[lit-ideas] Re: Comparing Bush and Chirac
- From: Andy Amago <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 08:07:20 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
Hear, hear! I second everything you said.
Andy Amago, NY
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Chase <goya@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Nov 2, 2004 5:26 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Comparing Bush and Chirac
> Monday, November 1, 2004, 2:14:08 PM, Eternitytime1@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
>
> Eac> of nation-states having an impact. The isolationist group is
> Eac> quite large--and they would very cyncially state that the *only*
> Eac> reason why people in France (especially, since they 'benefitted'
> Eac> from the corruption of Saddam Hussein) did not want the invasion
> Eac> of Iraq to occur was so that they could continue to feather their
> Eac> nest. (so to speak)
M.C. I think there is some truth and some falsehood expressed in this=20
viewpoint. On the one hand, France viewed the invasion of Iraq as a=20
land-and-power grab on the part of the USA, hypocritically justified by=20=
lies and false or inadequate evidence, and contrary to international=20
law. The question, therefore, is not why France (or Canada, or Mexico,=20=
or any the many other nations who opposed the war) did *not* support=20
the invasion=A0: the question is rather : Why in the world *would* they=20=
have supported such an illegal and immoral venture? Just because the=20
Americans told them to?
On the other hand, it would be foolish to deny that economic =
interests=20
also entered into consideration. The *real* reasons for the USA's=20
invasion of Iraq were, after all, primarily economic, in addition to=20
Baby Bush's desire to be a Conquering Hero just like Daddy. =46rom the=20=
point of view of people like Cheney, this was the opportunity to=20
destroy a country and then get paid, via Haliburton and other such=20
fronts, billions to build it up again. It is also unlikely that a Texas=20=
oil man like Bush, whose Daddy gets paid spectacular megabucks as an=20
oil consultant for the Saudis, was unaware of the fact that Iraq is=20
sitting on top of some of the world's richest oil deposits. So when the=20=
Americans prepared to invade Iraq, France (and many, if not most other=20=
countries in the world) saw through the pathetic rhetoric about=20
fighting for democracy and realized that this was an American move to=20
corner, in one fell swoop, a great many extremely lucrative markets,=20
which is precisely what in fact happened. Can one really be surprised=20
that France failed to support this move?
<snip>
>
>
> Eac> It is not that someone (like me, even) would ever think that=20
> France ought to
> Eac> clean house just like the USA should clean house simply because=20=
> someone in
> Eac> France tells me to do so. It is because if you really care about=20=
> a clean
> Eac> house, you will take care of your own.
<snip>.
M.C. Very well. All I can is repeat what I said to Eric: Chirac's=20
crimes cannot be compared to those of Bush. They're just not in the=20
same ballpark, any more than a white-collar embezzler is in the same=20
ball-park as a mass murderer.
>
> <snip>
>
> Eac> (the whole 'don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house'=20
> maybe?)
M.C. You mean I should refrain from criticizing Bush because Chirac is=20=
imperfect? By this logic, I suppose Englishmen of the 1930's should=20
have refrained from criticizing Hitler because Churchill was an=20
alcoholic, and Americans had no right to diss Pol Pot because Nixon was=20=
a crook.
Bullshit. Crimes against humanity are crimes against humanity, =
and=20
*everyone* always has the right, and perhaps the duty, to denounce=20
them.
>
> Eac> If we (okay,
> Eac> me) could get some real articulate answers, then we (okay, me)=20
> are better
> Eac> able to use those answers when we are confronted by people who=20
> completely
> Eac> discount anything that is said in regards to either the UN,=20
> people from other
> Eac> countries who opposed the War in Iraq, especially, sad to say, =20=
> France.
M.C. As far as the UN is concerned, I find the "concerns" expressed by=20=
Eric disingenuous. The UN's corruption and/or incomptence, combined=20
with that of France, is supposed to have undermined the effectiveness=20
of sanctions. And yet, in the final analysis, the proof is in the=20
pudding : the sanctions ****WORKED****. They were *utterly successful*,=20=
as we now know, in preventing Saddam from reconstructing a nuclear=20
program after the early 1990's ; they were *completely effective* in=20
preventing Saddam from building or importing any stockpile of WMD's=20
whatsoever. They were also effective in killing up to a million Iraqis,=20=
but that's another story; Did Saddam attempt to get around the=20
sanctions? Without doubt; could one really expect him not to? Did=20
members of the French government and/or the UN administration accept=20
bribes to get around the sanctions? Nothing would surprise me less. But=20=
the fact is that *all these efforts failed*, and the sanctions were, in=20=
fact, respected.
There is something obscene about right-wingers harping on the =
defects=20
of the UN, as if it was the UN that invaded Iraq and brought it to the=20=
appalling state of ruin and degradation in which we find it. The UN was=20=
never perfect, but it was a force for peace in the world. It had,=20
howeevr, and continues to have at least two grave defects : it is=20
financially and administratively dependent on the US (one has only to=20
think of the location of its headquarters), and it has no adequate=20
military force to back up its resolutions. Thus, when UN inspectors,=20
peacefully carrying out their duty in Iraq under Hans Blix, were=20
summarily ordered by Bush to vacate the country so that they could=20
invade it, all they could do what obey and cluck their tongues in=20
disapproval. By so doing, of course, Bush and his fanatically extremist=20=
cronies carried out what has long been a major part of the Extreme=20
Right's agenda : eviscerate the UN.
They did so, and now, by a weird and unpleasant twisting of =
history=20
and reality, it is somehow the UN that is reponsible for the Iraq War,=20=
and hence for its own elimination as a serious player on the world=20
political scene. Although everybody witnessed Bush murder the UN, the=20=
Right now wants us to believe it was a suicide. Are you observing all=20=
this, George Orwell? If so, are you smiling or spinning in your grave?
>
>
Michael Chase
(goya@xxxxxxxxxxx)
CNRS UPR 76
7, rue Guy Moquet
Villejuif 94801
France
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
