Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16671

Napoleon once famously called Britain a "nation of grocers".

Like all good insults, it contains a kernel of truth.

Lady Thatcher was always proud of being a grocer's daughter.

Anglo-Saxons have tended to have a pennies and cents, grocer's view of the world and how it should work and the Americans have inherited this.

At the UN on Friday, US Secretary of State Colin Powell and UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw's speeches were full of practicalities.

Were the inspectors being bugged? How many Iraqi minders did they have? Did Saddam's order banning weapons of mass destruction mean anything in practice?

Rare applause

The French speech, on the other hand, soared up into the rafters of the Security Council chamber.

This was high diplomacy at its most elegant.

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin talked about these hallowed halls and La France's love of Peace.

It earned a rare round of applause from the congregation of diplomats and journalists.

But as far as the US and British delegations were concerned, Monsieur de Villepin's words were completely beside the point.

It did not address the fundamental question of whether Saddam Hussein is or isn't cooperating with the substance of UN resolutions by disarming voluntarily.

And there is the rub.

Different agendas

The two sides in this crisis are basically talking at cross purposes.

The US and UK want to wrestle these chemical weapons out of Saddam's grasp.

The French are obsessed with America as a superpower and whether it has a right to go to war.

Back in Washington, all Friday's proceedings are likely to do is to make most people in the White House think that cunning old fox Dick Cheney, the vice-president, was right all along.

Last summer Mr Cheney urged his boss not to go down the UN route, saying that it led only into a diplomatic bog from which no good could come.

George W Bush decided to listen instead to Colin Powell and give the UN "one last chance".

Now I bet he wishes he hadn't.

Living in hope


After Friday's meeting, British officials tried to put a brave face on it.

But they freely accepted that they did not have the nine votes needed to pass a second resolution at the Security Council.

One official told me that he thought positions would change once a second resolution was on the table and the negotiating started in earnest.

But it felt more like a hope than a prediction.

If the White House sees opinion polls continue to slide at home, it may conclude it is better to attack sooner rather than later since nothing will be gained by delaying.

The most telling comment came from a diplomat close to the American camp who said that he thought the US would give this UN process two more weeks.

He couldn't see them being able to stomach French expostulations on the meaning of freedom any longer than that.

Attachment: stupidfucknugget.jpg
This has been downloaded 131 time(s).

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

taste the fucking rainbow

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: In a Blue, Blue State
Posts: 12544

This is why I questioned why Bush was going after Iraq right now.

Don't list me as one of the anti-war crowd. I do favor getting rid of Saddam; he should of been removed a long time ago ( right after Desert Storm ended as a matter of fact, Bush senior should have told the UN et al that now that the mandate is done, we intend to oust him, and that we invite those who wish to participate can do so, but if the rest of the UN members didn't, then we would understand and not hold it against them. If this had happened, I don't think we would have the type of UN problem we have today. ).

The "let's say to hell with the UN" crowd just can't get it through their heads - the US can not afford to go that route. No matter how strong we are, we still have to deal politically with the rest of the world, no matter how wrong and screwed up we think they are. What we do by ignoring them and not considering their input imperils all else that we do globally, such as trade issues, ecological treaties, peace programs, national and international security agendas, disarmament programs, and a whole host of other things I which won't list here now. If we go off on our own and act against Saddam now, we risk losing the rest of the world's support and willingness to help us acheive the other things that we wish to accomplish. We can rail about how politics are screwed up and how politics get in the way of doing the things that need to be done, but politics are a fact of life, no matter how ridiculous you may think they are. This is the way things are, and no matter how much we would like or think that things should be different, we have to deal with things the way they are. That is the difference between theory and reality.

My problem with the US going after Saddam now is the timing aspect. Yes, Saddam is an evil man. Yes, he is a threat to the world. Yes, he does need to have all his toys taken from him. Yes, he has gassed his own people, yes he is a tryrannical despot, yes, yes, yes.....ad nauseum. I agree to all this. But to now go after him out of the blue after all this time since Desert Storm without provocation from him makes no sense. It's like punishing your son after he has done something wrong. You can paddle his ass and restrict him to his room and telling him if he messes up again he will get more of the same, but if he continuously stretches the limits and occasionally breaks them, and you do nothing about it for the longest time, how can you justify going into his room and spanking him again? By letting him get away with his shit without enforcing your rules over time is in essence accepting his actions. You have to be consistent when you make rules or else you lose control over your child.

Admittedly, the deal with Saddam is more serious than dealing with an unruly child, but the principle is the same. You can blame the Clinton administration all you want for not taking Saddam on then, but I point out it was not Clinton who made the policy for dealing with him. It was Bush senior which crafted the framework after Desert Storm. We knew that Saddam was cheating during the rest of his presidency, but Bush did not carry out any punishment against him like promised. All Clinton did was follow the examples of dealing with Saddam that Bush had set. By withholding promised punishment, we accepted his actions. So now, if we are to take him out, we need a better reason to do so than just that he is a bad man! We already knew that and yet did nothing about it for too long. No matter how much we were serious about punishing him before, we didn't carry through with our threats and we de facto established a new policy of letting him behave the way he has by our own inaction.

If Saddam had invaded another nation, or pulled some other outlandish stunt that shocked the world, then we would have a very good reason for militarily removing him. But he hasn't! He's still behaving in the same way that we have let him get away with for the last 12 years! How can we legitimately justify going after him now? This is why I criticize Bush Jr. for his Iraq mania right now.

To piss the rest of the world off by going at it alone only causes the US ill will from them and will make it so much harder or impossible to acheive our international aims in the future. No matter how strong we are or how right we are, we are still just one nation among many others in the world, and if we want cooperation from the rest of the world, then we must learn to cooperate with them.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: In a Blue, Blue State
Posts: 12544

Huh. I expected a flaming response by someone by now. Maybe what I wrote actually made some sense and sunk in.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 10121

quote:

---

Originally posted by billgerat
Huh. I expected a flaming response by someone by now.

---

Attachment: 737675.jpg
This has been downloaded 28 time(s).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: In a Blue, Blue State
Posts: 12544

And why do I need to eat crow? Please elaborate.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16671

complete history of the french military summed up by "KneelBeforeZod" from the free republic.

quote:

---

- Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

- Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."

-Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

- Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

- Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

- War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

-The Dutch War - Tied

-War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

-War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

- American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."

- French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

- The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

- The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

- World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

-World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

- War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu

- Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

- War on Terrorism - France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador, fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.

---

Disclaimer: awe fuck it.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

taste the fucking rainbow

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged