Annoyed with the french?

[iain]

that's the spirit, goat war BAAAAAHHH!

[Attitude]

Billygoat said:

I am not a goat, I am THE GOAT...

 

Friend of trask?

[Billygoat]

Attitude said:

Billygoat said:

I am not a goat, I am THE GOAT...

 

Friend of trask?

 

everyone should have a friend

[Attitude]

JoshK said:

In case anybody is interested...

 

According to figures published in the Financial Review today, these are the largest 15 economies, as measured by their Gross Domestic Product in US dollars:

 

1 USA 10,208

2 Japan 4,149

3 Germany 1,847

4 United Kingdom 1,424

5 France 1,307

6 China (exc.HK) 1,159

7 Italy 1,089

8 Canada 700

9 Mexico 618

10 Spain 582

11 Brazil 504

12 India 481

13 Korea 422

14 Netherlands 380

15 Australia 357

16 Russian Federation 310

17 Taiwan 282

18 Argentina 269

19 Switzerland 247

20 Belgium 227

 

 

This is as of Jan 7, 2003

 

Argentina #18?

 

You've got to be kidding. Their economy is in the toilet.

[Dru]

yeah but they're still a powerhouse

 

g8 in the house y'all

 

incidentally vancouver was recently ranked second best city in the world to live in behind, i think, basel. somewhere swiss anyways. seattle placed out of the top 100. i dunno if they considered proximity to squamish or not.....

[JoshK]

j_b, I'm curious where they get the numbers for the artcile you posted wrt/ UN dues. Based on that chart that I posted the EU contries in the top 20 don't add up to much more than half of the U.S. GNP. I'd be surprised if the rest of the relatively small EU countries make up much of that difference.

[JoshK]

Dru said:

yeah but they're still a powerhouse

 

g8 in the house y'all

 

incidentally vancouver was recently ranked second best city in the world to live in behind, i think, basel. somewhere swiss anyways. seattle placed out of the top 100. i dunno if they considered proximity to squamish or not.....

 

What list was this dru? I've found for the most part these lists to be crap. I saw one the other day that listed Portland as the best "big city." I don't think it's a stretch to say that anybody who is looking for big city life is going to find Portland a little smallish.

[JoshK]

Vancouver *is* a great city tho. I really wouldn't mind living there some day.

[iain]

portland's big dude we got a zoo, and a submarine, and, and everything

[JoshK]

iain said:

portland's big dude we got a zoo, and a submarine, and, and everything

 

LOL...a submarine!? no shit!? hehe...portland's cool, but I wouldn't even really classify seattle as a "big city" even though it's much larger than portland. chicago, NYC, san fran...I think of those as big cities. I kinda tend to think of them having a metro feel that only a really big city has.

[specialed]

JoshK said:

iain said:

portland's big dude we got a zoo, and a submarine, and, and everything

 

LOL...a submarine!? no shit!? hehe...portland's cool, but I wouldn't even really classify seattle as a "big city" even though it's much larger than portland. chicago, NYC, san fran...I think of those as big cities. I kinda tend to think of them having a metro feel that only a really big city has.

 

Have you ever lived anywhere else? Seattle is a big ass city bro. Its way more urban and metro than a lot of other cities you probably consider big.

[JoshK]

specialed said:

JoshK said:

iain said:

portland's big dude we got a zoo, and a submarine, and, and everything

 

LOL...a submarine!? no shit!? hehe...portland's cool, but I wouldn't even really classify seattle as a "big city" even though it's much larger than portland. chicago, NYC, san fran...I think of those as big cities. I kinda tend to think of them having a metro feel that only a really big city has.

 

Have you ever lived anywhere else? Seattle is a big ass city bro. Its way more urban and metro than a lot of other cities you probably consider big.

 

Yeah man, and I dig Seattle. I don't get off my lazy ass and move for a reason. It is certainly one hellavu lot bigger and more metro feeling than portland, that's for sure. I dunno tho, when I think of really big cities, truly world class citys, I basically think of like NYC, London, Paris...shit like that. Maybe I'm confused and they seem all fancy since I am seeing them from the tourist point of view. I guess somebody could come here and say the same thing and I'd never know it.

 

One thing is for sure...it doesn't just have to do with population. Most of my family lives in phoenix, which while large by population standards, is a shithole deluxe.

 

On a related note, has anybody ever noticed that vancouver, B.C. is a very unusal city? Unlike your standard cities which seem to follow a very similar model: downtown financial district, hotel district, outlying areas, etc...vancouver seems to be a very huge condo city. It doesn't really have a concentrated downtown with large skyscrapers and financial buildings, but has more highrise condos and the like spread around the city. I noticed this last time I was up there...

[JayB]

j_b said:

I was only observing that having the same person telling another what to do all the time generates bad feelings.

.

 

True - where it applies. In this case it doesn't. The US hasn't told France to do anything.

 

They may object to the US telling Iraq what to do in this case, but as both their history - recall the case of the Suez Canal (old)and their recent conduct in Africa (current) -and Chirac's threats to withold EU membership from the prospective entrants from the Eastern Block for their pro-US stance on this matter demonstrate, they are are in no position to claim that telling others what to do is a unique shortcoming on the US's part.

 

My point in highlighting both the historical and current shortcomings of French conduct was not to suggest that the worst stereotypes of the French are true, but simply to illustrate the point that anyone that thinks that the French are attempting to prevent an attack on Iraq for humanitarian reasons (Rwanda - see above), to maintain the integrity of international law/agreements (nuclear testing in the Pacific) or for any reason that extends beyond naked self interest is delusional - and both Chirac's personal actions during this crisis and France's longstanding history of using whatever means that they have at their disposal to constrain the US demonstrate this as clearly as anything possibly could.

 

[is this too difficult to understand? is this the kind of relationship you seek out?

 

The french attitude toward africa has been truly terrible at times, but in the latest case of the Ivory Coast they seemed to be genuine and were caught offguard by gzabo (sp?), or so it seems. Anything beyond that, would be reaching, which you are doing of course.

For one thing, it is the same nonsense we have heard from conservative commentators for month now. The french are yearning for their lost empire, the arabs are jealous of our wealth, the germans are closet nazis, etc ... can you think of anymore excuses to explain why these people are upset with us?

 

Name a French PM since DeGaul who hasn't made restoring/maintaining French influence the centerpiece of their foreign policy. Take your time on this one. Moreover, the fact that a particular claim has widespread appeal amongst conservatives doesn't invalidate the claim anymore than left-wingers promulgating it would.

 

The statements about the Arabs and the Germans don't resemble anything I've ever said about either of these peoples. The Arabs have many historical reasons for resenting the West, most of which have to do with their continually declining power with respect to/colonization by various Western powers. IMO the Arabs resent the US specifically because of the fact that various strategic imperatives like that little Cold War thingy compelled us - and all of Europe - to lend our support to quite a number of terrible regimes in the Middle East, of which Saddam's Baath party was just one, and our ongoing support for Israel. I think that of the two the former reason makes more sense, but have made it a point to remind anyone that I have discussed this issue with that the cases of Iran, Libya, and Syria show that Arabs are quite capable of bringing brutal tyrants to power and subjugating themselves without any help from us. Moreover, as far the vast majority of the "Arab Street" is concerned, Israel could cease to exist tomorrow and that wouldn't change their political/economic situation one iota.

 

The Germans have become systematically pacifist as a reaction to their history, which I can understand, but having brought one of the more despicable regimes in human history into being is not an excuse for leaving another such regime in place. If they want to be at peace with their history, exerting themselves on behalf of removing Saddam from power would serve that end much better than engaging in efforts that will effectively keep such a man in place.

 

 

 

 

[jja]

Iran, Libya, and Syria show that Arabs

Iranians aren't arabs.

 

The Germans have become systematically pacifist as a reaction to their history

 

The french behaviour is regrettable but understandable as your analysis points out. The germans on the other hand are just freakin scary. It seems they go careening through history from one extreme end of the political spectrum to the other.

 

After the kaiser united all the principalities germany became a war mongering and ultra nationalist state. Then came the horrors of WW1, and the resulting morally bankrupt nihilistic weimar republic. Then the ultra nationalist nazi's and horrors of ww2. And now without the cold war to moderate their natural tendancies, they've once again swerved into the decadence of the weimar republic. Watch out!

 

weimar = what happens when democracies go bad.

 

[HernyG]

I read much of the Frontline perspective on the Bush Doctrine with utter disgust! And I am a sickened by the relatively strong war support form my fellow countrymen.

 

September 11th made clear that a new world organization is likely necessary. That event indicates people are preemptively willing to kill each other on a massive scale. Since nations and even small groups can significantly threaten the security of many, national boundaries are no longer to be respected as they once where. Due to weapons of mass destruction and the willingness to use them, every countries activities are now of interest to the security, ultimately, of the human race.

 

However, prior to adopting a preemptive military strategy, could human kind not have first at least proposed a system of strict non-support of regimes that threaten or harbor groups that may threaten mass attacks. This proposal is similar in concept to cancer treatment; complete starvation of the cancerous cell, or a nation in this case. If debated and accepted among the international community, no weapons, economic trade, or perhaps even food would be provided to dangerous regimes. Strict non-support can force regime change if supported by the entire world community. A picture of this policy in Iraq, presuming we accept that they are working with known terrorists, would be no-food-for-oil trade with the EU, no weapons from North Korea, etc.

 

It is quite possible that this scheme will fail, just as it quite possible that the enemies of the US eventually will bog us down in a slugfest as we move from preemptive war to preemptive war. At worst, the Bush Doctrine, though I concede that it may succeed, may also lead more quickly to nuclear trade of the worst kind with North Korea. Forget the volcanoes, Seattle has new nuclear ballistic missile threat.

 

Since we are talking about no longer respecting national boundaries, the place to discuss strict-no-support or a preemptive military option is within our world governing body, the United Nation in New York. I think the French, though not a military might, are an academic people and are arguing that the United Nations has relevance is this global governance philosophy change.

 

[jja]

the place to discuss strict-no-support or a preemptive military option is within our world governing body, the United Nation in New York

 

Henry,

If that means going in hat in hand to countries with absolutely no stake in the matter like angola and cameroon, and saying pretty please can we defend ourselves - no thanks.

[j_b]

j_b, I'm curious where they get the numbers for the artcile you posted wrt/ UN dues. Based on that chart that I posted the EU contries in the top 20 don't add up to much more than half of the U.S. GNP. I'd be surprised if the rest of the relatively small EU countries make up much of that difference

 

I don't know. I have read a number of figures which don't make much sense either, but here is what the department of state has to say about it:

"-- The population of EU member states is more than 375 million and the EU's combined GDP is $7.9 trillion. By comparison, the U.S. population is 270 million and GDP is $10.1 trillion."

 

Jayb:

If you reread my previous posts you'll find that I am not saying the french political class is motivated by high moral principles. What matters to me at the moment is the fact they are not planning on dropping 1000's of bomb to further their interest. Let them argue for the high moral ground if they wish and they'll be accountable to their people and the rest of the world who believes in their motivation. As far as I am concerned it is a win-win situation. Anyhow, my basic point, is that whatever truly motivates the french, it is no argument to sustain our own position. Pretending so and deriding the french for their lost empire, is just another tactic to muddy the waters and rally the silly behind our unprincipled stance.

 

by the way, i think you fail to account for the euros own experience during 2 devastating wars to explain the feelings of people over there on how to deal with this situation. I don't think anyone is arguing for sustaining Saddam's regime.

[j_b]

jja said:

the place to discuss strict-no-support or a preemptive military option is within our world governing body, the United Nation in New York

 

Henry,

If that means going in hat in hand to countries with absolutely no stake in the matter like angola and cameroon, and saying pretty please can we defend ourselves - no thanks.

 

what in the world makes you think these countries have no stake in deciding the legality of preventive wars?

[jja]

Because I am not a moral relativist.

[j_b]

[klar404]

sorry I read about 1/100 of the posts but thought this link was relevant to this thread tittle. This will show em! ========> http://tinyurl.com/7c7x <==========

[Peter_Puget]

I thought this is an interesting read here:

 

"Wisdom" from a Mr. Pat Buchanan.

 

Taken from the current issue of American Conservative

"We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people's right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity."

 

In light of recent discussions regarding GDP, I though this in an entirely different way is also an interesting read:

 

Economies

 

 

PP

 

[JayB]

j_b said:

Jayb:

If you reread my previous posts you'll find that I am not saying the french political class is motivated by high moral principles. What matters to me at the moment is the fact they are not planning on dropping 1000's of bomb to further their interest. Let them argue for the high moral ground if they wish and they'll be accountable to their people and the rest of the world who believes in their motivation. As far as I am concerned it is a win-win situation. Anyhow, my basic point, is that whatever truly motivates the french, it is no argument to sustain our own position. Pretending so and deriding the french for their lost empire, is just another tactic to muddy the waters and rally the silly behind our unprincipled stance.

 

by the way, i think you fail to account for the euros own experience during 2 devastating wars to explain the feelings of people over there on how to deal with this situation. I don't think anyone is arguing for sustaining Saddam's regime.

 

The French are attempting to prevent a war in Iraq for reasons that have little or nothing to do with the welfare of the Iraqi people. If they succeed the Iraqis will continue to live under Saddam Hussein. Let's assume that the US and Brittain are attempting to wage war in Iraq for reasons that have little or nothing to do with the welfare of the Iraqi people. If they succeed the people of Iraq will not be ruled by Saddam Hussein.

 

Unless you are prepared to argue that the people of Iraq will be better off under Saddam Hussein, it would seem that your opposition to the war is motivated by objections to the US pursuing its interests, rather than what is in the best interests of the Iraqi people.

 

As far as Europe is concerned, I am quite familiar with the history of that continent, especially the period in which WWI and WWII were fought. Understanding how their direct experience of these two wars would lead them to avoid war at any cost is one thing, claiming that this is an ethically defensible stance is quite another. Exhibit A - Kosovo. Exhibit B - Bosnia.

 

Beyond their history, another factor which has influenced the European worldview has been their status as an American protectorate for the past 50 years. Over this time they have come to the mistaken conclusion that the European model of conflict resolution - by committee - is universally valid for all times and all circumstances, and their impotent dithering in the face of the senseless carnage in the former Yugoslavia demonstrates this as forcefully as an example ever could. So Europeans haven't engaged in warfare with one another since America made that impossible, and haven't taken up arms against a foreign threat since America assumed that responsibility for them. This hardly makes them the global champions of human welfare that they claim to be, as their conduct in defense of what was left of their colonial empires showed in the past, and as their abject refusal to use force even to prevent yet another genocide in the heart of their own continent shows now.

[klenke]

Nicely put, JayB.

 

Re: Serbia, that movie from 2001 (Best Foreign Film Oscar last year) called No Man's Land did a good job regarding the absurdity of that situation and the foreign (media) take on it.

[sexual_chocolate]

JayB said:

j_b said:

Jayb:

If you reread my previous posts you'll find that I am not saying the french political class is motivated by high moral principles. What matters to me at the moment is the fact they are not planning on dropping 1000's of bomb to further their interest. Let them argue for the high moral ground if they wish and they'll be accountable to their people and the rest of the world who believes in their motivation. As far as I am concerned it is a win-win situation. Anyhow, my basic point, is that whatever truly motivates the french, it is no argument to sustain our own position. Pretending so and deriding the french for their lost empire, is just another tactic to muddy the waters and rally the silly behind our unprincipled stance.

 

by the way, i think you fail to account for the euros own experience during 2 devastating wars to explain the feelings of people over there on how to deal with this situation. I don't think anyone is arguing for sustaining Saddam's regime.

 

The French are attempting to prevent a war in Iraq for reasons that have little or nothing to do with the welfare of the Iraqi people. If they succeed the Iraqis will continue to live under Saddam Hussein. Let's assume that the US and Brittain are attempting to wage war in Iraq for reasons that have little or nothing to do with the welfare of the Iraqi people. If they succeed the people of Iraq will not be ruled by Saddam Hussein.

 

Unless you are prepared to argue that the people of Iraq will be better off under Saddam Hussein, it would seem that your opposition to the war is motivated by objections to the US pursuing its interests, rather than what is in the best interests of the Iraqi people.

 

As far as Europe is concerned, I am quite familiar with the history of that continent, especially the period in which WWI and WWII were fought. Understanding how their direct experience of these two wars would lead them to avoid war at any cost is one thing, claiming that this is an ethically defensible stance is quite another. Exhibit A - Kosovo. Exhibit B - Bosnia.

 

Beyond their history, another factor which has influenced the European worldview has been their status as an American protectorate for the past 50 years. Over this time they have come to the mistaken conclusion that the European model of conflict resolution - by committee - is universally valid for all times and all circumstances, and their impotent dithering in the face of the senseless carnage in the former Yugoslavia demonstrates this as forcefully as an example ever could. So Europeans haven't engaged in warfare with one another since America made that impossible, and haven't taken up arms against a foreign threat since America assumed that responsibility for them. This hardly makes them the global champions of human welfare that they claim to be, as their conduct in defense of what was left of their colonial empires showed in the past, and as their abject refusal to use force even to prevent yet another genocide in the heart of their own continent shows now.

 

Good god. What hogwash.