RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Chirac is a crock(41 posts)

Chirac is a crockCaptain Morgan
Apr 10, 2003 6:15 AM
The latest news out of France is that Chirac said they are rejoicing over the defeat of Saddam's regime. I think it is deplorable that France is now trying to associate themselves somehow with this victory, even though it was one in which they tried to prevent from happening in the first place. This is further evidence that the French used this issue to try to further their own international relevance at the expense of the U.S. What is the French word for "hypocrites"?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/10/sprj.irq.europe.reaction/index.html
What is it you Americans find to hard toDownhill deux mille
Apr 10, 2003 6:27 AM
understand about people who are pleased with the result, but think it could have been reached a better way?

That does not make them hypocrites - a hypocrite is someone who is insincere, someone who pretends to be virtous.

Note my use of "Americans" - irritating isn't it when someone lumps a whole people into one?
What is it you Americans find to hard toClydeTri
Apr 10, 2003 6:30 AM
If Chirac had his way ...Saddam would have stayed dictator til he died of old age.... hope you thank the "Americans" you arent speaking German as your native language.
I apologiseDownhill deux mille
Apr 10, 2003 6:38 AM
wholeheartedly - I was not speaking with the benefit of your excellent crystal ball, or your obvious detailed knowledge of the dynamics of international relations.

Do me one favor though - explain what the "Amercians" have got to do with the prevention of the speaking of German in Australia?
Then I stand corrected...ClydeTri
Apr 10, 2003 6:48 AM
Thought you were French.
French vs. AussieCaptain Morgan
Apr 10, 2003 6:55 AM
I thought you were French, too. It was a combination of the French name as well as some grammatical issues in your post that led me to that belief. However, you do not seem arrogant enough to be French!

G'day, mate.
Naah way mate -Downhill deux mille
Apr 10, 2003 7:04 AM
it's just me typin's cr@p - that's Shelia's work mate, not for fellas to get good at :-0
we have to remember to cut the Aussies some slack....ClydeTri
Apr 10, 2003 7:05 AM
afterall, all that blood has rushed to their heads from living upside down their whole life :~)
Naah way again mateDownhill deux mille
Apr 10, 2003 7:11 AM
we're usually lyin' flat on our backs with a bunch of dead tinnies after 8 o'clock :-/
Is that 8:00 AM or PM? : ) (nm)Captain Morgan
Apr 10, 2003 7:23 AM
Jeez! You mean there's an 8 o'clock in the MORNING too? nmDownhill deux mille
Apr 10, 2003 7:50 AM
and you call beer piss? nmClydeTri
Apr 10, 2003 7:26 AM
nm
Correctionmoneyman
Apr 10, 2003 6:57 AM
It would be Japanese, not German.

Sorry to intrude on your discourse.

$$
That's OKDownhill deux mille
Apr 10, 2003 7:01 AM
Good thing you guys beat off the English, or you'd be speaking that :-)
LOL (plus some questions)Captain Morgan
Apr 10, 2003 7:10 AM
Hey, since I've never spoken to anyone from Down Under (I hope you guys don't mind that expression), let me ask this. I have heard that Austrailia was originally populated by the British when they shipped a bunch of their ruffians there. Is there any semblance of truth to this, or is it an old wives tale??

Also, another question: do you think Austrailia's stance changed at all after the Bali bomb? In other words, did that shape your public opinion as much as our 9/11 did?

P.S. I hear your special ops guys are kicking ass in Northern Iraq.
Down under is where we areDownhill deux mille
Apr 10, 2003 7:18 AM
yup - most of us are convicts through and through - proud of it - keeps insurance down coz if anything gets stolen, you just steal it right back!

Yeah it changed. People were shocked that we got involved at all - "why us, we have noting to do with this" was the general reaction fair to say. And lots felt it as an almost personal tradgey. We're a small nation. But govt policy? Not really - yeah our SF guys are in there like you say, which I suppose makes us more likely to be attacked by terroists. But we've always done our bit around the globe through our history, and it would take a lot to change that. Did it change us as much as 9/11? Hard to say really. Some say that Iraq is the result of 9/11 - some don't - we certainly haven't got as far as that. It may have been the same kind of personal wake up call to the fact that the world is now a very small place though.
Yes, it is irritatingKristin
Apr 10, 2003 6:30 AM
Not everyone here that way. This American--and many others--are having a very hard time swallowing the means by which this war was waged. Though, I doubt anyone but Sadam will feel the outcome was unacceptable.
But Kristin,Captain Morgan
Apr 10, 2003 6:48 AM
Don't you think that some things in life just can't be solved through totally peaceful means? It is a great goal to have, but it is invariably unrealistic. Unfortunately, to depose a military dictator, peaceful actions can only go so far.
That isn't my pointKristin
Apr 10, 2003 7:01 AM
Yes, sometimes war is necessary. And yes, the outcome of this war seems for now--and will likely remain---a positive situation for Iraq overall. But how is it that you pro-war folks can't understand the difference between someone who questions the governments actions and peace-loving flower children? Geez. I'm not against wars and battles. That doesn't mean I can't question the choice our government made regarding WHY we went to fight this war at this time...regardless of the outcome. In my opinion, they have a LOT of explaining to do.
Me too.Spoke Wrench
Apr 10, 2003 3:44 PM
Granted Saddam didnn't seem to have any redeming characteristics at all and I'm glad to see him gone. But the world is full of dictators who aren't much, if any, better. So why Iraq? The 9-11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and the anthrax came from Ames, Iowa.
My problem with those that sayLive Steam
Apr 11, 2003 6:45 AM
"WHY we went to fight this war at this time" is there is never an answer as to when it would have been OK. Sanctions did not work over the past 12 years. What makes anyone believe that more time would have changed anything?
That's my point exactly!Spoke Wrench
Apr 11, 2003 7:42 AM
What's the criteria to justify invading another country? It looks to me like North Korea, for example, pretty much meets all of the same criteria as Iraq. Why Iraq but not North Korea?
Because N. Korea will nuke us! nmKristin
Apr 11, 2003 7:55 AM
and they have no oil.rufus
Apr 11, 2003 8:24 AM
north korea would be a much tougher opponent than iraq, and a lot more american boys will get killed. completely unpalatable for the government and the american people.
I will respond to the three of you hereLive Steam
Apr 11, 2003 9:12 AM
"Because N. Korea will nuke us!"

This is obviously an ill informed post. Sorry Kristen. This is just too simplistic a view. I doubt that the US military has any real worries about this happening.

As for why Iraq and not NK, well no one said that NK was off the hook. I don't think that NK is an immediate threat as Iraq was determined to be. AQ was training in Iraq and getting military intel from Iraq, as well. They probably were also getting trained in WMD. This will all be proven IMO.

I believe that we, the US, would like China to earn their keep in the WTO by putting pressure on their neighbor NK, to cool it.

As for whether this war was fought for oil, that is just plain nonsense. The same goes for the idea that the US wants to occupy Iraq. The US wanted a unanimous coalition to support the war effort. Certain countries rejected this for self-serving reasons. It had nothing to do with humanitarian/righteous or noble reasons. That is just a bald faced lie. Now that the tough part is almost over, at least the dirty part, these countries want in on the spoils. I say they are proving their hypocrisy with this idea that they should have a hand in what happens in Iraq post Saddam!
It was a joke. Smile, its Friday!!! :-)~Kristin
Apr 11, 2003 9:45 AM
Today is Friday? Where have I beenLive Steam
Apr 11, 2003 9:59 AM
for the past week? I guess I have been working too hard. The weather here in NYC really sucked this week and I got zero miles in. I have been on the trainer, and ... OK I won't be so serious :O)
What is it you Americans find to hard toAlpedhuez55
Apr 10, 2003 7:02 AM
You do not think Chirac's statements have anything to do with trying to keep his $12 billion oil contract he had with Saddam still in effect? Chirac made some deals with the devil. I think we all owe a great deal to thanks to Israel for bombing the Nuclear Plant France sold (& Chriac helped negotiate the deal) to Iraq otherwise this war may have been a more difficult one.

Chirac went out of his way to kill any diplomatic efforts. He wanted to try to take any remote threat of force from the UN resolutions. THe problem is Saddam does not respond to anything other than force as the last 12 years has shown.

Chirac wants to pretend he has the moral high ground, but he took the low road in trying to keep oil deals he made with a nasty dictator. You defined hypocrites as "someone who is insincere, someone who pretends to be virtous." I think that describes Chirac pretty well.

Mike Y.
Oil? Contracts in Iraq?Downhill deux mille
Apr 10, 2003 7:09 AM
Did you say Chirac, or Bush there? Halliburton anyone?

Come of it, like no one other than the French have any interest in the outcome of this situation in Iraq and the region in general, either directly or indirectly. This is real politique - a French phrase that describes a whole bunch of nations' interests in this.

Anyway, looks like Bush put just the man in charge out there if Isreal needs thanking.....
Oil? Contracts in Iraq?Alpedhuez55
Apr 10, 2003 7:32 AM
Germany & Russia had financial interests as well. If they had put pressure on Saddam to disarm instead of trying to be obstructionists to the Coallition, then maybe war could have been avoided. Now their oil contracts and loans to Iraq are about as valuable as the proposed resolution they promised to veto.

The countries supporting the war should be the ones to benefit from helping to rebuild Iraq and not the ones who wanted to keep Saddam in power.

Mike Y.
Slightly dangerous precedent you are setting there. nmDownhill deux mille
Apr 10, 2003 7:43 AM
Slightly dangerous precedent you are setting there. nmcycleaddict
Apr 10, 2003 8:10 AM
Downhill, you are getting a glimpse of how the right wing religious fundamentalists in this country (USA) think. Thanks to your export of Rupert Murdoch to Amerika, they are multiplying like nasty bacteria now that they can sit and get all their thoughts delivered to them by TV!!

I, for one, am pleased to see Saddam may be history, but mightly ashamed of the decietful way our nation behaved in attaining this goal.
Yep, Russia stands to lose $12B, France $4B. . .js5280
Apr 10, 2003 7:54 AM
however the U.S will probably be out $5B too if the Iraqi debt is forgiven under the Doctrine of Odious Debts which says that the debts basically belong to the former despot and not the subjugated people ( http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brucebartlett/printbb20030408.shtml )

Strange thing is that a lot of this debt was incurred when the western world supported Saddam which included military aid. Yet another take-down of a former ally, how often has this been a pattern? When will we learn?
Your right, our foreign relations should be stagnantCaptain Morgan
Apr 10, 2003 8:12 AM
If we support a foreign government, we had better stand behind it come hell or high water. We all know that international situations never change, right? Heck, we supported Castro at one time, so maybe we should embrace his ideals of a lack of human rights. Or maybe we need change to a strategy of international isolation. Who cares if people are starving in Afghanistan or being slaughtered in Bosnia? We either need to be consistent with our strategy or cast a blind eye.

(note: this use of sarcasm was used in an attempt to communicate a point in this debate and not to mock your post in any way. The first paragraph of your point is well taken, and you can add some $75 billion that we will be out due to military costs. However, this compares to a cost of over $100 billion from 9/11 alone)
but the US has recoursemohair_chair
Apr 10, 2003 8:46 AM
If we can figure out where Saddam stashed his personal fortune, we can take it and apply it to the $5B debt! There are rumors about Saddam stashing away billions, but who really knows. I'm not sure his immense real estate portfolio is worth all that much anymore.

The French and Russians are on their own.
the countries who should benefit.....rufus
Apr 10, 2003 4:02 PM
are the countries the iraqi people, through their "newly established democratic government" choose to do their business with. not who dick cheney, donald rumsfeld, or tommy franks appoint as the "official" rebuilders of iraq.

i saw an interview with a guardian reporter today who said that as of right now, tommy franks is the man who makes all the decisions about to who and how iraqi oil, and contracts for the rebuilding and maintenance of their equipment goes to. if that's not imperialism i don't know what is. all those decisions should be put off until the interim iraqi government is in place.

he also mentioned that some high ranking bush administration official is already writing up trade regulations for the new iraqi government. hmmm, i wonder who this regulation would benefit? why are we even writing regulations for the iraqis? why are we even giving out contracts for who should remove the rubble from iraqi cities, and reconstruct their buildings? oh, and to be paid for with the proceeds from the oil they produce. as it is now, they'll never be able to produce enough to pay for even one-third of the estimated yearly cost to rebuild. i though iraqi oil money was going to go to the iraqi people? looks to me like it's just brushing their hands on its way to u.s. corporations.

all this stuff is what they should be doing themselves, and it shouldn't even be discussed until the new iraq government is in place and able to make at least the basic decisions on their own. it can wait until that time. it shouldn't be done by u.s. officials, or their designated proxy.
Sorry, war is like the lottery...purplepaul
Apr 10, 2003 4:18 PM
You've got to be in it to win it.
and here i thought this war was from the goodness of our heartsrufus
Apr 10, 2003 5:22 PM
and not just to decide who gets a cut of the prize. maybe all those arguments that this was just a war about oil had some merit after all. cynical old me.
I know you didn't really think that.purplepaul
Apr 10, 2003 5:39 PM
But, seriously, coalition forces paid the price in lives and resources. Does it really seem so wrong that the participating countries should get preferential treatment?
but it's THEIR country, not ours.rufus
Apr 10, 2003 6:22 PM
They should be making the decisions on who they want to give contracts to, and where to spend their money, not us. like the congressman who wants to give the wireless contract to global crossing, cause they're in his district, even though the technology they use is incompatible with that which just about every other middle eastern country has adopted. that's just stupid, and it's wrong. and we're gonna be seeing an incredible number of boondoggles just like that. because it benefits american and british companies, not the iraqi people.

and that's the very essence of imperialism, and the thing that's gonna prompt the backlash against us, and create uproar in the region if it happens. and everything we've sacrificed men's lives for, no matter what the reason, even if fotr the most pure and honorable, will be in vain.

unless those were the reasons for why this war was fought.
But it's OUR money, not theirs.purplepaul
Apr 10, 2003 6:35 PM
Assuming that story about Global Crossing is correct, I'd agree with you (though, without a doubt, there are major US companies that could provide the proper equipment - hell, we invented most of it). However, the US has set aside 2.8 billion taxpayer dollars for rebuilding Iraq. Can you blame Americans for not wanting one penny of their money to go to French or Russian companies? I don't think it would be unreasonable for US tax dollars to ONLY go to US and British companies.

Once we get into the massive rebuilding that Iraq requires, throwing the French a bone wouldn't be a bad idea as long as it's a small one. There should be plenty of opportunities for companies from many countries to prosper.