Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

WELL DONE CHIRAC!

Page: (1)2 3

14:34 / 20.02.03

As a citizen of "old" Europe I - along with millions who marched on 15 feb - congratulate Chirac for standing up to the current warmonger US administration!

As a European born in London, I thank my lucky stars that France is trying for a peaceful resolution to the Iraq crisis, despite intense pressure and blackmail from the Bush mafia. According to UN information, Iraq was hasn't posed a military threat to its neighbours since the early 1990s when the US gave it a false green light to invade Kuwait. Iraq is even unable to protect itself from regular US-UK attacks, let alone be a threat to Europe or the US. Neither is there any evidence of "weapons of mass destruction", only evidence of Iraqis resisting being humiliated by aggressive UN search methods. Everyone in Europe knows this is about oil (Iraq has the second largest reserves outside Saudi Arabia).

Chirac speaks for millions of peace-loving Europeans when he refuses to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians through ariel bombardment by those brave US airmen.

Well done Chirac, we forgive you for all your previous corruption! You might save us yet from World War III!

14:47 / 20.02.03

Shame about Mugabe, though. B+.

20:26 / 20.02.03

did you all hear that under french law, no head of state may be prosecuted? and i believe that that means ever. (possibly tied in with some kind of statute of limitations, not sure)

i think it went through recently (year or two) to protect the president from impeachment.

it came up as peter tatchell et al tried to get mugabe arrested for torture, also a crime under french law, no matter where perpetrated.

22:09 / 20.02.03

Iraq was hasn't posed a military threat to its neighbours since the early 1990s when the US gave it a false green light to invade Kuwait.

Those outrageous Yanks! Is there no end to their mendacity? Leading that poor chap Saddam up the garden path like that. Him such a nice boy too.

Seriously though, is Chirac really such a hero? Isn't he just reiterating the French myth that it should and can function independently of NATO? To what end? The right to unilateral pacificism? Right. These are the people that can blow up Greenpeace ships (ooh, big threat to national security there), for god's sake. And would he be as ostensibly obstructive without public support? I don't think so.

ONLY NICE THINGS

22:28 / 20.02.03

So far, I believe NATO has been asked to suppport a Turkish border that the Turkish government has stated it can defend perfectly well without NATO support...it is worth takign the time to separate the UN, the US, NATO and France here.

So, France - trying to cover up its own actions within Iraq, also acting against military behavour it finds onerous and repulsive, also undermining US hegemony in the UN and against the EU, and also allowing Mugabe in for the sake of a Pan-african congress..history will award something between a B+ and a D. For the moment, probably a B.

22:47 / 20.02.03

I find it hard to imagine Turkey would openly admit that it can't defend itself. And it is asking for lots of money in return for assisting the US.

23:05 / 20.02.03

Ariel bombardment? Someone get Chrome, quick - them pesky Israelis are at it again.

23:41 / 20.02.03

Seriously though, is Chirac really such a hero?

perhaps the maxim concerning friends and enemies of your enemies is relevant here. he is not whiter than white, but is a little better than a warmongering pillock.

ONLY NICE THINGS

08:52 / 21.02.03

I find it hard to imagine Turkey would openly admit that it can't defend itself. And it is asking for lots of money in return for assisting the US.

Precisely. NATO is a defensive alliance. It should not be pulled into a deal whereby the USA pays Turkey for the right to launch an attack on Iraq over its border.

10:25 / 21.02.03

I'm under no illusions about Chirac. He's a professional politician who no doubt sees a good opportunity here to be a popular champion, yes, a hero even, against a bloodthirsty US.

HOWEVER, I personally forgive all the corruption of Chirac if even one straw can be clutched to stop us being dragged into a possible world war.

Let's not knock any chance for peace, especially at this eleventh hour...i mean Chirac is hardly a mass murderer is he? Come to that...neither is Mugabe, but that's another story.

10:32 / 21.02.03

Sure, but it's perfectly possible to acknowledge and appreciate Chirac's contribution to eleventh-hour peace negotiations without leaping to "forgive" his every politically murky manoevre in the past. We can make the point without overstating it.

11:42 / 21.02.03

OK...point taken...I'm just desperate for peace (and afraid)!

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

06:47 / 22.02.03

Yeah, I'm of the opinion that Chirac rocks right now . I'm under no illusions that he's doing this for the right reasons, and won't be at all surprised if he softens/reverses his tone having made his point. But for the moment I can say he's doing a good thing. Even if for the wrong reasons.

yawn - thing's buddy

13:58 / 24.02.03

non.

Chirac's an arsehole. France has continued to trade and develop commercial links with Iraq since the last Gulf War - it did not subscribe to the UN sanctions agreement.C hirac is acting to protect France's economic interests. Simple as that.

He is not interested in morality. Otherwise, why would he so warmly receive a killer like Mugabe? Okay, the other agenda is to create an opposing superstate to counter America's global reach, but I think Chirac's missing the point on that one. Can't we just wait for China? Anyway, do we really want to centralise when power has proved to be more effective when cultivated in cell structures?

Unfortunatley for Chirac and his admirers, the future is not Orangina.

He's certainly Pro-Fortress Europe too - we all know about that and anyone who supports his stance should bear this in mind. Please try to remember: Chirac is a killer and a hypocrite and should not be trusted any more than Bush and Saddam or even Tone Loc (like Mick Jagger said, he can't get no satisfaction).

The problem with all the anti-war rhetoric so far, is that 'evidence' (in the form of an alternative plan to end the impasse) has not been produced.

And then there's this dumb attitude (shared by the majority of peace marchers) that once we have a second resolution, then it's fair play to rip and maim. I don't understand that one at all.

Back to Jack le Conte:

I can't praise this guy for his anti-war stance. Not with his backstory and crooked sleight of hand techniques. I'm ashamed that the most vocal politician against war is this nasty man and that somehow, through my own opposition to the war, I'm associated with him.

up yer crack, Chirac.

Tryphena Absent

14:27 / 24.02.03

Chirac's been a clever boy, he's actually listened to his population and gained a lot of brownie points with regards to the electorate. To be perfectly honest I couldn't give a shit what his motives are, I'm just glad that someone with some small amount of power is saying no, someone directly involved. No Prime Minister or President is clean- they're totally corrupt, they're bastards, best to regard their actions individually while personally being made nauseous by them.

15:31 / 24.02.03

C'est vrai...

As horrible as it is, we can just assume that most politicians that come into discussion are lying bastard working through self-interst. Not all, but most. Given that, we can like Chirac for giving us some hope that Bagdhad won't be more of a smoking crater next month than it already is.

I don't agree with the 'if the second resolution is passed, it's okay' view, but in that case, the UN won't be in danger of being killed. If the UK, USA, etc. go in without UN approval, the consequences will be worse for international law, and the reaction from Iraq's neighbors will be far worse.

17:55 / 24.02.03

yep.
A s a frenchie here, I agree with that.
Chirac is as crooked as they come, but even if it's for his own agenda, he is for peace, or rather, he's not for war.
I don't think a war is a good idea.

19:39 / 24.02.03

Well, he's not for the war in Iraq. What about the Ivory Coast? I don't think he deserves praise for his actions - he should be listening to the French electorate, he should be acting in French interests. It's other leaders who deserve opprobrium, not Chirac who deserves praise.

15:27 / 26.02.03

I don't want a conflict here, but without the french army, Ivory Coast would look like Rwanda now.
In Rwanda, there were no army to keep the two fronts apart.
How many deaths ? more than a million.
I think the french army is doing a fine job there, working, maybe not for peace but against war. Which is what an army should do, IMHO.

22:18 / 04.03.03

chirac is a liar and an opportunist, nothing to do with peace-loving. he has already used his opposition to jean-marie le pen to increase his popularity, despite the fact he's probably the most fascist president france has known for decades. he's no different than alzar or berlusconi.

Jack Rock-a-Pops

04:55 / 07.03.03

Hey all

Well regardless of all the butchery that Chirac has done (we heard nothing of this in New Zealand, guess you have to read between the lines / hit the interweb) I support his anti-war stance. Wouldn't spoils of war be more beneficial to the economy than a token pacific stance (which doesn't seem so token anymore, go Russia / perhaps China).

I am a dual citizen, born in England and raised in New Zealand and this war debacle makes me fucking proud to be a Kiwi and ashamed of the British heritage in me. Like I didn't already have enough colnial guilt!

09:09 / 07.03.03

There is a relevant article on Chirac here in the Guardian. There is so much anti-american sentiment in France, Jose Bove, etc, that this might be more of a reaction against the states than a peace loving hippy thing.

13:44 / 07.03.03

Exactly—just as there are elements to American antiwar sentiment has very little to do with people's feelings about the UN or Iraq, and everything to do with their feelings about George Bush.

Jack Rock-a-Pops

06:23 / 08.03.03

"Chirac can have his mouth full of jam, his lips can be dripping with the stuff, his fingers covered with it, the pot can be standing open in front of him. And when you ask him if he eats jam, he'll say: 'Me? Never, Monsieur le president!"

Still laughing.

I'm not too sure about this whole anti-US thing, I'd always been taught by my grandfather to hate the French (the old French-British stupid rivalry thing) and I thought that it was taken as default nowadays that George W is a fucking lunatic not given the time of day at all outside of Texas. That is to say, I was under the impression that France was more stupefied at Blair's blatant cock-sucking than at a dipshit cowboy with a stiffy for war.

07:57 / 08.03.03

The problem is both bushadmin and chiracadmin are playing games of one-upsmanship instead of truly attempting to create a meaningful diplomatic dialogue,

With luck bushadmin will out in 2004 but I am not holding my breathe...

As a Californian, California secession is always an option

09:53 / 08.03.03

you can say everything and its contrary with numbers.
But ...
the majority of US citizens is against war without UN agreement. As is the majority of the world's citizens.
So, what is the representant of the US citizens and the so-called representant of the first country of the world doing ? He's gonna make war, he's gonna invade a country without UN agreement.

Great lesson of democracy, isn't it ?
Of course, the country he is going to invade is fairly helpless (I can't imagine massing troops at a few kilometers of the border if Irak REALLY had mass destruction weapons, let's be realists here)
But, please, all you nuclear countries, you can do whatever you want, because US won't do a thing against you.

Now, what bothers me is that the ones that are against war are treated like morons or cowards. Something's wrong here.
Or maybe, someone should explain it to me.

And on the subject of Rwanda, again : Everybody asked after the bloodshed (more than one million deaths) why France didn't act. Now, in Ivory Coast, before the blood bath, everybody is asking why we act.
Please explain me that too.

20:59 / 08.03.03

Now, what bothers me is that the ones that are against war are treated like morons or cowards. Something's wrong here.
Or maybe, someone should explain it to m

The problem with the anti-war demonstrations are illustrated by what my friend said when attending some demonstrations in San Francisco. The problem is that many "anti-war" demonstrators aren't any more educated and informed about the situation any more than the red-blooded hick who wants to 'kill the ragheads'.

The problem is the emotional reactionaries on both sides that dont take the time to critically examine the situation but leap to automatic conclusions.
Too many in the anti-war demonstrations are tied to faulty ideas and beliefs (like believing in violent revolution to create global utopian socialism) and embrace philosophies from the past that are flawed rather than looking toward the future and providing a true alternative to Bushadmin's neo-conservative foreign doctrine.

The answer is not violent global revolution (thats the Binny's strategy with no Endgame in mind)

The answer is local evolution of individuals...

10:02 / 09.03.03

The point, however, is not to provide an "alternative" to Bush's plans, but to establish exactly why Something Must Be Done About Saddam Hussain Right Now. If this cannot be satisfactorily established (and I don't believe it has) then it's up to the pro-war lobby alone to justify their actions.

yawn - thing's buddy

17:43 / 09.03.03

dunno bout that Ganesh. The good thing about this shit is that all the hypocrisies inherent in global politics are coming out and we're being forced to think about how to behave internationally.

So, if a sensible policy of disarmament in Iraq is proposed as a result of Bush's bloodlust then good. Cos it probably wouldn't have come about without it.

I've changed my mind about Chirac: doing a 'Filth' on im: he's just a host unit for idea clusters: through his objections to war, what he's doing has allowed a wider debate on international politics to develop.

It's really a very positive time for yon Global Village the noo.

17:53 / 09.03.03

You don't think it's incumbent upon those in favour of war to establish that there's a need for it? In Iraq? Next week?

If I was truly convinced that the dodgy line of logically shoddy, inconsistent 'reasoning' we've been peddled was likely to lead to an honest re-examining of global hypocrisies (no great rush to enforce UN Resolution 242, after all, the one about Israel & Palestine), I might feel a little more 'end justifies means' about the whole thing. If there was any sense of moral clarity - as opposed to dishonest justification of global displacement (angry and scared after 9/11 but Bin Laden too tricky to hit back, so whack Iraq instead) - I might feel a little less like my intelligence is being insulted...

18:38 / 09.03.03

The point, however, is not to provide an "alternative" to Bush's plans, but to establish exactly why Something Must Be Done About Saddam Hussain Right Now. If this cannot be satisfactorily established (and I don't believe it has) then it's up to the pro-war lobby alone to justify their actions.

Well, Ganesh THAT question is simple to answer.

Something MUST be done about Saddam "right now" because Bushadmin has concluded it is in America's best interest to do something Saddam "Right now".

Forget all the "protect the world for democracy, liberate the Iraqi people" rhetoric. Bushadmin has decided to go with a primarily neo-conservative geostrategy to solidify American interests in the middle east sphere of influence.

Here is an interesting Forbes article this week that may help with Bushadmin's motives:
http://www.forbes.com/home_asia/newswire/2003/03/06/rtr899062.html

Now, I must also comment that Chiracadmin's OPPOSITION to war is NOT based on the same perogatives that you or my opposition might be based.
Chiracadmin's opposition to Iraq invasion is based on what Chiracadmin thinks will best serve France's long term geopolitical interests.
France feels that
1. They need to weaken USA influence on EU matters
2. They want to assure the favorable economic status in Iraq///

18:43 / 09.03.03

Sure - I think it's misguided (not to mention blatantly hypocritical) for any nation to claim the moral high ground here...

23:05 / 09.03.03

All that being said , Ganesh , Bushadmin doesn't feel they truly have to justify this war because, deep at their philosophical roots, they don't truly accept much of the Just War Theory of war.

Most in Bushadmin are descriptive realists on war philosophy with a few prescriptive realists like Powell or Rice thrown in and none of them (except for Powell and Rice).

The Cheney-Rumsfeld angle doesnt accept much of the traditional Just War theory and see these events much more in power, national interest, geostrategic terms.

06:42 / 10.03.03

No argument from me there. I'm well aware that the 'moral duty to liberate Iraq' is a load of hypocritical bollocks; the fact that world leaders can't actually admit this doesn't bode well for Yawn's theory that this may be the start of some sort of new global honesty...

yawn - thing's buddy

07:49 / 10.03.03

Maybe I’m being a bit naïve or just hopeful. We’re seeing debate at the highest administrative level there has ever been. It’s live and televised. It’s fairly transparent…..and, amazingly, even though they’re not being consulted, the public are involving themselves in the debate. It’s pretty incredible stuff. The complexity of conflict is also being dissected for all to see. Kurds hate the Turks more than Saddam? Arabs would never give up Mosul to the Kurds; Most of Iraq is Shiite, but Saddam is sunni and actually not religious at all? Turkish democracy delays Turkish military support for America? The Brits built the Iraqi chemical factories? Mandela slanders Bush in public; Chiraq, or Monsieur Iraq, as he was once known, an ambassador for peace; Papau New Guinea becomes a crucial decision maker; more than ever, we are now aware that war is never simple and that sides are difficult to choose. There is no clear cut choice of wrong or right. In fact this question about sides…….it’s wrong isn’t it?

Right.

SO: all I’m saying is: debate and decision making is helping international politics to mature.

I also genuinely think that Israel’s non-compliance with UN Resolutions will be spotlighted this year.

Page: (1)2 3