[DRB]

Originally posted by rbx
yeah i do believe iraqi people should have the freedom to live in a democratic state BUT imo democratie cannot be switched on and off like a light switch it take year of negotiations and SHOULD reflect the people ideoligies in a that region

This is a convenient statement for a person who lives in a country that enjoys a democratic government. A country in which you can lead organized protests against the government without serious fear of reprisal or even worse death. Do you honestly believe that leaving Saddam in place in Iraq will ever allow that country to become a democracy or at least a more benvolent dictatorship? Do you really believe that it would be possible for Saddam to lead his country into a new era that would bring prosperity to the Iraqi people?

If you do then you have simply not looked at Iraq's history since his being in power. There are many arguements against the war but this simply is not one of them.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
I think the most important part, and this is the theme of the article I linked to, is that what the US and its allies are doing now flies in the face of the successful formula that has helped America become such a powerful presence in the world, i.e working with other countries and international organisations to achieve mutually beneficial goals.

Like what? After the first Gulf war which ones are you talking about? Even the article admits that the three military interventions during Clinton's administration were done pretty much unilaterally. I think that he is attributing qualities to the US that it may have never really had to help make his point.

In this case I certainly think that France and the others would have been supportive if not for the inept diplomatic fumblings from Bush and his cronies. Of course Chirac is a blowhard with an ego the size of the Eiffel Tower, he's been around since I was a boy. The point is we should have known what to expect from him but instead Bush and co just blundered ahead pig-headedly and backed Chirac into a corner.

This was bound to happen at some point. France has been the main reason that the West has been inconsistent in dealing with the Iraqis since the Gulf War. They have angled the entire time to lift sanctions and declare Iraq in compliance. There is also more here than Iraq going on between the US and France.

The whole point of this is that what the US and its allies are doing in Iraq may well make things better in the short term but it also may make things a whole lot worse in the long term. Bush seems to have no broader strategic goals and his policy is being made on the run without the right kind of thought going into it. There seems to be no coherent policy beyond get rid of Saddam. Ok, so he gets rid of Saddam which certainly won't be a bad thing in itself, but what's next? I'm sure Bush and his cohorts don't know. They seem to be making this up as they go along. I mean any time you feel compelled to invade another country you'd have to say your foreign policy isn't working as well as it should.

I think that you are wrong here. I believe that there is a long term plan in place. I don't think that these actions have been made up as they have gone along. All of this is consistent Wolfowitz and Chenney and the others with Project for the New American Century. So while it would be bad if they were bumbling along, I think that this is worse as it appears that much of what we are seeing now is going to be SOP as we go forward.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by DRB
Like what? After the first Gulf war which ones are you talking about? Even the article admits that the three military interventions during Clinton's administration were done pretty much unilaterally. I think that he is attributing qualities to the US that it may have never really had to help make his point.



This was bound to happen at some point. France has been the main reason that the West has been inconsistent in dealing with the Iraqis since the Gulf War. They have angled the entire time to lift sanctions and declare Iraq in compliance. There is also more here than Iraq going on between the US and France.



I think that you are wrong here. I believe that there is a long term plan in place. I don't think that these actions have been made up as they have gone along. All of this is consistent Wolfowitz and Chenney and the others with Project for the New American Century. So while it would be bad if they were bumbling along, I think that this is worse as it appears that much of what we are seeing now is going to be SOP as we go forward.

1- I think the point he is making there is that those acts had pretty broad international support. The Iraq situation doesn't.
2- France certainly haven't got much to be proud of in their foreign policy but to lay the blame for inaction solely on France doesn't wash with me. As for what else is going on between the US and France, do tell??
3- Mmmmmmm, you may be right there, which of course as you said makes it all the more scary.

 

[rbx]

Originally posted by DRB
This is a convenient statement for a person who lives in a country that enjoys a democratic government. A country in which you can lead organized protests against the government without serious fear of reprisal or even worse death. Do you honestly believe that leaving Saddam in place in Iraq will ever allow that country to become a democracy or at least a more benvolent dictatorship? Do you really believe that it would be possible for Saddam to lead his country into a new era that would bring prosperity to the Iraqi people?

If you do then you have simply not looked at Iraq's history since his being in power. There are many arguements against the war but this simply is not one of them.

the removal of saddam is a non-issue he has to go but the way you implement democracy afterwards is what im trying to discuss,the western view of what is a democratic society does not necessarily reflect the ideologies of the people of that region thats the reason i said you cant just "cut and paste" democracy.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
1- I think the point he is making there is that those acts had pretty broad international support. The Iraq situation doesn't.
2- France certainly haven't got much to be proud of in their foreign policy but to lay the blame for inaction solely on France doesn't wash with me. As for what else is going on between the US and France, do tell??
3- Mmmmmmm, you may be right there, which of course as you said makes it all the more scary.

But there was no coalition building, Clinton just did it. Grenda, Panama, and a dozen other interventions throughout Central America all were done with little or no beforehand international consensus building.

Nowhere do I lay the blame solely on the French but I do lay a majority of it there. Go back and research UN debate on Iraq in the Security Council and you will see what I mean. The French have always been urging for the UN to ease up on Iraq. Now while they might have had some humantarian reasons, the vast majority of them are economic. The history of trouble between the US and France goes back to 1954 some of it I detailed here http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=42889&perpage=15&highlight=Suez&pagenumber=2.

But even more modern to the point is that France has continued to chafe at the "power" the US has had in regards to European politics. It really is one of the major drives behind the creation of the EU. They have been a driving force behind the EU and the Euro. And for a time their leadership is what drove EU policy. However, even that is beginning to backfire with the admission of the Eastern European nations to the EU and NATO. The French have shown little or no power to influence these nations. Even "old" Europe nations such as Italy, Spain and Portugal are bucking the French in even basic decisions within the EU.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by DRB
This was bound to happen at some point. France has been the main reason that the West has been inconsistent in dealing with the Iraqis since the Gulf War. They have angled the entire time to lift sanctions and declare Iraq in compliance.

I think Cheney held this particular view as well while he was heading Haliburton and what not in the late 90's... Not sure when he jumped on the New American Century bandwagon though.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by DRB
But there was no coalition building, Clinton just did it. Grenda, Panama, and a dozen other interventions throughout Central America all were done with little or no beforehand international consensus building.

Well I believe that Clinton couldn't really do much about Grenada and Panama as they happened before his time, though the point is taken. More specifically the 3 main actions taken during Clintons presidency (I take the 3 to be Somalia, the Bosnian Serbs and then Kosovo/Serbia) certainly had broad support.

 

[Stiff]

Just one observation that someone may have written about elsewhere but I haven´t seen: It´s unsurprising that France won´t go along with the US war; France didn´t even fight for itself when the Nazis were about to invade France.

Why would they fight now in a first strike against Iraq that has a very good chance of actually exacerbating the spread of WMD and terrorism?

Well enough France-bashing -- without France, the USA wouldn´t even exist. Plus they dominate DH.

I hope the Bush policy works, but I´m afraid it won´t.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by rbx
the removal of saddam is a non-issue he has to go but the way you implement democracy afterwards is what im trying to discuss,the western view of what is a democratic society does not necessarily reflect the ideologies of the people of that region thats the reason i said you cant just "cut and paste" democracy.

Oh well that's not even close to what you said but.... since you more clearly stated what you are talking about.

I believe that Afghanistan is a good starting point in setting up a new government after a "disaster". While it hasn't been perfect at least the ground work is being laid and things are improving slowly. The most important part is not removing US troops (or troops in general) from the picture too soon. There will need to be a great deal of protection afforded the new government in the beginning. All of this acts much like the Marshall Plan after World War II. I am sure that the minute Saddam is gone and the action is over, many of the opposition groups in Iraq will be calling for the US to get the troops out.

The "ideologies" of the region in many ways are predisposed to dictatorship, non-elected governments and oppression of minorities. I think steps have to be taken to reduce those tendencies in any new government in Iraq.

Of course you could let them make all their own decisions and it will turn into Yugoslavia part 2.

 

[Stellite]

Hey, news flash the French have finally had an uprising and are fighting. They attacked a McDonalds in Paris and took it out. Viva Le France. Last I heard was that the McDonalds was launching McNuggets at the french invasion force. The french had mandated that McDonalds not store Katsup as it was a CMD- (Condiment of Mass Destruction). There where many French casualties. It appears that the McNuggets where loaded with Toxic Chemical KATSUP and it seems that whenever a Frenchman gets Katsup on himself he goes into convulsions and nearly dies from vomitting. The French decided that enough was enough and attacked. The manager of McDonalds Ronald McDonald had stated that he did not have the KATSUP. The French took their case to the UN, but the USA vetoed their action because they did not think that violent action against Ronald McDonald was warranted. The French where aware of the US's ties with McDonald and how they had supplied Ronald with the ingredients to make KATSUP. The French attacked McDonalds anyway and as a result where counter attacked by long range McNuggets which France had also banned. Ronald had stated, "we are not in possession of those long range McNuggets." France was now aware of Ronalds deception and invaded McDonalds. France is much happier now since there will be no more KATSUP in France.

 

[Thepagoda]

One thing that I think is somehwat funny is that most people seem to associate military might with legitimacy of opinion. This is like saying that the biggest kid on the playground is the smartest one. It could be true, but it is not the best measure for for the legitimacy of opinion. Maybe we ought to take a look at some other factors. somwhere back in this forum I was that somebody was pissed that the french were interested in having the EU. What's wrong with that? Oh I guess that the fact that the euro is gaining strength might be jeopardizing the US dollar as the standard. So imperialistically that would be wrong. And the EU might someday be able to somewhat balance the US in terms of world power, that makes them a bunch of pussies too. I also read somewhere back that we ought to thank the frenchies for starting the vietnam war. Dien ben Phu was a pretty concise defeat, but the war in indochina, and our participation there, is not due to the french. There is much more to the story than "the french got their asses kicked, so we went in to try to fix it." and while we're on the topic of that part of the world, why don't we mention the cambodian holocost that we could have prevented, if there was something we wanted there. more than one and a half a$$loads of cambodians died over there and we knew about that, but there isn't much for resources in cambodia, and strategically it doesn't add that much benefit over thailand. But I suppose that you could say that the french are responsible for that too because Pnonm Penh was the "paris" of asia. OK so back to the mideast. Of course the french have their own reasons for not wanting to go to war with Iraq, and no doubt oil is a good part of it. But then you think about why the US wants to go to Iraq. If you ignore oil you are ignoring a whole Sh!tload of the picture. There are multiple reasons why we butt heats with the french over the issue of war, oil being the main one, but the fact that we are bigger militarily means that we get the last word, and the french are pussies.

I have also noticed an acute lack of Germany or Russia bashing even though they hold a simalar line.

Generally I do not love the french. They mostly don't like us, and we mostly don't like them. My point is that just because the french suck at war, we shouldn't discount their opinions.

 

[Stiff]

Originally posted by Stellite
Hey, news flash the French have finally had an uprising and are fighting. They attacked a McDonalds in Paris and took it out. Viva Le France. Last I heard , .

ahahhaaaa, you should write for theonion.com