Due to opposing strongly worded langued in UN resolutions as a policy of US Containment which led the US to sidestep the UN and take decisive, principled action. Action that effectively weakened the UN and France & Germany's political standing.
To France, Iraq was merely a political opportunity. Read this article to get a rather blunt interpretaion of France and the UN's "contribution" to the IRaq problem
The article states that the US backs Japan to avoid backing France because they opposed the Iraq war.
Yes, the article states it. Without giving us any facts or pointing to any sources. The writer gave us his opinion. Whether you decide to implicitly trust anything that comes out of the pen of that writer or the BBC in general is up to you. They certainly have a willing and receptive audience. I'm not part of that audience, however.
If you know of a better source than the BBC to back your claim as to why the US backs Japan, please post it.
When the author of the article can actually give us one source, then perhaps I'll spend some time looking for sources to repudiate it. But since it wasn't important enough for him to do in this article, I don't feel compelled to dispute his opinion
Here is what the great, impartial BBC SPECIFICALLY says:
The US has been against the French option because of France's opposition to the invasion of Iraq
The experts were supposed to reach a consensus based on objective criteria.
But BBC News Online science editor Dr David Whitehouse says the decision is highly political, involving huge amounts of horse-trading behind the scenes
That's some fantastic reporting there. Or is conjecture? That's what seems to pass editorial muster at the BBC these days.
The US is allegedly politicizing this issue and the other nations that alligned with France aren't supporting them. Somehow, it doesn't add up.
Is it childish behaviour on the part of the Canadians and Russians and Chinese to punish France for opposing the Iraq war?
Wait a minuite...
The Canadians and Russians and Chinese were on France's side of that conflict !!
So why are they not supporting France now ?
Could it be that they honestly believe that Japan is a better site because
a) the site would be 3 miles from the sea where deuterium is plentiful b) Japan is a model nation that would benefit form this technology (Japan lacks natural energy resources)
Or could it be that they are under the thumb of the US, as they showed during the UN debates ?
Or, those handful of countries acted out of principle and learned the lessons from WW2 while other nations tried to politicize an issue for other esoteric reasons (US geo-political containment, concealment of violations of UN orders, etc.)
But your worldview is very intellectual so perhaps it is right.
Last time I checked, Canada, Russia and China preferred the Japanese site. And I seem to recall they all opposed the Iraq War.
The site selection has nothing to do with anyone's position on Iraq or else France would have the support of the other countries as well. As it stands, they only have the support of the EU for typical reasons.
Umm... No. We don't actually care about our "Commonwealth identity." We do care that it's our brothers and sisters over there.
Uhm...yes. Canada didn't declare war when Czechoslovakia was annexed by Germany. It only declared war after Britain had done so. Had Britain not declared war, Canada would not have declared war to protect Poland.
Why?
Because Poland is not the head of the Commonwealth.
So much for the humanity of Canadians. They do take orders very well, though.
All I'm saying is that Canadians who love to point out that they entered the war in 1939 and try to use that as some some of defining moment in which they can separate themselves from America are deluding themselves.
They didn't enter the war out of act on honor and nobility. They did so because they were a commonwealth nation who has the British Monarch as the titular head of their government. With the head of the Commonwealth vanquished, Canada loses a great part of its identity.
I certainly don't recall Canada declaring war on Germany after Czechoslovakia was annexed by Germany.
If the Canadian history books portray themselves as being heroic, that's to be expected. All nations have to spoonfeed patriotism to their peoples in some manner.
If the nations who back the ICC truly believe the Americans are guilty of war crimes, they should come and get them. If they have the resolve, that is.
The ICC will never be recognized by America precisely because it would be politiczed by EUians. I see a lot of EUians are upset by Mugabe's land grab because he's taking land from white people who were given the land by imperial EUian countries, but the EUians certainly didn't care when a true despot like Hussein was killing tens of thousands.
The ICC is best left for EUians to play around with. Maybe they can use it against each other the next time Europe disintegrates.
Canada was in WW2 from day one because they are a Commonwealth nation whose identity is inextricably linked to Britain. The United States shares no such compunction.
We are allies with Britain but in 1939, after a decade long depression and memories of WW1 still alive, American certainly felt no obligation to intercede in European affairs, particularly when the Europeans allowed those affaris to conflagrate.
Canada wasn't doing anything heroic. They were acting out of a sense of Commonwealth obligation.
Trying to appease the Islamic world might spare you some pain now, but ignoring what is going on there will not make the problems go away. It will not protect you forever.
The European fallacy is believing that ignoring or coddling militant islam will exempt them from future attacks. What Europe is ignoring are the millions of muslims living there right now who view Europe as the base for expanding their caliphate. They are biding their time and waiting to grow the population.
Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe. 5 million muslims in France alone. And growing. Meanwhile, European populations are decreasign rapidly.
The have no desire to be "European". They consider themselves muslims first and as such, they work to change the cultures and laws in their favor. No public wearing of muslim clothing? No problem, they'll just open their own schools. Why not, integration is not their concern. They'll overturn the law when they have the numbers on their side.
You would have thought that Europe would have learned that lesson last century but as we all know, we are doomed to repeat history.
So Europe looks good from the perspective of the UN. You have to ask yourself, what did you really achieve?
France isn't big on technology? Why do you say that? They're a highly industrialized nation that invests heavily in technology. They have some of the largest technology conglomerates in the world.
When you have the most power, an institution like the UN can only hold you back. The UN, IMO, has outlived its usefulness. It is a body of debate that fails time and time again to take proper action. It is truly an asylum run by the inmates.
Slashdot Mirror
How does it prove that the US is opposing the French site for political reasons?
If anything, it appears the French are trying to use that excuse to shame other nations into supporting them.
Guess what?
Most of the weapons that the American colonists used fighting the British came from....Britain
Why didn't he bother to list any of the citations, or the people who made them?
Yeah, it does look like an opinion to me. At the best, it's very crappy journalism.
Due to opposing strongly worded langued in UN resolutions as a policy of US Containment which led the US to sidestep the UN and take decisive, principled action. Action that effectively weakened the UN and France & Germany's political standing.
To France, Iraq was merely a political opportunity. Read this article to get a rather blunt interpretaion of France and the UN's "contribution" to the IRaq problem
The article states that the US backs Japan to avoid backing France because they opposed the Iraq war.
Yes, the article states it. Without giving us any facts or pointing to any sources. The writer gave us his opinion. Whether you decide to implicitly trust anything that comes out of the pen of that writer or the BBC in general is up to you. They certainly have a willing and receptive audience. I'm not part of that audience, however.
If you know of a better source than the BBC to back your claim as to why the US backs Japan, please post it.
When the author of the article can actually give us one source, then perhaps I'll spend some time looking for sources to repudiate it. But since it wasn't important enough for him to do in this article, I don't feel compelled to dispute his opinion
Here is what the great, impartial BBC SPECIFICALLY says:
But BBC News Online science editor Dr David Whitehouse says the decision is highly political, involving huge amounts of horse-trading behind the scenes
That's some fantastic reporting there. Or is conjecture? That's what seems to pass editorial muster at the BBC these days.
The US is allegedly politicizing this issue and the other nations that alligned with France aren't supporting them. Somehow, it doesn't add up.
Mod this one down as Flamebait, and mod the other one up as funny, please. Karmic balance, pun intended
In order for someone to mod up your previous post as funny, it would actually have to be funny.
Is it childish behaviour on the part of the Canadians and Russians and Chinese to punish France for opposing the Iraq war?
Wait a minuite...
The Canadians and Russians and Chinese were on France's side of that conflict !!
So why are they not supporting France now ?
Could it be that they honestly believe that Japan is a better site because
a) the site would be 3 miles from the sea where deuterium is plentiful
b) Japan is a model nation that would benefit form this technology (Japan lacks natural energy resources)
Or could it be that they are under the thumb of the US, as they showed during the UN debates ?
You decide.
Or, those handful of countries acted out of principle and learned the lessons from WW2 while other nations tried to politicize an issue for other esoteric reasons (US geo-political containment, concealment of violations of UN orders, etc.)
But your worldview is very intellectual so perhaps it is right.
Last time I checked, Canada, Russia and China preferred the Japanese site. And I seem to recall they all opposed the Iraq War.
The site selection has nothing to do with anyone's position on Iraq or else France would have the support of the other countries as well. As it stands, they only have the support of the EU for typical reasons.
I'm pretty confident he pronouces it para-diggum as well.
I've had an "illegal" descrambler for over 10 years. Cablevision can kiss my ass if they think I'm going to pay for that bullshit.
I look at it as though I'm leveling the playing field.
Umm... No. We don't actually care about our "Commonwealth identity." We do care that it's our brothers and sisters over there.
Uhm...yes. Canada didn't declare war when Czechoslovakia was annexed by Germany. It only declared war after Britain had done so. Had Britain not declared war, Canada would not have declared war to protect Poland.
Why?
Because Poland is not the head of the Commonwealth.
So much for the humanity of Canadians. They do take orders very well, though.
at the bottom of the sea?
A good start.
(just kidding, but I couldn't resist).
All I'm saying is that Canadians who love to point out that they entered the war in 1939 and try to use that as some some of defining moment in which they can separate themselves from America are deluding themselves.
They didn't enter the war out of act on honor and nobility. They did so because they were a commonwealth nation who has the British Monarch as the titular head of their government. With the head of the Commonwealth vanquished, Canada loses a great part of its identity.
I certainly don't recall Canada declaring war on Germany after Czechoslovakia was annexed by Germany.
If the Canadian history books portray themselves as being heroic, that's to be expected. All nations have to spoonfeed patriotism to their peoples in some manner.
If the nations who back the ICC truly believe the Americans are guilty of war crimes, they should come and get them. If they have the resolve, that is.
The ICC will never be recognized by America precisely because it would be politiczed by EUians. I see a lot of EUians are upset by Mugabe's land grab because he's taking land from white people who were given the land by imperial EUian countries, but the EUians certainly didn't care when a true despot like Hussein was killing tens of thousands.
The ICC is best left for EUians to play around with. Maybe they can use it against each other the next time Europe disintegrates.
Canada was in WW2 from day one because they are a Commonwealth nation whose identity is inextricably linked to Britain. The United States shares no such compunction.
We are allies with Britain but in 1939, after a decade long depression and memories of WW1 still alive, American certainly felt no obligation to intercede in European affairs, particularly when the Europeans allowed those affaris to conflagrate.
Canada wasn't doing anything heroic. They were acting out of a sense of Commonwealth obligation.
Doesn't the same hold true for the U.N. ? Aren't they the ones that kicked Taiwan out of the Body and put in Communist China ?
Trying to appease the Islamic world might spare you some pain now, but ignoring what is going on there will not make the problems go away. It will not protect you forever.
The European fallacy is believing that ignoring or coddling militant islam will exempt them from future attacks. What Europe is ignoring are the millions of muslims living there right now who view Europe as the base for expanding their caliphate. They are biding their time and waiting to grow the population.
Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe. 5 million muslims in France alone. And growing. Meanwhile, European populations are decreasign rapidly.
The have no desire to be "European". They consider themselves muslims first and as such, they work to change the cultures and laws in their favor. No public wearing of muslim clothing? No problem, they'll just open their own schools. Why not, integration is not their concern. They'll overturn the law when they have the numbers on their side.
You would have thought that Europe would have learned that lesson last century but as we all know, we are doomed to repeat history.
So Europe looks good from the perspective of the UN. You have to ask yourself, what did you really achieve?
Like it held the US back from attacking Iraq?
You may wish to use it as a vehicle to thwart the US, but you only do disservice to the mission itself by over politicizing it.
France isn't big on technology? Why do you say that? They're a highly industrialized nation that invests heavily in technology. They have some of the largest technology conglomerates in the world.
I'm just curious as to why made that statement.
When you have the most power, an institution like the UN can only hold you back. The UN, IMO, has outlived its usefulness. It is a body of debate that fails time and time again to take proper action. It is truly an asylum run by the inmates.
As a US citizen I am both pissed off, and embarrased this is how my country is helping us "advance" telco technology and telco business models.
Are you embarassed enough to do something about it beyond complaining? If not, consider yourself part of the problem.
Yes, I'd like to think that the American business model can be summarized in one paragraph as well.