Now we punish France?

[frogertgrl]

It wasn't enough to freeze them out of post war contracts and even information about post war rehabiliation? Now they must be punished and suffer?

Jeez. Talk about a grudge.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...e_030422201720

Senior aides to US President George W. Bush met this week to consider ways to punish France for its opposition to the war on Iraq, including sidelining Paris at NATO and limiting its participation in transatlantic forums, officials said.

But perhaps more significantly, participants also looked at possibly not inviting France to numerous US-sponsored or -hosted consultative policy meetings held regularly with Washington's European allies, they said.

[AdinaL]

MMMMM.....how mature. what a surprise.

[pie]

my conservative dad claims France is in the doghouse not for the actual act of dissent but for the reasons behind the dissent. I asked him they why is the US not in the doghouse too, not for the actual war but for the reasons behind the war?

[frogertgrl]

mamapie, what does your dad mean by reasons behind the dissent? Doesn't opposition to the Iraqi invasion assume reasons behind that opposition? What am I missing?

Why France? Putin has come out saying point blank that the disarmament reason for the war was a facade for the US agenda. But no mention (yet) of punishment for Russia.

I don't get it. Seems very immature, as Adina pointed out.

Plus, the US said all along that sure, they'd like support for the invasion but if they didn't get it, they'd go ahead and invade anyway as it was the 'right and just' thing to do. So how can they also be so offended by a lack of support when they were willing to act preemptively and solo in the first place?

[pie]

I will have to ask him again what he believes the issue to be, but I think it has to do with something financial. Let me write him and get back to you.

I disagree with him btw. However, he is an incredibly well read man, and I do appreciate his points of view, and the fact that they usually completely counter mine makes me think all the harder about my own.

[madrone]

Jack Straw seems to have brought his own maturity level down to dubya's. Says Russia and France are the cause of the war and France must understand the consequences of its actions of not supporting the war.

I keep thinking it's just not possible that they will get away with *punishing* France. Sanity has to step in sometime, right? Are there not any courageous people/nations left?

[miriam]

Pass the Freedom Fries...

[pie]

According to my father,

"France dissents because they have billions of dollars of contracts in oil and other infrastructure assets (so does Russia) and that is why they did not want this. Yet they pretended that it was our imperialism that they objected to.

They are now whining that that they should have a major hand in the rebuilding of Iraq.

France is also the one that sold Iraq and Iran their nuclear capabilities."


So if anyone wants to help me reply to him let me know!

[SummerLover]

Something just occurred to me in regards to this argument about France. Supposedly France denounced the war for their own monetary gain. Did France in denouncing the war think the U.S. would lose the war and then France would get to keep their contracts in Iraq? I hardley think so. If France's motivation for not supporting the war was contracts and money, they would have gone along with the U.S. knowing full well that by doing so they would have a hand in the rebuilding process and get to keep some money and influence. Going against the war pretty much guaranteed that France would get nothing. How greedy of them.

[pie]

okay thanks. Well I replied to him now. Oh yeah I think his views are slightly illogical but of course logic is in the eye of the beholder. He thinks I am a fruit.

[sohj]

And SO WHAT if France et al. had contracts?!!?!?!?!?

Aren't they allowed to have trade with other nations? They ARE a sovereign nation and have their own aims. Now, with the US "controlling" the oil fields (possibly, as the situation over there doesn't look like ANYONE is controlling a damn thing), the US can also control more nations' economies by limiting the flow of oil or who gets the contracts. Is Bush still annoyed that the EU tried to keep their import contracts with small banana producers from their former colonies? (To the disgust of Chiquita.) Or maybe they (who 'they'? -- ed.) just don't like how the EU became the EU and is no longer massively weaker than the US. Maybe they are worried about not being able to exert the all powerful US hegemony.

Maybe they still want europe to be grateful for the Marshall plan. Notice that there is no Marshall Plan in Afghanistan. Hell, the USArmy still hasn't disarmed the warlords and our soldiers, our brothers, sisters, fathers, cousins are getting used to settle old scores between tribes and towns. At least all those former colonial powers ADMINISTERED their colonies. We just do political rape-and-pillage.

Back after our war for independence, there was a huge debate on having a Federal Army. Lots and lots of the founding fathers were against it. I wish they had succeeded. Union is good for protection ("If we don't hang together, we shall surely hang separately.") but can really do havoc on others when the Union becomes a bully cloaked in the claim of "self-protection".

[merpk]

... by SummerLover
... Did France in denouncing the war think the U.S. would lose the war and then France would get to keep their contracts in Iraq? ...

No, as a matter of fact. In denouncing the war, France perhaps thought that the logjam in the UN would stop or delay the war enough so that they could cover their own butts, or recover their own money, however you'd like to look at it.

Perhaps.

Or maybe they thought that the strong opposition to the war and stand against the US would win France favor in other countries against the war, and perhaps give French business the upper hand in places that are busy with an anti-American boycott.

Perhaps.

Or perhaps not.

[cumulus]

I think any individual or group who opposes war, that is the death of many human beings, need not be examined for their motives. Such violence, I would hope, would be automatically opposed. As most of the world was against this war, whether or not France had any financial or other reasons for opposing it is moot. I think it says more about us, who look for financial reasons in others for opposing a war, than it does about France having them or not having them as they oppose said bloodshed.

[sohj]

right on, cumulus!

[frogertgrl]

Amyrpk, 'as a matter of fact'...'perhaps'? Those two states seem mutually exclusive.

Right on, Cumulus! Now that's clearing the air. Thank you, thank you.

[merpk]

:

frogertgrl, "as a matter of fact" relates to the proposition that I was saying no to. No, France did not think that America would lose a war, as a matter of fact. I think we can agree on that.

Then I said, "perhaps" to the possible things France might've thought in denouncing the war.

Just because they were in the same paragraph, doesn't mean they were the same subject.

Helps sometimes if you don't just look at the poster's name and assume you'll disagree with the post.

[merpk]

And I'd agree about France's pure motives in opposing bloodshed if I wasn't aware of many instances of Jews being attacked and bloodied in the past year in France, and the French not doing any damned thing about it. Oh, wait, one official made a speech. Mazal tov.

So no, I am not so naive as to think the motives of the French government are pure, and the motives of anyone on the other side of the argument are not. Or that the motives of anyone claiming to "oppose bloodshed" are so simple as it sounds.

/endrant

[madrone]

Amy - Almost every time the French come up, you bring this up. Even though I wish it was not true, the French are a bit racist. But it's not towards Jewish persons. It's towards Arabs. I find it very sad when I am in the south and hear an Arab comment. I don't hear them here because the Arab areas are not here. The Arab population is not large when the population of the whole of France is considered, but it is very concentrated. Within these areas are radical mosques which teach extremism, just like Osama Bin Laden. The crimes against Jews and anti-semitism are coming from these areas, not from the French.

France has not figured out what to do about the problems. It is within such small areas, it is easy to ignore. Just like inner-city violence in the US. But in France, the under-lying problem does not reside wholey within France. Poverty and unemployment are a big part, yes, but the Palestinian situation is also a part. If it wasn't for the money coming in from the middle east, the radicals would have a much harder time. If the poverty was relieved, then maybe the Islamic radicals would lose some recruits. But the Arabs need jobs to get out of poverty, and when you get close to these areas, racism towards the Arabs becomes so widespread that the Arabs cannot find jobs. The government's response has been pathetic. A lot of attempts to try to have the Arabs lose their culture and become more French. One that I can think of off-hand is to send all of the children under 18 on a 2-week vacation each year to learn and experience French culture.

Here's a link in English I found. http://www.weeklystandard.com/conten...1/187bvgea.asp
I don't know the paper and actually didn't read all of the arcticle. I may regret posting it. What I read seemed to be correct. It's not flattering to the French.

One thing I'm wondering, how do you feel about the thread topic? About the US government *punishing* France? I believe most of the people who have posted are on the same *side*. I don't know if you ever fell off your fence as far as the war goes, but I think you have made yourself clear as far as the French go. How do you feel about the thread topic of the French being "punished" by the bush administration?

[frogertgrl]

Originally posted by amyrpk
:
Helps sometimes if you don't just look at the poster's name and assume you'll disagree with the post.

Your assumption about me and my motivation for posting is arrogant and disrespectful. I am not guilty of what you accuse me of. Peace, indeed.

[merpk]

T

frogergrl, I publicly apologize for making the assumption that I made. Your posts usually indicate that you read what you respond to, and from this post it appeared that you didn't, and I responded to what I saw as carping.

Please accept my apology.

for real.

On topic.

madrone, you're right, I bring up "the Jewish problem" in France whenever I can. Because the glorification of all things France and the naming of children for Mr. Chirac because of their opposition to Bush's War is really absurd. Just as American/Bush motivations are not so pure ... freeing the Iraqis was a lucky sidelight, right? ... neither are the French motives. And the demonization of the US and the deification of the French rubs me the wrong way.

Also, I've heard this often, that "it's not the French, it's the Arabs." If the same situation were occuring in America and that was the response, it would be considered like mega mondo unacceptable, IYKWIM. Why is it acceptable for the French?

And punishing the French? The reason the French wouldn't back the war was because of their many contracts with the Iraqi government. Now I guess they'd like to get some of their money back, which they were trying so desperately to hold on to by appearing to be principled peacemakers. Perhaps they should have used more of their influence to bring down the Saddam Hussein regime in other ways, rather than shoring him up ... though it is childish of US policy to do the "it's my ball and I'm not gonna let you play with it," isn't it.

Don't know if I care. Really.