MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
So, by Thursday you will be what? Luke Skywalker?
Originally posted by MrPresident
You want your country to piss of the world's most powerful superpower? That seems incredibily stupid to me.
Originally posted by MrPresident
Who the hell is anyone else to tell my country (or the US) that they are making a mistake? Our foreign policy is determined by our own national self-interest and for another country to tell my country that they know more about what it good for us then we do is amazingly arrogant. If you disagree fine, just don't preach at us. We do what we think is right and you do what you think is right and let's leave it at that.
Originally posted by MrPresident
You think America changed anything to do with their policy in Vietnam because De Gaulle pointed at France's own failed foreign policy?
Originally posted by MrPresident
You don't reconstructure a nation in a year. I think it is a little premature to declare Chirac was right, especially considering that he was acting out of pure national self-interest (massive oil contracts anyone?).
Originally posted by MrPresident
Let's not kid ourselves here. If America wants to do something they consider a matter of national security then they will regardless of what an ally tells them. You are simply arguing that Bush should have been more diplomatic and made it look like America was listening when really it wasn't. And on that point I agree with you. Bush should have been more diplomatic. However that doesn't change the fact that listening to one's allies basically means paying mere lip-service to their national self-interest. Diplomacy is getting what you want without anyone knowing that what you've got is what you wanted.
Originally posted by allhailIndia
There is no such thing as an American ally
No nation has permanent friends or interests, only permanent interests, Lord Palmerston if I am not mistaken.
No nation is indispensable to the US, but the US itself. IT would be wise to understand that and get over any snubs the US may hand.
If any nation feels that the US will be its ally forever and will always agree and fight by it, it is sadly mistaken. The US always has its interests, before it puts its allies interests ahead. The trick for any country, is to convince the US that assisting it would be in the US's interests
E.G. How Britain got the US to provide supplies against Hitler in the Second World War.
How the Pakistanis convinced the US to support the Mujahiddeen in Afghanistan.
Originally posted by MrPresident
So, by Thursday you will be what? Luke Skywalker?
What I am saying is that Bush should have accepted that he was not automatically right and considered a bit more the arguments of the anti-war.
When a British Army was laying seige to Paris did the Americans come to the aid of the nation that had helped them win their liberty?
The French people had been fighting for exactly the same things the Americans had but their "allies" chose to do nothing.
And which French "ally" did more to undermine and strip France of its Empire than any other? It wasn't Britain or Germany.
Fair enough.Originally posted by Kinniken
No, I want it to able to take actions in its interest which might piss of the US. I certainly do not want it to do so deliberately, but I do not want it shaking it fear at the thought that it might annoy the US for some reason.
Yeah, but you're don't telling the Americans that they're foreign policy is wrong. You're telling them that it is in opposition to your national self-interest. I have no problem with that. I just dislike it being disguised in moral terms.Originally posted by Kinniken
And I don't see why you should react as if for a country to say it does not agree with an analysis of the US is somehow an insult. Nobody is always right, and that include the US administration. And for that matter, if the American government thinks a policy of Chirac is stupid, I have no problem with it saying so and explaining why.
Poor military prepartion for the reconstruction has nothing to do with neo-cons, that's the fault of the Pentagon. And what makes you think Bush didn't consider the arguments of the anti-war side and simply reject them as wrong, like you have rejected the pro-war side as wrong? Listening to an argument doesn't mean agreeing it.Originally posted by Kinniken
What I am saying is that Bush should have accepted that he was not automatically right and considered a bit more the arguments of the anti-war. For a start, that might have led him to prepare more seriously for the reconstruction, instead of swallowing whole the neo-con fantasy of Iraqis showering US troops with flowers.
Yes.Originally posted by Kinniken
The US should only take into account its own interest
No. Just don't disguise your problem with American foreign policy as anything other than national self-interest.Originally posted by Kinniken
What it does is no one else's problem
No. There's a difference between advice and preaching.Originally posted by Kinniken
No other nation can possibly have valuable advice to give the US
From an American foreign policy point of view, yes.Originally posted by Kinniken
Every nation should do its best not to piss of the US
Originally posted by MrPresident
Yeah, but you're don't telling the Americans that they're foreign policy is wrong. You're telling them that it is in opposition to your national self-interest. I have no problem with that. I just dislike it being disguised in moral terms.
Originally posted by MrPresident
Poor military prepartion for the reconstruction has nothing to do with neo-cons, that's the fault of the Pentagon.
Originally posted by MrPresident
And what makes you think Bush didn't consider the arguments of the anti-war side and simply reject them as wrong, like you have rejected the pro-war side as wrong? Listening to an argument doesn't mean agreeing it.
Originally posted by MrPresident
No. Just don't disguise your problem with American foreign policy as anything other than national self-interest.
Originally posted by allhailIndia
@kinniken
I don't much about the other French colonies, but AFAIK, in Vietnam, the US DIDN'T want the French to leave, so that they could oppose Communism together.
He believes he is.Originally posted by Kinniken
You do not understand. The interest I have in mind there is not France's, it's that of the West: weakening Al Qaida as much as possible. And I do not believe Bush is doing a good job at it.
I won't not expect you to be bothered about French oil contracts, though would I expect the majority of the French people to bothered either. But you don't make French foreign policy, Chirac does.Originally posted by Kinniken
And BTW, considering that like most French I have no love for TotalFinaElf and that the one place where I want to see Chirac is in a jail, Chirac's "bad" reasons for opposing the war does not apply to me.
They probably could have won just as easily with 20,000 troops. It is the post-war situation that they have bungled, but I accept your point.Originally posted by Kinniken
It had to do with Rumsfeld, one of the leading neo-con, believing his theory that the Iraqis would offer no resistance and Bush letting him getting away with minimal preparations. Though the worst was averted... remember Rumsfeld initial plans to invade with twenty thousand troops?
My guess is that he wanted to appear strong and decisive to win over the support of the American people.Originally posted by Kinniken
But if the Bush administration considered the anti-war agreements, it went out of its way to hide it.
National security.Originally posted by Kinniken
Once again, when it comes to fighting terrorism I do not see what French national interest I could be defending.
Then why aren't there any French troops there?Originally posted by Kinniken
Success or failure in Iraq will affect the risk of terrorism just about everywhere.
Again, it wasn't ignored. It is kind of hard to ignore a threatened UN security council veto. It was simply disagreed with.Originally posted by Kinniken
I just think that Chirac and the other anti-wars had some good analysis concerning the war that were sadly ignored
How do you know what Bush believes?Originally posted by Kinniken
that Bush's belief that no one outside his administration can have the slightest idea of what ought to be done is severely harming the fight against Al Qaida.
I'll end on a note of agreement.Originally posted by Kinniken
And for that fight to succeed is in the interest of the US, France and myself as an individual.
Originally posted by MrPresident
He believes he is.
Originally posted by MrPresident
I won't not expect you to be bothered about French oil contracts, though would I expect the majority of the French people to bothered either. But you don't make French foreign policy, Chirac does.
Originally posted by MrPresident
National security.
Originally posted by MrPresident
Again, it wasn't ignored. It is kind of hard to ignore a threatened UN security council veto. It was simply disagreed with.
How do you know what Bush believes?
Originally posted by MrPresident
I'll end on a note of agreement.![]()
You want him to change his mind not to listen to his allies. If he's allies agreed with him, would you still be calling for to listen to them more?Originally posted by Kinniken
I know, and I think he would have been better of listening more to his allies. I do not understand your point.
I think the Iraq war put America more in the firing line than France, though with your headscarve ban you seem to be trying to correct that.Originally posted by Kinniken
I do not see how the consequences, either positive or negative, of the Iraq war on international terrorism affect French national security differently than American one.
What exactly does 'taking them into account' mean? Are anti-war people taking into account Bush's views?Originally posted by Kinniken
And those lead me to believe that while Bush indeed fought the anti-war arguments at the UN, it was always because they were in his way; he never gave the impression of taking them into account.
Originally posted by MrPresident
I think the Iraq war put America more in the firing line than France, though with your headscarve ban you seem to be trying to correct that.
Originally posted by MrPresident
What exactly does 'taking them into account' mean? Are anti-war people taking into account Bush's views?
Originally posted by Kinniken
It changes little to the real question, the strength of Al Qaida worldwide, which affect the west more or less equally.