There are laws on the books forbidding murder in every country - yes. However, that doesn't mean they are followed (remember Iran has the fatwa against Salman Rushdie - and don't even get me started on China honoring copyright laws on the books). Furthermore, the people we are talking about are NOT concerned with national laws. They are adherents to a radical, and distorted, view of Islam which expressly sanctions murder of innocents (cf. Section V. Killing Women, Children, and the Elderly is Permitted for one example.
Saddam did not "back" Radical Islamic terrorism any more than Islamic terrorism backed him - they were fellow travelers who found each other useful upon occasion. (see Weekly Standard article or, if you feel the source is too impugned despite the footnooting, how about the UK Guardian. Even the 911 report stated "Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda-save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army."Chapter 2
So, while there is no evidence that that 9/11 was directly plotted by Saddam, there is a -lot- of evidence of other cooperation on a variety of traning and supply matters. Add into that Saddam's demonstrated willingness to use WMD on his own population and against Iran in a war he started, then the case for preemption becomes stronger. Not that the case is proven, but statements like "The current administration got all their facts about Iraq plain wrong" ignores the evidence out there (much of which is contradictory, admittedly) as well as the consensus pre-war intelligence estimates of the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, etc. etc.
You are absolutely correct - I did forget about the Franco-German rappochement.
However, from what I could see, aside from the demagogic posturing by Schroeder during the election, the German people were sincere and heartfelt in the demonstrations, and there were a lot of good arguments raised opposing military action. It was obvious the German government could not support the war, but then again that was no surprise and was seen as originating from a consistent, principled, pacifist position (arising from the devastation and aftermath of WWII). Germany was not in favor of war, but was not spending much capital opposing it either. This is the reason there was not nearly as much spleen vented at the Germans - they were viewed as taking a stand for what they thought was right.
However, the French were viewed as being opportunistic (much as your post seems to imply) and willing to not only sacrifice but actively undermine the Atlantic relationship (forged at such great cost on both sides) for political grandstanding and prestige, so many here felt betrayed.
So, presuming I am correct, there would be very little the US could do to bring France onboard other than capitulate - and, given the outrage over the initial 9/11 attacks and the seeming opportunism by the French goverment, that was an impossibility.
(P.S. no disclaimer necessary. Nationality does not grant/eliminate facts or thoughtfulness)
"And scientists from the NASA Ames Research Center developed speech recognition technology that allows users to speak silently. The scheme uses throat nerve activity rather than acoustics to glean information about what a person is saying. "
It'd be better if the device could make people -think- before speaking (silently or otherwise). Lincoln noted "Better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt".
Now doubt can be removed without opening of a mouth!!
You missed rejecting Kyoto, supporting Israel, replenishing the US Strategic Reserve, letting the dollar drop, and the kitchen sink.
Seriously, I object to being told what I think of you (to be honest, most Americans don't even seem think much at all about Canada, except it's such a nice place to visit. I find that unusual, particularly given geographical proximity, extensive trade, and the shared military history you refer to). Objectively, Canada has traditionally been first in/last out in peacekeeping operations around the world, and Canadians seem to take great pride in that fact (though quietly); any charge of cowardice can be easily refuted.
Furthermore, most of the items in the laundry list you provided are individually very complex issues, and can be more easily explained when viewed through protectionist/domestic politics/scientific fearmongering prisms rather than ascribing these issues to an anti-Canadian cabal using Canadian reluctance to support military operations in Iraq as a fig leaf justifying retaliation - particularly when many of these issues (soft wood trade, ISS, on-and-off again ignoring of WTO pronouncements) predated both 9/11 and the Bush administration.
but just as the wine makers that suffered lower sales due to the anti-french backlash aren't the chirac government and the canadians your calling names may think our government if being a bit too unfriendly
I intentionally didn't address the boycotts. I personally have mixed feelings about them - i.e. it is the right of the consumer to choose to buy/not buy based upon whatever criteria they wish to use, but I don't think penalizing innocent wine/cheese/whatever makers is helpful - though it did seem to be the only way to get the French government's attention. And yes, there were those who conflated the French people with the French government, but that is a common occurrence - I even see a lot of that on/. for goodness sake!
BTW, what "names" are you referring to? And what at all did I say about Canada? I limited my comments to the French as they were the most outspoken and they had the Security Council veto...
But that doesn't make them wrong. The government of the US did seem a more reasonable power 6 years ago.
I think it is WAY too early to judge right/wrong - we can have our own opinions, but there is NO way to tell for sure until 20-30 years down the road. And what is your definition of "reasonable"? This is a judgement based upon point of view. Does being "reasonable" mean reluctance to use power or to protect ones interests, even after attacks upon embassies, military personnel, and civilians both at home and abroad? Or is "reasonable" to fulfil a mandate to protect the American people and advance Wilsonian ideals of Freedom and Liberty - even if it is unpopular?
Perhaps the US seems so "unreasonable" because we are having to make up for 12+ years of INaction following provocation after provocation. Perhaps we're tired of restraint, patience, and nuance being interpreted as weakness by those who do us harm. We are not fighting a war against France (even if there are significant disagreements) - after all, France is 1) not actively trying to kill Americans and 2) IS reasonable, rational, and peaceful (even if we Americans can find the French infuriating at times:) ). However, the Radical Islamic terrorists are anything BUT reasonable, rational, or peaceful - victory is not accomodation of opposing views, but defeat of the enemy and death of the infidel. Accomodation is viewed as weakness, and NOBODY is off limits (for example, the British had of CARE International who was beheaded for {gasp} giving food to children!).
What is a reasonable response to someone who only understands force and is willing to murder innocents to achieve political or religious ends?
How many more civilians do we have to bury before fighting back is considered "reasonable"?
My country was fighting, winning and losing wars long before yourcontinent waseven discovered. For once in your life, please open a fucking historybook.
I know history quite well, thank you. Have a minor in ancient literature, and currently reading about a history of the Middle Ages - very much of which is set in France.
I spent a year and a half in your country, have you ever been in mine?
Yes, and it was very enjoyable. Most folks were great; some were pricks. That reminded me a lot of the States (and Spain, and South Africa, and Argentina, etc.)
Your country saved mine during the second world war and many of us went in Normandie to put some flowers on your soldiers' tombs thinking of the great sacrifice that it was for you and your country. If you think that we canforget that then you don't know anything about us.
Thank you for the sentiment. I used to make arguments like that in high school, but I have matured since then. And, likewise, thank you for French heroes such as Lafayette and the support of the French government during the Revolutionary War - the US would have been nowhere without France.
France's position was that we should have given more time of the UNinspectors
The cease fire ending the shooting 1991 Gulf War stated that Saddam was to turn over all WMD, and the Inspectors were to verify that this was indeed the case. This was NEVER to have turned into the Keystone Kops hide-and-seek it became. How in the hell would inspectors EVER have been able to find proscribed weapons when their movements were monitored and controlled? When they had to file "inspection plans" prior to actually inspecting? When they could be held at bay by armed forces with no recourse? How does this serve the cause of world peace?
War is fucking bad, it should always be avoided at all costs
Ah.. here is the crux of the matter. I do agree wholeheartedly with the 1st part. However, there are worse things than war, and it should NOT always be avoided. What if the US had not (belatedly) entered WWII? What if France and Britain had decided to confront Hitler when he violated the Treaty of Versailles and militarized the Ruhr valley? How many MILLIONS would have been saved? What about the cold war? Should it even have been fought - or should the world have succumbed to the Soviet definition of peace - the entire world upholding Communist ideals?
And, last but not least, what about the war (yes, it is a war) we are currently in with Radical Islam? Where infidels are to be beheaded because of their religion/lack thereof? A sect in which leading theological lights support the indiscriminate murder of children (cf. Beslan) to support politico-theological goals? If such murder is acceptable (or in fact, rewarded in the next life), is it then inconceivable that these bad actors have made common cause with an individual/state which, though despised, is allied against your biggest enemy?
Is freedom (of speech, of religion, of innocents to not be slaughtered like cattle) worth fighting for? If the answer is NO, then your above statement would hold. However (presuming you are French), that would betray the ideals not only of the 5th republic, but also the foundation of the society you hold dear. After all, what happened to Louis XVI? How did that happen? Should that have never happened?
Correct that the US sometimes acts like an idiot... I love my country, but we have made a LOT of mistakes in the past.
That being said, I find the idea that France was speaking truth to power in this instance laughable. France (and Russia, for that matter) had a great deal of both financial and political capital invested in the Saddam regime - going all the way back to the 70s. Add into the mix domestic considerations (Chirac trying to claim the Gaullist mantle and position France at the center of a non-American axis to try to balance the "hyperpower", much less salving French loss of dignity over the decline of French influence, power, and culture), and it is entirely predictible that France would be reflexively opposed to any debatable (in the UN) US-led action.
France has NO problem using unilateral force when its interests are threatened (see Cote d'Ivorie). In this case, where the US acted to preempt a not-too-distant future threat (yes, I know this is debatable, but that is the reason the US finally acted - 9/11 DID dramatically change our perspective on tolerable risks) and remove an extremely nasty character responsible directly for the deaths of hundreds of thousands and indirectly (via the wars he started) for millions (no debate on this, right?), and in the face of 10+ years of "final" chances given by the ostensibly reasonable/responsible UN, what was France's response?
- continue selling weapons to the Saddam regime
- ignore the Oil for Food abuses/illegal smuggling all the Security Council nations were aware of, and which were used to prop up his regime and military
- use and humiliate the US Secretary of State (Colin Powell), who was arguably the best friend France had in the administration
- support resolution 1441 indicating that Saddam had to comply with previous resolutions, or else
- argue the language in 1441 was not an ultimatum and that the "or else" did not really mean "or else"
- ratchet up the rhetoric about "no blood for oil" (a canard if there ever was one - does anyone still say/believe that, by the way?) and "stupid American cowboys"
THAT is why many Americans feel betrayed. It's OK to disagree with us (though we can sometimes be obnoxious about our beliefs, and I do have to apologize for that) - but we were dealt with dishonestly by the Chirac government in order to save it from embarassment and for the benefit of French corporations. Furthermore, I think the argument can be made that this duplicity not only gave Saddam time to prepare, but also encouraged him to try to hold on and divide the Security Council, and escape the noose, yet again - both of which are costing Coalition and Iraqi lives.
Maybe we are naive, but we expected more from the government of Liberte, Fraternite, and Egalite.
I'm not sure they didn't realize that there would be anti-social behavior. However, I think the incidence level and severity may have been severly underestimated. After all, MMORPGs (and any online venture, for that matter) tend to foment some of the most extreme behavior in people for the same reasons the meek and mild-mannered sometimes engage in the most extreme road-rage incidents.
It's real easy to be an a**hole when 1) you're anonymous, 2) there is no real negative consequence, and 3) you CAN! Particularly when you are put-upon in real life. When you get sand kicked in your face during the day, it can sometimes be cathartic to be on the other end of that type of punishment.
So much for the innate goodness of humans!!
(Note that I don't condone the behavior, and I typically don't engage in it - on Halo my handle is usually EZKill for self-descriptive reasons. However, I've seen it in action and can understand why it would seem attractive to engage in)
Just what I'd need... with my luck, I'd get hacked and the hard-drive based stereo would either 1) be a kick-ass waR3Z site or 2) the MPAA would sue me and take possession of my car.
Or a lawyer would successfully file a class-action lawsuit claiming my 802.11 transmitter emitted sufficient gamma radiation to scramble the DNA of everybody in my state, so I'd be liable for damages.
Essentially, it's exploring ways that moving vehicles can automatically set up temporary links with other cars, bikes and trucks in the vicinity, and share traffic information.
I'm stuck on how the hell you would operate a connection like that while on a bike. At least when I ride a bike, I use two hands - and I haven't quite mastered the Doc Oc technology yet.
However, I bet a -lot- of the truckers out there would love to transmit pictures to reckless drivers of what happens when four wheelers cut off 18 wheelers. "Here is your car. Here is your car being scraped off my grill after you pull in front of me and hit the brakes."
Slashdot Mirror
There are laws on the books forbidding murder in every country - yes. However, that doesn't mean they are followed (remember Iran has the fatwa against Salman Rushdie - and don't even get me started on China honoring copyright laws on the books). Furthermore, the people we are talking about are NOT concerned with national laws. They are adherents to a radical, and distorted, view of Islam which expressly sanctions murder of innocents (cf. Section V. Killing Women, Children, and the Elderly is Permitted for one example.
Saddam did not "back" Radical Islamic terrorism any more than Islamic terrorism backed him - they were fellow travelers who found each other useful upon occasion. (see Weekly Standard article or, if you feel the source is too impugned despite the footnooting, how about the UK Guardian. Even the 911 report stated "Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda-save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army." Chapter 2
So, while there is no evidence that that 9/11 was directly plotted by Saddam, there is a -lot- of evidence of other cooperation on a variety of traning and supply matters. Add into that Saddam's demonstrated willingness to use WMD on his own population and against Iran in a war he started, then the case for preemption becomes stronger. Not that the case is proven, but statements like "The current administration got all their facts about Iraq plain wrong" ignores the evidence out there (much of which is contradictory, admittedly) as well as the consensus pre-war intelligence estimates of the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, etc. etc.
You are absolutely correct - I did forget about the Franco-German rappochement.
However, from what I could see, aside from the demagogic posturing by Schroeder during the election, the German people were sincere and heartfelt in the demonstrations, and there were a lot of good arguments raised opposing military action. It was obvious the German government could not support the war, but then again that was no surprise and was seen as originating from a consistent, principled, pacifist position (arising from the devastation and aftermath of WWII). Germany was not in favor of war, but was not spending much capital opposing it either. This is the reason there was not nearly as much spleen vented at the Germans - they were viewed as taking a stand for what they thought was right.
However, the French were viewed as being opportunistic (much as your post seems to imply) and willing to not only sacrifice but actively undermine the Atlantic relationship (forged at such great cost on both sides) for political grandstanding and prestige, so many here felt betrayed.
So, presuming I am correct, there would be very little the US could do to bring France onboard other than capitulate - and, given the outrage over the initial 9/11 attacks and the seeming opportunism by the French goverment, that was an impossibility.
(P.S. no disclaimer necessary. Nationality does not grant/eliminate facts or thoughtfulness)
"And scientists from the NASA Ames Research Center developed speech recognition technology that allows users to speak silently. The scheme uses throat nerve activity rather than acoustics to glean information about what a person is saying. "
It'd be better if the device could make people -think- before speaking (silently or otherwise). Lincoln noted "Better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt".
Now doubt can be removed without opening of a mouth!!
<SILENT>hehehehehe - the fools!!</SILENT>
You missed rejecting Kyoto, supporting Israel, replenishing the US Strategic Reserve, letting the dollar drop, and the kitchen sink.
Seriously, I object to being told what I think of you (to be honest, most Americans don't even seem think much at all about Canada, except it's such a nice place to visit. I find that unusual, particularly given geographical proximity, extensive trade, and the shared military history you refer to). Objectively, Canada has traditionally been first in/last out in peacekeeping operations around the world, and Canadians seem to take great pride in that fact (though quietly); any charge of cowardice can be easily refuted.
Furthermore, most of the items in the laundry list you provided are individually very complex issues, and can be more easily explained when viewed through protectionist/domestic politics/scientific fearmongering prisms rather than ascribing these issues to an anti-Canadian cabal using Canadian reluctance to support military operations in Iraq as a fig leaf justifying retaliation - particularly when many of these issues (soft wood trade, ISS, on-and-off again ignoring of WTO pronouncements) predated both 9/11 and the Bush administration.
but just as the wine makers that suffered lower sales due to the anti-french backlash aren't the chirac government and the canadians your calling names may think our government if being a bit too unfriendly
/. for goodness sake!
:) ). However, the Radical Islamic terrorists are anything BUT reasonable, rational, or peaceful - victory is not accomodation of opposing views, but defeat of the enemy and death of the infidel. Accomodation is viewed as weakness, and NOBODY is off limits (for example, the British had of CARE International who was beheaded for {gasp} giving food to children!).
I intentionally didn't address the boycotts. I personally have mixed feelings about them - i.e. it is the right of the consumer to choose to buy/not buy based upon whatever criteria they wish to use, but I don't think penalizing innocent wine/cheese/whatever makers is helpful - though it did seem to be the only way to get the French government's attention. And yes, there were those who conflated the French people with the French government, but that is a common occurrence - I even see a lot of that on
BTW, what "names" are you referring to? And what at all did I say about Canada? I limited my comments to the French as they were the most outspoken and they had the Security Council veto...
But that doesn't make them wrong. The government of the US did seem a more reasonable power 6 years ago.
I think it is WAY too early to judge right/wrong - we can have our own opinions, but there is NO way to tell for sure until 20-30 years down the road.
And what is your definition of "reasonable"? This is a judgement based upon point of view. Does being "reasonable" mean reluctance to use power or to protect ones interests, even after attacks upon embassies, military personnel, and civilians both at home and abroad? Or is "reasonable" to fulfil a mandate to protect the American people and advance Wilsonian ideals of Freedom and Liberty - even if it is unpopular?
Perhaps the US seems so "unreasonable" because we are having to make up for 12+ years of INaction following provocation after provocation. Perhaps we're tired of restraint, patience, and nuance being interpreted as weakness by those who do us harm. We are not fighting a war against France (even if there are significant disagreements) - after all, France is 1) not actively trying to kill Americans and 2) IS reasonable, rational, and peaceful (even if we Americans can find the French infuriating at times
What is a reasonable response to someone who only understands force and is willing to murder innocents to achieve political or religious ends?
How many more civilians do we have to bury before fighting back is considered "reasonable"?
My country was fighting, winning and losing wars long before yourcontinent waseven discovered. For once in your life, please open a fucking historybook.
I know history quite well, thank you. Have a minor in ancient literature, and currently reading about a history of the Middle Ages - very much of which is set in France.
I spent a year and a half in your country, have you ever been in mine?
Yes, and it was very enjoyable. Most folks were great; some were pricks. That reminded me a lot of the States (and Spain, and South Africa, and Argentina, etc.)
Your country saved mine during the second world war and many of us went in Normandie to put some flowers on your soldiers' tombs thinking of the great sacrifice that it was for you and your country. If you think that we canforget that then you don't know anything about us.
Thank you for the sentiment. I used to make arguments like that in high school, but I have matured since then. And, likewise, thank you for French heroes such as Lafayette and the support of the French government during the Revolutionary War - the US would have been nowhere without France.
France's position was that we should have given more time of the UNinspectors
The cease fire ending the shooting 1991 Gulf War stated that Saddam was to turn over all WMD, and the Inspectors were to verify that this was indeed the case. This was NEVER to have turned into the Keystone Kops hide-and-seek it became. How in the hell would inspectors EVER have been able to find proscribed weapons when their movements were monitored and controlled? When they had to file "inspection plans" prior to actually inspecting? When they could be held at bay by armed forces with no recourse? How does this serve the cause of world peace?
War is fucking bad, it should always be avoided at all costs
Ah.. here is the crux of the matter. I do agree wholeheartedly with the 1st part. However, there are worse things than war, and it should NOT always be avoided. What if the US had not (belatedly) entered WWII? What if France and Britain had decided to confront Hitler when he violated the Treaty of Versailles and militarized the Ruhr valley? How many MILLIONS would have been saved? What about the cold war? Should it even have been fought - or should the world have succumbed to the Soviet definition of peace - the entire world upholding Communist ideals?
And, last but not least, what about the war (yes, it is a war) we are currently in with Radical Islam? Where infidels are to be beheaded because of their religion/lack thereof? A sect in which leading theological lights support the indiscriminate murder of children (cf. Beslan) to support politico-theological goals? If such murder is acceptable (or in fact, rewarded in the next life), is it then inconceivable that these bad actors have made common cause with an individual/state which, though despised, is allied against your biggest enemy?
Is freedom (of speech, of religion, of innocents to not be slaughtered like cattle) worth fighting for? If the answer is NO, then your above statement would hold. However (presuming you are French), that would betray the ideals not only of the 5th republic, but also the foundation of the society you hold dear. After all, what happened to Louis XVI? How did that happen? Should that have never happened?
Correct that the US sometimes acts like an idiot... I love my country, but we have made a LOT of mistakes in the past.
That being said, I find the idea that France was speaking truth to power in this instance laughable. France (and Russia, for that matter) had a great deal of both financial and political capital invested in the Saddam regime - going all the way back to the 70s. Add into the mix domestic considerations (Chirac trying to claim the Gaullist mantle and position France at the center of a non-American axis to try to balance the "hyperpower", much less salving French loss of dignity over the decline of French influence, power, and culture), and it is entirely predictible that France would be reflexively opposed to any debatable (in the UN) US-led action.
France has NO problem using unilateral force when its interests are threatened (see Cote d'Ivorie). In this case, where the US acted to preempt a not-too-distant future threat (yes, I know this is debatable, but that is the reason the US finally acted - 9/11 DID dramatically change our perspective on tolerable risks) and remove an extremely nasty character responsible directly for the deaths of hundreds of thousands and indirectly (via the wars he started) for millions (no debate on this, right?), and in the face of 10+ years of "final" chances given by the ostensibly reasonable/responsible UN, what was France's response?
- continue selling weapons to the Saddam regime
- ignore the Oil for Food abuses/illegal smuggling all the Security Council nations were aware of, and which were used to prop up his regime and military
- use and humiliate the US Secretary of State (Colin Powell), who was arguably the best friend France had in the administration
- support resolution 1441 indicating that Saddam had to comply with previous resolutions, or else
- argue the language in 1441 was not an ultimatum and that the "or else" did not really mean "or else"
- ratchet up the rhetoric about "no blood for oil" (a canard if there ever was one - does anyone still say/believe that, by the way?) and "stupid American cowboys"
THAT is why many Americans feel betrayed. It's OK to disagree with us (though we can sometimes be obnoxious about our beliefs, and I do have to apologize for that) - but we were dealt with dishonestly by the Chirac government in order to save it from embarassment and for the benefit of French corporations. Furthermore, I think the argument can be made that this duplicity not only gave Saddam time to prepare, but also encouraged him to try to hold on and divide the Security Council, and escape the noose, yet again - both of which are costing Coalition and Iraqi lives.
Maybe we are naive, but we expected more from the government of Liberte, Fraternite, and Egalite.
Mine's in Canada.... She's a hottie - too. Shame you can't meet her... :)
I'm not sure they didn't realize that there would be anti-social behavior. However, I think the incidence level and severity may have been severly underestimated. After all, MMORPGs (and any online venture, for that matter) tend to foment some of the most extreme behavior in people for the same reasons the meek and mild-mannered sometimes engage in the most extreme road-rage incidents.
It's real easy to be an a**hole when 1) you're anonymous, 2) there is no real negative consequence, and 3) you CAN! Particularly when you are put-upon in real life. When you get sand kicked in your face during the day, it can sometimes be cathartic to be on the other end of that type of punishment.
So much for the innate goodness of humans!!
(Note that I don't condone the behavior, and I typically don't engage in it - on Halo my handle is usually EZKill for self-descriptive reasons. However, I've seen it in action and can understand why it would seem attractive to engage in)
Just what I'd need... with my luck, I'd get hacked and the hard-drive based stereo would either 1) be a kick-ass waR3Z site or 2) the MPAA would sue me and take possession of my car.
Or a lawyer would successfully file a class-action lawsuit claiming my 802.11 transmitter emitted sufficient gamma radiation to scramble the DNA of everybody in my state, so I'd be liable for damages.
Essentially, it's exploring ways that moving vehicles can automatically set up temporary links with other cars, bikes and trucks in the vicinity, and share traffic information.
I'm stuck on how the hell you would operate a connection like that while on a bike. At least when I ride a bike, I use two hands - and I haven't quite mastered the Doc Oc technology yet.
However, I bet a -lot- of the truckers out there would love to transmit pictures to reckless drivers of what happens when four wheelers cut off 18 wheelers. "Here is your car. Here is your car being scraped off my grill after you pull in front of me and hit the brakes."