This is clearly not about oil. The United States has solar power, wind power and there is exciting new talk about how used toilet paper can be burned to create an endless supply of energy.
Okay. Seriously of course this is related to oil, but not entirely. I think that despite all the other talk, this is about redrawing the map of the Middle East and hey I am all for it. All these failed regimes. All this medieval corruption and bullshit. It’s time that someone went in and said enough is enough.
Why not then do the same for Africa (I hear Rascal screaming and stomping his feet)? Well what can anyone do for Africa? If I had to come right out and say it and I am sure that the arrows will be flying in all directions is simply that in Africa it is not a question of regime change ala Latin America. We are talking about starting from scratch. There is no history, no civilization, no tradition of government, law, civil or human rights, corporate law, engineering, etc. While there were cities before colonialism, there were hardly comparable with what is there today (or they were on the east coast of africa and were set up by Indians and Arab traders). There is a chance that the Middle East can be rescued from another 50 years of stagnation. Africa is hopeless and I don’t see anyone re-entering the mood to colonize.
How do you feel about Algeria? Or is this before your time? It must be difficult to have so much of your country’s pride, prestige, etc. invested in a country just to see it go to the dogs when you left but hey at least with Algeria something can be done. What is anyone really going to do about the Congo or Somalia. All political correctness aside.
As to the free whores and restaurants, where do I sign up? That said, I think that the corruption and pay-offs you speak of are a bit less common outside of France and this may be coloring your perceptions. I think construction is a separate matter and all over the world. Yikes!
And the number one reason I think that US companies would never ever do this kind of thing (pay-offs) is because it is against the law.
So okay oil to an extent but I think that you also underestimate the “idealistic zeal” of the present administration. It honestly is setting out to end the long-term problems once and for all. But like all ideological packages, this one is clearly stirring up a lot of moral confusion and debate. Otherwise how could you get Liberals in the West arguing against removing one of the world’s worst dictators and tyrants? I think because either they hate the US more or they fear the US (genuinely).
[quote=“Taurus”]
USA went there to fight terrorism? My ass. 9/11 was the perfect excuse to reinforce their control in the gulf or anything else they would want to do.
…
Thinking about this, not only US have just invaded the second largest proven oil reserve, but also the only country that can significantly increase it’s production. Wow, that makes even more sense.[/quote]
Isn’t it funny how the PLO suddenly decided to play nice and stop sending suicide bombers into malls and onto buses, now that the dictator who was paying $25,000 per “martyr” is suddenly out of business?
Isn’t it funny how Syria appears to be pulling its troops out of Lebanon?
Wow. Must be because France threw a hissy-fit. Can’t possibly be because the U.S. eliminated a brutal dictator who was working hard to destabilize the entire Middle East.
Oh, and let’s not forget the little “peace dividend” of being able to pull pretty much all American troops out of Saudi Arabia. You remember them, don’t you? The troops who were kept there at the request of the Saudis to protect the Saudis from Saddam Hussein’s aggression?
But I guess stabilizing the region is merely an unintended consequence of the Iraq War, which was solely about bombing civilians, testing new weaponry, and stealing oil. (At least according to the Bush-hating lefties.) Stability is overrated anyway. Much better to have Palestinians blowing themselves up in the middle of crowds.
Fred, if this is the real reason, why it is not the official line of the white house? Because the white house, has been sponsoring these regimes in the past. US supported the Shah in Iran, supported Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war and of course support Israel, that’s one of the top country in term of messing around.
Are US going to invade every feudal monarchy in the area? If yes, that’s really only the beginning of the war right?
If that’s about ideology, why Iraq became a target only after the terrorist attacks?
Besides, what’s US right to come in the middle east to say “enough is enough”?? Are you the police of the world? Your constitution is here to protect american people. That’s all.
I don’t know why you mention Africa here, but I’m glad to see that we agree on some points
It’s not just about what France invested in that country that makes what happen painful. That country had many asset to do great. And look at what they did. Now assuming that “we” (France, UN, US or whatever) do something, why do you think that after everything is back in order they won’t screw everything again?
Those arguing against removing Saddam are clearly wrong. You’re right. On my opinion, they’ve lost of sight the real reason of the war. Just like those wasting time speaking about WMD. All these debate, just hide what Bush cannot admit: he did that war because it’s in the goddam interest of the US economy. Of course, it’s not very politicaly or religiously correct to say so.
And I’m not in the construction. As for the my biased vision of business, our customer are not only french. From my experience and the country I’ve worked in, here’s my list:
Italy, kind of people who start to read the contract and say : I really like the latest coupe of Alfa Romeo.
Taiwan, quite behind Italy but not bad at all.
Japan, it’s not about money, it’s about women. These guys can’t sign anything as long as their balls are full.
France, I think it’s traditionnal.
US, the kind to say, I would have chosen you even without getting that, but don’t refuse it anyway.
Korea finally, but these guys must be at least 3 to take the smallest decision, like turning off the light when living the room. So that make corruption difficult.
Mapodofu
As I said, removing Saddam is a great move, and what you mention seems to be the proof. However, that is not right to say that the reason of the war was stability of the area. Do you think that “hard-ass” Sharon is back to the negotiating table because Saddam is out of order? I don’t think so. That’s also because right now US is putting a lot of pressure on Isreal.
And that’s fine by me. If a second effect of the war is to really stabilize the area, good. But I don’t think that US would have gone to war if they would have been able just to maintain a status quo in the area.
Yes, I do. But where’s is the dividend to move them from Saudia Arabia to Iraq?
You’ll save the gas from daily flights, but so far you’re losing almost a soldier’s life daily. US troops are in Iraq for a long time.
Besides, there will be US troops in Saudi Arabia as long as the US will support the feudal monarchy there, probably for a long time too.
unintended, no. A bonus aside the real reason, yes.
Not all people who don’t like Bush are “lefties”. (you mean democrat, socialist, communist I guess)
And palestinians are not blowing themselves to allow Saddam to destabilize the region but because of Israel policy (that was so far largely backup by the US). If all that stop thanks to the Bush administration new efforts on the palestinian issue, well… thanks.
Still, I think oil is 95% of the reason why W went on war.
How about 30 percent about oil. I could live with that. Negotiations. haha
Actually what worries me about views like the ones that you mentioned are that it sounds like foreign policy would be bound in the insistence it must remain the same even though conditions are always changing and between numerous actors. New elections, new economic variables, etc. so to say that oh your country supported the Shah in Iran only requires looking at what came after to think that hey supporting the shah was the RIGHT thing to do.
Okay the US supports feudalism in Saudi Arabia or used to. What are the alternatives.
Finally, please do not equate a democracy like Israel where 20 percent of its CITIZENS are Arab with these dictatorships etc.
Israel has laws, Israel protects its citizens including the Arabs. Name one Arab country where there are any Jews left and the ones that are left, what rights do they have?
If Sharon were an Arab dictator, there would be no Palestinian problem. They would have all been shot, gassed, tortured or driven into exile. Better yet, Sharon could have used them as cannon fodder in aggressive but failed wars with Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt.
Differences of opinion aside. No moral equivalency/relativism please.
Have a great weekend. I will try to get some french jokes together this weekend to be able to give you hell on Monday. Oh but then you live in France so … I guess I will not be able to make things much worse for you after all…
I’m ready to decrease the oil share of 5% if you agree that these 5% are the need of American for a revenge, must the revenge not be so accurate. Afganistan? bulleye. Iraq? …
Well, foreign policies are bound to what the world is. Cuba was a major american problem while communist were there. Now that the cold war is over who cares about Cuba anymore? Yeah, morning radio entertainer to play jokes on Fidel.
US policy wil remain steady in the gulf as long as there is oil, or until we find another energy source, or US become a dictatorship.
About Iran, well… you’re killing me! :o
US supported the Shah because the alternative at that time was a guy (forgot the name) who sadly intended to keep is country neutral between Russia and US and who made the major mistake of nationalizing the oil (again? am i stubborn or what) concession owned by England and the US. The Shah was a real bastard, a kind of Saddam alike. Too bad the only people who did something were the integrist islamists.
Well, if you have another reading of history please tell me.
The only common point I raised between Israel and the feudal country producing petrol is that US has been giving money or weapon as long the statu quo in the region could be kept by this way.
I don’t say US should do anything in Feudal monarchies. If people living there are unhappy, then they have to revolt. We inaugurate the concept on your highly appreciate Bastille day!
Sure Israel is a democracy, but in term of setting fire in the middle east they’re as good as Saddam was (even better), since the day we authorised sionists to consider this land as their.
Now speaking about guys like Sharon, I think he just doesn’t have the balls to realise what he wants deep down inside: kick all palestinians out of HIS territory and keep those arabs that are “acceptable” as a good manpower for the country. He doesn’t want to link his name to infamy but doing it slowly makes it more painful for both side. That will be hard to stop him.
I really hope that the pressure from US on him right now will lead to peace, but I’m not optimistic about that.
What do you think?
Have a nice week end too
Taurus
Hate french what? Hate french kissing? french toast? french ticklers? french love? french fries? french flies? These are all great (well, except for french flies).
Or did you mean “the French”, as in the French as a people? If so, there are PLENTY of good reasons to hate the French. Read through this whole thread and you’ll see lots of them!
Actually I think that Mossadeq was in office for quite a while. Seems to be a bit of the Allende in Chile scenario though I think that the US was again actively involved, the final results were determined by local actors.
Everyone seems to forget that there are other interests (competing) in these nations and that the US merely chooses to support one side or the other. I believe that this is quite normal for foreign policy and certainly none of the former imperialist powers of Europe will dare throw any stones! France especially! about giving money or support to this or that actor to support your policies.
I believe that European and Asian leaders have even tried to influence American elections by supporting (verbally) this or that candidate. Quite normal.
My point is that Mossadeq was a socialist and was nationalizing a lot of the economy and was stepping on a lot of toes. Why is it that whenever the interests are in socializing the economy, if the US tries to stop it, it is inappropriate behavior. Are the interests of US companies and their property rights to be disregarded just because Liberals view the end result: socialism as a higher good?
stones I throw at the US are the same that you and other throw to France in this thread.
I don’t do that to say “US, bad. France, good” but to show that our country policies are quite similar. It is then a waste of time to bitch at each other.
I am not hating US for invading Iraq, I’m upset about the bullshit around this case. You already know that.
So when you start to ask what’s wrong with US defending its economic interests (in iran or somewhere else, versus socialism or or any regime), I say “nothing”!
And I’m damn glad that you start to look the real facts, ask the right questions and not try to find lousy excuses based on liberty of people, democratic value, or human rights (that’s the french favorite) to explain what US do and why.
I meant to say that the US government concerned about the declining economy of Iran and fearing instability that would result in the unhappiness of the people, some children might even have cried, with great hesitation and regret did finally feel the need to support those Iranians who could no longer bear the administration of Mossadeq and as a result encouraged the rule of the Shah which lead to great economic development, an increasingly open and modern society that was welcomed by one and all except the jealous French. The French with great evil and cynicism therefore supported Khomeni to bring about the demise of the happy land and its American supporters for the sole purpose of being able to sell nuclear weapons and chemical plants to the Iranian government for the purpose of destabilizing the Middle East.
Thanks for calling me on that. I was almost becoming even-handed and we certainly can not have that!
Die! Evil Frogs Die!
Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose or in other words see
www.theatlantic.com go to the sidebar on the right and read about the Americanization of France. The article was written in 1958!
Where you get all these pictures and information I will never know but this is good. This is very very good.
So in the minds of the Iraqis, Chirac is just as much a hero as Saddam Hussein. Now are you starting to get the picture Taurus. Chirac the leader of a Western nation (supposedly civilized) and Hussein. Here is something for you moral equivacateurs.
Evil frogs. Nasty beret wearing, cheese eating surrender monkey turncoats. (back to you Taurus).
On a more serious note, there is talk in the NY Times actually International Herald Tribune of Paris and Washington patching things up. I think this is a good idea and I am sure to some extent there were several “misunderstandings” on both sides, but Taurus, what do you think of the stunt that de Villepin pulled in the UN Security Council. He had clearly given his word that he would support Powell in any follow-up discussions or resolutions when the last (and 17th) was signed. Is this just the American interpretation or was de Villepin engaging in behavior so reprehensible that it would no longer be considered fitting as an ally?
I heard the French banned e-mails because of its affiliation with the English language and have resorted to some form of communication called courriel. A courriel, I believe, employs a number of donkey-couriers, and some papercups and strings (cups sold separately at Carrefour). This new system is such an improvement on French telecommunications that a revolution is under way, heads have rolled, and the Third Estate is eating smelly cheeses in abject fear. Now all they are waiting for is the Germans’ annual march to Paris so they can sell this system to tourists.
BOOKS
Load of old garlic and onions
Philip Hensher
SARTRE: THE PHILOSOPHER OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
By Bernard-Henri Levy
Polity Press, £17.96, pp.544, ISBN:074563009X
One had heard rumours from afar of the utterly debased and self-indulgent nature of French intellectual life these days, but I have to say that, like stout Cortez upon a peak in Darien, I hadn
[quote=“Taurus”]he should understand that we (Europeans) must stop living in the past (but of course not forget it). Europe has an old history and each country has been on war with the others. There’s no way the EU will achieve something if we still hate each other for what happened 50, 100, 500 years ago.
Now concerning Chirac’s statement, I don’t know about that. So I’ll shut up.
Taurus[/quote]
Ok, so 65 years is too long to hold a grudge. How about hating France for what Chirac said six months ago? or what the whole French government has been doing for the last nine months in regard to Iraq?
There are plenty of good reasons to hXXX FEEL ABJECT PITY and STRONG DISTASTE for France’S ASCENDANT PARADIGM (BUT NOT THE FRENCH THEMSELVES, WHO ARE VALUED INDIVIDUALS EVEN THOUGH MANY ARE MISGUIDED), and more new ones every day!
(Edited to appease formosa’s sense of politically-correct touchy-feely kinder-gentler compassionate conservatism. :mrgreen: )
There are plenty of good reasons to hate France, and more new ones every day!
Mabodofu: let’s not say HATE France, that’s pretty strong. Let’s just say there are plenty of reasons to criticize and dislike France’s government leadership policites. We don’t more HATE in this world.
