Annoyed with the french?

[j_b]

pacifism led several orders of magnitude more death and destruction than the judicious use of force would have

 

let me translate this for you people: hurling 3000 missiles in 24 hours, 10,000lbs bombs, depleted uranium, etc ... is the 'judicious use of force' that will save orders of magnitude more lives than weapon inspections.

[Dru]

JayB said:

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.

 

 

Pinochet?

 

There is no way in the world, that the current powers that be, COULD, not even WOULD, install a government and fund it successfully (marshall plan style) enough to repeat the German-Japan type experience. Different geopolitics, different culture, no overall struggle with Soviets for control of swing countries....

 

I dont know if you are being deliberately obtuse, or just naive?

[JayB]

Your original point, I believe, was that removing Saddam by force would be pointless because the regime that followed would be at least as bad, or worse, because no regime that the US has ever installed after a war has ever been anything but an unmitigated disaster for the inhabitants of those nations. This is, in fact a false statement, as my examples showed.

 

Iraq will not be instantaneously transformed into utopia no matter who comes to power, or how much money they spend. Duh. This is hardly grounds for claiming that the Iraqis will be better off if Saddam stays in power, but you can believe that if you wish, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and the testimony of the Iraqi people themselves.

 

*Yes - tell me about the American invasion of Chile, and the manner in which our invading forces installed him as president aginst the fierce resistance of every citizen in that country. No Chileans had any role in either bringing Pinochet to power or keeping him there for 17 years. Please. There certainly weren't any dictators in South America before the CIA started meddling in their affairs, nor was there corruption, incompetence, and misrule.

 

Brief History of Pinochet Era:

 

In June 1973 he was made commander-in-chief, again because President Allende thought he could be trusted.

 

Only a few months later, in September 1973, President Allende discovered how wrong he had been. He lost his life in the coup led by General Pinochet, who headed a military junta representing all branches of Chile's armed forces.

 

But very quickly it was General Pinochet who came to represent the military regime, and it was he who ordered many of the purges that saw more than 3,000 supporters of the Allende regime killed, thousands more tortured, and many thousands more again forced into exile.

 

Saw himself as a patriot

 

 

The general is a hero to many

 

He closed down the Chilean Parliament, banned all political and trade union activity, and in 1974 appointed himself president.

 

General Pinochet has always defended his actions as those of a patriot who rescued his country from chaos and the threat of Communism.It seems that the general underestimated the extent of this discontent against his regime. The 1980 national constitution brought in by his military government set a timetable for the election of a president.

 

It allowed for a referendum on whether or not Pinochet should be the only candidate. Much to his surprise and dismay, this proposal was rejected, and General Pinochet found himself having to allow the return of civilians to government.

 

So in 1990 he reluctantly stepped down as president. He did however remain as commander-in-chief of the army, a position he frequently used to ensure both that there were no prosecutions against any members of the security forces suspected of human rights abuses during the 17-year military regime, and to block any radical political initiatives.

 

 

In 1998 General Pinochet finally relinquished his post as commander-in-chief. The very next day, he took up a seat in parliament as a senator-for-life, another position he had created for himself in the 1980 constitution.

 

Since then, he has insisted that his role as senator would be to promote reconciliation in Chilean society. But as events since his arrest have shown, General Pinochet is a figure who instantly polarises opinion not only in Chile but throughout the world.

 

 

In the 1970s, many Chileans appeared to support this point of view, particularly as the economy recovered and stability returned to towns and countryside.

 

But there was always opposition to his rule. By the mid-1980s the left-wing parties had re-grouped and organised protests that attracted increasing numbers, while in 1986 the armed groups fighting his rule narrowly failed in an assassination attempt.

 

 

Popular backlash

 

It seems that the general underestimated the extent of this discontent against his regime. The 1980 national constitution brought in by his military government set a timetable for the election of a president.

 

It allowed for a referendum on whether or not Pinochet should be the only candidate. Much to his surprise and dismay, this proposal was rejected, and General Pinochet found himself having to allow the return of civilians to government.

 

So in 1990 he reluctantly stepped down as president. He did however remain as commander-in-chief of the army, a position he frequently used to ensure both that there were no prosecutions against any members of the security forces suspected of human rights abuses during the 17-year military regime, and to block any radical political initiatives.

 

In 1998 General Pinochet finally relinquished his post as commander-in-chief. The very next day, he took up a seat in parliament as a senator-for-life, another position he had created for himself in the 1980 constitution.

 

Since then, he has insisted that his role as senator would be to promote reconciliation in Chilean society. But as events since his arrest have shown, General Pinochet is a figure who instantly polarises opinion not only in Chile but throughout the world.

 

Source

 

 

[JayB]

j_b said:

pacifism led several orders of magnitude more death and destruction than the judicious use of force would have

 

let me translate this for you people: hurling 3000 missiles in 24 hours, 10,000lbs bombs, depleted uranium, etc ... is the 'judicious use of force' that will save orders of magnitude more lives than weapon inspections.

 

Not what I was saying, and you know it. More civilians will die as a result of any sanctions regime (indefinite, vigorously enforced) capable of containing Saddam than will be killed in a war to remove him, as he has shown that the suffering of his own people is of little consequence to him. Unless a power other than the Baath regime is incontrol, which is will not happen unless Saddam is removed by force, the Baath regime will continue to inflict still more suffering on the Iraqis, until the world has seen enough, capitulates, withdraws both the inspectors and the sanction, and leaves him in power.

 

It is a fact that Saddam will not let inspectors work unless compelled to by force, the force in question being the US millitary. Once we left there would, of course, nothing preventing him from re-arming once we left, thus rendering the entire inspections excercise utterly futile. Maybe in your world a Saddam that had endured systematic humiliation at gunpoint for several years would take up poetry and watercolors instead of rearming and seeking his vengance.

 

Before I let this thread die, I'll say that although I couldn'tpossibly disagree more with your conclusions concerning what's best for Iraq, I do believe that you do, in fact, want that very thing - what is best for the Iraqi people, and respect the convictions that have led you to argue on behalf of those beliefs.

 

Adios,

[Dru]

North Korea shows how to make the U.S. temper its actions

 

Jonathan Manthorpe

Vancouver Sun

 

 

Wednesday, March 12, 2003

 

Vincent Yu, Associated Press / With tensions running high because of North Korea's increasing belligerence, South Korean soldiers train on Tuesday with the U.S. Army near the demilitarized zone between the Koreas.

 

 

 

If one of the messages of the impending war against Iraq is to deter other countries that lust for weapons of mass destruction, it doesn't seem to be getting through.

 

Even before Saddam Hussein has been subjected to the full rigour of regime change, Washington's lesson to the world has been diluted by its very different response to provocations from North Korea.

 

In North Korea, the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il probably has at least two nuclear weapons and two weeks ago stoked up his reprocessing plant at Yongbyon to produce plutonium for more. Kim also has the missiles to deliver these weapons at least to Japan. A new longer range model capable of hitting the United States is nearly ready for testing.

 

Because Kim is a real military threat and has neighbours -- China, Japan and South Korea -- of importance to the U.S., Washington has chosen to negotiate rather than attack.

 

Saddam, on the other hand, has no nuclear weapons and might or might not be able to account for biological and chemical weapons stocks he might or might not have had.

 

As one veteran observer put it: "The Americans want to go to war on the basis of Iraqi bad bookkeeping."

 

Any country suspicious of Washington's unipolar power -- for example, Iran, the third leg of president George W. Bush's "axis of evil" -- can draw an easy conclusion from this situation.

 

Once you have nuclear weapons Washington will treat you with caution. So better get the bomb quick.

 

Reports in the last few days say Iran is racing ahead with the development of a new nuclear power plant capable of producing weapons-grade material.

 

So the way the U.S. administration has handled the Iraq-North Korea dichotomy can be seen as promoting weapons proliferation rather than containing it.

 

There are, of course, a few countries that fear they might be on Bush's list for police action once Saddam has been regime-changed and which have the capacity to acquire nuclear weapons. And France already has the bomb.

 

Iran would be high on the list, but other regimes in the Middle East such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia must be looking at the potential regional dislocation of a prolonged U.S. occupation and democratic reconstruction of Iraq and wondering how to secure their own futures.

 

It's not necessary to be on Washington's hit list to feel that in an increasingly uncertain world having a nice fat bomb stored in the basement might be a good idea.

 

North Korea's neighbours, Japan, South Korea and even Taiwan, undoubtedly have the technical capacity to make nuclear bombs, but have chosen not to. Those decisions could be reversed, however, if the always unpredictable Kim is seen to have crossed the line from his usual garrulous brinkmanship into a much more dangerous area.

 

A week ago, the director of Japan's Defence Agency, Shigeru Ishiba, made an astounding statement for a high official in a country with an avowedly pacifist constitution.

 

If Japan received information, he said, indicating that North Korea was preparing to attack, the Tokyo government would have the legal right, despite the constitutional prohibitions, to launch a preemptive strike against Pyongyang's facilities.

 

An arms race in Asia is, of course, most likely to happen if Washington's allies feel the U.S. cannot be depended upon to support its friends as it has for the last half century. That development seems unlikely now, but who can tell what mood America will be in after its Iraqi adventure?

 

Even without a spate of proliferation in Asia, the situation between the U.S. and North Korea is dangerous enough.

 

In the last three weeks, North Korea has twice tested anti-ship missiles in a provocative manner. Last week, its fighter aircraft buzzed an American spy plane, apparently with the intention of forcing it to land the way China did, with impunity, two years ago.

 

The U.S. has responded by moving more heavy bombers to the Pacific Ocean island of Guam within striking distance of North Korea.

 

What Washington does not seem to have grasped with sufficient clarity is that Kim's North Korean regime is not house-trained. More than half a century of self-imposed isolation has bred institutional suspicion, paranoia and sheer ignorance about how the world works. Kim's paranoia roared forth when Bush declared a strategy of "pre-emptive attack" on any country deemed a future risk to America.

 

Washington discovered Kim's secret nuclear research last year, confirming its view that he could not be trusted. When confronted with the evidence, Kim's regime expelled United Nations inspectors, said it would reactivate its nuclear power plants and even threatened to abandon the truce with South Korea that halted the 1950-53 civil war.

 

This might, of course, be just more brattish brinkmanship, but with Kim you never know.

 

jmanthorpe@png.canwest.com

 

 

[sexual_chocolate]

JayB, you seem to insist on the presence of overwhelming Iraqi civilian support(?) for an invasion, citing this as evidence of its moral justifiability.

I'd like to see this overwhelming support, since the information I see tends to support the opposite.

From what I gather, the Iraqis don't want the US anywhere near their soil (a sentiment shared by many Arabic peoples); they would rather have a return to what was once perhaps the most equitably prosperous economy in the middle east. After 12 years of US-led sanctions killing perhaps more than 1.5 million, do you really think they see us as a liberating friend? Not according to what I see!

 

I think much of your info comes from Iraqis living in exile, but really, how representative can they be of those living in Iraq? I don't know myself, but I do have to question this.

If the Cuban exiles in Florida were asked, I'm sure you'd find overwhelming support for an immediate invasion of our neighbor island.

Hell, if you interviewed ten million americans, I'm sure you'd find a sizable number who would favor a military overthrow of our present government.

I think the above examples are indicative of the problems faced when trying to decide foreign policy based on disgruntled humanoids.

 

You then speak of the positives of regime change, as shown in the cases of Germany and Japan.

I think we both know that an outcome even close to similar with these examples would not arise from the ashes of Iraq. The region has had enough western-led regime changes, and we can clearly see where that has led it. How can you even begin to think this time would be different? Because we now have an administration in place that has the will and commitment to follow through with the work that needs to be done to allow stability to grow? Bwahahahaha! Oh my god, you must be off your rocker. Look at Afghanistan for an immediate example. Funny how you never hear about it anymore, huh? Perhaps because the administration would rather not have it brought up? Because the country has returned to war-lord rule? Because the women still wear burkas, and the Taliban is starting to exert its influence again? Because the US troops, all 8000, are centered around Kabul, protecting a presidency that has no effect outside the city, and would cease to exist if not protected? Ahhh, the sweet smell of success: Blossoming body-bags, led by US inc.

 

What do you think of the administration's handling of the N. Korea stituation? () /\ (Which hair-do you like better?)

 

 

 

[freeclimb9]

"Which is the funniest language? It's French, innit?" --Ali G

[Peter_Puget]

Le Monde's London correspondent in the Guardian (a favorite source of info for J-B):

 

"Mr Chirac does not endorse Baghdad, and he finds Saddam's regime as despicable as do Bush and Blair. But he fears the American hawks will ignite Muslim fundamentalism worldwide. The fear of domestic conflagration and terrorism are also ever-present: there are 6 million French Muslims to take into account."

 

He is claiming the french are scared of 6 million french Muslims because they are violent terroristic brutes. What an amazing combination of being a racist and of being chicken shit.

 

I can only think of a quote from Marge Simpson: "We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it."

 

Link

 

PP

 

[freeclimb9]

[sexual_chocolate]

Oh, and one more thing, JayB.

You seem very concerned about human rights violations in Iraq. Do you think human rights are more protected in Saudi Arabia, our ally (public stonings, beheadings, detongueing(?), limb removals), or Qatar (same?), Yemen (repeat again?), all our allies? Would you agree there are more on this list? Seems pretty hypocritical on your part....

 

And the Hutu/Tutsi scene....Any idea the CIA were backing the Tutsis, through all reprisals? Oh, those nasty French!

 

[Scott_J]

Man I leave the country, get a tan, and things still don't change. Its music to my heart to hear SEX COCO go on and on and on about heshe theories on evil ways of US involment in other countries. Wait maybe the CIA sent crack here in the 80's and AIDS to NY & SF so the gay community would die off. Give me a break COCO, go get laid maybe you'll feel better.

[glacierdog]

freeclimb9 said:

Three inches, yes. But a THICK three inches....

[glacierdog]

sexual_chocolate said:

Oh, and one more thing, JayB.

You seem very concerned about human rights violations in Iraq. Do you think human rights are more protected in Saudi Arabia, our ally (public stonings, beheadings, detongueing(?), limb removals), or Qatar (same?), Yemen (repeat again?), all our allies? Would you agree there are more on this list? Seems pretty hypocritical on your part....

 

And the Hutu/Tutsi scene....Any idea the CIA were backing the Tutsis, through all reprisals? Oh, those nasty French!

 

So which of our other allies showed a willingness to use chemical warfare? Saddams a loose cannon. I'm not saying that the others are anybetter, but at least they are more predictable, and hence easier to deal with.

[ryland_moore]

Frogs suck!

 

Here's what other notable people say about the Frenchies:

"France has neither winter nor summer nor morals.

Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country.

France has usually been governed by prostitutes."

--- Mark Twain

 

"I just love the French. They taste like chicken!"

--- Hannibal Lecter

 

While speaking to the Hoover Institution today,

Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was asked this question:

"Could you tell us why to date at least the

administration doesn't favor direct talks with the

North Korean government? After all, we're talking with

the French." The Secretary smiled and replied:

"I'm not going there!"

 

"I would rather have a German division in front of me

than a French one behind me."

--- General George S. Patton

 

"Going to war without France is like going deer

hunting without your accordion."

--- Norman Schwartzkopf

 

"We can stand here like the French, or we can do

something about it."

--- Marge Simpson

 

"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure"

--- Jacques Chirac, President of France

"As far as France is concerned, you're right."

--- Rush Limbaugh,

 

"The only time France wants us to go to war is when

the German Army is sitting in Paris sipping coffee."

--- Regis Philbin

 

There was a Frenchman, an Englishman and Claudia

Schiffer sitting together in a carriage in a train

going through Provence. Suddenly the train went

through a tunnel and as it was an old style train,

there were no lights in the carriages and it went

completely dark. Then there was a kissing noise and

the sound of a really loud slap. When the train came

out of the tunnel, Claudia Schiffer and the Englishman

were sitting as if nothing had happened and the

Frenchman had his hand against his face as if he had

been slapped there. The Frenchman was thinking: 'The

English fella must have kissed Claudia Schiffer and

she missed him and slapped me instead.' Claudia

Schiffer was thinking: 'The French fella must have

tried to kiss me and actually kissed the Englishman

and got slapped for it.' And the Englishman was

thinking: 'This is great. The next time the train goes

through a tunnel I'll make another kissing noise and

slap that French bastard again.'

 

"The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and

not dressed any better, on average, than the citizens

of Baltimore. True, you can sit outside in Paris and

drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more

stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses

of whiskey I don't know."

--- P.J O'Rourke (1989)

 

Next time there's a war in Europe, the loser has to

keep France.

 

An old saying:

Raise your right hand if you like the French....

Raise both hands if you are French.

 

"You know, the French remind me a little bit of an

aging actress of the 1940s who was still trying to

dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for

it."

--- John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona

 

 

"You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam

Hussein? Because he hates America, he loves mistresses

and wears a beret. He is French, people."

--- Conan O'Brien

 

"I don't know why people are surprised that France

won't help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all,

France wouldn't help us get the Germans out of

France!"

--- Jay Leno

 

"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it

came marching into Paris under a German flag."

--- David Letterman

 

REPLACEMENTS FOR THE FRENCH NATIONAL ANTHEM:

 

"Runaway" by Del Shannon

"Walk Right In" by the Rooftop Singers

"Everybody's Somebody's Fool" by Connie Francis

"Running Scared" by Roy Orbison

"I Really Don't Want to Know" by Tommy Edwards

"Surrender" by Elvis Presley

"Save It For Me" by The Four Seasons

"Live and Let Die" by Wings

"I'm Leaving It All Up To You" by Donny and Marie Osmond

"What a Fool Believes" by the Doobie Brothers

"Don't Worry, Be Happy" by Bobby McFerrin

"Raise Your Hands" by Jon Bon Jovi

 

How many Frenchmen does it take to change a light

bulb?

One, he holds the bulb and all of Europe revolves

around him.

[Rodchester]

Look at Afghanistan for an immediate example. Funny how you never hear about it anymore, huh? Perhaps because the administration would rather not have it brought up? Because the country has returned to war-lord rule? Because the women still wear burkas, and the Taliban is starting to exert its influence again? Because the US troops, all 8000, are centered around Kabul, protecting a presidency that has no effect outside the city, and would cease to exist if not protected? Ahhh, the sweet smell of success: Blossoming body-bags, led by US inc.

 

If your not hearing anything about Afghanistan I have to wonder what media / news sources you are looking to for your news. I hear a lot about it quite regularly.

 

8000 troops surrounding Kabul? Man, you missed the boat on that one. Those are international troops. (Germans and others). US troops are active in the rest of the country and are patrolling to round up Taliban and Alqeda (SP?) as well as assert some law. They often work with war lords to accomplish thier goals. This is based on tradition and is not always evil. Such simple-simon-assumptions as simply incorrect. Further, there are certain logistical relalities that dictate how situations are handled. In the American West law enforcement was often manned by men that would be hung today. Corrupt and petty thieves, sometimes worse. America suffered through that roughly 50 year period for the better.

 

Also, you seem to imply that the war is over in Afganhistan...I wouldn't say that, nor has the US Army or the Government. It is an ongoing battle that will take coniderable time to play out. At least 20 years until it has a chance to be a truely stable government/country (multi-national state).

 

Your statement about not existing if it wasn't protected...well no shit. Same thing with any country, any country. Do you think an infant can be left on the ground and survive if it was unprotected? Just becuase something needs protection...does that make it wrong?

 

Afghanistan has problems and it will take a lot of time, money, and effort to fix it. I suppose you would leave the baby to die. Great policy.

 

Why aren't you a politician?

Edited March 15, 2003 by Rodchester

[lummox]

>"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure"

>---Jacques Chirac, President of France

> In response:

> "As far as France is concerned, you're right."

>---Rush Limbaugh,

>

>"France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these

>drawbacks it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by

>prostitutes."

> ---Mark Twain

>

> "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French

>one behind me."

>--- General George S. Patton

>

> "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your

>accordion."

>

>--Norman Schwartzkopf

>

> "We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it."

>

>---- Marge Simpson

>

>"The only time France wants us to go to war is when the German Army is

>sitting in Paris sipping coffee."

>

>--- Regis Philbin

>

>"The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any

>better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit

>outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more

>stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don't

>know."

>

>--- P.J O'Rourke (1989)

>

>"You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the

>1940s who was still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the

>face

>for it."

>

>---John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona

>

>"You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam Hussein? Because he

>hates America, he loves mistresses and wears a beret. He is French,

>people."

>

>--Conan O'Brien

>

>

>"I don't know why people are surprised that France won't

>help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get

>the Germans out of France!"

>---Jay Leno

>

>

> "The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching

>into Paris under a German flag."

>

>--David Letterman

>

> How many Frenchmen does it take to change a light bulb?

>One. He holds the bulb and all of Europe revolves around him.

 

[Fejas]

Why did you have to bring this thread back to life... fuckem...