US retaliation against France etc.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/10/international/middleeast/10DIPL.html?hp[^] I seem to recall one of the reliable defenders of US foreign policy in this forum ridiculing the idea that Colin Powell had threatened retaliation against France. Soapbox Link[^] John Carson
#1 - If you take the time to read my prior message in the same thread you'll see: "There are consequences for every action. Whether done by an individual or a country. Why should this be any different?" So don't pretend that I ever denied what Powell said or that there would be no consequences. In fact, if you read the article that you referenced you'll see: "The administration had warned before the war that countries that did not join in an American-led coalition would not have a voice in decisions about the rebuilding of Iraq." Why would anybody be surprised after the fact?? #2 - Now maybe you live in a world where your actions don't have consequences? I suppose that is more and more common in an increasingly socialist world atmosphere and with western courts overrun with frivolous litigation. Nobody is ever responsible, it's always someone else's fault. #3 - In the closed boardrooms of companies in France and Germany right now, I wonder if they blame the US administration or their own governments for denying them the opportunity to bid? You might be surprised. All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/10/international/middleeast/10DIPL.html?hp[^] I seem to recall one of the reliable defenders of US foreign policy in this forum ridiculing the idea that Colin Powell had threatened retaliation against France. Soapbox Link[^] John Carson
here's a little more on this. *edit* apparently it's crucial to the security of the US that we make every effort to publicly snub our allies. because, as previous posters have noted, if all the bad countries can still sub-contract, then they only real effect of this is as an insult. yessir, these guys are "grown-ups". and when did Wolfowitz become Sec of State and Treasury ? why does the DoDefense get to decide matters of commerce? whatta buncha fucktards. */edit* ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
#1 - If you take the time to read my prior message in the same thread you'll see: "There are consequences for every action. Whether done by an individual or a country. Why should this be any different?" So don't pretend that I ever denied what Powell said or that there would be no consequences. In fact, if you read the article that you referenced you'll see: "The administration had warned before the war that countries that did not join in an American-led coalition would not have a voice in decisions about the rebuilding of Iraq." Why would anybody be surprised after the fact?? #2 - Now maybe you live in a world where your actions don't have consequences? I suppose that is more and more common in an increasingly socialist world atmosphere and with western courts overrun with frivolous litigation. Nobody is ever responsible, it's always someone else's fault. #3 - In the closed boardrooms of companies in France and Germany right now, I wonder if they blame the US administration or their own governments for denying them the opportunity to bid? You might be surprised. All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
Mike Mullikin wrote: #1 - If you take the time to read my prior message in the same thread you'll see: "There are consequences for every action. Whether done by an individual or a country. Why should this be any different?" So don't pretend that I ever denied what Powell said or that there would be no consequences. What have you been smoking? I in fact replied to your "prior message" at the time you first posted it and in my reply I quoted the passage about consequences that you now quote. Consequences are not the same thing as retaliation. It is true that you did not deny what Powell had said, but don't pretend that I ever claimed that you did. You denied that his statements constituted a threat of retaliation. They did and now we have the retaliation as proof. Mike Mullikin wrote: Why would anybody be surprised after the fact?? Certainly not me. Mike Mullikin wrote: #2 - Now maybe you live in a world where your actions don't have consequences? I suppose that is more and more common in an increasingly socialist world atmosphere and with western courts overrun with frivolous litigation. Nobody is ever responsible, it's always someone else's fault. Gratuitous and irrelevant. John Carson
-
It's barely even a slap in the face. German, French, and Russian subcontrators can still work, just the companies running projects have to be from the coalition. Seems fair to me that these countries should get first dibs on contracts.
"Things are not what they seem. Nor are they any different."
brianwelsch wrote: Seems fair to me that these countries should get first dibs on contracts. First and last dibs apparently. John Carson
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: #1 - If you take the time to read my prior message in the same thread you'll see: "There are consequences for every action. Whether done by an individual or a country. Why should this be any different?" So don't pretend that I ever denied what Powell said or that there would be no consequences. What have you been smoking? I in fact replied to your "prior message" at the time you first posted it and in my reply I quoted the passage about consequences that you now quote. Consequences are not the same thing as retaliation. It is true that you did not deny what Powell had said, but don't pretend that I ever claimed that you did. You denied that his statements constituted a threat of retaliation. They did and now we have the retaliation as proof. Mike Mullikin wrote: Why would anybody be surprised after the fact?? Certainly not me. Mike Mullikin wrote: #2 - Now maybe you live in a world where your actions don't have consequences? I suppose that is more and more common in an increasingly socialist world atmosphere and with western courts overrun with frivolous litigation. Nobody is ever responsible, it's always someone else's fault. Gratuitous and irrelevant. John Carson
-
#1 - If you take the time to read my prior message in the same thread you'll see: "There are consequences for every action. Whether done by an individual or a country. Why should this be any different?" So don't pretend that I ever denied what Powell said or that there would be no consequences. In fact, if you read the article that you referenced you'll see: "The administration had warned before the war that countries that did not join in an American-led coalition would not have a voice in decisions about the rebuilding of Iraq." Why would anybody be surprised after the fact?? #2 - Now maybe you live in a world where your actions don't have consequences? I suppose that is more and more common in an increasingly socialist world atmosphere and with western courts overrun with frivolous litigation. Nobody is ever responsible, it's always someone else's fault. #3 - In the closed boardrooms of companies in France and Germany right now, I wonder if they blame the US administration or their own governments for denying them the opportunity to bid? You might be surprised. All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
Mike Mullikin wrote: Nobody is ever responsible, it's always someone else's fault how true. I've been singing this song for 3 years now:
It's never Bush's fault It's never Bush's fault No matter what happens It's never Bush's fault
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/10/international/middleeast/10DIPL.html?hp[^] I seem to recall one of the reliable defenders of US foreign policy in this forum ridiculing the idea that Colin Powell had threatened retaliation against France. Soapbox Link[^] John Carson
Oh god. Don't you even know that he meant military retaliation!?!?!??! THe US government has said from the beginning that we would bar from participation in rebuilding Iraq those pro-dictator nations that attempted to use diplomacy to continue the subjugation of the Iraqi people! Of course we would stop Syria, North Korea and France from participation. Help me Jeebus.
-
Brit wrote: On one hand, it's a slap to France, Germany, and Russia. On the other, those countries ended up with the same number of rebuilding contracts as they would've if the second Gulf War had never happened. I accept your point. It would be a little tacky for any of the three countries to be complaining too loudly about missing out on economic opportunities resulting from a war they opposed. Nevertheless, the retaliatory action reinforces the beliefs already held by many around the world about the Bush Administration, i.e., that it has no respect for the opinions of other countries and considers that acquiescence to US policy is the only acceptable foreign policy stance for other countries to adopt. John Carson
John Carson wrote: Nevertheless, the retaliatory action reinforces the beliefs already held by many around the world about the Bush Administration, i.e., that it has no respect for the opinions of other countries I think you do a disservice to people of other countries. You are assuming they are too stupid to understand that not giving economic opportunities to countries that attempted to extend the rule of Saddam Hussein has nothing to do with "respecting" other nations and everything to do with simple fairness. Why give huge contracts to a country that refused to help liberate the Iraqi people? Those contracts should go to the nations that actually took the effort to remove a brutal dictator.
-
Brit wrote: those countries ended up with the same number of rebuilding contracts as they would've if So the administration actually went out of its way to act like a petulant child? "you can't play with my toys! nyah nyah!" Does anyone still wonder why people are critical of US foreign policy?
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel Ferguson wrote: Does anyone still wonder why people are critical of US foreign policy? Of course not - there are several million people like you all too willing to twist the meanings of the actions of the USA and spread it like an oil slick over the consciousness of stupid people who are all to ready to accept your tawdry explanations. Look - There is a homicidal maniac holed up in his house. You, as a good neighbor, decide to drag him out and beat him to death. Across the street from you is another neighbor. This one is a snivelling little fuck who keeps telling you to leave his firend - the maniac - alone. He keeps whining and wiping his runny nose and crying to everyone who will listen "Oooh that bully isn't so bad. Just leave him alone. Eventually he'll go away if you just ignore him". Since you have common sense, you ignore the snivelling little fuck and knock on the maniacs door and tell him to come out now - he is under arrest. In response, you hear the maniac barricading himself in and you hear weapons being loaded. So you kick in his door and drag him out. Now you have a house with a broken door and the snivelling neighbor from earlier wants you to pay him money to fix the door?!?!??! Yeah right. If people are so stupid that they think the US is acting childish by not awarding contracts to the nations that supported our enemy during the war then fine. They are too fucking stupid for me to care about. Sure - it is hip to insult the USA. It is cool to be the rebel, etc. But by calling our policy of trying to reward the countries that actually *HELPED* childish, you aren't coming off as the smartest person.
-
Oh god. Don't you even know that he meant military retaliation!?!?!??! THe US government has said from the beginning that we would bar from participation in rebuilding Iraq those pro-dictator nations that attempted to use diplomacy to continue the subjugation of the Iraqi people! Of course we would stop Syria, North Korea and France from participation. Help me Jeebus.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Oh god. Don't you even know that he meant military retaliation!?!?!??! No I don't know that. Nobody was interpreting Powell's remarks as suggesting that the US was about to start a war against France and the rest. Such an interpretation would be absurd. John Carson
-
here's a little more on this. *edit* apparently it's crucial to the security of the US that we make every effort to publicly snub our allies. because, as previous posters have noted, if all the bad countries can still sub-contract, then they only real effect of this is as an insult. yessir, these guys are "grown-ups". and when did Wolfowitz become Sec of State and Treasury ? why does the DoDefense get to decide matters of commerce? whatta buncha fucktards. */edit* ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: apparently it's crucial to the security of the US that we make every effort to publicly snub our allies. With allies like them, who needs enemies? They did everything short of attacking us in an attempt to make us lose the war. Russian and French military advisors were scurrying out of Baghdad like a bunch of cockroaches just prior to the invasion. I wish we didn't give them the back-channel heads up. Sure, France and Germany are NATO members. I guess that makes them our military allies by definition. But I don't believe for a second France would honor it's NATO commitments. They would be too busy trying to sell their crappy Mirage fighters to whoever NATO was fighting and then complaining about the fact that they didn't get rebuilding contracts after NATO won the war.
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Oh god. Don't you even know that he meant military retaliation!?!?!??! No I don't know that. Nobody was interpreting Powell's remarks as suggesting that the US was about to start a war against France and the rest. Such an interpretation would be absurd. John Carson
I figured he must have meant military retaliation since it was already common knowledge that non-military retaliation via the contract-awardal system would be implemented. To me, that only left room for military retaliation. Why would Mike talk about there being no retaliation (in the non-military sense) when he already knew there *would* be retaliation (in the non-military sense)? Because of this logical inconsistency, I took the "retaliation" in question to mean military retaliation.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: apparently it's crucial to the security of the US that we make every effort to publicly snub our allies. With allies like them, who needs enemies? They did everything short of attacking us in an attempt to make us lose the war. Russian and French military advisors were scurrying out of Baghdad like a bunch of cockroaches just prior to the invasion. I wish we didn't give them the back-channel heads up. Sure, France and Germany are NATO members. I guess that makes them our military allies by definition. But I don't believe for a second France would honor it's NATO commitments. They would be too busy trying to sell their crappy Mirage fighters to whoever NATO was fighting and then complaining about the fact that they didn't get rebuilding contracts after NATO won the war.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: They did everything short of attacking us in an attempt to make us lose the war. taking extra vitamin-Hyperbole these days? tell me what Canada, Sweden and Finland (to pick three) did to "make us lose the war" ? were they blockading our ships? we're they cutting off food and supplies ? were they boycotting us? were they jamming our communications ? none of those countries are eleigible to compete for contracts in Iraq, and neither are India, China, Korea, Mexico, Norway, Brazil, Argentina, or dozens of other countries. tell me, what did Greece and Switzerland do to "make us lose the war" . RTFDocument, this isn't about Germany, France and Russia. ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
John Carson wrote: Nevertheless, the retaliatory action reinforces the beliefs already held by many around the world about the Bush Administration, i.e., that it has no respect for the opinions of other countries I think you do a disservice to people of other countries. You are assuming they are too stupid to understand that not giving economic opportunities to countries that attempted to extend the rule of Saddam Hussein has nothing to do with "respecting" other nations and everything to do with simple fairness. Why give huge contracts to a country that refused to help liberate the Iraqi people? Those contracts should go to the nations that actually took the effort to remove a brutal dictator.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: I think you do a disservice to people of other countries. You are assuming they are too stupid to understand that not giving economic opportunities to countries that attempted to extend the rule of Saddam Hussein has nothing to do with "respecting" other nations and everything to do with simple fairness. Your characterisation of what I am "assuming" is very wide of the mark. Terry O`Nolley wrote: Why give huge contracts to a country that refused to help liberate the Iraqi people? Those contracts should go to the nations that actually took the effort to remove a brutal dictator. The Iraqi people may be liberated. I hope so. But it hasn't happened yet. Why give contracts to these countries? Well...why conduct any international trade with them? Perhaps a trade embargo would be in order? (I actually suspect we will see some action on the trade front.) The point is that the US is awarding commercial contracts based on non-commercial principles. It is adopting a deliberate policy of economic punishment of those who didn't support its foreign policy. Nobody is suggesting that France and the rest should be given any favours. Merely that they should be able to compete on an even commercial basis. The extent of US intolerance toward any disagreement is shown in the fact that Canada is on the list of banned countries, in spite of the fact that Canada played no role in the Security Council and has contributed more than $190 million toward Iraqi reconstruction. With your US-centric perspective, I guess you think it is OK for the US to use economic means to reward and punish other countries for their foreign policy. Such an approach has a legitimate place in relation to countries that are fundamentally hostile to the US. But it is also being applied to countries that are fundamentally allies of the US --- democratic Western countries. Such countries are entitled to draw the inference that the US does not consider that it has any allies --- only foreign powers to be coerced. This attitude on the part of the Bush Administration is both offensive and dumb. John Carson
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote: Does anyone still wonder why people are critical of US foreign policy? Of course not - there are several million people like you all too willing to twist the meanings of the actions of the USA and spread it like an oil slick over the consciousness of stupid people who are all to ready to accept your tawdry explanations. Look - There is a homicidal maniac holed up in his house. You, as a good neighbor, decide to drag him out and beat him to death. Across the street from you is another neighbor. This one is a snivelling little fuck who keeps telling you to leave his firend - the maniac - alone. He keeps whining and wiping his runny nose and crying to everyone who will listen "Oooh that bully isn't so bad. Just leave him alone. Eventually he'll go away if you just ignore him". Since you have common sense, you ignore the snivelling little fuck and knock on the maniacs door and tell him to come out now - he is under arrest. In response, you hear the maniac barricading himself in and you hear weapons being loaded. So you kick in his door and drag him out. Now you have a house with a broken door and the snivelling neighbor from earlier wants you to pay him money to fix the door?!?!??! Yeah right. If people are so stupid that they think the US is acting childish by not awarding contracts to the nations that supported our enemy during the war then fine. They are too fucking stupid for me to care about. Sure - it is hip to insult the USA. It is cool to be the rebel, etc. But by calling our policy of trying to reward the countries that actually *HELPED* childish, you aren't coming off as the smartest person.
Well said. You got my +5 Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy **"could a country (USA) letting one sixth of its population under the level of powerty be considered as civilized?"**KaЯl (France let 15,000 elderly die from summer heat)
-
here's a little more on this. *edit* apparently it's crucial to the security of the US that we make every effort to publicly snub our allies. because, as previous posters have noted, if all the bad countries can still sub-contract, then they only real effect of this is as an insult. yessir, these guys are "grown-ups". and when did Wolfowitz become Sec of State and Treasury ? why does the DoDefense get to decide matters of commerce? whatta buncha fucktards. */edit* ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: it's crucial to the security of the US that we make every effort to publicly snub our allies Which allies are you referring to? France, against evrything American. Germany, sell us out for an election. Russia, bankrupt financially morally / and a 50 year+ enemy. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy **"could a country (USA) letting one sixth of its population under the level of powerty be considered as civilized?"**KaЯl (France let 15,000 elderly die from summer heat)
-
Chris Losinger wrote: it's crucial to the security of the US that we make every effort to publicly snub our allies Which allies are you referring to? France, against evrything American. Germany, sell us out for an election. Russia, bankrupt financially morally / and a 50 year+ enemy. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy **"could a country (USA) letting one sixth of its population under the level of powerty be considered as civilized?"**KaЯl (France let 15,000 elderly die from summer heat)
Are you willing to say that Canada, Korea and Mexico are "against evrything American" and are "enemies" ? Well, yeah, you probably are. Nevermind... Read the document this is all based on. This isn't about France, Germany and Russia; those countries are not mentioned in Wolfowitz's document. The countries that are mentioned are those included in the "coalition". All countries not mentioned are (by definition of "include") excluded from bidding on contracts. ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
I figured he must have meant military retaliation since it was already common knowledge that non-military retaliation via the contract-awardal system would be implemented. To me, that only left room for military retaliation. Why would Mike talk about there being no retaliation (in the non-military sense) when he already knew there *would* be retaliation (in the non-military sense)? Because of this logical inconsistency, I took the "retaliation" in question to mean military retaliation.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: I took the "retaliation" in question to mean military retaliation. You are partially correct. I consider denying non-coalition business a chance at major rebuild contracts a consequence of their pre-war stance, not retaliation (especially since we told them up front). As John said military retaliation against them would be absurd, however, if the US held non-coalition country's position against them in areas completely unrelated to Iraq (or terrorism in general) then it would be retaliation and IMO would be uncalled for. For instance, if the US created tariffs on non-coalition imports or denied visas to non-coalition citizens, etc... All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: it's crucial to the security of the US that we make every effort to publicly snub our allies Which allies are you referring to? France, against evrything American. Germany, sell us out for an election. Russia, bankrupt financially morally / and a 50 year+ enemy. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy **"could a country (USA) letting one sixth of its population under the level of powerty be considered as civilized?"**KaЯl (France let 15,000 elderly die from summer heat)
Mike Gaskey wrote: Which allies are you referring to? France, against evrything American. Germany, sell us out for an election. This is remarkably shallow. France is a democratic country that respects human rights. Likewise Germany. The fact that they didn't jump to start a war against a country that posed no imminent threat to any other country is not surprising and would barely call for comment if not for the "we rule the world" complex of so many in the US. It certainly doesn't disqualify them from being allies. The original reasons for the Iraq war having proven bogus (i.e., weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi links to anti-US terrorism, and support for the resolutions of the UN), it is now being re-cast as a war to liberate the Iraqi people. What if France decided to liberate the people of Uzbekistan, or of Saudi Arabia, or of any of dozens of other undemocratic countries that torture and abuse their citizens? Would the US jump in to support it? I seem to recall that the invasion of various Western countries by Adolf Hitler wasn't reason enough for the US to intervene militarily on their side until the US was itself attacked by Japan. So where do all these expectations come from that other countries should immediately fall into line in support of a US-initiated war just because the US cooks up some bogus intelligence? John Carson
-
Chris Losinger wrote: apparently it's crucial to the security of the US that we make every effort to publicly snub our allies. With allies like them, who needs enemies? They did everything short of attacking us in an attempt to make us lose the war. Russian and French military advisors were scurrying out of Baghdad like a bunch of cockroaches just prior to the invasion. I wish we didn't give them the back-channel heads up. Sure, France and Germany are NATO members. I guess that makes them our military allies by definition. But I don't believe for a second France would honor it's NATO commitments. They would be too busy trying to sell their crappy Mirage fighters to whoever NATO was fighting and then complaining about the fact that they didn't get rebuilding contracts after NATO won the war.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: They did everything short of attacking us in an attempt to make us lose the war. Talk about twisting the truth. There's a difference between not wanting someone to go to war and losing a war. VERY BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE. -- 20 eyes in my head, they're all the same![^]