France Begins The Painful Process Of Self Examination

[Jimbo]

This is a translation from La Monde, the French "Socialism's Paper of Record" in France.

Before Red Dawn calls me a "knuckle dragging neo-con" that spreads discord, I would like to remind all of our resident "Peace People" that Le Monde is a "LEFTIST" newspaper and IS NOT owned by Rupert Murdoch.

The Mistake
By Pascal Bruckner, André Glucksmann and Romain Goupil
Translated from Le Monde

What joy it is to see the jubilant Iraqi people celebrating their liberation and?their liberators! A couple of months ago, France claimed to be funneling the US?s belligerent ardor into a legal, UN channel. Unfortunately, the opposition to the war degenerated into a systematic opposition to Washington.


Whether correctly perceived or not, our leaders gave the impression of protecting Saddam by insisting upon arm-wrestling with the Anglo-Saxon allies.


Friendship gave way to overt hostility, despite the diplomatic smiles and the denials which functioned as confessions: ?The Americans aren?t our enemies??By its intransigence and its promise of a veto ?regardless of the circumstances,? our country divided Europe, paralyzed NATO and the UN, destroying the possibility of avoiding a military confrontation through a precise, joint ultimatum that would have forced out the Iraqi dictator. Far from avoiding a war, the ?camp of peace? precipitated one by playing Asterix against Uncle Sam. A ridiculed France has now removed itself from the game. You don?t run a great country by getting high on media successes and rhetorical jousts. In this regard, Tony Blair, who took the risk of confronting his electorate while remaining faithful to his convictions, revealed himself to be a true head of state.


The President?s conduct reflected public opinion. In the future, we will talk about the hysteria, the collective intoxication that shook France for months on end, the anguish of the Apocalypse that seized our better halves, the almost Soviet ambiance that welded together 90% of the population in a triumph of monolithic thought, allergic to the slightest dissent. In the future, we will have to study the media?s partisan coverage of the war?with few exceptions, this coverage was more activist than objective, minimizing the horrors of the Baathist tyranny in order to better reproach the Anglo-American expedition, guilty of all crimes, all problems, all misfortunes in the region.


For weeks, Television Baghdad invaded our brains and our television screens to the point where the very few Iraqi dissident guests had to apologize for existing?to the point where a French singer, in an act of remarkable obscenity, left the stage of a variety show on France 3 upon the arrival of Saad Salam, a film-maker and Iraqi opponent. We will have to explain why the Kurdish minority was, during this period, forbidden from protesting when Saddam?s hatchet men paraded on our boulevards, brandishing Saddam?s portraits, screaming slogans to his glory, going so far as to lynch the poet-in-exile, Salah Al-Hamdani. We will have to analyze the alarming proportion of French (33%) who, not wanting a coalition victory, pronounced themselves, de facto, in favor of Hussein?s victory.


Let?s face it: Anti-Americanism is not an accident that happened over-night or a simple reticence in response to the Bush Administration. Anti-Americanism is a political creed that unites one person to another, in spite of their differences?the Front national and the Greens, socialists and conservatives, communists and separatists?On the left as well as on the right, it is rare to find someone who did not give in to this ?nationalism of imbeciles? which is unfailingly symptomatic of resentment and decline.


We were recently pleased to confront American narrow-mindedness with French intelligence and to confront the New World, led by ?King UbuBush,? with Old World wisdom. And what was the result? One of the most appalling dictators in the Middle East fell, and France did nothing to contribute to his demise.


On the contrary, she did everything that she could to slow down Hussein?s fall. When Baghdad danced, France pouted. While certain intellectuals and politicians expressed their confusion, indeed their ?nausea? when faced with an Anglo-Saxon victory, the weekly magazine, Marianne, led with ?The Catastrophe? on the day that Baghdad tasted its first hours of deliverance. We just have to accept that there will always exist in our democracies a significant number of citizens from whom a dictator?s demise will be a cause for despair. This land of human rights perhaps doesn?t care so much for the liberty of others as she claims to and publicizes. From Jean-Marie Le Pen to Jean-Pierre Chevènement, Saddam Hussein had, among us, many friends, discreetly born again as ?friends of the Iraqi people.? Will the Republic, along with Berlin and Moscow, institute a day of national morning for the disappeared dictator?


The second Gulf War has been a wonderfully revealing incident. An outbreak of anti-Semitism and ethnic hatred, an economic and social crisis, the desecration of a British military cemetery, the beating up of Jews and Iraqi opposition during the great ?peace? marches, an alliance?with the unsavory Vladimir Putin, butcher of Chechnyans, the reception of the African despot Robert Mugabe in Paris, public insults directed to Eastern European countries who committed the sin of not slavishly obeying us?our great nation is not in the process of writing its most glorious page in the Book of History.


The future of a liberated Iraq remains very problematic, and its pacification is far from certain. It is not certain?that the military conquest will be magically crowned with a harmony of hearts and spirits. There are no guarantees that the Bush administration, despite its promises, will seriously face the Palestinian question. Nor can we be certain that peace will win the day in the Middle East. However, by its choices, Paris has damned itself to having only a marginal role in this region of the world. History is progressing. Will France no longer be a part of it?

Comments, Thoughts and Ideas are Most Welcome!

 

[RyanM]

Now THAT is something French which I can respect. If their wines had as much soul and dignity as that admission of guilt and request for forgiveness, I might actually buy them. I'll stick to Napa for now.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Oh great, now we have somone displaying a flag posting Leftist Socialist propaganda - Wasn't the French Left Pro-Comunist

 

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by: MachFive
Now THAT is something French which I can respect. If their wines had as much soul and dignity as that admission of guilt and request for forgiveness, I might actually buy them. I'll stick to Napa for now.

I agree that it shows signs of hope, but they have miles to go before they sleep...

 

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Oh great, now we have somone displaying a flag posting Leftist Socialist propaganda - Wasn't the French Left Pro-Comunist

In my opinion the French Left ARE Communists.

The multiple levels of ontondra (sp?) are stunning!

 

[Alistar7]

The media can be a powerfull tool in shaping the minds of the citizens. If I were in France I wouldn't have expected to read about the deals they made with Saddam in exchange for support, or the money involved or Mirage parts or the WMD sales. The French press is hardly critical and has a history of being very cozy towards the govt.

For all this talk of countries that opposed, there were only a few major vocal dissenters, and all with financial interests and sales of weapons they banned themselves.

Notice the US tossed them 8 billion in reconstruction contracts, only thing better than being right is proving why you're still the better man, even when you win.

NK buckled, France called and said DOH, Iran extended an olive branch, Russia is kissing US butt again, Iraqi's are cheering the US and praising Bush while being protected by THEIR OWN police force, what a difference 30 days can make, just think what we could have done without all the BS from those with misguided perceptions and obvious moral deliquency.

The last 2 weeks has just been one devastating blow after another to all the doomsday prophets and naysayers....

Stop asking where the WMD are already, Saddam couldn't give an answer in 12 years and you didn't have a problem with that. Nobody here has even attempted to answer this, if the ones he admitted having are not found, where are they?

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: MachFive
Now THAT is something French which I can respect. If their wines had as much soul and dignity as that admission of guilt and request for forgiveness, I might actually buy them. I'll stick to Napa for now.

Don't think that doesn't have something to do with their change of heart, one things is certain, they almost always act in the interests of their pocketbook first and never miss the chance to make a buck at any cost.

Another theory out the window, the talk of the horrible effect on the US economy as a result of international backlash, who's money is more important? Look who they have all come groveling back to....

 

[Judgement]

The French seem to be easily swayed by the media instead of truly thinking for themselves about whats really going on and the impact their actions are going to have. Maybe this will bring some sense to the French who read it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Before Red Dawn calls me a "knuckle dragging neo-con" that spreads discord,

I only use that label for the totally clueless which you are not one of.

 

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Before Red Dawn calls me a "knuckle dragging neo-con" that spreads discord,

I only use that label for the totally clueless which you are not one of.

Take THAT BACK!!!!!!!

Damn YOU RED!

But while you are here, I would value your input.

You do tend to make many a thread more interesting. No hidden meaning there.

 

[naddicott]

A large number of Americans and French have made the error of turning an overt diplomatic conflict on a single issue (handling of Iraq) into an excuse to villify an entire country. Considering our historical ties, it is really kind of sad.

"Freedom" fries? Boycotts?

Desecrating a cemetary of soldiers who died rescuing France from the Germans?

Not comparable acts in terms of symbolic magnitude (hint... the French don't care what we call our "chips"), but both are overreactions to the circumstances (to varying degrees).

Normally, at the diplomatic level, I would expect an eventual "kiss and make up" process. Except I've gotten the impression that Bush tends to hold grudges longer than most. His bitterness over anti-American rhetoric in the last German elections comes to mind. Typical diplomats eventually let bygones be bygones with such things and move on to discussing relevant issues. Not with this administration... you're either for us or against us. It's far too soon to pass judgement on the long-term efficacy of that approach. I can see scenarios where we eventually scare these european countries into falling into line with our strength and resolve, and I can see scenarios where foreign diplomats feel constantly insulted and start resisting the US for the sake of resisting the blunt and disrespectful approach, rather than resisting due to genuine disagreement on the issues at hand.

There have been analogous examples of President / Senate relations in US history. Sometimes US Presidents have known how to sweet talk and make deals with the Senate to get what they want, and sometimes Presidents have put their foot down and scared the fight right out of enough Senators to get their way. Sometimes Presidents pick the wrong battles with the Senate and end up not being able to get any of their legislation through a hostile Senate. Judging by the limpness of most Senate Democrats (with the exception of Byrd and a few others), I think Bush has scared the fight out of at least a few potential Senate opponents. I think it's still TBD whether he'll get the UN to fall into line the same way.

Clearly if French-US relations are going to be repaired, the first move will have to be made by France. There is some bite behind America's bark, and it's up to France / Germany / Russia to decide whether they can really risk the bite for the sake of their pride and self-respect.

 

[Dari]

I'm glad some french people are on the right path to admitting their stupidity and re-examining their obsession with confronting american power everywhere, thereby destroying some of the basic of human values. The way the french have acted within the past couple of months would've made Voltaire turn in his grave.

 

[LunarRay]

Lets dig an ocean tunnel between Calis and Miami so we can visit more often and keep it below the surface.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jimbo

Originally posted by: MachFive
Now THAT is something French which I can respect. If their wines had as much soul and dignity as that admission of guilt and request for forgiveness, I might actually buy them. I'll stick to Napa for now.

I agree that it shows signs of hope, but they have miles to go before they sleep...

It is a good start.

 

[cpumaster]

Actually the reason French leaders refused to support the war is not because they like or think Saddam can win, they feared US more than Saddam himself. US has been pretty successful lately in term of militray campaign, but been very abysimal in term of exercising its diplomatic prowess. Maybe it's due to the secretary of state or maybe it's due to the president (secretary of state can't do nothing without the backing of president). Anyway, maybe the war is right, maybe it's wrong, it won't be answered until after 10, 50, 100 or 1000 years, but the bottom line is this war was about power and exercising it. With the victory, it increases US influence and power, especially in the middle east, the source of 80%(?) of the world's oil, and that is bad news for other countries, allies and especially non-allies. French relation with US has been close but not especially close, that's why they are not too eager to see us dominating the middle east. Who is to say Bush won't try to stop any shipment of oil to French tomorrow just for some silly arguments? I am not trying to defend France, just trying to see things from their leader perspective....

 

[guigui38]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: MachFive
Now THAT is something French which I can respect. If their wines had as much soul and dignity as that admission of guilt and request for forgiveness, I might actually buy them. I'll stick to Napa for now.

Don't think that doesn't have something to do with their change of heart, one things is certain, they almost always act in the interests of their pocketbook first and never miss the chance to make a buck at any cost.

Another theory out the window, the talk of the horrible effect on the US economy as a result of international backlash, who's money is more important? Look who they have all come groveling back to....

dotn tell me that any gvt dont think about economical .
u said french press is controled by the gvt but your press is controled by men who are very very close to bush so it is the very same.
when you look at your press about the war there was only one version : we go there for the wdm and to kick sadam, we are good they are evil and certainly not for the oil
isnt it too simple?

 

[guigui38]

Originally posted by: cpumaster
Actually the reason French leaders refused to support the war is not because they like or think Saddam can win, they feared US more than Saddam himself. US has been pretty successful lately in term of militray campaign, but been very abysimal in term of exercising its diplomatic prowess. Maybe it's due to the secretary of state or maybe it's due to the president (secretary of state can't do nothing without the backing of president). Anyway, maybe the war is right, maybe it's wrong, it won't be answered until after 10, 50, 100 or 1000 years, but the bottom line is this war was about power and exercising it. With the victory, it increases US influence and power, especially in the middle east, the source of 80%(?) of the world's oil, and that is bad news for other countries, allies and especially non-allies. French relation with US has been close but not especially close, that's why they are not too eager to see us dominating the middle east. Who is to say Bush won't try to stop any shipment of oil to French tomorrow just for some silly arguments? I am not trying to defend France, just trying to see things from their leader perspective....

i totally agree with u
france did not support sadam
france didnt want to see "the imperialism" of the us takes root in me
all this war was a war for power, influence over the oil production

 

[kylebisme]

yes, very good points cpumaster. about the lack of diplomacy, i tend to think that making a retired military general the secretary of state was a poor decision; don't get me wrong though, i have always though of him as a good guy, but more of a general than a diplomat.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: guigui38

Originally posted by: cpumaster
Actually the reason French leaders refused to support the war is not because they like or think Saddam can win, they feared US more than Saddam himself. US has been pretty successful lately in term of militray campaign, but been very abysimal in term of exercising its diplomatic prowess. Maybe it's due to the secretary of state or maybe it's due to the president (secretary of state can't do nothing without the backing of president). Anyway, maybe the war is right, maybe it's wrong, it won't be answered until after 10, 50, 100 or 1000 years, but the bottom line is this war was about power and exercising it. With the victory, it increases US influence and power, especially in the middle east, the source of 80%(?) of the world's oil, and that is bad news for other countries, allies and especially non-allies. French relation with US has been close but not especially close, that's why they are not too eager to see us dominating the middle east. Who is to say Bush won't try to stop any shipment of oil to French tomorrow just for some silly arguments? I am not trying to defend France, just trying to see things from their leader perspective....

i totally agree with u
france did not support sadam
france didnt want to see "the imperialism" of the us takes root in me
all this war was a war for power, influence over the oil production

you're both wrong. France did support saddam. Unfortunately, they couldn't do a damn thing once the US said Saddam had to go. They had to take a back seat to US leadership. Iraq was france's main partner in the ME. US "imperialism" is how the french saw it. Surprisingly, you call it the same. Aren't we being bias. As for your third argument, it's totally on point. But you forgot the WMD part. And the part about the new American policy of preemptive strikes against outlaw regimes. The french were competing against us. What did you expect the US to do, capitulate?

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Oh great, now we have somone displaying a flag posting Leftist Socialist propaganda - Wasn't the French Left Pro-Comunist

Them and the bleeding heart liberals... Stalin supporters, all of them should be shot...

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: guigui38

Originally posted by: cpumaster
Actually the reason French leaders refused to support the war is not because they like or think Saddam can win, they feared US more than Saddam himself. US has been pretty successful lately in term of militray campaign, but been very abysimal in term of exercising its diplomatic prowess. Maybe it's due to the secretary of state or maybe it's due to the president (secretary of state can't do nothing without the backing of president). Anyway, maybe the war is right, maybe it's wrong, it won't be answered until after 10, 50, 100 or 1000 years, but the bottom line is this war was about power and exercising it. With the victory, it increases US influence and power, especially in the middle east, the source of 80%(?) of the world's oil, and that is bad news for other countries, allies and especially non-allies. French relation with US has been close but not especially close, that's why they are not too eager to see us dominating the middle east. Who is to say Bush won't try to stop any shipment of oil to French tomorrow just for some silly arguments? I am not trying to defend France, just trying to see things from their leader perspective....

i totally agree with u
france did not support sadam
france didnt want to see "the imperialism" of the us takes root in me
all this war was a war for power, influence over the oil production

you're both wrong. France did support saddam. Unfortunately, they couldn't do a damn thing once the US said Saddam had to go. They had to take a back seat to US leadership. Iraq was france's main partner in the ME. US "imperialism" is how the french saw it. Surprisingly, you call it the same. Aren't we being bias. As for your third argument, it's totally on point. But you forgot the WMD part. And the part about the new American policy of preemptive strikes against outlaw regimes. The french were competing against us. What did you expect the US to do, capitulate?

Oh, you mean the WMD's that are invisible? with hundreds of thousands of soldiers finding nothing at all, those WMD's have to be invisible...

Oh, these weapons should have been found by a few hundred inspectors, but are impossible to find after an invasion and hundreds of thousands of people looking for them... invisible i tell you! They made them invisible!

 

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by: SnapIT
Oh, you mean the WMD's that are invisible? with hundreds of thousands of soldiers finding nothing at all, those WMD's have to be invisible...

Oh, these weapons should have been found by a few hundred inspectors, but are impossible to find after an invasion and hundreds of thousands of people looking for them... invisible i tell you! They made them invisible!

Considering that the shooting is still going on; your expectations and your irrational rush to judge are quite premature.

If we find nothing in twelve years (the time it took the UN to find nothing), then YOU can declare victory.
By my count you have 11 years, 11 months and 27 days before you can rightfully make that claim.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: guigui38

Originally posted by: cpumaster
Actually the reason French leaders refused to support the war is not because they like or think Saddam can win, they feared US more than Saddam himself. US has been pretty successful lately in term of militray campaign, but been very abysimal in term of exercising its diplomatic prowess. Maybe it's due to the secretary of state or maybe it's due to the president (secretary of state can't do nothing without the backing of president). Anyway, maybe the war is right, maybe it's wrong, it won't be answered until after 10, 50, 100 or 1000 years, but the bottom line is this war was about power and exercising it. With the victory, it increases US influence and power, especially in the middle east, the source of 80%(?) of the world's oil, and that is bad news for other countries, allies and especially non-allies. French relation with US has been close but not especially close, that's why they are not too eager to see us dominating the middle east. Who is to say Bush won't try to stop any shipment of oil to French tomorrow just for some silly arguments? I am not trying to defend France, just trying to see things from their leader perspective....

i totally agree with u
france did not support sadam
france didnt want to see "the imperialism" of the us takes root in me
all this war was a war for power, influence over the oil production

Why don't people do at least a minimum of research before posting?

Chirac on Iraq: What friends are for
By PETER WORTHINGTON -- Toronto Sun
"....
Even a cursory scanning of the Internet gives an answer for Chirac's reluctance to undermine Saddam - a personal relationship has existed between the two that extends back beyond 25 years and transcends national interests into personal friendship
...


"France 'facing both ways on Iraq'
BBC Tuesday, 4 February, 2003
"French President Jacques Chirac, heading into a crucial summit with the UK, is publicly opposed to war in Iraq - but in fact is keeping his options open.
France would like to preserve its special ties with Iraq.
It has the closest trade links with Iraq of any country in Europe.
...
The French have also sold the Iraqis fighter aircraft, missiles, radar and other weapons systems worth an estimated $25bn.
...."

Ties with Iraq
IHT Friday, March 7, 2003
"PARIS Polls show that many of the 80 percent of French people who oppose a U.S.-led offensive against Iraq believe America's Iraq policy is driven by its appetite for oil. But similar claims could be made about French efforts to avoid war. .Whether or not France's interests in Iraq are guiding its foreign policy, the country has a clear commercial interest in the maintenance of Saddam Hussein's regime. France's economic ties with Iraq have been close and lucrative in the past. They are profitable at present despite the embargo and, should Saddam survive the current crisis, they would become much more so in the future."
______

guigui38 Consider yourself proven wrong.

 

[Stark]

Originally posted by: guigui38

Originally posted by: cpumaster
Actually the reason French leaders refused to support the war is not because they like or think Saddam can win, they feared US more than Saddam himself. US has been pretty successful lately in term of militray campaign, but been very abysimal in term of exercising its diplomatic prowess. Maybe it's due to the secretary of state or maybe it's due to the president (secretary of state can't do nothing without the backing of president). Anyway, maybe the war is right, maybe it's wrong, it won't be answered until after 10, 50, 100 or 1000 years, but the bottom line is this war was about power and exercising it. With the victory, it increases US influence and power, especially in the middle east, the source of 80%(?) of the world's oil, and that is bad news for other countries, allies and especially non-allies. French relation with US has been close but not especially close, that's why they are not too eager to see us dominating the middle east. Who is to say Bush won't try to stop any shipment of oil to French tomorrow just for some silly arguments? I am not trying to defend France, just trying to see things from their leader perspective....

i totally agree with u
france did not support sadam
france didnt want to see "the imperialism" of the us takes root in me
all this war was a war for power, influence over the oil production

france did support saddam... he owes them billions of dollars. Giving something to someone who cannot pay you is literally supporting them financially, n'est pas?
france did not want any country other than itself gain influence in the middle east. they remember napoleon, the empire builder, with fondness.
france bought most of the oil from iraq. they got it cheap through the oil for food program. they didn't give a crap about the people suffering under the plan, only the cheap oil and the money that came back to them because of saddam's debt to them.

 

[CaptnKirk]

In re-reading the title of this thread -

I hope it includes the use of a speculum, lard, and a bowling ball.