Cavuto slams the French

I agree with Oski that the Iraqis should decide for themselves how they want to rebuild. Everybody else (especially the damn French) should stay off unless asked to help.

I also agree that this piece is obviously biased. But who says news media are neutral?

 

I cant believe someone would say something like this.

We are alot of things, and obviously many disagree with our actions, but War Criminals, we are not.

 

Let's deal with the content, and not the messenger....


1) France has maintained that the US and Britain had no right to invade, as most of the rest of the world agrees, including the body established to rule on such things, the UN. You think that the fact that the US and GB decided to give the finger to world opinion and the UN and go ahead and invade somehow validates their position, right to determine the future of Iraq, and invalidates the French ( and otherss ) claim that it STILL should be the UN deciding these things? The fact that they contributed not one bullet to a war they think isn't justified means that they should have no part in trying to do what they said should be done in the first place, follow the directives of global opinion?

2) You don't think the fact that WE are the ones who went against the world, we are the ones who defied the UN, and we are the ones who invaded another country in any way puts US as the ones who's credibility is currently in question? And you think that because France et all were against us invading, that means they should somehow lose all interest in what goes on in Iraq after we did so anyways, and the fact that they haven't means that they're corrupt? Wow...

 

MacBeth,

What you say is valid only if your opinion about the war is correct. You are assuming the UN and the French are right not to fight (just as Cavuto is assuming the US is right to fight the war). You see, if the US is right that the UN has no backbone in executing what should be their obligation, then the UN has no right to make any more decision on this matter.

So it comes back to square one about the question of whether the war is justified. And it's not a simple question. But I feel very strongly that the French should back off.

 

1) No, actually what I'm saying is that there is no inconsistency in the French position...They are saying what they have always said: That this should be a UN thing...The only way to conclude that they have flip-flopped in pursuit of their own interests, as some would have it, would be IF we were right, IF they knew it now because we had invaded anyways (!?!?), but then chose to disregard that knowledge to get their hands into the honey jar...If you assume that we are wrong, or if you make no assumptions whatesoever, they have in no way been inconsistent...and that is what those seeking to discredit all our critics are claiming.

2) And re: this "There are two sides " thing...RIght...agreed...but when WE are the one most of the world disagrees with, WE are the ones who defied the UN, and WE are the ones who invaded another country, wouldn't you say that the burden of proof and the lion's share of potential guilt lies just a little more with us than with our opposition? Or is invading other countries a 50-50 proposition?

 

I don't know of anyone who says the French flip-flopped. They are pretty consistent about the war. But if they and the UN are wrong, then they are consistently wrong. Being consistent is not the issue here. You still haven't address the point that if the US's claim is right, the UN and the French is disqualified to make any decision on this matter.

I am not suggesting the this is a 50-50 proposition in the sense that it has 50% chance to be right in either direction. I am saying that this is a very complex issue and very few people (if any) have all the facts. What I don't like is people make going to war (as patriotism) or shouting anti-war slogan a no-brainer.

It might be true that the "most of the world disagrees" with us. But you have to look at all the reasons why they disagree. Do they disagree because they think this war is immoral? Are they concerned about the Iraqi people's welfare? Are they concerned about their own interests? Are they afraid that this sets a precedent by which the big bad US will someday do the same thing to them? Do these reasons make the US's decision on the war wrong?

 

Are we spending our blood and dollars to gain financial benefit? Is that what this about? If not, then I think Oski is right. Let the Iraqis decide.a

As for the article Cavuto is correct. The French are grossly wrong for trying to line up contracts for French companies in the reconstruction of Iraq... Just as the U.S. is wrong for handing out contracts to their companies. The fact is that unless Bush was lying about wanting to liberate the Iraqis and give the country to them, then it is the Iraqis who should give out the contracts to whoever they want to.

 

Macbeth,

I am about to start a "send Macbeth to France" fund.

If you don't like the USA so much, then why are you here?

You seem to be at every front bashing the USA every chance you get.

Why?

DD

 

Oops I saw that Oski posted almost the same thing. Sorry.

 

Here we go again....disagreeing with administration = bashing America. Imagine how well French immigration officers would have been if you had had the right to carry out your policy during Watergate....or the American Revolution....

 

But the US was not forced to nor obligated to spend tax dollars and spill blood. It CHOSE to do so and it CHOSE to do so in spite of world opinion and lack of UN support. This being the case, what RIGHT does the US have to demand "compensation" for our efforts?

None whatsoever.

 

Look, I am just curious on why you bash EVERYTHING about the US and foreign affairs?

What is wrong with taking a hard line stand every now and again....if it doesn't work, we will vote him out.

I don't think any of this animosity is lasting, it is just a product of people that disagree.

Just as we are fighting this war over concerns for our citizens and economy, France and Germany and Russia are doing the same.

They are losing a valued customer in Saddam.

What I want to know is where you against us intervening in Kosovo in '98 without UN approval?

DD

 

DD...really quickly...you are wrong..I supported the US during the 1st Gulf War, for example...I have stated this many times...Please look at any of my many posts refuting my supposed 'bias'?

Re: Kosovo...I was against the US intervening even though, unlike now, I thought it the best thing for everyone involved, and praised the US for being, in that case, entirely about justice, not about ulterior motives..I actually wrote a paper calling the US the 1st Selfless Superpower specifically for that action...even though I thought it was the wrong move, but only because of precedent...I thought it could lead to unilateralism, or a belief that we could dp what we wanted irrespective of the checks of global diplomacy that the UN was built to represent. I said that, as unfortunate as it would have been to have had to wait for UN approval, if you are going to err, err on the side of the equivalent of the 'law', as there lies the greater danger. I stand by that.

 

Well at least you are consistent.

Now, the question is, what law are you referring to? The UN is not really a governing body, so it's laws are subject to being ignored by each nation as it pertains to that nations national security.

DD

 

That is exactly the opposite of what we have claimed many, many times...See USSR/Afghanistan...Iraq/Kuwait...China/Tibet..etc..The only ones we 'ignore' let alone refuse to uphold validity of same, are the ones involving us or our allies as aggressors. Other than that we uphold the sanctity of the sovereign state and the responsibility of civilized nations to respond to the will of the world as represented by the UN...Seriously, we have made this position many, many times, and are in fact supposedly now involved in a war at least in part because we feel that Iraq treated the UN resolutions in a manner consistent with your statement.

 

Name ONE

 

You know what? I am tired of your crap...I am not even going to try and argue the issues with someone who is convinced that the US chose to enter WWII to save Europe and stop Hitler, and who responded, when I just quoted him histrorical fact which disagreed with his comfortable geo-centric vision of the world, by resorting to the same kind of childish name calling evidenced above...and he dragged his Granny in on his side, for some bizzare reason. I have tried debating issues on their merits with you, against my better judgement, and contrary to the advice I gave others about you... but you always resort to the same version of giving your interpretation as commonly recognized fact irrespective of it's validity, and then getting insulting...I am officially done dealing with you; I only argue with adults. Children can go play make believe, or call each other names, you aren't even worth the time it took me to type these words.

 

This isn't really my argument, but I have a question...if it turns out that Saddam has serious WMD, and he uses them against, say Tel Aviv, or somehow Boston during this war,would you consider that a war crime?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6853-2003Feb26?language=printer


Speaking to a cheering crowd in Chattanooga, Tenn., one day before the Nov. 7, 2000, election, George W. Bush repeated a line that had by then been a standard part of the stump speech for many, many months--and one that now seems, in the face of looming U.S. military action in Iraq, quite contradictory.

"Let me tell you what else I'm worried about: I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place."

The line was an explicit condemnation of Clinton/Gore foreign policy--specifically that the White House had stretched the military too thin with peacekeeping mission in Haiti, Somalia and the BALKANS. President Clinton and Vice President Gore, his Democratic opponent, had strayed from the central mission of the military: to fight and win wars, Bush said.

That line proved to be among the most popular in the stump speech, guaranteed to evoke an eruption of applause from the conservatives who packed Bush's campaign rallies.