olivier in france Posted January 29, 2005 Posted January 29, 2005 SOMEONE has a huge stake in Iran, whether it be contracts or exports... I would think that France and Russia have a lot invested there. I haven't researched it though... let me look into that. I know Turkey has contracts and trade, but I only see what is in the newspaper here... I think Americans have gotten used to making fun of Chirac, and another face will give pause for analysis. To me, he seems arrogant because I have been following his opinions on the Imam scarf issue and the Turkey EU talks issue. He seems intent on using France's power to create a 'fluff power', to give France an apparent upper hand. It makes him look VERY arrogant and ignorant of how important working together is in the world... If he presses the Cyprus issue in the EU, he is endangering France severely!! His record is not lost on the Muslim world! 222523[/snapback] i don't know much about Iran's partners either... there's probably a book to write about all the common points there is between Chirac and Bush... there 's a lot, what i hear here about Chirac i hear it everyday about Bush ; the two guys are called ignorant, arrogant, stuborn, they are doing very well with the popular classes, are snobed by the elites, both have mixed business and politics, both have been elected using "Security" as their first campaign argument , both are not trusted by their allies, both are hated overseas, they represent very well what the world does not like in France and in America, and people in France and the US like to be disliked by foreigners... it make them feel to be the only ones being right and our two peoples love that.
olivier in france Posted January 29, 2005 Posted January 29, 2005 You know some day, I may take you up on that. 222522[/snapback] you'll be welcome!
DC Tom Posted January 29, 2005 Posted January 29, 2005 i don't know much about Iran's partners either... there's probably a book to write about all the common points there is between Chirac and Bush... there 's a lot, what i hear here about Chirac i hear it everyday about Bush ; the two guys are called ignorant, arrogant, stuborn, they are doing very well with the popular classes, are snobed by the elites, both have mixed business and politics, both have been elected using "Security" as their first campaign argument , both are not trusted by their allies, both are hated overseas, they represent very well what the world does not like in France and in America, and people in France and the US like to be disliked by foreigners... it make them feel to be the only ones being right and our two peoples love that. 222528[/snapback] One important difference being, of course, that Bush hasn't stood the Chinese Premire up in front of Congress, whitewashed China's human rights record, offered to lift the US weapons ban in the interest of "combatting French world hegemony", and then held joint exercises in the Sea of China intended to threaten Taiwan. But other than that...yeah, Chirac's a saint...
Alaska Darin Posted January 29, 2005 Posted January 29, 2005 try to give us lessons right?!! we 're gonna listen to you , right!! like we are the ones lying to the world about some weapons just to invade a country full of oil... 222487[/snapback] Nah, instead you'll simply steal the oil at a significantly reduced cost and give the money to a petty dictator while a few hundred thousand women and children starve to death.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 29, 2005 Posted January 29, 2005 One important difference being, of course, that Bush hasn't stood the Chinese Premire up in front of Congress, whitewashed China's human rights record, offered to lift the US weapons ban in the interest of "combatting French world hegemony", and then held joint exercises in the Sea of China intended to threaten Taiwan. But other than that...yeah, Chirac's a saint... 222584[/snapback] I'm telling ya, bring back Louis XIV's type of government!! The people need a Louis XIX to get back on track! You can't get much worse than Chirac and 20% unemployment... Don't bring back a Napoleon IV... let his descendants stay in America so that no one embarks on any crazed attempts at war (BTW, it is true... Napoleon's brother Jerome moved to the U.S., and his descendants have lived here ever since... in TEXAS, no less!! SPOOKY, huh?)
boomerjamhead Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 SOMEONE has a huge stake in Iran, whether it be contracts or exports... I would think that France and Russia have a lot invested there. I haven't researched it though... let me look into that. I know Turkey has contracts and trade, but I only see what is in the newspaper here... I think Americans have gotten used to making fun of Chirac, and another face will give pause for analysis. To me, he seems arrogant because I have been following his opinions on the Imam scarf issue and the Turkey EU talks issue. He seems intent on using France's power to create a 'fluff power', to give France an apparent upper hand. It makes him look VERY arrogant and ignorant of how important working together is in the world... If he presses the Cyprus issue in the EU, he is endangering France severely!! His record is not lost on the Muslim world! 222523[/snapback] Maybe you should read about the Middle East some time.
Alaska Darin Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 Maybe you should read about the Middle East some time. 222902[/snapback] He's too busy fighting against the tyranny of the current administration to actually be informed.
boomerjamhead Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 He's too busy fighting against the tyranny of the current administration to actually be informed. 222909[/snapback] No doubt.
chicot Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 Nah, instead you'll simply steal the oil at a significantly reduced cost and give the money to a petty dictator while a few hundred thousand women and children starve to death. 222638[/snapback] I take it you are referring to the Iraqis that died under the UN sanctions? It seems pretty bizarre to pin that one on France when I think it's pretty clear that they were in favour of lifting sanctions while the US was always dead against it, regime change being their bottom line.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 Maybe you should read about the Middle East some time. 222902[/snapback] *YAWN* Bless the ignore list, for it sounds a lot like 'ignorant' Can't say I'll miss ya!!
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 I take it you are referring to the Iraqis that died under the UN sanctions? It seems pretty bizarre to pin that one on France when I think it's pretty clear that they were in favour of lifting sanctions while the US was always dead against it, regime change being their bottom line. 222975[/snapback] I guess we have no responsibility in supporting Saddam during the 1980's, when SO MANY women and children were murdered by strangulation, chemicals, and other means? I guess it depends upon the CONTEXT when those death actually matter.... when we support Saddam, the deaths mean little; but when we don't, they are cruel barbarities. How quaint!! Let the excuses roll for our ignorance then in the 80's... Ohh but wait... Iraq was a democracy, or a republic then, for we NEVER support dictators!!
olivier in france Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 One important difference being, of course, that Bush hasn't stood the Chinese Premire up in front of Congress, whitewashed China's human rights record, offered to lift the US weapons ban in the interest of "combatting French world hegemony", and then held joint exercises in the Sea of China intended to threaten Taiwan. But other than that...yeah, Chirac's a saint... 222584[/snapback] hoooo it's true the US governement has been very very tough with China those last years.... this post is really funny, in France we have an expression for that "L'hopital se fout de la Charité" something i could translate into something like: "the blind having fun of the deaf"
olivier in france Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 few hundred thousand women and children starve to death. 22263while 8[/snapback] are you talking about this people that was starving to death because of an american blocus? there's an other book to write, i have the title in mind yet: "how America made the same mistake twice: The great gift the US made to its worst ennemies, the failures of the Cuba and Iraq blocus"
olivier in france Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 I'm telling ya, bring back Louis XIV's type of government!! The people need a Louis XIX to get back on track! You can't get much worse than Chirac and 20% unemployment... Don't bring back a Napoleon IV... let his descendants stay in America so that no one embarks on any crazed attempts at war (BTW, it is true... Napoleon's brother Jerome moved to the U.S., and his descendants have lived here ever since... in TEXAS, no less!! SPOOKY, huh?) 222652[/snapback] Napoleon was more fun than the Kings... and his crazy family... Himself wanted to moved to the US when the English caught him at La Rochelle after Waterloo, he wanted to cross the Atlantic and move to the US... and don't forget our last King, the good old Louis Philippe was a Boston french teacher during the Revolution...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 Napoleon was more fun than the Kings... and his crazy family... Himself wanted to moved to the US when the English caught him at La Rochelle after Waterloo, he wanted to cross the Atlantic and move to the US... and don't forget our last King, the good old Louis Philippe was a Boston french teacher during the Revolution... 222984[/snapback] I didn't forget!!! It was the terrible bluster of the Napoleonic line that got them into trouble. They had a great admiration for America and its growing traditions. I don't blame them, considering England at that time was very arrogant and dogmatic. The problem with post-monarchial France was the violent reaction that followed great upheaval; the stability had gone. He should have tried the barbecue... HOOO DOGGY! mmmm BBQ wings...
olivier in france Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 I didn't forget!!! It was the terrible bluster of the Napoleonic line that got them into trouble. They had a great admiration for America and its growing traditions. I don't blame them, considering England at that time was very arrogant and dogmatic. The problem with post-monarchial France was the violent reaction that followed great upheaval; the stability had gone. He should have tried the barbecue... HOOO DOGGY! mmmm BBQ wings... 222989[/snapback] well you can not know, with some luck Napoleon could have found some way to make peace and stabilise his empire (especially if he had not fallen into the Russian trap) and Europe 'd have been unified two centuries before it actually has been the case. The Napoleonian "adventure" is something i'm really interested in... some think it was just a war of conquest and a personnal ambition but it was not, do you know than during the russian campaign less than 25% of the Great Army was made of french soldiers? And all were volunteers! A lot of the peoples of Europe were supporting Napoleon and the new ideas he was bringing...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 well you can not know, with some luck Napoleon could have found some way to make peace and stabilise his empire (especially if he had not fallen into the Russian trap) and Europe 'd have been unified two centuries before it actually has been the case. The Napoleonian "adventure" is something i'm really interested in... some think it was just a war of conquest and a personnal ambition but it was not, do you know than during the russian campaign less than 25% of the Great Army was made of french soldiers? And all were volunteers! A lot of the peoples of Europe were supporting Napoleon and the new ideas he was bringing... 222994[/snapback] I think he WAS obsessed and overwhelmed by personal ambition. He was angry that Russia dared to throw off the yoke of the Continental System, and not realizing what sort of conditions he was to place his army under. It is true to say that if he HAD limited himself and aligned himself properly, he would have been OK, but that is not Napoleon. Could he have EVER been happy during a long lasting peace? I don't think so... he was far too active to stay sedentary for long! Well, I recently did a research paper on Napoleon III... I chose him because I knew very little about him, and after doing it, I found some scary similarities between his personality and mine. It is amazing to read so many different events of his life, and to realize that. I understand now why he fell into Germany's trap in 1870..
olivier in france Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 Well, I recently did a research paper on Napoleon III... I chose him because I knew very little about him, and after doing it, I found some scary similarities between his personality and mine. It is amazing to read so many different events of his life, and to realize that. I understand now why he fell into Germany's trap in 1870.. 222998[/snapback] i'm not sure i'd like to find out i have similarities with the nephew! Napoleon III is not really the greatest leader France ever had! (the Mexico story is his chef d'oeuvre of ineptitude!)... He Rabid from today i'll call you Badinguet!! (If you know Napoleon III a little you must know this name...for a reason i have always ignored my father used to call me like that when i was a kid and i had done some stupid things!)
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 Well, I recently did a research paper on Napoleon III... I chose him because I knew very little about him, and after doing it, I found some scary similarities between his personality and mine. It is amazing to read so many different events of his life, and to realize that. I understand now why he fell into Germany's trap in 1870.. 222998[/snapback] i'm not sure i'd like to find out i have similarities with the nephew! Napoleon III is not really the greatest leader France ever had! (the Mexico story is his chef d'oeuvre of ineptitude!)... He Rabid from today i'll call you Badinguet!! (If you know Napoleon III a little you must know this name...for a reason i have always ignored my father used to call me like that when i was a kid and i had done some stupid things!) 223000[/snapback] One reason why I'll never be a world leader! Actually, the events after 1860 were more and more decided upon the opinions of his wife, Eugenie... he had contracted gonorhea because he LOVED pleasure too much, and it caused gallstones which pretty much rendered him more and more useless as the years went on. She insisted upon that adventure with Maximilien, and of course he did not refuse. He was so stubborn, refusing to step down just because of his health. So the facade reached epic proportions by the time Bismarck suckered him. His energies were just too much for both his body and mind... sounds all too familiar! I truly enjoy these moments of calm and peace in PPP... if only it was to stay this way forever! Alas, no... someone will chime in, like the hour striking, to render many posts of bliss irrelevant to the main thrust of vicious combat! *sigh* At least I have many IM's thanking me for my insight... trust me, I do it strictly to learn more and to teach at the same time. We can't all agree, but at least when we do disagree, some of us can enjoy the moment unspoilt.
GG Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 I take it you are referring to the Iraqis that died under the UN sanctions? It seems pretty bizarre to pin that one on France when I think it's pretty clear that they were in favour of lifting sanctions while the US was always dead against it, regime change being their bottom line. 222975[/snapback] Of course they were in favor of lifting the snctions, because evidence is coming to light that people in high positions were paid very well to lobby to lift the sanctions. But let's wait for all the investigations to complete (if the UN really cooperates). Just as a sidenote, the first US person was recently convicted in the scandal. And yes, regime change was the primary objective of the US government, because they had a pretty good reason to believe that once Saddam lifted the restrictions, he'd be a pretty meddlesome figure in Mid East politics. Your earlier contention that Saddam was no friend of fundamentalists is being proven wrong, as Saddam made links with the extremists to prop up his regime. How do you think this would have played out over the next 5 years? BTW, was that you I just saw dancing in the streets when the news showed a crowd of expat Iraqis dancing at Wembley polling station?
Recommended Posts