+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Feb 14th New York Post (/thread-12104.html)
Pages:
1
2
Feb 14th New York Post - Grumpy - 02-14-2003
Anyone see the front of the post today? Apparently, even former mayor Kotch is sayiong the French would all speak German without us and we should now stop buying any products imported from France.
I have yet to understand why other nations are obligated to fall in line with US foreign policy. Can anyone explain this to me please? I am seriously confused.
I'll describe the front of the Post in a bit if anyone seems interested, but for the moment I wanted to hold off.
Feb 14th New York Post - Jarulf - 02-14-2003
>Anyone see the front of the post today? Apparently,
>even former mayor Kotch is sayiong the French would
>all speak German
One see better arguments in kindergarten :)
By that reasoning USA would not even exist and still be a colonial part of Great Britain.
Feb 14th New York Post - Occhidiangela - 02-14-2003
Leadership is not always easy, and sometimes, leading is asking people to trust that where you are going is the right place to go, and to be. In many regards, going back to the founding of the UN, the leadership of the US has been a given for "the free world." That had to do with where the world was headed, tyranny or freer and open societies. Some in America do not feel we should wear that mantle unless people elsewhere are begging us to do so, and others feel that such an approach is not leading, it is reacting.
What the administration is attempting to do is to lead some Doubting Thomas nations to a successful attempt to restore confidence that when a UN Security Council resolution is violated, repeatedly, there are serious consequences. As we can see by following the press, with less than spectacular success.
What makes it a bit contentious at this point, in the here and now, is that since 1993, the resolve to do so had been waning, and most particularly since 1998, when the Security Council's inspectors were sent home, under the nose of and with the support of Russia and France, both security council members. The signal sent was that the UN Security Council demands won't be backed up credibly. Yet the terms of the armistice of 1991, wherein the UN forces led by the US agreed to stop blowing things up in Iraq if
X, Y, Z conditions were met
still have not been met, and don't appear to some to have any hope of ever being met.
It is tough to re ignite an interest in doing the hard thing once such interest has lapsed. You yourself, and others, certainly have posted on the Lounge that you see there being no need to do so.
Mayor Koch, it appears, having seen the world from a big picture view a few times, may understand, or sympathize with, what President Bush is trying to do. Get something difficult and necessary done.
Could the rhetoric, particularly the public rhetoric from Washington, have been more elegant?
For sure.
Mayhap the Mayor sees things from a perspective that tells him something differently than what your perspective tells you. (You live in New York, right?)
Feb 14th New York Post - Guest - 02-14-2003
Poloticians often dont make sense(ie logic behind his request), when they speak, but surprisingly they are sometimes right in the big picture.
Iraq has clearly violated the resolution, but France would like to turn a blind eye, because they have a profitable relationship with Iraq.
If France had stood up before and said "let Iraq alone" " they are not a problem". They would have a legitimate postion. I would disagree with it, but it would make sense.
Thats not the case. For various reason Geramany(populist Govt), France(money) and Russia(maybe money maybe just looking tough) are ignoring clear violations of a resolution they agreed to.
Ignoring your own resolution hurts you far more in the long run than making no resolution at all does.
Feb 14th New York Post - Caesar - 02-16-2003
Jarulf,Feb 14 2003, 04:41 PM Wrote:>Anyone see the front of the post today? Apparently,Sure, it's not a good argument, but it is true isn't it? :P
>even former mayor Kotch is sayiong the French would
>all speak German
One see better arguments in kindergarten :)
By that reasoning USA would not even exist and still be a colonial part of Great Britain.
Feb 14th New York Post - Jarulf - 02-16-2003
Caesar,Feb 16 2003, 03:55 AM Wrote:Well to start it is one of those things you can never tell if it is true or not. Apart from that you can always come up with an "if..." that suits you. Typicaly ignoring all the other millions of "if..." that probably gave different results. What if some roman emperor hadn't fought [insert favorite enemy], should we then all be say arab and USA not even exist. Should we due to that for ever dance to the pipes of Italy? That is idiotical argumentation that typically gain nothing (except from blinded bystanders that would follow and believe in anything).Jarulf,Feb 14 2003, 04:41 PM Wrote:>Anyone see the front of the post today? Apparently,Sure, it's not a good argument, but it is true isn't it? :P
>even former mayor Kotch is sayiong the French would
>all speak German
One see better arguments in kindergarten :)
By that reasoning USA would not even exist and still be a colonial part of Great Britain.
Feb 14th New York Post - Taeme - 02-16-2003
Quote:I have yet to understand why other nations are obligated to fall in line with US foreign policy. Can anyone explain this to me please? I am seriously confused.
They're not.
American interests, in this situation, have failed to convey themselves as important enough for the world to fall in line. The arguments involved and the current American government do little to convince people around the world of the supposed dire necessity of the situation. In fact, faith in the US has been on the decline for many years and this is simply shows the signs of the issue. I'm not talking about the French their, either, but all over the world.
Politics is supposed to be a game of manipulating other people to see your viewpoint. There are good politics and there are bad politics. In this case, many people have simply ceased to see or understand the importance of getting people to see your way of thinking and have become so vexed as to begin spewing nonsense and propaganda whenever the issue comes up. Thusly few people are convinced, and the world's alliances continue to decay, with no advantage or benefit to anyone involved.
As to these supposed issues of French fiancial gain, it shocks me as to the hypocrisy of those who bring it up when they defended American interests as being purely altruistic in the past. Since both governments have a past precedent for doing and allowing horrible, wicked things in the name of the almighty dollar, it shocks me anyone should get upset or try to use that argument as a lynchpin.
(BTW, the Russians do have firm fiancial interests in Iraq remaining as it is. Lots of debts and deals they would like to collect on)
Feb 14th New York Post - Caesar - 02-17-2003
Jarulf,Feb 16 2003, 05:16 AM Wrote:I agree. The argument is idiotical. But I think they're not really debating the truth of it, so much as saying "France owes America big time", which, I think is a bit less controversial a statement (although, again, who knows?).Caesar,Feb 16 2003, 03:55 AM Wrote:Well to start it is one of those things you can never tell if it is true or not. Apart from that you can always come up with an "if..." that suits you. Typicaly ignoring all the other millions of "if..." that probably gave different results. What if some roman emperor hadn't fought [insert favorite enemy], should we then all be say arab and USA not even exist. Should we due to that for ever dance to the pipes of Italy? That is idiotical argumentation that typically gain nothing (except from blinded bystanders that would follow and believe in anything).Jarulf,Feb 14 2003, 04:41 PM Wrote:>Anyone see the front of the post today? Apparently,Sure, it's not a good argument, but it is true isn't it? :P
>even former mayor Kotch is sayiong the French would
>all speak German
One see better arguments in kindergarten :)
By that reasoning USA would not even exist and still be a colonial part of Great Britain.
I think even that, though, still misses the mark. Even if France does owe America it doesn't necessarily follow that they should be forced to compromise their beliefs. I give France a lot of credit for standing up to America. On the other hand, I wonder how pure her intentions are...
I think at the end of the day all of this arguing is pretty idiotic at some level or another and almost any charge you bring against another country can be brought against yours as well. Unfortunately, people don't realize that. And I suppose it's that kind of blindness to one's own faults that brings about situations like this in the first place. Ah well... c'est la vie. :P
Feb 14th New York Post - Whiggles - 02-17-2003
Caesar,Feb 16 2003, 02:55 AM Wrote:It's true to some extent, but in my opinion irrelevant. Like Caesar says, whatever the US did in the past for France should not dictate French foreign policy. If you use the "they owe it" attitude, you're arguing along the lines that something should only be done if you're going to get something in return. Let's also not forget that the liberation as France (which the Canadians and British had a hand in too, last time I checked ;)) was important not just for France but from a tactical standpoint for the whole on a wider scale.Jarulf,Feb 14 2003, 04:41 PM Wrote:>Anyone see the front of the post today? Apparently,Sure, it's not a good argument, but it is true isn't it? :P
>even former mayor Kotch is sayiong the French would
>all speak German
One see better arguments in kindergarten :)
By that reasoning USA would not even exist and still be a colonial part of Great Britain.
Feb 14th New York Post - A.PLH - 02-18-2003
as someone has already pointed out, saying france owes the US is very flawed. history can be twisted any way. it could be said that france owes russia(and should take the same stance as them) because the russians fought the germans on the oh so important second front. it could be said that the US owes france(and shouldn't be bad mouthing them) , because without some of the things the french did in the early half of the 20th century, who knows where the US would be. it could even be said that the US owes japan(and thus should be concentrating on n.korea) for getting them into ww2, and securing their place in the world. are any of these nessicarily right? no, but they are about as right as france owing the US.
i don't see how trying to hurt the economies of france and germany will help the war against terrorism, which is suposed to be the main goal of the US. who cares if every country supports the war.
Feb 14th New York Post - Occhidiangela - 02-18-2003
Let's see, Hitler and Stalin started roughing it up around 1941. Americans land in Africa 1942, Italy 1943, and finally France in 1944. Hell, France was the Thrid Front, since the Second Front was Chruchills "soft Underbelly of Europe."
(Hmm, that belly surely had a lot of hard mountains, last I checked, one particular mountain called Monte Cassino . . .)
Anyhoo, if people are going to bring up "you owe us from WW II" the argument gets sort of old.
We were the ones who
Bailed Out On The League Of Nations! Even though our leader, Wilson, was one of its biggest proponents, our Congress bailed for a variety of reasons.
So, if we dig up one old nasty historical skeleton, rest assured some one else will dig another.
What is going on here is all about the future. That is the important point. It is about the future of the international community of nations, such as it is.
Feb 14th New York Post - Taeme - 02-18-2003
Well, if it's of interest to you Occhi, you may enjoy this one.
France==USA???
Basically Chirac goes nuts and lets a huge pile of ugliness fly. I was sorta respecting the French before this, but now, now they just look like a bunch of ... Well, I won't say :)
Bad times for the French, anyways.
Feb 14th New York Post - Grumpy - 02-18-2003
Thanks for the responses...the front of the Post shows a picture of a UN meeting, with weasel heads photo shopped in over the heads of the attendees from France and Germany.
Our media is no longer "liberal". If I hear this one more time I might throw up. Our media, more than ever before, walks the party line, stays with the status quo. American newspapers, and TV are no longer a reliable source of information....assumeing they ever were.
Yes Ochi, I live in New York. I understand what terrorism is. I understand what Bush wants to stop.
IMO, until the USA stops acting like Earths bully, stops interefereing in the politics, economics and societies of people who want nothing to do with us....there will be terrorism attacks against this country. If we destroy every last Iraqi soldier, citizen and politician, attacks will increase! I'll bet cash on it.
Our foreign policy is moronic. Our government is moronic. Our president is a country bumkin, rifle totan, pick up driving, undeducated hill billy. He is an embaressment. Our Media is telling the Great Lie to the people. As far as I can tell, the people are lapping it up.
Feb 14th New York Post - SwissMercenary - 02-18-2003
You dig up one WW II skeleton, and Russia can dig up 15.
Every single country influences every other country. You can't go saying: "I did this for you 80 years ago, so you do this for me". It's just too big of a timeline...
Feb 14th New York Post - Archon_Wing - 02-18-2003
Yep, doesn't everyone owe the Russians for doing most of the fighting and suffering the most in World War II?
Wow, that line of reasoning of the former mayor Kotch sure is great. Amercians should still hate the British and love the French for helping them in the revolution, eh? Or only history in the last sixty years counts? Or the twisted version of history in people's minds?
I mean there are reasons but this is not one of them.
Feb 14th New York Post - --Pete - 02-18-2003
Hi,
"I did this for you 80 years ago, so you do this for me". It's just too big of a timeline...
Right. But "You did this to me 500 years ago" is still a good enough justification for supposedly civilized people to continue killing each other. I guess gratitude is stored in short term memory but perceived offenses are graven in stone.
As for the Russians, one way to look at it is that they were brave soldiers fighting their great patriotic war and willing to sacrifice their lives en masse. Another way of looking at it is that they were incompetent soldiers with poor leaders who didn't care for their lives and were willing to pay a high price for little return. And the truth is somewhere in between and covered with the manure of 46 years of Soviet propaganda.
--Pete
Feb 14th New York Post - Caesar - 02-18-2003
Whiggles,Feb 17 2003, 05:58 PM Wrote:Actually, I generally believe that you should only do something if you're going to get something in return, but that's a whole other topic.Caesar,Feb 16 2003, 02:55 AM Wrote:It's true to some extent, but in my opinion irrelevant. Like Caesar says, whatever the US did in the past for France should not dictate French foreign policy. If you use the "they owe it" attitude, you're arguing along the lines that something should only be done if you're going to get something in return. Let's also not forget that the liberation as France (which the Canadians and British had a hand in too, last time I checked ;)) was important not just for France but from a tactical standpoint for the whole on a wider scale.Jarulf,Feb 14 2003, 04:41 PM Wrote:>Anyone see the front of the post today? Apparently,Sure, it's not a good argument, but it is true isn't it? :P
>even former mayor Kotch is sayiong the French would
>all speak German
One see better arguments in kindergarten :)
By that reasoning USA would not even exist and still be a colonial part of Great Britain.
I think the real point here is that it's a lot easier to make funny comments about the French than it is to actually address the issue at hand. Sadly, that's how a lot of political rhetoric works. Some politicians will say whatever gets a reaction, regardless of whether or not it's wholly relevant, and in cases like this, regardless of whether it's completely true and fully representational of the true situation. That's why whenever I hear them speaking i like, to paraphrase Lewis Black, to take out a pencil, sharpen it, and shove it in my ear. :P
Feb 14th New York Post - kandrathe - 02-18-2003
Occhidiangela,Feb 18 2003, 01:45 AM Wrote:We were the ones whoI read that Wilson had actually suffered a right brain stroke and became extremly paranoid, and well, insane his last two years in office. His staff, and his wife did most of the work and the press kept their mouths shut. It is probably the main reason that he did an about face on the League of Nations.
Bailed Out On The League Of Nations! Even though our leader, Wilson, was one of its biggest proponents, our Congress bailed for a variety of reasons.
Feb 14th New York Post - Occhidiangela - 02-19-2003
In fact, that is typical EU and NATO politics at work.
France is using complicity with US to be the fig leaf over the problem of lower wages in the Eastern Bloc undercutting jobs in France. His reaction is similar to some of the NAFTA reactions here a few years back.
Thanks for the link, twas good for a smile.
Feb 14th New York Post - Occhidiangela - 02-19-2003
Wilson had massive Congressional fight on his hands. If he was that ill, it would explain a lot about how he might not have had the stomach for the fight.