frenchman named Michel Sardou, who's had and still has a pretty successful career. And in 1967. So Americans in 2000+ didn't invent the sentiment after all.

Si les ricains n'étaient pas là If the yanks hadn't been there
Vous seriez tous en Germanie You'd all be in Germany
A parler de je ne sais quoi Talking about I don't know what
A saluer je ne sais qui Saluting I don't know whom

Bien sûr les années ont passé Of course the years have passed
Les fusils ont changé de mains Rifles have changed hands
Est-ce une raison pour oublier Is that a reason to forget
Qu'un jour on en a eu besoin That once we needed them

Un gars venu de Géorgie A guy came from Georgia
Qui se foutait pas mal de toi Who could care less about you
Est venu mourir en Normandie Came to die in Normandy
Un matin où tu n'y étais pas One morning when you weren't there

Bien sûr les années ont passé Of course the years have passed
On est devenus des copains We've become buddies
A l'amicale du fusillé At the reunion for the executed
On dit qu'ils sont tombés pour rien They say they fell for nothing

Si les ricains n'étaient pas là If the yanks hadn't been there
Vous seriez tous en Germanie You'd all be in Germany
A parler de je ne sais quoi Talking about I don't know what
A saluer je ne sais qui Saluting I don't know whom

I knew these folks were better than their leaders.

[ditch]

And down here we were facing the possibility of speaking Japanese. They were defeated on other fronts certainly, but we had them in Sydney Harbour in midget subs firing torpedos at passenger ferries and Darwin in our north was subject to numerous Jap bombings. The US made the major contribution to kicking their collective arses in the South Pacific and saved our bacon.

The French, leaders, can't climb over their arrogance sufficiently to acknowledge what occurred in the early '40s it seems.

[Swamp Fox]

I think the French are arrogant because their attitude hides their inferiority complex, at having lost to the Germans, and then to their former colonial servants in Africa and Asia.

[ravital]

And another one from the same fellow. I'll skip the French original, (available here (http://www.sardou.com/discographie/paroles/)if anyone is interested). This one recorded in 1969, when Paris saw many anti Vietnam war demonstrations:

Mr. President of France
I write to you from Michigan
To tell you that near Avranche
My father died twenty years ago
I was only a child then
But I was proud to tell
That he died fighting
That he died at your side

Mr. President of France
I write to you from Michigan
In the name of a man who for Avranche
Had only crossed one ocean
Tell those who burn my flag
That in memory of those years
They are the last of the scum

Mr. President of France
I write to you from Michigan
To tell you that near Avranche
A white cross bears my name
Remind people of that from time to time

[ditch]

Michel Sardou. (http://www.rfimusique.com/siteEn/biographie/biographie_6066.asp)
Some biographical notes and some more links to his music. (http://shopping.yahoo.com/p:Michel%20Sardou:1927218960:page=discography:subpage=albums )

[ethics]

I know we kid a lot on the forum regarding the French. Some of it is applicable, some of it are jokes, and some of them are misinformed rants.

There are, just like any nationality, the bad, the good, and the ugly (ignorant).

If you want to see the real France, do not go to Paris. Go to Brest, go to Marsaille, go to Bayonne (sorry, I am partial to the beaches :)). Visit the Omaha Beach and the France that live that and preserve the memory with the memorial/cemetary.

Today's France is being mislead by a party that is pompous, posturing, and wants to bring back what it can never achieve with the way they are doing it now.

[ditch]

The French govt is pompous yes, but it's not the first govt of that type they've had. There's a bit pool of pomposity to draw on and the problem may be that the pool is too big. Exceptions to every rule though, as you say and Michel Sardou is one of them.

[ethics]

The French govt is pompous yes, but it's not the first govt of that type they've had. There's a bit pool of pomposity to draw on and the problem may be that the pool is too big. Exceptions to every rule though, as you say and Michel Sardou is one of them.


Blame Napoleon for teaching them what they could accomplish. Unfortunately, Bonapartes' greed ended it all.

[Stiofán]

And down here we were facing the possibility of speaking Japanese. They were defeated on other fronts certainly, but we had them in Sydney Harbour in midget subs firing torpedos at passenger ferries and Darwin in our north was subject to numerous Jap bombings. The US made the major contribution to kicking their collective arses in the South Pacific and saved our bacon.

The French, leaders, can't climb over their arrogance sufficiently to acknowledge what occurred in the early '40s it seems.

I understand you may know this, but your folk has paid it's debt (that's a poor choice of words, but you know what I mean) by being there for us, in many times with unpopular decisions to the rest of the world, ever since. Don't ever think the American people don't know that. The American spirit is probably closer to that of the Aussies than anyone, except for the Canadians. And with them we have to listen to their bitchin' cause they're so close. ;)

As far as the French, I'm sure there are plenty who think better of us, but the country as a whole....speaking of Napoleon, go to France today and it's all you hear. They still live in his faded glory over there in an obsessive sort of way. De Gaulle really shaped the post WWII thought more, and not in a good way, and the current leadership acts in the same vein.

[ditch]

I understand you may know this, but your folk has paid it's debt (that's a poor choice of words, but you know what I mean) by being there for us, in many times with unpopular decisions to the rest of the world, ever since. Don't ever think the American people don't know that. The American spirit is probably closer to that of the Aussies than anyone, except for the Canadians. And with them we have to listen to their bitchin' cause they're so close. ;)

I hope the bonds remain strong. It was my father's generation who fought alongside you guys so memories are still alive. The younger generation are more resentful of the involvement in conflicts that a lot of them see as not being our fights. That certainly can't be the case though as far as the current war on teror is concerned.

As far as the French, I'm sure there are plenty who think better of us, but the country as a whole....speaking of Napoleon, go to France today and it's all you hear. They still live in his faded glory over there in an obsessive sort of way. De Gaulle really shaped the post WWII thought more, and not in a good way, and the current leadership acts in the same vein.

I agree, de Gaulle was the modern trend setter for French political pomposity. Napoleon... a little man with a complex perhaps.

[ravital]

I agree, de Gaulle was the modern trend setter for French political pomposity.
Probably de Gaulle's greatest accomplishment, was to make France a permanent member of the UN Security Council. He must have used a lot of influence, because by the standards all other members of the SC have met, France clearly didn't belong there.

Napoleon and the French love affair with him - what can I say, a mystery. Another Frenchman, Nostradamus, referred to him as the first Anti-Christ. Luckily for them, the reference was foggy enough, and prophets of post-Biblical times are easy to dismiss. But I honestly don't know what Napoleon accomplished, other than leaving so much of Europe with widows and orphans, and French hegemony, of course. Before the Euro, the Franc had his portrait on some of the higher denomination bills, and I used to wonder how anyone would feel if the Germans had put Hitler on the Mark. Such is History.

Rest assured however, that this naturalized American knows and appreciates, that the history of the world would be lacking, without Australia's contributions.

[Stiofán]

But I honestly don't know what Napoleon accomplished, other than leaving so much of Europe with widows and orphans, and French hegemony, of course.

Isn't he the only French leader to lose a war while invading instead of being invaded? That may be enough to canonize him! :)

[ditch]

Probably de Gaulle's greatest accomplishment, was to make France a permanent member of the UN Security Council. He must have used a lot of influence, because by the standards all other members of the SC have met, France clearly didn't belong there.



And maybe still doesn't belong there.

[Copzilla]

And down here we were facing the possibility of speaking Japanese. They were defeated on other fronts certainly, but we had them in Sydney Harbour in midget subs firing torpedos at passenger ferries and Darwin in our north was subject to numerous Jap bombings. The US made the major contribution to kicking their collective arses in the South Pacific and saved our bacon.

The French, leaders, can't climb over their arrogance sufficiently to acknowledge what occurred in the early '40s it seems.
You know, Ditch, I think the only thing anyone is asking, the dead calling, is acknowledgement like you just offered. It's not just you that benefitted, or me or the French. It's everyone, all of us, you and I both, and you offered the sole tribute required. Because we do not have to feel guilt - we just have to be grateful.

Merry Christmas to all of you.

[archidante]

I understand you may know this, but your folk has paid it's debt (that's a poor choice of words, but you know what I mean) by being there for us, in many times with unpopular decisions to the rest of the world, ever since. Don't ever think the American people don't know that. The American spirit is probably closer to that of the Aussies than anyone, except for the Canadians.
:thumbsup: As far as the French, I'm sure there are plenty who think better of us, but the country as a whole....speaking of Napoleon, go to France today and it's all you hear. They still live in his faded glory over there in an obsessive sort of way. De Gaulle really shaped the post WWII thought more, and not in a good way, and the current leadership acts in the same vein. I can't help but think so much of the anti-Americanism there and abroad is simply immature knee-jerk ideology speaking....born of never having truly suffered anything more terrible than a traffic jam and swallowing hook line and sinker the whole left Bible.... like WOW man, war is bad....!:cool:

[ditch]

You know, Ditch, I think the only thing anyone is asking, the dead calling, is acknowledgement like you just offered. It's not just you that benefitted, or me or the French. It's everyone, all of us, you and I both, and you offered the sole tribute required. Because we do not have to feel guilt - we just have to be grateful.

Merry Christmas to all of you.
Copz, well said.

Merry Xmas from me too.

[miroulitseli]

Hands up, how many Americans are in this forum? I do not even understand what this posting is doing here ... this is the Western Europe/Eastern Europe/CIS section, if I am right. Europe, with your permission, is more than just its relations with the United States.

You know, fair enough that the United States were part of those countries that fought on the right side during WWII. But I don't believe any of you imagines that the Americans single-handedly won the war. And this fact does not make your country immune against criticism for the current political matters that happen 60 years after the end of WWII.

As for Napoleon ... I cannot believe you are wondering about his "achievements". Please don't make the stereotype of ignorant Americans true in this forum. To present you a parallel with the present - one day people will also wonder what good was Vietnam, what good was Somalia, what good was Granada, what good was Afghanistan, what good was Iraq. Same as now you are saying: well, Napoleon conquered half of Europe (at least) - so what? I want to politely remind you also of the Code Civil, which was developed under Napoleon and gave half of this continent its modern legal basis.

[tke711]

First and foremost, welcome to Global Affairs miroulitseli! I for one always welcome input and comments for people outside of the U.S. Thanks for checking us out!

Hands up, how many Americans are in this forum? I do not even understand what this posting is doing here ... this is the Western Europe/Eastern Europe/CIS section, if I am right. Europe, with your permission, is more than just its relations with the United States.

The forum in which this thread is in, is simply a sub-forum of Global Affairs. We create the sub-forums as a way to keep discussions organized.

And yes, Europe is more than just its relations with the U.S. However, since we have a heavy U.S. membership, of course the discussions may tend to lead that way.

But I don't believe any of you imagines that the Americans single-handedly won the war. And this fact does not make your country immune against criticism for the current political matters that happen 60 years after the end of WWII.
I don't think anyone here has ever alluded to either of those things, and not in this thread.

Again, welcome to Global Affairs. Please take time to read on the forums to see a variety of opinions on a variety of topics. Also, please make sure you read the FAQ's (http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/faq.php?) to understand how this forum is run.

[miroulitseli]

Granted. I just get the impression there's a little much "we helped them and now they hate us" whinging around here. I think there are really few people in Europe who want to denigrate America come what may (and, may I say so, they tend not to be among the brightest of us) or try to tell you that your statesmen were losers anyway. I do think also that polemics, from whichever side, does not help to bridge the transatlantic gap. And this, I believe, should be in our all interest. So let's face that we have different opinions about certain topics, especially when it comes to war (which also has to do with Europe's own history). Undeniably Europeans (msot of them at least) did not like what was regarded here as bullying and a roughshot ride over the concerns of the community of nations in the Iraq question.

[tke711]

So let's face that we have different opinions about certain topics...

Which is exactly why we are all here. To share and to learn from others with different view points and different opinions.

In fact, that is why our FAQ is so clear on being civil and attacking the idea, not the person.

[Kangaroo]

Undeniably Europeans (msot of them at least) did not like what was regarded here as bullying and a roughshot ride over the concerns of the community of nations in the Iraq question.
For many years after the cease fire agreement Saddam signed ending hostilities in Iraq America has documented his abrogations. We have repeatedly asked for action. We received words instead of deeds. Saddam's sovereignity was over the instant he fired his first missle at a coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone, or when he first denied instant access to weapons inspectors.

Now we find out that the government of France and Russia were completely compromised by corruption in the Oil for Food program. We find French and Russian armaments in the hands of Iraq in clear violation of treaty. European cries of American bullying and unjust invasion are completely nullified by this blatant venality. Security Council members' obstruction of decisive action are shown to be not for a desire for peace, but for a desire of continued access to illegal payments from Saddam.

As private citizens of these countries, your heartfelt, if debatably mis-guided, desire for peace at any cost was the putative reason for these governments' obstructive behavior. You've been badly used.

While you are free to elect any government you desire, we Americans are equally free to comment upon those governments' actions, assign motives and characterize their leaders. Our government is equally free to act in the best interests of its constituency vis a vis European actions.

[RetFireCapt]

But I don't believe any of you imagines that the Americans single-handedly won the war.
Of course we didn't single-handedly win War 2. Nor did we War 1. Yet without us, it would have been impossible for the invaded countries to shake off the agressor. Impossible. Admit it.

[Allene]

And in 1967. So Americans in 2000+ didn't invent the sentiment after all.


I was in France during the summer of 1967. Sentiment was running high against the Vietnam War then.

[Sierra Mike]

Hands up, how many Americans are in this forum? I do not even understand what this posting is doing here ... this is the Western Europe/Eastern Europe/CIS section, if I am right. Europe, with your permission, is more than just its relations with the United States.

You know, fair enough that the United States were part of those countries that fought on the right side during WWII. But I don't believe any of you imagines that the Americans single-handedly won the war. And this fact does not make your country immune against criticism for the current political matters that happen 60 years after the end of WWII.

As for Napoleon ... I cannot believe you are wondering about his "achievements". Please don't make the stereotype of ignorant Americans true in this forum. To present you a parallel with the present - one day people will also wonder what good was Vietnam, what good was Somalia, what good was Granada, what good was Afghanistan, what good was Iraq. Same as now you are saying: well, Napoleon conquered half of Europe (at least) - so what? I want to politely remind you also of the Code Civil, which was developed under Napoleon and gave half of this continent its modern legal basis.
Well, since you're here, and apparently in the mood for a critical debate, perhaps you'd peruse this and gift us with the pearls of your wisdom...

Power and Weakness (http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html)

SM

[ravital]

Europe, with your permission, is more than just its relations with the United States.
First of all, welcome.

Second: By the same token, the importance of Europe's relations with the U.S. - chiefly to Europe - is grossly underestimated by Europeans. To name one aspect alone, you can afford the lower productivity, the shorter work-weeks, longer paid-vacations, and State-sponsored health-care, precisely because Europeans have been able to spend much less on their on defense, than they would have had to without the U.S. shouldering so much of that burden, in the 60 years since WWII. And European states also spend more for less, when it comes to funding their military. The very fact that so many Europeans dismiss the mere existance of a threat during those same years, is an indication to how good the U.S. has gotten at its work.


And this fact does not make your country immune against criticism for the current political matters that happen 60 years after the end of WWII.
Well, the singer I mentioned in the opening post, recorded that song in 1967, a mere 22 years after WWII, which is evidence that the dismissive European sentiment had been around for a while even as early as that.

As to criticism - I'd love to hear some, sincerely. Having lived in France (and contrary to what you might suspect, kept very fond memories of those years), and still following some of the European press, I hear a lot of derision masquerading as learned analysis, but it's simply derision for its own sake, and little else.


I want to politely remind you also of the Code Civil, which was developed under Napoleon and gave half of this continent its modern legal basis. I want to politely ask you, if the fact that Augustus Caesar raised the practice of public works to an artform, means you would have liked to live under his rule? Fidel Castro has raised the literacy rate of his country from 3% before he took power, to 97% today, and I'm not sure what good it does to teach the multitudes to read and write, then toss them in jail or exile them for reading and writing "certain" works.



I just get the impression there's a little much "we helped them and now they hate us" whinging around here.

{Snipped for brevity}

Undeniably Europeans (msot of them at least) did not like what was regarded here as bullying and a roughshot ride over the concerns of the community of nations in the Iraq question.
You're quite correct about one thing: The notion that somehow Europe "owes" America something, and should conduct its policies accordingly, is silly. Europe is made up of sovereign nations, and their policies are theirs alone to determine.

But what is relevant, is that maybe it is time to intimate to the French (and other Europeans), that the U.S. is tired of cleaning up after them, and inheriting problems that they have either created, or exacerbated and made worse after someone else created them: Such as Vietnam, Haiti, Somalia, or for that matter, Iraq.

What you qualify as bullying, ignores a few very real facts, to wit, that in the 30 years preceding the Iraq invasion, the bullying, warmongering U.S. had provided Saddam Hussein with exactly 1% of all his armament, while France provided 12% (exceeding China's 11.8%, which is impressive), Czechoslovakia 7%, and Russia/U.S.S.R. 56% (source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Transfer of major conventional weapons to Iraq 1973-2003 (http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/atirq_data.html)).

I'm sure you've noticed, that three of the above, are the same three permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, who opposed the American initiative in Iraq. After 12 years of one of the most brutal dictators in human history flaunting all the rules, Europe pours its wrath on America for doing so much less, and for the first time. Doesn't this require some honest introspection?

The fact is, and it's been quite well documented, that the opposition to the invasion was based strictly on the large debt that Saddam owed European nations - I believe $65 Billion to France alone (or thousand-million or milliards as commonly said in Europe, I'm just trying to make sure to avoid any misunderstanding), not some noble impulse to preserve peace at all cost. Quite shameful, when you consider Saddam was killing more human beings in one month than the total number of victims of terrorism in Iraq since the invasion, that Europe's prosperity should depend to such extent, on the torture and murder of so many Iraqis. There's the most perfect example of "blood for oil."

As to bridging gaps, I am in complete agreement with you. There is a World War going on right now, even though Europe doesn't quite realize it yet, against terrorism. We're certainly not going to win without European, in fact, global cooperation. England understands this, or at least its Prime Minister does. I suggest Europe engage in further exploration in that direction (the English Channel is currently wider than the Atlantic Ocean), because appesement has never worked and never will - as the Spaniards are finding out.

[Frodo Lives]

Hot damn, Ravital. :clap: :notworthy

[miroulitseli]

Seems I landed myself in pretty hot water here ... forgive if I don't answer to all these comments.

As to defence spending, I do not deny that Europeans were able to spend less on armaments because they had American protection during the Cold War. However, I want to make two points here. First of all, it's a little naive to believe that the U.S. were facing off the USSR just because they had the desire to save Europe from evil comunism for the sake of Europe. Look to Africa, which was almost evenly split between Communist and western vasall states and tell me what this had to do with the protection of Europe. Second, the question of defense spending (as well as social protection, longer holidays and everything else you mention in this phrase, Ravital) is not only a matter of financial ability, but also a matter of choice. In this sense, may I cite the example of my own country, Austria. After our experience in two world wars, this country chose to be neutral and spends a minimal amount of its budget on defence. We never had the same (U.S.) military presence as, say, the German Federal Republic, even though being the western European country reaching farthest into the European east. Despite of being some kind of puffer state, Austria had famously good relations both with the west of Europe as with the ex USSR as well with, for example, the Arab states. No one here was going gung ho about spending on armaments just because we had a border with the CSSR, Hungary and Yougoslavia.

As an economist I cannot quite resist the temptation to tell you (since we are talking about what we Europeans were able to afford thanks to the U.S.) that at the moment the United States owe the potential soft landing of your current account crisis to the European single currency, which will bear the brunt of your famous profligacy by rising to record hights and strangling our exports...

Caesar Augustus ... I don't quite get THAT point. I never said that I possibly wanted to live at the times of Napoleon. But there is no denying that he was a great statesman and to some extent a visionary concerning European unification. The undercurrent in this forum however was to portray him as an insignificant dwarf with an inferiority complex that had an inverse relation to his physical stature. That's plainy incorrect from a historic point of view (regarding his political significance, I mean) and I'm sure you will agree with me on this issue.

Now excuse-me, but for the U.S. cleaning up after the Europeans - you will need to enlighten me on some issues here. As far I know, the Iraq problem was not only the making of the French. Historically seen, maybe we should lay the blame on Britain who was THE power of influence in the 19th and early 20th century in the region. But that's besides the point. Same as it is besides the point to start arguing about which country sold how much weapons to Iraq. All of the countries mentioned here did ... and correct me if I'm wrong, but Saddam Hussein took power in Iraq in the late 70s also with the help of the U.S. administration. I think I do not have to cite the other prime example where your government was wrong with choosing its allies. As for Haiti ... does the name Doc Duvalier ring a bell? Maybe that inquires some honest introspection as well.

Now, if you argue that Saddam Hussein was flaunting the rules of international law and slaughtering his population, fair enough. There's obviusly nothing to disagree here. However, there are undoubtedly regimes which are more brutal than that of Saddam Hussein. Many of them go unnoticed (look no farther than aequatorial Africa), and some of the most undemocratic rulers are even allies of the U.S. in its war on terror. What I was meant to criticise is exactly this kind of double standards. You cannot go to war with one country claiming that it's because of the human rights infringements carried out by its leader and leaving so and so many others untouched. Let's face it, we all know that this war was about oil and because the Bush families still had some scores to settle ("this guy tried to kill my dad" - remember?). But I'd be happy to change my mind if anyone can explain me where these WMD are, and how exactly Saddam Hussein was connected to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. I don't say that Russia's and France's objections to the war were sincerely because they are so peaceloving - of course they feared about their commercial interets. But there were also many other countries, including Germany, who opposed the war because of their view on international law - and most of these countries cannot be accused of selling weapons to Iraq or having agreed some preferential oil deals.

Finally, just a quick not to Kangaroo. Of course the U.S. government can refuse to concert its actions with the international community. But I cannot imagine that now you are really surprised that this international community is refusing to help with the mess in Iraq. First, these countries opinions' were ignored, they were labelled traitors and relations were deliberately kept frosty; they were even excluded from winning contracts for rebuilding infrastructure in Iraq. Fair enough. I can see that commercial point. But maybe, just maybe, it's a little cheeky to come back a year later and tell the French and Germans it is their obligation to help sort out the chaos now. Ever thought of that?

[Copzilla]

It IS their obligation, because without their corrupt influence, the sanctions would have been significantly more effective. And now Americans are dying because of that corruption. Ever thought of that?

It's not cheeky at all. It's indignation.

[ditch]

Hands up, how many Americans are in this forum? I do not even understand what this posting is doing here ... this is the Western Europe/Eastern Europe/CIS section, if I am right. Europe, with your permission, is more than just its relations with the United States.

You know, fair enough that the United States were part of those countries that fought on the right side during WWII. But I don't believe any of you imagines that the Americans single-handedly won the war. And this fact does not make your country immune against criticism for the current political matters that happen 60 years after the end of WWII.

As for Napoleon ... I cannot believe you are wondering about his "achievements". Please don't make the stereotype of ignorant Americans true in this forum. To present you a parallel with the present - one day people will also wonder what good was Vietnam, what good was Somalia, what good was Granada, what good was Afghanistan, what good was Iraq. Same as now you are saying: well, Napoleon conquered half of Europe (at least) - so what? I want to politely remind you also of the Code Civil, which was developed under Napoleon and gave half of this continent its modern legal basis.
Hi Miroulitseli and welcome. Stick around. Don't let the opposition to your views put you off.

The US certainly didn't win WWII single handedly but they sure were in the right place at the right time with all guns blaziing as far as a lot of Europeans and Australians, and others, were concerned. Nor are they immune to criticism as they cop plenty as wqe all know. The kudos they are getting in this thread isn't typical of threads in this forum. It just happens to be what was on when you pressed the go button.

[miroulitseli]

It IS their obligation, because without their corrupt influence, the sanctions would have been significantly more effective. And now Americans are dying because of that corruption. Ever thought of that?

It's not cheeky at all. It's indignation.
America helped lift Saddam Hussein into his position - and do you honestly think only France and Russia sold weapons to Iraq?? It's something you definitely cannot accuse Germany of either.

If your soldiers are dying in Iraq, primarily that is because your government sent them there without a clear strategy. If Iraqis turn hostile and insurge on your troops, it probably has something to do with the fact that your government promised them freedom, democracy and a better life and now fails to deliver all of that. Stop blaming the world for the trouble you got yourself in. Ask yourself for what you went to war there. Where are the WMD? Did it help you in your war on terror?

Before America attacked Iraq, your government decided that it would need no help and it would take into account other opinions. Well then. Here you go.

[ravital]

Seems I landed myself in pretty hot water here No, you haven't. We just call it debate, nothing to fear, really.



However, I want to make two points here. First of all, it's a little naive to believe that the U.S. were facing off the USSR just because they had the desire to save Europe from evil comunism for the sake of Europe.

True. No altruism there. The U.S. pursued its own interests, which won the Cold War, and I'm sure many Europeans are loathe to admit it, but I know no one in Europe wishes for the opposite outcome.


Look to Africa, which was almost evenly split between Communist and western vasall states and tell me what this had to do with the protection of Europe.
Indeed. What exactly does the U.S. have to do with the doom of Africa? The U.S. had spent the better part of the Cold War holding its nose to forge questionable alliances among Third World countries, as a counterweight to the rosy promises of proletarian nirvana offered by the Soviets. Many of the allies, or potential allies, were unsavory characters, but a Cold War had to be won. I certainly do not exonerate the U.S. from its mistakes, the point is, the world is better off for not being Communist. Although I'm sure everyone is entitled to their own opinion on that.

A word about "Neutrality." We know the Swiss were "neutral" in WWII, but a less well-known fact, is that they were in fact permitted by the Germans to be neutral. The Swiss made it clear, that a Nazi invasion of their country would result in every Swiss aged 15 to 50 taking a weapon and hiding in the mountains, and fighting a war of attrition against them. Yet a commitment to leaving Switzerland out of Hitler's maps, would afford the German war machine the use of the country's excellent rail system to transport armament, supplies and troops. The Nazis were insane, not stupid, they made a wise choice, and that's how the Swiss were allowed to remain Neutral. I am just beginning to understand the price Austria is paying for it's neutrality - I'm not sure how well I would sleep at night, or how much I would like who I would have to thank. But I'm pleased as punch, that what you call a choice, is in fact enabled by U.S. protection of Europe for 60 years, even if for our own selfish motives.


As an economist I cannot quite resist the temptation to tell you (since we are talking about what we Europeans were able to afford thanks to the U.S.) that at the moment the United States owe the potential soft landing of your current account crisis to the European single currency, which will bear the brunt of your famous profligacy by rising to record hights and strangling our exports...

Shall we expand this discussion to the trade wars of the 1990s?



But there is no denying that he was a great statesman and to some extent a visionary concerning European unification. The undercurrent in this forum however was to portray him as an insignificant dwarf with an inferiority complex that had an inverse relation to his physical stature. That's plainy incorrect from a historic point of view (regarding his political significance, I mean) and I'm sure you will agree with me on this issue.
If that has been argued here, that is certainly incorrect. What I did say was, that his gradiose visions cost far too many lives for the benefit derived. And if you're going to magnify the lack of Altruism on America's part in protecting Europe for 60 years, then let's not lose sight of the fact, that what you term a "vision of European Unification" was motivated strictly by the desire to aggrandize France, for the sake of France's Glory, and France's alone.



Now excuse-me, but for the U.S. cleaning up after the Europeans - you will need to enlighten me on some issues here. As far I know, the Iraq problem was not only the making of the French.
I believe this is what our disagreement hinges on. You wish to point fingers and say "him too, him too, and him also." Suit yourself. No one here is so ignorant of History as to miss the plain fact that Iraq was purely a British invention. No one here deines the U.S. had its own interests in mind, in arming Saddam when he turned on Iran. Yet you cannot deny the fact that France, China and the Soviets - now Russians, have combined to provide him with close to 90% of his armament, conventional or not.

You also argue that the world is filled with despots, and that is undeniable. Yet if you look at them, one way or the other, they at one point reveal themselves - for watever reason - to be amenable to reason or threat of force. Idi Amin - since you brought up Africa - was one such despot, I'm sure I don't have to instruct you on his horrors, yet at one point he abdicated. Kim Young Il of North Korea, pretens he listens to no one (and the Chinese pretend he doesn't listen to them), but he does listen to China. The plain fact is that no one, no one has been such a destabilizing actor, no one has been as much of a wild-card, loose-cannon, as Saddam.

As to the rest - the argument that we're fighting for oil, the missing WMDs, the lack of a link with Al-Qaeda - I know, that's what passes for "wisdom" these days.

I'm sure Europe (and many Americans, for that matter), would rub its hands with great glee and satisfaction, if the looted treasures of the Baghdad Museum turned up at the Crawford Ranch. But you still can't explain why if we're fighting for oil, I'm paying so much more than ever before for heating oil and to drive my car to work. I can tell you why - because until Iraq gets back on its feet, WE in the U.S. are paying Saddam's debt to European states. You won't find much about that in the press though.

Maybe you can explain to us why, if the U.S. was looking for an oil-rich country to invade for its own economic benefit, we didn't invade Venezuela? They have oil coming out of their ears, they're much closer, a short hop really, and we would have been much more welcome there. Please reflect on that one for a while.

The WMD's, if you care to know, are in Syria. It only takes a rudimentary understanding of the Middle East, which I'm sure Austrians possess, given how famously they get along with Arab States, to understand how easy it is to hide them there, and how sensible it was for Saddam to do so.

As to Al-Qaeda links, I submit that Saddam's record is such, that the standards of evidence that obtain in American Courts do not apply. It is a known fact that rival terrorist organizations are perfectly capable, and enthusiastically willing, to do put ideological differences aside and business together, when it suits them. Absent an American reaction in Afghanistan AND Iraq - and America has made the terrible mistake of leading Saddam and Bin-Laden to believe there would be no such reaction - Saddam's profits in terms of hearts and minds won on the Arab Street, from the 9/11 attacks, would have been incalculable. He would have loved nothing better than to present himself to his people as the enabler and sponsor of such operations. Except for one thing - this time, there's an American reaction, and a reckoning.


Of course the U.S. government can refuse to concert its actions with the international community. But I cannot imagine that now you are really surprised that this international community is refusing to help with the mess in Iraq.
...
But maybe, just maybe, it's a little cheeky to come back a year later and tell the French and Germans it is their obligation to help sort out the chaos now. Ever thought of that? By the same logic, it is entirely the privilege of European states to refuse to help the U.S. remove the wild-cannon, whom European states have supported with trade and technology for so many decades, yet I cannot imagine why they should be surprised that they are, on the same grounds, barred from winning profitable reconstruction bids. The U.S. taxpayers and consumers, are already paying to reimburse France and others for their ill-gotten Iraqi debt. Have you thought about that?

For the record, I started this thread, because I wanted to provide an example that demonstrates, that the French people, as a people, are better than their leaders. I'm sure you're familiar enough with French culture to recognize my avatar, you can conclude from it that politics aside, I am indeed a Francophile. Oritinal intentions aside, I'm delighted that the discussion has evolved as far as it has.

[miroulitseli]

Hi Miroulitseli and welcome. Stick around. Don't let the opposition to your views put you off.

The US certainly didn't win WWII single handedly but they sure were in the right place at the right time with all guns blaziing as far as a lot of Europeans and Australians, and others, were concerned. Nor are they immune to criticism as they cop plenty as wqe all know. The kudos they are getting in this thread isn't typical of threads in this forum. It just happens to be what was on when you pressed the go button.
I'm relieved to hear that :)

And may turn again to you, Ravital. But before I'd like to state that I'm content we can have a debate like that over the (real and figurative) ocean separating our continents. And I hope it will serve some mutual understanding.

I agree - the world is better off without communism, or at least with the form in which it was conducted in the USSR and its satellite states. Reflecting upon the war map of Africa, though, I do get the feeling that some of the wars stoked there were unnecessary for the triumph of liberal ideas over communist repression. And not all of them were fought out of ideological motives (prime example: Angola). What is sure, however, is that they caused incredible hardship and suffering and prove nowadays quite difficult to be completely snuffed. Nevertheless, the accusation of using ideological motivation to cover very un-ideological objectives in going to war is one that sticks not only on the United States.

As for my part, I am happy and proud to live in a country which apparently has learned from its past mistakes, that in its constitution renounces the use of armed force except in the case it is directly attacked, and which in its constitutional law abides by the rule of the international community that it has joined by its own choosing. I am also glad that my country has joined an institution which is finally bringing lasting peace through economic prosperity to a continent torn by wars for centuries. To my mind, this peace is proteced better than a cold peace established by equality or superiority of armament. I suppose it's a question of personality, but I sleep better with the knowledge that we have no defence because we probably don't need one, than by knowing that my country has the biggest weapons arsenal on this planet but some lunatic individual could bomb me out of my bed any minute.

As for Napoleon, you are wrong. He did not do it for the glory of France - the glory of France served him a usual purpose for his own interests (material and psychological).

As for pointing fingers - I was not the one enumerating the percentage shares that France, Russia and the U.S. took in providing Saddam Husseins gun cabinet. And I think I did state it's beside the point at this current stage to find out who to lay the original blame on. Until here your argumention is completely logical (even if I don't agree in all points). But then you are losing it a little. Are you seriously saying that Saddam Hussein, an Arab nationalist to the bone whose sole interest was to cling to power and exploit his countrymen to the extreme, who never had any sympathy for islamic fanaticals and their ideology, was more of a threat than Kim Jong Il with his proven (!) nuclear capability? You cannot be serious. We are speaking about a country we know next to nothing about, a personality we know even less about ... a country where a train filled with whatever (?) chemicals can explode, razing every built structure within 10 kms and killing no-idea-how-many people without ever having to give account, a lunatic who locks up his (supposed) political enemies together with their parents, grandparents and children for no reason in concentration camps. The only reason why we can speak about Halabja and not about Chongjin is that we simply don't know how many people Kim Jong Il and his later father killed, and how.

WMD ... I see, Saddam Hussein hid his weapons in Syria, together with all the facilities where he built them, correct? (That's where his mobile nuclear laboratories came in pretty useful, I guess.) So that's why the U.S. are now going to attack Syria next. Hey, so that's the reason ... NOW I got it. Come on. If you don't find the WMD in Syria ... next would be Lebanon then, yeah? Since you don't have too many choices left in the region: Saudi Arabia is your friend, Egypt is off limits, Lybia now is a friend too, and Sudan doesn't seem a credible enemy at the moment. Well, well. Honestly, I do not think any treasures are hidden in Crawford, Texas (forgive the pun). Not only do I think that Mr Bush has no interest in anything that dates from before his children's books, but I'm well aware of the fact that some individuals might have likd the idea to take advantage of the chaos that ensued in Iraq to gilt-edge their fingertips.

Actually Venezuela is not that bad at all an idea, as you can always claim you're still fighting against communism there. But speaking seriously, I don't want to imagine your question is serious. Iraq really was a perfect target, wasn't it? Before America did not find WMD there, at least no one could be sure Saddam Hussein did not have any - Motive n° 1. Saddam Hussein was undeniably a brutal dictator who deserved to be punished - Motive n° 2. Saddam Hussein had already once attacked Kuwait, who could know if he did it a second time - Motive n° 3. Hugo Chávez cannot be suspected of having any links with al-Qaeda - Motive n° 4. Since Desert Storm, when the allied forces failed to topple him, the United States still had a score to settle with Saddam Hussein - Motive n° 5. The war could be draped in the clothing of doing some developing aid for human rights and democracy in a region notoriously devoid of both - Motive n° 6. Add to that assorted commercial interest in a) a war b) a war specifically in that region and you need to ask no more.

As for Saddam Hussein's ties with islamic fundamentalists ... see above. As you undoubtedly know, the Baath political movement that Saddam Hussein belonged to (and which is, conveniently enough, also the political vehicle of Syria's Bashar al-Assad) is a distinctly secular, pan-Arab nationalist movement that developed after WWII. To alledge that, with this background, Saddam Hussein was sharing his blanket with terrorists of the sort of bin Laden is insane. Saddam Hussein would have been the first person to be damaged by revived religious zealotry in his country, and he had absolutely nothing to gain from being associated to 9/11. I hope you do not think that the Iraqi street is so misguided that they would have cheered for a dictator who had made their lives such a misery just because he helped kill a couple of thousands of Americans. Saddam Hussein had lost his share with the part of the Iraqi population not somehow affiliated to his party movement long ago, and stuck to power only through absolute repression and a machine of denunciators. As you mgiht remember, ordinary Iraqis cheered on the invading American troops and played an active role in toppling Saddam Hussein's statue. What has really brought al-Qaeda and the copycat islamist orgnisations into Iraq was the cruel disappointment Iraqis suffered when they saw how the occupation turned out, the fall from grace of the Baathists who cannot accept their fate, and the dismissal of Saddam Hussein's army which provided al-Zarqawi and his gang with useful cannon-fodder, or shall we say with an army of moving bombs.

If you read my posting carefully, you will discover that I stated my absolute understanding as to why France, Germany and Russia (and everyone whos not "for us" but "against us") was included from winning contracts to rebuild Iraq. I just stated that, in this case, the U.S. government now has the idea to ask the UN and the countries named above for their help. As for how American consumers pay for France's debts, I do not get that point. Care to elaborate?

Concerning the trade wars ... not sure whether you acknowlege the WTO as credible international body and its rules as binding. But if you do, evidence on protectionism does not provide too good a picture of the U.S., actually.

[miroulitseli]

If you read my posting carefully, you will discover that I stated my absolute understanding as to why France, Germany and Russia (and everyone whos not "for us" but "against us") was included from winning contracts to rebuild Iraq. I just stated that, in this case, the U.S. government now has the idea to ask the UN and the countries named above for their help. As for how American consumers pay for France's debts, I do not get that point. Care to elaborate?
That, of course, should have read "exclude". :doh:

[Steve]

Let's face it, we all know that this war was about oil...You had some good points going, until I slammed up against this little bon mot. From an economic standpoint, the hundreds of billions of dollars this war has cost, to date, would have bought an awful lot of oil with no cost to human life. From a political standpoint, our oil supply wasn't threatened prior to the Iraq War. Nothing I have been able to research or find has been able to make any link between the Iraq War and securing an oil supply.

I'm always open such possibilities, however remote, though; can you explain the correlation, as you see it?

[ravital]

As for Saddam Hussein's ties with islamic fundamentalists ... see above. As you undoubtedly know, the Baath political movement that Saddam Hussein belonged to (and which is, conveniently enough, also the political vehicle of Syria's Bashar al-Assad) is a distinctly secular, pan-Arab nationalist movement that developed after WWII. To alledge that, with this background, Saddam Hussein was sharing his blanket with terrorists of the sort of bin Laden is insane.
I'm at work right now and have very limited time, so I'll respond only to this point now, and to the rest later:

Let me see if I understand: Palestinian terrorists are funded by Islamic fundamentalist actors. So it would have been completely impossible for such zealot Moslems, to collude with, say, Christians in the membership of Bader-Meinhoff, to hijack an Air-France flight to Entebbe, Uganda. Is that how it works?

You seem to be on solid grounds as far as your understanding of Europe goes. I respectfully suggest, that in order to understand the Middle East and terrorism, you need to stray significantly from what the media is feeding you as a poor excuse for "analysis." Islamic terrorists of different brands and variations have no problem cooperating with each other when it suits them. Your understanding, or rather misunderstanding, of Saddam's calculations, ignore the fact that he was a member of a despised Sunni elite, ruling over a Shiite majority, and turning down the advances of Al-Qaeda (appealing to Shiites, but founded by at least one Sunni, by the way), would have been even more costly to him on the Iraqi street. Is this a stretch? Perhaps, but not more so than your arguments on this point, which are, respectfully, simplistic. Rival Mafia families have been known to cooperate quite gracefully when it suited them, I don't see why you'd want to place terrorist leaders and established despots on a higher moral plane.

Then again, given that this is the same Bader-Meinhoff of which a former member, Joshka Ficher, today holds the Foreign-Affairs portfolio in the German government, it may be understandable that European perceptions are colored in this manner.

[miroulitseli]

Let's discuss oil first. Steve, when you say that the U.S. were facing no major disruption in oil supply, on what time horizon were you looking? Not in the next 12 months, there I agree :) But let's think through the global oil situation. Saudi Arabia has the biggest proven reserves of oil. So far, the U.S. and the Saudi's are friends, but at least after the 9/11 pilots I would have had doubts about the wisdom of that friendship if my name were Bush. Additionally, the Saudi kingdom is one which is neglecting human rights and democratic values, has a large young population which is discontent with its situation.Likely, the Saudis are going to face a rupture when the old guard of the House of Saud finally "retires" - and no one knows how that's going to play out. Not the ideal place to be your main supplier of oil, and one which you are dependent on.

Russia - well, seeing what happened to Yukos last weekend just underlined again that this is a country you better not trust farther than you can see them. Beside the fact that Russia has not nearly as much oil as Saudi Arabia and it is much more difficult and costly to drill for oil in the permafrost than in desert sands. Additionally, Russia seems to be cozying up to the EU while giving the U.S. a bit of the cold shoulder lately. What this has to do with Iraq is anyone's guess. Russia has its fingers in almost all of the pipeline and oil drilling projects running through or in Central Asia, and apparently also explores its options to serve an ever more resource-hungry China.

The gulf states will run out of oil within the next 25 to 50 years, depending to their respective reserves. The rest of oil producing countries are almost neglible by themselves on a global scale. (Even though I have to point out that you need to look only at the Gulf of Guinea and recent events there to understand that the U.S. INDEED has a very suspicious interest in securing new oil supplies of late.) After Saudi Arabia, Iraq is the country with the largest proven oil reserves. However, the situation for the U.S. in Saddam's Iraq was remarkably unfavourable. Iraq had already done preferential deals with TotalFina Elf and Russian oil companies for the times when the sanctions would be lifted. the U.S. were definitely not on the list of Saddam's favoured trading partners. Oil prices lately are rising not only because of the Iraq war (or, rather, insecurity about its outcome) but also because demand for oil is growing steadily (again on a global scale) with large formerly agricultural societies moving into industrialisation age (China...), while reserve forecasts naturally are declining on a pace faster than ever. And then - with a president from oil state Texas who used to run his own drilling company, and a vice president who can neither deny some vested interests in that industry, does the thought really lie that far off? A government that is more friendly to America than Saddam Hussein's (not that difficult after all) in the country with the 2nd largest proven reserves on earth wouldn't be that unpractical after all. You see my point (and admittedly, that of millions of other people)

[Steve]

The obvious benefits of having a friendly nation in possession of large amounts of oil does not automatically equate to a rationale for declaring war. That millions of other people see the obvious is no vindication for this conspiracy theory.

I challenge you to give some consideration to the long-term political fallout should it have turned out as believe it was intended. Would the U.S. truly set a precedent for resource acquisition through force? What would then stop China, Russia, or any other suitable armed nation from doing the same?

Sorry, I don't believe the U.S. would throw away a century's worth of foreign policy in that fashion. You and others may believe so, of course, but there is no proof, only innuendo and guilt-by-association.

[miroulitseli]

Ravital, excuse me, but now I indeed have to correct you on one fact. Joschka Fischer never was a member of Baader Meinhoff. He was involved in the 1968 students' movement and his admission of having engaged in violent protest and having beaten up some policemen during these protests caused a rumpus in Germany last year. However, that is a little different to being a member of the Red Army Fraction of Baader and Meinhoff who killed civilians.

Comparing the Palestinian militants with al-Qaeda is like comparing apples with pears. I do not approve of the means the Hamas and the Islamic Djihad are employing, but their objective is to oust the Israelis from the territory they claim, not to create God State of the form that the Taliban (and in turn the friends and hosts of bin Laden and his al-Qaeda) tried to establish in Afghanistan. I never heard of any connections between, say, Hamas and Ansar al-Islam or any of the other fundamentalist groups operating in Iraq. And I'd say that it would be wise for Hamas and their cause to keep it like that. As to the connections between Baader Meinhoff and the radical Palestinian factions, it is actually quite easy to explain. Baader Meinhoff was a group with communist tendencies (which are and were also running in the Palestinian radical movements) and they despisped everything that had to do with government authority, in this case the German authorities and especially their stance on Israel. That should make clear why the Palestinian radicals and the Red Army Fraction were easy bedfellows. Do not forget also taht at the time of Baader-Meinhoff, sympathy with the Palestinian cause was "de rigueur" in certain European circles (France...)

I don't really understand your argumentation about Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. I am not sure whether Saddam was a Sunni, at least not a convinced one, but it's true he based his power on the Sunni minority in Iraq. For a matter of fact, I do not think Saddam Hussein cared much about the opinion that Iraq's Shias had of him (or any other ethnic groups - like the Kurds - at all), as he was popular only in the circles who depended on his benevolence and definitely not with the Kurds and Shias (both of whom he killed in great numbers). I do not see what either side, either Saddam Hussein nor al-Qaeda, should have gained from their unlikely cooperation. Once again I repeat, Saddam was an Arab nationalist and the leitmotiv of Baath is pan-Arabism, both of them had no sympathy, no affiliation and no interest in Islamic fundamentalism of the Osama-sort.

As a last point, to compare the Mafia with Islamic fundamentalist groups is totally beside the point. The first have a purely commercial interest, the second are ideologues. As to whom I would put on a higher moral plane - neither. Though I do have sympathy with the suffering of ordinary Palestinians. (just to point this out clearly, I do not think suicide bombings or any violence agianst innocent civilians is ever justified)

[miroulitseli]

The obvious benefits of having a friendly nation in possession of large amounts of oil does not automatically equate to a rationale for declaring war. That millions of other people see the obvious is no vindication for this conspiracy theory.

I challenge you to give some consideration to the long-term political fallout should it have turned out as believe it was intended. Would the U.S. truly set a precedent for resource acquisition through force? What would then stop China, Russia, or any other suitable armed nation from doing the same?

Sorry, I don't believe the U.S. would throw away a century's worth of foreign policy in that fashion. You and others may believe so, of course, but there is no proof, only innuendo and guilt-by-association.
You asked me for my rational on that point, that's what you got. You, as everyone, are entitled to you own opinion. But ahhh, what foreign poliy, you talkign about? Did you refer to Vietnam? (Sorry, a bad joke on your expense) No offence, but diplomatic (and undiplomatic) kackhandedness is not only a sign of the French...

As for China and Russia, nothing stops them from doing the same. Look no farther than the Caucasus and Russia's unease over losing control over Central Asia. By the way, conflicts over resource use and violent acquisition of resources (though not yet inter-state) is a common intra-state feature in developing countries from Africa to Pacific Asia. The UNDP fears that such conflicts will in the future also be carried out between nations. (This information originates from the World Watch Insitute's Global Report 2002.)

If all that is just innuendo ... so, then, what's your reason that the U.S. went to war in Iraq? And I don't mean a reason of the sort "well, the WMD" ... why exactly at this time? As was already stated correctly in this forum, Saddam Hussein was in breach of UN regulations for more than a decade, and his (supposed?) nuclear ambitions were probed already before.

[Coot]

Ideological juxtaposition does not preclude involvement between Saddam and AQ. In fact there is strong evidence that under the corrupt Oil for Food program, hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars went directly to terrorist financiers and that money did directly end up in the hands of AQ and its umbrella organizations.

[miroulitseli]

I'd like to see that evidence.

[Steve]

I don't have a reason for going to war with Iraq, that wasn't my call to make. I only know the reasons given by the U.S. government where, clearly, there was poor intelligence surrounding the current possession of WMD by Saddam Hussein's government combined with a zeal to annihilate those WMD that prevented further vetting of the flawed intelligence.

So, that leaves various UN resolutions authorizing force combined with Iraq's demonstrated past possession and use of WMD to murder its own citizens. I find it most curious that countries such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and all of Iraq's neighbors don't oppose the U.S. overthrow of Hussein, they merely oppose our presence in the region. That, alone, speaks volumes about the need to oust Hussein.

You are entirely correct to point out that the U.S. has made errors in its exercise of foreign policy. What you don't seem to understand is that those who do, will err. I used to believe in Churchill's quote that "Jaw, jaw is better than war, war." No more. At some point, the mental masturbation, endless rounds of "negotiatons" and hollow "resolutions" that masquerade as true diplomacy become counterproductive. At that point, force becomes necessary.

You ask "why at this time" was Iraq invaded? Because we could; because the timing was right; because it was necessary. Oh, and, yes, only a fool would believe that thoughts of securing an oil supply for the future didn't enter into the discussions prior to the war. But only the same type of fool would believe that the Iraq War was "all about oil." It's a far, far more complex situation than that.

[miroulitseli]

I do think that oil was a significant factor in invading Iraq and not, e.g., North Korea, which doesn't even taken the precaution to try to deny that it has nuclear capabilities.

The timing was right? Whose timing? It was necessary? For whom and why?

So, if we ditch diplomacy, then what? If we don't like an action by some state, we simply invade them and finish them off? International organisations were created for some reason, and they have rules for some reason.

Interesting that you give so much about the opinion of Syria and Iran on Saddam Hussein. True, he was a nuisance to both of them. But I was not aware that the United States is intending to do favours to Syrian and Iran. After all, which of them is the next country the U.S. government will bless with democracy?

I only know the reasons given by the U.S. government where, clearly, there was poor intelligence surrounding the current possession of WMD by Saddam Hussein's government combined with a zeal to annihilate those WMD that prevented further vetting of the flawed intelligence.
I suppose that's the moment when Powell stepped in front of the UN showing his fancy powerpoints, yeah? I suppose that's also why Cheney said that there's no denying that "Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass distruction". Gosh, your politicians seem to be not very discriminate about their evidence.


Of course the one who does might err. I'm just not very comfortable thinking that the button is pushed by a guy who falls off his bike and almost suffocates when eating a bretzel.

[Steve]

So, if we ditch diplomacy, then what? If we don't like an action by some state, we simply invade them and finish them off? International organisations were created for some reason, and they have rules for some reason.Yah, the UN is the largest such - the same UN that authorized the use of force to enforce its own resolutions. All according to Hoyle.....

[Coot]

I'd like to see that evidence. You can start by perusing this article (http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.06.20/news2.html) and this one (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110005011). I expect the UN itself has all the documents, but since there is no subpoena power, the links will have to be made via who was doing business with Saddam under the program and who they in turn were funneling money to.
{snip}
Among Iraq's oil customers since 1997 is a Liechtenstein-based company called Galp International Trading Establishment, a subsidiary of Portugal's main oil company, according to a list of oil purchasers obtained by the Forward. The U.N. has not published the list.

The company chose as its legal representative in Liechtenstein — a tax haven known for hosting thousands of shell companies — a company called Asat Trust, according to Liechtenstein business records.

Asat Trust was designated by the United States and the U.N. as a financier of Al Qaeda through its links to Al Taqwa, a cluster of financial entities spanning the globe from the Bahamas to Italy and controlled by members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The operation raises the possibility that Iraq quietly funneled money to Al Qaeda by deliberately choosing an oil company working with one of the terrorist group's alleged financial backers.

Another oil company that contracted with Iraq, Delta Services, is a now-defunct, Geneva-based subsidiary of Delta Oil, a Saudi company that enjoyed a close relationship with the Taliban in Afghanistan at the time when they were harboring bin Laden.

Delta Oil was a major actor in a major pipeline project to bring gas from Central Asia to Pakistan through Afghanistan in the mid-1990s alongside the American oil company Unocal and another Saudi oil company controlled by a controversial Saudi millionaire.

Delta Services landed Iraqi oil export contracts in 2000 and 2001, according to U.N. sources and a trade journal.

[Sierra Mike]

I do think that oil was a significant factor in invading Iraq and not, e.g., North Korea, which doesn't even taken the precaution to try to deny that it has nuclear capabilities.
Not to change the subject, but you do need to become familiar with something in the short order: the DPRK has one thing that Iraq did not: several million South Koreans well within range of their massed arms, arms that even the US could not destroy before they were used. The DPRK has millions of human shields at its disposal, human shields that belong to an ally of the US. I submit this situation is not exactly the recipe for success, but if negotiations with the DPRK fail (as they did time and time again with Iraq, if you happen to revisit a decade of history), then most assuredly, there will come a time in the not-so-distant future when the DPRK will feel American steel rain.

SM

[ravital]

Comparing the Palestinian militants with al-Qaeda is like comparing apples with pears. I do not approve of the means the Hamas and the Islamic Djihad are employing, but their objective is to oust the Israelis from the territory they claim, not to create God State of the form that the Taliban (and in turn the friends and hosts of bin Laden and his al-Qaeda) tried to establish in Afghanistan.
Tell me, is that why they are funded by Teheran, instead of Cairo? What do you think the name "Islamic Jihad" stands for? It's not "Pan-Arab Jihad," not "Baathist Jihad," not "Liberation Jihad," not "Democratic Jihad," but "Islamic Jihad."

Please, as solid as your knowledge of Europe is, your knowledge of Arab terrorism, respectfully, requires quite a bit of improvement. Theocracies is exactly what these groups are interested in, and those are their goals wherever they operate, be that Algeria, Egypt, Afghanistan or Iraq.



I am not sure whether Saddam was a Sunni, at least not a convinced one, but it's true he based his power on the Sunni minority in Iraq. For a matter of fact, I do not think Saddam Hussein cared much about the opinion that Iraq's Shias had of him (or any other ethnic groups - like the Kurds - at all), as he was popular only in the circles who depended on his benevolence and definitely not with the Kurds and Shias (both of whom he killed in great numbers). I do not see what either side, either Saddam Hussein nor al-Qaeda, should have gained from their unlikely cooperation. Once again I repeat, Saddam was an Arab nationalist and the leitmotiv of Baath is pan-Arabism, both of them had no sympathy, no affiliation and no interest in Islamic fundamentalism of the Osama-sort.
Again, you fail to understand the interest, however temporary it may be, that a secular Arab leader has in garnering the support of the fundamentalists. If you study the same situation in Saudi Arabia today, you'll get a good glimpse of it.



As a last point, to compare the Mafia with Islamic fundamentalist groups is totally beside the point.
That was an illustration - you argue that ideologically opposing groups cannot be allies, even temporarily. I gave you a clear example where bloody rivalries are overlooked on occasion, for the sake of the immediate common interest. As the consiglieri tried to explain to the Don, "it's never personal, it's business." to say now that it's beside the point is sophistry.

As for pointing fingers - I was not the one enumerating the percentage shares that France, Russia and the U.S. took in providing Saddam Husseins gun cabinet. And I think I did state it's beside the point at this current stage to find out who to lay the original blame on.
Again, sophistry. You did point fingers earlier, as to who was responsible for Saddam's rise. I merely gave you evidence, and a source (a European one to boot) to verify the figures, that clearly prove that you are trying to lay the blame for Saddam's successes on America, when Europe/China contributed some 90% of his armament. You can't deny those facts, so you distract attention from the question by arguing now that "it's beside the point at this current state." I completely agree with you, it's beside the point. But you brought it up.

As to the North Korea argument and its nuclear arsenal: Let's be honest here, shall we? Let's say you're right, it's a much greater danger. Okay, so if the U.S. invades North Korea, will YOU throw your support behind it? Let's not even talk about invasion, let's talk about another 12 years of U.N. resolutions, sanctions, inspections that lead nowhere - will YOU and the rest of Europe support a U.S. initiative, to dismantle North Korea's nukes? I ask, because every time I hear anyone talk so knowledgeably about North Korea's threat, it sounds like another distraction, something else to hit America over the head with, over Iraq. So give me your honest answer - how would you feel if France, Russia and China vetoed a U.N Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force, AFTER 12 years of dead-ends and hide-and-seek warm-cold-warm-cold games with that country?


Concerning the trade wars ... not sure whether you acknowlege the WTO as credible international body and its rules as binding. But if you do, evidence on protectionism does not provide too good a picture of the U.S., actually. Very good! WTO indeed. In the mid-late 1990s, European states were imposing tariffs on U.S. produce, to give preferencial treatment to the economies of their former colonies. The WTO ruled that the U.S. had a legitimate grievance against France and the U.K. Before you bring up the customary, and obligatory, laundry list of "you did this before they did that," consider that statement again. The same WTO, which you now put so much stock in, ruled that the European states were wrong. Argue that the U.S. had handled the situation in a horrible manner, and I'd agree completely, which does not exonerate the European states.

Or are we going to listen to the WTO only when it sides with Europe?


But there is no denying that he was a great statesman and to some extent a visionary concerning European unification. This was in reference to Napoleon, so it really should go to a separate thread, if you're interested. But I can't help wondering - "visionary concerning European unification?" Can you tell me what was different between Napoleon's vision of a unified Europe, and Hitler's vision of the same? Except for being ruled by France vs. Germany, that is?

[Copzilla]

America helped lift Saddam Hussein into his position - and do you honestly think only France and Russia sold weapons to Iraq?? It's something you definitely cannot accuse Germany of either.I've seen a breakdown of Iraq's military suppliers, and yeah, pretty much France and Russia were the ones. The US actually supplied Iraq very little in the terms of weaponry, although it makes nice anti-US soundbites that are oft repeated by street pundits. The conventional warfare equipment we supplied Iraq accounted for about 1% of his overall force.

Want a link? Oh, this is gonna hurt...

http://mattcrandall.com/blog/archives/000099.html

It's not M16s and M1 Abrams we were up against. It was AK47s and T72s.

What the US supplied Iraq that we should not have was chemical precursors for WMDs, and weaponized germ samples used for study. The US also supplied these to many other nations, though. It was delivered for the purpose of developing antidotes and for clinical and university study.

Perhaps you know something I don't about military supplies we provided? What supplies did we provide? How did we help lift Saddam into his position?

If your soldiers are dying in Iraq, primarily that is because your government sent them there without a clear strategy. If Iraqis turn hostile and insurge on your troops, it probably has something to do with the fact that your government promised them freedom, democracy and a better life and now fails to deliver all of that. Stop blaming the world for the trouble you got yourself in. Ask yourself for what you went to war there. Where are the WMD? Did it help you in your war on terror?No, the purpose is multi-faceted, although again, it's a nice anti-Bush / anti-American rant to place it all on WMDs. The end result of a democratic Iraq will be to the benefit of the entire world, and at the bane of terrorist nations.

But your argument is a deflection of the corruption in the EU - sanctions would never have worked with Saddam Hussein, because of the actions of France, Germany and Russia. So you think we should have used - sanctions?

I do believe that free elections will be held in Iraq in a month, and we're failing to deliver democracy?

The way I see it, we're not blaming the world for our troubles... We're blaming the right countries for the shit they cause - and France is not without its blame in the entire matter. Or perhaps you haven't heard of oil for food scandal? 23 billion bucks, I think?

Before America attacked Iraq, your government decided that it would need no help and it would take into account other opinions. Well then. Here you go.I do recall that America asked for help, and it was declined by those corrupt nations who were enriching themselves illegally. And you forget that we were helped, by many other nations.

I'm afraid your arguments aren't based on facts.

[Sierra Mike]

Nice and compelling ripostes, Copz and Ravi! :thumbsup:

SM

[ravital]

I
Want a link? Oh, this is gonna hurt...

http://mattcrandall.com/blog/archives/000099.html
...
I'm afraid your arguments aren't based on facts.
Thank you. I provided a link to the same info, in spreadsheet form rather than graph, and from the original people who did the study/documentation (SIPRI) but, it seems, to no avail.

[Copzilla]

Well, I recall an Aussie femm, another rabid anti-American who set aside facts in her rants, and we were hashing the same old issues.

I suppose if we sold a box of 9mm ammo to Iraq, by strict definition we were arming them, but I'm not predisposed to the Common Dreams caliber rants against America. If someone wants to discuss things we've actually done wrong, I'll certainly hear that and discuss it, but good grief... A debate must at least find a common requirement of factual information, where one can then form differing opinions if chosen.

[Stiofán]

We've had so many of these mis-informed Bush bashes regarding Iraq, plus you guys are doing so well, I hesitant to enter. (Nawww, not really)

Lest we forget a few other facts our new friend can chew on. Not only was France and Russia supplying the majority of Saddam's arsenal (France sent fully close to 50% of their military exports to just one country in 1987, guess who) but their largest oil firm Total Fina had signed contracts to develop the majority of Iraqs new fields should those tiresome sanctions be lifted, Germany and France set up Iraq's phone system and banking system, the Oil for Blood program was conveniently run through a French bank which now appears to have been laundering money for Saddam as well as facilitating the kickbacks, and there were reports of France bribing certain third world countries for their support to vote against the US in the UN just prior to the invasion. A vote we lost forcing us to go it alone and spend the blood of our boys and those of our close allies Britain, Australia and Poland, who joined us, instead of getting help from the entire Security council or NATO. There was also some evidence Saddam was promised we would never invade, promises made by certain countries with veto power on the council. Perhaps if those promises were never made, war would never have happened. You say Saddam had no WMD, so why hold out on the inspections, especially if there had been a united front. Seems someone led poor Saddam astray.

As far as oil, France or Germany or Russia or Belgium or whoever wasn't the one spending it's taxpayers money importing oil for months into Iraq until they could get their own fields and refineries back up and running. Over 4,000 trucks a day delivering oil and finished petroleum product into Iraq through Kuwait, purchased from 5 other exporting nations and paid for by the US taxpayer, thank you very much.

[miroulitseli]

Yah, the UN is the largest such - the same UN that authorized the use of force to enforce its own resolutions. All according to Hoyle.....
Um, that's why the UN has a Security Council with 5 members who can veto decisions. If I remember correctly, that was the reason why the U.S. chose NOT to stay within the boundaries of international law and go it alone on Iraq.

[miroulitseli]

You can start by perusing this article (http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.06.20/news2.html) and this one (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110005011). I expect the UN itself has all the documents, but since there is no subpoena power, the links will have to be made via who was doing business with Saddam under the program and who they in turn were funneling money to.
I'm not pursuing links out of this forum. If you have something to say, copy it here or type your own words.
As for the article copied below, I'd like to have the source.

[miroulitseli]

Not to change the subject, but you do need to become familiar with something in the short order: the DPRK has one thing that Iraq did not: several million South Koreans well within range of their massed arms, arms that even the US could not destroy before they were used. The DPRK has millions of human shields at its disposal, human shields that belong to an ally of the US. I submit this situation is not exactly the recipe for success, but if negotiations with the DPRK fail (as they did time and time again with Iraq, if you happen to revisit a decade of history), then most assuredly, there will come a time in the not-so-distant future when the DPRK will feel American steel rain.

SM
I understand ... if innocent Arab civilians (or shall I say Muslim civilians?) are killed, it doesn't matter that much as if it's allies of the United States. Alles klar.

I tell you why the U.S. are not going to invade North Korea - because you know that they have WMD, and they will use it against your soldiers. This risk is one that could be (almost?) excluded in Iraq.

[miroulitseli]

Tell me, is that why they are funded by Teheran, instead of Cairo? What do you think the name "Islamic Jihad" stands for? It's not "Pan-Arab Jihad," not "Baathist Jihad," not "Liberation Jihad," not "Democratic Jihad," but "Islamic Jihad."

Please, as solid as your knowledge of Europe is, your knowledge of Arab terrorism, respectfully, requires quite a bit of improvement. Theocracies is exactly what these groups are interested in, and those are their goals wherever they operate, be that Algeria, Egypt, Afghanistan or Iraq.
Not comment. I guess the CIA should hire you, Ravital, to tell them everything about Islamic terrorists. :cool: Just do me the favour not to confuse Al-Quaeda with the PLO, as you tended to do with Baader Meinhoff and the budding Green movement in Germany.


Again, you fail to understand the interest, however temporary it may be, that a secular Arab leader has in garnering the support of the fundamentalists. If you study the same situation in Saudi Arabia today, you'll get a good glimpse of it.
I'd be very interested of your analysis of the mutually beneficiary connections between the House of Saud and islamic fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia.


That was an illustration - you argue that ideologically opposing groups cannot be allies, even temporarily. I gave you a clear example where bloody rivalries are overlooked on occasion, for the sake of the immediate common interest. As the consiglieri tried to explain to the Don, "it's never personal, it's business." to say now that it's beside the point is sophistry.
The Mafia is a criminal organisation (or rather, a host of criminal organisations) with no ideological background. Unless you rate making money an ideology.

Again, sophistry. You did point fingers earlier, as to who was responsible for Saddam's rise. I merely gave you evidence, and a source (a European one to boot) to verify the figures, that clearly prove that you are trying to lay the blame for Saddam's successes on America, when Europe/China contributed some 90% of his armament. You can't deny those facts, so you distract attention from the question by arguing now that "it's beside the point at this current state." I completely agree with you, it's beside the point. But you brought it up.
This is the last comment I will make about pointing fingers. You said "the U.S. are tiring of cleaning up behind the Europeans". That's what I responded to you.

As to the North Korea argument and its nuclear arsenal: Let's be honest here, shall we? Let's say you're right, it's a much greater danger. Okay, so if the U.S. invades North Korea, will YOU throw your support behind it? Let's not even talk about invasion, let's talk about another 12 years of U.N. resolutions, sanctions, inspections that lead nowhere - will YOU and the rest of Europe support a U.S. initiative, to dismantle North Korea's nukes? I ask, because every time I hear anyone talk so knowledgeably about North Korea's threat, it sounds like another distraction, something else to hit America over the head with, over Iraq. So give me your honest answer - how would you feel if France, Russia and China vetoed a U.N Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force, AFTER 12 years of dead-ends and hide-and-seek warm-cold-warm-cold games with that country?
I never said I'd invade North Korea. But then I wouldn't have invaded Iraq either.


Very good! WTO indeed. In the mid-late 1990s, European states were imposing tariffs on U.S. produce, to give preferencial treatment to the economies of their former colonies. The WTO ruled that the U.S. had a legitimate grievance against France and the U.K. Before you bring up the customary, and obligatory, laundry list of "you did this before they did that," consider that statement again. The same WTO, which you now put so much stock in, ruled that the European states were wrong. Argue that the U.S. had handled the situation in a horrible manner, and I'd agree completely, which does not exonerate the European states. Or are we going to listen to the WTO only when it sides with Europe?
Never said that only the U.S. use trade distorting measures. I know about the Bananas, hormone beef and so on. But on average, the picture looks worse for the U.S. than for the EU, especially over recent years. Bush is one of the more protectionist presidents in American history ... and, which was my original posting, one of the most pro.f.l.igate ones.


This was in reference to Napoleon, so it really should go to a separate thread, if you're interested. But I can't help wondering - "visionary concerning European unification?" Can you tell me what was different between Napoleon's vision of a unified Europe, and Hitler's vision of the same? Except for being ruled by France vs. Germany, that is?
Ever heard of the Code Civil?

[miroulitseli]

I've seen a breakdown of Iraq's military suppliers, and yeah, pretty much France and Russia were the ones. The US actually supplied Iraq very little in the terms of weaponry, although it makes nice anti-US soundbites that are oft repeated by street pundits. The conventional warfare equipment we supplied Iraq accounted for about 1% of his overall force.

Want a link? Oh, this is gonna hurt...

http://mattcrandall.com/blog/archives/000099.html
I'm not going to argue with you over percentages, Copzilla. Yep, the French sold them weapons, the Russian sold them weapons, the U.S. sold them weapons. I have little doubts about your box of 9mm ammunition. But be that as it may ...

What the US supplied Iraq that we should not have was chemical precursors for WMDs, and weaponized germ samples used for study. The US also supplied these to many other nations, though. It was delivered for the purpose of developing antidotes and for clinical and university study.
Yeah, I'm sure you thought he's gonna use it just for that only ... :thumbsup:


Perhaps you know something I don't about military supplies we provided? What supplies did we provide? How did we help lift Saddam into his position?
How did you help lift him in his position? If it's a serious question, I'll check what book to recommend you on that.

No, the purpose is multi-faceted, although again, it's a nice anti-Bush / anti-American rant to place it all on WMDs. The end result of a democratic Iraq will be to the benefit of the entire world, and at the bane of terrorist nations.
:whistle: wake me when Iraq is a democratic country, would you? So far I cannot discern a whole lot of benefits for the entire world. Maybe we shall ask the people who use local trains in Madrid every day, or maybe the UN staff and aid workers who lost their colleagues in Iraq if they think the world is safer today.

But your argument is a deflection of the corruption in the EU - sanctions would never have worked with Saddam Hussein, because of the actions of France, Germany and Russia. So you think we should have used - sanctions?
Sanctions for what? That Saddam Hussein did not have WMD?

I do believe that free elections will be held in Iraq in a month, and we're failing to deliver democracy?
To be honest ... no. But only if you consider an election democratic, in which 2 thirds of the population will not be able to take part.

The way I see it, we're not blaming the world for our troubles... We're blaming the right countries for the shit they cause - and France is not without its blame in the entire matter. Or perhaps you haven't heard of oil for food scandal? 23 billion bucks, I think? I do recall that America asked for help, and it was declined by those corrupt nations who were enriching themselves illegally. And you forget that we were helped, by many other nations.
Ah too good to have a country like the U.S. as a beacon of democracy and a paradise free of corruption for us to look up to. :tape: Yeah you WERE helped by many nations ... the most important of which are now running (Spain, Poland). I do think however that Georgia is going to increase its contingent from 53 to 107 soldiers. Congrats.

[miroulitseli]

Lest we forget a few other facts our new friend can chew on. Not only was France and Russia supplying the majority of Saddam's arsenal (France sent fully close to 50% of their military exports to just one country in 1987, guess who) but their largest oil firm Total Fina had signed contracts to develop the majority of Iraqs new fields should those tiresome sanctions be lifted, Germany and France set up Iraq's phone system and banking system, the Oil for Blood program was conveniently run through a French bank which now appears to have been laundering money for Saddam as well as facilitating the kickbacks, and there were reports of France bribing certain third world countries for their support to vote against the US in the UN just prior to the invasion.
Tell me ... how do you think countries on which sanctions are imposed are functioning? The sanctions which the UN imposed on Iraq (and if they were bullshit, the U.S. could have vetoed them in the Security Council) concerned specific parts of the Iraqi economy. They did not prevent foreign companies from completing, e.g., infrastructure projects. As for oil ... that subject was deal with already in another posting. On the rest of the allegations: evidence please. And not from FoxNews.


A vote we lost forcing us to go it alone and spend the blood of our boys and those of our close allies Britain, Australia and Poland, who joined us, instead of getting help from the entire Security council or NATO. There was also some evidence Saddam was promised we would never invade, promises made by certain countries with veto power on the council. Perhaps if those promises were never made, war would never have happened. You say Saddam had no WMD, so why hold out on the inspections, especially if there had been a united front. Seems someone led poor Saddam astray.
If Saddam Hussein had WMD, where are they now? Syria, yeah? Who or what forced you to go to war? I didn't yet receive a convincing answer to that question

As far as oil, France or Germany or Russia or Belgium or whoever wasn't the one spending it's taxpayers money importing oil for months into Iraq until they could get their own fields and refineries back up and running. Over 4,000 trucks a day delivering oil and finished petroleum product into Iraq through Kuwait, purchased from 5 other exporting nations and paid for by the
US taxpayer, thank you very much.
Don't cry. If you ever manager to bring peace to that country, your investment will yield a healthy return. If not, then it's just a case of bad management. The guy who you should take to account then sits in the White House.

[LissaKay]

I'm not pursuing links out of this forum. If you have something to say, copy it here or type your own words.
As for the article copied below, I'd like to have the source.


Before you continue expecting us to post entire articles just to save you the bother of clicking a link and opening another window, let me tell you ... we will not do so. Click the links and get over it. Posting full articles here is against the rules of the forum (http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showthread.php?t=30669) and against the law.


As for the part of the article that Coot quoted from, if you clicked the first link in his post, you would have the source.

And really, it would do you a world of good to read some of that ... I have no idea where you are getting these wild ideas from (sources would be nice) but they smack of the sort of tripe one finds at Daily "Screw 'Em" Kos, and George Soros' tin-foil hattery.

[LissaKay]

Speaking of clicking on links, click this ...

A Legal Authority Exists For A Strike on Iraq (http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive/2004/Feb/11-566667.html)

The article, while archived on a US .gov server, was written by a professor of international law at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and was first published in The Financial Times of London, lest you think it is merely government propaganda.

[miroulitseli]

Seems you don't have anything to add to that topic in substance. I simply don't have the time to read hundreds of articles. I guess it's not against the law to copy relevant paragraphs. (Since there was already on article copied, I would like to remind you that it's against the law to use citation without supplying the source.)

You are not required to copy any articles - but I won't respond to links, it's as easy as that. I make a suggestion which is even better: since I am always the one who is being told here that I shouldn't believe everything I read, maybe you guys can apply that wisdom to yourself and write your own thoughts instead of just copying from news sources.

[ravital]

Um, that's why the UN has a Security Council with 5 members who can veto decisions. If I remember correctly, that was the reason why the U.S. chose NOT to stay within the boundaries of international law and go it alone on Iraq.
You mean, is that anything like France going alone into Cote D'Ivoire? Where exactly and when did the U.N. authorize that????

[ravital]

I understand ... if innocent Arab civilians (or shall I say Muslim civilians?) are killed, it doesn't matter that much as if it's allies of the United States. Alles klar. I understand. Iraqis being murdered, raped and tortured every day, doesn't matter much as long as Europe can have Iraqi trade, Iraqi money and Iraqi oil. And you sleep well with that. Alles Klar.

[ravital]

Not comment. I guess the CIA should hire you, Ravital, to tell them everything about Islamic terrorists. :cool: Just do me the favour not to confuse Al-Quaeda with the PLO, as you tended to do with Baader Meinhoff and the budding Green movement in Germany.


Now you are officially, deliberately distorting. YOU brought up Islamic Jihad and Hamas into this discussion, not me. As for the CIA, they could do worse than hire me or almost anyone in this forum. And I have a newsflash, I was not put on earth to do you favors and avoid arguments you can't defeat.



I'd be very interested of your analysis of the mutually beneficiary connections between the House of Saud and islamic fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia.


You missed it again. What I said was, that Bin Laden and organizations like his, benefit from anti-government sentiment on the Moslem street. It is obvious that the House of Saud does not. And so, there is no contradiction between that idea, and a secular leader in ANOTHER mostly Moslem country such as Saddam in Iraq, to attempt to make gains in the Iraqi street by faking a "rapprochement" between him and Al-Qaeda. Q.E.D.


Ever heard of the Code Civil?
Whoop-tee-flippin' doo! Ever hear of the Constitution of the United States? It was written by slave-owners - so by your own criteria, that makes slave-ownership a mark of superior morality, doesn't it?

[ravital]

I simply don't have the time to read hundreds of articles.
In English: You don't have the time to properly inform yourself, before posting an opinion. Thank you for clarifying that.



I guess it's not against the law to copy relevant paragraphs.
That's a very transparent trap: It leads to your next move, which is to complain that we're quoting out of context.

Your jig is up.

[miroulitseli]

Ravital, I know the idea of this forum is to attack the idea and not the person who posts it. Fair enough. But I want to tell you in all honesty that I think you should try to manage your temper a bit. I am not willing to constantly reply to your baseless arguments. I was weary to do so this morning because I consider my time too precious as to type everything twice just so that you can turn my words in my mouth respectively just type again arguments that were already aired in previous posts. I'll do this now a last time and I advise you to read my postings a bit more carefully, as well as to think about your argumentation (as I do) before hitting the submit button. Thanks. We had a good argumentation in the beginning but now you just groundlessly attack me on whatever I say.

I'll reply to your posting this last time and I'll do my best to explain to you carefully what I meant but I'm not going to do this one more time; if you reply to one of my posting I assume that you have read also the postings before and you can follow the course of the debate.

1) The French army did not invade Côte d'Ivoire as an occupying or conquering army. It was asked through diplomatic channels as the former colonial power to send its army there (much the same as the U.S. were asked to do in Liberia) in order to prevent/stop civil war and later on to uphold a peace agreement. If you follow the internatinal press, you will know that efforts are afoot to set up a peacekeeping force consisting of AU (African Union) soldiers.

2) In my comment on North Korea, I was responding to a posting which was saying that the U.S. government will not attack North Korea because it would endanger the South Koreans (allies of the U.S.). My comment was ONLY referring to this posting. That civilians are dying for money (or oil, diamonds, gold, even timber, and soon probably water) is a sad fact and no nations, or maybe all (rich?) nations collectively, are to blame for this situation.

3) You tell me my knowledge about Islamic terrorism needs a brush-up. Sure. However, you continue to mix up absolutely everything. As yo umight know, the Arab world is a huge region with all kinds of nuacing and shades. To claim that all terrorist groups are the same (same objectives, same methods, same ideology) is as wrong as to claim that the Moroccan government and the Pakistani government share the same ideological background. It does seem to me that this fact that the Arab world is indeed very diverse goes unnoticed by you, which is analogical to the opinion that Europeans have about Americans in general.

4) According to your argumentation on Saudi Arabia, why should al-Qaeda have had an interest in propping up an Arab nationalist who was not to be trusted and openly hostile to their ideas? In effect, I think the current situation suits al-Qaeda not that badly at all.

5) ad Napoleon, the Code Civil, the Constitution of the United States and slave owners.
It was written by slave-owners - so by your own criteria, that makes slave-ownership a mark of superior morality, doesn't it? If you can show me exactly where I said that Napoleon was of superior morality (than...?) I will gladly answer this question. The fact is that even though Napoleon might have been as wrong in the means he used to his ends as the slave owners were in theirs, no one in this forum (I hope) will deny that the constitution of the United States same as the Code Civil were very important pieces of legislation for the U.S.A. and Europe respectively.

[miroulitseli]

In English: You don't have the time to properly inform yourself, before posting an opinion. Thank you for clarifying that.
As I jsut got a warning for my last message, dear Steve, I'd like to draw your attention to the post by Ravital and tell me if that is not offensive.

Dear Ravital, I do not have the time to rund 100s of articles I get alerted of. I have my news sources which are without exception in the international press that is open and available to anyone. I do not watch al-Jazeera TV. I do occassionally watch CNN and I do read the International Herald Tribune. These sources originate in the United States of America.

Dear all, I am considering to leave this forum since I don't feel like being ganged up on just because I say my opinion. As your country is praising itself to be the cradle of freedom and liberty I think that it should be a sad discovery for you that all people in this forum share one opinion. Please continue to padding each others shoulders for being so great and good. I must admit that I have a worse opinion of Americans now than I had 2 days ago.



That's a very transparent trap: It leads to your next move, which is to complain that we're quoting out of context.
Where did I say that any article or part thereof was quoted out of context? If I ever used the words "out of context", dear Ravital, it was with your regard to your postings (not articles) because it seemed to me with all respect that you did not follow the course of the debate.

[Steve]

It appears to be a valid observation, though rather bluntly worded:

In response to a statement by yourself, someone replies "that's not true and here's a link with all the information to show it's not true". To which you then reply "I don't have time to click on links."

I certainly would want to know if something I held to be true turned out to be false, after all, and would willingly click on a link to read information to that effect. Of course, if that information is then suspect, I'd have a ready reply ;)

[miroulitseli]

I came to this forum because I was curious to learn of your opinions and to debate with some "real" Americans. I have worked for the UN and I have talked to the diplomat variety of your population but as diplomats go, that doesn't tell a lot. I am very disappointed that no one here seems to be willing to consider other opinions. My ideas and my tone of voice have strayed from my original stance, and that is precisely because I cannot help but constantly feeling attacked for being something else and thinking something else.

Whereas my postings exclusively attack U.S. foreign policy, I am also critical of much of European foreign policy, I never sought the face-off variety of debate and I never attacked the American citizens as such and especially not any individual. With the exception of Mr Bush and I fully stand by any such comments that I made. However it does seem to me that you people prefer to rest among yourselves and maybe it's better that way.

[miroulitseli]

It appears to be a valid observation, though rather bluntly worded:

In response to a statement by yourself, someone replies "that's not true and here's a link with all the information to show it's not true". To which you then reply "I don't have time to click on links."


As you see from my frequenty postings, I have the time to consider any argument that is posted by any person in this forum. As you will also see from my links, I occasionally make referen to, but never copy any sources of information that I am using to make an argument. I think it is a poor style of debate to say "that's not true and here's the link". I believe every person in this forum is intelligent enough to phrase his or her ideas in his or her own words. What I see here is that I spent far too much time defending my arguments two or three times over because no one else is advancing a real argument. It's a day that I posted a quesiton as to why the Americans went to war in Iraq in reality and honesty and I have not received any answer to that. Instead, people prefer to turn every phrase and word of mine upside down and come back to reviewing the same points a hundred times. I want to take out of this critique Basar in the other thread on Turkey and I think that this debate works much better - because it is advancing, where htis debate here is completely stalled.

[Steve]

If you stay, you'll find much dissatisfaction with much U.S. policy, both foreign and domestic, not to mention economic and military. Just don't expect it to be in the same areas that you find dissatisfaction.

In any case, there is little "rest" here. Opinions and attitudes are constantly challenged. The nature of this forum really is more of a debate forum with very active and, at times, heated participation. Very few posts are of the nature "here's my opinion" and left like that.

"Real" Americans challenge everything; it's our nature. "Put up or shut up" is a uniquely American phrase. An entire state is known as the "Show Me" state.

Anyway, this has gone far off-topic and really is not the appropriate venue. Here we are, warts and all. If you want debate, rational discussion, and a factual approach you'll find it here, even if some of it's not from Americans.

[Steve]

I think it is a poor style of debate to say "that's not true and here's the link". Proving a statement to be false isn't debate, that's why it makes for a poor style of debate. Proving a statement to be false requires only production of that proof. After a statement has been proven to be false, continual defense of the statement is pointless, really.

[ravital]

Ravital, I know the idea of this forum is to attack the idea and not the person who posts it. Fair enough.
I will respond later today when I have the time. I am at work right now.

[miroulitseli]

Proving a statement to be false isn't debate, that's why it makes for a poor style of debate. Proving a statement to be false requires only production of that proof. After a statement has been proven to be false, continual defense of the statement is pointless, really.
Come on. The only "proof" I read here was some article quoted without source. As you surely know, what newspaper report is often based on the country where they are published in and on the political "colour" (that might indeed by a European expression) that paper adheres to. Can anyone prove beyond doubt that Saddam Hussein was toppled because of oil interests? No. We speculate, that's called opinion.

[Sierra Mike]

I understand ... if innocent Arab civilians (or shall I say Muslim civilians?) are killed, it doesn't matter that much as if it's allies of the United States. Alles klar.

I tell you why the U.S. are not going to invade North Korea - because you know that they have WMD, and they will use it against your soldiers. This risk is one that could be (almost?) excluded in Iraq.
Your offensive ignorance is showing quite brightly. I don't think you have much experience in the wild, wild, wild world, Austria. Your overly-erudite and generally quite meaningless meanderings are comical to read, but not exactly the stuff to foment much in the way of critical thinking.

Additionally, if you refuse to follow links to sites recommended for information and to fuel debate, then you've made a mistake in coming here. I do hope you will rectify that mistake, in whichever manner is most attractive to you--i.e., start reading like the rest of us do, or hit the bricks. It's nice to be showered by your enduring condescension, but it's entirely unaddictive. If this is your weapon of choice for this forum, you will likely discover its utility to be quite limited.

SM

[Frodo Lives]

Ok folks, this has gotten to far of track. Please see post #1 about the topic of this thread.

If you wish, I can edit this thread to start another so you may continue this discussion. But for this one, let us return it to it's regularly scheduled program. ;)

[ravital]

I don't want to ignore Frodo's advice, but miroulitseli deserves a considered reply to his considered message:


Ravital, I know the idea of this forum is to attack the idea and not the person who posts it. Fair enough.
Let me explain something: When you say things like "do me a favor and don't confuse..." etc, to me and to many others, it sounds like lecturing. You may not have meant it that way, but it sounds an awful lot like "how dare you idiot Americans challenge the intellectual superiority of a European?" - I'll err on the side of good intentions, and assume that this is not how you meant it, but I urge you to put a big "do not press" sign on that rhetorical button, in big red letters, and never hit it again. Particularly if you intend to follow that up with lecturing me on how to properly debate. I'm sure I have a thing or two yet to learn, but that rhetorical device is not going to enlighten me. I'll amputate my own hands before I dare speak/type for anyone else, but I can tell you unequivocally, no one here will appreciate that. No one, ever.



You tell me my knowledge about Islamic terrorism needs a brush-up. Sure. However, you continue to mix up absolutely everything. As yo umight know, the Arab world is a huge region with all kinds of nuacing and shades. To claim that all terrorist groups are the same (same objectives, same methods, same ideology) is as wrong as to claim that the Moroccan government and the Pakistani government share the same ideological background. It does seem to me that this fact that the Arab world is indeed very diverse goes unnoticed by you, which is analogical to the opinion that Europeans have about Americans in general.
I hate to resort to this, because it's not relevant to the discussion, but you came in here assuming you and you alone knew anything about terrorism or the Arab world. I am a product of the Arab world, I am a Jew born in Morocco and grown up in France and Israel - and before you tell me, as I'm sure you would, that this colors my perspective, I should tell you that I supported Palestinian rights before a single European even knew there was such a thing in the world as a Palestinian. I certainly don't need you to explain the vast differences and small nuances within the Arab world. But at the risk of sounding arrogant, you might learn a few things from those who have lived in it. I wouldn't presume to lecture you about Europe, even if I did spend quite some time there. Again, you have a tencency to lecture us inferior Americans, and I won't stand for it.

As to "Same ideology, same objectives and same methods" - you should re-read your own words as carefully as you want us to read them. I said same ideology, obviously, the objectives are different: Islamic Jihad and Hamas seek to establish a Moslem Theocracy in Palestine (and all of it by the way, not just parts of it), while Al-Qaeda's objective - at least as Al-Qaeda has stated it, is to establish the same in the entire Arab world. So the objectives have different scopes, the ideology is the same, and so are the tactics - slamming an airliner into a building or pulling a cord on an explosive jacket in a bus terminal - the tactic is the same, the result is the same, different magnitude and scope, but the same.

Now, a simple yes/no question - did you or did you not bring up Hamas and Islamic Jihad, of your own initiative? Yes, you did, right here: http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showthread.php?p=277581&highlight=hamas#post277581

I was referring, in my example, to PFLP - Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - YOU and you alone came up with a comparison to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, then turn it around to make it appear as though I came up with it, so you could destroy an argument I never made up to that point.

We call that a setup, we call that intellectual dishonesty, and it is not appreciated one bit. Please consider that, before you go on lecturing me about anger, or the rest of us about "ganging up" and depriving