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