No winners as yet.
My main point centres around the question of hypocricy and dishonesty. US foreign policy has always been about self interest. Where were they in Rwanda or Cambodia (which they helped to cause by secretly bombing the shit out of them during the vietnam war). Wot no oil?
To pretend now that the war on Iraq is some kind of moral crusade is what gets everyones backs up. Am I right in thinking that it is emerging that government officials in the US deliberately misled the public by either exaggerating or making up the threat of WMD and Iraqi links to Bin Laden? If true, how moral is that? The removal of Saddam is great news for the majority of iraqis, but lets be honest about the reason for it.
Just come out and say that the guy is an evil bastard so lets get him. And admit that if iraq didn't have oil it wouldn't have been such a big deal to the US.
Giving all the rebuilding contracts to companies that rather like George W
doesn't really go down too well either.
US policy in Iraq has not made the world a safer place as George Bush asserts (who told him that?), but only increased the hatred of current and (now more) future terrorists.
I don't understand the mentality of someone who would blow themselves up or fly planes into buildings to kill innocent people. However am I being simplistic to think that the smartest move to make in the war on terror would be to try to sort out the question of palenstine. The US government must put pressure on Israel and the Palenstineans in EQUAL measure to sort things out. It is the perceived notion that the US backs Israel that has created dislike of America in the region. Seemingly hopeless situations can be made better by dialogue and the removal of violence ( take Northern Ireland as a case in point). You cannot win a war against terrorists. If anyone thinks you can then please explain it to me.
Please don't think that I am anti-american. They have given the world many wonderful things ( McDonalds, obesity and baseball excepted) and saved us all in the early 1940s. However the US is now the only superpower in the world and as such has a far greater capacity for doing harm as well as tremendous good. For example it would be nice if they gave a lead on enviromental issues. Pursuing short term self interest does not neccesarily lead to long term benefits.
Back to the original question. As people are struggling I will start you off.
Pinochet in Chile (A complete bastard but anti-communist so I suppose he wasn't all bad)
Saddam (Anti - Iranian so a 'top guy' in the early 80s. Although the US had intelligence reports of the use of chemical weapons against the iranians and the Kurds they chose to turn a blind eye. Nice one.)
Originally posted by fjordFjord: "It was a very misplaced remark and it was a golden opportunity for the US government to put the blame on France."
A politician that uses the word "never" has lost his equilibrium
It was a very misplaced remark and it was a golden opportunity for the US government to put the blame on France.
But come on, Ivanhoe, we all know the flamboyant and rheto ...[text shortened]... hey would accept the will of the UN in the first place.
Fjord
This was not a "misplaced remark". This was the official stance of the French government. Very serious indeed with serious consequenses and the French government knew that. I find it rather surprising that you call this stance "a very misplaced remark"
You write: " it was a golden opportunity for the US government to put the blame on France."
Blame the French for what ? For blocking the political and diplomatic procedures? Well, I never heard or read an official US government statement about this. These are my own observations. I myself blame the French. You can hardly say they did NOT block the diplomatic procedures. My own view on this is that they wanted it to happen this way. They could not afford to vote in favour of military action against an Arab country, because they foresaw big domestic problems with their own Arabic/Islamic minorities. (That's just one of the reasons. The political developments in Europe is another.)
You write: "we all know the flamboyant and rhetoric outbursts of that country. It was a stupid expression of frustration by the French minister of foreign affairs."
It was not. It was the official stance of the French government. If the French had decided to change their position, the diplomatic procedures would have restarted.
You write: "It was around the same time that France blundered by barking to East-European countries to shut up and to follow France."
You're right about that. The French were extremely arrogant and were conducting in a way they themselves would NEVER have accepted from any other country. If I had to choose between France/Germany and US/UK nów, I would still vote for the US/UK stance. Heaven forbid that the pragmatic ax Paris/Berlin supported by Russia would gain the upper hand in world politics. They now have the upper hand in the European Union. The Union never was that divided as it is now because of the policies of this Paris/Berlin ax. I mean if you are against a foreign policy that is domineered by the national interests of the country in question you should never be tempted to support the French foreign policy. That's why I cannot understand the political support the European Left gave to the French policy other than it being anti-American. That is the only "merit" of this policy. It is in compliance with the "De Gaulle Doctrine".
You write: "It was around the same time that France blundered by barking to East-European countries to shut up and to follow France. With the predictable effect that Eastern Europe was the only part of the whole world that had an overwhelming support for the US policy."
I don't think that world politics work that way. The old Sowjet-satellites remembered the Sowjet occupation of their own country. Saddam was supported by Russia. Their choice of supporting the US/UK stance had more to do with wanting to support the US in their fight against totalitarianism and establishing freedom for the Iraqi people than with the unacceptable arrogant way they were treated by the French government.
You write: " I never heard the US government say they would accept the will of the UN in the first place."
What is the will of the UN in this case ? The resolutions of the Security Council demanded from Iraq to obey the international will. The US/UK wanted that too. Even France, Germany and Russia wanted that ... they said. Saddam was laughing at the world during a lot of years. He thought he was safe, being protected by France, Germany and Russia. He was wrong ..... again.
The French blocked the road towards a solution within the framework of the United Nations. What would have been the correct course to take for the US/UK in order to force the Saddam regime to obey the will of the International Community ?
This last question is a question for all those who criticise the US/UK policies. I want to hear what your alternatives are.
Still waiting for an answer .... maybe ianpickering ? ....
Originally posted by ivanhoeWell put!! Thanks for reiterating what I've been saying all along but few have been getting....😏
Fjord: "So it should have been the international community that should have decided about the best way to deal with Saddam Hussein."
The international community wás dealing with that question until France (NOT Europe !!) decided to block that road, stating that it would NEVER support a resolution that would contain an ultimatum and after that the use of ...[text shortened]... for all those who criticise the US/UK policies. I want to hear what your alternatives are.
Originally posted by flexmoreAng where, Mate, did I imply that that people should not have the ability to disagree with bad gov't. I admitted that the US wasn't perfect and that I had problems with some of the dictators that we have supported in the past, so where are you coming from?
you seem to be implying that people should not have the ability to disagree with bad government. ?????????
do you agree with democracy ?????????????????
Do I agree with Democracy? What a silly question! I am actively serving my country in the defense of Democracy...once again, where are you coming from with this question? 🙄
Originally posted by chancremechanicWhat's wrong Ianpickering? you got no response to the original post that I placed in reply to your silly request? Back to the Palestine issue. GB created it, so why don't YOU fix it!? Let's not stop there. What about the mess you left in Jamaica? How about Yemin? Wasn't that a British protectorate once? Let's not even go to Africa where you nearly obliterated the Zulus...and while I'm at it, if you think Cricket is better than baseball then your eyes are staring at the inside of your colon....😵
What does that fact that the US proclaiming itself the "land of the free" have to do with how many oppresive regimes it has supported. OK, so we have have had some horrible leaders who have supported shitbirds like Baby Doc (now France coddles him), the South Vietnamese Govt of the 60s, the Shah of Iran, etc. Before you start slinging shit across ...[text shortened]... s clean up our proverbial "back yard" before we start pruning somebody elses trees. Cheers 😲
Originally posted by chancremechanicit is in relation to your comment that people in glasshouses should not throw stones.
Ang where, Mate, did I imply that that people should not have the ability to disagree with bad gov't. I admitted that the US wasn't perfect and that I had problems with some of the dictators that we have supported in the past, so where are you coming from?
Do I agree with Democracy? What a silly question! I am actively serving my country in the defense of Democracy...once again, where are you coming from with this question? 🙄
Originally posted by flexmorePrecisely my point. Don't throw stones unless you are ready for a few broken windows yourself. I have no problem with someone criticizing my gov't; I do it all the time. But if you do criticize my gov't and ESPECIALLY my country, be prepared to have your own analyzed and critiqued....cheers
it is in relation to your comment that people in glasshouses should not throw stones.
I agree with a number of posters who maintain that the US, as well as a number of other countries - including Australia - have both supported tyrannical dictators and undermined democratically elected governments (I'm not sure if East Timor had time to elect a government after gaining independence from Portugal and before the Indonesian invasion, but the Australian government of the day chose not to oppose the invasion, and may even have signalled this in advance to Indonesia).
I think the more interesting question is: is it ok for the US and other countries to do this, if it is in their own national interest? perhaps there is an unavoidable tension between universal support for democratic principles and national interest? Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I suspect there is such a tension...
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Originally posted by chancremechanicI think this is a tad unfair on the French, their position is more linked to the development of a stronger united "European" standpoint, the main aim of this is to arise as rival to the singular power of the USA.
France wants to be the supreme ruler of Europe.
This is not to say that the USA as a singular super power will misuse its position regardeless, but that if it is left unchecked the USA has the capacity to do what it likes and there will be no one to stop it (i.e they could just ignore the UN if the US disagreed with them 😉 ). Just like the US political system is built around checks and balances (a French system), France is aiming to ensure that Europe becomes an effective check to potential future US agression.
Some in Europe may feel that current US policy makes this standpoint more apparent than potential.
With supreme power becomes supreme responibility, since humans have shown a complete lack of ability to be responible for each other or their environment it may be better if none of us have supreme power!
As a side note I do not know if this was reported in the US press, but the British Governments top scientific expert has gone on record in The Times do declare the US's current failure to accept pollution controls as a far greater world threat than anything old Bin Ladden could muster.
But, hey, its all a question of perspective.
Andrew
Originally posted by chancremechanicSorry I didn't realise that you were waiting for an answer. I wouldn't defend my countries past, why should I? My point about 'the land of the free' is concerning the hypocracy of proclaiming it at home and to the world whilst supporting regimes which were far from free. I would be interested to have your considered views answering the points made my post of 10/1/04
What does that fact that the US proclaiming itself the "land of the free" have to do with how many oppresive regimes it has supported. OK, so we have have had some horrible leaders who have supported shitbirds like Baby Doc (now France coddles him), the South Vietnamese Govt of the 60s, the Shah of Iran, etc. Before you start slinging shit across ...[text shortened]... s clean up our proverbial "back yard" before we start pruning somebody elses trees. Cheers 😲
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Disagreeing with the policies of a current government does not necessarily mean you are anti its people or it as a nation.
Not agreeing with the Bush administation does not make an American "non-American", or a foreign national "anti-american". I would rather juge America and its "worth" on a bit more than the rantings of one administration.
Andrew