 |
|  |
 |
|
Vandal-1
|
 |
Gilette WY USA
Sep 2001 time: 22:28
|
|
Yes,Thanks nations for approving of the urgent work that will hopefully be done for the good of the many,and not the profits of a fiew.Without regard for any financial motive to our presence we are now committed to either the anihilation or the education of the Arab peoples.To perform this task we must educate ourselves first and not be so arogant that we deny our ignorance. First of all:If not for the influence of western trade to get Arab rulers to comply with common human law,there is little other pressure on them to do so. I believe that the trade in oil is likely to continue and poses a demand that Arab workers alone cannot meet.The UN has in the past used this trade to further peaceful Arab rulers and ineffectively penalize hostile Arab rulers.When Arab States where found complicit with hostile cadres economic (Oil) sanctions were applied
The sanctions had litlle effect on the funding of hostile cadres as both official military and terrorist units generation continued.
While the officail Arab State was unable to fund or recruit such opposition since offiically a trading partner or was sanctioned.
{There fore} Other scources of hostile cadres existed .
They were/ are recruited and trained by some official governments un -officially and by some organizations including churchs.,infuediated sultanates et,al,
1) The Arab ruling class is non-representative(Of some) of" the Arab peoples’ will " in cases.for organizations such as these to be able to recruit and fund cadres.{Shaw of Iran,King Faysul-II, Karmaal,and Possibly Faud}Thus Anti-Western Theocrats and Tribal Sultanates rule paralell to the official government providing covert trade with undeclared nations or organized crime while recruiting members and reaping financial rescources from Black market trade in fuel ,narcotics and weaponry.Please consider what measures need to be taken in this light,and look at it from the perspective that the Arabs coulld prove great allies in a free world.
.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003
1.) Did the French people view this as a "crisis" ? |
Sorry Plato, but I'm quite busy these days, so I couldn't answer you as quickly as usual 
Like always I can't really know for the "French people" (my knowledge of the French people, when there are no polls is limited to what my family and friends say). But I have seen the popular program Les Guignols de l'Info depicting the "Old Europe" week as a week of diplomatic fighting between the two countries (Chirac fistfighting and losing against Stallone, who represents America in that show).
By the way, the American reaction was a significant issue in the TV and written news. So, maybe it was not considered as a "crisis", but it was sure considered as an important division.
quote: 2.) Was Chirac's position Pacifism? I thought that he said he would support military action at "the correct time" ? |
Indeed, it was his position all along. But in the mind of the public opinion (more accurately, my perception of it), Chirac was on stopping Bush's aggression. I don't know if many people were interested in Chirac raising the opportunity of going to war in the future or not.
quote: 3.) If Anti-Americanism was small scale before the war, then what was the general feeling toward the US then? |
I have used a bad wording. What I called "small-scale" antiamericanism meant that French people, unlike many Arabs, have never been into killing Americans, and hate speeches towards America aren't extremely common. "Small-scale Antiamericanism" means that French people are generally defiant towards the US, and criticize everything the US does. We have our few "let's love the USA and do everything at their bidding in gratitude for WW2" nuts, but they are not really mainstream, especially since Gulf War 2.
That's why the opposition to the Iraqi war was way higher than the opposition to the Chechnya campaign. Actually, the public opinion almost doesn't care on Chechnya, despite it being much more bloody than Iraq.
quote: 4.) How do the French people think Chirac's policy of multi-polarism worked? |
From what I've seen in the news, it seems the media is severely criticizing Chirac for his diplomatic mistakes, especially in the light of American resentment. I haven't seen any comments over his arrogance within Europe.
But there have been both critics from the left (always on a lookout for easy shots against Chirac), and from the right who thought a rift in the atlantic friendship was an unaffordable price.
My friends studying polsci agree with me on supporting his stance towards Iraq and vomiting his stance towards other European countries, but they are not at all a reflection of the French public opinion.
quote: 5.) Is the new consensus on the UNSC seen as a defeat of Chirac by the French people? |
From what I've seen in the media, it is considered as a defeat. It sure was considered as a victory back when all people opposing war were supporting France's position 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001 time: 21:28
|
|
To be fair Fox does a good job reporting the news but its editorials are very far to the right. They do clearly label which section is an editorial and which section is news though and that is better then I can say about CBS.
Last edited by Oerdin on 24-05-2003 at 03:29
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:28
|
|
Oh, and if you are interested, here is an article from Le Monde on the issue. I'm too lazy to translate it, but I'll give you the main points.
Colin Powell has visited France in preparation of the G8 summit in Evian. While the tone wasn't friendly, it appears the main opposition is over. Powell explains the YES from France in the UN is a step in the right direction, and French diplomats explain the US couldn't have done more concessions without humiliating themselves.
Powell calls for a redefinition of the policies between France and the US, in the light of former disagreements, but in a civil manner, rather than expressing the will of punishing France. According to Le Monde, there are still deep disagreements over the war in Iraq and the role of the UN, but there is a real will to make concessions on the surface.
Chirac has called Bush for 10 minutes, and the discussion has been deemed "productive" by the White House. white House's spokesman Ari Fleisher says Bush is "looking forward" to go to France.
The boycott of French products is said to be without impact by the Elysée, and the business syndicate is happy to see the 2 countries agreeing again.
There is a paragraph about the antiterrorist cooperation, and the fact that the CIA would hate to lose the precious cooperation from the French intelligence.
The only punishment so far, according to the article, is that some US troops haven't trained with French troops within the frame of NATO. Powell says it is a decision from the Pentagon, and it doesn't reflect the administration's stance as a whole.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|