[lit-ideas] Re: Comparing Bush and Chirac

  • From: Eternitytime1@xxxxxxx
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 09:14:08 EST

In a message dated 11/1/2004 4:42:50 AM Central Standard Time, goya@xxxxxxx  
Eric  sees a foreigner (Didier) attack Bush, which for Eric is=20
equivalent to  an attack on the US. So he attempts to relativize Bush's=20=

crimes,  drawing attention to Chirac's financial peccadilloes in order=20
to  imply  that Bush isn't really all that bad, because other  world=20
leaders also are guilty of misdeeds.

Just another note:  I do not think that you really do understand that  for 
many Americans, they feel that the UN did not watch over the store (so to  
speak) and thus even more Iraqis were harmed than needed to be--for the $$ that 
ought to have gone for food for little children went, instead, to "France" and  
"people in the UN".
This was (and is) a huge problem here in the US for those of us who would  
prefer that the UN continue to have some sort of moral authority to and for  
those in the USA.  There are many many (at least in my area) who completely  
discount all of what is said by someone who believes in the principles of the  
United Nations and the greater community of nation-states having an  impact.  
isolationist group is quite large--and they would very  cyncially state that 
the *only* reason why people in France (especially, since  they 'benefitted' 
from the corruption of Saddam Hussein) did not want the  invasion of Iraq to 
occur was so that they could continue to feather their nest.  (so to speak)
It is not that someone (like me, even) would ever think that France ought  to 
clean house just like the USA should clean house simply because someone in  
France tells me to do so.  It is because if you really care about a clean  
house, you will take care of your own.
(the whole 'don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house' maybe?)
I have no idea as to why Eric would have posted his question--but I do  think 
that it really IS a relevant one and not one to be ridiculed.  If we  (okay, 
me) could get some real articulate answers, then we (okay, me) are better  
able to use those answers when we are confronted by people who completely  
discount anything that is said in regards to either the UN, people from other  
countries who opposed the War in Iraq, especially, sad to say,  France.  It 
NOT necessarily have to be an antagonistic question--it  very well is often 
something that would be helpful to have other points of view  or answers 
to--especially for me (for example--please believe me when I tell you  that I 
live and 
work in an incredibly narrow-minded world...and it is often a  good thing that 
I do the light in darkness thing for myself and my child else we  just 
couldn't cope)
If I could say to those  in 'my world', that Others in France (and/or  other 
places) are also not just having a 'too bad, so sad' attitude but as upset  at 
the corruption in highest places in their countries as I am about the same in 
 mine--it really makes a difference.  If not, it does not mean that I will  
not do all that I can do make positive changes in my world--both the little one 
 in terms of attitudes but in the larger one like volunteering for the  
Kerry-Edwards campaign (and the Secretary of State in Missouri who is running  
governor has NOT done what needed to be done in order for this election to  be 
fair--there are all sorts of problems happening...it's a mess).  I have,  as 
I said, no idea about Eric's motives--but it really was a valid question for  
MY world to know the answer to.  But, it would not only make it easier to  be 
able to diffuse the attitudes which are against international cooperation but  
(actually) make ME  feel less alone in the world.
Thanks for any thoughtful articulation,

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: