BS: France

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: DougR
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 11:51 PM

Forum Lurker: you were AROUND for the War of 1812? Amazing!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: toadfrog
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 11:23 PM

When you go to heaven, babe, gonna stop by france
Hey lawdy mama mama, hey lawdy papa papa, hollerin' 'bout stop by france.
Gonna stop by there just to give these girls a chance.

Baby, when I die, don't bury daddy at all.
Hey lawdy mama mama, hey lawdy papa papa, hollerin' 'bout buryin' daddy at all.
Well pickle daddy's bones, baby, in alcohol.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 06:12 AM

The point I was making was that the sneers we've been hearing about France's defeat in 1940 are unworthy and essentially dishonest.

Noone can say whether, in the absence of the Channel, Britain wouldn't have gone the way, while the United States has found itself in the happy situation of never (since 1812) having to fight a war against a country of comparable size and strength to itself, and therefore has no way of knowing how it would cope in such circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Gareth
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 01:24 AM

Historical lesson.

Which infant nation had it's capital burnt by the British, suffered close and effective blockade of it's ports, and whose Navy did not dare to leave harbour in the end. ?

The magnaminity of the terms offered by Britain in the Treaty of Paris should be well remembered.

Finally it is proper that the dying words of Captain Laurence of the USS Cheasepeake " Don't give up the ship " should be remembered - It is also proper that the words of Captain Phillip Broke of HMS "Shannon" should be remembered "Follow me who can"

An unrepentant,

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 11:11 PM

Little Hawk-unfortunately, human greed almost always causes such systems to break down, even without outside intervention, once they are large enough that mere sense of community cannot provide all necessary moral guidance.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 10:46 PM

Yessiree, Bob! We repulsed every American invasion attempt in 1812-1814, captured the frigate "Chesapeake", swept the sea of most of your merchant marine, burned Washington and the White House, and mooned your guys across the Niagara River, to add insult to injury. Not bad, considering we were badly outnumbered in available manpower on the North American continent.

Here's my version of the cow theory of government:

I have 2 cows. Joe doesn't have a cow. Joe and I and a number of other people live in our community. The basis of our community is that we all share with one another equally. Joe may not have a cow, but he does have an ax, and he's good with that ax. I contribute to the community by providing all of us with milk from my 2 cows. Joe provides firewood on behalf of all of us. One day Joe helps teach me how to use the ax, and I teach him how to milk the cow. Now both of us are more capable, and each can fill in for the other when the other is not available. This further benefits everybody. Those of us who can sing and play instruments do so, which again benefits the whole community. We teach others if they are interested. Those who are good at anything share it with others, and help those others to become good at it too, if they are interested.

We are all for one, and one for all. We are all unique, and that enriches the community. We are all secure in the knowledge that others will not abandon us if we are in need.

It simply doesn't matter who has 2 cows in such a community. Money is not necessary in such a community, unless it must deal with outside people who are not familiar with the concept of community, and are just out for themselves. Such a community must remain fairly small these days...cos the larger system is based on people NOT sharing with one another, and will take measures against sharing people if they become too noticeable.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 10:05 PM

Troll-If you're talking about the War of 1812, I don't recall it being quite so one-sided as that. Something about them burning our capitol city to the ground?

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Troll
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 09:56 PM

Do you believe, therefore, that we should have stayed out of WWI and out of WWII as well? As for the British, the one time they attacked a country with a technology on a par with their own ( The US) they got handed their heads.
I'd leave well enough alone if I were you. Oh, and it isn't that the French lost, it's the way they lost.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 01:23 PM

I get irritated by constant cracks about the French losing wars, coming from people in countries protected. in the case of Britain, by a channel, and in the case of America by wide oceans. And it might be as well for Americans to remember that the last time they had a war with a country that wasn't much smaller than themselves was in 1812.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Peg
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 12:13 PM

I marched with over 25,000 people in an anti-war protest in Boston yesterday. The sign I chose to carry (made by frieds the night before) had a French flag and the Statue of Liberty and said "Vive la France!" as well as "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite."

Very interesting the sorts of responses I got.

MOST of the time when people responded to it, they looked with interest and usually smiled, or gave some sign of encouragement (thumbs up, or saying they liked my sign). I also had a bit of silly patter to go with it; in an outrageously fake French accent, I said "Vive la France! Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite, cafe au lait, Vive La france!" When I got to "cafe au lait" people laughed. Some people carred baguettes and wore berets; one sign said "Make French Fries, Not War."
When I ran into one of the other French supporters, a tall guy (also wearing a French sailor's shirt) we chanted together in call and response style: he said "Vive la France!" and I repeated the other four French words. Whe we parted he'd adopted the "cafe au lait" for his own.

Along the route some people hung French flags out their windows (though the Boston police were telling people not to hang out of their windows and threatened to fine those who did), and some folks standing on balconies waving tiny French flags seemed delighted when I shouted up at them and showed my sign. During the march my friends and I, amidst other chants and a few harmonized choruses of "Dona Nobis Pacem" picked up by other marchers, also made up other pro-France chants, like "Baguettes Not Bombs" and "Brioche Not Bombs" and "Make French Toast not War."

On the negative side, one student standing with some others (not sure what college but they seemed to be standing in front of one of it's buidings) challenged me with some sort of statement about breaking some contract with Saddam; it sounded like horse hockey so after suggesting he march with us and make his feelings known ("Why would I march with you?" he sneered) I told him to have a nice day and moved on. We passed several enclaves of pro-war protestors, most of them seeming to be working class men between their 20s and 40s. (Carrying clever signs that said things like "Hey Professional Protestors: Take a shower and get a real job!" or "Flag Burners Go Home!")Several of them saw my sign and said "go back to your own country!" I continued chanting in my ridiculously theatrical fake French accent and they STILL thought I was French! Which I found unbelievable.
At one point some French students tried talking to me in French when they saw my sign and I had to admit "Ma francais est terrible." They laughed when I tried to converse with them in nonsense phrases like "cafe au lait" and "omelette du fromage." One older Veteran (must have been in his 70s at least) who stood along the route covered in buttons and medals, waving an American flag and a sign stating he opposed the war, said "Vive la France!" when I walked by. I went over and kissed him on the cheek, and thanked him for being there.


All in all an amazing day, and even the weather cooperated. Sunny and windy but warm, with just a few momentary bouts of light drizzle. The numbers were just short of the expected 30-50,000 but I imagine these marches will just keep growing. The next one in Washington is expected to top a million.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Troll
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 08:34 PM

Saw a neat T-shirt on CNN today. It said," War Never Solved Anything.
Except Slavery and Nazism and Fascism.
You all need to lighten up a bit. The following was sent to me in an E-mail.

                        _________________________________

                      THE COW THEORY OF GOVERNMENT

                      DEMOCRAT
                      You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being
                      successful. You vote people into office that put a tax on your cows,
                      forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay the tax. The people you
                      voted for then take the tax money, buy a cow and give it to your
                      neighbor. You feel righteous. Barbara Streisand sings for you.

                      SOCIALIST
                      You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your
                      neighbor. You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.

                      REPUBLICAN
                      You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So, what's your point?

                      COMMUNIST
                      You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with
                      milk. You wait in line for hours to get it. It is expensive and sour.

                      CAPITALISM - AMERICAN STYLE
                      You have two cows. You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

                      DEMOCRACY - AMERICAN STYLE
                      You have two cows. The government taxes you to the point you have to
                      sell both to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow,
                      which was a gift from your government.

                      BUREAUCRACY - AMERICAN STYLE
                      You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks
                      the other, pays you for the milk, and then pours the milk down the drain.

                      AMERICAN CORPORATION
                      You have two cows. You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an
                      IPO on the second one. You force the two cows to produce the milk of
                      four cows. You are surprised when one cow drops dead. You spin an
                      announcement to the analysts you have downsized and are reducing
                      expenses. Your stock goes up.

                      FRENCH CORPORATION
                      You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows. You
                      go to lunch. Life is good.

                      JAPANESE CORPORATION
                      You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size
                      of am ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. They learn to
                      travel on unbelievably crowded trains. Most are at the top of their
                      class at cow school.

                      GERMAN CORPORATION
                      You have two cows. You engineer them so they are all blond, drink
                      lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an
                      hour. Unfortunately, they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.

                      ITALIAN CORPORATION
                      You have two cows but you don't know where they are. While ambling
                      around, you see a beautiful woman. You break for lunch. Life is good.

                      RUSSIAN CORPORATION
                      You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You
                      have some more vodka. You count them again and learn you have 42
                      cows. You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop
                      counting cows and open another bottle of vodka. You produce your 10th
                      5-year plan in the last 3 months. The Mafia shows up and takes over
                      however many cows you really have.

                      FLORIDA CORPORATION
                      You have a black cow and a brown cow. Everyone votes for the best
                      looking one. Some of the people, who like the brown one best, vote
                      for the black one. Some people vote for both. Some vote for neither.
                      Some people can't figure out how to vote at all. Finally, a bunch of
                      guys from out-of-state tell you which is the best looking one.

                      NEW YORK CORPORATION
                      You have fifteen million cows. You have to choose which one will be
                      the leader of the herd, so you pick some cow from Arkansas.
                      ______________________________________________________________

                  

                     
                     
                      ____________________________________________________________________

                      THE 12 RULES OF LIFE

                      Sometimes we just need to remember what The 12 Rules of Life really are:

                      01) Never give yourself a haircut after three margaritas.

                      02) You need only two tools: WD-40 and duct tape. If it doesn't move
                      and it should, use WD-40. If it moves and shouldn't, use the tape.

                      03) The five most essential words for a healthy, vital relationship are "I
                      apologize" and "you are right."

                      04) Everyone seems normal until you get to know them.

                      05) Never pass up an opportunity to pee.

                      06) If he/she says that you are too good for him/her -- believe them.

                      07) Learn to pick your battles; ask yourself, "Will this matter one
                      year from now? How about one month? One week? One day?"

                      08) When you make a mistake, make amends immediately. It's easier to
                      eat crow while it's still warm.

                      09) If you woke up breathing, congratulations! You have another chance!

                      10) Living well really is the best revenge. Being miserable because of a
                      bad or former relationship just might mean that the other person was
                      right about you.

                      11) Work is good, but it's not that important. Money is nice, but you can't
                      take it with you. Statistics show most people don't live to spend all they
                      saved; some die even before they retire. Anything we have isn't really ours;
                      it was given to us by God He just let's us borrow it while we're here...even our kids.

                      12) And finally... Be really good to your family and friends. You never
                      know when you are going to need them to empty your bedpan. Being happy
                      doesn't mean everything's perfect. It means you've decided to see beyond the imperfections.
                      _________________________________________________________________

                      THE FRENCH

                      "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure"
                      ---Jacques Chirac, President of France

                      In response:Â "As far as France is concerned, you are right."
                      ---Rush Limbaugh
                      Â
                      "France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks
                      it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by prostitutes."
                      ---Mark Twain
                      Â
                      "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me."
                      --- General George S. Patton
                      Â
                      "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your cello."Â
                      --Norman Schwartzkopf
                      Â
                      "We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it."
                      ---- Marge Simpson
                      Â
                      "The only time France wants us to go to war is when the German Army is
                      sitting in Paris sipping coffee."
                      Â --- Regis Philbin
                      Â
                      "The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any
                      better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit
                      outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more
                      stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of bourbon I don't
                      know."
                      --- P. J O'Rourke
                      Â
                      "You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the
                      1940s who was still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the
                      face for it."
                      ---John McCain, US Senator from Arizona
                      Â
                      "You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam Hussein? Because he
                      hates America, he loves mistresses and wears a beret. He is French, people."
                      --Conan O'Brien
                      Â
                      "I don't know why people are surprised that France won't help us get
                      Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get the Germans
                      out of France
                      ---Jay Leno

                      "The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into
                      Paris under a German flag."
                      --David Letterman
                      Â
                      How many Frenchmen does it take to change a light bulb? Just one.
                      Jacques Chirac holds the bulb and all of Europe must revolve around him.
                      Â Â
                      I believe eBay was auctioning a French military firearm. The description
                      was, "Never fired, dropped once."

                      One final French dilemma. George W. Bush is sitting in the Oval Office. Scientists tell him that they
                      have discovered a meteor that is headed towards the earth. They calculate that it will strike France in
                      two days, at approximately 2:30 A.M. The meteor is large enough to completely wipe France from the
                      face of the earth forever.

                      France and the United Nations request that President Bushy send all available ships and aircraft to
                      help evacuate the country. Many of the ships and planes he could send are being used to fight the war
                      on terror overseas.

                      Dubya must decide. Does he stay up late on the night of the impact to watch the coverage live, or
                      does he tape it and watch it in the morning?

                      Thought for the day: You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best
                      golfer is a black guy, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the US of arrogance, and
                      Germany does not want to go to war with anybody.

                     
       troll

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Barry Finn
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 04:59 PM

Weapons of mass destruction. Ask any who grew up in Japan. If I've got the biggest gun in the neighborhood no one will like me but they sure will fear & hate me & do as I want & maybe some day kill me. Then again if I'm loving, generous, caring & helpful, I don't even need to be smart, I would be the neighorhood sweet heart & gain back more than just the respect & love of all around me & would live forever in the hearts of those that knew me. It works on the individual level it could work on high provided there were people on high that cared. We could've been a contender. Now we're less than dirt in the eyes of most the world & we will reap & pay dearly for it. Barry

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 11:18 AM

Right. I keep forgetting about the cycling members.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 10:42 PM

The Council has 15 members - five permanent members (with vetoes) and 10 elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. Each member takes it in turn to be in the chair for one month.

That means to get a majority the UK and the USA would have needed to get another five countries voting with them. Legally speaking that wouldn't have meant anything, since to pass a motion the support of abstention of all the permanent members would have been needed - moreover the resolution was in fact meaningless, since its text contained nothing whatsoever to authorise military action. However getting majority in support would have been politically very useful especially for Tony Blair.

The Sony plausible explanations for deciding not to go for the resolution are either that it was clear there was no majority to be had, in spite of threats and bribes; or on the other hand, legal advice was that a defeated resolution would make it impossible to even argue that Resolution 1441 authorised war. Quite possibly both explanations combined to decide to withdraw the "second resolution.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 09:32 PM

I'm not sure about the general council, though I recall that the Middle Eastern nations hold a strong power block and are almost universally opposed to war, Kuwait excepted. Of the Security Council, though, it would have been a clear 2 out of 5 loss for Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 08:58 PM

You are a dick aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 04:36 PM

Surely we all knew that George Bush's way of dealing with votes thta are going wrong is to stop the count, declare victory, and say the other side are cheats.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Nerd
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 02:15 PM

Teribus,

your claim that France stated it would use its veto is in itself debatable; they made several different claims at several different times, and whether they would indeed have vetoed is not at all clear.

But what I was asking was not how you knew the French were planning to veto. It was, rather, what evidence you had that it was the French threat of a veto that was the decisive factor in Bush's decision to avoid seeking a Security Council resolution. That was your original claim:

The reason the second resolution was not put to the vote was because France said that they would veto it.


There is no evidence I know of that will support this. Bush never stated this publicly, nor were the French blamed officially by the US Government, freedom f-cking fries notwithstanding. The fact was that Bush did not have enough votes to carry the resolution, regardless of the French. (This is, as I have said, an educated guess, in that no-one can predict the future with accuracy, but it was the projection of every media outlet based on statements from the various governments on the council, and no doubt of Bush's people as well.) That's why I said you were wrong, and you have so far supplied no evidence to change my mind.

The fact is, if Bush had had enough votes on the table barring a French veto it would have made sense to go ahead with the vote, for two reasons:

1) it wasn't clear, as I said, that the French would in fact veto

and

2) even if they did veto, this war in which we are now engaged would still have been seen as carrying the votes of the majority of the Security Council nations, making France the isolated naysayers that Washington is trying to claim they are. In fact, France was in the majority and the United States and Britain are the isolated ones.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Metchosin
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 12:04 PM

Teribus, if you are referring to nuclear weapons of mass distruction in #1 of your listed points, to be fair, I think you might include Israel in your list.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 11:00 AM

Guest Peace,

1. The US has done more to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction than any other nation - India and Pakistan, and recently North Korea threw the spanner in the works there.

2. I firmly believe that the US would not under any circumstances deliver weapons of mass destruction into the hands of terrorist groups.

3. The track record of the United States going back damn near 90 years, has established its place among the nations of the world as one of the foremost champions and defenders of freedom and democracy.

4. To make any sort of inference that the US in any way is comparable to Iraq, in fact or by perception is ludicrous, odious and objectionable.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: GUEST,Peace
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 10:34 AM

Ok then Teribus, given that you dont deny that the US has supported terrorist groups and given that they have weapons of mass destruction, would you agree that it would be right for a foreign country who may be worried about the US supplying terrorists with weapons that may be used against them, to launch an attack on the US on that basis, and which side would you have fought for?

Peace

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 10:21 AM

No arguement there Carol - I never contended that America had never supported terrorist groups, my reply was to a direct question put to me by Forum Lurker.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Alasdair
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 09:49 AM

Let's not even START talking about the US government permitting corporate sponsorship of the IRA...

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 09:47 AM

The US supported the Mujahedeen too! We've been supporting known terrorist groups for decades.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 09:26 AM

Forum Lurker,

The Ba'ath Regime supports or has supported:

Mujahedeen-e-Khalq
PKK
ANO
Hamas
PLF

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 08:52 AM

"...a regime with a history of supporting terrorist groups, that are becoming more and more international, a regime with a history of actively pursuing weapons programmes to acquire weapons of mass destruction..." -

That sounds like a description of quite a number of governments. Including the United States.

For some peculiar reason the Security Council seems to go in for coded wording rather than directly saying what is meant. As understand it the code for going to war is supposed to be "all necessary means" or similar. "Serious consequences" is taken to mean that military action will be on the agenda next time round, and can be stretched to cover violence short of war. Who decides these things is a mystery.

One good thing that should come out of all this would be that they could cut out this kind of crap and use straightforward language, the sort that ultimatums always used to contain in the days when countries actually declared war instead of following the Japanese Pearl Harbour approach to starting conflicts. "Unless such and such happens by such and such a date and time, a state of war will exist between our two countries."

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 08:52 AM

Teribus-How does Saddam have a history of supporting terrorist groups? As far as I know no credible evidence exists to show that.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: mkebenn
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 08:13 AM

Canuckistan? Oh my Lord...Mike

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Alasdair
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 06:30 AM

I would really like to see someone writing on "Saddam Hussein is a fair and just ruler of his people whose coninued governance should be both permitted and supported by the UN because..."

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 05:49 AM

I have yet to hear what "serious consequences" means, given the situation at the time that wording was adopted. UN having sat on it's collective arse doing absolutely nothing, apart from talk, for the best part of 12 years, while Saddam Hussein thumbed his nose at them.

The wording of a previous resolution was good enough for the UN to permit "Desert Fox" under the Clinton administration - but not good enough apparently for any action under the Bush administration. The difference, post 11th September 2001, they knew that Bush would treat the matter a great deal more seriously.

And before I get the call that 911 had nothing to do with Iraq - I know and fully appreciate that point. However, none of you, who argue against the American governments stance on Iraq, can offer any form of guarantee whatsoever, that a regime with a history of supporting terrorist groups, that are becoming more and more international, a regime with a history of actively pursuing weapons programmes to acquire weapons of mass destruction, would not at some time in the future pass that knowledge, technology and material on to such a terrorist group. The evaluation of that threat says that it is possible.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Alasdair
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 04:41 AM

LOL!!! COngrats Little Hawk - the first msg I've read on here that made me actually laugh out loud. My question is, would I have to pay or not?

Al

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 08:45 PM

That's a bloody lie, Alasdair!!! It's the fecking Scots who are always assaulting sheep, the filthy sods! The Welsh are into necrophilia and dissecting amphibians without official clearance.

If you were here, I would smack some sense into you.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Metchosin
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 07:24 PM

Most of us just fine McGrath, although some in the business community have their shirts in a knot.

I would think the Americans would be relieved that Canada isn't in. You never can tell when they might need one our ambassadors to dress 'em up as Canadians and smuggle a bunch of them out through our embassy in some country where the locals have become a bit testy with them.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 05:28 PM

Well French is an official language there, so I imagine some people think that's pretty dodgy. How are the Cajuns coping in this situation?

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 03:23 PM

Well, France is off the hook big time. The American ambassador ripped the shit out of Canada big time yesterday. The Premier of Ontario (a Reagan type Conservative) grovelled a bit and said, (or words to this effect) It wasn't US....it's that nasty FRENCH Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien! The one that President Bush thinks is named John Crouton.

Rick, reporting from Soviet Canuckistan.

Cheers

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 02:08 PM

Kevin, some people just can't deal with reality and need to find a scapegoat- it's France's turn in the barrel. Blaming France alone also distracts from the fact that the BuShites failed miserably in getting support for their pre-determined agenda in the UN and from most of the rest of the world. Sort of an updated version of "The Big Lie".

Similarly, the claim that Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11- a majority of the U.S. population apparently believes that fabrication.

Unfortunately, the big lie seems to work a treat!

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 01:57 PM

I'm still puzzled why so many Americans appear to take as a mortal affront the fact that France refused to fall in line with the wishes of the regime in Washington.

It's not as if they suddenly did a u-turn - all along they said that war could only be a last resort when all other avenues had been exhausted. Which is essentially what Tony Blair had told everyone, except that he didn't mean it.

"Serious consequences" did not imply going to war, and it is not honest to claim that it did. Country after country voting form it made it quire clear at the time that it was not a tripwire for automatic war, without the Security Council having teh final say.

Essentially it was a warning that military force could be one of the options to be considered and voted on, if there was insufficient compliance by Iraq. The resolution left the decision in the hands of the Security Council. And the majority of Security Council members, including three of the five permanent members, were not satisfied that all other avenues had been exhausted, when the USA and the UK went to war.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Alasdair
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 12:53 PM

You people need to chill out big time. Everyone knows that the French are arrogant cowards; that Americans are majestically ignorant; that French Canadians are lazy; anglophone Canadians are up-tight; the English are cold snobs; the Scots are truculent; the Welsh have an unhealthy fondness for sheep; and the Irish are generally drunk.

who gives a shit?

Al

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Metchosin
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 12:52 PM

I sort of like the French words "detente" and "diplomacy" ( diplomatie - "tie" pronounced "cie"). Seems to me it took a long time by today's standards and need for instant gratification, but during the "Cold War" where the threat of the use of the weapons of mass distruction was undeniable and the whole world at risk of becoming "freedom toast", the end result didn't suck. Too bad those two French words don't seem to be in Britain's and America's vocabulary now.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 12:19 PM

Nerd,

If memory serves me correctly in the run up to the UK tabling the second resolution, Russia and China said they might use their right of Veto - France on the other hand stated that they were going to use it.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 11:51 AM

Le Pen sneaked through the middle and came second because there were a fair number of candidates. Then they had the run off, and pretty well everyone voted for Chirac, even though he is pretty rightwing. Fortunately they don't have a system in France which allows the person who gets fewer votes to become President.

"Kevin: So? Are you saying that Saddam should continue to rule Iraq?"
I'd love it if Saddam were out of the picture. Of course, he's by no mean the only ruler whom I'd love to see the last of, but he's up towards the top of the list. If I could snap my finger, and each time one vanished, I'd be busy snapping fingers for quite some time. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. And the rules everyone has signed up to don't allow countries to make war on other countries, just in order to get rid of the bastards.

If those are bad rules perhaps there should be some way of changing them, but they are still there, and all countries are bound by them, and are acting illegally if they break them. Which I suppose means that the troops involved in the illegal war could reasonably be described as "illegal combatants. Fortunately I don't think anyone recognises that bizarre way of trying to evade the Geneva Accords, apart from Washington.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Nerd
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 11:51 AM

Teribus,

Granted what I'm saying is an educated guess. Not even the most conservative news outlets predicted that Bush would have gotten enough votes, regardless of the French veto. That's what my "pure conjecture" is based on.

What about your assertion that it was specifically the French Veto threat that sent Bush packing? Did you have a conversation with President Bush, or was your statement also "pure conjecture" based on what you heard or read in the news? Just curious...

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 07:30 AM

Aye Gareth,

Chirac picked up votes he otherwise could not have depended upon in response to the banners advising:

"Vote for the Crook, Not the Fascist"

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Ringer
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 07:14 AM

Yes, thank you for not pointing that out, Gareth.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Gareth
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 05:34 AM

Far be it for me to point out that the French electorate voted very significantly for Le Pen last year, a man who has similar views on democracy and human rights as Saddam Hussain.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 03:41 AM

Nerd,

"Even without France's veto, Bush did not have enough votes."

Pure conjecture.

"Even if France had done a 180 and voted FOR it, it would have lost."

Pure conjecture - Your contention begs the question that if France had changed its mind and voted for it, why would the countries France had persuaded to oppose the resolution maintained their stance?

"If France's veto had been the issue Bush would have gone ahead with the vote to show that he had support of a majority of the council and that France was just being difficult."

I disagree, the veto would have stood, and the resolution would not have been passed. Going that route would only have succeeded in prolonging the issue, in effect giving Saddam Hussein more time, it would not have affected the outcome of the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Nerd
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 03:03 AM

Teribus,

The reason the second resolution was not put to the vote was because France said that they would veto it.

You're wrong. Even without France's veto, Bush did not have enough votes. Even if France had done a 180 and voted FOR it, it would have lost. If France's veto had been the issue Bush would have gone ahead with the vote to show that he had support of a majority of the council and that France was just being difficult. The fact is, we had a so-called "Summit" meeting of the major allies: US, UK, Spain (It reminds me of Safire's quip "nowadays it is possible to have a summit of nobodies in a basement.") at which is was decided that they could not drum up support for a resolution, so they'd have to go it alone.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: DougR
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 02:27 AM

Kevin: So? Are you saying that Saddam should continue to rule Iraq?

Also, as I recall, Resolution 1441 said that if he did not comply there would be "dire consequences" or something to that effect. What does that mean to you? We are not going to invite you to the next Embassy cocktail party?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Nerd
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 02:17 AM

Hey, just to get in on the serious war history: every country in Europe lost many wars to Italians. Italians, you may remember, conquered the world from Asia Minor to England. Italian dominance of the world for a prolonged period of time is the reason why Christianity could spread from Palestine to Ireland in 400 years. Indeed, one of the longest-lasting empires the world has ever known was headquartered in Italy and Turkey, which goes to show how little our modern impressions of a country's importance may mean historically.

After Italy, what European country's army occupied the largest swath of European territory? Why, the French, under Napoleon. But only briefly, of course...occupying Europe from Spain to Russia was too great a strain.

Don't fuck with the French. Their government is beholden to the will of their people; they are a democracy. If French people don't want to go fight Saddam Hussein, then the French government is entirely right to oppose it. I always find it weird when Americans get mad at other countries for not doing what our administration wants. Why should they? They have their own electorate...

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 03:54 PM

It would be a very good thing indeed if Saddam were to pack his bags and leave with all his entourage. But that wasn't going to happen.

However there was a possibility of him getting rid of whatever Weapons of Mass Destruction he had, and making sure he did this was what it was all supposed to be about, not about removing him from power. The inspection and disarmament process was not allowed to run its course.

It's all a case of deciding which is the better of two bad options. I think the choice which was made was the wrong one, the one which overall is likely to have the worse outcome. However, since we can't observe two versions of history, we can never tell for sure which is right. People are still arguing about whether going to war against the Kaiser in 1914 was the right or the wrong thing to do.