US special forces 'inside Iran'

[Ted Striker]

He's not the one responsible for those dispicable British tabloids is he?

[Alexander's Horse]

Yes he is - he owns the SUN amongst other papers, including the Times. The Fox ultra nationalist model was prefected in Britain when Murdoch took over Fleet Street.

Knowing Murdoch is an Australian, and having heard him speak enough to know he's still very much an Australian in outlook and temperament, I'm sure he doesn't believe a word of it - its a huge joke for him - he wouldn't give someone like the execrable Bill O'Reilly the time of day. That raucous bellicose patriotism is so unAustralian, the sort of thing we loath. But it sells and makes Rupert lots of money so he pedals it.

It also helpws George Bush, whome Rupert supports strongly. The editorial line of all Murdoch's publications is set by Murdoch and supports Bush, the war in Iraq, economic reform, small government. Hes doing for Bush what he did for Thatcher, and very successfully.

The world hasn't seen a media mogul like this guy since Randoplh Hearst.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Actually, I count on Germany and France to come begging for help, once again. What I have argued with you is whether French 'friendship' was worth more than a piece of Swiss chocolate.

This has been somewhat said already, but I'll dare to be repetetive. The predominant school of international relations at the moment is the Realist school. They believe, roughly, that every state will always act in its own self interest, and that recognition and utilization of this is how international relations are to be conducted. The US certainly holds this position. Most of the coalition of the willing are in Iraq because they were bribed. Now, some are in it for ideology, but almost all of them are in it either because of guarantees of US aide (remember the 30 billion that was to go to Turkey in order to be able to attack from her borders?) or the hope of US aide when they need it in the future.
Now, France and Germany decided that it was not in their self-interest to be in Iraq, and, as Spiffor said, used opposition to Iraq to seize power in the EU. The Realist model holds that this is natural, to be expected, and so forth.
In fact, I would go so far to say that the degree of anti-French rhetoric that is being engendered in America is in fact a very conscious political tool. I imagine that it will be used in future negotiations with France to stress how much of a concession it is to allow France to participate, and obtain more from France at the negotiating table. But, in order for this to work, there will have to be a future negotiating table, and you can be sure that the US policy-makers are counting on this.
Basically (and I'd like to point out at this point that I do not agree with the Realist school, and blame it, directly or indirectly, for the various Imperialist atrocities committed by the European powers in the post WW1 and post WW2 environments), the concept of "friendship" in international relations is meaningless. If it is a countries self-interest to go "betray" another nation that has been its ally for a reasonable amount of time, that nation can be expected to do that. The US did it during the Suez crisis, when Britain and France and Israel were trying to punish and assume control of Egypt, and the US, long allies of all three countries, said "not so much," at which point Isreal had to uninvade, and Britain and France had to back down.
Finally, you mention that France has a long history of opposing the US in international policy, doing so throughout the Cold War. Now, during the Cold War, the US pursued an agenda that was wholy in her self-interest, and the countries that were our allies essentially surrendered their foreign policies to the US. That France chose to not do so, and instead to construct her own nuclear program, should not be a surprise, and certainly didn't stop the US from welcoming French support in the first gulf war, and yes, sorry, Kosovo and Afghanistan.
You must open your eyes, NYE. Many things in the world are not as you would want to believe, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist as they are.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor

And this is precisely the kind of debate I don't wish to enter, because:

1. I like to keep threads at least remotely connected to their original topic
2. The topic of French friendship is something that doesn't interest me
3. You are already so deep in your prejudices that you couldn't make a worthwhile contribution to such a topic. In the two times I got to see your opinion on the matter, I could see the discussion would go nowhere, just like a Mac/Windows thread (the first time, I discussed about it. The second time -that would be this thread- I was wiser).

Actuallly, Spiff, this started with you proposing that the US needs France and Germany for their foreign policy. I disagreed. I might say that your view that France is needed is a prejudice.

Be that as it may, you and I disagree about how alliances should be conducted. I argued hard from the side that sees opportunism and past actions to be significant considerations when choosing who to hold close and who you don't care much about. Of course if France offers to send troops to some project the Yanks are unlikely to say no, just as they would not say no to any freebie. They just won't count on it, and that will effect their longer range views. They certainly will not bend their foreign policy for the sake of it.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Actuallly, Spiff, this started with you proposing that the US needs France and Germany for their foreign policy.

Nope, this started with the following statement of mine:

The US has a real interest in having France and Germany board the same boat once again.

France's and Germany's aid is not indispensable to American policies (after all, the US manages to occupy Iraq without us), but it would significantly alleviate the American burden, thus allowing the US to look for other foreign adventures. Like in Iran.

I disagreed. I might say that your view that France is needed is a prejudice.

Considering that I didn't say France was needed, it's rather surprising.

Be that as it may, you and I disagree about how alliances should be conducted. I argued hard from the side that sees opportunism and past actions to be significant considerations when choosing who to hold close and who you don't care much about. Of course if France offers to send troops to some project the Yanks are unlikely to say no, just as they would not say no to any freebie. They just won't count on it, and that will effect their longer range views. They certainly will not bend their foreign policy for the sake of it.

Then we have been in agreement since the beginning. (There's the provision that I think the Yanks will be accepting ad-hoc compromises to obtain those freebies, without changing their long-term policies. I think you too will agree with that perception)

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Admiral
Basically (and I'd like to point out at this point that I do not agree with the Realist school, and blame it, directly or indirectly, for the various Imperialist atrocities committed by the European powers in the post WW1 and post WW2 environments), the concept of "friendship" in international relations is meaningless. If it is a countries self-interest to go "betray" another nation that has been its ally for a reasonable amount of time, that nation can be expected to do that. The US did it during the Suez crisis, when Britain and France and Israel were trying to punish and assume control of Egypt, and the US, long allies of all three countries, said "not so much," at which point Isreal had to uninvade, and Britain and France had to back down.

I share your distaste for what passes as acceptable behaviouir by an ally for some. I think it is noteworthy that so much attention is paid to the US and their role in Suez. I would say that it is unlikely there would be an Atlantic Alliance by now were the US and the Brits to continue down that road.

You must open your eyes, NYE. Many things in the world are not as you would want to believe, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist as they are.

My eyes are open. They see what is being stirred up in Europe towards the Yanks and in America towards 'Old Europe' and I have my doubts that there will be much of an alliance left if the 'realism' isn't turned off pretty soon.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Nope, this started with the following statement of mine:

The US has a real interest in having France and Germany board the same boat once again.

France's and Germany's aid is not indispensable to American policies (after all, the US manages to occupy Iraq without us), but it would significantly alleviate the American burden, thus allowing the US to look for other foreign adventures. Like in Iran.

I disagreed. I might say that your view that France is needed is a prejudice.

Considering that I didn't say France was needed, it's rather surprising.

The context led me to think that you thought that the Yanks should go out of their way to patch things up with Chirac's France. I disagree. I think vipers are safer kept at arms-length than brought to the bosom.

Of course normal relations would be good, but normal would not be courting. The French under Chirac have made it clear that they see themselves as a focal point in a rivalry with the United States. So be it. I'm sure the Yanks are fully capable of keeping things civil and taking the rivalry seriously.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Yes he is - he owns the SUN amongst other papers, including the Times. The Fox ultra nationalist model was prefected in Britain when Murdoch took over Fleet Street.

Knowing Murdoch is an Australian, and having heard him speak enough to know he's still very much an Australian in outlook and temperament, I'm sure he doesn't believe a word of it - its a huge joke for him - he wouldn't give someone like the execrable Bill O'Reilly the time of day. That raucous bellicose patriotism is so unAustralian, the sort of thing we loath. But it sells and makes Rupert lots of money so he pedals it.

It also helpws George Bush, whome Rupert supports strongly. The editorial line of all Murdoch's publications is set by Murdoch and supports Bush, the war in Iraq, economic reform, small government. Hes doing for Bush what he did for Thatcher, and very successfully.

The world hasn't seen a media mogul like this guy since Randoplh Hearst.

Very interesting info.

But also very scary.

Murdoch

[Sandman]

Tightening up of UK media monopoly laws.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Ned


Cruddy, first you list 5 Islamic countries that are alledged "friends of Bush." Then you call him anti-Islam because he supports Israel.

I listed 5 countries that dont have an elected chamber of any sort, and are therefore less democratic than Iran.

I call you and people like you anti-Semite, then, using your logic, because you oppose Israel.

Anti-Iraeli violent policy <> anti-Jewish.

When your actual thinking on this this topic is exposed and analyzed, it is as bigoted and irrational as I suspected.

And you have no bias or bigotry? How any un-WASPish pals you got then?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
CNN anti-American???? The American voice in the world?

When Ned says CNN is anti-American he means it doesn't biasly promote one political party over another like Fox News. Much of the Republican establishment plays this game of telling everyone they must agree with Republican policies or they are accussed of being anti-American.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Oerdin


When Ned says CNN is anti-American he means it doesn't biasly promote one political party over another like Fox News. Much of the Republican establishment plays this game of telling everyone they must agree with Republican policies or they are accussed of being anti-American.

I know that. That's the reason I'm calling him an idiot (but I did not use that word until now. I try to follow good manners, except when I'm drunk, which I am now).

The rest of the world would call CNN extremely American-biased, in the same manner as Al-Jaz is Arab-biased (while the Muslim fundies would call Al-Jaz anti-islam).

And oh, I can't believe I posted a thread that reached over 300 entries. This must be a personal record!

[Dinner]

Ollie, much of CNN's articles are written by foreign reporters and have little if anything to do with America. I especially like CNN's World Report were unedited articles from different countries and different news sources is aired on CNN. You get to hear world views from the people of each country so I wouldn't call that biased towards America especially in light of the Anti-US *****fest it sometimes degenerates into.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Cruddy

Anti-Iraeli violent policy <> anti-Jewish.

Cruddy, agreed. I was just using your own logic back at you. Since you seem to agree that your logic is flawed, I hope you withdraw your original statement concerning Bush being anti-Islamic because he was pro-Israel.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin


When Ned says CNN is anti-American he means it doesn't biasly promote one political party over another like Fox News. Much of the Republican establishment plays this game of telling everyone they must agree with Republican policies or they are accussed of being anti-American.

Oerdin, so long as you continue to lie about FOX News, Bush and anything right wing, you will have no credibility. FOX News has as many liberals as conservatives on air.

CNN, in contrast, only had conservatives on the recently cancelled Crossfire. I think they cancelled it to get right of any Republicans on its network.

Besides, CNN recently betrayed its true pinko colors when Ted Turner, its founder, compared FOX News to Hitler. Sounds a lot like Michael Moore and Ted Kenndy doesn't he. Hardly neutral at all.