A goal of the US-led reconstruction of Europe following WWII was a Germany disinclined to the practice of war. That obviously went well. The Russians are meritorious of criticism, and receiving some, but are past masters at the art of Plausible Deniability. Putin, and his Administration, are well insulated fron the paper trail. A few private sector entities will take the fall; convenient, really, as Russia is valuable in the ongoing North Korea Matter. France singles herself out, seemingly by design. Not only did France oppose the US diplomatically, The French Government actively sought by various covert and duplicitous means to frustrate and compromise US intentions, while profiting from and condoning, if not in fact participating in, the corruption of the Oil-For-Food Program ("Oil for Palaces"?) and the violation of at least the spirit of UN Sanctions (current issue Roland missiles?).
I feel it perfectly understandable that the US would be uninterested in allowing the French to participate to any great extent in the reconstruction of Iraq. I don't really see that as "Punishing" France, but more as simply not rewarding France for her opposition. That may not be magnanimous, but where is magnaminity called for?
But the question is, as Frank said, punish them for what?
Past attitudes shouldn't come into this. What is so obvious is "you don't agree with us, you're out." Our behavior ws not approved of or agreed with by more than half the world, so it becomes more and more noticeable that we're not really looking for anything so grand as democracy, or freedom - the old profit motive is, as usual, all there is.
I don't usually buy French wines because I think they're overpriced. But to make a statement about not buying their wines because they didn't go along with us is not only ludicrous, it's demeaning to us. It removes us from the adult world, and keeps us in the schoolyard. I guess it doesn't matter how old you are for that kind of behavior.
Then, too, this administration has a habit of ganging up on whatever they're afraid of at the moment, and using whatever bullying tactics they can. Occasionally they seem surprised that they don't get the results they thought they would. So who knows what will happen here?
Although the French do not appear to be universally loved, neither is the U.S. And once upon a time the attitudes and actions in France were very similar to a lot of what's going on here now. Then came the Revolution.
timber's quote: "The French Government actively sought by various covert and duplicitous means to frustrate and compromise US intentions, while profiting from and condoning, if not in fact participating in, the corruption of the Oil-For-Food Program ("Oil for Palaces"?) and the violation of at least the spirit of UN Sanctions (current issue Roland missiles?)." If there is proof of France's complicity to compromise US intentions by revealing everything that should have been considered confidential to Saddam, and at the same time profiting from the Oil For Food Program in violation of UN Sanctions, it would seem only 'just reward' not to let France participate in the reconstruction of Iraq. They have double- crossed their liberators from two world wars. It's takes more than chutspah to return the 'favor' as they have. Who needs friends like that? c.i.
Re: some of the charges made against the French...
...none of us has clean hands. The United States has done things in what is euphemistically called "our best interests" that are among the most disgusting things any supposed democracy has ever done.
Bottom line: Like France; hate France at your will. But to make our NATIONAL POLICY look like something devised by a schoolyard punk is unconscionable.
Everybody is talking about not allowing the French to participate in the reconstruction of Iraq.
But that is not the only punishment.
The other measures suggested are... Behold!
*Some media wrote Bush didn't want to spend the night in France after the G8 summit (denied by the White House)
*New Jersey republican Rep. James Saxton has called for a U.S. boycott of the Paris airshow.
*House Speaker Dennis Hastert wants to impose stricter health standards on bottled water coming from France.
And then there are all the hair colorings (most of them French companies or in cooperation with French companies), the French perfumes and toilet waters. We could call croissants American twists. And wasn't the Concorde stopped at the right time?
But when has Bush gone anywhere except to push his tax plan, which I don't think has been proposed to the French voter?
Frank, If we go back far enough in history, nobody has 'clean' hands. The US is a schoolyard bully - especially now with this administration. Most of the world community is aware of this. "You are with us or again us." That speaks volumes about where this administration is, and it's not pretty. I think the major thrust of the question is; if France benefited from dealings with Saddam by sharing confidential information and gaining economic benefits beyond what is allowed by UN resolutions, at what point does the world community justify any backlash - if any? c.i.
The sanctions against Iraq was immoral in that the common people paid the price. France may have subverted it somewhat, but those poor people needed a break long before Bush decided that liberation was in his own best interest. I don't fault France for doing those things.
Personally, I'm thinking about starting my own protest against President Bush. This summer I'm not going to buy any bushes to plant and I refuse to have one dollar bills in my possession, they have George Washington on the face and his name is similar.
If President Bush doesn't back down and do things my way, why I'll start shutting off the TV anytime a bush is shown!
What abot the threats the US has made to Canada?
What threats did the US make against Canada? c.i.
timberlandko wrote:I feel it perfectly understandable that the US would be uninterested in allowing the French to participate to any great extent in the reconstruction of Iraq. I don't really see that as "Punishing" France, but more as simply not rewarding France for her opposition.
I suppose you thinkexluding them from transcontinental meetings that will affect them is not punishing them either?
CI - there appears to have been some ruffled feathers and harsh words across the border and the Pres has called off a scheduled trip.
Quote:Tim Powers
Alliance strategist
"It is truly unfortunate that President Bush will not be travelling to Ottawa in early May. Who can blame him for not wanting to come?
"Would you want to visit a neighbour whose government has treated you so rudely? Better to stay at home until your long-time chum improves his disposition or someone else moves in.
However, if this is the rationale for visiting/not visiting other countries I can't see Shrub moving to far from Camp David this year.
Some interesting articles about the relationship between the US and Canada.
a striking quote:
"If Canada is not our best friend, then who is?" said an investment banker on Wall Street in an interview last week.
A wake up call for Canada-U.S. relations
this article comes from The National Post(a conservative newspaper with a right wing agenda)
And to counterbalance an article from the Guardian(left wing newspaper)
It's no secret that the US has plenty of enemies. But who would have thought that the peace-loving nation it shares a huge unguarded border with - and a daily trade worth $1bn - was one of its fiercest opponents. Matthew Engel reports from the country that loathes its neighbour
Canada?!
cicerone imposter wrote:What threats did the US make against Canada? c.i.
No direct threats. But both in Canada and Europe the US have made their point clear.
Here an example from Canada and Belgium
CANADA
Quote:
Lack of Canadian support for war would harm relations: U.S. envoy
TORONTO (CP) - Failure by Canada to support a unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq would likely cause some damage in relations between the two neighbours, American Ambassador Paul Cellucci said Friday.
Nevertheless, Cellucci said strong economic ties and the United States' dependency on Canadian energy would overcome any bad feeling. "Would that be a bump in our relationship? It probably would be," Cellucci said.
"But this relationship is too long-standing, the ties are too deep, for any one thing to have any significant long-term effect."
While the United States will act with "willing partners" without the approval of the United Nations or support from Canada if Iraq fails to disarm completely and immediately, Washington and Ottawa share the same goals, he said.
"They both want the United Nations to be relevant and effective," he said after speaking to the Rotary Club of Toronto about the U.S.-Canada relationship.
Cellucci said Canada has been supportive of U.S. efforts to get Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to comply with UN demands to disarm and in preparing for war if he doesn't.
"The Canadian military has been working with us on plans to invade Iraq if need be," Cellucci said.
Still, Canada's latest proposal for a new UN resolution, which gives Saddam a hard March 28 deadline to comply, "is not particularly helpful" because it allows Iraq to hold out longer, he said.
"We can't let this go on forever."
Canada and other countries will have an important role to play after any war to help Iraq rebuild, he said.
The ambassador's comments came amid controversy over derogatory remarks about Americans made by a federal MP.
On Wednesday, Liberal Carolyn Parrish said she hated those American "bastards," which she later said was a reference to President George W. Bush's policies on Iraq.
Cellucci said Parrish has apologized and that while "emotions can certainly get high" given the threat of war, the comments don't reflect a growing anti-American sentiment in Canada or abroad.
"We've accepted her apology and as far as we're concerned, case closed."
In Washington, a State Department official said the Bush administration has taken note of the comments and believes it fits a "disturbing pattern." The official spoke on condition of anonymity.
Commenting on the crash of a Sea King helicopter that raised questions about Canada's military capabilities, Cellucci said it proves a point he's been trying to make to Ottawa for some time.
"Canada has a history of a viable effective military. It needs the resources to make sure it continues to be viable and effective," he said.
The latest federal budget - which gives the military another $2.6 billion in funding - is a "big step forward" in that direction, he said.
In his speech, Cellucci stressed the importance the United States places on Canada because of the millions of jobs that depend on cross-border trade.
He placed particular emphasis on a drive for an integrated North American energy market.
"We are dependent on energy from Canada. We want more energy from Canada."
Bush is scheduled to visit Ottawa on May 5 and Cellucci said he didn't expect that to change, even if there is a war going on against Iraq.
BELGIUM
Quote:Reuters quotes U.S. Ambassador to Belgium Stephen Brauer saying in an interview Friday that Belgium's opposition to the war in Iraq could undermine its claim to remain the base of NATO, in any future talks on where the Alliance should be headquartered. Brauer reportedly told the financial daily De Financieel-Economische Tijd that "when the future seat of NATO is discussed again, the Belgian attitude on Iraq will certainly be raised." The dispatch recalls that NATO unveiled plans in January for an enlarged Brussels headquarters.
This administration acts like a bully and a juvenile at the same time - for all the world to see. Why this president enjoys such high popularity in our country remains a mystery to people like me. c.i.
cicerone imposter wrote:This administration acts like a bully and a juvenile at the same time - for all the world to see. Why this president enjoys such high popularity in our country remains a mystery to people like me. c.i.
AMEN!
Bush's personal reactions are adolescent -- and his administration reflects that disposition in its reactions.
FrankApisa & c.i.- I think that Bush exhibited a lot of immaturity in making those inane statements. If he were annoyed with France it's one thing to make a wiseass remark to your wife over a private dinner, and quite another to say it on network TV.
