On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:38:56PM +0000, Robert J. Chassell wrote: > And, since the US has more power than Iraq, economically, militarily, > and culturally, from the point of view of a non-US government, the US > presents a more pressing danger, even if, at the moment, it is much > nicer than Iraq. Hence, it makes sense to oppose the US, even in a > morally justified endeaver, such as overthrowing the government of > Iraq.
Do you think many French reason this way? I can understand being concerned about excessive American power in general. But when specifically compared to Hussein, do the French really think the probability of the US attacking or subverting their country sometime in the future is greater than the dangers posed by Hussein? If they do assume the US is a likely future threat, then the rest of their behavior follows rationally, but that seems a paranoid assumption to make. Granted, America doesn't have the best track record at refraining from supporting dictators and fascists in third world countries, but that was often rationalized (rightly or wrongs) as being necessary to oppose a greater evil (frequently communism, which is much less likely to appear as a goad to America in the future). What likely future situation would result in America taking such a position against FRANCE? > The question here is whether this French policy is even worse than the > `Solution Unsatisfactory' that Heinlein envisioned? Seems that way. But then, I tend to favor creating, building, and improving, rather than just complaining. Maybe the French think that the EU can be such a solution. But the track record so far looks rather poor. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
