I might be coming a bit late in this discussion, but once more, Macbeth(only read part of what u said) u stated all that I wouldn't dare have. I haven't had time read all the answers,so I can't make elaborate arguments yet. But let me just say that MacBeth gave me the strength to finally say IT:I'm FRENCH(if u hadn't yet noticed it),and though I don't agree with what everybody in my home country does(ex:vandalism of US monuments),I support Chirac's position against the war. There,it's done!Now waiting for the dishing. ALA
Hayes...Have to run to work, will give your responses the time they deserve later. Thanks for responding.
I don't really think anyone has a problem with you being French, or that you don't support the war. I don't like some of Chirac's policy choices, like announcing ahead of time that France would not authorize action no matter what evidence was presented, or strong arming Turkey by threatening to keep them out of the EU, but it is certainly your right to decide for yourself whether or not you support this intervention. Re: 'new imperialism.' I suppose then that any country that joins the movement for globalization is merely becoming a US puppet, like say the PRC ? After all, so-called 'economic annexation' does not require war does it? I find these posts that declare that they know the 'true' objectives of the war considering there is no possible way for you to 'know' that.
We have two losers! I am open-minded about this though. Can you explain the mechanisms where a democratic, capitalistic country will execute a preponderance of busniess contracts which benefit another nation at their own expense?
I wish everybody was as open minded as you,but unfortunatly I KNOW by the time this thread closes I'm sure I will have been dished more than once.If not in this thread than it will be in the next one or the one after that. What I'm saying is that some ppl will have made up their mind on me just becoz of my origine,no matter what I say. Life sucks... ALA
I don't like some of Chirac's policy choices, like announcing ahead of time that France would not authorize action no matter what evidence was presented, Hayes, any proof for this assertion? I know the right has claimed this. It was true that Chirac was rejecting all the British and US choices. The problem was that the US wanted a war resolution and hadn't produced evidence that was sufficient for the majority of the Security Council. (Have you forgotten all about the wmd issue, which is almost starting to look like a smoke screen) Britain was offering a delay of 10 days or some such before there would be an automatic trigger for war The US was vague as to how many days it was offering. All the resolutions were for nearly immediate war authorization when the vast majority of the world, the UN and even the securiy council wanted to continue with weapon inspections. The French and the UN had just been through a sordid display of such evidence as English grad student papers passed off as intelligence, the Niger Iraqi uranium purchase forgery, the bs about aluminum tubes allegedly purchased for nukes that Powell and even Bush kept repeating. That Iraq was cooperating with weapons inspectors, who were starting to do real inspections was important, too. . the French were right to reject all the various resolutions that wanted them to atuhorize the US war.
That you are. And when you have disagreed it certainly hasn't been with extreme hate like some of the cavemen here with an opposite view. It is to be commended. To answer your question, I certainly am not informed enough to explain the mechanisms in detail, yet even a fool like myself knows that companies in the states will definitely get some of the contracts that will be required to rebuild the country. If Iraq will become the modern Japan as someone else speculated, I would think that again many companies in the states would be involved in that country making that transition too. To tell truth, like you I will rejoice at Saddammie's removal. However, I will have a problem with this war long after many of us have forgotten about it.
Glynch, Didn't you follow the UN and the problems in the security council? When Tony Blair went back to amend the proposed resolution to put in some stipulations for Saddam to prove he was cooperating, Chirac said that it did not matter what evidence there was he would not support a war under any circumstances. England was incredulous, how can you say that without even looking at the evidence. Grizzled, In an idealogical world, your scenario would work, however, we tried to go through the proper channels at the UN, and we found out, yet again, that the UN and its body only acts as a debating society. Each member only has their own countries economy in mind when voting. Russia ( who Iraq owes more then 8 billion), China ( who has contracts to rebuild Iraq's communication infastructure), & France (who has sold military hardware to Iraq) were all going to vote it down because of economic ties to Saddam. Even the ruler of Spain said it point blank...France has interests in Iraq, that is why they don't support the war. They had their chance to prove that they were not myopic in viewing the world, and they lost it. History will tell who is right and who is wrong, personally, I think that Bush is right. DD
Saying that we went through the proper channels at the UN is to ignore several important facts. At the start, Bush said that he did not need UN approval, that the UN was irrelevant, and that the US would act unilaterally if need be. Under poitical pressure, Bush in the end did go the UN route, but his heart was never in it, as seen by the continual references to the UN being irrelevant. Bush also did not make the case for war. He did not convince other world leaders with his "evidence". (Of course after being continually insulted the whole time, one would not be surprised if they had developed "hearing problems".) Bush also did not convince the world opinion. The clear majorities in France, Germany, and Russia were not convinced and thus were against the war. Due to his poor diplomatic handling of the leaders of those countries (I am being very kind here), Bush also did not get those leaders to even attempt to persuade their constituents to support the war. To say that France, Germany, or Russia were solely motivated by their own economic interests is delusional. These countries are democracies and have to be reflect their countries popular opinion (or face the political consequences which include getting booted from office.)
As reported by (AP)... But in Paris, Chirac, who has led international opposition to a U.S.-led war in Iraq, said his government will not allow Security Council passage of the war resolution. "Our position is no matter what the circumstances, France will vote no," Chirac said in a televised interview.
Then I expect we won't ever hear you say the US is doing this soley for economic interests again, unless you would call yourself delusional.
No worries, I will say it again, there have been 26 armed conflicts since the UN was chartered in '47, a grand total of 3 have been sanctioned by the UN. France and Germany asked us for help in '98 to get rid of Milosovic, and Russia was going to veto the resolution, so we pulled it, and did what had to be done anyway. The UN is not a governing body, it is a place for governments from around the world to voice opinions, and frankly, some opinions matter more then others. Iraq had 12 years and 17 resolutions passed that they ignored, this is not a new war, this is a continuation of the Gulf War, Saddam signed an agreement to keep him in power, he did not own up to the agreement, thus the war picks up where it left off. If the UN was an actual relevant body, it would punish France, Russia, & China for ignoring the sanctions placed on Iraq and continuing to do business with it. The UN is irrelevant as far as disputes between countries, and calling it out is nothing more then telling the truth. Now, that being said, I would involve the UN significantly in the rebuilding of Iraq, with our leadership of course. DD
I don't. Saddam's regime is not a 'natural' construct. It is an artificial barrier preventing the people of Iraq from determining themselves who governs the country. Removing that barrier allows the people to have a voice where they currently have none. This is very similar to Macbeth's argument that you cannot 'impose democracy.' There is the flawed and dangerous assumption within that claim that the Iraqi people currently have a choice whether or not Saddam is in power. That assumption is simply FALSE as evidenced by his genocide of Shias and Kurds and others when they oppose his leadership. Further, his contention that this is like Athens 'imposing democracy' on other Greek states, it is not. Spartans may have chosen to live in an authoritarian structure, but Iraqis did not. And the celebrations we are seeing now as the country is freed from Saddam's grip make this argument ridiculous.
Some people just don't like war, but they sure enjoy the freedoms that our soldiers have fought for, don't they. DD
DD, I do not disagree with your assertion that the UN most times can not undertake timely, decisive actions. The point I was making was that the US did not make a good faith effort with the UN in pursuing Iraq's disarmament. How France acted reflected the will of its people. This is how it should be. I think some people are quick to blame the French for the US's own diplomatic failures. If the UN was an actual relevant body, it would punish France, Russia, & China for ignoring the sanctions placed on Iraq and continuing to do business with it. And the UN should punish the US and UK for enforcing no fly zones in Iraq. This is a blade that cuts both ways. [B}Now, that being said, I would involve the UN significantly in the rebuilding of Iraq, with our leadership of course. [/B][/QUOTE] If the US does do this, the US will be saying that the UN is relevant when we say so. (I suspect that HayesStreet would say that this has always been the case.)
Herein lies the problem that I have with the US's new preventive war doctorine. The US gets to make the subjective call on which tyrants have crossed the line. The line is also not written in stone and can retroactively change with the US's political climate. This does not put a consistent face on the US's foreign policies. Overall, this can not be a good thing. What the US also gets to do is make the call on which offending tyrants gets replaced and which get ignored. We are certainly not going to go after all the world tyrants, since the US certainly lacks that degree of political will. This adds to the inconsistency in the US's foreign policies. Another point about Iraq's pending "natural" democracy is that the US is going to influence the process, so that the Iraq government that is created is not anti-US, now or in the near future.
No Worries, I agree the rest of the world is nervous about our new found resolve. They should be. However, history is on our side, as we will rebuild Iraq and turn it's sovereignty over to it's people. We are the only country that has conquered other nations and then rebuilt them and given them back their soverienty. The only thing the USA wants is status quo, and security for it's people. The rest of the world has been so busy fighting their wars of imperialism, that they fear we will do the same, never mind that our history suggests otherwise. I do concede your point about consistency, we certainly do pick and choose our fights, and I firmly believe we should be a darned sight more consistent when dealing with Rwanda and other countries with similar problems. In my opinion, this is a grand experiment to try to solidify a very volatile region. If it works, we will have a much more stable enviroment for all free nations, if it fails, we will be in the same boat as we are now. What's more this is about getting countries to join the civilized world and to denounce terrorism. Don't think for a minute that once we are done with this war, and we turn our attention to Iran or Syria, and say to them..."Ahem, time to destroy your terrorist camps, or you are next", that our words will ring hollow. On the contrary, our words will motivate them to join us if they wish to remain in power. It truly is an US against them war. The world has reached a point in technology where we can no longer ignore small despots, now they pose a bigger threat to the world then the large nations with massive armies. You are with us or against us, plain and simple. Denounce terrorism or face the consequences. Sounds like a good plan to me. DD
