Annoyed with the french?

[JayB]

Surely you can piece together a better counterargument than that, Comrade.

 

Best Regards,

[allthumbs]

Dick Morris appeared on the O'Reilly Factor Show on the Fox News Channel.

 

He recently returned from a trip to Paris where he addressed the French Council on Foreign Relations. He will discuss his speech and why France is behaving as it is.

 

Here's a partial text of Dick's remarks in which he excoriates France for its "national amnesia" in forgetting the debt it owes us.

 

Thanks,

 

Vote.com

 

P.S. Please be sure to log onto www.vote.com and vote on today's question: "Should The United States Boycott French Products?" and please forward this to your friends and family too!

 

FRANCE: FROM GREAT TO INGRATE

 

By Dick Morris

 

(On Friday, March 7, I addressed the French Council on Foreign Relations. Here is a partial text of my remarks)

 

France is suffering from a collective, national amnesia. You have allied yourselves with a nation that invaded you twice and another that threatened you for half a century against the two countries that saved you.

 

What are we asking of you? Not your troops, not your children, not your money, not your bases, not even for overflight of your territory. We are asking only for you to get out of the way and let us do our job to help us, help you, and help all of humanity.

 

You say that inspections are working. Yet you concede that they are only having a limited impact because 200,000 US and British troops are over the border in Kuwait. You say give the inspections more time. How long are we supposed to keep our Army on alert there? Will you pay for it? Will you even contribute to the enormous financial cost? And what of their morale and combat readiness? How long can we keep them there to give your inspectors time?

 

Is there anybody here who truly believes that if we let Saddam disarm on his own - assuming he would which he won't - and we send our troops home that he will not throw out the inspectors as he did before and that he will again reacquire the arms he says he'll destroy? Do any of you doubt that we would be back here within five years having the same discussion?

 

You do not realize how shattered the American people were by 9-11. You do not grasp the magnitude of the threat under which we feel we now live. Your national experience has been so much more brutal. You were occupied by the Germans. You lost one-quarter of your young men in World War I. But we have not had a comparable past. To us, the loss of 3,100 men and women and the ongoing threat of random terror attacks has left us with a searing case of national angst.

 

We look around for the allies who we have helped in their past. We look France who we saved in two wars and protected from the Soviets. We look for Germany where our sentinels stood guard and whose capital city we supplied from the air two years after it was the headquarters of our enemy. But we feel abandoned. We feel deserted. Our diplomats will forget and forgive. Our State Department will move onto new objectives. But our people will not forget your abandonment. It will be at least another generation before you can count on the friendship of the American people. You have alienated us beyond redemption.

 

And what are you doing to the United Nations? If France vetoes this resolution, or if the states of the Security Council reject it, we will never ask the U.N. for permission again. The Security Council will become as discredited as the General Assembly, the body which designated Iraq in charge of the Human Rights Committee and Libya in charge of disarmament. Who would ever think of asking the General Assembly? In the future who would ever ask the Security Council.

 

Your vote is only important because of your veto. But, use it here and it will be the last time you ever do because we will never again subject our vital national interests to your caveat.

 

You ask why the Democrats don't speak up against the war. Because they are not suicidal. Well, maybe they are but not about this. The vast, vast, vast majority of Americans support Bush on Iraq and recognize that we must do what we must do.

 

You wonder whether there will be patience in the US for a long war or high casualties. If will only be long or deadly if Saddam uses the weapons of mass destruction you maintain he doesn't have. And should he use those weapons against our troops or against Israel, that will become its own motivation for us. We would fight forever to depose the leader who ordered our troops gassed.

 

President Bush is fighting to ban terrorism from the tools of war, just as poison gas and nuclear weapons were, in effect banned. Hitler didn't even use poison gas on the battlefield. Only Saddam has done that. The Soviets lost in Afghanistan rather than use nuclear weapons. We Americans know that if Bush patiently goes country by country, he will consign the random killing of civilians as an instrument of conflict to a similar fate.

 

We ask for only one thing and we ask it in the name of those who lie buried at Normandy and in dozens of other French military cemeteries - let us do our job.

[j_b]

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.

 

you are right about one thing, he will not rule many of them because they'll be dead

 

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.

 

you are not considering the humanitarian cost of war by oppostion to another mean of reaching democracy for iraqis and yet here you are assuming we'll bring them the promised land with our bombs

 

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

 

well, living in horror for years and losing many relatives has a tendency to do that you know (you know of course but choose to ignore it)

 

claiming that this is an ethically defensible stance is quite another. Exhibit A - Kosovo. Exhibit B - Bosnia.

 

as if ethics were derived from anything but life experience, i.e. 2 world wars in your home

 

Beyond their history, another factor which has influenced the European worldview has been their status as an American protectorate for the past 50 years.

 

you have to get your story straight. Once you claim we never told them to do anything (post above), then you declare them a protectorate.

 

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

 

don't you assume you have made a plausible case for the urgency of going to war over another means of dealing with the problem (what's the problem again? saving the iraqis or protecting ourselves, I am totally confused now)

 

 

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.

 

give me abreak we would never had gone to bosnia if it had not been in our geopolitical interest. We did not prevent Rwanda, timor, etc, etc,

 

I congratulate you on seeming so high minded in the defense of the oppressed worldwide (a rather new experience for me coming from a conservative). I expect you to argue with as much conviction the interests of populations of kurdistan, saudi arabia, palestine, etc , etc...

[JayB]

j_b said:

 

you are right about one thing, he will not rule many of them because they'll be dead

 

I'll let the Iraqi's themselves reply for me here:

 

"One Iraqi American had a message he hoped protesters would hear:

 

"If you want to protest that it's not okay to send your kids to fight, that's okay. But please don't claim to speak for the Iraqis. We've seen 5 million people protesting, but none of them were Iraqis. They don't know what's going on inside Iraq. France and whoever else, please shut up."

Source

" Source When I asked the Iraqis in exile about dire predictions from some humanitarian and anti-war organizations that tens of thousands or more might die in an attack, they had several responses. First they said that people were already dying today under Saddam. Secondly they said that, from their experience of the last war, precision-guided missiles were, on the whole, accurate, and as for long-term postwar consequences this did not seem to worry them either. Jamila told me that the people she spoke to on the phone or who had just arrived from Baghdad "think the war is going to be very short." If that is the case, she said, then the country would rapidly be opened up for aid and reconstruction. She also told me that people she spoke to said they feared what Saddam might do to them following an attack—i.e., he might create a humanitarian crisis for the sake of a propaganda coup, beyond what American or British bombs could do.

 

As for the huge anti-war demonstrations in the West and the fact that most Arabs and Muslims are also against a war, they said simply, and bitterly, that it was easy for them since they didn't have to live under Saddam. "

 

 

 

 

you are not considering the humanitarian cost of war by oppostion to another mean of reaching democracy for iraqis and yet here you are assuming we'll bring them the promised land with our bombs

See above. There's more where that came from.

 

well, living in horror for years and losing many relatives has a tendency to do that you know (you know of course but choose to ignore it)

 

As I stated above, I understand this reluctance, but refusing to even consider using force no matter how great the evil it would avert, and how many lives it would save is not a defensible ethical posture, no matter how traumatized one may be. Exhibit A - The German invasion of the Rhineland in 1939 with battalion level strength. This was a test of French nerve, which they failed, despite the fact that they had dozens of divisions massed along the border and the Germans had left their Southern Flank dangerously exposed to any French offensive by massing their forces along the border with the Sudetenland in an effort to intimidate the Czechs. Had the French acted with resolve in this instance or honored their treaty obligations to defend Czechloslovakia, the untold millions that perished in Europe during that war might have lived.

 

as if ethics were derived from anything but life experience, i.e. 2 world wars in your home

 

The fact that this is how some people obtain their ethics does not mean that the beliefs that they derive in this manner are legitimate or defensible. By this logic we would have to refrain from criticizing the ethics of someone raised to be a Neo-Nazi, Skinhead, or Klansmen because they were derived from their life experience.

 

you have to get your story straight. Once you claim we never told them to do anything (post above), then you declare them a protectorate.

 

We have specific treaty arrangements that oblige us to protect them in the event that they are attacked, e.g. NATO. While the Europeans put armies in the field in an effort to defend themselves, it surely was not a paralyzing fear of open conflict with the Belgian Army that kept the Russians in check for the duration of the Cold War. A defacto protectorate rather than an official protectorate to be sure, but a protectorate all the same.

Anyway, the fact of the matter is that we have not told the French or the Europeans to take any active measures to assist us - we have objected to their efforts to constrain us. There is a difference.

 

 

don't you assume you have made a plausible case for the urgency of going to war over another means of dealing with the problem (what's the problem again? saving the iraqis or protecting ourselves, I am totally confused now)

 

Tell me what other realistic options you have in mind. Sanctions?

 

give me abreak we would never had gone to bosnia if it had not been in our geopolitical interest. We did not prevent Rwanda, timor, etc, etc,

 

Actually, it was the specific absence of any overwhelming strategic interest that kept the US from deploying forces to stop these slaughters sooner. Not a proud moment for the US in my book, but it was the US who did, in fact, stop the carnage eventually.

 

What strategic interest did we have in Somalia? Haiti? Sometimes we have acted for strategic reasons, sometimes our actions have been motivated by higher purposes, although many on the lunatic fringe of the left wing have attempted to evade this simple truth.

 

 

I congratulate you on seeming so high minded in the defense of the oppressed worldwide (a rather new experience for me coming from a conservative). I expect you to argue with as much conviction the interests of populations of kurdistan, saudi arabia, palestine, etc , etc...

 

One thing at a time. Simply because it is not within our power a magic wand and end all human suffering in an instant does not mean that we should not use the power we have to do what we can, where we can. The reality is that most of the time it will take a compelling strategic interest to generate the political will to act. In the best of all possible worlds, this would not be the case - but that is not the world that we live in.

 

BTW my political beliefs have quite a bit more in common with those held by European Liberals than American conservatives, at least when it comes to God, Guns, Greenery, Gays, etc.

[j_b]

I'll let the Iraqi's themselves reply for me here:

 

it'll be a little more difficult to get replies from the 100,000's who died during the last gulf war

 

As I stated above, I understand this reluctance, but refusing to even consider using force no matter how great the evil it would avert, and how many lives it would save is not a defensible ethical posture, no matter how traumatized one may be.

 

as long as there less costly ways to address the problem, war is not a reasonable option

 

 

The fact that this is how some people obtain their ethics does not mean that the beliefs that they derive in this manner are legitimate or defensible. By this logic we would have to refrain from criticizing the ethics of someone raised to be a Neo-Nazi, Skinhead, or Klansmen because they were derived from their life experience.

 

pretty weak! let's compare the experience of the population of an entire continent through 2 world wars to that of extremist upbringing, very credible.

We have specific treaty arrangements that oblige us to protect them in the event that they are attacked, e.g. NATO. While the Europeans put armies in the field in an effort to defend themselves, it surely was not a paralyzing fear of open conflict with the Belgian Army that kept the Russians in check for the duration of the Cold War. A defacto protectorate rather than an official protectorate to be sure, but a protectorate all the same.

Anyway, the fact of the matter is that we have not told the French or the Europeans to take any active measures to assist us - we have objected to their efforts to constrain us. There is a difference.

 

when the effect of the rhetoric settles, the question remains. Which is it? are they a protectorate or are they free to do as they please?

 

Tell me what other realistic options you have in mind. Sanctions?

 

options that don't involve the mass killing of people

 

One thing at a time. Simply because it is not within our power a magic wand and end all human suffering in an instant does not mean that we should not use the power we have to do what we can, where we can.

 

but why iraq now versus, say, palestine?

 

The reality is that most of the time it will take a compelling strategic interest to generate the political will to act. In the best of all possible worlds, this would not be the case - but that is not the world that we live in.

 

yeah right, we supported and armed Saddam when it was our stategic interest despite his murders, and now our strategic interest means getting rid of Saddam, so we say we want to save the iraqi people. Sorry, but it is not a compelling argument, because it lacks credibility, especially since it involves killing many people.

[vegetablebelay]

Now the fuckin French have rejected Britain's latest proposal even before Iraq did!

[allthumbs]

The french are no better than communists as far as I'm concerned. They made their bed, now they can lay in it. Fucking bastards.

[freeclimb9]

FRENCH GUARD:

I'm French! Why do think I have this outrageous accent, you silly king-a?!

FRENCH GUARD:

You don't frighten us, English pig-dogs! Go and boil your bottom, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called Arthur King, you and all your silly English k-nnnnniggets. Thpppppt! Thppt! Thppt!

 

[Dru]

go France, stand up to those arrogant Yankees!

[freeclimb9]

FRENCH GUARD:

I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

 

[sexual_chocolate]

Jay B, that was total hogwash.

 

You seem to think that treaty obligations commit the French to compliance with US foreign policy...hogwash.

 

Some of you others think that because the US helped France out in the past, it now owes nothing but obeisance til kingdom come...hogwash.

 

JayB: I appreciate your example of Iraqi voices speaking in favor(?) of a US invasion, but certainly the opposite can be found, in numbers that unfortunately cannot be quantified. As you note an example, many counter-examples could I also note, the latest in the NY Times, yesterday or the day before. What I read seemed to indicate a growing anger amongst Iraqi civilians towards not only the US administration, but towards the US in general, something being seen internationally. So...partial hogwash.

 

You note Germany's Rhineland invasion as some sort of parallel to today's situation. One word: Hogwash.

 

I could go on and on, but I believe one word sums it up aptly: Hogwash.

 

 

[sexual_chocolate]

vegetablebelay said:

Now the fuckin French have rejected Britain's latest proposal even before Iraq did!

 

Did you READ the proposal? About Saddam having to go on tv, stating he is hiding weapons of mass destruction or somesuch? Come on VB, will they require of him next the hokey-pokey? Perhaps the next resolution will require that he air on international television his suicide (see above).

[klenke]

What's your solution to this Iraq problem, sexual chocolate? Or what's your take on the France stance regarding Iraq? Just curious.

 

Note that it is very easy to remonstrate one person's general and unsubstantiated point of view with an equally general and unsubstantiated but opposite point of view. That's essentially what politicians do every day. It's called politicking.

[allthumbs]

sexual_chocolate said:

vegetablebelay said:

Now the fuckin French have rejected Britain's latest proposal even before Iraq did!

 

Did you READ the proposal? About Saddam having to go on tv, stating he is hiding weapons of mass destruction or somesuch? Come on VB, will they require of him next the hokey-pokey? Perhaps the next resolution will require that he air on international television his suicide (see above).

 

why don't you go over there and suck his dick you leper

[tomcat]

Bomb Freedom!

[sexual_chocolate]

You fool. Leprosy is somewhat contagious.

Although I don't have it, your suggestion shows just what type of person you are.

[tomcat]

One man's fool is another man's genius.

 

 

[JayB]

sexual_chocolate said:

Jay B, that was total hogwash.

 

I have to compliment you on your vigorous efforts to justify the use of the word hogwash in reference to my arguments, but if you are going to go to all of the trouble of constructing a counterargument, your efforts would be better directed against the arguments that I have acutally made. Since I am a generous guy, I'll both repeat and clarify what I actually said so that your next round of counterarguments will not be in vain.

 

You seem to think that treaty obligations commit the French to compliance with US foreign policy...hogwash.

 

The French are free to do whatever they wish, and they have availed themselves of this freedom on many occaisions, such as deploying troops to prop up the Hutu regime while they were literally slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Tutsis, suppressing colonial revolts around the globe, sinking the "Rainbow Warrior," detonating their nukes in the South Pacific, wailing about the aggressive cultural imperialism that manifested itself in the form of "EuroDisney," etc, etc. I have never said that they should always do what we want them to. What I have said, again, is that anyone who believes that the French are opposing war in Iraq for any reasons that even bear a vague resemblance to humanitarian reasons must have only a passing aquaintance with reality, and the history of their conduct proves as much. As a helpful hint, I suggest that you come up with factual examples that refute the claims that I have made if you really want to argue against what I have actually been saying.

 

I have also argued that the if the French succeed in preventing an American led attack on Iraq, it is certain that the Iraqi people will continue to live under the Baath regime. I have also said that if the US does go to war with Iraq the Iraqis will not be ruled by Saddam Hussein. So, again - unless you are prepared to argue that in the long term the Iraqi people will be better off under Saddam Hussein, you are not opposing the war for their sake.

 

 

The French aome of you others think that because the US helped France out in the past, it now owes nothing but obeisance til kingdom come...hogwash.

 

See above. Repeat if necessary.

 

JayB: I appreciate your example of Iraqi voices speaking in favor(?) of a US invasion, but certainly the opposite can be found, in numbers that unfortunately cannot be quantified. As you note an example, many counter-examples could I also note, the latest in the NY Times, yesterday or the day before. What I read seemed to indicate a growing anger amongst Iraqi civilians towards not only the US administration, but towards the US in general, something being seen internationally. So...partial hogwash.

 

The reason that Iraqi opinion cannot be quantified is because the prospect of death by torture makes them a bit less inclined to offer opinions that might be construed as uncharitable by Saddam. When they are free to speak their mind, e.g. when the find themselves out of Iraq and beyond Saddam's reach, there are very few voices indeed that sing the praises of the Baath regime. Are you aware of any organized efforts on the part of Iraqi refugees anywhere in the world to keep Saddam in Power? Is it a coincidence that every organized group of Iraqi refugees has the removal of Saddam from power by any means available to them as their primary objective?

 

I would agree that many Iraqis view the US invasion of their country as a necessary evil that will serve the purpose of ridding them of Saddam Hussein, and they will quickly grow tired of our presence if we wear out our welcome, but that is something altogether different than actually opposing the invasion.

 

You note Germany's Rhineland invasion as some sort of parallel to today's situation. One word: Hogwash.

 

Not true. It was merely one of many examples in which pacifism led several orders of magnitude more death and destruction than the judicious use of force would have, and when Europeans in general, and the French in particular saw considered it more moral condone murder in the name of pacificism than to actually prevent it by means of war. The situation merely illustrates one of many situtations in which pacifism was not an ethically defensible position, nothing more.

I could go on and on, but I believe one word sums it up aptly: Hogwash.

 

I will concede that you did an admirable job of demolishing several claims and/or arguments that I never made.

 

Keep working, Comrade. You can do better.

[Dru]

I have also argued that the if the French succeed in preventing an American led attack on Iraq, the Iraqi people will continue to live under the Baath regime. I have also said that if the US does go to war with Iraq the Iraqis will not be ruled by Saddam Hussein. So, again - unless you are prepared to argue that in the long term the Iraqi people will be better off under Saddam Hussein, you are not opposing the war for their sake.

 

Your argument presupposes that whatever puppet the Americans install will be better than Hussein, yet you know that is not neccessarily the case, many despots installed by the US have been worse than what they replaced, why should this time be any different??

 

The Shah was installed by the US and Britain in Iran and look what that led to, Ayatollah Khoimeini.

 

Claims that US puppet will be better than Hussein are possible but likely about as plausible as that US went into Kuwait to restore democracy in 91. 12 years later, where's the democracy??

[allthumbs]

Dru, I thought we went into Kuwait to kick the Iraqis' out.

[PullinFool]

Dru said:

america inc makes hostile takeover of french assets. war is about control of oil supply. all other arguments are demostrably false.

 

What about the religious conservatism that Shrubby goes on and on about? "Demostrate" how that is a "false" issue...

[Dru]

trask said:

Dru, I thought we went into Kuwait to kick the Iraqis' out.

 

see, they fooled you!

[Dru]

PullinFool said:

Dru said:

america inc makes hostile takeover of french assets. war is about control of oil supply. all other arguments are demostrably false.

 

What about the religious conservatism that Shrubby goes on and on about? "Demostrate" how that is a "false" issue...

 

Dude are you really asserting that Bush thinks he's crusading to Christianize the infidel???

[gregm]

freeclimb9 said:

FREEDOM toast,

FREEDOM fries,

FREEDOM tickler,

FREEDOM maid's outfit,

FREEDOM champagne,

Tour de FREEDOM

 

 

so now when you pull on gear it's called "freedom freeing"?

[JayB]

Dru said:

Your argument presupposes that whatever puppet the Americans install will be better than Hussein, yet you know that is not neccessarily the case, many despots installed by the US have been worse than what they replaced, why should this time be any different??

 

The Shah was installed by the US and Britain in Iran and look what that led to, Ayatollah Khoimeini.

 

Claims that US puppet will be better than Hussein are possible but likely about as plausible as that US went into Kuwait to restore democracy in 91. 12 years later, where's the democracy??

 

The present administration in Germany is better than the one that preceded it, as is the regime in Japan, as is the regime in Panama. You are referring to regimes that the US supported, rather than governments that the US directly installed after deposing the previous regimes by force. There is a difference, and the US's history is much more successful in this regard than you have acknowledged.

 

Further, it would scarcely be possible for a worse regime than the present one to materialize in Iraq in any realistic scenario, which explains why the Iraqis who are free to speak on the matter declare themselves willing to take this risk.