Zeev comments on 'blaming the French'
investorshub.com
<<...blaming the French
You said, "After that French threat, the war was inevitable". As though the the French veto threat occurred in a vacuum.
It didn't.
Let's not kid ourselves. This dispute, like so much else concerning our current "values" in this country was dictated by MONEY. Had the U.S. been willing to negotiate with the French and share in the post-war "booty", had the U.S. assured the French we wouldn't negate their economic interests in Iraq in favor of our own, they NEVER would have threatened veto.
Had Bush not surrounded himself with people so fundamentally arrogant, and so uninhibitedly greedy (yes, it is possible to be "greedy" about getting one's way 100%, greedy about not sharing power, as well as money -- although the inextricably linked network that installed young George really was looking at the $$).
Gordon Gecko was wrong. Greed is not good. It is destructive. Destructive of lives, but also souls.
It is now obvious that the neo-cons exercised the most crass form of ends-justifies-the-means rationalizing of everything about the Iraq invasion -- from lying to the American public about the basis, to inventing the "facts" upon which the invasion was allegedly driven. Had there been a little less greed and a lot more integrity among this morally and intellectually corrupt people, they would have diligently pursued the facts, and in so doing, would have discovered Saddam's deadly bluff for what it was -- a pure bluff. No immediate threat of WMDs, no immediate threat to anyone or anything.
There was time to construct a proper alliance -- and yes, all it would have taken was coallescing around the morally justifiable equation you pointed out in your post, that there was an inhumane butcher running that country, together with a reasonable plan to SHARE control over a region whose natural resources affect the national and economic security of all in Europe as well as here.
Do you think the French didn't have a price?
I respect you greatly, but you are being deluded by nonsensical after-the-fact rationalizations if you think the French didn't have a price.
Bush is an amateur in an adult's game, unable to see the blatant idiocies of a guy named Wolfowitz who has been so embarrassingly wrong for so long, every other President has known better than to take any of it at face value. Replay the statements made by Wolfowitz pre-war, re-read the garbage in his ivory tower delusional reports and you will see how completely, delusionally out of touch the guy is. Had Bush lived even a tiny fraction of his life in the real world, ever had to earn anything on his own, rather than having had it all handed to him, he would have learned the importance of compromise and working with others. He is fundamentally lacking in the skill sets necessary to deal in the adult world of international relations.
Blame the French? The French would have made a deal. You don't think Chirac wanted a way out? You don't think Chirac was SHOCKED not to have been offered a deal? Anyone with any experience in politics or international relations could see the dance. Why blame the French rather than the party that was holding all the cards and in the position to offer the deal? We created the game, and then we set the rules -- and literally made the rules to ensure the French couldn't possibly be with us. And that is their fault?...>> |
