US and France and others

[Nyarlathotep]

What would you want them to do, to gain support? "Oh Turkey, you so fine, you so fine you blow my mind! Hey Turkey! Hey, hey, hey Turkey!" ;)

We give enough (more than) aid to other countries, and to add more incentive to the situation for them to support us gives the countries a chance for a lot of money. Saudi Arabia had a chance at 8 billion, but since they stood by their first stance, against the war, the chance for that money was gone. The government stripped its people of this money, and the wonders it would have done just because they opposed something that was bound to happen anyway. Who is being more unjust now?

Acriku, ask yourself the following question:

Would they have done/stated the same things to those countries if the war wouldn't be at hand ? No they wouldn't => Bribe.

I was reacting on Miles' statement how bad and terrible the French are by opposing to the war and trying to convince other countries to be against the war. The US did the same thing => my response => stop complaining.

I'm not saying the what the French, or the US did is okay. I think they should leave it up to the countries to make up their own minds. And to remind you, the US government started lobbying (brinbing and threatening) to other countries first. The French followed that example.

[Acriku]

The extra money probably wouldn't have been given to these countries, I understand that. But that doesn't mean the US doesn't pay them at all - if they didn't pay the countries anything, and dangled a bunch of money just above their heads, then it would be bribery. Think of it like the police giving money to thugs who stop being thugs. If the police offered more money if they turn in other thugs, would that be so bad?

Bribery isn't that bad sometimes, especially when it conscerns helping a country get way above its feet, in return for approval of a war. It was an offer they couldn't refuse, but they did, and they are facing the consequences.

[Andrew]

Its all good to offer countries lots of money..the country can say yes or no to it.

Somewhat like saying i will give you 100 dollars to go pick up my groceries, you can say yes or no, adn depending on what you say i may get angry with you. :-

[Nyarlathotep]

The extra money probably wouldn't have been given to these countries, I understand that. But that doesn't mean the US doesn't pay them at all - if they didn't pay the countries anything, and dangled a bunch of money just above their heads, then it would be bribery. Think of it like the police giving money to thugs who stop being thugs. If the police offered more money if they turn in other thugs, would that be so bad?

Bribery isn't that bad sometimes, especially when it conscerns helping a country get way above its feet, in return for approval of a war. It was an offer they couldn't refuse, but they did, and they are facing the consequences.

I dont think you get the point. I'm talking about poor countries, who already received aid from the US. The US said that they would stop that aid if they didn't support the war. I'm talking about countries like Mexico, look above for my explanation...

[Acriku]

What? Completely stop aid to these countries? I have never heard of this. I have heard, in fact, about the 8 billion for Saudi Arabia.

[Gobalopper]

Nyar could you post a news article about the US saying they would stop providing aid to countries like Mexico if they didn't support the war. I find that hard to believe when the US is still providing food aid to North Korea who have said they are going to destroy the US in a sea of fire.

[Nyarlathotep]

Nyar could you post a news article about the US saying they would stop providing aid to countries like Mexico if they didn't support the war. I find that hard to believe when the US is still providing food aid to North Korea who have said they are going to destroy the US in a sea of fire.

I saw those reports on the Dutch television in the news, but I'll try to find English articles about them. I doubt North Korea was one of the countries I was mentioning. I know of Mexico (what I stated about it). I also know of stopping aid to countries like Bangladesh (sp?)... hence why I don't think Miles had any reason to complain about the French..

[Acriku]

I would like to see evidence of such claims, because they are very hard to believe. The government would know of the repercussions of denying aid to countries - and would decline in international support enormously.

[SpiceGuid]

Will we ever be able to recover from this crisis?

That is an american problem.

In France the paranoia was just an awaken-dream.

Frenchies are now busy with routine like protecting their jobs and their pensions.

[Miles]

Nyarlathotep: You have missed my point completely. I don't completely approve of some of the methods we have used to "win" support of other countries, although not for the same reasons you dissaprove. So we bribed them. Who gives a shit? These bribes hurt no one. And don't forget that the aid that we are talking about to these countries like Mexico are handouts. We have every right to refuse to give handouts if they don't support us. If they don't want to be influenced like this, then they should build up their own freakin economy and stop begging us for our table scraps. It is a basic rule of nature: don't bite the hand that feeds you.

The difference between the French and us is that our lobbies were not directed towards specifically discrediting an ally. We lobbied our case for war. The French lobbied to discredit us to others for their own political gains. Face it, Chirac took a bold gamble to catapault France from political obscurity to one of prominance in lobbying against the US. He will lose that gamble when we are vindicated by the discovery of WMD and when the Iraqi people live better lives as a result of our actions and are therefore greatfull. Allies my oppose each other's actions even publicly, but you NEVER, NEVER attack an allies credibility to the world. (especially one much more powerful than you)

[Miles]

Will we ever be able to recover from this crisis?

That is an american problem.

In France the paranoia was just an awaken-dream.

Frenchies are now busy with routine like protecting their jobs and their pensions.

I'm talking about politics, and BELIEVE ME France will hurt worse than the US. What the hell do we need them for? This is Their problem really.

I don't think the majority of Americans liked the French in general before the war, so this will only increase the already present animosity.

Realistically, I think our goverernments will eventually work it out through diplomacy. France will pay in some ways, but as time passes relations will stabalize. As for public opinion, I don't think the general population will be so easy to forgive, but with our short attention span, we may forget. Some of us won't though.

[Nyarlathotep]

Miles, I understand what you are saying. Fact of the matter is that the US government wouldn't have taken teh step to make immigrating from Mexico to the US more easy if the war wouldn't be at hand (just to give an example).

I tried to find articles on the net, but haven't been succesful so far :-

And Miles, stating "What the hell do we need them for?" is exactly the wrong attitude that is being displayed. We all need eachother if we ever want to have world peace..

And like said, don't forget that the US government started bribing and what not first. The French reacted on that.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not supporting the French government, but neither am I supporting the US government.. They both acted blatently dumb in this situation..

[Acriku]

I think that the US didn't have a choice if it wanted support, and if it did - bribery would be the better go at it. It doesn't hurt anybody, and both parties gain something. Now if it was for something illegal, then it would be bad. But getting support isn't illegal. And the war was going to go anyways, so Saudi Arabia and France, etc, just got pissy for no reason.

[Nyarlathotep]

And the war was going to go anyways, so Saudi Arabia and France, etc, just got pissy for no reason.

You forgot to mention the US next to those 2 countries..

[Acriku]

A lot of American citizens (I can't stand protestors that go out on the streets and create all havoc and traffic...grr) are still pissy, but maybe they can straighten their panties out when the war is unofficially done. (I say unofficial because there will still be resistance for a while, while the main army is destroyed and broken down).

[SpiceGuid]

I agree with you Miles on these particular points:

* Chirac/France acted for its own political prestige

* French have been sometimes hysterical

But while french anti-americanism is a time limited hysteria you seem to claim relentless anti-french retaliation. Somewhere you have to make a choice: do you want to be a part of the problem, or do you to be a part of the solution? I am sure your government wants to be a part of the solution. So he will legitimately delay any cooperation to show its dissaproval. Then everything would go as before.

Seems like you want more. Seems like you want "France will pay". May be you want France to be deprived of its UNO priviledges. But then you also have to deprive Russia. That is simply unthinkable. Moreover germans would question if they really need US bases on their land. Sure US do not need France in any way. But that is not the proper moment to lose allies. No doubt your government will show determination but he will practice moderation.

About public opinion: don't worry, attention span is even shorter than you think. In France everybody has already forgotten. Those that will never forget are somewhat sociopaths.

[SpiceGuid]

France already pays the US war by beeing excluded of iraqui oil fields. I can't see one reason why we should pay a higher price.

[Acriku]

Then I guess every little country plays its part, too! :)

[SurlyPIG]

Don't forget that Hussein's government owes France five billion dollars. I think this is the main reason the French government was anti-war. After all, how can you get your money back when the store went bankrupt? Any deals made by Saddam would certainly never be recognized by any government that takes over.

[Egeides]

ACE, I agree on your point with France even if I think that the strategic assets and oil loss may have more importance for the French politicians with doubtful ethics. But if you take what's on the French interest and admit that interests are important to consider, US interests are way higher. So does it mean you consider them too?

PS: I do not mean that all politicians are following ONLY the national interests though, French or US side. Maybe one side is more influenced though.

[Miles]

Spice Guild-

I'm personally pissed off at the French, and my childish "we'll get you" anger is coming out. Out of anger, I would like to see the French pay high prices, but hopefully cooler heads will prevail.

This is one reason that the anger runs a little higher here than there. I think many Americans feel that, like I said, France publically attempted to discredit us to the world. Because of this, it emboldened other very dangerous countries like N. Korea as well as emboldening Saddam Hussein. It also seems that, at the very least, France damaged our chances in Turkey, and because of this more American lives were in danger.

Then we see the French people burning our flag and taking out their anger on Ronald Mcdonald, (although sometimes I feel the same way, Mcdonald's sucks), but chanting about the evil Americans and we wonder where the hell your gratitude is for the many things we have done and sacrificed for YOU.

Now they have the balls to demand a leading role in the reconstruction of Iraq after WE paid the price. Not a chance in hell.

As I said, these things piss me off, but rationally I hope that cooler heads will prevail and relations will stabalize.

[SurlyPIG]

Nope. If anything, the US is economically brilliant. Why would they spend billions and billions on war, billions and billions on rebuilding Iraq, cost themselves billions because of the economic impacts of war just to buy oil from Iraqis when they could have just dropped the sanctions and bought the oil from Saddam? It doesn't make sense. These things are easy to quantify. The only way they could drive a profit from this war would literally be to steal the Iraq oil without any payment or compensation at all, and that's not going to happen. If it does, I'll eat my words but it won't so I'm not worrying.

[Egeides]

Ok ACE, then let's just both wait after this war and see if they gain enough for it. Also, never forget that we're not talking about the country's profit but the oil corporations' profit (which is the administration). For the country, it's debts over debts that people will have to pay.

[Acriku]

The government can 1) seize the oil for its own purposes; 2)tax the incoming oil; 3) negotiate with the oil corporations like Exxon, to make a profit there.

[Miles]

The government can 1) seize the oil for its own purposes; 2)tax the incoming oil; 3) negotiate with the oil corporations like Exxon, to make a profit there.

Exactly. It will be the Iraqi's choice.