Frenchmen Have the Spines of Escargot?

[eNtRopY]

[SOLVED] Frenchmen Have the Spines of Escargot?

Okay, before anyone gets the wrong idea, I do not support the war. I would like to say that initially I understood France's objection to joining forces with the United States in battle against Iraq.

Just the other day the US stated that $80 billion will be given to Iraq for post-war reconstruction. There is one stipulation. None of this money can go to French, German, Russian or Syrian based-companies. Immediately following this announcement, a French foreign minister publically expressed concern about this decision. He pretty much stated that it would not be fair to the French economy to exclude their companies from cashing in.

In conclusion, the French government may not be willing to wage war, but it has no problem with profitting from it.

eNtRopY

 

[kat]

Ah..contraire! I must disagree! When France's economic interests were involved, France invaded Africa (even without bothering to get security council authorization), France had no difficulty with war even when it meant entering the conflict on the side of those committing genocide (like when it invaded Rwanda in 1994 on the side of the Hutus) Or when France decided it did not want to bear the issue of Muslim refugees knocking at its doors, it supported a United States invasion of Yugoslavia (again, without insisting on getting a security council authorization.)

In conclusion, the French government may not be willing to support a war it has no economical benefit from but the French government is certianly willing to wage war, when it will be profiting from it.

 

[Zero]

Name-calling on the French is going to have to be a no-no, ok? I'm sure we have or will have French people joining us at some point.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Ah..contraire! I must disagree! When France's economic interests were involved, France invaded Africa (even without bothering to get security council authorization), France had no difficulty with war even when it meant entering the conflict on the side of those committing genocide (like when it invaded Rwanda in 1994 on the side of the Hutus) Or when France decided it did not want to bear the issue of Muslim refugees knocking at its doors, it supported a United States invasion of Yugoslavia (again, without insisting on getting a security council authorization.)

In conclusion, the French government may not be willing to support a war it has no economical benefit from but the French government is certianly willing to wage war, when it will be profiting from it.

Is there a country that isn't? Look at what the discussion is about: The American government divying up the profits to it's favorite companies. Maybe that's why the U.S. didn't want U.N. involvement?

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Is there a country that isn't? Look at what the discussion is about: The American government divying up the profits to it's favorite companies. Maybe that's why the U.S. didn't want U.N. involvement?

I don't believe the discussion was about the U.S., but about France. Why can't you focus on another country for a bit Mr. Zero?

Also, I don't see anyone calling the French any names?..I am 1/2 French...my mother 100% from a long line of...and honestly my mothers family tells some great french jokes..irrelevent of that..I think I have a right to be as blunt about the French government as you are about the American and Israeli governments. I'd like to verbally bonk you with a long line of abusive epithets because you seem to be blind to your own statements..but I won't cause in the end..I still think your OK!..ok?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
I don't believe the discussion was about the U.S., but about France. Why can't you focus on another country for a bit Mr. Zero?

Also, I don't see anyone calling the French any names?..I am 1/2 French...my mother 100% from a long line of...and honestly my mothers family tells some great french jokes..irrelevent of that..I think I have a right to be as blunt about the French government as you are about the American and Israeli governments. I'd like to verbally bonk you with a long line of abusive epithets because you seem to be blind to your own statements..but I won't cause in the end..I still think your OK!..ok?

No, calling Frenchmen spineless isn't an insult, whatever was I thinking?!?

The focus is whether or not economics plays a role in participation in war, isn't it? That the French supposedly want profits that I suppose America has 'earned' by invading Iraq?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by eNtRopY
In conclusion, the French government may not be willing to wage war, but it has no problem with profitting from it.

I think they've had enough Iraqy money already...

 

[kat]

Zero-He wasn't calling he was asking..and it's no worse then comments you've made about israeli's and often americans.

I think this was the summation of the topic "In conclusion, the French government may not be willing to wage war, but it has no problem with profitting from it." which as I pointed out is erroneous. France has had no problem fighting when it benefits France. Do you deny this? have input on it where it concerns France? or do you only desire to continue to point out the flaws of the U.S. and Israel?

 

[damgo]

Again, we are reminded of the fundamental unity of mankind: French politicians are hypocritical and self-interested, just like American politicians.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Gastropodic spine??

Cheeese, and here I was thinking that my spine was made of Bone, just like everyone else's.

What could I have been thinking?, "spine like Escargot", probably why the people in the 'Cirque Du Soleil' are so supple, adept, capable, able, physically inclined to gymnastics, etc. etc.!

Now if only I could figure out how to use 'spinelessness' to generate sarcasm's, then I would have it made!









(Yup, Sarc!)

 

[eNtRopY]

Originally posted by Zero
No, calling Frenchmen spineless isn't an insult, whatever was I thinking?!?

The focus is whether or not economics plays a role in participation in war, isn't it? That the French supposedly want profits that I suppose America has 'earned' by invading Iraq?

The focus is what you focus on. You choose to focus on the title which was meant to catch your attention... and I see it worked. Others, like Kat, have chosen to focus on the politics that shape our world.

Anyway, I'm not saying that America has earned anything. I'm not even criticizing French people. I'm simply criticizing French politicians, particularly Dominique de Villepin, for suddenly having a great deal of concern with being able to help Iraq after the war is over.

If you read the New York Times article, you'll see that all these statements led up to him saying that it's not fair that France won't have the opportunity to profit from this war which they are ever so opposed to.

REF.: New York Times. April 4, 2003.

For those of you who don't trust just one news source, read the same story from BBC News.

REF.: BBC News. April 4, 2003.

Errata: I originally wrote $90 bn, but I see now that the number is actually $80 bn. However, considering that the US just wrote off a $1 bn of debt from Pakistan, it's possible that $10 bn is withing the error bar of US war spending.

REF.: BBC News. April 4, 2003.

eNtRopY

 

[Zero]

Hmm...last I remember, France would have supported a war on a longer timetable, with a 60 day extension on inspections.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Hmm...last I remember, France would have supported a war on a longer timetable, with a 60 day extension on inspections.

I would have been surprised to see France support this war at any point but the last I remember was France stating they would veto any resolution that was put forth.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by kat
I would have been surprised to see France support this war at any point but the last I remember was France stating they would veto any resolution that was put forth.

...to go to war, when, inspections had not been completely done, could still have been done, could have saved, as we all clearly now know, American and Iraqi lives, and was the agreement that everyone had agreed to!

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
...to go to war, when, inspections had not been completely done, could still have been done, could have saved, as we all clearly now know, American and Iraqi lives, and was the agreement that everyone had agreed to!

No..I'm fairly sure France stated that they would veto any resolution that might open the way to war whether Iraq cooperated with inspections or not. This evasion of consequences that France has continued to support for Saddam was not the agreement that everyone agreed to as far as I'm concerned.

But, I think we veer off topic. France invaded Rwanda in 1994, on the side of the Hutus. When Britain and the US asked the UN to impose sanctions on the warlord dictator Charles Taylor in Liberia, France fought the prroposal and forced a weakening of the original intent in the final Security Council resolutions. France supported Laurent Kabila after he removed his pro-Tutsi Rwandan and Ugandan advisors. It supported Mobutu in Zaire, turning against him only when he attempted to improve his relations with the US. France invaded the Ivory Coast this year, without asking the UN for approval, because Ivoran rebels were threatening Abidjan and San Pedro where 20,000 French settlers live, and the rebels would have kicked them out. France supported the U.S. invasion of Yugoslavia without UN approval, because it did not want to have to accommodate the mostly Muslim refugees from the Yugoslav civil war that were starting to knock on France's door.
France is not at all spineless when it comes to it's own economic interest.

 

[kyleb]

Originally posted by kat
But, I think we veer off topic. France invaded Rwanda in 1994, on the side of the Hutus.

i think you mean Chirac said he would not support any "preemptive action." as for France doing any of that before, i know Napoleon did way back in the day. but as for "France invaded Rwanda in 1994", are you just making that up?

 

[Zero]

Hmmmm...the French supported inspections, and the promised to veto anything that didn't offer at least a short-term continuation of inspections. That is not the same as what some people are posting here. Then again, if you get your news from Fox, you believe that the French are actively supporting Iraq

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Zero
Hmm...last I remember, France would have supported a war on a longer timetable, with a 60 day extension on inspections.

It's funny you should say that. Those biased
news you appear to dislike so much recently
showed french missiles found in an Iraqi warehouse.
Those missiles are new and high level which means that
Iraq got them from France in the past few years IN
DIRECT VIOLATION of the restrictions imposed
by the UN. Sure France would say the UN resolution
is violated and calls for action - in say a million
years or so...

Live long and prosper.

 

[FZ+]

It's funny you should say that. Those biased
news you appear to dislike so much recently
showed french missiles found in an Iraqi warehouse.
Those missiles are new and high level which means that
Iraq got them from France in the past few years IN
DIRECT VIOLATION of the restrictions imposed
by the UN. Sure France would say the UN resolution
is violated and calls for action - in say a million
years or so...

Where? I didn't see that. Care to reveal your sources s'il vous plait?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by FZ+
Where? I didn't see that. Care to reveal your sources s'il vous plait?

Watch the news mon ami, you'll see it.
Don't be surprised - ce la vi...

 

[FZ+]

I couldn't find it on a google news search... (there was a thing about french solvents, and bases for rocket fuel but that's not quite missiles...) I also did watch the news. And something like that is hard to miss. A link, please...

PS: And it's c'est la vie.

 

[drag]

I apologize - I couldn't find a link (yet).
It was on one of the local news channels, I'll
try to find it online again later.
(It was a reliable source though, unless of course
you consider me unreliable...)

Also, I did find on the CNN site and on many
others articles that were written before the
war and that discussed how Iraq is violating
UN restrictions by importing fuel and engines
for missiles, spare parts of airplanes and
a lot more. (Those are easy to find.)

Live long and prosper.

 

[rutwig]

Originally posted by kat
France has had no problem fighting when it benefits France.

Sure, just the same as the US does.

 

[Zero]

It isn't America-bashing, or a double standard, to ask how France is somehow doing something different than any other country.

 

[kyleb]

well when a person trying to make out France to look really bad, and then someone brings up the similarities with America; i suppose one could see that as anti-American.

 

[rutwig]

Originally posted by kyleb
well when a person trying to make out France to look really bad, and then someone brings up the similarities with America; i suppose one could see that as anti-American.

I suppose that you mean my answer. Not at all, if the US had no interest in Iraq it would never spend millions in this campaign. Nobody believes Bush has taken this hard decision because he loves altruism.

 

[kyleb]

oh no rutwig, i was just speaking in general terms of psychology/sociology; that was by no means a pointed statement.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by kyleb
as for "France invaded Rwanda in 1994", are you just making that up?

Kyleb-In a nutshell without getting too much into history or complexities.
Since mid-eighties and well after the genocide France fully supported Rwanda's Hutu Power dictatorship as a French speaking country, and Paris neo-colonial policy in Africa was to support those who speak French. In the early '90s when Rwanda was plunged into civil war between the Hutu government and the predominantly Tutsi rebel group, the Rwandese Patriotic Front, France threw its military support
behind the Hutu regime as the the RPF came out of Uganda, where its leaders had been living in exile and Uganda is an English speaking country. So they supported whoever it would be, as long as "against the Anglos", in this case they supported the murderers of Hutu Power.

The French president is quoted to have said then "In such countries as this, genocide is not too important." For him of course in his colonial / neo-colonial mentality that prevails until today.

France was responsible for a "protected zone" Opération Turquoise in June 94... and allowed the slaughter of the Tutsis to continue for one extra month. Taking into account that the genocide in Rwanda took 100 days, they provided one third of it via Opération Turquoise.

This French deployment of course also helped secure safe passage for the genocidal Hutu command to cross into Zaire.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
It isn't America-bashing, or a double standard, to ask how France is somehow doing something different than any other country.

well when a person trying to make out France to look really bad, and then someone brings up the similarities with America; i suppose one could see that as anti-American.

Amazing, isn't it how when you put the shoe on the other foot no one wants to admit it fits?

You're all quite correct, the US *DOES* act out of its own self interest. But when its pointed out that *EVERY* country acts out of its own self interest, people don't want to hear that when talking about the US.

Next time you guys bash the US for being selfish, remember this thread. The knife really DOES cut both ways.

Name-calling on the French is going to have to be a no-no, ok? I'm sure we have or will have French people joining us at some point.

Come now, Zero, that's hardly worse than the America bashing that's been going on.

 

[kat]

I will be convinced that it is not Anti-americanism when I read someones response to a negative comment in regard to the U.S. with a "Sure, just the same as France does" but of course there is seldom if ever that type of response. So, in the meantime we are limited to a very small world view and no intelligent debate about the policies of other countries less it might offend the senses that we would exclude the errors of the U.S. in any of our critical conversations.

 

[kyleb]

man russ you just don't get it do you? we don't consider it justification no matter how many people are doing it.


and kat, fair enough; i knew some of that. but using the term "invaded" is quite a stretch. there were some dirty dealing but it but that was not really perpetuated by "France" but simply a small portion of their government. as for the country as a whole, they only real blame they deserve is being apathetic towards the situation; and we are guilty of that one as well.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by kyleb
man russ you just don't get it do you? we don't consider it justification no matter how many people are doing it.


there were some dirty dealing but it but that was not really perpetuated by "France" but simply a small portion of their government

GAAAh, are you for real? I'll be back to respond in full when my head is not so plugged..gah, I'm amazed.

 

[russ_watters]

I got this one Kat, not to worry...

Originally posted by kyleb
man russ you just don't get it do you? we don't consider it justification no matter how many people are doing it.

Whoa. Hold on. If its not right for anyone, why isn't anyone screaming about all the terrible things France has done then (not to mention so many other countries)? If its not a justification for ANYONE, why is it that *ONLY* the US is chastized for it? You're right. I don't get it. Now where did I put that DOUBLE STANDARD thread...?

 

[kyleb]

Originally posted by russ_watters
why is it that *ONLY* the US is chastized for it?

the Us the only ones getting chastised? were have you been, there has been France bashing all over the place and we are feeding Iraqi bombs for breakfast. if you can't see anything but the US getting chastised, you might want to blinders off and come back to reality. it would be helpful, then you could convince others to do the same.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I got this one Kat, not to worry...

Whoa. Hold on. If its not right for anyone, why isn't anyone screaming about all the terrible things France has done then (not to mention so many other countries)? If its not a justification for ANYONE, why is it that *ONLY* the US is chastized for it? You're right. I don't get it. Now where did I put that DOUBLE STANDARD thread...?

Are you admitting that what the U.S. does is wrong? Do you dare?