We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
The only presidential Democrat It sticks in the craw to say it, but Hillary is the only one of the Democrats who sounds Presidential. The rest of them are dwarves with limited understanding of the requirements of the job for which they are auditioning.
She and her significant other have consistantly backed Bush on the WMD issue. By admitting they saw the same intelligence reports and by taking responsibility for policy initiatives they set in motion, they appear as statesmen. They have a solidness and class that is severely lacking amongst the Democratic candidates.
I rather look forward to a Condi v Hillary match in 2008. That is an election for which the cemeteries really would get out the vote.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I can appreciate your position on Hillery’s foreign policy… though I do wonder weather it’s what she actually believes, or weather she’s just drifting in the direction that the political wind is blowing at the moment.
Which at least credits her with having more brains and detachment than the rest of the pack, I’m forced to admit.
On the domestic front, I don’t think she’d win a libertarian’s nomination. For all Bush is blamed for increasing the size of government, at least he never proposed socializing health care. There are myriad other examples, of course, but I mean this example as representitive, not as proof.
Remember: It takes government oversight… er, I mean a village to raise your child. Weather you want the help or not.
Be careful with your reading. I didn’t say any libertarian would support her. I said she was the only Democrat who at present appears competent for the job.
That is not necessarily good considering what policies she might well competently carry out…
The sound you hear, is that of a barrel beng scraped.
She is not presidential. Imperial maybe but, not presidential.
Her gross assumption that all womankind must believe as she does is a completely insulting point of view. She has no true warmth at all; merely a sharp tongue and facile snideness.
Be careful with your reading. I didn’t say any libertarian would support her.
I did not intend to imply that you said that, and I apologize if I gave that impression.
Pointing out why a libertarian might not like her domestic agenda is not the same as implying the author claimed that she was libertarian-friendly. 🙂
I am amazed that you think that being President of America requires the posession of great virtue. There are people of great virtue in America but none of them ever seem to make it to the Presidency.
It would help greatly if you were to identify who on this board you believe said “being President of America requires the posession of great virtue.”, so that said person can ask you what you are smoking.
When you refer to her “significant other”, are you referring to her mirror?
I can’t believe you used the word “class” and “Hillary” in the same sentence.
Now I’m going to have to wretch.
You say “they have solidness and class”. Well, the solidness is evident, especially in Bill, and comes too much chicken fried steak, too many hamburgers, loaded, and “I’ll take a monster Slurpee with that”. But class? Are you referring to the 42nd President of the United States? The fella who was impeached for lying under oath? The fellow who got down to the finer points of defining the word “is”? Using Arkansas state troopers to trawl for girls when he was governor? Monica, the Oval Office bathroom and a dress with the president’s DNA on it?
And Hillary’s Rube Goldberg healthcare programme? And her vast right wing conspiracy? Oh, and Whitewater. And that $100,000 she made over eight months or so through astute investments in cattle futures?
The couple who were Tone Boy and Cherieee’s new best friends? Class? Ewwwwww!
Hillary’s foreign policy regarding Israel did a 180 degree turn when she ran for Senator. Before and during her First Lady time, she was an ardent supporter of the Palestinians and was blind to their terrorism.
But as a potential senator from New York, she needed the Jewish vote, so now she is pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian.
Hillary will do whatever it takes to win. There is no reason to believe she has any principles – not even as many has her husband. She gives every appearnace of being a dangerous sociopath and scares the heck out of me!
While virtue is not a requirement for the American presidency (notice Bill Clinton, for example), it is a good thing for presidents to have. Reagan and Bush II are both examples of Presidents who say what they believe and do what they say. That is a virtue. They are also examples of presidents who are willing to put national interest ahead of their own political interest (unlike Clinton, but like Carter and Nixon).
Hillary is really dangerous! Beware!
You have to give her credit for playing this very well. She gets to sound reasonablemaybe, as noted, even presidential. At the same time, she takes away one of the issues the other dwarves can use as an issue in their campaign. Many people have noticed that it is in Hillary’s best interest if a Donk lefty does a McGovern, leaving her, positioned as a “moderate”, as the savior the Dim party needs in 2008.
Dale, as much as we would all love to see Condoleezza Rice as a candidate, it is not going to happen. She is an academic and political life has never raised a flicker of interest in her. She has never stood for election to anything in her life. Not even a school board. People who hunger for political life are driven political beings from day one. With absolutely no campaign savvy, no experience grovelling to voters and pressing the flesh, and no idea of the costs exacted, you cannot be airlifted in from a think tank to the rigours and the knockabout, gruelling, bruising and exhausting experience of the campaign trail. Condi is a thinker, and as a strategist, she’s superb. But she is not a political creature and she is strong enough not to allow herself to be pushed into something she doesn’t want to do. I just hope she stays on in government for Bush’s second term.
But I agree, in our dreams, it would be great fun to watch her out think and outclass Hillary Clinton on every single issue. Also, she’s a more elegant figure, a more appealing personality and a better dresser.
Ryan,
Are not ‘solidness and class’ considered virtues? Dale was quite clear in expressing his opinion that these are virtues he thinks are required in an American President. Why else condemn others as ‘dwarves with a limited understanding’?
“I said she was the only Democrat who at present appears competent for the job.”
Competent ??
You forgot the details of how she put together her medical insurance plan ? She failed to consult good experts, refused to heed good advice and came up with a totally unworkable plan, and could not find even a single senator to sponsor it. Could she not have consulted the senators before? This is a good example of total managerial incompetence, beside the leftist ideological slant of her plan.
Besides, she gave us Madleine Albright.
So … competence ? Don’t be ridiculous.
But she (Mrs Clinton) agreed, with qualifications, that pre-emptive military action may be necessary in certain cases, as Bush has argued was the case with Iraq.
The US problem is that this country is not only waging defensive wars or pre-emptive wars: it is also conducting preventive wars. Preventive wars are a real incentive to WMD proliferation and they also drive rogue States to quicken their WMD acquisition programmes for fear that the USA might single them out as next preventive case.
Mrs Clinton & Wesley Clark –both imperial Democrats & putative or would-be candidates for US presidency- love to resort to the low-intensity conflicts phrase to vindicate, attenuate, travesty military operations launched by the USA against carefully isolated countries. I profoundly disagree with this phrase used by those Democratic warmongers to qualify what most of us would simply call combat. A conflict is usually referred to as a dispute, a disagreement. There’s a convenient three-letter English word to name an armed conflict & that’s W-A-R .
The low-intensity buzz adjective is impugnable for two major reasons.
First it is an insult for any Human beings who lost their relatives due to a war. What’s low-intensity when you’re the only survivor of a whole family? What’s low-intensity for a child paralysed with fear?
Secondly, low-intensity tells much about the one-sided mentality that’s typical of US decision-makers, irrespective of their surface political orientation. The intensity is low because the opponent is looked upon as small, because the weaponry engaged is considered limited, because warfare is reckoned to be short etc. Low-intensity is relevant because I, the USA, claim my view only –that of a giant, is accurate. That, too, is a vicious form of mental unilateralism . The 11-September attacks were unquestionably a low-intensity aggression; yet since it was perpetrated against the USA, they are stated a high-intensity crime that’s worth a declaration of war on terrorism…
A more accurate phrase to specify Mrs Clinton’s preventive wars would be asymmetric wars . Asymmetric is a neutral adjective conveying no biased, judgmental, erroneous concept imported from a single country suffering from severe unilateralopathy . Combined with war , asymmetric has the immense advantage to clearly call things by their names.
Well before 9/11 occurred, the staggering fiasco in Somalia may be deemed the very commencement (Vietnam excluded) of the US deep-seated inability to deal with asymmetry (regular army vs guerrilla mercenaries).
Kosovo too was asymmetric: unsurpassed air force vs highly mobile, dissimulating infantry & artillery. Madeleine Albright -somewhat close to Mrs Clinton- claimed it would take a mere couple of days for the USA to wipe out Yugoslavian troops. Actually it took 78 days before the US army were able to inflict Milosevic’s troops anything vaguely resembling damage. Besides it wasn’t the US military efficiency that eventually had the Yugoslavian surrender: the Russian diplomacy had them capitulate in the end.
The only asymmetric war apparently “won” by the USA so far is Iraq 2003. Yet the story is still going on… Let’s not be a doomsayer like Mrs Clinton: time will tell. Afghanistan follows the same pattern as the Iraqi failure, to some extent.
I feel certain that North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan & Iran (all eligible for asymmetric & preventive showdowns with the unilateralist USA) are all the more anxious to verify if Uncle Sam is anyhow capable of improving its poor military records as the answer is clearly no.
Verity,
But I agree, in our dreams, it would be great fun to watch her (Miss Rice) out think and outclass Hillary Clinton on every single issue. Also, she’s a more elegant figure, a more appealing personality and a better dresser.
Sorry but Miss Rice looks rather like a potato bag than a breathtakingly superb mannequin. Her intellectual credentials, too, are miserable: doomed as she is to flank the insufferable Texan calamity. As it’s been said previously, she’s got no envergure to dive into the political arena. She’d be well inspired to resume her career as a pianist. Practising scales or playing Mozartian Marche Turque would help Miss Rice avoid repeating monumental errors performed during the pathetic Marche Irakienne.
Also: the infamous author of the “Punish France, ignore Germany, forgive Russia” phrase stands absolutely no chance at all to make the slightest come-back on the diplomatic scene, once régime change has occurred in Washington.
Kodiak
“The US problem is that this country is not only waging defensive wars or pre-emptive wars: it is also conducting preventive wars.”
I wish the US conducted MORE preventive wars, against such flower of humanity like NK, Iran or Pakistan. The world would be a much safer place without these mad murderers.
Seems you and Chirac love to have A-bomb armed mad mullahs and Saddams arround, as long as they buy their arms from you. Do you think they will bother to save your pants when the Boches get mad at you next time?
Kodiak’s first post is too well-written (if idiotic) to be scripted by an English-challenged frog. Kodiak, if you are going to post other people’s writing, you should credit them.
The failure in Somalia was not one of military capabilities but rather that of political will and pubilc queasiness with the sight of dead American troops put on display, not with any attendant military reality on the ground.
If we fail in Iraq – or more specifically the Baghdad metropolitan area – it will be for similar reasons.
One might also add to the list a series of both strategic and tactical blunders on Somalia that fell right on Bill Clinton’s desk. Firstly, there was no good reason to go into Somalia in the first place. Once there, the troops were denied any heavy forces at all. Add to that running blackhawks and special forces in a daylight raid with no serious backup extraction plan (which would have required an Abrams or two), and you’ve got a great war movie and a lot of people who didn’t need to become dead.
Elegant Alfred: Kodiak’s first post is too well-written (if idiotic) to be scripted by an English-challenged frog. Kodiak, if you are going to post other people’s writing, you should credit them.
I take your pointless remark for what it is: an unexpected encouragement to keep on enhancing my proficiency in English & an improbable award for my obduracy to oppose Bushesque myths. Thank you very much.
NB: I don’t have to frisk into others’ garbage to make myself understood. Compris Alfred?
Dale: Bush, Clinton, Bush II or Clinton II >>> who cares? It’s your country’s future which is at stake. Not a politico profile…
Jacob: I wish the US conducted MORE preventive wars
Your country is NOT entitled to DEEM who’s a danger or who’s not. Your country IN ASSOCIATION with World community IS entitled to rule a proper response to envisaged threats.
Seems you and Chirac love to have A-bomb armed mad mullahs and Saddams arround >>> how can you venture to utter such nonsense? You’re too sophisticated to really think what I view as wanton provocation. Did it ever cross your mind that your country could be wrong?
Kodiak, your thoroughly ahistorical outlook gives you away as a lightweight neo-marxist. As is common to the breed, well, you just tend to forget inconvenient history. In fact, your only doctrinal flaw was failing to insert the term “hegemony” in your argument. Live and learn.
You tell us: “The only asymmetric war apparently “won” by the USA so far is Iraq 2003.”
Um, just going back in time for a while and hitting a few high points: Nicaragua – 1978-1980. El Salvador – same time period. Haiti – 1920 – 1922. Phillipines – 1906 – 1909. The Indian campaigns of the 19th Century. The War of 1812. The American Revolution. The French and Indian War.
Those are the better known assymetric wars we’ve won. The Marines also did pretty well against a bunch of Libyans in a little excursion to end piracy and press ganging (“to the shores of Tripoli”), and in fact, their institutional memory gave rise to the USMC Manuals on the subject, which together are considered one of the definitive works (if not the definitive manual) on the topic.
And no, I refuse to stop using the term “Low Intensity Conflict.” Sure, it may insult some people, but then, so does the term “assymetric warfare.” What, do people with a club foot, a short arm, blindness in one eye, or a leg shorter than the other duke it out on the side of a hill? Objecting to this terminology is infantile at best, evidence that somebody around here takes the criminal idiot Antonio Gramsci far too seriously, at worst. Neither possibility reflects well on you, sir.
Other military terms that could be found offensive, which I shall not stop using:
– ball ammunition
– fart sack (sleeping bag)
– hump
– REMFs
– collateral damage
and
– fire in the hole
M Kodiak
It is a great pity that France has such horrible leaders. It is a great pity that instead of joining the other western nations and her allies and neighbors in Europe (Britain, Italy, Spain ) in the struggle against the barbarians, she chose to side with the terrorists. It is a great pity that she chose to sell her veto power in the UN for money and put it at the service of the murderous tyrants and thereby she betrayed her allies and the ideals she once stood for.
It is encouraging that the voice of civilization and culture isn’t dead in France, and many important thinkers raise their voice publicly against the policies of Chirac. May you soon be free from the grip of this corrupt fool and regain the place you deserve among civilized nations.
Let me give you a hint, Kodiak.
Venezuela has oil. Lots and lots of oil. Somehow, Venezuela is managing not to be invaded by the evil rampaging hedgemon… without possessing WMD!
Imagine that.
Blaming WMD development on the U.S. requires mental gymnastics suitable to get you a spot in the olympics.
Those who see WMD as their only defense against invasion do so because they want to do things that might get them invaded.
You know, stuff like invading your neighbor and looting his country. Or engaging in ‘ethnic clensing’. Or just being a all-around murderous SOB.
Ah, but it is America’s fault somehow… I’m sure it must be, if I only look hard enough…
Uhh, Ryan, I think you forgot the failed coup there, which would have undoubtably been Baby Lobotomy Bear’s comeback. The fact that Chavez is an incompetent would-be caudillo is overlooked by our resident merdiwit because of his friendship with Fidelito.
Omnibus Bill,
In fact, Vietnam was just about the only “asymmetrical conflict” that the U.S. has “failed” to win, and that was because it was micro-managed from Washington and the NVA had untouchable resupply from China. Kodiak shows his ignorance of history yet again.
Alberta has huge oil reserves. Look to them to be the next invadee by the brutal forces of American hegemony. Also, Kazakstan has a wealth of reserves. Wait for Dubya to learn how to spell it (he’s stupid, you know; a cowboy, in fact. His Daddy bought his Masters Degree from Yale for him) and find it on the map and whoa! Katy bar the door! Russia has the world’s largest known oil reserves in – but Dubya and Dick Cheyney have given Putin a million shares each in Chevron and Halliburton under the table, so he takes his orders from Condoleezza Rice and the Bush twins. And Mexico’s floating on the stuff. I hear the invasion’s planned for next Cinqo de Mayo.
Ryan Waxx: Venezuela has oil. Lots and lots of oil. Somehow, Venezuela is managing not to be invaded by the evil rampaging hedgemon… without possessing WMD!
Thanx for that perfect hint! The USA has indeed vainly tried to perform a coup d’Etat via the pathetic local neocons & failed to deal with the Chavez’s case the way it did with Allende. Nice try. Shoot again!
Jacob: get a cold shower urgently. The OVERWHELMING majority of UN-members (including European countries) disapproved of the US unilateralist “intervention” in Iraq. The UK, Spain & Italy are close to nothing on the international scene (which is precisely not limited to 50 miserable “states” located somewhere between Canada & Mexico, two major allies of France during the resistance to US oil-inspired bellicism).
And I could return to you the sentimental tune you’re singing about the voice of civilization and culture that’s just a faint wishful thinking as far as the Bushist USA is concerned.
Kodiak
“The OVERWHELMING majority of UN-members (including European countries) disapproved of the US unilateralist intervention in Iraq.”
I know the overwhelming majority at the UN, composed of such luminaries as Kadafi, Assad, etc. will pass any resolution. I was speaking about the civilized countries, of which, I mistakenly thought, France was one.
And a question you asked me and I will ask you back: has it ever crossed your mind that Chirac might have been wrong in trying to shield this murderous tyrant Saddam ?
Jacob,
I didn’t know that Jean Chrétien, Vincente Fox, Gerhard Schröder & Nelson Mandela were dangerous, communist, islamicised, chiraquian terrorists…
Chirac never tried to shield Saddam for 2 reasons:
1/ Chirac isn’t the Roi Soleil of the UN >>> there are roughly 195 countries making up for the UN and the vast majority of them -not Jacques of Paris- decided that the US aggression was illegal.
2/ The goal of Chirac + UN + USA was to remove Saddam from Irak. Just Chirac + UN thought it would be preferrable to do it in a pacific, consensual, efficient manner rather than by a failing war waged by a rogue country the only success of which was, aided as it’s been by a couple of undignified stooges, to dramatically increase the level of savage terrorism in Iraq (not to mention the ominous links lately contrived by Islamofascists & Saddamites).
Encore bravo les Etats-Unis et un grand merci à M. Bush !
“2/ The goal of Chirac + UN + USA was to remove Saddam from Irak. Just Chirac + UN thought it would be preferrable to do it in a pacific, consensual, efficient manner…”
Oh, I see. Chirac did ask Saddam: “Cher Monsieur, would you please step down, and come to live with us in Paris ? Paris is beautiful, you won’t regret it.”
French politness and good manners are well known.
On the other hand he needed him in power in Bagdad to sign all those fat oil contracts with Elf and make payments for all the arms France supplied.
Very efficient this Chirac of your’s.
Very consensual too. Saddam loved this “consensual and efficient manner” and kept murdering his people under the tacit assent of Chirac and Kofi.
“I didn’t know that Jean Chrétien, Vincente Fox, Gerhard Schröder & Nelson Mandela were dangerous, communist, islamicised, chiraquian terrorists.” No. Just fools.
That is, I don’t know about Vincente Fox, so it doesn’t apply to him.
Jacob,
If the USA unilaterally decided (who knows why?) to stop financing the Iraqi Hitler after Rumsfeld has spent his whole life selling oil contracts to Bassist nomenklatura, why blame the French for your own 1/ incoherence – 2/ inability to secure deals…
And please stop at once this hypocritical stance about human rights in Iraq >>> your governments are responsible for the death of tens of thousands of Iraqis during the war against Iran (not to mention the large-scale slaughter of the Shiites that Saddam has perpetrated in 1991 with George The First’s blessing).
Please forget Elf which is really microscopic beer compared to Halliburton etc.
The fact is you’re jealous about France’s success. Well, get accustomed to it >>> it’s just the beginning.
Jacob,
“I didn’t know that Jean Chrétien, Vincente Fox, Gerhard Schröder & Nelson Mandela were dangerous, communist, islamicised, chiraquian terrorists.” No. Just fools.
That is, I don’t know about Vincente Fox, so it doesn’t apply to him.
So anyone disagreeing with your rogue behaviour is a fool… How multilateralist!
Ref Hillary’s suitability to run for president, added to what I said earlier – let us not forget the White House travel department scandal, Whitewater, Vince (Foster?)’s mysterious death in which he appeared to have gone into a park and beaten himself up and then shot himself in the back; let us not forget renting out bedrooms in the White House for donations to the Democrats — has Tony taken this up yet? Lakshmi Mittal may need a place to crash and we know he’s got the bucks, thanks to taking jobs away from British steel workers with Tony’s help — last minute pardons for dear friends who might prove a little dangerous after one no longer enjoyed immunity; leaving the White House with a lot of the silverware mysteriously adhering to one’s baggage; having one’s frat boy “advisors” trashing the offices and disabling the computers before vacating the premises, as a final act of malice. This is class? Dale, I would be interested in hearing you describe sleaze …
Kodiak–
You undoubtedly mean well, but your arguments originate with a Bear of Little Brain (with accolades to A.A. Milne).
“Your country is NOT entitled to DEEM who’s a danger or who’s not. Your country IN ASSOCIATION with World community IS entitled to rule a proper response to envisaged threats.”
This statement is false. All nations are entitled to determine who is a danger to them, whether the world community, so called, approves or not.
A world without a U.N. would be no hardship, only the career bureaucrats would truly miss it. I would not want to live in a world without a US.
Kodiak,
I know it’s all Bush’s fault, I’we heard it repeated so many times… Saddam was made in Amerika, by Bush (1), shiites were killed by Bush, Kurds gassed by Bush, the war against Iran – Bush’s fault, the gallant French allways rushing in to save the world and dispose of the murdurous regimes by “pacific, consensual, efficient” means.
Elf was small change?? and the 1.5 billion $ in annual trade between France and Iraq, UN sanctions not withstanding, and a similar amount of trade between Germany and Iraq – that is no small money. France and Germany profiteering from the UN sanctions, with many items supplied that were war material, or raw materials for chemical weapons. Not to mention the Osirak nuclear reactor the French built for Saddam (before 1981), you see, as Iraq was very poor in energy and really desperately needed the nuclear reactor for peaceful purposes. And they paid cash… wait, no, they paid with promises you are still trying to collect on.
Whatever the relations between the US and Saddam were before the first gulf war of 91 – they totally stopped then, but France and Germany continued to trade with the murderer right up to the last minute, and did all they could to prevent his removal, including the threat of France’s UN veto, thereby doing their best to also destroy the UN.
These are the facts you try to ignore, go look for a better, saner figure to defend than Chirac.
And Mandela. He said it was a war of the white agains brown people. Every brown murderer is a saint, evry white man – the devil. He just sees the skin color of the parties and knows who he should side with. A great sage man indeed.
Brett: All nations are entitled to determine who is a danger to them, whether the world community, so called, approves or not.
I agree that -as for Human beings- collective bodies called States do have the right to THINK or ESTEEM that fact A is good or fact B is bad or fact C is of no relevance. That said, RULING or STATING that intervention A must be done or intervention B should be avoided pertains solely to the community of the States, certainly not to the transient eccentricity of one single State (which also happens to be the worst paying contributor when you consider the millions of euros dues in arrears to the UN).
Why so? The USA has no legitimacy to act as THE World gendarme & to sort out others’ business. It has the power to do so (or more exactly: to attempt to do so), but it never was appointed to carry out such missions on a permanent basis. The United States –as any other country or group of countries- may get a provisional mandate for a limited job, provided of course it is agreed by the country (ies) it is proposed to.
What if the USA is attacked? In such circumstances, the USA is duly entitled to defend itself as long as the proportionate response is targeted against the unquestionably identified assailant. Iraq, a UN-member, has never attacked the USA, neither planned to nor had the capabilities to inflict any damage. Since terrorism is necessarily asymmetric in terms of military resources, the temptation is real for the USA to neglect its legal obligations (preventive wars are banned among UN members) & create a most unfortunate precedent that is likely to backfire during an ulterior & perfectly symmetric tension (with China for instance).
Yet some terrorist nests are flourishing within the borders of certain States in decrepitude for which the Statehood concept may not fully apply. That was (is?) the case of Oussama Ben Laden in Afghanistan. The USA attacked Afghanistan to retaliate & no one has objected anything, & rightly so. What if terrorist cells just keep dormant, awaiting green light before launching potential attacks? Should the USA go unilaterally preventive, ie: wage its war against the decayed State hijacked by islamofascists? My opinion is that the answer should be all up to New York, not to Washington. It is obvious that intelligence gathering, military resource management, decision-making & operation monitoring work better & yield better results when collectively performed than unilaterally misdelivered.
The UN isn’t just a bunch of opportunistic, redtape-obsessed parasites or exotic bloody dictators. It’s also what we want it to be.
Jacob: OK >>> you can write a 10-page diatribe against Chirac & so can I against the Bushes. But now Bush needs Chirac to get the resolution demanded by other States willing to come to the succour of the confused US army (Rumsfeld is to send urgently 10.000 more soldiers despite his past claims that there was no need for more troops….), isn’t it high time multilateral talks took into account the removal of Gauleiter Bremer & quick power devolution to Iraqis? As US citizens, Iraqi citizens are free to determine what their future should be.
“But now Bush needs Chirac to get the resolution demanded by other States willing to come to the succour ….”
And Chirac will continue to do his best to prevent Iraqi reconstruction, just because he is mad at Bush. Or – he will demand to be paid for the debt from his illegal trade with Saddam as a condition for cooperation – which is what I said before – selling his veto power at the UN for money.
Another question: beeing the UN held in such high esteem by Chirac – why did he ignore the UN sanctions ?
Don’t worry about the confused Rumsfeld, he’ll manage.
Jacob,
And Chirac will continue to do his best to prevent Iraqi reconstruction (…)
I’m dreaming >>> reconstruction? You certainly meant destruction! The US achievements in Iraq may be evaluated in terms of tombs, bombs, run-down buildings, utility dismantlement, water shortage, slump in purchasing power, rampant insecurity, oil robbery, cultural heritage ransacking etc. The only thing the USA has so far reconstructed is Halliburton’s finances…
he (Chirac) is mad at Bush
Even less than the 23 million Irakis are.
he will demand to be paid for the debt from his illegal trade with Saddam as a condition for cooperation
The Iraki debt to France is a waterdrop compared to French trade. Between 1996 & 2000, Iraqi foreign trade amounted to 30 billion dollars, 50 % of which with Arab countries. Trade with France was 45 million dollars (1,5 %), to be compared with Egypt (3,5 billion dollars = 11,7 %) or Jordan (2,8 = 9,3 %) or the Emirates (2,6 = 8,7 %). Be serious. Your worn-out mantra is anecdotical. Go & find a bigger bone to gnaw at…
In passing: UN resolution 986 (14 April 1995) allowed oil trade with Iraq.
And I have to confess hearing US people mentioning legality when referring to Iraq or Iran makes me convulsed with irresistible laughter! Since when are US congress’s ravings (Indyk + Gingritch + Helms + d’Amato – 1993 + 1994) a source of law for the rest of the World? The USA is made up of 50 states only, Jacob. Not 195.
selling his veto power at the UN for money
Once again you’re jealous about France’s prerogatives. Hasn’t the USA sold & resold its veto to Israel?
Don’t worry about the confused Rumsfeld, he’ll manage.
I don’t worry for the monument of incompetence you call Rumsfeld. He’s a huge loser in every ways: his proven records in Iraqology (tracing back to financing Saddamite bloody dictatorship) are absolutely consistent >>> a remarkable failure. Even Powell kicked his bottom: Rumsfeld is now silent like a grave.