Jump to content

Chirac & Iraq


Recommended Posts

Hey SB, what are these wriggly slinky things you call ***? I bet you've got Dunrunnin wondering how he can vote for them at the next election.

Miki, the other thing about him is, he doesn't just post plain old 'waffle', does he?. What about the term '******'? He takes every opportunity to sneak his peculiarly racist outlook on the world into his posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny bit of cloth on his/her head........... so funny, just made me think of some of the Queens's hats and scarves. Don't suppose that there is much chance of a tan holidaying at Balmoral though.

I thought I was a republican until I moved to France and then realised that I rather liked the Queen being head of state.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Hello Tresco I do not think there was anything racist about my post. I do think that proberbly most englishmen/women would prefer not to have a person with a deep perma-tan and a funny bit of cloth o...[/quote]

 

As a lot of white english people seem to spend their holidays trying to get a tan, then keep it by going on sun-beds, I have to disagree with you.

So, if its not the fake tan, it must be either the colour, or the head gear. As TU suggests HRH QE 2nd just about 'caps' them all in the head gear department. That just leaves colour.

As to you (repeatedly) claiming that your statements are not racist, they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it matters. That goes for racism against whites, blacks whoever. Are you telling me that the blatant racist behaviour in the world today does not bother or worry you. It worries me and we should all try to resolve it rather than be apathetic towards it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a big difference between having racist thoughts and attitudes, and expressing them in speech or behaviour or discriminating against those groups which you don't like. Even within a family there are those that you can't stand, but you try to restrain yourself for the sake of peace.  Or some do. I agree with you Boghound .Pat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>Gay, I'm sure he didn't mean the silky-smooth Robert, but that's one perma-tan I would NOT want to see running the country!<<<

Me too - he actually makes me feel queasy. A perfect example of 'insincerity'

I was thinking about all this racist stuff and it occurred to me I would rather see Colin Powell in the Whitehouse than George Bush. Just a thought !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Of course it matters. That goes for racism against whites, blacks whoever. Are you telling me that the blatant racist behaviour in the world today does not bother or worry you. It worries me and we sh...[/quote]

Actually no. It does not matter to the greatest number of people in the world. They, and me, have more important things to worry about in their every day lives.

Perhaps you would be more at ease in a world where "positive racism" is practised. Where less qualified people are given positions according to their colour/creed and not their experience. This was put into practise in the NYPD & NYFD with disasterous results.

You see. It would be a very mundane world if everyone held the same views about race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bohhound, yes, plenty of people are racist, in all sorts of different ways, but most don't take every opportunity to reveal their racism in the way that dunarunnerforthetimebeing does.

You say it doesn't matter to you, or the 'greatest number of people in the world'. How do you know what the views are of all these millions of people. I have no idea what their views are, but I know that racism has affected and continues to  negatively affect millions of peoples lives.

Some pretty obvious examples - no need to pull out the history books. Wasn't slavery based on racist beliefs, wasn't formal aparthied in South Africa, and the similar 'Jim Crow' system in the southern states of America? Wasn't racism one of the reasons why many thousands of people of asian origin were expelled from Uganda in the 1970's?.

Surely there is no such thing as 'positive racism', are you referring to positive discrimination?  I would really like to know what about what the New York police and fire departments did that caused the 'disastrous results' you mention. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of your source (via private message if you think it appropriate).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to the topic, the point is that Chirac acted on public opinion in France, whether he had other agendas too is besides the point, that's a separate issue. I think the most important point is that whether you talk about Blair, Bush or Chirac, they all reflected public opinion in their own countries, thus proving that the democratic system installed works. Spain also proved their democratic system with Aznar supporting the yanks despite 80% opposition from the Spanish, and now he's no longer prime minister.

Whatever people's views on the war, justified or not, the veto was based on the WMD theory, which is now proved to be wrong, and therefore the veto was just and Chirac had every right to do what he did. On top of that it was common knowledge that the Yanks couldn't care less about UN opinion, so I don't see how people can point the finger at Chirac. I found it absolutely appalling how the US and UK ripped into the French after the veto, and tried to turn the focus onto Chirac.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Getting back to the topic, the point is that Chirac acted on public opinion in France, whether he had other agendas too is besides the point, that's a separate issue. I think the most important point ...[/quote]

Yes, the thread went off track, it often does, sometimes it comes back again, sometimes not.

SB's original post posed the question as to whether Chirac acted in a noble and selfless manner, or whether the prospect of some sort of deal on oil influenced his decision making. In that respect Government leaders 'other agendas' are clearly not 'a separate issue'.

My impression was that the French government were against the war for moral reasons - i.e it was not a 'just war'. The fact that Chirac has been proved 'right' in hindsight in this respect doesn't make him a good guy, in light of the other relevations SB alerted us to, and alleged past activities.

Yes the anti-French stuff was pretty grim, but I have to wonder how much of it was talked up by government (UK and USA) press people, to distract people from whatever could have been the proper focus of attention that week/month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree Tresco, I think it is a separate issue. All politicians have "other agendas" so to speak, whether it's corruption or whether it's just a simple matter of buying votes for the next election. if there is an element of corruption involved then this should be and will be investigated by the proper authorities, and if the need arises action should be taken. I don't think there's ever been a politician who acted in a noble and selfless manner, and I'm sure Bush and Blair didn't.

There's no doubt in my mind that Chirac isn't a "good guy", some of his remarks in the past about the Arabic communities are very right wing and he is far from popular in France (Zebda wrote a song based on one of his speeches). However the decision by the French Government to not support the war on Iraq would have been the same whether these allegations against Chirac are true or not.

The anti French feelings in the UK and the US where definitely a product of propaganda, it was exactly the intentions of the governments of both countries to create a distraction. However, sadly the propaganda worked well on the large numbers of sheep in both countries who follow blindly whatever is written by the tabliods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if another reason for the french avoiding the Iraq war was their experiences in the war in Algeria. This was an expensive loss for them both in terms of manpower and financially. They knew from that experience how difficult the war was going to be in the longer term whereas Britain and USA went in with naive optimism. Also looking to the elections as one in ten of the population are muslims/arabs. Pat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's right, france's experiences in Algeria would definitely give them reason to look for a more diplomatic approach, but then i think most of the leading countries have had their fingers burned in the past too. i think the big issue here was down to US's impatience at using force, it's no secret that they've been gunning for Saddam for a long time. Despite the apparent victory, the Gulf War was still an embarrassment for the States as they allowed Saddam off the hook instead of bringing him to justice at that time, and tried to instigate a civil war at the cost of many Iraqi lives. September 11th and the "war against terrorism" gave the US good reason to invade Iraq and bring down Saddam, and they needed to take advantage of it while they could. I don't think that any other president in Bush's place would have acted any different to him, as I don't think any prime minister in Blairs place would have acted differently, as in exactly the same way I don't think any French president in Chiracs place would've acted any differently.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...