1
   

Rice - getting away from "Punish France, ignore Germany..."?

 
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 06:46 pm
No - but it is a pity to see silly, tired, insults posted. Especially when even Bushco are attempting a different approach.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 06:50 pm
I think that different message by Bushco may be causing some people/posters unease, which is where that reaction may be coming from. The audible gag reflex is interesting.

Cognitive dissonance can make ya crazy.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 09:41 pm
But - it is the engine room of change....
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2005 12:01 am
Some opinions, collected by the Guardian:

Quote:
'If a husband and wife argue, the dinner gets burnt'

Interviews by Jon Henley, Nicholas Watt, Sophie Arie and Luke Harding
Wednesday February 9, 2005
The Guardian

France

Jean-Paul Maignan - newsagent


"We share the same universal values of democracy and liberty. But the relationship has always been difficult. I'm not anti-American, but I appreciate more what's good about Europe now; I prefer Bordeaux to Coca-Cola."

Marie-Christine Everaert - marketing manager

"It's vital that Europe gets on with America. Not necessarily that we see eye to eye on everything, but at least that we don't actively work against one another. The problem today is not just Bush and his very black-and-white, blinkered vision of the world, it's that Europe hasn't got the arguments or the strength of purpose to convince him otherwise."


Belgium


Roger Vereecken - hairdressing salon owner


"The Americans liberated us in 1945 and we will never forget that. We have very good relations with the American people, it is George Bush we do not agree with."

Hervé Hertoghe - promotions business manager

"There is a lot of work to do to improve relations between Europe and the US. But the US is in the middle of a mess in Iraq and needs Europe's help. We have no choice. You cannot say you started it in Iraq, so finish it alone."


Italy


Antonio Raspaglio - newsagent


"It's always better to work together than on your own. If a husband and wife argue, the dinner gets burnt. It's the same with Europe and America. Europe is culturally rich and America has lots of money. If you combined Europe's library with America's bank account, you would have the best possible product for helping the world."


Franco de Mico - pensioner

"When European leaders work with America, they think they are gaining influence. But America doesn't listen to anyone. The one thing Europe can do as a counter-power is put the brakes on America. If we were strong we could isolate America, and Bush would be weakened. But we are too weak and divided to do that."


Germany


Klaus Peter Müller - history teacher


"It's good that we are speaking to each other again. We have to now try and find some compromises. In postwar German history the emphasis has always been on negotiation and trying to reach compromises with other countries and allies. The Americans see it differently. Their conception involves active intervention."

Frieder Haase - mayor of Königstein

"Rebuilding the trust with Europe is going to be difficult. The main thing that stands in the way of a good working relationship is George Bush. I'm an independent mayor but it's no secret that the vast majority of Germans believe it would have been better if someone else had won the US election last year."
Source
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2005 04:06 am
ehBeth wrote:
The audible gag reflex is interesting.


My gag reflex kicks in when I see governments intentionally overlooking (and even forgiving) the unforgiveable. They wouldn't "put up," but it certainly would be refreshing if they would "shut up" and allow the others who are willing to do the dirty work ... as usual.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2005 04:34 am
dlowan wrote:
No - but it is a pity to see silly, tired, insults posted. Especially when even Bushco are attempting a different approach.


I assume that comment is directed at me.

As we've had our fair share of flag-draped coffins locally, I find little to laugh about in that situation, and I find the duplicity of the French (and yes, their German poodle) nauseating. Personally, I don't view the Iraq War as a trumped-up search for WMD, as revenge for the attempt on George I's life, as an oil grab, or any of the other tired and silly reasons concocted by the American left and its cheerleaders across the globe. Many here (I'm assuming at least 51% based on the last election) look at that conflict as a line in the sand to preserve a way of life -- a way of life shared in Europe and, I've heard, even Australia.

As these people understand nothing but force, I also believe the current European diplomatic initiative in Iran is doomed. Of course the French have readied their escape chute on that, too, insisting that American support is necessary for its success. When it fails, guess who will be blamed.

It's sad when the personal hatred for one American president blinds so many to political realities. That is truly silly, tired & insulting.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2005 10:43 am
Quote:
Nato united over Iraq, Rice says

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said that Nato foreign ministers have held their "best" discussion on Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Ms Rice, speaking after the meeting in Brussels, said the alliance was united and knew the work it had to do.

But she said the US still had concerns about the possible lifting of a EU arms embargo against China, and Iran's alleged nuclear weapons programme.

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is also due to hold talks in Europe.

Ms Rice is expected to meet EU officials in Brussels, while Mr Rumsfeld is meeting Nato defence ministers in Nice.

The secretary of state is nearing the end of an eight-day tour of Europe and the Middle East during which she has sought to soothe tensions with European nations over Iraq, says BBC Europe correspondent Tim Franks in Brussels.

Sanctions

Ms Rice's comments on Iraq were echoed by Nato Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who said relations between the US and its European allies over Iraq had "turned a corner" after landmark elections there last month.

However, speaking at a press conference in Brussels after the Nato talks, Ms Rice said the US and the EU were "still in open discussion" about how to deal with proposals to lift an EU arms embargo on China.

"The United States has very specific concerns," she said, citing China's human rights record and regional stability.

"We do have to worry about the military balance in the region and we have concerns about technology and its transfer," she said.

Ms Rice repeated earlier warnings that Iran "must live up to its international obligations".

Despite the talk of consensus, major differences remain between the US and the EU over Iran, says the BBC's Dan Isaacs.

In a US television interview before she travelled to Brussels, Ms Rice said European countries needed to get tougher with Tehran in negotiations to bring a halt to Iran's nuclear programme.

The UK, France and Germany have offered Iran trade concessions if it gives up its nuclear programme. Iran has agreed to temporarily suspend its uranium enrichment activities as the negotiations continue.

Iran says its nuclear programme is peaceful, but the US claims Iran is on the path to developing nuclear weapons.

Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits the development of atomic weapons. The United Nations Security Council has the power to impose stringent sanctions on Iran if it is found to be in breach of the treaty.

Military ties

In Nice, Mr Rumsfeld is expected to call on Nato colleagues to do more for the military effort in Iraq.

Nato said it would contribute 300 personnel for a training mission, but so far there are fewer than 100 on the ground.

The US-led invasion of Iraq during US President George Bush's first term badly strained US ties with Europe.

Some countries, notably France and Germany, said they would have nothing to do with operations in Iraq. Spain initially sent troops but then decided to pull them out after a change of government.
Source
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2005 01:04 pm
WhoodaThunk wrote:
McTag wrote:
For that, France has to suffer jibes about faded movie stars and Old Europe. Know what? Jibes don't change facts.

Many Americans and Brits have died.

We Americans are paying the bill ... btw, where's all that oil we were to have "grabbed?"


Where's that $8 billion missing from Iraqi oil revenues?

Quote:

Poor France has lost many oil, defense, and business contracts (with an outlaw regime) and now she has to actually suffer ... jibes. Shocked

No, jibes don't change facts. It's taken an actual sacrifice to do that, and that requires a modicum of intestinal fortitude.

Does "balls" translate into French or German?


That's a poorish remark, one you probably regret. Al Capone had balls. Genghis Khan had balls. A bull in a china shop has balls, plenty power, and no understanding of the situation it finds itself in. But it finds destruction to be no problem.

The poor servicemen who are making the actual sacrifice, and their families, are being misled and lied to by those you voted for.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2005 04:49 pm
McTag wrote:
[That's a poorish remark, one you probably regret. Al Capone had balls. Genghis Khan had balls. A bull in a china shop has balls, plenty power, and no understanding of the situation it finds itself in. But it finds destruction to be no problem.


I believe you left six pertinent balls off your list, McTag.
Do the names Saddam, Uday, & Qusay ring a bell? Like you said, plenty of power and not at all queasy about that whole destruction thing.

No-o-o-o ... I have no remarks on this thread that I regret, be they poorish or well-endowed. But speaking of endowment ... I believe Rosa Parks had balls ... as did Martin Luther King ... Margaret Thatcher ... so does John Paul II ... certainly Tony Blair more so than Chirac & Co. (and, of course, the neutered German poodle.) You are far too pessimistic in your choices of geopolitical genitalia, McTag. There are good balls and bad balls, you know, and it takes some to bring about change.


I'm assuming you, too, have a ball? A crystal one that speaks to the whereabouts of $8 billion in oil money and the inner workings of the American government? Smile
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2005 06:51 pm
WhoodaThunk wrote:


I'm assuming you, too, have a ball? A crystal one that speaks to the whereabouts of $8 billion in oil money and the inner workings of the American government? Smile


Rather than that one, I want access to the crystal ball which could determine where the money our gov't has allotted to fund the reconstruction has gone to... $8 billion is small change compared to the other monies lost.

http://alternet.org/story/21220/
Quote:
With the president preparing to hit up Congress for another $80 billion for the war in Iraq, I thought it might be a good time to crack open a history book.

In 1941, as the United States was on the verge of entering World War II, Sen. Harry S Truman launched an investigation into reports of widespread waste, corruption and mismanagement in the nascent war effort. Over the next three years, the Truman Committee held hundreds of public hearings, visited military bases across the country, and ended up saving taxpayers $15 billion dollars. His efforts also saved countless lives by rooting out contractors using inferior materials and producing shoddy equipment. We sure could use "Give 'em Hell, Harry" today - although, given the epidemic of corruption infecting the reconstruction of Iraq, even he would have his work cut out for him.

By even the most charitable standard, the effort to rebuild Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster. A cornucopia of waste, fraud, ineptitude, cronyism, secret no-bid contracts and profiteering cloaked in patriotism. There is the $9 billion the U.S.-led occupation government can't account for; the over 70 investigations into potential criminal cases involving U.S.-funded projects; the ongoing billing disputes with Halliburton, which despite having repeatedly ripped off taxpayers, continues to receive billion-dollar contracts; the $20 billion in Iraqi oil money kept track of by a single accountant; the study showing that up to 30 percent of reconstruction funds are being lost to fraud and corporate malfeasance. Whether you are passionately in favor of the war or passionately against it, don't you want to know exactly where our money is going and how we can stop the corruption?

On top of the corruption is the fact that, because so little of the $24 billion in taxpayer money that Congress has earmarked for reconstruction is reaching ordinary Iraqis, two years after we cakewalked over Saddam, the Iraqi people are still facing massive food shortages, energy shortages and woefully inadequate water and sewage systems. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, only 27 cents of every dollar spent on rebuilding Iraq has gone to actually improving the lives of its people, with the rest going to security, waste, overhead and fattening the bottom line of big U.S. corporations.

Despite this abysmal track record, Congress has all but relinquished its historic - and constitutionally mandated - role as government watchdog, one of the keys to our system of checks and balances. Instead, these days, our watchdogs have turned into lapdogs. You'd think that with the massive amounts of taxpayer dollars involved and the unprecedented secrecy that surrounded the awarding of so many of the reconstruction contracts - to say nothing of the stink left by the rampant corporate scandals of recent years - the halls of Congress would be filled with modern day Harry Trumans. After all, what is particularly inspiring about the Truman Committee is that it was established when Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House.

It's true that FDR initially wasn't crazy about the idea of the straight-shooting Truman poking around in his war budget, but he ended up being so impressed with the way Truman conducted himself and his investigation, he soon elevated the formerly undistinguished senator from Missouri to the vice presidency. I wonder if there are any 2008 GOP presidential hopefuls with the courage to take up the Truman mantle. Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) had introduced legislation to create a Truman Committee on Iraq in the House early last year. It was followed last September by a Senate resolution with the same goal, co-sponsored by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Larry Craig (R-Idaho). Until this week, both efforts had stalled.

Now Leach, together with Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.), are looking at what is the best way to revive the Truman Committee bill and bring it to the floor, where it will be very hard to vote against it. "We're going to put out a 'Dear Colleague' letter this week," Leach told me, "to see how many co-sponsors we can get for the legislation. This is more urgent now than it was when I first introduced the bill. We have to give the public confidence that their money is being used wisely. Accountability is difficult at home and much more difficult abroad, so oversight is even more critical."

Tierney agrees. "Accountability and transparency are critical," he told me. "Just as Harry Truman fought for Congress to play a special oversight role during World War II, I believe we are called again to shed light on any potential abuse of taxpayer dollars." Much of the Truman Committee's moral authority came from the bipartisan consensus it achieved (its GOP members never felt the need to issue a minority report), and from its reputation as being eminently fair. Leach and Tierney should try to make the creation of a modern Truman Committee an amendment to the supplemental request for another $80 billion for Iraq. And courageous Republicans in both chambers of Congress should place principle - as well as the protection of U.S. taxpayers and the needs of the Iraqi people - above a shallow definition of party loyalty.

But we should not hold our breath waiting for this to happen without real public pressure. It could include a public awareness campaign to hold our elected officials' feet to the fire. A friend in advertising sent me the script for a proposed 30-second TV ad in which a corporate bigwig uses a sleight of hand trick to turn a dollar bill into a quarter and two pennies, while an announcer says: "We've set aside $24 billion to help rebuild Iraq. The money is supposed to help build schools and hospitals and make water safe to drink. But for every dollar U.S. taxpayers spend, only 27 cents reaches the average Iraqi. Before we give George Bush another $80 billion, maybe we should stop and ask: Where is the money going?" The spot ends with three quick messages flashed on the screen: "Stop the profiteers. Demand an investigation. Bring back the Truman Committee." That would certainly give our congressional watchdogs something to chew on.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Feb, 2005 03:47 am
PrincessP: Although that wasn't exactly a paid anti-Bush announcement, I thought I'd clarify your source: Arianna Huffington. She thinks she has balls ...

http://arriannaonline.com/
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Feb, 2005 03:57 am
Her current book, Fanatics and Fools: The Game Plan for Winning Back America, should be insightful as she is an authority in both categories. (Does she have a chapter on her last marriage?)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Feb, 2005 01:34 pm
WhoodaThunk

You used now (again) twice the term "German poodle".

I know that Blair was called America's poodle, and thought, I got to know the meaning of this term.

Now, however, I've some difficulties to understand it: do you mean, Chirac is Schröders poodle? Or Schröder Chirac's? And in either case: by what indications?
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Feb, 2005 03:45 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
These are nice gestures coming from Rice, but at the core of it is a request that the French and the Germans join us in our current purpose in the world. They have refused these requests many times before and gotten themselves trapped in an odd kind of compulsive anti American position on nearly every issue of mutual importance.

Will they change anything now? I doubt it. Surely in their calculations of the situations in the Persian Gulf and the Mideast, France and Germany must now consider the possibility that we will achieve a sufficient measure of success to make them want the agility to associate themselves with it if it all works. Beyond that I doubt seriously that they see any self-interest in helping us, and prefer to stay close enough to feign a rapprochment if things work out well, but also to be able to gleefully point out their opposition if it all fails. France, in particular developed this technique to a very high art during the Cold War, and their German poodle seems to be following well.

I suspect Bush is playing to the rest of the world in an attempt to isolate France and Germany. I don't beleive the Administration entertains any serious hope of a change in their attitudes.


Georgeob1 used the initial poodle metaphor on this thread. I think it's an apt representation of the tagalong relationship in the new post-Soviet Old Europe.

If you prefer, another way of looking at it might be: The Wicked Old Witch is dead, the Wizard's balloon has taken him off to Iraq, and back home in the Merry Ol' Land of Oz, the Lullaby League & the Lollipop Guild are trying to convince the Munchkins that they have been the true movers and shakers and, of course, moral compasses all along...

Your choice.

Either way, I'm glad as hell I'm in Kansas.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 02:37 pm
WhoodaThunk wrote:

Either way, I'm glad as hell I'm in Kansas.


I'm very glad to hear that. Congratulations for your good personal choice of this lovely state!!!
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 02:42 pm
As far as the moral compass goes, I would remind new readers that a support for the Iraqi elections, and best wishes to the new Iraqi state in general, in no way indicates support for the crime which took America and allies into Iraq in the first place.

No amount of over-hysterical cheerleading is going to get over that fact.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 05:14 pm
What crime? What is your standard for this exceedingly complex judgment? History often takes a long time to reveal the true significance of events. Often the initial popular judgments of such events are proven wrong. Some are revised significantly long afterwards (enthusiasm for the glories of the French Revolution which peaked in the romantic era gradually declined as historians came to understand that all that it produced was the Terror, Robespierre, Napoleon, and the Bourbons again.)

Enthusiasm among western socialists and political savants for the great triumphs of the new Soviet State peaked at about the same time as Stalin's murders of Ukrainian kulaks, the Crimean Tatars, and of his imagined political enemies were running at the rate of several millions per year. Now it is recognized as one of the great crimes of a crime-filled century.

Britain invaded Spain in 1804 and largely financed a particularly bloody guerrilla war against the French occupiers. Was that a crime?

Britain and France declared war on Nazi Germany after Hitler invaded Poland, in keeping with their solemn commitments to her. However, in view of their perceived lack of preparedness they took no action whatever to relieve the Poles until it was all over for them. This was done in keeping with the cold calculus of real politic. Was that a crime?

Were the colonial wars of conquest fought primarily by Spain, Portugal, Britain and France crimes? (I'll concede at this point that the American war with Mexico in 1844 was the equivalent - we wanted the territory and had the settlers ready to populate it, so we took it.)

Was the Norman invasion of England a crime? (I always felt a bit sorry for poor old Harold who had just exhausted himself defeating the Danes in York) One of its byproducts was the 100 years war with France.

By what historical standard do you apply this label to the intervention in Iraq? We did remove an awful tyrant from the backs of the Iraqi people - one who had launched aggressive wars against both of his neighbors. There is every indication that the Iraqis as a result may be launched on a more progressive and liberal path of political development.

We have had this exchange before. I have used a different assortment of historical examples in illustrating your need to define the context and standard by which crime is to be judged, just to avoid undue repition. However you have yet to respond to the challenge.

Was our purpose criminal in your view? Or was it just the act itself? Evidently you believe the stain of criminality cannot be wiped out by any good outcome here. What generally recognized law did we break?

Will you argue that the crime was the procedural lack of a precisely explicit Security Council Resolution, that made our action a crime? (Notwithstanding the several that preceeded it that subastantially did just that.) Then, in effect, you will be saying it was a crime because we opposed the wills of the governments of France and Russia: had they agreed there would be no crime. Now that would be an interesting petard on which to hang your moral sensibilities.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Feb, 2005 09:56 am
georgeob1 wrote:
What crime? What is your standard for this exceedingly complex judgment?


An excellent post, georgeob1, and certainly a valid question.

I, too, await a reply that's based on more than opinion and media hype.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Feb, 2005 10:21 am
WhoodaThunk wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
What crime? What is your standard for this exceedingly complex judgment?


An excellent post, georgeob1, and certainly a valid question.

I, too, await a reply that's based on more than opinion and media hype.


Not complex, but simple. No need for historical obfuscation.

Iraq did not attack us. We attacked Iraq. That's a crime.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Feb, 2005 10:22 am
WhoodaThunk wrote:


I, too, await a reply that's based on more than opinion and media hype.


You've high standards for the replies of others, haven't you?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/07/2025 at 05:53:22