Comments on: War on France! Huzza!

By: Thomas

Thomas — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:41:25 +0000

dsquared—Shall I take that weak rejoinder as a concession that (1) you haven’t read the US-sponsored draft UN resolution, which is as I describe it, (2) you are aware that if the US sponsored resolution is as describe it, then your whole argument (including references to my being “naive”) is, at best, based on your misunderstanding, and (3) you are aware that France often doesn’t supply troops to UN peacekeeping missions, despite your suggestion otherwise. I’d be happy to share the source documents with you, but you have access to google just like anyone else, so it shouldn’t take that much. Really, it doesn’t say much for you to continue to defend your hopeless position. You screwed up, posting about things you didn’t fully understand. Admit it and move on.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 07:06:46 +0000

>>dsquared—I’m not naive, and I’m not the idiot you appear to be Well I’m happy to hear that, but for the time being you certainly appear to be repeating the same naive point over and over again, which is a good way to get that reputation.

By: Yehudit

Yehudit — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 05:44:46 +0000

“it is only on an international/multilateral basis that iraq can be pacified/reconstructed, since for this to happen the process has to have legitimacy in a majority of iraqi eyes. this is the “international public good” at stake. the u.s.a. has to stand down, but, of course, it won’t.” Actually, the Iraqis would rather have the coalition forces than the UN running the show. http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/4694.htm http://www.bouldernews.com/bdc/cda/article_print/1,1983,BDC_2420_2258561_ARTICLE-DETAIL-PRINT,00.html The UN doesn’t exactly have a great track record of managing peace-keeping operations. http://www.4forums.com/political/showpost.php?p=4815&postcount=1

By: Antoni Jaume

Antoni Jaume — Sun, 21 Sep 2003 00:25:25 +0000

Mark, never ever had the USA cared about people out of their frontiers, except as prospective slaves. They fought in WW2 because they were aggressed (a fairly legitimate cause by itself, don’t you think?), not out of principle to defend democracy against fascism. In Bush father war, they did not go up to remove Saddam, who was already attested as a thoroughly criminal. Instead they sugested that they would like the Iraquis to remove him, which they foolisly, in hindsight, interpreted that if they rised against Saddam the USA would proportionate them adequate cover. A lot of the mass graves were filled then. That by itself seems sufficient to me for the French not to go. DSW

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 19 Sep 2003 17:50:19 +0000

I thought Friedman was making the obvious point that if nation A continues to oppose nation B in many important enterprises, nation A will appear to be an enemy of nation B. Certainly, France has opposed the US in a number of crucial issues, most recently in Iraq. One could argue, therefore, that France is becoming a tacit enemy of the US. Worse than this – or rather, worst of all – however, was France’s willingness to condemn Iraqis to further torture, slavery, rape and genocide in exchange for French self-aggrandizement. The result was to turn French foreign policy into an excuse for slave trading. Asking France for help in Iraq would be like asking your former jailors for advice. If France could not display sound moral judgment in rescuing Iraqis from Saddam, it can hardly be expected to exercise sound moral judgment in the difficult period of post-war reconstruction.

By: a different chris

a different chris — Fri, 19 Sep 2003 17:18:54 +0000

>If you answer no, then you’ve got to come to grips with what France can and should do to help those efforts succeed. Yes, but that does in no way mean that they have to take “the Bush way or the highway which is all I can determine that you are advocating. When a start-up spins out of control, the first things the VCs (which want the thing to succeed) is behead the organization and bring in their own people. France can’t replace the Bushies directly, but they can wait them out or at least hope they smarten up and show some signs of understanding how they got to this point. To put it more simply, if you think France should do what the US tells them to, then you have to make the case that Bushco has a clue in hell what they are doing. Go ahead, I need a laugh. (As an aside: conservatives love the notion of “tough love” but never seem to realize when it’s being applied to them.) And this transits me into the most amazing part of Friedman’s essay: the eventual Islamic overthrow of France if they don’t follow Bush into Iraq, due to the large Muslim population of France. Well, Idiot (and there’s no other word for Friedman at this point), did it occur to Your Brilliance that, having a bunch of Muslims UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL, in fact, as freaking constituents, that French politicians may have a little better grip on what actions in Iraq will and won’t make them happy?? Jeebus.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Fri, 19 Sep 2003 17:01:58 +0000

dsquared—Furthermore, you appear ignorant of the proposed text of the US-sponsored resolution, which would have called on member states to supply money to an international fund sponsored by the UN, but, unlike most peacekeeping operations, would not have assessed members to provide funds. Additionally, the US-sponsored resolution would not have led to the creation of a UN-sponsored peacekeeping force, but only called on member states to provide resources. In other words, you’re completely wrong. Not naive, just ignorant.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:47:43 +0000

dsquared—I’m not naive, and I’m not the idiot you appear to be. France has, as a matter of fact, declined to participate in other peacekeeping missions established by the UN, without your believing that they don’t take the UN seriously. That’s a matter of record—please, look it up before spouting off about how I’m “naive.” Arrogant ass.

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:41:18 +0000

…nothing France does or refuses to do can have any material effect on whether these efforts succeed. If this is true, why should anyone, in or out of French government, care what French policy or rhetoric are? As a statement of irrelevance, Rumsfeld could not have done better. Somehow I don’t think the Elysee agrees.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:41:03 +0000

Certainly there are good reasons for not believing in an imminent Islamic uprising in the Hexagone, but ‘what happens in Paris doesn’t affect the rest of France’ isn’t one of them. I have to say- ratcheting things down a good deal from Friedman’s perfervid ramblings- the disaffection of the French Muslim population is certainly causing the French government problems, and it might well be that immigrant Muslim populations across Europe do become further radicalised by what is happening in Iraq. Not to the looney-tunes extent that Friedman forsees, but as an exaggeration of what is already happening- young Muslims, especially males, turning to radical Islamist groups. Friedman appears to see this process as another reason why we should all be jolly grateful to America, but I have to say it strikes me slightly differently.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Fri, 19 Sep 2003 14:43:05 +0000

I hoped I’d made it clear that I regard the idea that the French Islamic population is on the brink of violent revolution to be laughable, sorry.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Fri, 19 Sep 2003 14:35:21 +0000

>Friedman is possibly wrong, by the way, in claiming that “France, with its large Muslim minority”, would necessarily see its “social fabric” hugely affected by Islamic militancy; as a French acquaintance pointed out to me recently, the Islamic population of France is heavily concentrated in metropolitan Paris and Lyon, and France is actually a country of small towns.< I’m rather hoping this is irony, since there are at least 4 million Muslims in a French population of 58 million- too many to ignore. If this means ‘wait till the Muslims kick off and then barricade them in their banlieues’ that’s basically apartheid’s ‘homelands’ policy by another name, and you’d need a police state to even attempt it. Besides, I don’t think many of us read 18th, 19th and 20th century French history and come away thinking ‘yes, wasn’t it marvellous the way events in Paris never had any impact on the rest of the country.’

By: dsquared

dsquared — Fri, 19 Sep 2003 14:15:08 +0000

If you answer no, then you’ve got to come to grips with what France can and should do to help those efforts succeed. As I explained in the article, nothing France does or refuses to do can have any material effect on whether these efforts succeed. The only help France can give is to make eventual success or failure less politically and economically painful for the current governments of the USA and UK.

By: jamie

jamie — Fri, 19 Sep 2003 13:47:04 +0000

” Friedman wouldn’t disagree with you on your conclusion: this is certainly a “leadership” opportunity for France. France is, as Friedman argued, leading the way in opposition to the US position. That the opposition can’t, as you admit, be justified by reference to French interest in its own money or troops only means that French “leadership” is motivated by something else. IOW: You agree with Friedman, but find it a positive development.” As I understood his article, his notion was that France should use its status as leading refusenik to chivvy all the others into line behind the US format for international involvement. I don’t believe that not doing so constitutes emnity. It does provide cover for others in the coalition of the reluctant, hence the leadership opportunity. But this arises naturally out of these nations actual self interest and can be justified in those terms. There’s no contradiction involved. The bottom line is that the US and the UK have insisted on taking both power and responsibility in Iraq. No-one’s going to want to share the responsibility without sharing the power unless they want to be seen to be close to the US for other reasons (eg, as a counterweight to the Franco-German axis within an expanded EU). The sensible and cynical thing for the US to do if it really wants interntional involvement on its own terms would be to let Iraq rot until it threatens to destabilize Saudi Arabia. Then it’s a war for everybody’s oil.

By: Andrea Harris

Andrea Harris — Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:09:35 +0000

Amoeba said: “I listened to an interview with the French ambassador to the US on PBS yesterday. It was very clear -he said that they were requesting that a symbolic gesture be made that would confer more legitimacy to the council… He used the word ‘symbolic’ several times.” Good lord, of course he used the word “symbolic”! He’s French.