If there's anything you like in France

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

You'd better go get it:

http://www.upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID=20030204-031831-1626r

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 11:43 (twenty-three years ago)

The French have nukes... they are ready for you, Billy Yank.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 11:48 (twenty-three years ago)

Richard Perle is a mentalist but at least he's a consistent one. International bodies exist to contain nation-states' powers; that's the whole point of them. If you don't agree with that on principle - as seems to be the growing feeling on the US right - then you should indeed have no truck with them. The gamble this mindset is taking is that international bodies are a kind of prisoner's dilemma set-up rather than a necessary safety catch.

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 11:54 (twenty-three years ago)

Would you prefer someone to be inconsistent, or mental?

I'll go with inconsistent, as lonng as the inconsistency stays away from mentalism.

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 12:05 (twenty-three years ago)

I'd prefer non-mentalists obv but I think Perle is the Tebbit of the Republican Right - he says what his colleagues often think but can't be open about.

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 12:09 (twenty-three years ago)

That is more troubling than the stance of a German chancellor, who has been largely rejected by his own people

Do you think he appreciates the irony?

― Mark C (Mark C), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 12:20 (twenty-three years ago)

It will be SO annoying when Bushi wins by a landslide next year, because then we won't be able to go on about he has no right to lecture other countries on democracy.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 12:25 (twenty-three years ago)

"I have long thought that there were forces in France intent on reducing the American role in the world."

There are forces everywhere with this intention (thank fuck). Would it be too overly dramatic to say that the future stability of the world depends on their success? Certainly if we're looking at another four years of George W.

― James Ball (James Ball), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 12:26 (twenty-three years ago)

Vive La Resistance Francais!

― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 12:57 (twenty-three years ago)

Me in two months time.

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 13:25 (twenty-three years ago)

France hasn't even said it's opposed to war against Iraq: it's said it's opposed to it without a new UN resolution. Surely that isn't exactly an attack on the US?

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Wednesday, 5 February 2003 18:43 (twenty-three years ago)

The problem for the French is that they've taken advantage of hostility between Iraq and other Western countries to become by miles the biggest single exporter to Iraq, a situation that won't persist if Saddam is deposed. The US wants to depose Saddam for economic reasons, but the French stand to lose out economically big time. They probably accept that they will be forced to back the US eventually but are holding out for adequate compensation. None of this has much to do with principles or fellow-feeling.

― ArfArf, Wednesday, 5 February 2003 19:25 (twenty-three years ago)

Tricatel is pretty good.

― Mary (Mary), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 10:17 (twenty-three years ago)

The US wants to depose Saddam for security reasons, not economic.

― Stuart, Tuesday, 18 February 2003 12:53 (twenty-three years ago)

exactly what threat is Saddam to U.S. security again?

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 12:55 (twenty-three years ago)

"Damn, he's standin' on top of our AWL!" Would like GWB to swear on a Bible that there's nothing oil-related in it for him, anyone in his cabinet, or the companies many of them still keep links to. I think they're taking insider trading to a logical conclusion.

And actually, I don't care if above statement earns me flames from the board's gung-hoes because nobody's been doing anything to DISPROVE it.

― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 13:04 (twenty-three years ago)

He prevents the liberation of the middle east and he pursues weapons of mass destruction.

― Stuart, Tuesday, 18 February 2003 13:05 (twenty-three years ago)

I think you need to write rather more about this 'prevent the liberation of the middle east' thing to make it actually mean anything.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 13:21 (twenty-three years ago)

You can't end the Saudi monarchy and expect anything better to follow while Saddam is still in power.

― Stuart, Tuesday, 18 February 2003 13:37 (twenty-three years ago)

stuart is partially right in that the oil thing is overplayed. this is more for political reasons than oil reasons

― gareth (gareth), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 14:10 (twenty-three years ago)

this has zero to do with "ending the Saudi monarchy" or "liberating the Middle East". in order of importance Bush wants:

1) to set a precedent that militarily we can do anything we damn well please, when and where it suits us

2) to render the UN and other international orgs meaningless or at least explicitly servile

3) to finally get rid of an embarrassing affront to our ability to reap the natural resources of any country anywhere on the planet

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 14:16 (twenty-three years ago)

thats more like it

― gareth (gareth), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 14:19 (twenty-three years ago)

just look at everything they say and do; it squares perfectly with the new National Defense Strategy or whatever that was drafted up by Wolfowitz, which is like the above 3 points expanded into tome-like proportions. this is big thinking for them, they feel like big big boys. Cheney's got the "vision thing" and now none of Bush Sr's scruples to get in the way this time (okay that was cheap and speculative but it's an easy conclusion to draw)

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 14:23 (twenty-three years ago)

(the bit about Cheney having a "vision" i mean)

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 14:25 (twenty-three years ago)

though what sort of vision has got Latvia and Romania as our new winning European allies?! bye bye old Europe!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 15:27 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.