> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of John D. Giorgis
... > Unfortunately, as Gautam brilliantly pointed out in a recent message, the > actions of the French have no gone far beyond those of friends. What did you mean to write here? I can't quite figure it out, but there's obviously a typo. > As an example, I am a Catholic, Hmmm. So is most of France. Clearly, there is disagreement in the church... ;-) > The French, however, are sacrificing NATO, the UN Security > Council, and the > Trans-Atlantic Relationship on the pyre of their own obstinancy. How is is their opposition to war sacrificing those organizations? Certainly they are more fragile, but threatened with non-existence??? France is not alone in its opposition; Russian and China clearly are with them. It seems damaging to the institutions for us to *demand* unanimity, effectively dismissing their concerns. It reminds me of those who *demand* explanations or demand apologies -- such demands escalate differences, don't they? (I demand that you reply! ;-) > Even if > the French don't agree with what we are about to do.... they could at > least at some point offer to stand aside, and start planning for us how to > make the post-Saddam Iraq the best possible place for al those involved, Certainly they could, but do we know that this is the time? Pardon me if this is hyperbole, but similarly, you *could* stand aside and start planning for abortion to remain legal? Would it be fair for someone to argue that by failing to do so, you are sacrificing the U.S. Constitution because they believe it assures such rights? The French disagree with the premise of our argument for war, as you would surely disagree with the premise of the argument above. Which is more damaging to the U.N., opposing war in its debates or going to war without U.N. authorization? To me, the latter is far more damaging, even if it is the best thing for the United States to do right now. For us to take action without authorization had better mean that we have decided that the U.N. has *already* failed, not because there are some that oppose this war, but because all members have failed to reach a consensus. But it has failed before and the U.N. goes on. > Actually, what I am far more worried about is being hated by those who see > that the United States, as a hyperpower with the clear ability to change > the world, instead chooses to support the continued existence of some of > the world's most oppressive regimes. You mean like we did in Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, Iran, etc.? But wait, we're not *supporting* the present regime in Iraq, like we did in those countries. I'm not sure what you're really trying to say...? > TotalFinaElf has a $40billion oil contract signed with Saddam Hussein. > The phrase "No Blood for Oil", couldn't be a more accurate description of > the oppression in Iraq being wholeheartedly support by the French > government. Wholehearted support??? Surely you don't mean that. Hyperbole, right? > Unfortunately, I don't expect that $40 billion number to ever appear in a > Molly Ivins column...... I don't know if it really matters, but for the sake of disclosure, I'll note that she is my literary agent's aunt, which probably makes me a bit more reluctant to criticize her, which would be especially true if I were writing anything my agent would be selling! Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
