Germany Sending Troops - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-23-2003, 05:07 AM   #16
Anthony's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 11:39 PM
Actually, I believe cloudimani has a valid point.

Yes, womanfish, it is true that the government of France is not particularly noble in trying to oppose the US's effort for war, but one can not escape the fact that France, from the very beginning of the Iraq 'manouvers', and I am talking about ever since Bush came to power, they have been against outright. France the population, not France the government.

Governments do what is in their best interest of doing, not necessarily what is in the people's best interest - but what is happening in France that can not be legitimately criticised is how the government is, by default and not by intention, actually reflecting public opinion. And it has. It has consulted the public, it has followed the public, and now it has represented the public. The very reason why Chirac was against the war was because it was such a popular policy back at home. He has done what very few governments in Europe have done, and that is to actually represent the people, which I am sorry, is the ideal of a democracy.

You can argue that if Chirac had agreed to the whole thing, the people would have eventually - that is simply not how it works, or, more precisely, how it SHOULD work. We do not know yet how Blair's obstinacy in not listening to the majority has affected him politically, and we wont until his next election.

Tony Blair has not represented his people. He has represented what he thinks is in the best interest of the people. Both are commendable, but the former is how a democracy works, the latter is not.


Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 03-23-2003, 06:22 AM   #17
cloudimani's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 483
Local Time: 11:39 PM
Originally posted by womanfish

My problem is this: The public opposition to the use of force came AFTER the leadership of France opposed it. If Chirac would have been totally on board, believe me, the public sentiment would be entirely different. He actually triggered the whole worldwide opposition in my opinion.

AND - maybe you should say that France's opposition is as DIShonorable as the U.S.'s, I think they both have their own political reasons, but I believe that getting rid of Saddam will finally bring to a hault the horrible death of 5,000 Iraqi's a week because of Saddam's brutal regime. I think that's a good thing. If you feel ok with Iraqi's dying at that shocking pace, then that's your opinion.

And you say that it's not legal. This is just not true. It's the opinion of some. The truth is that is an argueable issue. If you study 1441. my opinion is that it is legal. Iraq again was in breach of this resolution that called for "serious consequenses. This resolution was written by the U.S., so the U.S. - and let's be honest - everybody else knows that serious consequences means military action. France, Russia and China who signed the resolution, backed out of their commitment.
Actually no 1441 doesn't allow for military intervention, and that I think you'll find is the only reason it was passed. "Serious consequences" is diplomatic speak for all action SHORT OF war. It was clear that another resolution would be required for a UN-backed war to take place, containing a phrase such as "All necessary steps...". In order to fudge legality they had to resort to a resolution passed in 1991, which is questionnable as to whether it applies in this case. Kofi Annan certainly felt another resolution was necessary.

I really resent being burdened with the consequences of Saddam's regime just because I'm anti-war. I have never once said that I support Saddam, I dont. Toppling regimes is not a legitimate cause for invasion though.

And your claim that Chirac conspired to turn the whole world against the war is frankly ridiculous and leaves you with very little credibility.

cloudimani is offline  
Old 03-23-2003, 10:13 AM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
hiphop's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 01:39 AM
Originally posted by womanfish
And I also don't believe that a LEADER, who undoubtedly is much more informed than the general public, should follow what the public is saying.
Interesting concept for a democracy.

Unfortunately, those principles point in the direction of a dictatorship more than a democracy.

I think a leader (without big caps) should inform the general public, too, if he is more informed.

I agree with cloudimani that "serious consequences" have nothing to do with war, diplomatically speaking. If the UN meant war, they would have passed another kind of resolution.

hiphop is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright ©