Chirac was´t a blind pacifist after all...

[komencanto]

I was just disgusted to read this:

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/badmovesprint.php?num=19

I was tricked by a mass bad and selective quotation into thinking that France would never support a war on Iraq regardless of the circumstances (which is a bad idea).

"My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote 'no'."
Jacques Chirac, President of France, 10 March 2003

Turns out that actaully the full quote was this:

The problem is (as has been noted by BBC radio's World at One and the Guardian newspaper) that Chirac has been the victim of selective quotation. What he actually said, in full, was: "My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote 'no' because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, i.e. to disarm Iraq."

Somebody should be freedom fried for this one.

Read the other Bad Moves section on that website if you want, it´s a great fortnightly column on bad argumentative techniques brought to you from the editor of The Philosophy Magazine (not that I´m committing the atrocity of calling on authority there =D ).

[corplinx]

Strangely enough, I never saw this misquote and I am quite a news junkie.

Also, I never thought Chirac was a true pacifist.

I thought that Chirac would most likely always say no because he sees France as balance to US hedgemony of western international politics.

I'm sorry if you felt decieved, my guess is that not everyone who thinks Chirac would have always voted no based it on one misquote as you did. Some of us looked at a repeated pattern of behavior and made a speculative assumption about future behavior.

[plindboe]

France and Germany have been misunderstood, in the US, during the entire period up to the war. France has also complained about the treatment they have recieved in the American media.

Here's an article I stumbled upon:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2003/03/28/53126-ap.html

[Tony]

Originally posted by plindboe
France and Germany have been misunderstood, in the US, during the entire period up to the war. France has also complained about the treatment they have recieved in the American media.


What about the treatment america has recieved in the French media?

Here's an article I stumbled upon:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2003/03/28/53126-ap.html

Thanks. :)

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Tony
What about the treatment america has recieved in the French media?
Like what?

[Tony]

Originally posted by plindboe

Like what?

You tell me, Im the one who asked the question.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Tony
You tell me, Im the one who asked the question.
I don't know of the treatment from the french media. I guess you don't know either. So what's your point?

[richardm]

Originally posted by komencanto
"My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote 'no'."
Jacques Chirac, President of France, 10 March 2003

Turns out that actaully the full quote was this:

"My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote 'no' because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, i.e. to disarm Iraq."


Sorry if my logic is failing me here, but I don't see that these two statements are fundamentally different.

In the first, Chirac is saying that regardless of the circumstances, France will say no. In the second, he is simply elaborating on why France will say no regardless of the circumstances.

Either way, the two statements seem functionally equivalent to me. They both state that France would vote 'No' no matter what happened at that time.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by richardm


Sorry if my logic is failing me here, but I don't see that these two statements are fundamentally different.

In the first, Chirac is saying that regardless of the circumstances, France will say no. In the second, he is simply elaborating on why France will say no regardless of the circumstances.

Either way, the two statements seem functionally equivalent to me. They both state that France would vote 'No' no matter what happened at that time.



Functionally similar for that point in time, which is where the difference lies; the popularised version of the quote is that Chirac would never ever ever ever vote for a war on Iraq; the actual quote makes it clear that at that point in time, Chirac felt there weren't sufficient grounds to invoke "serious consequences", let alone seek a new resolution to authorise "all means necessary". Bearing in mind the resolutions in question related to WMDs, with the benefit of hindsight, it appears he was right...

[a_unique_person]

I don't know of one country in the world that can take the moral high ground. "Let he who is without sin", etc.

France has done plenty of it's own dirty work over the years, from Vietnam to Rainbow Warrior.

It just happens that in this case, it chose not to fight a war for the wrong reasons.

[richardm]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Functionally similar for that point in time, which is where the difference lies; the popularised version of the quote is that Chirac would never ever ever ever vote for a war on Iraq; the actual quote makes it clear that at that point in time, Chirac felt there weren't sufficient grounds to invoke "serious consequences", let alone seek a new resolution to authorise "all means necessary". Bearing in mind the resolutions in question related to WMDs, with the benefit of hindsight, it appears he was right...

Well, maybe my recollection is off. But at the time, I recall that the UK and USA were pressing for a resolution to start a war ASAP, and the French said that under no circumstances would they back that resolution. We already knew that the French wanted to wait and see if inspections would do the trick before using the military option, so the "At this time" part was, I had always assumed, implied. The hoo-hah was simply because the coalition wanted to go now, and the French and Germans wanted to wait.

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't find anything particularly new or surprising in the whole quote. Besides which, the media (or at least, the BBC) was dead-set against the war before it started, and I'm sure that if they thought it was a significant difference they'd have flagged it at the time.

[Giz]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Functionally similar for that point in time, which is where the difference lies; the popularised version of the quote is that Chirac would never ever ever ever vote for a war on Iraq; the actual quote makes it clear that at that point in time, Chirac felt there weren't sufficient grounds to invoke "serious consequences", let alone seek a new resolution to authorise "all means necessary". Bearing in mind the resolutions in question related to WMDs, with the benefit of hindsight, it appears he was right...

Well, when you say "regardless of the circumstances, France will vote 'no'". That (In English) is very hard to read as ' at this particular moment in time the circumstances are not auspicious'.

That whole "regardless" seems to imply an unwillingness to be shifted as events unfold.
The "this evening" would, if my grammar is correct, imply that he took the decision at that point (which would then be held in perpetuity).

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by richardm


Well, maybe my recollection is off. But at the time, I recall that the UK and USA were pressing for a resolution to start a war ASAP, and the French said that under no circumstances would they back that resolution. We already knew that the French wanted to wait and see if inspections would do the trick before using the military option, so the "At this time" part was, I had always assumed, implied. The hoo-hah was simply because the coalition wanted to go now, and the French and Germans wanted to wait.

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't find anything particularly new or surprising in the whole quote. Besides which, the media (or at least, the BBC) was dead-set against the war before it started, and I'm sure that if they thought it was a significant difference they'd have flagged it at the time.

I think the novel aspect is the way that the popularised version was used to spank France as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys"; the full version makes that less tenable.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Giz


Well, when you say "regardless of the circumstances, France will vote 'no'". That (In English) is very hard to read as ' at this particular moment in time the circumstances are not auspicious'.
You think so? Maybe something's been lost in translation, but for me, the use of the definite article is the giveaway.

That whole "regardless" seems to imply an unwillingness to be shifted as events unfold.
The "this evening" would, if my grammar is correct, imply that he took the decision at that point (which would then be held in perpetuity).
Perhaps it's a matter of finding an interpretation which supports your attitude towards the issue; I'm trying to understand how use of "this evening" suggests "in perpetuity". This evening I'm not having sausages for tea; that doesn't mean I'm bound by that decision in perpetuity.

[Crossbow]

I for one never expected Chirac to be a pacifist (blind or otherwise).

While he was opposed to the war, that is hardly the same thing being a pacifist. Chirac essentially said that the USA did make an adequate case for the war at this time, and events have borne out that conclusion.

Iraq was not working on biological weapons.
Iraq was not in league with terrorists.
Iraq was not planning to attack the USA.
Iraq was not using remotely piloted vehicles to deliver weapons.
Iraq was not using aluminum tubes to enrich uranium.
Iraq was not building an atomic bomb.
Iraq was not ... (well, you get the idea).

I for one, had the impression that Chirac would have liked to been with Bush on this issue, but the USA failed to make a good case for the war, so he was unwilling to risk his country in order to further US foreign policy (as occurred when President Reagan repeatedly acted against Libya).

[Giz]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Perhaps it's a matter of finding an interpretation which supports your attitude towards the issue; I'm trying to understand how use of "this evening" suggests "in perpetuity". This evening I'm not having sausages for tea; that doesn't mean I'm bound by that decision in perpetuity.

Ah, but if you'd said

"My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, I will not eat sausages because this evening I have decided that there are no grounds for eating animal products in order to achieve the goal of becoming vegetarian"

It becomes blurry...


"Perhaps it's a matter of finding an interpretation which supports your attitude towards the issue" - Oh yes, but doesn't everything!

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Tony


You tell me, Im the one who asked the question.

Man are you stupid!

No one can read your mind, therefore if you have a point to make then you have to be the one to make it.

[Tony]

Originally posted by plindboe

I don't know of the treatment from the french media. I guess you don't know either. So what's your point?


I dont have a point, I was asking a fuc*ing question, got that Crossbow you piece of $hit? I was asking a question. Need to hear it one more time? I WAS ASKING A QUESTION.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Giz


Ah, but if you'd said

"My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, I will not eat sausages because this evening I have decided that there are no grounds for eating animal products in order to achieve the goal of becoming vegetarian"

It becomes blurry...
Not necessarily, because the availability of vegetarian sausages makes such a claim illogical. A more accurate reading would be:

"My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, I will not eat sausages because I considers this evening that there are no grounds for sausage-eating in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, i.e. to have our tea"

"Perhaps it's a matter of finding an interpretation which supports your attitude towards the issue" - Oh yes, but doesn't everything!
But we're skeptics. We seek the truth.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Tony



I dont have a point, I was asking a fuc*ing question, got that Crossbow you piece of $hit? I was asking a question. Need to hear it one more time? I WAS ASKING A QUESTION.

Yes you asked a question.
Then you were asked to clarify your question.
Then you refused to clarify your question.

Therefore, if you want an answer to your question then you need to clarify it.

OK now?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Yes you asked a question.
Then you were asked to clarify your question.
Then you refused to clarify your question.


I was never asked to clarify, I was asked:


Like what?

I took that to mean he was asking for specific examples.

You need clarification?

How about this. How does America’s portrayal in the French media compare to the way France has been portrayed in the American media?

[komencanto]

Anyone recall the original declaration of war by Bush?

He said something to the effect that some irresponcible members of the security council had said they would veto a war resolution no matter what the curcumstances.

I assumed that was partially a reference to that widely quoted quote by Chiraq.

[Flo]

Originally posted by Tony

How about this. How does America’s portrayal in the French media compare to the way France has been portrayed in the American media?


We get enough of the American media in France not to need ours to tell us how we should portray America ;)

All in all, the French media didn't succumb to the hysteria some segments of the American media experienced. At worst, words like "cowboys", "rude", "bullies", "tantrum", and "overreaction" were sometimes used ... :D

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Tony


I was never asked to clarify, I was asked:




I took that to mean he was asking for specific examples.

You need clarification?

How about this. How does America’s portrayal in the French media compare to the way France has been portrayed in the American media?

Thanks for the clarification, now I see what you are actually asking.

That seems to be a rather broad issue that would require some expertise to properly answer; therefore I suggest that you contact someone who is fluent in French and English that follows the news and media issues quite closely in the USA and France for an opinion.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by BillyTK


I think the novel aspect is the way that the popularised version was used to spank France as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys"; the full version makes that less tenable.

Of course. Under the right circumstances they'd be in favor of US action - say, when Paris is occupied. Hardly a resounding denial of their weasel-like approach.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jocko


Of course. Under the right circumstances they'd be in favor of US action - say, when Paris is occupied. Hardly a resounding denial of their weasel-like approach.
Obviously, it will take a while for the "real" version to filter through the collective American imagination, and even then there will still be those who are unprepared to give up their beliefs, regardless of what evidence is set before them.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Obviously, it will take a while for the "real" version to filter through the collective American imagination, and even then there will still be those who are unprepared to give up their beliefs, regardless of what evidence is set before them.


I presume you are referring to the French?

I agree with what was posted above - I see no significant difference between the US media and the French Media's versions of the statement. The qualification - essentially "at this time" - I always took as read anyway. Like I said, if Saddam decided to march on Paris, that would change matters.

The point is, I think, that it would take something like that to shift Chirac's position. That doesn't make him right, however.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jocko



I presume you are referring to the French?



No, to Americans; it's that bit about the "collective American imagination" which is the giveaway. It's "soundbite syndrome", isn't it?
I agree with what was posted above - I see no significant difference between the US media and the French Media's versions of the statement. The qualification - essentially "at this time" - I always took as read anyway. Like I said, if Saddam decided to march on Paris, that would change matters.
Just remind me, why did we go to war against Iraq?

[Flo]

Originally posted by Jocko
Like I said, if Saddam decided to march on Paris, that would change matters.

The point is, I think, that it would take something like that to shift Chirac's position.

Remind me: was Saddam threatening to march on Paris in 1991 ?