----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 11:39 PM Subject: Re: Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys
> Dan Minette wrote: > > > > >Given the fact that France was opposed to continuing the inspections and > >sanctions 5 years ago, its hard to believe this. If you look at 1441 and > >the French actions, they are not consistent. Gautam made a pretty decent > >case for the argument that France sees benefits in countering the US. > > > Well what the hell do we expect them to do? Roll over and play dead > while we write the blueprint for the 21st century? Lick our boots? > Personally I think it's healthy to have another nation holding us in > check somewhat. Do you really think it would be better if all first > world nations followed our leadership without question? That wasn't his point. The point was that even if the US was right about Hussein, countering the US would be a net benefit to France. It doesn't matter whether the actions of the US are best for the world at large, fighting the US benefits France, even if the actions of the US benefits France. The assumption that is made is that states > A bit of wisdom from our benefactor: > > "To ever come close to what's really going on, I must learn to double > check, to experiment, and even consult and cooperate with other people. > Mutual deliberation, or giving of "reality checks," helps us agree on > common ground, and criticism is the only anodyne human beings have ever > discovered to error. What does this have to do with the point? You are assuming that France and the US are both working for the benefit of all. There is considerable evidence that France is more than willing to let Hussein arm with nuclear weapons. They sold him the reactors needed to produce plutonium. There is considerable evidence that France's goal is a unfettered Hussein: they fought the sanctions they now favor back in '98. The point is that France knows that the US will bell the cat, so it can counter actions that will benefit all because, in the long run, it will just cost the US and benefit France. Thus, why not? France benefits, so who cares what happens to the US. The arguement for the US is that, as the most powerful country in the world, it simply cannot play that game. When it stands on the sidelines, nothing happens. The UN was willing to let genocide go on in Rwanda because the US didn't threaten unilateral action. Too many countries benefited from inaction for anything to be done. It was willing to let genocide go on in the Balkins because the Russian government would have had to pay too high of a political price to stop it. It took the US forcing the issue to finally stop the genocide. France clearly benefited in both cases, because if it worked, France could claim credit; while if it didn't, they could sniff at the American overreach. The responsible way to have countered the power of the US was for the EU to have handled the Balkans with minimal US involvement. They would realize that the UN route was impossible and decided to clean up their own back yard. The projection of power for Germany is less than 300 miles, for goodness sakes. Taking the lead on Rwanda was also a real possibility. If France and GB were to conduct the sort of full out initiave to stop genocide in Rwanda that the US is now doing with Iraq, then I would have had tremendous respect for their leadership. In short, the question is not whether the US should listen to the advise from other countries concerning how to solve a mutual problem. The question is whether countries like France are actually working towards solving those problems. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
