Dancing in the streets, part Deux!

[gsmoove23]

By all means Drake, just wait and watch how quickly I follow your advice.

[GePap]

Drake:

If the Turks said no to letting the Us use its land, it seem far more likely, given the facts, that Turkey said no (in a close vote, the vote failing due to a techinicality) because 90% of Turks did not want such a war. The us failed to get the Turks on board even before we dropped the second resolution. And they did nothing to speed up until aftre the war had begun. The fact is, the Turks are responsible for Turkey not letting the uS sue its bases, not France. Interesting to see the Us is not trying to cut out trukishh companies from iraq, but hey...

As for the other issue: gsmoove3 is correct. you say that the worst damage the French did was remove the legitmacy the Un would could have give to the war (htough notice how ths US admin states that prior UN resoltuion and 1441 gave them all the legitimacy they needed [if the US had forced a second vote and lost, the war would have probably been illegal] and the coolition they strapped together was the proof of that) and that that makes the occupation afterwards more difficult. but the fact is that the US has a second chance: the occupation is in it infant stages, and at this point the US could, if it wanted, make a UN thing out of it and dispel notions of a US viceroy and US imperialism. Bit the fact is that the admin. will not do so, and never before the start of the war did the US ever put forward any plans that said otherwise. The facts show this admin. always expected to have the US run the show, and all the French support beforehand would have changed nothing. I mean, the UK supports the US, yet no British companies got to bid anyway. So the fact is that all the French support in the world would have canged the perception that this is a US occupation, given how the us always planned to act once it got into Iraq. A French supported second resolution would not have changed the minds of those most likely to take action vs the US in Iraq or because of Iraq either.

I like the notion of responsibility, and hence I blame and praise individuals for what they did, not for what others did. The US wanted (and did) to invade Iraq for two reasons: remove an impending WMD threat and regime change. France did not believe war was the best way to achieve number 1 aim, and that perhaps number 1 aim did not exist, and the UN was never the place to even discuss number two aim. So what happeend, the french refused to validate the us war, and the Us went ahead anyway.

The fact is that the US has undermined the French more severly a couple of times since WW2 than they did here, and yet the allience survived. If it faiuls now, it wil be because many, mainly in washington, don't care to maintain it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Menlas


Ned, i agree with the fact that, for Iraqi people, this conflict is, at least on the short-term, a good thing overall. However, we'll need to several years to see the results, rebuilding the country won't be easy.

But the point is : if the freedom of Iraqi people was the real aim of this war, why didn't the US government say it ????
Instead, Bush told us about "threat against USA" (yeah riiiiight), weapons of mass destruction (no one was used by Saddam during the war, and no one was found yet...).

Menlas, Bush did state, many times that a primary goal of operations in Iraq was to liberate the Iraqi people from a brutal dictatorship. If this was not reported in France, I think you might be the victim of censorship.

I'll tell you why : because it's completely illegal to invade another country to change his regime. Period.

Perhaps. This is why the "legal argument" was always phrased in terms of remedying violations of UN resolutions, particularly 1441.

Ok, pro-wars will answer :"Bull****, after all Iraqi people are happy now, so this war was legitimate".

Us pro-war types prefer to be called pro-democracy types; just as you antiwar types preferred not to be called "appeasers."

But then, why didn't US do the same with the others tyrannic regimes in the world ?

I think the main reason is that we need a legal pretext. However I would be in favor of establishing a principal of international law that if a régime engages in terror and systematic violations of human rights as an instrument of maintaining its power, that it is subject being overthrown by the international community in order to restore, not international security, but fundamental respect human rights.

I would prefer that the UN lead this effort in advancing civilization. However that seems to have been left to the United States and others who fundamentally believe in human rights.

If your government really wants to make the world better, Africa is full of tribal wars and despotic governments, not to mention massive genocides (remember Rwanda ?).

We leave France the problem of Africa. Go for it.

[Drake Tungsten]

but the fact is that the US has a second chance: the occupation is in it infant stages, and at this point the US could, if it wanted, make a UN thing out of it and dispel notions of a US viceroy and US imperialism.

Unfortunately, such a move now would allow the French to get off scot-free for their duplicity. The Bush administration doesn't want to do this and I can't blame them, even though I'd probably recommend swallowing our pride and letting the UN handle things.

The situation has changed dramatically since the second resolution failed, so to say that the US obviously didn't want UN involvement before because they don't want UN involvement now is just silly.

If it faiuls now, it wil be because many, mainly in washington, don't care to maintain it.

I agree with this, except the "mainly in Washington" part. The alliance is going to collapse because leaders on both sides of the Atlantic don't care to maintain it .

[gsmoove23]

We leave France the problem of Africa. Go for it.

pro-democracy all the way huh? Just as long as there's something worth the trouble in the country, not like peoples freedom is its own reward.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Let's dance. "

Why would you smile to something like that? You will smile at a scene like that because it helps you make a point on an internet forum?

"In case you hadn't paid any attention, people weren't out dancing today. "

Some where if Lancer's post is willing to be believed. And I said of course there are problems, but that doesn't mean people have no reason to be happy for the removal of Saddam.

" For a lot of Iraqis, your "chance" won't mean much when they start burying their kids :

And that never happend during Saddam's regime? During Saddam sanctions were imposed because of Saddam's refusal to comply with UN resoultions, now that can be lifted which will help Iraq greatly in the long run.

" Let's ignore "

Lets not ignore any of those problems you have listed. It is important we continue to support our troops during the occupation and send in humanitarian aid. I don't want us to ignore any of the problems you listed. However, it seems where we differ is that I also don't think we should the happy implications of removing an extraordinarily brutal dictator in Saddam.

"Let's not consider that maybe they're celebrating just as much that with us controlling most of Baghdad, we won't be bombing or shooting their asses anymore. Democracy?"

Consider that, but also consider the people who have family members in secret jails. Also consider the victims of Saddam's chemical tortures. Also consider wives who have been subjected to rape rooms because they a dissident as a husband. Also consider ethnic and religious minorities who suffered under Saddam's region.


"Meanwhile, if they don't get food or water, or jobs, then democracy, if or when it happens, won't mean squat. "

This is why appropriating aid to Iraq is important.

[Lincoln]

How exactly did this thread get hijacked by the cynical left? What has it been 3 days since the troops entered Baghdad? And the spoilsports want an instant democracy complete with an internation police force (run by France and Germany I suppose), hot and cold running water throughout the city, and Bingo games sponsored by the United Nations each Saturday night.

You people lost the war! Sorry to disappoint you but Saddam is gone now because of a quick victory which left the city in chaos. Next time you all can fight a war. And bring your pet teddy bears along so that you can feel all warm and fuzzy inside when your perfect world some how materializes in your own mind.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Unfortunately, such a move now would allow the French to get off scot-free for their duplicity. The Bush administration doesn't want to do this and I can't blame them, even though I'd probably recommend swallowing our pride and letting the UN handle things.

The situation has changed dramatically since the second resolution failed, so to say that the US obviously didn't want UN involvement before because they don't want UN involvement now is just silly.

Furst of all, duplicity oimplies France had more than one position: it didn't, it had one. They ddin't play the Us of Iraq, they had a disagreemnt with the US. There was no duplicity. As for the situation changing: It hasn't changed at all in th one part you stated France had hurt the US, with the legitimacy question. Military success did not all of suddedn make the war legitimate in the sense that you spoke about.

As for the other part: the US said almost nothing about what would happen in Iraq fater the war ended until just a few days before the war, and by then they had already begun taking bids from US companies only and appointed General Gardner to run the country. The fact is that any sort of UN participation beyond the purely humanitarian and technical role they speak of now was never spoekn about by the Us at all. Knowing the people in the admin. they would never have allowed any interrim admin. not directly under US (not UN) supervision.

I agree with this, except the "mainly in Washington" part. The alliance is going to collapse because leaders on both sides of the Atlantic don't care to maintain it .

The fact is that people like Richard Perle were already saying the Us and France were no longer allies before the whole debacle over the second resolution came to a head, and the anti-French vitrol from embers of th admin. has not been recipricated by the french at all (I separate what legislators say and what admins. say). And when is the last time anyone in Washintgon invited any high ranking french ministers? Or the last time anyone in this admin. went to France or Germany? The people in power now honestly don;t think the French or the Germans matter (why the UK then matters..beats me) and so they do nothing to mend fences.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lincoln
How exactly did this thread get hijacked by the cynical left? What has it been 3 days since the troops entered Baghdad? And the spoilsports want an instant democracy complete with an internation police force (run by France and Germany I suppose), hot and cold running water throughout the city, and Bingo games sponsored by the United Nations each Saturday night.

You people lost the war! Sorry to disappoint you but Saddam is gone now because of a quick victory which left the city in chaos. Next time you all can fight a war. And bring your pet teddy bears along so that you can feel all warm and fuzzy inside when your perfect world some how materializes in your own mind.

Lincoln..newsflash.. we aren't Iraqis, we ddin't lose the war at all. Hell, as I have said before, I rpedicted a war between 2 weeks and a Month. I was rigth as far as how long it took..if not how those 2-4 weeks would play out.

So, get a clue.

[Drake Tungsten]

Furst of all, duplicity oimplies France had more than one position: it didn't, it had one. They ddin't play the Us of Iraq, they had a disagreemnt with the US. There was no duplicity.

Don't play dumb, GePap. I know you watch "Frontline", so you had to have seen the episode about the UN diplomacy. Powell told De Villepin that the French would have to support a second resolution if they approved 1441 and De Villepin said that he understood. He then proceeded to sabotage the second resolution by promising a French veto. That is obvious duplicity; I don't see how anyone can deny it.

Knowing the people in the admin. they would never have allowed any interrim admin. not directly under US (not UN) supervision.

Sound like idle speculation to me. We'll never know what the post-war government in Iraq would've been like if the UN had sanctioned the war.

[Lincoln]

I do have a clue. The left is angry because the war went so well and the people celebrated their deliverance from Saddam by George Bush. So they concentrate on the looting to divert attention from the liberation. Pretty clear really.

[Drake Tungsten]

The fact is that people like Richard Perle were already saying the Us and France were no longer allies before the whole debacle over the second resolution came to a head, and the anti-French vitrol from embers of th admin. has not been recipricated by the french at all (I separate what legislators say and what admins. say).

Why did you mention Perle then? He's not a member of the administration...

BTW, there's a great essay in the current issue of "Foreign Affairs" covering the breakdown in the trans-Atlantic relationship. It shows pretty conclusively that both sides are to blame...

[GePap]

I read that too. the thing is that the french have been a bit more conciliatory than the US, and the French don;t have the luxury of thinking they don't need the US, while there are people in the admin. (Perle is not part, but he is an insider of the first degree, with the ear of Rummy and such) think they can chuck that allience without much worry.

I do have a clue. The left is angry because the war went so well and the people celebrated their deliverance from Saddam by George Bush. So they concentrate on the looting to divert attention from the liberation. Pretty clear really.

firts of all, "the left" is so old fashioned. Second, If you consider me left, read above..I stated that this war would be easy for the US. The interesting bit was that the people dancing happened in baghdad but not in the south, which was a weird reversal of expectations, but in Baghdad itself is was still Shia's doing most of the dancing as expected.

See, that is what you don;t seem to get Lincoln. Getting rid of Saddam is only the beginning, not, NOT, NOT the end.

[Drake Tungsten]

the thing is that the french have been a bit more conciliatory than the US

What in god's name makes you think this is true? The French have been the most intrasigent party in this whole diplomatic debacle; they haven't made a single compromise since 1441 passed...

[GePap]

What in god's name makes you think this is true? The French have been the most intrasigent party in this whole diplomatic debacle; they haven't made a single compromise since 1441 passed...

Little things like public statements by officals, and you can't show me the US moving an inch closer to france either. So, neither side is moving, but at the minimum, the French at all levels talk about healing ties. The most the admin. does, it seems, is try to reign in the insanity coming from the House.