News Does the US administration owe an apology to the French ?

[vanesch]

You got me...but do we at least come in second place?

You mean find another gouvernment system that has the longest time since it had a major constitutional review ?

 

[Townsend]

You mean find another gouvernment system that has the longest time since it had a major constitutional review ?

I see your point...no need kill it any more.

 

[vanesch]

I see your point...no need kill it any more.

Well, no irony intended, actually I didn't realize before how "old" the US government system actually was. Of course, historically, 200 years is not so old ; many other government systems have existed for far longer times ; only most don't exist anymore. Examples that come to mind are of course the Romans, twice: as a republic and as an empire (the empire stretching about 500 years) ; the Chinese emperors (I don't know if a dynasty change counts as a major review, but even individual dynasties lasted for several hundred years).
That's probably mainly due to the instability of Europe since about 476, and the fact that from the 16th century onwards, Europe's "empires" covered a large part of the world, hence spreading this instability. As a result of WWII, most european countries have of course only their current government system in place since 1945 or later.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Is that so? So then the wouldn't every country be just as old as the next? I mean, before the United States government was established on the American land mass there was in fact different governments that existed within the Native American tribes...So this country is still arguably as old as most other countries by your own standards. As you seem to think it has nothing to do with what government exist at any given point in time.

DAMN ...Townsend, I never figured you for a Saddam supporter.

You are aware that you just gave Saddam's excuse for invading Kuwait aren't you?

You see, according to you, since kuwait is on land that has been geographically connected to the area since 'god' shaped the Earth then it IS part of Iraq.

Conversely, if you wish to argue that the 'country' of Kuwait became a separate 'country' in the 1920's, you have to give credence that a 'country' is not a geographic construct but an area ruled by a specific people for a period of time.

That being said, the land named after Americo de Vespucci did exist prior to the discovery by that guy know as Chris Columbus but from the link you give below, the 'Country' you describe as the oldest 'country' in the world has only existed since it's oldest written national framework of government came into being.

Presumably, the writers of the board you quoted don't believe as you do.

So, which is older, Townsend? Iraq or Kuwait ... the reason I ask is because Saddam's defence team needs a bit of help and your input would be greatly appreciated.

I would love to give you a link but seriously don't understand what its purpose would be. Here is a link for you www.google.com. From there you can find most whatever information you want. So now what has that done? Hummm...nothing, as expected.

You said yourself that you believe that most people consider a country a country regardless of the different governments that existed within boarders of that region, do you have a link to support your opinion on that? I doubt you could find one but even if you did it would change nothing at all. Unless your link provided proof of your assertion it is meaningless. I doubt you would ever find such evidence and the search is not even worth while.

France 1789 ... It's called a revolution. France went from being a monarchy to a republic.The Geographic construct still exists. The 'country' however changed.

It went from being 'France' to 'The Republic of France'. They changed their FORM of government.

Now, can you point to the specific rule that was in place in North America beyond tribal councils Which controlled behaviour within a 'clan'? What was the specific form of government that controlled all the beings of what we now know as North America?

Now if you want me to show you that the US as a nation has the oldest national government in the world then that is rather simple.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=283

Now if you want me to show you a link that says a nation is a particular nation only as long as its particular government exist then I cannot find you one. However I doubt you could find one to refute my claim...

So where does that leave us? Oh dear, we might have to think and reason for our selves without relying on someone else's opinion...Oh whatever shall we do?

So, your opinion is that since no other organized group of people had a 'written national framework of government' there has never been another government? ... Do you actually believe that?

So, until that point in time, who had the people of the colonies been paying tribute to?

Who were the Romans? And if it is true that they invented 'the Senate' why did they do it if they had no government?

Townsend ... you must be trolling.

Nobody can make such an outrageous statement and hope to be taken seriously.

You made a comment a little while back about me having problems with comprehension and yet you seem to black out when encountering specific words like 'written' and refer to the USA as the 'oldest government'.

And from this, your whole premise collapsed.

 

[stoned]

Nice generalization

but is soo true, check this.


http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/08/25vorick_house_fox_news20050825.html

 

[The Smoking Man]

An interesting http://uk.news.yahoo.com/26082005/80/americans-schizophrenic-comes-france.html :

Friday August 26, 05:50 AM

Americans schizophrenic when it comes to France

PARIS (Reuters) - Americans seem to be schizophrenic when it comes to their opinion of France.

Arrogant is the best way to describe the French, according to nearly three out of every 10 Americans, but almost as many would call them open, a Le Figaro magazine poll showed on Thursday.

Some two thirds of Americans see France as a land of liberty and human rights in which people can freely practice their religion, and yet almost one third call it an anti-Semitic country.

And while French opposition to the Iraq war prompted U.S. media to dub French people "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", American public opinion is more nuanced -- 12 percent said the French were cowards while 10 percent considered them courageous.

Relations between the United States and France are expected to improve in the coming years by 36 percent of Americans and to deteriorate by 22 percent.

But the cliches associated with France tend to be more positive than negative -- ask Americans what best symbolises France and the good things in life come to the fore, with Paris, wine, and gastronomy topping the list, while strikes barely get a mention.

The survey polled 1,000 people between July 6 and 10.

 

[Skyhunter]

Now if you want me to show you that the US as a nation has the oldest national government in the world then that is rather simple.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=283

Now if you want me to show you a link that says a nation is a particular nation only as long as its particular government exist then I cannot find you one. However I doubt you could find one to refute my claim...

So where does that leave us? Oh dear, we might have to think and reason for our selves without relying on someone else's opinion...Oh whatever shall we do?

Finally you make your point with some evidence to back it up.

She didn't say America, she said "the U.S.", and the United States has existed for 229 years. I don't see what is so confusing about that.

Nothing...what makes you think I am confused?

I guess it was the emoticon.

What was here only a little more than 200 years ago?

You made the assumption, based on nothing SOS2008 said, that she was referring to the "government established with a written framework."

You accuse everyone of making assumptions about what you mean, but you won't be specific, or let anyone know what you mean.

You made this ugly and I think you should apologize and in the future make your point and stop attacking others.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Now if you want me to show you that the US as a nation has the oldest national government in the world then that is rather simple.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=283

Bogus. This states that the U.S. Constitution is the oldest written government framework. That's contentious in itself. The U.S. constitution may well have been intended as a complete government framework, but the amendments illustrate its incompleteness. The physical document of the U.S. constitution, at the time of creation (so excluding amendments), is the oldest document that forms part of the existing constitution, but is not the entire constitution of present-day America. You'll find plenty of other countries whose constitution or equivilent begins with much older documents. The UK, for instance, has the Magna Carta, the oldest part of its equivilent to a constitution, dating back to 1215. The Bill of Rights dates back to 1689. The insistence that the US constitution is the oldest framework for a complete government that still stands fails its own criteria.

Besides, saying a country has the oldest written governmental framework is not the same thing as saying it has the oldest government. The UK government is Parliament and, to a tenuous extent, the Queen (insofar as she is Queen-In-Parliament and must approve all bills, which she does because she wants to stay Queen). The British Parliament in its current form (house of lords, house of commons) dates back to 1295, though the presence of a Parliament itself is much, much older. Essentially all that has changed in this "model Parliament" is the amount of power they have, but that's power over and beyond the King (at the time) who is still (now a Queen) technically part of the government anyway. Again, I'm sure much older government structures can be found in other countries, just not the US!

 

[Townsend]

You accuse everyone of making assumptions about what you mean, but you won't be specific, or let anyone know what you mean.

I sure will, just as soon as you show me how what I asked has anything to do with the Stute of Liberty. Here is the question...

What was here only a little more than 200 years ago?

Now go back are read the responses I received from that simple question...then tell me again who is made some assumption...

 

[Smurf]

Uhh guys... technically doesn't the 'government' in a democracy change every time there's an election

 

[Informal Logic]

I think this summarized the attitude of the America bashers (aka, the liberals) very nicely. Insulting America, praising the Chinese. Never mind the fact that the average GNI per capita in China is about $900, or that they have no concept whatsoever of human rights, or that America has made more scientific and technological progress than any other country in the world during the last century- China must be a superior culture because it's older! Or is it because their government embodies left wing goals so very well?

Where has anyone posted in this thread how bad the US is, and how wonderful China is? The points being made are in reply to a claim that is BS, and members are being kind to even bother. However, IMO it has reached a point where this is only a waste of time for everyone.

I sure will, just as soon as you show me how what I asked has anything to do with the Stute of Liberty. Here is the question...

Please see reply above. If you would like we can do a poll--I vote for moving on.

An interesting http://uk.news.yahoo.com/26082005/80/americans-schizophrenic-comes-france.html :

Thank you for returning to the topic and providing interesting information.

 

[NewScientist]

The US is a superpower - nobody rivals it - least of all France, why should they apologise?

Does the school football bully apologise to the geek who likes to cook with garlic and is on the chess team?

-NS

 

[The Smoking Man]

The US is a superpower - nobody rivals it - least of all France, why should they apologise?

Does the school football bully apologise to the geek who likes to cook with garlic and is on the chess team?

Ever seen Revenge of the Nerds?

 

[NewScientist]

No I haven't!

I searched google but couldn't find any results...

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html

 

[TRCSF]

The US is a superpower - nobody rivals it - least of all France, why should they apologise?

Does the school football bully apologise to the geek who likes to cook with garlic and is on the chess team?

-NS

Given how Iraqi guerillas are handing the U.S. their own asses that American superpower must be highly exaggerated. Revenge of the Nerds seems an apt analogy.

(And what kind of ******* doesn't like to cook with garlic?)

 

[Skyhunter]

The US is a superpower - nobody rivals it - least of all France, why should they apologise?

Does the school football bully apologise to the geek who likes to cook with garlic and is on the chess team?

-NS

Yes.

Later in his life when he needs a job and the geek is the one who decides whether or not to hire him.

 

[edward]

The topic is not about history or like or dislike of the French. It is about Iraq and about oil and money.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm

France was right about WMD and we were wrong. Whether we appologize or not I could care less. Appologies have never been one of America's strong points. The French are aware of this.

We did screw them out of a $650 billion oil deal in Iraq. We seem to be very strong at doing things like that.

 

[Skyhunter]

The topic is not about history or like or dislike of the French. It is about Iraq and about oil and money.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm

France was right about WMD and we were wrong. Whether we appologize or not I could care less. Appologies have never been one of America's strong points. The French are aware of this.

We did screw them out of a $650 billion oil deal in Iraq. We seem to be very strong at doing things like that.

And now just who is the beneficiary of that $650 billion now?

The American tax-payer will spend more than that before this quagmire they want to call a "struggle" is over.

Do you think the average American is really going to benefit?

Haliburton is doing alright as a war profiteer, Chevron, now that they just bought Unocal should do alright.

Who else is profiting from this?

Hey sounds like a good topic for a thread. I'm sure the members of this forum can find all the major beneficiaries of the Iraq "struggle".

 

[The Smoking Man]

And now just who is the beneficiary of that $650 billion now?

The American tax-payer will spend more than that before this quagmire they want to call a "struggle" is over.

Do you think the average American is really going to benefit?

Haliburton is doing alright as a war profiteer, Chevron, now that they just bought Unocal should do alright.

Who else is profiting from this?

Hey sounds like a good topic for a thread. I'm sure the members of this forum can find all the major beneficiaries of the Iraq "struggle".

Good point. The French had merely negotiated a 'deal'. It isn't like they paid up front. The French are still able to take those funds and approach other governments ... Might I suggest Venezuela? I think they would find a sympathetic ear.

It is the USA who are digging the hole for themselves. Especially when they tested the wells and found that due to the abuses of the 'oil for food' system which allowed little for well maintenance had been reduced to a 20% efficiency with only a possibility of recovery to a maximum of 80%.

It seems they had been increasing pressure in the wells by pumping seawater into them.

 

[Townsend]

It seems they had been increasing pressure in the wells by pumping seawater into them.

This is common practice for wells that start to lower in pressure from what I have read. I don't see the point in finding a link as this should be common knowledge and you can look it up yourself.

How is this relates to what you're point is well beyond me unless you think this is a new idea that the US came up with to fix the problem. I would not be surprised if you actually believe that was the case...

 

[The Smoking Man]

This is common practice for wells that start to lower in pressure from what I have read. I don't see the point in finding a link as this should be common knowledge and you can look it up yourself.

How is this relates to what you're point is well beyond me unless you think this is a new idea that the US came up with to fix the problem. I would not be surprised if you actually believe that was the case...

Well, it might help if you read some more and try to remember what it was they were saying at the end of the conflict instead of hyping your 'vastly superior knowledge'.

Some of us were paying attention and not 'dazzled by the pretty lights' as markets were being blown up.

Even though the oil fields weren’t blown up, they’ve been abused and need repair, so oil-field service and drilling companies will still have plenty to do in the country after the war. That's seductive reasoning for many money managers.

“There is going to be a lot of work there because the infrastructure is not in great shape,” says Waqar Syed, who worked in Iraq with oil-field services company Schlumberger (SLB, news, msgs) during the early 1990s. Syed now analyzes stocks in the group for Petrie Parkman, an energy-related investment bank in Denver.

Iraqi oil-field workers, for example, used a common technique of injecting water into underground structures containing crude. This normally makes it flow better. The problem is, instead of using filtered water, they took water straight out of the Euphrates River, and clay in the water has gummed up the works in the wells. Beyond that, much of the equipment has been poorly maintained.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P44037.asp

 

[Townsend]

Well, it might help if you read some more and try to remember what it was they were saying at the end of the conflict instead of hyping your 'vastly superior knowledge'.

Some of us were paying attention and not 'dazzled by the pretty lights' as markets were being blown up.

I realize it maybe hard for you to do but please try to concentrate on this one simple concept...

What does the water being pumped into the well have to do with it? The question is not why does water need to be pumped into the wells or what is to blame for the need to pump water into the wells, just simply "what does water being pumped into the well have to do with anything?"

 

[NewScientist]

So...just to clarify, the argument is should Amercia apoligse to France for going to war on the false pretext of WMD and also ignoring the UN despite the fact the US has lost thousands of troops, incurred billions of dollars of costs, increased its military hold in a volatile area and ousted a tyrannical regime?

 

[vanesch]

So...just to clarify, the argument is should Amercia apoligse to France for going to war on the false pretext of WMD and also ignoring the UN despite the fact the US has lost thousands of troops, incurred billions of dollars of costs, increased its military hold in a volatile area and ousted a tyrannical regime?

No, not at all. The argument is: should the US administration apologize to the French for the hate campaign that was set up around towards them when the US decided to go to war.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I realize it maybe hard for you to do but please try to concentrate on this one simple concept...

What does the water being pumped into the well have to do with it? The question is not why does water need to be pumped into the wells or what is to blame for the need to pump water into the wells, just simply "what does water being pumped into the well have to do with anything?"

Oh, look ... Townsend is all embarrassed and he can't figure out the words to say I was right.

Keep trying Townsend.

People are starting to get used to your little tantrums now.

 

[DM]

No, not at all. The argument is: should the US administration apologize to the French for the hate campaign that was set up around towards them when the US decided to go to war.

The hate campaign was closely associated with the false pretext of WMD. Jacques Chirac supported the UN's evaluation and used it to argue against false beliefs of harboured WMD in Iraq.

 

[kat]

Oh my..

I think the french could better occupy theirselves with some introspection and self examination, maybe then they would do something about their stinky anti-semitism...maybe then they might deign to apologize to rwandians...and the ivory coast..who have begged for the U.S. to come in place of the French.

On to the topic at hand. No, we shouldn't apoligize based on the MSM myths and misconstrued reporting or the Duelfer and Kay reports.

The http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html or rather the unclassified public speech on it.

Directly and verbatim from Kay's report:

network of laboratories
"A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research."

prison laboratory
" A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN." And elsewhere in the report, the chilling implication that the Iraqis didn't just have this facility, but that they used it: "Additional information is beginning to corroborate reporting since 1996 about human testing activities using chemical and biological substances, but progress in this area is slow given the concern of knowledgeable Iraqi personnel about their being prosecuted for crimes against humanity"


new research in... biological weapons
Verbatim from Kay: "New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN."

"Actual live biological weapons"
Verbatim: "Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons."

To aid those who need visuals and further documents:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay/97vials_300.jpg

Documents and equipment to develop nuclear weapons
Here's what Kay actually said: "Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS)".

Specially developed airplanes, designed to spray anthrax out of a small device on the underside of the plane.
kay stated that "A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit." And elsewhere, more detail: " two UAV programs that were working in parallel, one at Ibn Fernas and one at al-Rashid Air Force Base. Ibn Fernas worked on the development of smaller, more traditional types of UAVs in addition to the conversion of manned aircraft into UAVs...All these systems had declared ranges of less than 150km. Several Iraqi officials stated that the RPV-20 flew over 500km on autopilot in 2002...Additional work is also focusing on the payloads and intended use for these UAVs... Iraq's interest before the Gulf War in attempting to convert a MIG-21 into an unmanned aerial vehicle to carry spray tanks capable of dispensing chemical or biological agents, attention is being paid to whether any of the newer generation of UAVs were intended to have a similar purpose. This remains an open question."

several vials of live biological weapons that could be used to replicate and mass produce toxins to kill humans "within one week.
Here's Kay verbatim: "The scientists discussed the development of improved, simplified fermentation and spray drying capabilities for the simulant Bt that would have been directly applicable to anthrax, and one scientist confirmed that the production line for Bt could be switched to produce anthrax in one week if the seed stock were available."


the scientists caught holding these weapons admitted that there were large stockpiles of such weapons
"The scientist who concealed the vials containing this [biological] agent has identified a large cache of agents that he was asked, but refused, to conceal. ISG is actively searching for this second cache.".

Additionally, David Kay estimates that out of Iraq's 130 known storage sites, only 10 have been properly searched


What is that you say? "Then why did Kay come back and say there are no weapons?"
As the complete report documents, he didn't say that at all.
Here's what Kay said: "there are approximately 130 known Iraqi Ammunition Storage Points (ASP), many of which exceed 50 square miles in size and hold an estimated 600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets, aviation bombs and other ordinance. Of these 130 ASPs, approximately 120 still remain unexamined. As Iraqi practice was not to mark much of their chemical ordinance and to store it at the same ASPs that held conventional rounds, the size of the required search effort is enormous."

U.S. forces discovered seven pounds of cyanide
The entire class of chemical weapons known as blood agents (particularly Hydrogen Cyanide, AC in the military chem agent code, and Cyanogen Chloride, CK) are cyanides. (See US Army Field Manual 3-9, US Navy Publication P-467, US Air Force Manual 355-7, "Potential Military Chemical/Biological Agents and Compounds," December 12, 1990, chapter 2, p. 26). A particular problem with AC is that it can penetrate American gas masks. Other cyanides are easily converted into these cyanide weapons, for example, mercuric cyanide is often used in shells with a reagent that will cause it to form AC when the shell is detonated.

While speaking to Congress, Kay also said of the Iraqi nuclear program, "They started building new buildings, renovating it, hiring some new staff and bringing them together. Fortunately -- and they ran a few physics experiments, re-run -- re-ran experiments they had actually run in the '80s. Fortunately from my point of view, Operation Iraqi Freedom intervened, and we don't know how or how fast that would have gone ahead."

 

[Smurf]

Why would this excuse the US for their hate campaign?

 

[kat]

Why would this excuse the US for their hate campaign?

The US doesn't need to apologize or have an excuse for responding to Chirac's outragious behavior and statements which the american so firmly and clearly responded to with boycotts of French wines and well..."freedom fries". Personally, I think congress had more important things to do then bother fries and what to call them..but apoligize to france who back the outragious chirac? I dn't think so.

 

[vanesch]

The US doesn't need to apologize or have an excuse for responding to Chirac's outragious behavior

What was so outragious about it ? That he didn't agree with you and tried by all means not to get you have a "UN permission for war" ?
Is not agreeing with you by definition "outragious behaviour" ? And does, as a result, this justifies vilifying an entire nation ?