Cheney Rushed to Hospital

[mears]

what about them being equally as bad as each others, in those days?

I'm not saying they were good or bad but France should not have helped Iraq develop nuclear facilities in the early 1980's.

If these men or countries wanted to isolate Saddam's regime through sanctions people would scream bloody murder as happened with UN sanctions. If America wanted to take out Saddam they would scream bloody murder as well.

Pretty mush criticize whatever stance western powers took via Iraq. Maybe they were not the problem maybe the most blame lies with the former regime in Iraq.

 

[mears]

snip.... Yankee hell, QUOTE]


Yankee Hell Oh yes that must be that place where everyone pays proportional and fair taxes has a health service that is not privatised decent public facilities and are not afflicted by squalor ignorance and want.

Sounds a nice place to me.

And citizens, on average, wealthier than their European counterparts.

 

[Streathamite]

Who do you think supported Saddam more, the US or French? I say French.

err...not really, no. you're forgetting the proximity of Iran, which made Saddam and the iraq ba'ath absolutely critical to Washington. SH was their man, and the fact that this fact was conveyed worldwide was every bit as crucial to him as arms procurement. 'support' can mean many different things, depending on the needs of the supportee, so to speak.

Funny how no one ever puts up a picture of Mr. Chirac and Saddam shaking hands.

so produce the pics, then

If Mr Cheney is going to Yankee hell, is Mr. Chirac going to French hell

by your argument, Mitterand, surely.

 

[Streathamite]

And citizens, on average, wealthier than their European counterparts.

yes, but there is a HUGE variance in wealth, so huge as to make 'on average' a mathematician's in-joke.

 

[nino_savatte]

I'm not saying they were good or bad but France should not have helped Iraq develop nuclear facilities in the early 1980's.

If these men or countries wanted to isolate Saddam's regime through sanctions people would scream bloody murder as happened with UN sanctions. If America wanted to take out Saddam they would scream bloody murder as well.

Pretty mush criticize whatever stance western powers took via Iraq. Maybe they were not the problem maybe the most blame lies with the former regime in Iraq.

Nothing like having a selective memory - eh, mears? Or is it the case you simply cannot bring yourself to accept the fact that the US was, by far, the biggest net contributor to Iraq's chemical weapons programme?

You? A hypocrite? Never.

 

[nino_savatte]

And citizens, on average, wealthier than their European counterparts.

My dad's got a bigger dick than your dad.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

And citizens, on average, wealthier than their European counterparts.

Not after taking into account the extortionate medical bills Mears.

You are talking On Average figures. Not accurate at all. If you have a country that is divided between a small number of billionaires and many living in third world conditions and you divide t ha amount of money earned between thenumber of people of course it will look better the Europe but the figures that you trumpet are lies. The ordinary American is more insecure about issues of health and employment than the ordinary European (I'm not ncluding the UK in that as we've sold our welfare state that we lost a generation in WWII to create to dodgy corporations )

 

[atitlan]

And citizens, on average, wealthier than their European counterparts.

Oh, for fucks sake not again!

Can we put this one to bed for good

Two countries each have 30 million citizens and a GDP of 150 billion (to make to maths easy)

GDP per capita is therefore 5000

Now imagine one country is run by an absolute dictator who shares the riches of the country between his close family and political allies with the rest of the population in slavery. Most of the population have zero wealth

The second country is run on the basis of direct democracy and co-operatives. Wealth is more or less equally spread across the population.

The GDP per capita is the same for both countries, but the circumstances for the bulk of the population is vastly different.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What amazing condescension.

Amazing?

More like typical of his ilk.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

I'm not saying they were good or bad but France should not have helped Iraq develop nuclear facilities in the early 1980's.

as far as I know, that was 1975. who was supporting SH during the eighties?

 

[ViolentPanda]

as far as I know, that was 1975. who was supporting SH during the eighties?

Tammuz 1 (Osirak) & 2 were "shaken hands on" in 1973, with the final deal being concluded in '76.

 

[Streathamite]

I'm saying you are intentionally singleing out one player in the game. Why is that? How can one mention US involvement in Iraq without mentioning France, Yugoslavia, Russia or Germany?

Its obviously about other issues for those who just mention the US.

jesuswept. is it so very hard to work out, or do the voices in your head telling you 'say they're all just out to get us' at every turn drown everything else out.

It's simple; because if the US had - from the start - taken a clear and unambiguous hardline stance against Saddam, then there would have been much less support from (certainly) france and germany and (possibly) yugoslavia

 

[oi2002]

Who do you think supported Saddam more, the US or French? I say French. Funny how no one ever puts up a picture of Mr. Chirac and Saddam shaking hands.

If Mr Cheney is going to Yankee hell, is Mr. Chirac going to French hell?

Almost certainly and sharing a pit with Cheney would be a fitting punishment.

Happy to oblige on the photo here's JC pressing the flesh:

If you read the French press you'd realise the French are far less delusional than Yanks. They don't think their government has got cleaner hands than DC. They've got their own kind of exceptionalism, which isn't without moral purpose but nor do they elect politicians who fail to bring home the bacon because of a few camel jockeys getting boiled.

I'm sure there are lots of pictures of ministers the Sec.Council members toadying with Saddam down the years, afterall Iraq has the 2nd largest proven oil reserves in the world and nations rarely put human rights above making a buck. Latterly it seems to have been the Russians who were his best chums, at least they got the lionshare of the OFF pork.

Its largely thanks to DC that the Irainians didn't get to feed Saddam into a one of his recereational mincing machines back in the 80s. Not DC's finest moment, and done with great reluctance from what I've read, but the risk to the Saudi fields was severe and it would hardly have been a great gift to world peace if Tehran had got to Mecca. Nobody who plays the Great Game ever keeps their hands clean.

 

[Streathamite]

This is the leftist fallacy in its essence. "Retrain"? Get a job, lad. "Help our society"? Help yourself, mate. "(C)annot afford to do so"? You can't afford not to. So get busy.

utter, total crap, from a man living in a hermetically sealed world. EVERY economist, HR, employment specialist knows you need to invest in people's talents, for long term collective gain.
As a matter of interest, have you ever lived in anything like the real world?

 

[oi2002]

...You lot never learn.

I said at the time there'd be mass executions when the Shah fell. Unfortunately the Iranians comrades were a rather reasonable bunch and failed to appreciate the necessity of slaughtering the Iranian Religous Right; naive prats thought they had history on their side. Khomeni's bunch were just better disciplined and played them for suckers. Wrongfooted the CIA and the KGB as well who both put all their energies into dealing with the Iranian Left.

Absorbed that lesson rather well myself, arround the same time DC decided supporting Islamo-fascism was still a grand way to fight Communism.

 

[Streathamite]

That was a sterling bit of choice by Nixon, swapping a snake for a halfwit!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It's simple; because if the US had - from the start - taken a clear and unambiguous hardline stance against Saddam, then there would have been much less support from (certainly) france and germany and (possibly) yugoslavia

Do you honestly believe that 'disapproval' from the US will stop all other nations from dealing with some nation?

And don't forget that even with condemnation from the US back in the seventies and eighties, there were still the USSR, China, Korea etc to turn to for support.

 

[Streathamite]

Do you honestly believe that 'disapproval' from the US will stop all other nations from dealing with some nation?

.

i'd say that, in the 80s, the cold war was the key. Germany and france knew damn well - as did the brits - that NATO basically meant that the US was their principle deterrence and defence against potential red hordes smashing through the iron curtain and advancing down the champs d'elysee/autobahns of rhineland. If the US had ever made crystal clear its' opposition to a specific regime, on whatever grounds,l and the likely cost of ignoring that, it would have made them think again.
conversely, if the USG at the time had made a public show of its' smiling on a particular regime, they'd not have been slow to follow suit.
In both scenarios, not even the legendary cussedness of the french governing class would have made that big a difference.
as, indeed, they weren't - tho' we must factor in the complication that france has always regarded the m/east as an area of 'special influence' for it.

And don't forget that even with condemnation from the US back in the seventies and eighties, there were still the USSR, China, Korea etc to turn to for support

where did i gainsay that?

I deliberately focused on Paris, bonn, and belgrade in my OP.

 

[rogue yam]

It's simple; because if the US had - from the start - taken a clear and unambiguous hardline stance against Saddam, then there would have been much less support from (certainly) france...

This assertion is baldly ahistorical. When the U.S. distances itself from someone, that is when Froggy sniffs opportunity and rushes in.

 

[rogue yam]

Its largely thanks to DC that the Irainians didn't get to feed Saddam into a one of his recereational mincing machines back in the 80s. Not DC's finest moment, and done with great reluctance from what I've read, but the risk to the Saudi fields was severe and it would hardly have been a great gift to world peace if Tehran had got to Mecca. Nobody who plays the Great Game ever keeps their hands clean.

At the time supporting Saddam was seen as a means of containing Iran and the U.S.S.R. Even with the benefit of hindsight I do not disagree with this approach. Saddam, Kohmeni, and the U.S.S.R. were all evil. Now only Iran remains as a major source of tyranny and risk. That's progress, which came at great cost, borne by the U.S. most of all, and by France and Germany less than most. So who's complaining?

 

[Streathamite]

This assertion is baldly ahistorical. When the U.S. distances itself from someone, that is when Froggy sniffs opportunity and rushes in.

and that's an oversimplification a 12-year old would discard. SOMETIMES they do; often as not, the wily gallics ride the sep coat-tails.
and it all boiled down to the subtle cold-war balance-of-calculations the French were so good at then; as I pointed out, the US was the main guarantor against russian invasions of western europe; without that deterrence, if push had come to shove, Ivan would have been in calais within days of crossing the east german border.

 

[rogue yam]

Absorbed that lesson rather well myself, arround the same time DC decided supporting Islamo-fascism was still a grand way to fight Communism.

The U.S. and U.K. decided (correctly in my view, even in hindsight) that alliance with certain Afghan factions was the only practicable way to turn back the U.S.S.R.'s murderous expansion into Afghanistan. Mission accomplished. Further, this Soviet defeat was instrumental in bringing about the subsequent collapse of that evil empire and the liberation of Central and Eastern Europe. May God bless Ronnie and Maggie for this and much else. Your assertion that "supporting Islamo-fascism" was a matter of U.S. policy is utter bollocks, of course. Your implication that our temporary and limited alliance with certain Afghan factions was part of an existing and ongoing policy to align with Islamists against Communists is similarly dishonest.

 

[oi2002]

I'm not saying they were good or bad but France should not have helped Iraq develop nuclear facilities in the early 1980's...

In this case they were just reaping the reward for giving Israel the bomb. DC was right to be furious about that, inevitably lead to AQ Khan's Islamic bomb.

Tricky blighter Johnny Frog. There is a long list of things France should not have done: Algeria in 62 or 92, the rainbow warrior, nouvelle cuisine, Rwanda etc. They proudly punch way above their weight in the scape grace area. Les Rostbifs used to offer some stiff competition but do seem to have lost their edge since they've been trailing behind DC`s blundering boy scouts.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

where did i gainsay that?

I deliberately focused on Paris, bonn, and belgrade in my OP.

The issue is potential foreign investors; why ignore the obvious candidates?

 

[oi2002]

At the time supporting Saddam was seen as a means of containing Iran and the U.S.S.R. Even with the benefit of hindsight I do not disagree with this approach. Saddam, Kohmeni, and the U.S.S.R. were all evil. Now only Iran remains as a major source of tyranny and risk. That's progress, which came at great cost, borne by the U.S. most of all, and by France and Germany less than most. So who's complaining?

Certainly not the US oil companies, that gambit secured their Saudi sweet crude deals. As I said above a sensible piece of typically ruthless Real Politik, the US has always tolerated and sometimes encouraged evil when there is a buck in it.

I have Yank friends who insist that if the Shah had not listened to Carter's whining about human rights, been little less lazy and jammed the torture chambers full there would not have been a revolution. Truth is it was DC efforts to suppress Iranian nationalism that caused the revolution. Au fond DC mistook an ancient proud nation like Iran for Argentina.

Had bugger all to do with the USSR at that point, they'd barely been active in the ME since the early 70s. Strategically the Iranian revolution was far worse than Vietnam for DC, who had done there best to keep Iran subservient to US interests, the Shah was their main means of controlling the Gulf, losing a cruicial vassal state like that left the Imperium unbalanced, not as bad as handing the Mullahs Basra but getting there.

 

[rogue yam]

As I said above a sensible piece of typically ruthless Real Politik, the US has always tolerated and sometimes encouraged evil when there is a buck in it.

Perhaps in isolated, small instances, but not in the present case. Is it impossible for you to admit that the U.S. ever does anything that is of general benefit to the world, or that in doing so it is sometimes the best course to make temporary alliances with actors so unsavory that we later find ourselves as adversaries to them?

 

[spring-peeper]

Perhaps in isolated, small instances, but not in the present case. Is it impossible for you to admit that the U.S. ever does anything that is of general benefit to the world, or that in doing so it is sometimes the best course to make temporary alliances with actors so unsavory that we later find ourselves as adversaries to them?

Oh please - I live next door to you. That is total and complete bullshit.

 

[rogue yam]

Oh please - I live next door to you.

Hoser side, I assume, right? But so what?

 

[spring-peeper]

so your claims that everything the your government does is for the benefit of the world is total bullshit.

please continue on your merry little way, it's very interesting and I'm learning a lot right now (not from you of course), but DO NOT make noble comments about your countries foriegn policy.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Perhaps in isolated, small instances, but not in the present case. Is it impossible for you to admit that the U.S. ever does anything that is of general benefit to the world, or that in doing so it is sometimes the best course to make temporary alliances with actors so unsavory that we later find ourselves as adversaries to them?

I think the US acts in its own interest, and sometimes, that is also of benefit to the world.

It's stupid to shit where you eat, and I think that US policy can recognize that, when it's under good governance.