Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (84161)	3/20/2003 10:54:21 AM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

But to call the US actions "principled" and the French actions "unprincipled" is, in my view, to fall into the binary logic trap that fascinates the Bush folk. I dont actually have that view. The action in Iraq springs from a variety of interests as you listed (though you were missing a couple that I would have put there, concern about WMD, desire to nurture democracy/freedom in the ME).....but not all of them are principled. Here's the thing, we ARE paying a price for our actions. We are going to have to pay a much higher portion of the cost for the war and the reconstruction, worldwide public opinion of the US has dropped, Blair's political foundation has become shaky....etc. Many of these things could have gone profoundly differently if France hadnt worked so hard to oppose us. What price has France paid? Not much that I can tell. They decided to oppose our resolutions as strongly as we supported them, in a matter that has at least some impact on our National Security and not much on France's. There will be a cost.... Slacker

To: JohnM who wrote (84161)	3/20/2003 11:07:34 AM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

<<<My own uneducated guess is that their actions, like the actions of all great powers, were profoundly mixed. I don't think, for instance, that one can characterize the US actions as "principled." Rather as a mix of great power politics (the neocon statements about keeping all other powers secondary), cleaning up old messes (their view that the first Gulf War failed), revenge (for the unsuccessful attempt to assassinate GHWB), concern for the stability of the world economy (oil), anti-Clinton sentiment (their view of the need for a dramatic demonstration that the new US policy is to use weapons rather than have them as diplomatic tools), their view that fear is the most prominent ingredient in foreign policy calculations (again, the need to demonstrate a willingness to use the weapons), etc. I could go on. But to call the US actions "principled" and the French actions "unprincipled" is, in my view, to fall into the binary logic trap that fascinates the Bush folk.>>> John, I think you make things more complicated just to have something to discuss and to bring politics in stronger than is needed Its all very simple, no politics needed on the side of the US, the decision having been made to dis-arm Saddam for plentiful reasons. France objected for their own very good reasons were never stated outright but which will be made clearer .when we get a look Iraqi paperwork. The only thing that facinates the Bush folks at this time is winning with few losses. Its the people hired by the Bush team to present the decisions in a way acceptable to the public that may confuse things and lead to suspicians of deception. Try to trust the words of Rumsfeld and Bush directly as they come Sig

To: JohnM who wrote (84161)	3/20/2003 12:41:11 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

On the French, slacker, I have no serious idea as to what their intentions, motives, or otherwise were. Financial. Pure and simple. See my other posts here on that issue. The other aspect, though probably of lesser importance IMO, is that there are a number of Iraquis in France, and they may have feared internal terrorism if they publicly supported the war. But they could have just kept quiet and probably not incited hostility among local Iraquis. (Many of those Iraquis are dissidents, of course, many or most of whom probably support the war, but France's opposition to the war is not likely to incite them to terrorism, whereas support of the war might incite some of the Arab population to terrorism.) But in the end, I believe it is simply a combination of being fearful of being pushed off the world power stage by the US combined with very hefty economic interests in keeping Saddam in power and keeping the economic benefits of having him buy from France and not from the US.