US-EU War

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by bonkey
I'm still at a loss as to where the slander is.

Perhaps it doesn't actually constitute "slander" in a legal sense but it's still certainly moronic and insulting.

Bush did want to divert attention from his domestic problems...

Where is your evidence for this?

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Does the phrase 'we want a moral majority' mean anything? And the bribes that were offered?

That doesn't constitute America campaigning against France. They were trying to get their own resolution passed. France was actively campaigning to block this resolution, even though a supposed ally considered it an issue of supreme national security. This was not an issue of national security for France, it was an issue of keeping America down.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Please do not pretend to me that morality plays a part in the politics of nation states. I did not take you to be so... trusting.

It certainly does play a part. Of course America will differentiate between moral French objections and immoral ones.

That France and Germany refused to help defend their allies is your interpretation, that the Turkish parliament then went up to further back up the French and German objections is the reality.

The reality is that France and Germany would not have helped defend an ally, even if the Turkish parliament had not objected.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
It certainly does play a part.

Only when morality may be used to promote the expedient.

Of course America will differentiate between moral French objections and immoral ones.

Indeed, the immoral ones are the ones you highlight for political and diplomatic advantage. The moral ones are those you choose not to address for the same reasons.

The reality is that France and Germany would not have helped defend an ally, even if the Turkish parliament had not objected.

Semantics. And you still haven’t given me your interpretation on why the Turks had not required help against the Iraqis for ten years, while the US, on the other hand, required a base to invade from the north.

Sparks

Being supposedly "friendly" with the US, they should just have kept quiet.

What, "you're our friend so shut up while I shoot this guy or else!" ???

Perhaps it doesn't actually constitute "slander" in a legal sense but it's still certainly moronic and insulting.

Actually, it wasn't moronic, it was valid. And if it seems insulting, but Bush's actions do not, then perhaps you need to re-evaluate what you mean by moronic...

Where is your evidence for this?

Well, lets see now. Enron. Bush's dealings with the SCC. Bush's military record. Cheney's financial dealings. Rumsfeld's finanacial dealings. Perle's financial dealings. All 50 states going bankrupt in one term. The debt ceiling having to be raised by nearly one trillion dollars to $7.38 trillion to prevent the US defaulting on it's foreign debt. Cops showing less regard for the rules than drunken drivers (look at oakland for a prime example).
And you think he's got no reason to point somewhere else and yell "wow, look at that!" ???

The reality is that France and Germany would not have helped defend an ally

Really? Korea forgotten that quickly, eh? The fifty years of US bases in Germany just slipped your mind?
By the way, what you wrote is legally libel - defamation of character and all that.

That doesn't constitute America campaigning against France.

Really? You forgotten what was being said about France by American "diplomats" at the time then?

France was actively campaigning to block this resolution

As it should have been. As was Russia, China, Germany and the majority of the world's nations.

even though a supposed ally considered it an issue of supreme national security.

You put "supposed" in the wrong place. That should have read "even though an ally supposedly considered it an issue of supreme national security".
Because the US never did consider Iraq a serious threat, as we've been hearing from the intelligence community, who are rather annoyed that their repeated reports on Iraq's inability to threaten anyone were ignored.

Éomer of Rohan

I don't think Biffa realises how pro-America his posts are; in fact I would go so far as to say unsupportably so as evidenced;

It certainly does play a part. Of course America will differentiate between moral French objections and immoral ones.

Why is America the ultimate decider of what is moral and immoral? I would have said that the US foreign policy (even if we exclude Iraq) has been one of the most immoral ever.

The reality is that France and Germany would not have helped defend an ally, even if the Turkish parliament had not objected

FOR THE LAST TIME: THEY WERE UNDER NO TREATY OBLIGATION TO COME TO THE AID OF THE USA: THE USA WAS NOT ATTACKED BY IRAQ, IT WAS THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

That doesn't constitute America campaigning against France. They were trying to get their own resolution passed. France was actively campaigning to block this resolution, even though a supposed ally considered it an issue of supreme national security. This was not an issue of national security for France, it was an issue of keeping America down

It was a supposed issue of national security for the US (even though there is no way in hell Iraq could have threatened America) and it was supposedly an issue of French economics; they are as bad as each other in this respect - either way they campaigned against one another.

Perhaps it doesn't actually constitute "slander" in a legal sense but it's still certainly moronic and insulting

Unlike 'Freedom Fries' which were as I recall endorsed by many senators not to mention the petty diplomatics of using the NATO executive body that France was not on (can't remember the name at present)?

None of the US actions have been radically against their foreign policies. They took the opportunity to villanise the US purely for their own commercial interests.

I think this quite a naive comment Vorbis; none of us pretend that foreign policy is seperate from economic policy in the Western nations and it was against French oil interests and so they opposed America. I do not agree with French motives but is the enemy of my enemy my friend?

vorbis

It might be considered slightly naieve but in general nation states do business with a bit more subltely. France could have safegoaurded some economic interests by brokering a deal over non use of its veto. The same could be said for Germany. Instead, boith particularly Germany actively encouraged anti-American sentiment. (It could be argued that a large part of Schroeders election victory was based on appealing to this sentiment) Such actions I believe would of course be greeted with disgust by the Americans.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by vorbis
It might be considered slightly naieve but in general nation states do business with a bit more subltely.

Indeed, the US could well have done so alright.

France could have safegoaurded some economic interests by brokering a deal over non use of its veto.

You are assuming certain parties were willing to broker in the first place. Unfortunately, the US position was put forward did not appear open to any compromise.

Instead, boith particularly Germany actively encouraged anti-American sentiment.

They disagreed, the anti-American concept is an invention based upon not agreeing with the US. Let’s please differentiate between disagreeing with the US and being branded as some New Age anti-Semitic.

Just as an aside and considering I am in Cannes at the moment:)
The hotels are buzzing with U.S tourists and business people.
Not just people doing business in the area for the film festival, but ordinary commoner garden U.S tourists.
So really,Colin Powell can bluster about consequences, but really ordinary people don't listen-thankfully.
mm
p.s ( it's lovely warm and sunny here:p )

Morpheus

IRELANDS DEFENCE FORCE IS A JOKE, WE CANT DEFEND OURSELVES

AMERICA IS OUR LARGEST FOREIGN INVESTOR

BRITAIN IS OUR CLOSEST MILITARY ALLY

SO JUST EXPLAIN TO ME AGAIN WHERE THE ADVANTAGE OF JOINING A MASSIVE EU ARMY IS??

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Morphéus
BRITAIN IS OUR CLOSEST MILITARY ALLY

Is it?

SO JUST EXPLAIN TO ME AGAIN WHERE THE ADVANTAGE OF JOINING A MASSIVE EU ARMY IS??

This is somewhat off topic, however while the US is indeed the largest investor and the UK is the largest single trading partner, it cannot be forgotten that Europe as a whole accounts for far more of our trade than the UK, not to mention that we share the same currency.

I don’t think one could argue that we should side with either potential bloc simply on economic grounds. Our ties with the US and the UK are also based upon other factors; we share a language with both, strong cultural similarities with the UK (we don’t really with the US, at least realistically no more than we do with any other western nation) and there are blood-ties with both (there are few Irishmen and women who do not have close relatives in either the US or the UK).

On the other hand, in the case of Europe, probably the strongest argument for is that we have democratic representation - either directly elected via the European Parliament, or appointed by our national (elected) government in the shape of the commission. Unless we become accepted as the 51st state (or 52nd after the UK) of the USA, we won’t in the other bloc, outside of diplomacy or lobby groups (who’s ultimate loyalty is not to us). Where this diplomatic relationship to be unequal, then we cease to be a partner or ally and become a client state or protectorate.

In fairness, Ireland being forced to ‘take sides’ is some distance away - assuming that we will ever see this in the first place. With any luck this won’t happen, as we would be in a lose-lose situation regardless of our choice.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Perhaps it doesn't actually constitute "slander" in a legal sense but it's still certainly moronic and insulting.

So, what you're saying is that deliberately playing to the crowd by using emotive, slightly misleading language rather than clear, accurate and balanced descriptions is "moronic and insulting" ????

America was slandered by French and German politicians.

...

Perhaps it doesn't actually constitute "slander" in a legal sense

I would imagine that if I applied that same criteria to your statements on the issue, I'd be in breach of the board's charter

jc

vorbis

corinthian, schroeder played heavily to the idea of Americans as over weight idiots who didn't know what they were doing in the previous election. Indeed, his defence minister, I think, had to be fired over some dodgy comments.

Sparks

Vorbis, it wasn't the defence minister, and the lady you're talking about made a valid historical comparison between bush's actions and those of hitler. (Which is why it made a big noise).
As to the "overweight idiots" cracks, who was it that said "cheese-eating surrender-monkeys"?
In fairness, the french do eat cheese, so that was a half-truth, but then america has a serious obesity problem so it looks like both sides were about even...

vorbis

Sparks why is it when a comment is made by an American you read several meanings into it yet are willing to accept that lady's comment at face value. Compairing a leader to Hitler in any shape or form is designed to be a serious insult. In my view, it is reprehensible for a high ranking politician to be making such yobbish remarks. As for both slanging insults at each other, i'll agree it is quite even in that respect. Some people's indidgation at US people bad mouthing the french is quite funny though.

Sparks

Sparks why is it when a comment is made by an American you read several meanings into it yet are willing to accept that lady's comment at face value.

Well, I'm tempted to say precedence. In fact, I think I will.
Precedence.

Compairing a leader to Hitler in any shape or form is designed to be a serious insult.

Yes, but in this case it was an accurate comparison.

In my view, it is reprehensible for a high ranking politician to be making such yobbish remarks.

It wasn't a yobbish remark - it was a valid comparison.

As for both slanging insults at each other, i'll agree it is quite even in that respect. Some people's indidgation at US people bad mouthing the french is quite funny though.

Dunno why - it's one thing for some uneducated bar drunk to call the french "cheese-eating surrender-monkeys", it's another when it's a government offical, and it's just a base insult.
And before you say hypocrite, recall the circumstances surrounding the statement by the german minister who compared bush to hitler.

Éomer of Rohan

....and remember that however much America might not like the French, French civilisation is more ancient and respected than that of modern USA and those 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' ruled a lot of America not to mention a lot of the rest of the known world once upon a time.

Some people's indidgation at US people bad mouthing the french is quite funny though

Aren't you willing to admit that the opposite is also quite funny? I am laughing at the fools on both sides who degenerate to this sort of idiocy.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by vorbis
corinthian, schroeder played heavily to the idea of Americans as over weight idiots who didn't know what they were doing in the previous election.

I would not deny that Schroeder made political capital from the diplomatic wranglings that preceded the war.

However it does not change the fact that the US did not propose an invasion on Iraq in a subtle manner - from the onset, the US made it clear that regardless of any objections or potential diplomatic solutions that they would invade anyway (of course, now someone will pipe up that perhaps the only solution was ultimately a military one, but that’s not what we’re discussing here, we’re discussing diplomacy).

So while Germany and France may be accused of having acted undiplomatically, they certainly were not alone, nor were their actions without provocation. I have numerous friends who are in the diplomatic service, for this and other European states, and from all reports the international consensus is that the US handled the entire matter appallingly (to the point that even US diplomats privately wince at the damage caused) and invited the criticism from Germany, France and even Russia.

When you have numerous incidents such as Rumsfeld stating that the US didn’t need the British forces to take Iraq (dropping Blair in the proverbial **** at home), it’s actually difficult to see the US as anything other than arrogant, belligerent and foolish.

Some people's indidgation at US people bad mouthing the french is quite funny though.

Regrettably that’s simply an admission of partisanship.

vorbis

read my post éomer, I find both sides of it funny. Calling the french cheese eating surrender monkeys or calling the americans overweight idiots are just sill insults. However, comparing a head of state to one of the greatest mass murderers in history is a bit above that. Thats was all I was saying. Personally I think Bush was too blunt with his approach to the war. He decuded that it was ultimately it was going to end in military action so simply decided to do that. He failed to realise that it still looks well to go through the diplomatic motions with France and Germany.

Sparks

vorbis,
Sheesh. So it's fine for diplomats to insult each other, so long as it's not someone you agree with that's insulted?

Besides, to call it an insult is incorrect and to say that she compared Bush to Hitler is inaccurate:
From the telegraph:

The White House last night lambasted Herta Däubler-Gmelin, the German justice minister, for describing President Bush's Iraq policy as comparable to the methods of Adolf Hitler.
"Bush wants to divert attention from domestic difficulties," she said. "That is a popular method. Hitler has done that before.'

In other words, even the white house knows that the comparison is between the policies of hitler and those of bush. And in that respect, she was in fact correct, there is a noted similarity. Both leaders attempted economic revival through defence spending, both used foreign affairs as a diversion from domestic affairs, and both protrayed their nations as strong and morally correct but beset upon by terrible enemies that had to be destroyed for the good of humanity.
And both restricted civil liberties left, right and centre.

why mention hitler in particular though..eh??
If not to be casting aspersions or inuendo's indirectly??
surely, slightly more nice leaders could have been used ,as an example than him.
and regarding:

both protrayed their nations as strong and morally correct but beset upon by terrible enemies that had to be destroyed for the good of humanity.

I'm a tad puzzled hereby that comment, and need to be enlightened further ....
As it suggests to me that the extermination of jews in WW2 by hitler and his policies towards them equates to Bushes policies towards Bin laden and his followers.
I hope you are not suggesting that Bush want to exterminate Islam
mm

Sparks

why mention hitler in particular though..eh??

Because he's the most well-known exponent of those policies, especially in germany. (For example, on seeing bush implement those policies, hitler was the first example that sprang to my mind).

surely, slightly more nice leaders could have been used ,as an example than him.

Such as?

I'm a tad puzzled hereby that comment, and need to be enlightened further ....
As it suggests to me that the extermination of jews in WW2 by hitler and his policies towards them equates to Bushes policies towards Bin laden and his followers.

The jews were not the external enemies that Hitler pointed to. He continually railed against those that drafted the Versailles treaty. That's basic european history, ya'know.

I hope you are not suggesting that Bush want to exterminate Islam

Nope, he's chosen Islamic Terrorists. Nice, indefinable group which most uneducated voters can readily tag in their minds as a different and hard-to-understand group.

Éomer of Rohan

I hope you are not suggesting that Bush want to exterminate Islam

No but isn't it ironic that every christian fundamentalist group in the USA votes republican and that a large portion of these (I know many individuals from groups such as these in the USA) equate Islam with Homosexuality and being black and think it is a disease that should be wiped out - and yet such a voting body in no way affects Republican Party policies.

Originally posted by Sparks
Because he's the most well-known exponent of those policies, especially in germany. (For example, on seeing bush implement those policies, hitler was the first example that sprang to my mind).

Yet,using that example makes an association given,that Hitlers history, that shouldn't be made!

The jews were not the external enemies that Hitler pointed to. He continually railed against those that drafted the Versailles treaty. That's basic european history, ya'know.

and I asked , why, an unnecessary association should be made between Hitler and Bush.
Because ,an example of what you ask as an alternative when you say:

Such as?

would be Margaraet Thatcher and the Falklands war.
Hitler is to my mind a demonic term, introduced to create that subtle association , and creating it smacks of devilment.

Nope, he's chosen Islamic Terrorists. Nice, indefinable group which most uneducated voters can readily tag in their minds as a different and hard-to-understand group.

well Islam doesn't teach terrorism, if you are a true believer.
It does if , you have a warped view of it's teachings , like Bin Laden.
and if , a group acts upon those warped interpretations by carrying out terrorist acts,it's right and proper that those terrorists should be brought to justice.
To my mind,Islamic fundamentalist terrorists sully, the good name of true believers, in the same way as , those who Blew up pubs in Birmingham and elsewhere in the 70's in Britain sullied the name of ordinary decent Irish people there.
It's a fact of life , that human nature will tend a lot of people to be suspicious like that.
mm

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
No but isn't it ironic that every christian fundamentalist group in the USA votes republican and that a large portion of these (I know many individuals from groups such as these in the USA) equate Islam with Homosexuality and being black and think it is a disease that should be wiped out - and yet such a voting body in no way affects Republican Party policies.

I'd agree with your thinking there, I'm not a great fan of a lot of the Republican parties agenda, and certainly not Bush.
It boils down to educating voters , really, and unfortunately less and less people vote these days or get involved in mainstream political parties.
So those that do, carry the most weight.
mm

bonkey

What strikes me as noticeable in this is that not one single person has noted the relevance of the fact that it was a German who raiseed the spectre of Hitler with this comparison.

For the past half-century, Germany has - in one way or another - been taken to task time and time again for the fact that "they" were held accountable or to blame for Hitler's actions. "Ze Ge-manz" are always the ones cast down for their association with Hitler. Its *their* fault we had WW2. Its *their* fault we have neo-nazism. They have the p1ss taken out of them in so many ways, making sure they never forget their place in history. From English soccer chants to Hollywood movies, the western world will make sure that no-one ever forgets. Hitler came from Germany. Thus Germany - and not just Hitler - was responsible for WW2 and all its accompanying atrocities.

As a nation, they have had to live with over 50 years of this guilt and shame, and the last thing that they want to do is give that memory centre-stage once more in the world's eye.

And yet they did.

Can you the reaction to someone coming out and condemning a foreign nation's actions on the grounds that "this is just like the stuff the US did to its native American population"???

If it was anyone but an American, we'd dismiss the accusations as completely unacceptable in the same way that people are saying that the Hitler reference was.

If it was an American, many of you who are complaining about the unjustness of this Hitler reference would probably stand on your chairs and applaud while typing a message to these boards with your toes about how much guts and maturity that took.

Any idiot can mention one of the most infamous men in history and use it as an association to condemn someone else's actions. Hell - we see it on these boards at least once a week I'd say.

When's the last time you saw someone invoking their own nation's greatest shame as a comparison to condemn someone else?

jc

Éomer of Rohan

From English soccer chants to Hollywood movies, the western world will make sure that no-one ever forgets. Hitler came from Germany. Thus Germany - and not just Hitler - was responsible for WW2 and all its accompanying atrocities.

No one should ever forget about Hitler; if that happens then fascism might actually raise it's seriously ugly, dangerous head. Though I would say education rather than popular slogans and movies are the way to go about that; especially given Hollywood's pathetic grasp of historical facts.

Secondly, as much as we may gloss over the fact, the Germans (and to some extent the British and French and Americans) were responsible for Hitler's rise to power; left and right. The right voted for him, the left, such as the communists failed to do their duty and fight him, in fact on several occasions they used the Sturm Abteilung to fight other political parties instead of using the Red Guards (the Communist equivalent). Hitler, despite several unconstitutional methods, was elected to power. Hindenburg appointed him to power foolishly - he didn't have to; statistics show that if he had not done this, the Nazis may never have gained power; their popularity fell rapidly in the elections just prior to Hitler's appointment. The Weimar constitution and Article 48 thereof were exploited by Hitler while in power but the fact remains, he got their by the means that many other parties attempted to use - electoral strategy and violence.

Can you the reaction to someone coming out and condemning a foreign nation's actions on the grounds that "this is just like the stuff the US did to its native American population"???

If it was anyone but an American, we'd dismiss the accusations as completely unacceptable in the same way that people are saying that the Hitler reference was

I can imagine this all to easily. They would be hounded out as Anti-American. Such historical references are, if accurate, entirely appropriate for one thing we know of the human condition is that too easily do we fail to learn from our mistakes. That Germany used an example from their own history is reassuring and responsible not to mention tactful; had they used the example you suggested Bonkey, there'd be no end of criticism and talk of 'consequences.'

If it was an American, many of you who are complaining about the unjustness of this Hitler reference would probably stand on your chairs and applaud while typing a message to these boards with your toes about how much guts and maturity that took.

LMFAO.

When's the last time you saw someone invoking their own nation's greatest shame as a comparison to condemn someone else?

To be fair, many nations don't have such a well known focal point for any national disasters or horrific wars or so on as Germany does.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
No one should ever forget about Hitler; if that happens then fascism might actually raise it's seriously ugly, dangerous head.

I take it then that Communism should not be allowed to rise again as a result of Stalin’s actions either?

Éomer of Rohan

I take it then that Communism should not be allowed to rise again as a result of Stalin’s actions either?

Point taken. Nazism should not be allowed to raise it's ugly head again as Hitler's ideal and the Fascism of Franco and Mussolini were quite different I suppose, all the same they were seriously evil. Is this what you were driving at Corinthian? As for the point about Stalin, Stalinism and Communism are almost at diametric opposites. Stalinism cannot be compared with communism.

Sparks

I'm just waiting for someone to show that the comparison was incorrect and thus invalid.

Man, trust me, if Bush's feelings were hurt by being mentioned in the same sentence as Hitler, then the secret service is preventing him from reading any news apart from Fox to stop him from committing suicide. There are far, far worse allegations and comparisons being made out there...

(BTW, Thatcher was compared to Hitler by more than one person, if I recall correctly. Which shows that Hitler is the more widely-known example, and thus the comparison is still valid).