Frenchie Admits, 'We Look Really Stupid'

[Richard G]

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/3/21/101038

From article:

Let's recall this quotation from Dominique Dord, a deputy from French President Jacques Chirac's own party:We would look really stupid if Iraqis applaud the arrival of Americans
Well said.

Heres a link to Dords' quote: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/19/141022.shtml

[Goshawk]

Neener neener. :D


Is it too late for them to jump on the "Bust Saddam's Butt" Bandwagon? :D

[arcticpenguin]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15003-2003Mar23.html

One group of Iraqi boys on the side of the road smiled and waved as a convoy of British tanks and trucks rolled by.

But once it had passed, leaving a trail of dust and grit in its wake, their smiles turned to scowls.

"We don't want them here," said 17-year-old Fouad, looking angrily up at the plumes of gray smoke rising from Basra.

He pulled a piece of paper from the waistband of his trousers. Unfolding it, he held up a picture of Saddam, showing the Iraqi leader sitting on a throne with a benign smile.

"Saddam is our leader," he said defiantly. "Saddam is good."

[corplinx]

The sad thing is, we get blamed for the diplomacy failure. Here is an example of diplomacy with Chirac:

US: can we-
Chirac: NO
US: but if we-
Chirac: NO
US: how about i-
Chirac: NO
US: moronsaysno
Chirac: NON, ha ha

I find it very distasteful the statements for some members of congress who blame diplomacy failures solely on our side.

[Jim Lennox]

Well, they've found a chemical weapons factory.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1084802,00.html

[arcticpenguin]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6178662%255E1702,00.html

Apparently the source for that story is the Pentagon. I will wait for independent verification. It would be nice to have specific info that the plant was used for chemical weapons and not some other mundane chemical production.

[Jim Lennox]

You're right, it'll probably turn out to be a crack lab.

[iain]

Originally posted by Richard G
From article:
Let's recall this quotation from Dominique Dord, a deputy from French President Jacques Chirac's own party:
Well said.

Heres a link to Dords' quote: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/19/141022.shtml If you're living in some Iraqi town or city and a few million dollar's worth of military hardware comes trundling through your main street, I bet you'll be keen to show them how happy you are to see them, regardless of your real views.

Two Reuters correspondents, travelling independently of the military, told a different story:

"One group of Iraqi boys on the side of the road smiled and waved as a convoy of British tanks and trucks rolled by. But once it had passed, leaving a trail of dust and grit in its wake, their smiles turned to scowls. 'We don't want them here,' said 17-year-old Fouad, looking angrily up at the plumes of grey smoke rising from Basra. 'Saddam is our leader,' he said defiantly. 'Saddam is good'."

Link to source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,920805,00.html)

[Drooper]

Be careful not to extrapolate anecdote. I have now seen that single encounter quoted three separate times.

I think best to assume that there will be those who will welcome liberation for Saddam, those who are not fussed but would rather not see foreign troops in their country, as well as those filled with hatred for the coalition forces.

Also, don't forget that people's opinions can be moulded.

Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/24/1048354501716.html)

Iraqi soldiers have been told they will be injected with poison if captured by British or American troops, it emerged today.

US forces have tried to counter Iraqi propaganda by carrying out mass leaflet drops, saying anyone who surrenders will be treated well.

But a British medic who has been acting as an interpreter for injured prisoners of war said the men were still "completely terrified" and believed they would be executed.

They could have been kept in sanitised barracks and never shown the US leaflets, he said.

Captain Wassim Slim, who was born in Saudi Arabia but educated in Britain and speaks fluent Arabic, said: "They are completely terrified, they have been fed a lot of stuff about what will happen to them if they are captured.

"A lot of them have been very scared of having needles or canulas put into them because they have been told they will be injected with poisons and terrible things.

"They're hungry, weak and pretty terrified.

[fsol]

US: can we-
Chirac: NO
US: but if we-
Chirac: NO
US: how about i-
Chirac: NO
US: moronsaysno
Chirac: NON, ha ha

diplomacy with the US

US: if you say no and we don't agree with you, we are going to do it anyway
Chirac: Fine, NO

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by fsol


diplomacy with the US

US: if you say no and we don't agree with you, we are going to do it anyway
Chirac: Fine, NO


That is if the US even bothers to show up.

[iain]

Originally posted by Drooper
Be careful not to extrapolate anecdote. I have now seen that single encounter quoted three separate times.

I think best to assume that there will be those who will welcome liberation for Saddam, those who are not fussed but would rather not see foreign troops in their country, as well as those filled with hatred for the coalition forces.

Also, don't forget that people's opinions can be moulded. Agreed.

My thought is that cheering Iraqis does not necessarily mean that they are really pleased to see US, UK or Aussie troops; there could be other reasons for the cheering. This was to refute the original claim that cheering locals would make opponents of war look stupid.

Of course the real test of the success of the war effort in this area is not whether people are cheering on the day they are liberated, but whether they are still cheering (or, at least, happier, better off and healthier than they would otherwise have been) one, two or five years down the line; not to mention the impact of the war on the region etc. etc.

If in two years time Iraq is better off than it is now and the region is stable then I think the anti-war folk will have been proved largely wrong.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by iain
If in two years time Iraq is better off than it is now and the region is stable then I think the anti-war folk will have been proved largely wrong.

I reckon that is a fair assessment.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Drooper


I reckon that is a fair assessment.

How many causualites could their be before you changed your assesment?

[iain]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot


How many causualites could their be before you changed your assesment? Curiously, as an opponent of the war, I am not going to get too worked up about casualties on the scale we have seen so far.

I oppose the war because I don't think Saddam posed any immediate or credible threat outside Iraq. Given the nature of the region, the great sensitivities in the arab world about American and western intervention and all the other issues I feel that the war at this time will end up doing more harm than good.

Had there been a war in 9 months time with wider international backing, having exhausted the options of diplomacy and the weapons inspections I would probably have supported it.

Harsh as it may be, I would be prepared to trade a few thousand Iraqi and allied lives in a war to save many more who might otherwise be murdered by Saddam himself. I don't know at what point the loss of life in a war becomes too high - that's an impossible calculation. I just hope at this stage that the war is over quickly and is successful; though I fear otherwise.

The indications so far are that the casualties in the war will be tiny compared to those of any similar conflict in the past.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot


How many causualites could their be before you changed your assesment?

Just yours.

[Victor Danilchenko]

iain

If in two years time Iraq is better off than it is now and the region is stable then I think the anti-war folk will have been proved largely wrong.Well, make it two decades rather than two years, and i will agree to an extent; but remember, this would only destroy one aspect of anti-war argument -- the argument I had made, that you cannot impose democracy by force.

There are other important aspects to the anti-war argument, though. The biggest one, IMO, is the rule of law.; it's best driven home by comparison.

Suppose there is a murder trial, and you are examining the evidence. You are pretty sure that the defendant is indeed guilty, but yuo have no solid case. You do think you can get conclusive evidence by illegal means -- say, breaking into the house of the friend of a defendant, and examining the computer files.

You break in, and examine the files. Now suppose you were right, and you found your proof. You take it to court, and the judge tosses it out. You are angry -- the defendant isd getting off on a technicality! you can prove he is guilty! why is he being let go?

he is being let go to protect the Constitution, which does not bend to matters of convenience or expediency. if we ignore the Constitution whenever it's convenient, then we have no constitution.

Oh, if only you had you obtained a search warrant! Oh, if only US didn't go in unilaterally!

So yes, my answer is that the war shouldn't be waged in its current form regardless of whether Iraq has chemical and biological weapons; because this type of action destroys the very same rights that all the other states enjoy as well, and would hate to lose. Wwe are cutting off our nose to spite our face.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Drooper


Just yours.

Wow you must really care for me. Either that or you are really stupid and need to edit your post, as it is you have paid me a compliment.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
iain

Well, make it two decades rather than two years, and i will agree to an extent; but remember, this would only destroy one aspect of anti-war argument -- the argument I had made, that you cannot impose democracy by force.

There are other important aspects to the anti-war argument, though. The biggest one, IMO, is the rule of law.; it's best driven home by comparison.

Suppose there is a murder trial, and you are examining the evidence. You are pretty sure that the defendant is indeed guilty, but yuo have no solid case. You do think you can get conclusive evidence by illegal means -- say, breaking into the house of the friend of a defendant, and examining the computer files.

You break in, and examine the files. Now suppose you were right, and you found your proof. You take it to court, and the judge tosses it out. You are angry -- the defendant isd getting off on a technicality! you can prove he is guilty! why is he being let go?

he is being let go to protect the Constitution, which does not bend to matters of convenience or expediency. if we ignore the Constitution whenever it's convenient, then we have no constitution.

Oh, if only you had you obtained a search warrant! Oh, if only US didn't go in unilaterally!

So yes, my answer is that the war shouldn't be waged in its current form regardless of whether Iraq has chemical and biological weapons; because this type of action destroys the very same rights that all the other states enjoy as well, and would hate to lose. Wwe are cutting off our nose to spite our face.


Very good argument. How are we to get the world to respect the very laws that we ignore?

But for those who support the war is there a limit on the causalties you would accept, and if so what is it? I'm curious.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot


Wow you must really care for me. Either that or you are really stupid and need to edit your post, as it is you have paid me a compliment.

You just need to think about it a bit longer. Eventually the lighbulb will come on. :rolleyes:

You probably also fail to see the irony in your sig. line(s)

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
iain

Well, make it two decades rather than two years, and i will agree to an extent; but remember, this would only destroy one aspect of anti-war argument -- the argument I had made, that you cannot impose democracy by force.

There are other important aspects to the anti-war argument, though. The biggest one, IMO, is the rule of law.; it's best driven home by comparison.

Suppose there is a murder trial, and you are examining the evidence. You are pretty sure that the defendant is indeed guilty, but yuo have no solid case. You do think you can get conclusive evidence by illegal means -- say, breaking into the house of the friend of a defendant, and examining the computer files.

You break in, and examine the files. Now suppose you were right, and you found your proof. You take it to court, and the judge tosses it out. You are angry -- the defendant isd getting off on a technicality! you can prove he is guilty! why is he being let go?

he is being let go to protect the Constitution, which does not bend to matters of convenience or expediency. if we ignore the Constitution whenever it's convenient, then we have no constitution.

Oh, if only you had you obtained a search warrant! Oh, if only US didn't go in unilaterally!

So yes, my answer is that the war shouldn't be waged in its current form regardless of whether Iraq has chemical and biological weapons; because this type of action destroys the very same rights that all the other states enjoy as well, and would hate to lose. Wwe are cutting off our nose to spite our face.

I don't subscribe to the "democracy by force" argument. I don't want to go over old ground, but your argument is contrived, in the sense that you draw some ludicrously stringent croteria around what countries do or do not qualify as examples.

Anyway, I don't see this as the imposition of democracy by force, but rather the abolition of tyranny by force.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Drooper


You just need to think about it a bit longer. Eventually the lighbulb will come on. :rolleyes:

You probably also fail to see the irony in your sig. line(s)


I will do you a favor and spell out the discussion:

Originally posted by iain
If in two years time Iraq is better off than it is now and the region is stable then I think the anti-war folk will have been proved largely wrong.

Originally posted by Drooper
I reckon that is a fair assessment.

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot
How many causualites could their be before you changed your assesment?

Originally posted by Drooper
Just yours.

So if I become a causualty then you will change your assesment about the war in Iraq. Only one causualty will cause an assesment change for you. Do you now understand?

I do hope so, but to avoid any arguments with any people who lack logic or courtesy I will simply put you on my ignore list.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot

I do hope so, but to avoid any arguments with any people who lack logic or courtesy I will simply put you on my ignore list.

Please do rust bucket