Anti-Americanism

Roel wrote:

Isn't it convenient when the independent thinkers and the "herd" come to the same conclusion?

Elite can refer to the rich and powerful, as you use the term, or to the intelligentsia, the intellectual elite of a country. That is the way I am using the term.

Obviously we shall have to agree to disagree on this issue of anti Americanisn: correct position or not? inasmuch as our positions are entrenched and it is based on a subjective determination.

Can you have free trade where one side is compelled to trade with the other? Perhaps you should define what you mean by free trade?

 

I still don't trust them "Red-Chinese" and my dad told me stories about those dirty North-Koreans from 1951.
(If my comments are seen unfavorably by any Red-Chinese or dirty North-Koreans, I apologise in advance.

Tim--tonque in cheek.

 

Grieg, I believe you are missing the point. This is not an attack on free trade. What I am questioning is the nature of this boycott. This informal boycott was used to "punish" a country for their desire not to go to war, how can that be justified? I'm glad the majority of these people have no power in politics. France and the US have had a long, friendly relationship and why destroy that because they don't want to get involved in a bloody war, a war with questionable pretenses none the less? I'm sure they have seen enough bloodshed in the last century to last them several lifetimes.

I was trying to get at the US's foreign policy which is ruining so much global cooperation that many past presidents worked so meticulosly at. If I may recall that jab at Dennis Miller I posted earlier because US foreign policy does not make much sense to me.

IMO, foreign policy should be used towards keeping friends, not gaining enemies. :-?

 

>By the way, Stonewall, have you heard anything about the Chinese Defense Minister's speech for "lebensraum" on the China National station?

Yep

http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopi ... 06&start=0

I started a thread about it..

 

Yeah the minority left here loves the EU left...

The minority Right there loves the right here.

The left protests vocally in the street, the right uses money to make its point.

The centerest majority is never heard anywhere..

 

Zhukov 2003 wrote:

When the question is asked "how free is the trade..if one can boycott certain products?" then the question I'm adressing isn't misssing the point.
Free trade by definition requires two (or more) willing participants. If one isn't free to buy or not buy products as they choose then it isn't free trade.

That is your take on it. Others feel like the French and Germans were being obstructionist because freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam's tyranny would threaten their entrenched self interests. Economic pressure is the "civilized" way to apply pressure. Of course it only works in certain instances. Saddam was nearly immune to that pressure because so much of the world (especially in Europe) knew their was money to be made by trading with him.

Beside the point IMO..that was then..this is now. Different situation, different participants.

I understand that. It doesn't make sense to you. That doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense

The "friendship" you refer to wasn't so valuable to the French and Germans that they weren't willing to jeopardize it. We didn't need France or Germany to go to war..all they needed to do was not actively oppose US foreign policy. They chose another path. If consequences come with that decision ...c'est la vie..they must accept that just as the US must accept the difficulties and consequences resulting from the decision to depose Saddam.

 

If I may digress - self-interest was no doubt a part of the reason for the Germans and French to decide against war in Iraq; however it seemed also to be the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the voters in these countries that war (in Iraq) should be avoided. If the interests of a country's wealthy people happens to meet with the opinion of the voting masses then you can't hold self-interest against them. Instead of bowing to the will of the almighty US just to make sure they will remain friends, like the Netherlands did, France and Germany took a stand for their opinion; as an aside they also had something to gain from it.

Besides, whatever the economic reasons, the decision to stay out of the war fits perfectly in the policies of the two countries involved. For France because this country is concerned mostly with the best way to grasp and hold economic power; where this power comes from or how it is brought to France is not their concern since they aren't as idealist as for example the US. For Germany, because this country is overwhelmingly pacifist and has more than enough trouble at home to deal with.

 

yeah- We have all read about Elf oil and Jaques ChIraq...

Serious economic reasons, payolla and graft

 

Roel wrote:

Was a referendum held?

The "almighty US" ? How does such a characterization add to the debate or does it detract from it by using inflammatory rhetoric? I'm certain that the Netherlands had motives beyond just a wish to please the US especially in light of the extent of anti US opinion that you have convinced me is present there.

Not a problem since the US didn't need military assistance from either country. Staying out of the war was not a controversial decision as viewed from the US however openly opposing US policy was.

 

No, but all the polls I've seen were anti-war...

The addition of the word "almighty" was to make sure that the Netherlands looked sufficiently cowardly, because all except for a negligible minority of the people I've spoken to here were against the war in Iraq yet the government went ahead sending occupation troops anyway and supporting the US in its policy. Motives for this were, IIRC, simply to stay friends with the US (or as the government said, to "stay true to your alliances").

Agreeing with the policy but not helping didn't seem to be much of an option, the US adopting a "either you're with us or against us" stance...

In all decisions and the formation of all opinions at least where I live, agreeing with the policy and actually sending in troops have been united under the same camp because of this phrase from G.W. Bush.

 

One could point out that we have already discussed this for a long time over in a topic dedicated to the Iraq war - and in that topic it was pointed out that France & Germany were actually sticking by the UN Resolutions made after the previous Gulf War when they said 'don't invade yet, you must jump through this hoop first'.

Could we please get back to the topic in hand and if we must discuss the Iraq war, then do so in the appropriate topic.

 

Je m'excuse, I got a little carried away in this digression...

 

Simply out of curiosity, may I ask what self interests you are referring to here, Grieg?

 

Elf Oil and Jaques ChIraq

The investigation into corruption at TotalFinaElf has been going on for eight years. Magistrates have filed a report that names close to 40 executives, politicians and middlemen that were part of a network that took nearly three billion francs in kickbacks from Elf in the early 1990s. The case, which is set to conclude in the next two months, has so far used the services of over 80 lawyers.

Investigative judge Eva Joly, who presided over the case in 1994, has written a book on the trial since her retirement last year. In extracts published in the French press she speaks of the case being hampered by government resistance, claims she received death threats and is now protected by bodyguards around the clock. The book, which was due out June 19, was the subject of a temporary ban until July 7 when the defence were due to present their closing statements in the trial. The book, “Is this the world we want to live in?”, argues that France is institutionally corrupt.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=+Eva+Joly+Elf

Google Eva Joly Elf Oil

Somehow you missed this?

 

[/quote]

No actually not, newspapers were full of it over the past years,but what's the link with Iraq.... :-?

 

google :

Elf Oil Iraq

or Elf Oil for Food

?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& ... l+for+food

billions for ChIraq

 

Well sorry, but that does really not help me further in any way....

A part from some websites with a clear pro Bush/pro war agenda, claiming that France is the root of all evil in Iraq and possibly in the world, I get nothing....
Those are the same kind of sources that claimed 2 years ago that France had delivered missiles to Saddam until 2002, or that Saddam was only some months away from having the atomic bomb and surely was having other WMD....

Could you clearely specify what exactly President Chirac has to do with the oil for food programm?

Or TFE for that matter....??

Or what are the oh so important french interests in Iraq....??

 

?

$$

 

Any actual links though?

 

Finally, the report on the Oil for food scandal by the Volcker comission is out.

It states that all security council members(US, UK, Russia, China and France) repeatedly looked the other way as the smuggling took place and sometimes even actively supported the practice as a way to compensate Iraq's neighbours who suffered from the sanctions.

It absolutely makes no mention about some the Chirac/TotalFinaElf implications you were referring to.

On the contrary it states that France and french companies fully cooperated with the investigation.On the contrary, Russia and China refused requests for information or acess to state owned companies implicated with the probe.