Chirac, Schroeder tell Kerry to F*** Off

Politics International Politics
61

… I just want to add an explanation, because maybe in USA you did not get to know it.

The Bush governement raised a big discussion in Germany and France about our place in the world, as both countries feel now to be something like the leading nations in continental Europe. UK is always much farer from us than the small channel sea in between, as it is closer to US.

The Bush gov. and this leading Wolwowitz group is actually something like a club of neo-conservatives, who have made strange papers in many years ago. But nobody took them very serious. Papers like how USA can be the one and only relevant power in the world, because it is the strongest democracy, God is on their side etc. This paper involves three stages of measures against anyone who can be a real competition in USA’s target to be the only superpower:

a) press (blame them)
b) diplomatic measures / sanctions
c) millitary measures

In France and Germany we strongly noticed, those paper include “all competition” and not only dictatorships like China. As the EU is growing together we were starting to think, also we could be such a target of a) and b) at least. The Wolwowitz papers also include gathering the global resources for USA, so all oil and the lovely african treasures in the earth.

Now, as Bush has put those guys to power, we suddendly thought this may become reality soon. Bush’s way of not talking to EU and just doing millitary measures by himself, raised fear even more. So France tries to get its hand on Africa too, to keep access to natural ressources. And Germany and France moved a bit closer to China in the same level as US moved away from us.
Then the thing about the international court in Den Haag / Netherlands. Because the UN wants to have the ability to bring every nation’s citizen to this court, if they violate human rights, also US-citizens were included. Bush’s reaction was to let his millitary make a plan to rescue american citizens and their allies from this court in Netherland. There is some plan to send american soldiers to Netherland to attack!
This gave us the idea we may be in danger in the future and brought France and Germany closer together and opposing USA quite often. We felt being pushed away.

Acutally I think Europe should unite, so a little kick in the ass was just good for us to grow together faster. But in the end, our friend and partner should be USA, not China of course.
And now, the Bush administration is seeking Europe’s cooperation again, so I think the problem is getting less now.

Okay, a lot of european bla-bla, but maybe it helps to understand some things. :blush:

62

Bob Honest:

What? The US was going to send soldiers to the Netherlands to attack the World Court? Are you crazy?

Second, the US does not want any military stronger than its own. That was hardly targeting the EU. In fact, I believe that we have repeatedly called on our NATO and European allies to spend more on defense because there are totally incapable of acting. We saw that in Bosnia and Kosovo and now in Afghanistan and Iraq.

France has consistently tried to set up a multipolar world. This happened under Clinton’s administration long before the “neocons” emerged. Ergo, it could not have been the cause of France’s actions since these had already taken place.

How is the US grabbing the world’s minerals and oil for itself? Are we controlling Iraq’s oil? Do we make the money from its sales? Do we limit the oil first to the US or is it sold on world markets? I think that you have US motives very much confused with what France does.

France still believes in a balance of power despite the instability such a system created. The reason France wants this was spelled out in this month’s issue of www.policyreview.org and has been in place since 1945. The article was written by a Frenchman who has strongly influenced French foreign policy in the post War period.

Without a strong China, France cannot triangulate and thereby give itself more clout than it would have on its own. But if we examine this policy of either strengthening Russia, the Arab World, the EU or China, does this serve the interests of global stability, peace and prosperity? Or does it merely give France the benefits at a great cost to both the French and other nations’ citizens? If France sells weapons to China, this does make China stronger vis-a-vis the US but then what do you say to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, ASEAN, and India? Will they not also buy more weapons to counter the Chinese threat? As long as the US is by far the strongest in the region, there is no arms race and there are no wars. How would the French approach help this? For better or worse and despite what you may read in your press, the US is viewed as the only honest broker in Asia.

I strongly urge you to reconsider and view the French foreign policy tenets as dangerous not only to the rest of the world but to Germans and their national interests as well.

63

actually I do not like the China-huggin’ of Germany and France they have done recently. Like German chancelor = chief of gov. saying he agrees with China regarding the Taiwan question. He even wanted to sell nuclear stuff to China, but the parlament for now stopped him.
His governement also refused to sell submarines to Taiwan (US asked us to do so).

Acutally it is true, USA always asks us EU guys to build up millitary and become stronger. But when we seem stronger we seem to be noticed as a competition. But ok, that’s life.

Today US accused France of buying oil from Saddam the German media said. So together with the BBC link you were sending me I will be carefully watching the french policy now.

Multipolor world: yes that is EU policy also. I do not like a strong China in competition with USA and Europe, all I want is strong Europe and USA and rest of western world to be strong, but not China or Arabs. Only if the join the democratic club.

Netherland-attack plans: when Netherland gov asked US gov officially, they said something like “some general made such a plan, but we do not want to use it”. I think it was the beginning of the Bush administration where he was a bit too wild…

64

There is no China hugging. It is a global market, and i would prefer if german nuclear technology would be used in more countries.

Why would Europe build up a stronger military? There are better ways to spend the money.

And for the attack plans on Den Haag, of course they exist. Just to make sure no US war criminal can be convicted there.

65

I don’t have any evidence of where the US contracts for oil will send the profits, but before the war is another question. Iraq’s oil was mostly going to US companies. Is it any wonder…?

Reuters:
U.S. oil companies purchased Iraqi crude from middlemen rather from Baghdad. But by early 2003, the United States was consuming 67 percent of Iraqi crude, by far the largest buyer.

66

[quote=“bob_honest”][quote=“fred smith”]
And now all Arabs hate the west. [/quote]

Sorry to barge into your conversation, but I receive regular emails from friends of mine who are now serving in Iraq. Sentiment on the streets of Baghdad recognize what the coalition has done for the people of Iraq and appreciate the sacrifice. While they clearly do not like that the coalition is still in Iraq, they recognize the expediency of it. They desire the coalition to leave as soon as possible, but recognize that that may take a certain period of time.

It is common for farmers to bring fresh produce to the gates of coalition compounds and give them to coalition troops.

Egypt is the second largest recipient of foreign aid from the United States. The Egyptian press loves to hammer on the US, but sentiment about the US on the streets of Egypt is also very favorable.

Obviously, the people of Afghanistan appreciate what the coalition has done for them.

The Arabs in Kuwait also appreciate coalition efforts on their behalf.

As I recall, Qatar is also a strong coalition ally in the Middle East, and the US certainly has many friends in Saudi Arabia.

And so, your comment [quote]all Arabs hate the west[/quote][/quote]

Is patently incorrect.

67

Hooper:

You have misquoted me. The All Arabs Hate the West was someone else’s statement. I do not believe that they do.

Also, while the US may have bought 67% of Iraq’s oil, it did so through middlemen not from the Iraq government, ergo not complicit in all this corruption. Second of all, buying something does not mean you “control” it. For these anti-american statements to be correct, we would have to be in control of Iraq’s oil resources and using these resources for our own ends. Given that the oil is being sold on world markets, how are we benefiting? Who gets the money? The Iraqi government so how is the US grabbing all the resources? Can other nations not buy Iraqi oil? Are we getting the profits.

Thank you for your attention to the french complicity in the UN Oil for Food program corruption. I believe that when all the facts are out, we will all have a far greater understanding of what motivated the French, Russian in particular and to some extent German and Chinese governments to act as they did in opposing the US invasion. I also believe that the UN will be seen in its true form, a corrupt organization filled with dictators who do not have the best interests of even their own nations in mind much less the world. The UN will be ultimately judged and go down in flames, not the US.

68

Well Fred i don’t know where the profits go.
Where did Cheney work before?
What company repairs the pipelines and refineries?
I dont recall, please help me here.

69

Ooops… Looks like you were indeed duped by the media.

[quote=“Paul Bremer”]In recent days, attention has been focused on some remarks I’ve made about Iraq. The coverage of these remarks has elicited far more heat than light, so I believe it’s important to put my remarks in the correct context.

Mr. Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that [color=red]President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism[/color].[/quote]

Rascal, No doubt you still think that media distortions and people’s own laziness have nothing to do with the creation of misperceptions. Funny, however, I recall you being critical of the media when it has suited your purposes… yet when the misperception is in regard to Bush’s policies and or particular statements, you claim that Bush is to blame.

:unamused: The double standard strikes again :unamused:

70

[quote=“fred smith”]Hooper:

You have misquoted me. The All Arabs Hate the West was someone else’s statement. I do not believe that they do.

Also, while the US may have bought 67% of Iraq’s oil, it did so through middlemen not from the Iraq government, ergo not complicit in all this corruption. Second of all, buying something does not mean you “control” it. For these anti-American statements to be correct, we would have to be in control of Iraq’s oil resources and using these resources for our own ends. Given that the oil is being sold on world markets, how are we benefiting? Who gets the money? The Iraqi government so how is the US grabbing all the resources? Can other nations not buy Iraqi oil? Are we getting the profits.

Thank you for your attention to the french complicity in the UN Oil for Food program corruption. I believe that when all the facts are out, we will all have a far greater understanding of what motivated the French, Russian in particular and to some extent German and Chinese governments to act as they did in opposing the US invasion. I also believe that the UN will be seen in its true form, a corrupt organization filled with dictators who do not have the best interests of even their own nations in mind much less the world. the UN will be ultimately judged and go down in flames, not the US.[/quote]

Ahh, my apologies. You are correct. It was Honest Bob that wrote that all Arabs hate the west as a result of our actions in Iraq.

Sorry. Grabbed the wrong name after reading through the thread.

71

Robi:

So Cheney worked for Halliburton and as we all know Halliburton is in the OIL business ergo it is ALL ABOUT OIL.

Well, Halliburton is also one of the most intensely scrutinzed of companies (ask the liberal media) and ain’t nothing stuck yet on any of its actions. So when someone can prove that Halliburton or Cheney are involved in anything, feel free to do so.

Bush ironically gets a lot of flack for “business connections.” Yet, it was under Clinton’s watch that Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Andersen and Tyco corruption flourished. Bush refused to help any of his “friends” and allowed them to go bankrupt. Yet, he is in bed with various business interests while Clinton was “defending the people?”

AND if these types of corruption cases, Halliburton was accused of not stealing but overcharging the US government, get this… US$18 million not billion, million and this was proved not the case when it was revealed that all this money went to a Kuwaiti middleman to supply the oil and gas needed during the Iraq invasion. So frontline news about US$18 million but total silence for months and no interest in US$65 billion in corruption that went through the Oil for Food program? You want to take “connections” to oil, look at France’s and Russia’s and the UN’s role in Iraq. France had negotiated a hugely profitable steal of Iraq’s southern oil fields that would have generated them US$100 billion to US$150 billion at highly usurious rates (Iraqi people be damned) and do I hear anything about this and how it might have affected France’s vote in the UN? NO. But Cheney ONCE worked for Halliburton, which is an oil company but we have no direct control over Iraqi oil, the profits are not going to us and Cheney cannot be proven to have made any decisions that benefited Halliburton and we are talking about Cheney and not France? Why pray tell?

I think that someone is what we would call a media dupe. Where are the facts? Prove your case. Where is Cheney’s guilt? Why the silence over France and the UN?

72

well you asked where the profits go
and i answered that question
no further questions from my side

73

If it were a matter of capturing or killing bin Laden, sure. If the “75% of the terrorist leadership” that has been eliminated could not be simply replaced, sure.

Don’t stretch the war metaphor too far - we aren’t fighting soldiers in uniform who will lay down their arms if a capital is captured or leaders eliminated. Terror is to the state what herpes is to the body, it can be treated but not cured. Military might is impotent to remove the problem finally.

74

Isn’t war and terror the same thing just from a different perspective?

75

[quote=“fred smith”]
Also, while the US may have bought 67% of Iraq’s oil, it did so through middlemen not from the Iraq government, ergo not complicit in all this corruption.[/quote]

Way to go, fred! Your unabashed optimism set you up for this one. You insinuated that the US couldn’t possibly be part in corruption. Maybe you thought the US wouldn’t release the names of US companies and individuals that actually received from the Iraq government. Does that mean they are complicit? Major US oil corporations received billions of dollars of oil for food vouchers. Read and weep.

The US is involved; do you want to change the tune and claim that oil-for-food was a legitimate program now?

76

Only if you are a morally confused fan of chomsky. Yes, then these wars and terrorism might seem the same. For the rest of us, no they are very different. Were Hitler, Stalin, and Churchill all the same because they were all fighting wars or was there a difference?

77

What does that mean, Fred? I am an unmoral person?

Do you think a house owner in Gaza understands the war against terror when some bulldozer breaks down his house because his neighbor set of a bomb?
How about a farmer in Afghanistan, when he got bombed by the US, do you think he understood that this is a just war, very different from the bombing actions that the Taliban or the Russian did earlier to him?

78

Robi:

I understand better than most the inability or unwillingness of most Germans to want to truly understand the differences in moral culpability between these various actions.

Yes, bad things happen, but it does matter how these actions occurred and with what intentions. Yes, Robi, bad things will continue to happen but who do you blame most and what do you do to achieve the greatest justice for the greatest number of people.

Defending Arafat and the corrupt PLO while blaming the Israelis will not lead to progress. Blaming America for civilian deaths in Iraq is a similar useless measure. Might I encourage you to study morals, ethics, religion as a possible alternative to lashing out at the least “worst” offenders while remaining silent when the most egregious actions take place? We have seen this nasty tendency throughout German history. Listen to Gunther Grass and break this spell. The immoral inability to tell the difference between communism and naziism was the subject of his latest book Crab Walk. It is still relevant. Militant pacificism and militant moral equivalence is really part of the same root of the same evil black-and-white dogmatic root that have grown to such grotesque trees in Germany. Be careful. Understand those roots and thirst for justice. Not for cutesy morally confusing all are evil therefore criticize the least offender while remaining silent for the most awful. Sad but I understand where this comes from. The tragedy of the German people. So in love with law. So unable to comprehend basic justice. So unknowing of moral clarity.

79

very nice Fred
very wrong either
maybe only a true born american can be a moral person

80

Not my intention. BUT look at how these terrible acts are happening and why. While bad things happen and wars on both sides kill people, there is a very big difference ultimately in the aims and how the deaths come about.

This is why I find it so amazing that so many lefties are marching for peace and against invasion to overthrow Saddam and to date, 24,000 people have been killed in Iraq under America’s “watch” but millions died under Saddam and no one seems to be able to tell the difference or distinguish between how or why these deaths occurred. Has America put these people in rape rooms or mowed whole families down? no.

Why is Israel in Gaza right now? Sharon said he would pull back and leave Gaza to the Palestinians and remove all settlers. Just what they want right? Apparently not. Because when they have “won” they start launching rockets into Israeli villages. Why would someone do that if they had finally gotten what they wanted which was control over their land? Control over all of Gaza? All settlers to be removed?

Then, there is a very big difference between these aims and any deaths that result from these actions. I really do not understand people who cannot see these very basic differences. This is morality 101. This is justice 101. This should be basic and easily understood by all.