Posted by Hulse on March 14, 2003 at 18:03:34:
In Reply to: Re: Jingoistic bullshit posted by Monsieur Thibaut on March 14, 2003 at 14:28:22:
What is global politics but football write large?
Snide aside aside...
From ths side of the water some facts seem to glare out re: the Franco-German response.
Chirac wants to take a moral stand, but his stand is as a permanent member of the security council.
France is only on the security council because they were an (ex) colonial power. They are now upset with US coloniaism, but were very willing to practice it themselves.
Their stance is suspect since they are major arms suppliers to Iraq (and to many despots int eh world - it was French missiles that sank British ships during the Falklands).
Furthermore,like Russia they have billions of dollars of oil investments in Iraq.
Their position has more the smell of political opportunism than morality.
Right now on US TV there are documentaries showing the bravery of the US soldiers who died to save France in WW2 (10,000 after D Day), and how hundreds of thousands of US troops stationed themselves between the USSR Red Army and Europe during the cold war.
Now I know there are other sides to this argument, but are the US acting any differently than the British would have done in a similar situation. Here's an example of political expediency at teh expense of another country, but ultimately for that country's good.
Churchill took out the entire French naval fleet in North Africa, killing 5,000 of his French allies in 5 minutes in order to basically prove to the US that Britain was capable and determined to fight Hitler, and so worthy of backing.
Churchill got the backing he wanted, supplies started coming across the Atlantic. Eventually the Us came into the war, and the rest is history.
As will these events be.
The bottom line is - do we need to get rid of Saddam?
Post a Followup