 |
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ned
I'm not going to "bash" the French. I now understand them a bit better. They are the natural leaders of Europe: . |
Maybe "progressives" rathan than "natural leaders" - maybe not, because they're very keen to hang onto traditional agriculture. But yes, france is keen to "improve" Europe rather than let it stand still.
If you think of the UK as one of the "status quo" elements, keeping things the same, you're on the right lines.
The natural leaders of Europe, are of course, the Swiss. They've got all the cash!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
DAVOUT
|
 |
AUERSTADT
Jun 2002 time: 05:28
|
|
Dear Plato (May I call you Plato now that we are kindly discussing? )
Thank you for your clarifying answer; I feel more comfortable to deal with disappointment, human feeling easy to understand, than with hatred. The following comments relate to the other side of the disappointment.
quote:
Their are many many channels of communication with the US government that they could have used to dissent and even to advise should they have chosen to.
|
My assumption is that these many channels have been used; at least, during the writing of the 1441, both governments had all the time necessary to clear the problem. They did not. How can it be only the fault of the French ?
quote:
They, instead, chose to openly, loudly, and forcefully cause a trans-atlantic rift.
|
We reach here the centre of the problem.
First, you made known that you have decided to invade Iraq, and you send 6 carriers and 250000 soldiers on the Iraqi borders, ready for action. Then, after we expressed clearly that we disagreed on some aspects of your plan, in an international and formal game we are playing along with the rest of the world, you gathered votes in the SC, and we did the same, since we were not convinced that your decision was the best. It would be honest to recognize that we had no great efforts to accomplish since many countries were spontaneously sharing our views, and we were not in a mood to convince the others with subsidies, and at that point, our mistake was to tell frankly what we were thinking.
You must understand that a lot of that was caused by the fait accompli method you used. It is no more acceptable on individual relations (family, enterprise), than between nations. Even when we are absolutely sure to make the good decision, we cannot tell our wife, our children, our employees : I have decided that, I expect you to agree. The reason why I personally never do that is simply because I would never accept it.
quote:
When you combine this action with Chirac's Iraqi ties, with French oil contracts they could stand to lose, and with illegal French weapons found in Iraq, then any American would become angry.
|
You are telling me that those horrible things would not have made Americans angry if we had not opposed M. Bush. It can only means that they are not serious crimes.
Although not a leftist, I am not a supporter of Chirac, and I really doubt of his personal influence in this matter (he follows but not initiate the move).
quote:
The ball is now in their court and they now have a chance to restore some of the UNSC power and heal the rift with the new UNSC resolution on the table. Hopefully they will realize that America is watching and hoping.
|
Assuming that the hawks shut up about their punishment demands, the question we have (as good allies) to answer is : Would it be better for the US that the resolution be amended or voted as it is?
If the hawks continue, you would not be disappointed that we abstain … 
Last edited by DAVOUT on 11-05-2003 at 20:11
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
You haven't been around long. I've done so many a time. |
No doubt you have the perforations to prove it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote: Originally posted by obiwan18
Part of the difference between the British abortion law and the US abortion law is that the British have more input made by the doctors. The doctors determine which procedures should be considered medically necessary as opposed to the courts. This system has been accused of being too restrictive and paternalistic by British pro-choicers.
... |
It depends on the due date. After 26 weeks it takes a lot more beauracracy for a legal abortion.
Before 26 weeks, there are any number of "same day" abortion clinics.
I could well be wrong on this, however. This is just my understanding of abortion in the UK.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Cruddy
It depends on the due date. After 26 weeks it takes a lot more beauracracy for a legal abortion.
Before 26 weeks, there are any number of "same day" abortion clinics.
I could well be wrong on this, however. This is just my understanding of abortion in the UK. |
I think that in Britain an abortion after the 26th week can only be done for medical reasons. In the US it depends on the state. The last SC decision on abortion allows states to declare their "compelling interest" to protect the life of the infant at around the 26th week. Some states now restrict abortion in the last trimester, some don't.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28. Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|