Bush : "Chirac not coming to ranch anytime soon"

[D' Artagnan]

Originally posted by Greadius
There are much nicer words for the same things, but I'm not interested in arguing specifics.

Its not like the U.S. gov't is being irrational in NOT giving France preferentional treatment if they won't defer in the same manner.

Okay, so France can oppose U.S. policy, France can be expected to face the consequences... there reverse is just as true. What kind of naivity dictates that you can sabotage diplomatic attempt and not face ANY consequences?

Like I said... what did you expect; a medal?

I didn't expect Bush rewarding France for not having supporting him. But I find it childish to say "France will face consequences" and make that happen.
On the metaphora thing : imagine you're with 3 friends and you're the thoughest of them. You're discussing about something seriously (girls, politics, philosophy, whatever). Would you beat the crap out of them just because they didn't agree with u ?
No.
That's the kind of state of mind the US is adopting now. They also warned Mexico, Chile and Brazil.

 

[HuckFinn]

Originally posted by Greadius
That is an unacceptable outcome.

Certainly it probably is an unacceptable outcome, but how does one propose to go about achieving it without being accused of too much outside influence? I wish them luck, but the contradiction sure is great.

I do find the post-WW2 Japan and Germany argument enticing in this regard. Yes, force of arms did bring democracy there. However, they're a bit different... they were advanced nation states. In particular Japan is very homogenous and cohesive. Iraq is splintered and divided along many lines, and most importantly, the fact that they are "Iraqi" comes very very far back in the list of defining attributes of a person living in the area. Let's face it, as a country, Iraq is a colonial creation and indeed quite fake. People gravitate into natural arrangements they end up calling countries, and the most natural arrangement at the moment would be a theocratic islamic caliphate that includes all of the Persian Gulf countries...

 

[HuckFinn]

Don't worry D'Artagnan, I've already decided to start buying French

Too bad you'll have to start making CPUs, my approaching computer upgrade will see me sending substantial money across the Atlantic...

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by HuckFinn
I do find the post-WW2 Japan and Germany argument enticing in this regard. Yes, force of arms did bring democracy there. However, they're a bit different... they were advanced nation states. In particular Japan is very homogenous and cohesive. Iraq is splintered and divided along many lines, and most importantly, the fact that they are "Iraqi" comes very very far back in the list of defining attributes of a person living in the area.

Very good point. Another difference between postwar Iraq and postwar Germany/Japan is the "war weariness" factor. The people of Germany and Japan in 1945 had expended themselves in a war effort of years, with hundreds of thousands of lives lost. Their cities were reduced to rubble, and the people were chronically (as opposed to acutely) impoverished relative to what they had before. I think it would be safe to say that they were truly tired of fighting at the end. In Japan's case, it took the Emperor's choice to take a loss of face so his people didn't have to either do that or be slaughtered by the millions, to get surrender, and after Hiroshima and Nagasaki I can see why he made that sacrifice--but once he did, the people accepted it probably quite gratefully.

For the Iraqis, on the other hand, the "game" has just begun. Those who happen to be more bellicose than others are just beginning to get their opportunity, and their emotions are hardly spent. The fact that relatively little of the infrastructure and civilian population were destroyed in this war is also significant.

As you can see, the "mood" of Iraq is entirely different. So while we may do well to model parts of our plan after the successes in Germany and Japan, we should also bear in mind that they are not close to the same situation.

EDIT: Sorry for the thread jack, though it wasn't as bad as the "toilet" one.

Really, HONESTLY, I know that Bush got pretty rough diplomatically. But the "won't be invited to the ranch anytime soon" is, I'm deducing from context, kind of like the idiomatic "won't be inviting him to dinner anytime soon"--used when two civil acquaintances or colleagues have a falling out over something, by someone who's kind of fuming over it, but knows he'll get over it. It's kind of used jokingly.

Anyway, I don't bother myself with this anti-French thing, although I am a bit miffed with Chirac. Thanks to France selling us that huge Louisiana Territory for a paltry sum, I'm an American! Although they are a political and cultural rival, I can deal with that, and even appreciate those things French that I appreciate. Entirely on a different plane than politics....

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by D' Artagnan
But I find it childish to say "France will face consequences" and make that happen.

Well, once again, how do you WANT him to react?

Originally posted by D' Artagnan
On the metaphora thing : imagine you're with 3 friends and you're the thoughest of them. You're discussing about something seriously (girls, politics, philosophy, whatever). Would you beat the crap out of them just because they didn't agree with u ?
No.

Well,... on girls?

Thats a terrible analogy though... who said that those consequences would be anything that drastic. A cold shoulder is a consequence too.

Originally posted by D' Artagnan
That's the kind of state of mind the US is adopting now. They also warned Mexico, Chile and Brazil.

I don't think it is a negative thing... I think when we're making decisions that benefit other countries, we should keep in mind the one's that make decisions that benefit us. That is what friendship is based upon; help countries that help us... not unconditional acceptance.

France decided it had more to gain out of opposing the U.S. policy than supporting it... fine. We reserve the right to make the identical decision.

Originally posted by HuckFinn
Certainly it probably is an unacceptable outcome, but how does one propose to go about achieving it without being accused of too much outside influence? I wish them luck, but the contradiction sure is great.

I meant installing a dictatorship because it supports America was an unacceptable outcome to Americans.
You know, those people who hold W.'s reelection hopes & domestic political capital expenditures in their hands?

Originally posted by HuckFinn
People gravitate into natural arrangements they end up calling countries, and the most natural arrangement at the moment would be a theocratic islamic caliphate that includes all of the Persian Gulf countries...

Pessimism won't bring democracy to any Iraqi's. And this completely dodges the question of recommended policy... its easy to sit back and foresee doom, but what do you think we should do about it? Give up and try to find a theocratic state that will sell us oil?

Originally posted by allan2
Although they are a political and cultural rival, I can deal with that, and even appreciate those things French that I appreciate. Entirely on a different plane than politics....

I agree. Why I find it annoying that people mix politics & economics. Like refusing to buy coke sends a message to W?

 

[test_specimen]

If I'm backed by the US President, will I still be moderated for starting a "How to make the French suffer"-Nationality bashing thread? Is "the French stink" now, finally, accepted as a conversational bon mot?

Don't you think your friends should have the same opinion as you on everything you do, or shut the **** up? Don't you think old people (as in "Old Europe") should be kept in tiny little cages to stay out of the way? Don't you think that Freedom Land (fka France) would be perfectly suitable for A-bomb testing?

I do. But hey, no one likes me either.

 

[onejayhawk]

I cannot believe there is a thread on this, but then I plan to add my nickle, so I'll only mention it to ignor it.

Bush was not pleased with Chirac and said so in plain Tex-speak. He did it in a light humorous vein that did not imply that the two could not work together, but that they would do it in a businesslike rather than a cordial atmosphere. They are not friendly right now, but business is still business.

This is also saying to Mexico, England and Russia, among others, that their relations a valued rather more highly than some.

J

PS As to the notion that anyone would not want to spen 24/7 with President Bush, I commend you to examine his staff. He is everything in person that he is not in public: Witty, humorous, gracious and persuasive. There are not going to be any books by ex Secret Service men about his lack of control in private.

 

[MrPresident]

As to the notion that anyone would not want to spen 24/7 with President Bush, I commend you to examine his staff. He is everything in person that he is not in public: Witty, humorous, gracious and persuasive. There are not going to be any books by ex Secret Service men about his lack of control in private.

I point to often forgotten when talking about politics. A public image is just that. How many of us would look like fools if we had to speak in front of hundreds or even thousands?

Don't you think that Freedom Land (fka France) would be perfectly suitable for A-bomb testing?

This reminded me of something. Why do none of the pro-France crowd mention French A-bomb testing on small Pacific islands?How can a nation that does that be considered less dangerous to world peace than America?

But I find it childish to say "France will face consequences" and make that happen.

France did something, in the minds of many, that harmed America's national security. Is it not childish to expect there will be no consequences for that? If you do not like the actions of a government then you do not buy their goods and services. This has been used countless times. After France refused to remove the ban of British beer in direct violation of the EU many Britons boycotted French products. Was that childish?

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by MrPresident

France did something, in the minds of many, that harmed America's national security. Is it not childish to expect there will be no consequences for that? If you do not like the actions of a government then you do not buy their goods and services. This has been used countless times. After France refused to remove the ban of British beer in direct violation of the EU many Britons boycotted French products. Was that childish?

Give over, Iraq has in no way been a threat to America's security.

If people don;t like other countries using their vetos, then they should have thought about that when they gave them to them in the first place.

Answer me this Mr. Pres, since I disagree with Britain's participation in the war, how would you feel if I (and others) decided to cancel my holiday there next month?

 

[MrPresident]

Give over, Iraq has in no way been a threat to America's security.

That's an opinion not a fact.

If people don;t like other countries using their vetos, then they should have thought about that when they gave them to them in the first place.

They did. However the desire to avoid another World War was just too great to let such considerations get in the way.

Answer me this Mr. Pres, since I disagree with Britain's participation in the war, how would you feel if I (and others) decided to cancel my holiday there next month?

Why do you care what I feel about that? It is your holiday and it is your choice to have it where you wish. If you feel Britain has done enough to warrant you cancelling your holiday there then cancel your holiday. If you really want my feelings even after reading that then I feel you are making the wrong choice. Britain did what she thought was in the best interests of her people and of the world. We did not sign a resolution then refuse to enforce it. We did not say one thing and do something completely different. We stated our position and everyone knew what that position was. If you feel our actions were wrong then write the Prime Minister or the Foreign Office and say so. At the very least find out which MPs voted for the war in Parliament and did not go to their constituents. How's that for an answer?

 

[sysyphus]

double post

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by MrPresident
That's an opinion not a fact.

If it is a matter of opinion, then why do you chastise France for having the opposite opinion?

Originally posted by MrPresident

If you feel our actions were wrong then write the Prime Minister or the Foreign Office and say so. At the very least find out which MPs voted for the war in Parliament and did not go to their constituents. How's that for an answer?

My point being Mr. President, cancelling my holiday there would be ridiculous just over a dispute over this issue. Thinking that Britain is not worthy of my money because of their involvement in Iraq would be childish.

Despite my differences with your country's decision on this issue, I still like Britain and am looking forward to visiting.

IF countries want to get into some stupid back and forth retaliation war due to differences in opinion, we'll all be the worse off for it.

And then Saddam will really get the last laugh.

 

[MrPresident]

If it is a matter of opinion, then why do you chastise France for having the opposite opinion?

I have never chastised anyone for anything in my life. I did not like the fact that France threatened to veto any 18th resolution whatever it said with them having already signed resolution 1441. Whether Iraq was a threat to America's national security was not the issue. The issue was Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which is possessed in violation of UN security council resolutions. France voted for a resolution that said Iraq prove disarmament or face "serious consequences". Then it refused to face up to its responsibility. Now this would not be boycott time if France had left it at that but then they got veto-happy.

My point being Mr. President, cancelling my holiday there would be ridiculous just over a dispute over this issue.

Ridiculous in your opinion.

Thinking that Britain is not worthy of my money because of their involvement in Iraq would be childish.

I disagree. I doubt children are capable of understanding complex international relations.

I still like Britain and am looking forward to visiting.

You should, it's a lovely country.

And then Saddam will really get the last laugh.

Saddam has already had his last laugh.

What I don't understand is that you are somehow suggesting that boycotting a country because of its actions is childish. Would you consider the boycotting of apartheid South Africa childish? No, because you disapprove of that country's actions. Some Americans disapprove of France's actions and therefore they boycott France. If you disagree that is fine but to call them childish is ridiculous in itself. It is just the free expression of opinion permitted under a democratic society. If they had marched on Washington with painted banners would you have approved? It is just a different kind of protest, that's all. A much more effective kind of protest in my opinion.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by MrPresident
That's an opinion not a fact.

Well, lets look at Iraq's missile range and navy. They couldnt touch the US with a ten foot pole/

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by sysyphus
If it is a matter of opinion, then why do you chastise France for having the opposite opinion?

Well, we disagree on the death penalty as well, but no flap is made about that.

Its not about opinions, but about opinions that have consequences. France's decision to oppose the war had real, tangible, diplomatic consequences for the U.S.

You don't cause someone consequences and expect the other to chaulk it up to experience, even if you are friends. Its a cool relationship for a while now, and favoritism often directed at France will probably be redirected.

Decisions have consequences. I thought people knew this.

Originally posted by sysyphus
IF countries want to get into some stupid back and forth retaliation war due to differences in opinion, we'll all be the worse off for it.

Well, let us start with back.

So, clarify this a little more. France undermines U.S. diplomatic efforts, and the U.S. shouldn't react.
Now the U.S. should NOT undermine French diplomatic efforts, because it would be stupid & childish?

Why does France get a free pass for something, but if the U.S. does the SAME THING in response it is a bad thing?

Can you be any more transparent with a double standard?

Originally posted by archer_007
Well, lets look at Iraq's missile range and navy. They couldnt touch the US with a ten foot pole/

Did anyone ever claim otherwise?
Did anyone ever claim fear of Iraqi's conventional arsenal?

 

[Mrogreturns]

Originally posted by archer_007


Well, lets look at Iraq's missile range and navy. They couldnt touch the US with a ten foot pole/

Hans Blix clearly stated that- "Iraq`s capacity to manufacture 10-foot poles was permanantly eliminated in the 1st Gulf War and all existing poles have been destroyed"

Err- or were you talking about tall people from Poland

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by archer_007


Well, lets look at Iraq's missile range and navy. They couldnt touch the US with a ten foot pole/

Neither could Bin Ladin. Unfortunately, he could touch us with 4 airliners filled with people.

If a nuclear bomb was ever to go off in NY or DC, it wouldn't be delivered by a missile (at least from Iraq or a terrorist) or an Al-Mohammed class Destroyer. A tramp freighter would do the job quite well.
The same applies to biologicals and chemical weapons.


As for the US's reation to France, again I say, cut the words, and gestures. Reserve it to a time and place of our choosing, and make it effective. We most likely won't even see the effects when they happen. A trade deal here, a contract there. France has chosen to play this game, and so it shall be played.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by knowltok2

If a nuclear bomb was ever to go off in NY or DC, it wouldn't be delivered by a missile (at least from Iraq or a terrorist) or an Al-Mohammed class Destroyer. A tramp freighter would do the job quite well.
The same applies to biologicals and chemical weapons.

This is making the assumption that Iraq and bin Laden are working together.

 

[Architekt]

Originally posted by D' Artagnan



I think : " we tend to punish whoever dares to disagree with us" is more accurate

reckon... or who has something we want .

Liberating their OIL for american benefit more like.

 

[SunTzu]

yeah it was all about oil and damnit i love it, great gas prices now