Originally posted by ivanhoeIdeally, you wouldn't. France is certainly no stranger to imperialism. But I think most people perceive France's brand of imperialism as being more benign and less intrusive than that of the U.S.
.... and that explains what ?
I mean if you oppose imperialism and egotistical foreign policy why support France ?
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhere did you get the idea that progressives who were against the war in Iraq were supporting France? Although probably also not totally true, I would rather reverse that statement France supported the resistance that existed all over the world.
.... and that explains what ?
I mean if you oppose imperialism and egotistical foreign policy why support France ?
This seems to me the same fallacy as the assertion that people who were against that war were supporting Saddam Hussein.
People were against the war for different reasons. I don't believe that support of imperialism of any country was high on the agenda of the European intelligentsia, in contrary.
Anti war does not mean pro-France or anti-US. And pro war doesn't mean anti-France or pro-US.
Fjord
Originally posted by fjordFjord:
Where did you get the idea that progressives who were against the war in Iraq were supporting France? Although probably also not totally true, I would rather reverse that statement France supported the resistance that existed all over the world.
This seems to me the same fallacy as the assertion that people who were against that war were supporting Saddam Hus ...[text shortened]... does not mean pro-France or anti-US. And pro war doesn't mean anti-France or pro-US.
Fjord
"Where did you get the idea that progressives who were against the war in Iraq were supporting France?"
I've listened to their statements.
Fjord: "I would rather reverse that statement France supported the resistance that existed all over the world."
The French government as peace angel on the worldstage. Well that's one way of looking at things.
Fjord: " I don't believe that support of imperialism of any country was high on the agenda of the European intelligentsia, in contrary."
I know, that's why I asked the original question of why they were supporting and applauding France.
Originally posted by ivanhoe
Fjord:
"Where did you get the idea that progressives who were against the war in Iraq were supporting France?"
I've listened to their statements.
Fjord: "I would rather reverse that statement France supported the resistance that existed all over the world."
The French government as peace angel on the worldstage. Well that's one way of lookin ...[text shortened]... 's why I asked the original question of why they were supporting and applauding France.
The French government as peace angel on the worldstage. Well that's one way of looking at things.
That is not what I was implying. A lot of people who were against this war realized that France had her own agenda, that was not covering their own objections. But in the period just before the war there was little time nor need for such "subtleties". When a house gets on fire you try to get water from anywhere.
There is a difference between the US and Europe. With all its knowledge, power and wealth the US is more innocent than Europe. I do think the greatest part of the US population was lured into the idea that they could be attacked within an hour. Maybe Bush was even lured into that idea. 9/11 was not the reason for the war but helped to get the population over the threshold. There was a sense of real fear.
Europe did not have that fear. Here was much more the conviction that Hussein was in a hold.
Greed, power, oil, Christian zeal, personal vendetta, it all was part of the drama; even compassion played a role in it. But the main thing that drove us into this war was fear that was holding the US.
How is it possible that the US with such an incredible intelligence force was not able to find out that there were no mass destructive weapons in Iraq? Cynically you can suppose the Americans knew all the time they were non existent. In that case they were misleading the world. But I don't (want to) believe that. Probably Blaire knew, the villain, as the French knew.
So what made the Americans believe such a thing, besides this phony report from Blair?
The only thing I can think of is lack of psychological insight. The US was all the time mislead by Hussein. And they knew he was misleading them, but they didn't realize how and why. So they made the wrong conclusions and thought Hussein was still a danger for the world. Hussein liked that thought.
The only power Hussein had was to thwart the Americans by being nasty and tormenting. Torment was his specialty. And it was this he still did in his palaces, in his sleeping rooms, in his cellars. And this was what he was trying to hide for the UN weapon inspectors.
If we only had listened better to UN Human right inspectors like Max van der Stoel we all could have known this. Then we could have attacked him where he should be attacked: in his personal life. But the Americans couldn't grasp the idea that somebody can be utter mean just to be mean. So they fell in his trap as he did himself in the end.
Fjord
1 edit
With all its knowledge, power and wealth the US is more innocent than Europe.
Innocent? Several words come to mind to explain the lack of insight but innocent is not one of them.
So the phomy reports were all Blair's fault? And the nasty French did not help either?
Can't wait for the Hollywood version of the story.
How is it possible that the US with such an incredible intelligence force was not able to find out that there were no mass destructive weapons in Iraq?
a).Massive incompetence.They did not have a clue.
b) Lies, fitting scanty évidence to idealogical conclusions,.
Take your pick - either way, intelligence credibility is about zero.
But I don't (want to) believe that
Sorrry mate, that does not cut it. So you ignore inconvenient facts if they don't fit in with your idealogy? Is that your definition of innocence? Maybe that is how we got in this mess.
Originally posted by steerpikeSteerpike, I don't want to run away for facts. But my world reflects more than just blacks and whites.
[b]With all its knowledge, power and wealth the US is more innocent than Europe.
Innocent? Several words come to mind to explain the lack of insight but innocent is not one of them.
So the phomy reports were all Blair's fault? And the nasty French did not help either?
Can't wait for the Hollywood version of the story.
How is it pos ...[text shortened]... with your idealogy? Is that your definition of innocence? Maybe that is how we got in this mess.
I used the word innocence in comparing the US to Europe. I didn't say the US is innocent. And anyway "innocence" is fine as long as it is not combined with power, as it is in the US. But the US has a point when it tells Europeans to scrutinize their own objectives. I could also have said that Europe is more hypocritical and smarter than the US. And maybe, maybe we have learnt our lessons in the passed century.
The combination of inefficiency, incompetence, competition in intelligence services, and spin at the governmental side is a growing threat for all western democracies. Yet, I am amazed about the easiness you can get informed on these themes in the US.
Look at the "The man who knew", compiled by Frontline. An amazing story of the FBI agent David O"Neill, probably the first intelligence officer who saw the dangers of terrorism. The man who knew the most, quitted disillusioned his job and got killed on 11/9, the very first week he had become head of the safety department of the Trade Center.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/
I hope Frontline will do the same good job about the weapon inspectors. Hollywood? At my soles.
Fjord
Originally posted by fjordFjord, his name was John O'Neil and he was the foremost expert on knowledge about Osama bin Laden, but the FBI and the CLINTON administration refused to let him develop a case for going after bin Laden. He had knowledge and solid intelligence that Al-Qaeda was going to attack the US mainland but he was hushed so he quit the FBI in exasperation. He even knew that the WTC was still a priority target of terrorist, therefore he took the job of Head of Security hoping that he would be able to thwart an attack against the WTC...only thing he didn't take into account was a cowardly act of using a plane full of innocent passengers as a missile...
Steerpike, I don't want to run away for facts. But my world reflects more than just blacks and whites.
I used the word innocence in comparing the US to Europe. I didn't say the US is innocent. And anyway "innocence" is fine as long as it is not combined with power, as it is in the US. But the US has a point when it tells Europeans to scrutinize their own ...[text shortened]... line will do the same good job about the weapon inspectors. Hollywood? At my soles.
Fjord