Slashdot Mirror
Giant International Fusion Reactor Draws Nearer
nnnneedles writes "BBC is reporting that scientists are deciding on where to build the world's first big fusion reactor. The international effort is described as the boldest nuclear initiative since the Manhattan Project, and holds promise for future unlimited, clean energy. The choice on where to build the reactor currently stands between Japan and France, but apparantly, the U.S. is opposing a french site because France opposed the war in Iraq." There's also an AP story.
That's because many, many Americans (including myself) feel that the French (as a whole, leadership and population) have been a bunch of duplicitous, hypocritical, arrogant assholes. The French accuse the US of being anti-Arab greedy capitalists, but the French had significant financial interests in Saddam's Iraq, and here they are passing "progressive" cultural initiatives which are primarily anti-Arab and anti-Jew (for the damn few Jews left in France). Sec of State Powell was given assurances by French diplomats that UNRes1441 would have some teeth to it and that the French would allow the US to enforce it without much problem. Lies.
That is because 10-20% of Americans appear to be mindless automatons who automatically support their president during wartime (a sensability that is much lauded by the American media).
It's because most of us are smart enough to realize that when you enter a war - even if you were opposed to it in the first place - it's always best to win.
Pragmatic, I know. God bless America.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
I think it's safe to assume Saddam doesn't have any WMDs today, since he's in US custody. However, it would be very bold to assert he didn't have any before the war.
When the UN inspectors were kicked out in 1998, it was virtually undisputed that Iraq still had chemical and/or biological weapons. What happened to them since then is still a mystery. But Saddam offered no evidence that he destroyed them, and blocked efforts of inspectors at every turn.
Despite what the headlines would have you believe, the main point of the David Kay report a few weeks back was not that we haven't found any WMDs yet. In fact, it told that Iraq had been purposefully deceptive in its dealings with inspectors, and actively engaged in efforts to acquire technology for banned missiles and precursors to chemical weapons. Besides, Kay's team had only searched 10 of the 130 suspected WMD sites at that point.
Only by people on the extreme left.
Only by people on the extreme right.
Correct, mostly painting a much bleaker picture than the steady progress and overwhelming success thus far.
Much of the American media didn't support the war. In fact, the largest and most influential papers--like the NY Times, Washington Post, and LA Times--explicitly opposed war in Iraq in their editorial pages.
The country most fitting of this description would be the US.
What rules did we break? And of course we didn't expect backing from certain countries. That's why Bush didn't go back to the UN Security Council for another resolution. First, because it wasn't required, as we had the necessary authorization from 1441. Second, because no matter how much evidence or justification, France had already declared their intention to veto any resolution.
I'm French, and I'm married to an American citizen (kids on the way.. twins!). We live in France, purely because at the moment, we have a much better financial situation either, than we would over there in the US, but we may move across the atlantic. I have found the US to be very welcoming (once you're past the people at customs!), and my wife has no problem whatsoever here for being an American. (besides getting whistled at, and talked to, by guys!)
... I call it defending your interests, fair enough.
I am not a fanatic of Chirac, neither is my wife a fanatic of George W. Our respective parents are a bit more, since they had a longer period of time to build their beliefs.
However, we are saddened to see the mounting misunderstanding between the two countries that we like.
I would dare to summarize the differences as:
1) France
- Scared of religious influence. We experienced hundreds of years of total Catholic domination of the country, which was so uncontested that it blocked any scientific or societal progress. You would never see a government leader in church, on TV !
- Scared of change. French are notorious for it, and it's a stereotype that's actually true! We are a country with an overwhelmingly uniform population, and anything new (Muslim religion becoming prominent, for example) is Bad.
- Trying to maintain a world position by using the European union to lessen US influence. (call it defending our interests).
2) US
- Religious influence and lobbying of sorts (religious, business, etc.) is business as usual. Actually, a government leader wins brownie points by appearing religious. It's even on your money notes.
- Used to a very widely different population ('melting pot'), due to your country history.
- Trying to maintain world dominance by isolating and lessening the influence of other world powers, in general by identifying or inventing an enemy such as russia, terrorism, france,
In the past, such cultural differences have been worked around, but it seems that lately, respective leaders are using them to stigmatize each other as political enemies, and this is really counter-productive for both countries. The US is the biggest investor in France, and (I think, from memory) the other way around.
There is a long history of helping each other. Whatever people say of US motives, that intervention was critical in WWII. I don't care that the USA wouldn't have won the war alone, I care that history would have been different without the US, most probably. France financed and greatly helped the US independence, also due to their own motives (lessening the power of the British seeming like a good one), but what country ever sends their soldier for the goodness of their heart, when they have to answer to their own opinion?
I hope both countries move on. I'm confident that things will improve after both administrations (Chirac and W.) have been replaced.