Note from the Foreign Service

Jorgen Sigvardsson

KaЯl wrote: Since 1789, the head of State don't like when too many French go in the streets to protest :rolleyes: Gillette, the best a man can get. :-D (No disrespect/offence intended.) KaЯl wrote: Why should it be different when it's about political leaders? There's this small matter of jurisdiction. Who's going to handle it? The US certainly shouldn't nor Iraq. So it should fall on UNs lap. But how on earth could such a jury/court be fair and/or decisive when no one can agree on anything? Another problem is getting Saddam to a trial. How are we supposed to get him? The only way is to use violence I'm afraid - he'll never surrender. And lastly; if he has nukes or other WMDs, can we allow him to just sit there? He has threatened to use it before. We know he's insane, and is apparently not afraid to press the big red button labeled "All Israels Base Are Belong To Us". (Note that I'm not the biggest fan of Israel, but they don't deserve whatever's on Saddams mind). Best thing would probably be to surround the bastard with tanks and drag him on his ass to Haag. Trial him and put him away for life. That includes his low life offspring which apparently are as brutal as he is. Then put some UN controlled installations in the country and work for a democracy. Putting US military installations there would not be the smartest thing IMHO. That would probably piss people like Usama off even more, and that's the last thing we want/need. Iraq could have been a flourishing country right now if it wasn't for Saddam. Instead of using Iraqs resources to build a strong fine nation, Saddam is plowing everything into his corrupted pockes and on weapons. That's truly a shame. :| And when the Iraqi crisis is solved, I think we should start solving the next thing; the Israeli/Palestinian issue. -- "And God said, Let us make man in our image"

Mike Gaskey

KaЯl wrote: Anyway. I simply responded to a Washington (Com)post article with one from the WSJ. I consider th Washingon (Com)post to be a liberal (leftist) rag and hold it in low esteem. Mike

DRHuff

So there are two extremely opposite views of the situation. At some point such extreme differences of view result in the two sides no longer being allies. Is this what Chirac and France want? The damage to Franco-US relations that his stance has done is incredible! The obstruction of NATO by France, Germany and Belgium may be a nail in the coffin of NATO - or it may result in a restructuring that exclude France and Germany (I am sure that Germany - with its high unemployment rate - wouldn't miss several billion dollars in US spending at all the military bases - noooo not at all!). Even my country (Canada) with its famous fence sitter of a Prime Minister agreed that Turkeys invocation of article 4 was reasonable and agreed to help. Is France expecting that when the war finally starts that they can quickly switch sides and be allowed in? The US will not let that happen now - it might have if they had come around after Powells UN presentation - but not now. From my point of view France is doing everything as an ally of Iraq and not as a supposed ally of the US. And as a certain president once said - If you not with us... Just my thought... Dave Huff Igor would you give me a hand with the bags? Certainly - you take the blonde and I'll take the one in the turban!

Ray Hayes

Chris Losinger wrote: China has now pledged to join Germany, France and Russia in opposing Bush's war. now, how do the pro-war people explain away China's position? China almost ALWAYS abstains from any vote. It'd be a small shift for them to vote against a resolution, but hardly as huge a shift it would be for them to vote for one. IMO, China only cares about two things... China and *free-trade* where China gets sales out of the argeement. Regards, Ray

KaRl

Dave Huff wrote: The damage to Franco-US relations that his stance has done is incredible! In our opinion, GWB made the first steps by pledging consistently the ties with the other allies, by his constant unilateral decisions and his refusal on hearing others arguments, and that far before the Iraq crisis. His intransigent behaviour doesn't give other alternative than submission or rebellion: Be my slave or my enemy. He makes a confusion between allies and vassals. NATO is not the Warsaw Pact. About the NATO incident, I was surprized yesterday never to read in anglo-saxon newspapers that the original rebuff of the three western nations are about a proposal made by the US, not by the Turkey. The invokation of the article 4 came after this (provocating a second refusal I don't understand) France left the NATO integrated command in '66, while staying in the Atlantic Alliance. I don't understand why we came back, we are able to protect us ourselves. Dave Huff wrote: Is France expecting that when the war finally starts that they can quickly switch sides and be allowed in It would have been possible one week ago, but IMO with the harsh reactions of the US France has no more choice than to stay on its position. Dave Huff wrote: If you not with us Life is not binary.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

KaRl

Ok. BTW, I would need to learn the political classification of US newspapers. Could you please indicate me some of them representating the different US opinions ? TIA.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Lost User

The question still in my mind is "If the US had a satellite photo of scud missiles, why didn't they tell the inspectors rather than reveal it at the UN 3 months later ?" Call me cynical but....... :suss: Elaine The tigress is here :-D

Lost User

There is another aspect to this. The US has a history of protecting dictators it has set up (not just them, but mostly so in the past half century). Europe has the international courts which has managed to put a few of those peole away in proper jails for the rest of their lives so others know that they can be caught and punished. If SH is captured, what will be done with him ? Let off and given somewhere nice to live or punished ? Also, the west has created and supported people like this. If we don't learn from this there will just be another later on :mad: Elaine The tigress is here :-D

Mike Gaskey

This would be just my opinion, but: Tending towards liberal bias: USA Today (moderately), New York Times, one of the most liberal, reports more or less fairly although with a bias and an agenda shown by article placement and editorial page. Problem here is many papers follow NYT's lead within a day. West coast papers in general, -> California, Washington State and Oregon. East coast papers to a degree. Tending towards conservative bias: Wall Street Journal Some Midwest papers, but it is spotty. Tend to be balanced in editorial sections with views from both sides of an issue. Again, many take their lead from NYT. Good starting point for conservative slant is Drudgreport.com In addition to headline URLs you'll find lists of pundits, all sides, and news feeds. Maybe other can share their views, re: outlets and bias Others will disagree, but print media (newpapers) in general tend towards liberal view Mike

KaRl

Thanks :)

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop