Put aside that Ambrose insists that we're still 'committed' to Kyoto -- because that's irrelevant.
During much of recent history, France has danced with the devil while haughtily dishing out self-serving advice to other nations about everything.
The UN has decided to accept the science that says carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming, climate change and extreme weather patterns around the world. Okay, maybe. I wonder though, if nuclear bombs detonated under the ocean might also have contributed to climate change -- just a wee bit.
As recently as 1995, France still conducted nuclear testing. France carried out 176 test blasts at the Mururoa and neighboring Fangataufa atolls from 1966 to 1995 despite world-wide condemnation. Even the US (a more likely target of a nulear attack with arguable more reason to 'need' testing) stopped testing three years earlier, after the tensions of the Cold War had abated.
Perhaps France believes their nuclear testing was environmentally friendly. Maybe they believe their overt and deliberate acts of environmental vandalism were okay because France's faux pas don't stink.
Canada's honesty is refreshing. Unlike previous governments who thought if they kept talking, no one would notice their lack of action, the Conservatives have set out our starting point. They're telling us where we are -- and where we are is right at the very beginning of working on something that should have been in the works since it was negotiated back in 1997. That isn't passing-the-buck, it isn't playing the blame-game -- it's accepting the facts that were handed them on election day. It isn't where Canadians would like us to be, but it is the reality. Pretending that we can reduce emissions to 1990 levels would be a lie. It might pacify the masses like previous governments chose to do when they had no plan of action, but the Conservative strategy seems to be to play it straight. We can't do it.
France needs to stop looking outward to see demons -- otherwise they might become smug.
canadianna
38 comments:
"pretending that we can reduce emissions to pre-1990s levels would be a lie."
The point exactly! And Canada is the first to admit this fact on world stage. That's the real start you're speaking about.
I agree that nuclear tests sites must necessarily have greatly affected climate change. I think you're the first to cite this.
Good post.
I read someplace that France has more than 8 nuclear power plants to supply their energy needs.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip07.htm
«Sixteen countries depend on nuclear power for at least a quarter of their electricity. France and Lithuania get around three quarters of their power from nuclear energy, while Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovenia and Ukraine get one third or more. Japan, Germany and Finland get more than a quarter of their power from nuclear energy, while the USA gets one fifth.»
And yet even the EU is not meeting its Kyoto targets:
http://www.climnet.org/index.html
«Greenhouse Gas Data, 2006
Bonn, 30 October 2006 – The secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) today released new data showing an upward trend in emissions of
industrialized countries in the period 2000–2004.
The UNFCCC report ‘Greenhouse Gas Data, 2006’ constitutes the first complete set of data submitted by all 41 industrialized Parties of the Convention to the Bonn-based secretariat.
According to the secretariat, in the period 1990–2004, the overall emissions of industrialized countries decreased by 3.3 per cent. However, this was mostly due to a 36.8 percent decrease in emissions on the part of economies in transition of eastern and central Europe (EITs).
Within the same time-period, the greenhouse gas emissions of the other industrialized Parties of the Convention grew by 11.0 per cent.»
Keep up the good fight.
The government of France is in no position to condemn the actions of others on environmental issues, quite the contrary. France is the only democracy to my knowledge that has ever deliberately murdered an environmentalist--French forces attached the Rainbow Warrior when it was in harbour in New Zealand back in 1985 or so, killing a crew member.
France has other problems and this is a diversion campaign to cover tup the governments role in the on-going greatest industrial fiasco in history - the A380 White Whale
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=6047
Airbus Blamed for Poor French Economic Growth
November 16th, 2006
French economic growth is slumping and the problems at Airbus are getting blamed for it. The two year delay in delivery of the A380 super jumbo is reverberating throughout the French and EU economies. Politics, always a factor at the mammoth “social enterprise,” continues to intrude, as fear of unemployment and fear of failure motivate politicians to take measures dumping yet more tax money into Airbus.
The aerospace business, at the level occupied by Airbus and Boeing, is mind-bogglingly complex, technologically sophisticated, and extremely large in scale. Inevitably, the national interests of great nations are at stake in the fate of companies and even products. The business generates and perfects new technology consistently, literally living on the leading edge of innovation. Its products are a key part of the driving force of globalization.
This business really matters in terms of its leverage on the way the world grows and changes. That is why I have devoted an extraordinary amount of time and space to coverage of Airbus since the A380 began having its public troubles.
The two year delivery delay (announced in steps) is having consequences for many other companies with their own employees, cash flow worries, and futures to navigate. They, too, have suppliers, employees, and communities. The food chain is very large and long.
The scale is so great that it is starting to affect France and the EU. The full effect will be felt some time in the future.
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the UK Telegraph writes,
The French economy slumped in the third quarter as the Airbus crisis began to exact its toll, dousing hopes that Europe would take over as world’s growth engine as America slows. [....]
Jean Michel-Six, an economist of Standard & Poor’s, said French exports were suffering a loss of global market share due to high labour costs and the strong euro. “I am afraid that loss of exports is the major factor behind this bad surprise, and Airbus may be starting to play a role. Airbus deliveries generate $1.5bn (£1.01bn) a month for French exports and this is now in question. There had originally been plans to deliver 25 of the A380 jumbos in 2007 and instead there will be just one.”
Prime minister Dominique de Villepin was caught flat-footed by the data after playing up the French recovery “miracle” earlier this year. “Sadly we’re seeing a pause in growth but this should inspire us to yet more grit and determination,” he said yesterday.
There is almost no chance of France meeting the growth rate of 2.5pc predicted by the European Commission for 2007. The European Central Bank is expected to press ahead next month with a quarter point rise in interest rates to 3.5pc, arguing excess credit has swamped the system with excess liquidity.
Companies are unable to deliver and get paid for components and systems meant for the A380s that were to be delivered starting late this year. They have a hole in their cash flow. Some could perish in bankruptcy, unable to pay their own bills and liquidated, subtracted from the French and European aerospace production complex. The French understand intuitively that dependence on outsiders for key production inputs must be avoided. It compromises the strategic independence they prize.
French prime minister Dominique de Villepin has rushed to the rescue with a 145 million euro ($186 million) package of loans, according to AP:
Villepin promised $103 million in government loans and guarantees for Airbus suppliers from 2007-2008, and a further $83 million in funding and tax breaks for aerospace and related industries—some of which would be earmarked for research facilities in Toulouse.
“We are standing by Airbus and all of its subcontractors,” Villepin said during a visit to Toulouse, southwestern France, where the European jetmaker is based. Villepin was visiting one of Airbus’s subcontractors.
This state aid, even if the loans are not officially called “forgivable” will only aggravate the World Trade Organization complaint the US filed today against Airbus for subsidies. (For its part, Airbus has a counter-complaint against subsidies enjoyed by Boeing). The French state is unlikely to foreclose and destroy jobs, no matter what the official terms. As for the ultimate terms of any rescue, no doubt they will be quite negotiable, depending in no small measure on the personal political connections of the patron.
The extreme coziness of the French state with key interests involved in Airbus is well-revealed in a remarkable investigatory report published this week in The Economist. Reviewing the very complex history by which the French conglomerate Lagardere came to hold a major share of stock in the parent of Airbus, the magazine discovers some very peculiar odors.
The tale is a sorry one: of a Socialist government selling off a state company—Aérospatiale (a leading partner in Airbus)—at a bargain-basement price to a firm belonging to an influential entrepreneur; of his protégés spending more time fighting each other than attacking Airbus’s rival, Boeing; and of the new owner baling out at a vast profit, in part by selling shares back to the government, just before the scale of the mismanagement was made public.
The large, powerful, and well-connected interests usually make out fine in most countries, of course. But the degree of French state penetration of the economy and its willingness to intervene financially and strategically make this tendency even more dangerous there than in many other countries.
The biggest current question mark hanging over Airbus is whether or not EADS, the parent of Airbus, will approve a plan to develop and produce the A350XWB high tech fuel efficient medium-size intercontinental airliner to compete with the hot-selling Boeing 787 Dreamliner. The head of EADS, Louis Gallois, says that a decision will come by the end of the month.
If the decision is yes, then EADS and Airbus must somehow come up with about 10 billion euros to fund its development costs. But access to cash is only part of the problem for development of the A350XWB. Airbus, which manufactures in the euro zone, has costs which are simply too high to compete with Boeing, anchored in the dollar zone. As a result, Gallois is warning current Airbus suppliers,
‘We cannot launch a programme if we are not certain of being competitive,’
By this he means not only should suppliers prepare to cut their own costs, they should prepare to see work given to competitors located in cheaper wage and currency countries, like Russia and China, both of which are building ties of influence within Airbus. Unless Airbus can reduce its costs, it will not earn cash that should fund future products.
Like the French Revolution devouring its young, Airbus is going to begin devouring some of its employment base, those jobs in contractors and suppliers whose employment security is part of the motivation for the vast sums of public monies already thrown into the project.
Airbus is probably too big to fail. Cancellation of the A380 is not going to happen, and Airbus will be rescued with whatever money is necessary, WTO be damned. The launch of the A350XWB, according to Airbus’ marketing executive, American-born John Leahy, is “imminent.” Of course, marketing executives are not hired to say negative things about future projects.
The longer term question for France and Germany, and indeed the entire EU, is how many more public resources the citizenry will tolerate being employed so counter-productively, given the strategic necessity of shifting jobs elsewhere? Given the commitment to a an independent aerospace capability and the historic tolerance for insider dealing, the answer is probably a lot more.
Airlines, passengers, and the aerospace industries of Russia and China will win big. Taxpayers in the EU will lose. Boeing, which uses market signals to decide matters, and which is disciplined by capital markets, is doing quite well under this arrangement, and can always look forward to a possible day of reckoning for Airbus at the World Trade Organization.
Thomas Lifson is editor and publisher of American Thinker.
You're wrong... to a degree.
France deserves blame, for dictating things to other countries. They're a terrible country, and the world would be better off if they never existed.
But Gorebal warming is a myth, and kyoto would only lower temperatures by about one degree fahrenheit. I'd rather save the money, and drive an SUV.
Not only that, but the earth has actually cooled down since 1940, and the highest temperatures were in the 1920's, and 1930's.
In fact, the highest temperature ever recorded was 136 degrees Fahrenheit, in Libya. The highest temperature in US history was in Death Valley California, 134 degrees Fahrenheit, in 1913.
I think we can tell pretty well by this winter, Gorebal warming is bull.
Another note on Gorebal warming, is that the rate of increase in sea levels has actually lowered since Gorebal warming started.
I think France has every right to criticize Canada for not living up to its obligations. I as a Canadian am embarassed about who our government wants to align ourselves with. We are destroying our relations with both our European and Asian allies while aligning ourselves with a lame duck president in the United States who just got rejected by his own voters in last week's midterms. Even if the Liberals hadn't done a good job on Kyoto Protocol, the Conservatives should at least make an effort instead of throwing up their hands and doing nothing.
On another note, I agree, France has many other problems.
Lets not forget, this is the same country that accepted oil fields from Saddam Hussein in exchange for UN support.
The French are snooty, communist, coffee drinking, Jew hating, terror ignoring, climate fearing, America bashing, pansies. If I could replace France with a second Israel, I would.
The difference between a Frenchman and a terrorist? Well, there are two, a towel, and the terrorist has the balls to fight for what he (for some twisted reason) believes is right. Unfortunately, as Dennis Miller said, you're talking about a culture and a nation, that exerted more national will fighting the Big Mac and Disney World then the Germans.
Another brilliant quote from Miller,
"I would call the French scumbags, but that, of course, would be a disservice to bags filled with scum. I say we invade Iraq, then invade Chirac." —Dennis Miller
Next time there's a war in Europe, the loser has to keep France.
Carbon dioxide released by man near ground level is heavier than air and sinks in air rather than rising up to the upper atmosphere to become a so-called greenhouse gas. While sinking, it stratifies from air. After sinking and stratifying, it tends to remain close to the ground and may find its way down to low-lying water bodies or down to ocean level where it can mix and react with water to form weak carbonic acid. Carbon dioxide is also removed from the lower atmosphere by rainfall.
http://www.ocii.com/~dpwozney/carbondioxide.htm
So Miles, your reasons for hanging your head in shame are politically motivated, not environmentally motivated.
You don't even say whether you believe Kyoto is financially doable or if the targets are realistic -- only that some European & Asian countries that often find themselves on the wrong side of history -- might think we're like the US.
OH NO!!
Who do I want to emulate? France, Germany, Russia who took kick-backs in oil-for-food scandal? China and its enviable human rights record? Or the UN itself, that bastion of anti-Semitic, racist, corrupt, money-grubbing do-nothing ingrates that inhabit NYC whilst most of its members fail to pay their way and make a mockery of the various committees their sit on or chair.
The Conservatives have told us how it is. They've laid out a realistic plan of how we can start to fix things. If they were overly ambitious people would say they were full of it -- as it stands, they've come out and told the truth.
France has dirty hands in just about every world scandal. They have NO right to tell us anything.
As someone else has already said..two posts in one day...Big smile... I love your work... You have a way of putting my thoughts to words... Something I seldom can do myself.
Well done, Canadianna. Maybe France is afraid that in all that smoggie air,nobody will see their white flags if invaded?
Funny how the UN/MSM cabal tend to ignore/bury?trash facts such as the U.S., who refused to sign the Kyoto money tranfer scam, are one of only 2 countries who have actually reduced their CO2 output. Or the fact that samples taken from glaciers that where around during the last iceage show the atmosphere actually at 16 time that amount of CO2 currently present. Oh nevermind. Why let facts get in the way of leftie thinking. And Miles...perhaps you could be so kind as to tell me how 10 million loonies send to that human-rights bastion called China actually reduced the CO2 they had already produced? Oh wait. I know. It helped them build their military so they could execute more people, thus reducing the CO2 that people expell!!!
Unlike some of the other neo-cons who love to bash France, I believe France has done many good things and if you want to go after France for support Saddam Hussein, you need to go after the United States too who also supported him up until 1991. Besides I am very proud of the French fact in Canada and the cultural contribution they have made to Canada. I also have travelled to France and believe it is a great country to visit.
On the environmental front, no one said meeting Kyoto would be easy, but I would rather we do something rather than nothing. The Conservatives are taking the easy way out.
I just love when devout Liberal Kool-Aid drinkers like Miles mouth their true thoughts. The anti-American hatred spews forth, as does the pro-UN, pro-EU convictions. And looking back at his July 21, 2006 posting it's clear that he doesn't want Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. Thus he'd much prefer that we pull out so that innocent Afghani women can be raped, tortured, & murdered. What a "lovely", caring human being you are, Miles. And hey, I'm confident that Jack Layton would love to have a trans-provincial guy like you running for the NDP!!!
How on earth can anyone steadfastly support the Liberals' stance toward Kyoto when they did absolutely nothing to reduce our emissions?!? In fact, Chretien & Martin's record on the environment is significantly WORSE than Bush's.
Stop the hyprocrisy. There are enough Liberal and NDP supporters in this country who can give up their vehicles for all but one day a month. This will make a serious dent in our environmental emissions. But we all know that they would be the first to complain if they had to change THEIR lifestyles one iota.
miles -- supporting Saddam in the '80s after the Iranian hostage crisis etc., the US was smiling on the lesser of two evils. Having two mullocracies in such close proximity after that was just not on. They needed someone strong in the region against Iran. In hindsight, was it a good idea -- maybe not -- but Frances duplicity was carried on with full frontal knowledge of Saddam's treachery and barbarity.
The French in Canada don't even speak the same language as the European French, and this discussion has nothing to do with Quebec and the contributions of French Canadians to Canada. Don't imply that my condemnation of recent French history is indicative of a dislike of or lack of appreciation of Quebec.
Your affinity for France -- do you share the same sentimentality for our other founding nation, or are they jerks because of Iraq and Tony Blair, 'Bush's poodle'? Just wondering if you're equally rapturous over a nation that doesn't share your political ideologies.
France has done many good things -- what, like attempting to blame Britain for the murder of a Greenpeace activist in 1985 as noted by bo-pup in ottawa here in the comments section?
Or would that be the French army caving to Germany in 1940 twice as fast as the residents of the Warsaw ghetto did a few years later?
Or maybe it would be that war in French Indo China that they pushed on the Americans in the late 50's, early 60's -- that war is the one we refer to as 'Vietnam'.
Or maybe it was just this year during anti-French protests on the Ivory Coast. Between 20 and 60 Ivorians were killed during protests after France destroyed the Ivorian air force following attacks by the loyalist army that killed 9 French peacekeepers. France acted unilaterally and did not seek approval from the UN, despite there being 6,000 UN Peacekeepers on the ground who were potential targets for retaliation. Apparently France felt justified in not simply destroying the former colony's air force, but in killing people who protested that action.
Yes, France might be a lovely place to visit, but it is the only industrialized, modern, democratic nation that still clings to its colonial and imperial past -- could that have something to do with OIL I wonder????
miles -- the Conservatives aren't 'doing nothing' -- the fact is, no matter what they do, you'll find a reason that it isn't enough or it's wrong.
The plan that Godfrey refered to in my previous post was no closer to getting us to the targets by the target dates -- where was the bleating when it was proposed and initiated before the Liberals were turfed? Even had that plan been implemented and followed through to the letter -- we'd be no further ahead in 2012.
Baby steps. Be petulant and impatient, but those baby steps still lead in the same direction, without gutting the economy of the west and alienating them for the second time in a generation.
Learn your history.
Further to bashing the Conservatives ... Today Stephen Harper raised serious concerns with the treatment of up to 10 people in Vietnam: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/11/17/harper-apec.html
If a Liberal or NDP leader had done this it would [rightly] be viewed as noble. But I just can't wait for our displaced Vancouver Liberal spinster to shed his great wisdom as to why this was the wrong thing for Harper to do!!
supporting Saddam in the '80s after the Iranian hostage crisis etc., the US was smiling on the lesser of two evils. Having two mullocracies in such close proximity after that was just not on. They needed someone strong in the region against Iran. In hindsight, was it a good idea -- maybe not -- but Frances duplicity was carried on with full frontal knowledge of Saddam's treachery and barbarity.
I don't buy that excuse one bit. Saddam Hussein killed more people in the 80s than 90s so if it isn't okay now, it shouldn't have been then. The Iraq War was about oil and US hegemony in the Middle East, not liberating the Iraqis. France took a courageous stance that the world should be very thankful for.
Your affinity for France -- do you share the same sentimentality for our other founding nation, or are they jerks because of Iraq and Tony Blair, 'Bush's poodle'? Just wondering if you're equally rapturous over a nation that doesn't share your political ideologies.
France is a democratic nation and one of the founders of freedom and democracy. In fact had the French not helped the Americans in the American Revolution the US wouldn't exist. I also admire France's willingness to take on the US when they are wrong as well as I admire their leadership in the EU. It was the French who first proposed the idea of the EU while the British have been quite resistant to it. In fact the EU has brought former enemies together and made war impossible again in Europe. This was due to French leadership. Now off course I admire many things Britain and even the United States have done, although I think they were both wrong on Iraq, or at least their governments were (considering most of their population doesn't support the war).
Yes, France might be a lovely place to visit, but it is the only industrialized, modern, democratic nation that still clings to its colonial and imperial past -- could that have something to do with OIL I wonder????
How about try the United States.
miles -- the Conservatives aren't 'doing nothing' -- the fact is, no matter what they do, you'll find a reason that it isn't enough or it's wrong.
The plan that Godfrey refered to in my previous post was no closer to getting us to the targets by the target dates -- where was the bleating when it was proposed and initiated before the Liberals were turfed? Even had that plan been implemented and followed through to the letter -- we'd be no further ahead in 2012.
Baby steps. Be petulant and impatient, but those baby steps still lead in the same direction, without gutting the economy of the west and alienating them for the second time in a generation.
Learn your history.
Besides the Conservative partisans, every environmentally conscious group has condemned the Clean Air Act. I don't have a problem with the targets 44 years down the road, the problem is it backloads everything for another 20 years before anything is done. Otherwise they are just trying to dump the issue onto a future government and I suspect if Harper were still PM in 2020 and he had a majority he would repeal it. Elizabeth May who played a major role in nominating Mulroney as the greenest PM has totally condemned the Clean Air Act and Harper's views on the environment.
Pelausa - I am pro-EU and pro-UN since both organizations were created to prevent future wars. Now both have their problems, but I would rather we solve things peacefully than through war. As for Afghanistan, most Afghans don't want us there. Even though the Taliban is brutal, it is not our job to go around overthrowing every dictator we dislike. Unless Afghanistan attacked or threatened Canada we should stay out. Besides supporting an American puppet regime is not something to be proud of.
As for being anti-American, I don't hate Americans or even all past American presidents. I am anti-Bush and anti modern Republican and damn proud of it. The Bush administration is the worse administration in US history and even the majority of Americans don't support the administration anymore. I also dislike Stephen Harper but that doesn't make me anti-Canadian.
Miles,
A simple question for you: Do you acknowledge that if the Canadian military were to pull out immediately, as you and Jack Layton are advocating, that countless Afghani women will be tortured, persecuted, and possibly murdered by the returning Taliban?
Robert
People currently against the war today disgust me. I mean seriously. Saddam killing thousands of people was none of our business eh? You know, sad thing is, alot of people would've said the same thing about the Holocaust. Why does there need to be an invasion of another country to justify a war? He was an opressive dictator who had to be taken out. You know, if Hitler did the Holocaust, and never stepped into Poland, no one would've cared, because of blind communist hippie knobs like you Miles.
The thing that disgusts me the most is France pulling out of Afghanistan. You know, there are anti-war protests popping up, and it disgusts me. They ask what we are fighting for, and it's funny, because on 9/11, we swore we'd never forget the attrocities the middle east had committed, and don't be mistaken, aside from Israel, the entire middle east cheered, they aren't millions of innocents there under opressive rule... they're opressed, but not innocent.
I remember seeing the huge sign next to the stars and stripes at Ground Zero, "WE WILL NEVER FORGET", and we have, it's sad, but it's true. There are 2996 reasons to be in Afghanistan, and I'd destroy the entire middle east just to bring back one of those dead.
Why is France forgetting what these people have done? Because the French don't care what happens to America, society no longer realizes that we, as western powers have a duty to help the world. I'd rather remove the dictators, and build democracies then send money over there, to see it wind up in the hands of an African dictator.
And you know, even without 9/11, I'd still be disgusted by France's anti war in the middle east position. Women are being abused, the populous is being opressed, and I think for the thousands of American dead protecting France, the French owe it to America to defend them when they need it, but the French are the symbol for selfish European culture.
And it's sad, if Pearl Harbour happened today, the world would be telling America that Germany was not responsible, and that our troops couldn't win, in fact, there's a popular cartoon stating the fact.
http://unixdude.blogspot.com/images/PearlHarborToday.jpg
Unfortunately for European countries, politics is "what have you done for ME (not for the world) lately?" It won't be till France suffers a 9/11 that they'll wake up, and even then, they'll forget in a few months, and let the terrorists take over... actually, if WW2 is any indication, they'll skip the first step.
miles -- You're pro-UN because it was created to prevent wars . . . one word . . . Rwanda. Kosovo. Ivory Coast. Sudan. Oh, sorry . . . too many words.
You bought into the 'its about oil' thing because it reduces a complex issue to a base level. Think about it -- America had a base in the Middle East prior to the invasion of Iraq, so there goes one of your points.
America could have bought all the oil it wanted from Iraq on the black market the way France, Russia and China did -- or they could have bought it legitimately from anywhere or anyone at far less a cost and far less a price. Do you honestly believe the man who didn't know the name of the president of Pakistan, was such a warmonger that he decided to sacrifice the young people of his nation and increase the tax burden of a country thrown into a recession by the 9/11 -- to *take* oil that could have cost far less to just pay for?
That's stupid. No one is that stupid. Only really, really stupid people honestly believe that.
So you have to reach back to the American Revolution to find anything 'good' the French did and even then, they didn't do it because it was right, they did it to mess with the British.
France is hardly a beacon of democratic integrity. Its zillionth incarnation -- hence the term '5th republic' -- they still haven't got it right.
You say that we have no place in Afghanistan, that the problems in another country aren't our problems -- Canadians died in the WTC or have you forgotten. Afghanistan spawned that murderous evil and now that the regime that fostered terrorism has been removed, Canada's place is to ensure it doesn't take over again -- not just to protect Afghanis or to build schools or to save women -- but to protect people like you who take the 'that's them and it's over there' attitude. It's to prevent more 9/11s from happening.
You ingrate. Ask the soldiers if they think they should be there.
You think Harper is a puppet, but his actions and ideas are mostly consistent with a conservative perspective of the world but in fact are far more to the left than even the Democrats in the US.
And finally -- the latest Gulf War is simply a continuation of the first Gulf War which ended in 1991 with a cease-fire. When Saddam broke the terms of the ceasefire, the UN had an obligation to force compliance. Had France lived up to that obligation -- had they acknowledged that unless Iraq complied with the terms of the ceasefire, that the UN or the US as its proxy, had a legitimate reason to renew hostilities -- war might well have been averted altogether. But France would have none of it because they knew they'd been dealing with Iraq illegally at the highest levels, trading arms and buying oil with cash -- and they didn't want the US to go in and find it out.
BTW -- projections for decades down the line is how this thing is working in every country. Take a look around. Andrew Coyne makes some good points on this over the last few days. Check him out.
miles, quite frankly, you seem like a swell kid, indoctrinated by the liberal education system and ready to fight with 'so's your mother' rather than facts.
I'm tired of you. Go. Go and love France, hate the war, support the UN -- be on the wrong side of every controversial issue known to man -- but remember that in a debate, How about try the United States. isn't really an argument. It doesn't challenge what I've said about France, or even support your attempt to paint Bush the bad guy.
If you have valid points, make them. If you can support your points with common sense or historical references, all the better -- otherwise you're just parroting Michael Moore and his ilk and we all know he's just a stupid white guy.
A simple question for you: Do you acknowledge that if the Canadian military were to pull out immediately, as you and Jack Layton are advocating, that countless Afghani women will be tortured, persecuted, and possibly murdered by the returning Taliban?
I don't believe we should pull out immediately, but rather do a phased out withdrawal. As for the Taliban coming back in, that would be unfortunate, but lets not kid ourselves that things are much better. Afghanistan will become free and democratic on their own terms not through outside influence. The West has a terrible record when intervening in Third world countries. Much of the third world is in a mess today because of European and American imperialism.
Bill - War disgusts me and those who still defend a totally unnecessary war. And lets quit the garbage about Americans being liberators. The war was about oil, plain and simple. There are many other brutal dictators, some backed by the US. The majority of Canadians and majority of Americans oppose the war. There is not a single country where the majority still support the war.
There are 2996 reasons to be in Afghanistan, and I'd destroy the entire middle east just to bring back one of those dead.
So you think the life of an Arab is worth less than the life of a Westerner. This is absolutely disgusting and borderline racists. Human life matters to me and the fact that at least 10x if not 100x as many Iraqis have died as Americans shows how the war was not proportionate. Besides Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
And you know, even without 9/11, I'd still be disgusted by France's anti war in the middle east position. Women are being abused, the populous is being opressed, and I think for the thousands of American dead protecting France, the French owe it to America to defend them when they need it, but the French are the symbol for selfish European culture.
What rubbish. The United States should apologize to the millions of innocent people who died be it in Chile, Nicaragua, Grenada, Iraq, Iran, Cambodia, Vietnam, and other countries they intervened in. Yes the United States has done so good, but this idea France owes them is nonsense. Just because they did good 60 years ago doesn't mean we should support them when they are wrong today. And never mind millions of Americans don't support their country's foreign policy. In fact on Iraq, more Americans today agree with France than their own government.
You're pro-UN because it was created to prevent wars . . . one word . . . Rwanda. Kosovo. Ivory Coast. Sudan. Oh, sorry . . . too many words.
The UN is not perfect, but I would rather live in a multilateral world than one controlled by one superpower, regardless of who that superpower is.
The War in Iraq, wasn't just about oil, but oil was a factor. It was rather about installing a puppet regime so they could favourably get access to oil, but also to assert American control and dominance over the Middle East. The British, French, and Spanish failed in their imperial adventures and rightly abandoned it. The US should abandon it to as you cannot win an occupation as a foreign power in a country where the people don't want you. The Iraqis want to be left alone to make their own decisions, not run by some foreign power. They saw what imperialism was like under the Ottoman Turks and the British and don't wish to return to those days.
France is hardly a beacon of democratic integrity. Its zillionth incarnation -- hence the term '5th republic' -- they still haven't got it right.
If you are right winger, than no you won't like them. But for those on the left or even centrists like myself, France is a force of good. More importantly I find the United States too conservative while France too socialistic and so it balances things out at least partially.
As for Afghanistan, the United States not Canada was attacked. Using your logic, we should attack Israel since some Canadians died in Lebanon in an Israeli bombing.
As for the Gulf War, almost all legal experts other than the governments supporting the war, have stated a war without a second resolution violates the UN Charter so the US had no basis. Besides Iraq did comply since they haven't found any WMDs they were suppose to have. In fact the war was based largely on lies. Ever wonder what the Republicans lost both houses. It is because Americans finally realized the war was a fraud and punished the government for it. I even met one man in Montana who seemed like your typical Republican in terms of his views on most issues, but was dead set against the war.
If you want to talk about an accomplishment by France, how about the EU.
Back in 1951 after Germany and France were devastated by the war, Robert Schuman approached the German foreign minister to create the ECSC, which would pool steel and coal resources making a war less likely. This was so successful that 6 years later it was expaned into the EEC amongst six countries. Since then the EU has expanded beyond what anyone could imagine bringing former foes together. In fact when the EU promised the Balkan nations they could join once they stopped fighting, fighting ended shortly after. Countries that 65 years ago were at war, now not only live in peace and harmony, they have a common currency, no internal border controls, and speak internationally as one voice. Those on the right don't like the EU since it threatens US hegemony, but I believe the EU is a positive achievement and would have never happened had it not been for the French.
miles -- I don't dislike France because I'm a right-winger and its socialist, I dislike France because it has a dubious history in dealing with its empire and colonies -- think of the places where France alone was the occupier and you'll find a disgruntled, poorly-educated populace amidst civil war and strife.
They ignore their own follies while condemning others. I don't suggest the US is perfect, but like you say, Americans often go against their government when they feel it has overstepped -- when has that happened with France? Were there protests about Rainbow Warrior, were there protests about nuclear detonations, were there protests about the Ivory Coast? Do they feel guilty about Haiti? About Algeria and the rest of North Africa?
NO. They don't. They protest American actions, Disneyworld, they strike for more money and less work, they protest other people's wars but ignore their own -- THAT's what's wrong with France.
They should clean their own house before climbing on high and making pronouncements about anyone else.
And your analogy between Afghanistan and Lebanon is inane. Afghanistan was hosting terror camps for the purpose of carrying out attacks around the world, possibly here. As far as I know Israel harbours no designs on blowing themselves up somewhere in the West so going to war there would have been stupid and you know it.
We have an obligation in Afghanistan, not for vengence, but to assist in the prevention of further attacks.
And easy access to oil is the lame excuse used by people who can't be bothered thinking.
almost all legal experts other than the governments supporting the war, have stated a war without a second resolution violates the UN Charter so the US had no basis. Besides Iraq did comply since they haven't found any WMDs they were suppose to have.
I don't know who you've been consulting on this miles, but there was resolution, upon resolution, upon resolution dating back to the original ceasefire. Even Clinton engaged Iraq WITHOUT consulting the UN -- for breaking the terms of the ceasefire. NO UN RESOLUTION WAS NEEDED. The First Guilf War did not END -- it was merely suspended on certain terms. Iraq violated those terms over and over and over again and the UN did nothing and now we know it was because Kofi Annan's son and France, Russian and China were all making too much cash and getting too much black market oil.
If the Iraq war was based on lies -- it's THOSE lies. The US tried to put pressure on Iraq for full compliance with UN Inspectors etc. but without the rest of the world concurring, Saddam decided to call America's bluff -- he lost.
Each day that America amassed around Iraq was a day that US soldiers were in danger and the UN (in the persons of the security council) could have said: 'yes, we acknowledge that Iraq is not in full compliance and military intervention is acceptable' -- If THEY had called SADDAM's bluff he'd have backed down and war might have been averted.
Instead, they quibbled about wording and they quibbled about why -- they knew why -- WMD or not, Iraq was playing head games with weapons inspectors. THAT was enough. But the UN let the US build troops, and kept telling them 'wait, wait' -- the extra time gave Iraq time to get rid of anything it didn't want found over its porous borders and to import weapons and insurgents.
As for your love of the EU -- even Europeans don't *love* the EU in droves. The Dutch and the FRENCH rejected the EU Constitution. They voted against it.
The EU is the brainchild of France and Germany -- the two shit disturbers of Europe for the past few centuries. It is their way of imposing their disfunction on the rest of Europe. It's a power-gambit aimed at creating a hegemony -- not challenging one. Challenging the US-Anglo power structure is just one of the happy by-products of establishing itself as the twin Kings of the world.
France and Germany see themselves as the 'engine of Europe' but without the others, they just look power hungry and grasping. They need the rest of Europe to give legitimacy to their goal of global domination. Why do you think they proposed a 'dual Presidency'? Who do you think they saw wearing the mantle of power?
I couldn't care less about US hegemony when it come to the EU -- I simply find the EU and many of its member states on the wrong side of political arguments. It wouldn't matter to me if they were speaking as individual states as France always does, or hiding behind the EU as Germany chooses to do. If they're wrong, they're wrong. Geography, political ideology, borders, currency -- couldn't give a darn.
See, now you're using the 'you're just jealous' thing. It doesn't work either.
"Bill - War disgusts me and those who still defend a totally unnecessary war. And lets quit the garbage about Americans being liberators. The war was about oil, plain and simple. There are many other brutal dictators, some backed by the US. The majority of Canadians and majority of Americans oppose the war. There is not a single country where the majority still support the war."
Unnessicary? Let me note something. Hezzbollah has Russian rockets, Hezzbollah got rockets from Syria, Syria is right next to Iraq, Russia was against the war in Iraq... make sense now? You're listening to too much European UN bull shit. The UN is totally irrelevant and your hippie bull shit isn't helping anyone, and the majority of the world is retarded, I don't give a shit what they think, they also elected Clinton (Twice) and Cretien (three times).
About oil eh? Because, you know, the first thing they did was to make sure the Iraqi's could get their own oil. Canada gives the United States three times the ammount of oil that Iraq gives them. They could have probably just save some money and bought the oil from Saddam in the first place. Oh, no, it can't be, because President Bush is a war mongering bastard who loves to see people die eh? I try to understand Liberals, but you people are subhuman.
"So you think the life of an Arab is worth less than the life of a Westerner. This is absolutely disgusting and borderline racists. Human life matters to me and the fact that at least 10x if not 100x as many Iraqis have died as Americans shows how the war was not proportionate. Besides Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11."
It's not racist, by westerner, I include western Arabs. It has nothing to do with race, it's culture, and their culture teaches them to kill us. But your liberal hippie rehtoric prevents you frm understanding it.
"What rubbish. The United States should apologize to the millions of innocent people who died be it in Chile, Nicaragua, Grenada, Iraq, Iran, Cambodia, Vietnam, and other countries they intervened in. Yes the United States has done so good, but this idea France owes them is nonsense. Just because they did good 60 years ago doesn't mean we should support them when they are wrong today. And never mind millions of Americans don't support their country's foreign policy. In fact on Iraq, more Americans today agree with France than their own government."
Then most Americans are retarded! If it wasn't for the Americans, we'd be speaking German right now, and there would be millions of Jews around the world gone. Medical advances would disappear, and both leading women in Star Wars never would've existed. I think we owe the US quite a bit. America is the first country to help those who are down. Be it Kuwait, South Korea, Vietnam, France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and they aid those who they've fought. Japan and Germany were rebuilt while the UK was still using ration cards. They still have a military presence in Japan. The world owes America a big thank you for their mere existance.
God, some people are so freakin stupid. You can keep taking Michael Moore's word as gospel, and I'll live here in reality.
Another thing, I never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, in fact, I said they didn't. I think they should be invaded either way.
I'm an engineer so I like things to be clear and simple. In other words, there's no point in one person talking about apples if the other person is thinking oranges.
To help clarify my thinking of where Miles and his ilk are coming from, I'd like to summarize some key points about their thinking; points that I've drawn from this thread. Please do correct me if I am mistaken anywhere:
~ THE MILES LUNN MANIFESTO ~
THINGS I'M ABSOLUTELY SURE OF:
1. The U.S. is the most dangerous country on earth.
2. Overall, the U.S. has done more wrong than good throughout history.
3. George W. Bush is the worst president the U.S. has ever had.
4. Stephen Harper and Tony Blair, are merely "puppets" of Bush.
5a. We, in the West, should never use military action to help oppressed fellow human beings elsewhere on the planet.
5b. This principle includes, but is not limited to: Rwanda, Sudan, the former Yugoslavia, the Middle East, Burma, Tibet, and North Korea. No matter what happens to the people in these countries, we in the West should not intervene militarily.
6. What we should be doing is talking with the murderous dictators of these failed states. After all, as John Lennon said, "Give Peace A Chance".
7. The UN is a good & noble organization that has done mostly great things for humanity.
8. France is a great & noble country with a long, distinguished history of doing great, benevolent things for others.
9. The EU is a healthy, democratic organization that most Europeans vehemently support.
10. We Canadians should all be supporting the Kyoto Protocol. The best way to do so is to elect a Liberal majority, because they have a proven track record of helping the environment.
----------------------------
Miles, I would sincerely like to know if I've misconstrued your beliefs on these many topics, or would I get a high grade for accuracy? I'm quite sure that all of the others would also like to know.
pelalusa -- you've managed to sift it down to its roots. Those 'talking points' are so programmed into young people that they don't even know why they think them.
Where was the outrage during the NATO bombing of Kosovo. Where was the outrage when Clinton raided Iraq in December 1998 -- without so much as consultation with the world?? He announced it on television after the fact. Where were all the leftie, pacifist, oh-no-you'll-kill-civilians, its-all-about-oil crowd then? Did the US not use oil under the Clinton administration? Did it become a precious commodity in those five years between Clinton's military strike and George W.'s?
Thanks pelalusa for reminding me that people don't really think like miles seems to, they're actually just echos of Chomsky, Klein, Moore and the like.
Same ideas, same bias, same unfounded accusations, same house of cards.
Bill said...Saddam killing thousands of people was none of our business eh? You know, sad thing is, alot of people would've said the same thing about the Holocaust.
Lets not forget it was that great Lieberal PM,The Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King,who turned away a ship full of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany. And who stood on a hill in the USSR and extolled to his son that this was what great things communism bestowed on its people? Oh yeah. P.E. Turdeau
I think we need to conclude something... France sucks. If you disagree, you're wrong, then, you should all go to my website (my name is the link) to find out who and what else sucks, from Conspiracy theorists, to Che Guevera, to soccer.
All the worst things in the world come from Europe you know... Communism, soccer, even the 9/11 conspiracy nuts originated in... guess where... France, in a website called "Hunt the Boeing" showing a picture of smoke infront of the Pentagon... But wait, what about all the accomplishments made by Europe like............ well... never mind. Even their hockey players blow. The European invasion was an invasion. But it was a cold war invasion, nothing done militarily, just using sneaky techniques, and in this way, Europe used its shitty rock-stars like John "leaves his wife and son for some crazy Japanese bitch but still thinks he has some moral high ground" Lennon, to inplant communist ideals into a generation of morons.
Mel Gibson was wrong about wars, it's not Jews, its Europe. There was WW1, WW2, Vietnam... even 9/11 was only even feasable because the Russians forced a Jihadist uprising... stupid Europe.
I don't dislike France because I'm a right-winger and its socialist, I dislike France because it has a dubious history in dealing with its empire and colonies -- think of the places where France alone was the occupier and you'll find a disgruntled, poorly-educated populace amidst civil war and strife.
France has done some things wrong, but at least today they are no longer doing them. In fact today they have shown leadership in promoting peace by refusing to authorize war against Iraq which was completely illegitimate as well as their leadership in creating the EU which has helped promote peace in Europe.
They ignore their own follies while condemning others. I don't suggest the US is perfect, but like you say, Americans often go against their government when they feel it has overstepped -- when has that happened with France? Were there protests about Rainbow Warrior, were there protests about nuclear detonations, were there protests about the Ivory Coast? Do they feel guilty about Haiti? About Algeria and the rest of North Africa?
NO. They don't. They protest American actions, Disneyworld, they strike for more money and less work, they protest other people's wars but ignore their own -- THAT's what's wrong with France.
They should clean their own house before climbing on high and making pronouncements about anyone else.
Anti-war protests only really started in the 60s and since then France has largely disengaged from its past imperialist policy.
And your analogy between Afghanistan and Lebanon is inane. Afghanistan was hosting terror camps for the purpose of carrying out attacks around the world, possibly here. As far as I know Israel harbours no designs on blowing themselves up somewhere in the West so going to war there would have been stupid and you know it.
We have an obligation in Afghanistan, not for vengence, but to assist in the prevention of further attacks.
Afghanistan attacked the United States not Canada. While we should have shown our sympathy for the Americans who died in 9/11 I don't believe it is our job to put our soldiers lives on the line for another nation if we aren't willing to do the same for other countries. Human beings regardless of culture are human beings and I don't subscribe to this view an Afghan or Iraqi life is worse less despite the fact far more have died than died in 9/11.
And easy access to oil is the lame excuse used by people who can't be bothered thinking.
Actually not it is not. In fact it is quite a reasoned thinking. I don't think it was the only reason. I think establishing military bases in Iraq as well as just having more US control over the Middle East as Project for the New American Century at PNAC www.newamericancentury.org promotes. I cannot speak for you, but I find their doctrine downright scary and want no part of it. While you are entitled to hold whatever opinions you want, lets remember we are talking about the lives of innocent people. Perhaps you should talk to some people from the Middle East instead of assuming you know what is right for them. I know many Muslims and almost all them oppose US foreign policy in the Middle East.
I don't know who you've been consulting on this miles, but there was resolution, upon resolution, upon resolution dating back to the original ceasefire. Even Clinton engaged Iraq WITHOUT consulting the UN -- for breaking the terms of the ceasefire. NO UN RESOLUTION WAS NEEDED. The First Guilf War did not END -- it was merely suspended on certain terms. Iraq violated those terms over and over and over again and the UN did nothing and now we know it was because Kofi Annan's son and France, Russian and China were all making too much cash and getting too much black market oil.
That is technically true, but only the UN, not the United States or any other country has the right to decide if Iraq was in compliance. Using your logic that means the US could invade North Korea at any time and claim it was violating the 1953 ceasefire. In fact Resolution 1441, stated remained seized on the matter, which means a second resolution was needed. The only one to argue the legality of the war was the British government and in that sense I mean publish a legal opinion. Also Section 51 of the UN charter specifically prohibits the use of force, save two instances,
1. legitimate self-defence
2. Authorization by the UN security council.
The United States did not get specific authorization and in fact had a resolution authorizing war gone to the council it would have been defeated while Iraq did not attack or threaten to attack the United States.
If the Iraq war was based on lies -- it's THOSE lies. The US tried to put pressure on Iraq for full compliance with UN Inspectors etc. but without the rest of the world concurring, Saddam decided to call America's bluff -- he lost.
In fact according to Project for the New American Century, this war had been planned as far back as 1998 when many of Bush's cabinet were members of that organization. According to former secretary of treasury Paul O'Neill, Bush was discussing invading Iraq two weeks after being elected. In addition Wolfowitz admitted that settled on WMDs since it was the best way to sell the war. In fact former UN weapons inspector and a card carrying Republican Scott Ritter admitted it was based on lies and that the US know Iraq posed no such threat. Also the late Robin Cook in his speech resigning from cabinet pointed out that Iraq had no WMDs in the sense we know it. WMDs have a shelf life of no more than five years and the extensive embargo made acquiring them next to impossible.
As for your love of the EU -- even Europeans don't *love* the EU in droves. The Dutch and the FRENCH rejected the EU Constitution. They voted against it.
The EU is not perfect and the Dutch and French voted against the European constitution however poll after poll shows the majority of Europeans in all countries support the EU, there is simply no consensus on just how deep the integration should be. Besides the French and Dutch government were quite unpopular so many voted against it much as many Canadians voted against the Charlottetown Accord just to express their displeasure with their current government.
I couldn't care less about US hegemony when it come to the EU -- I simply find the EU and many of its member states on the wrong side of political arguments. It wouldn't matter to me if they were speaking as individual states as France always does, or hiding behind the EU as Germany chooses to do. If they're wrong, they're wrong. Geography, political ideology, borders, currency -- couldn't give a darn.
Thats your opinion. I happen to share many similiar values with Europe including France and Germany and would like them to play a larger role on the global scale. I also from my studies of history know having one superpower is never healthy no matter who it is.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I don't want to live in a world where might is right where the strong can ignore rules and attack people whenever they want. I want to live in a world that respects cultural differences not tries to impose cultural hegemony.
Unnessicary? Let me note something. Hezzbollah has Russian rockets, Hezzbollah got rockets from Syria, Syria is right next to Iraq, Russia was against the war in Iraq... make sense now? You're listening to too much European UN bull shit. The UN is totally irrelevant and your hippie bull shit isn't helping anyone, and the majority of the world is retarded, I don't give a shit what they think, they also elected Clinton (Twice) and Cretien (three times).
You want to know why conservatism scares so many people, many people hate this type of arrogant attitude. You are entitled to dislike Clinton and Chretien but to call people stupid because they don't subscribe to your views as absolutely insulting. In addition it shows how little respect you actually have for democracy if you are not willing to accept different views.
It's not racist, by westerner, I include western Arabs. It has nothing to do with race, it's culture, and their culture teaches them to kill us. But your liberal hippie rehtoric prevents you frm understanding it.
Once again what rubbish. I know many Muslims including many co-workers, other students I went to school with and friends and they are very decent and hardworking people. They may see things differently, but I believe diversity is a good thing not a bad thing. And you should learn something about Islam. Islam does not promote terrorism or killing a small number of people use the religion just as all other religions including Christianity in the past have been used to justify killing.
Then most Americans are retarded! If it wasn't for the Americans, we'd be speaking German right now, and there would be millions of Jews around the world gone. Medical advances would disappear, and both leading women in Star Wars never would've existed. I think we owe the US quite a bit. America is the first country to help those who are down. Be it Kuwait, South Korea, Vietnam, France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and they aid those who they've fought. Japan and Germany were rebuilt while the UK was still using ration cards. They still have a military presence in Japan. The world owes America a big thank you for their mere existance.
In the case of Vietnam, the United States intervened unnecessary and even cancelled elections since the communists might have won. Otherwise the Vietnamese could only have democracy if they supported a regime the US supported. In the case of South Korea, it didn't become democratic until the 90s well after the Korean War, while Poland and Czechoslovakia collapsed more due to Gorbachev's policy of glasnost and perestroika since without Soviet intervention the communists couldn't withstand rebellions against them. The United States has done some good things, but more bad things than good things. In fact the US was the best country when it took a more isolationist approach. Some such as the late Harry Browne www.harrybrowne.com have eloquantely argued the fallacy of US interventionism and this guy is no lefty, he is a libertarian and very right wing on economic issues. In fact I myself tend to be right wing on economic issues. I believe in smaller government and it is usually during war that government grows the most.
think we need to conclude something... France sucks. If you disagree, you're wrong, then, you should all go to my website (my name is the link) to find out who and what else sucks, from Conspiracy theorists, to Che Guevera, to soccer.
All the worst things in the world come from Europe you know... Communism, soccer, even the 9/11 conspiracy nuts originated in... guess where... France, in a website called "Hunt the Boeing" showing a picture of smoke infront of the Pentagon... But wait, what about all the accomplishments made by Europe like............ well... never mind. Even their hockey players blow. The European invasion was an invasion. But it was a cold war invasion, nothing done militarily, just using sneaky techniques, and in this way, Europe used its shitty rock-stars like John "leaves his wife and son for some crazy Japanese bitch but still thinks he has some moral high ground" Lennon, to inplant communist ideals into a generation of morons.
Mel Gibson was wrong about wars, it's not Jews, its Europe. There was WW1, WW2, Vietnam... even 9/11 was only even feasable because the Russians forced a Jihadist uprising... stupid Europe.
The fact you refuse to respect the opinions of others and take such an arrogant attitude is why I shouldn't even bother listening to people like you. Thank God most people don't share your views. The World use to have leaders with this attitude back in the Middle Ages, but thankfully we have moved from beyond this era.
Pelalusa - here are my responses.
1. At the moment I would say that is true, although that could change now that Bush no longer controls congress. Which country over the past five years has invaded more countries that have resulted in the deaths of more innocent people.
2. That is also true. They have done some good things, but if you read about all the invasions from the Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, killing the Indians in the plains, slavery, Guantanamo Bay detentions, Vietnam, Grenada, Installing Pinochet, Supporting Saharto, overthrowing governments in Guatamala, Iran, and Nicaragua because they wouldn't support their interests, lying about the Iraq War, supplying Saddam with weapons, yes they have done many bad things. That doesn't mean all Americans are bad people. In fact most Americans probably don't realize what their country has done and if they did most would be appalled.
3. Partially true. With the exception of perhaps James Madison who invaded Canada, I would say he is the worse. Whether it be the deficit, the Patriot Act, Environment, War in Iraq, taking away civil liberties, pandering to the religious right, he has pretty much screwed up on every file he has touched.
4. Stephen Harper certainly at times acts like it. I guess we will only know for sure when he writes his memoirs. In the case of Tony Blair, other than Iraq the two have little in common. On Kyoto, Gun Control, Health Care, Gay Rights, Death Penalty, tax cuts for the wealthy, Bush and Blair take diametrically opposite positions. After all Labour Party is centre-left while the Republicans are right wing.
5. a. We in the West should follow the UN Charter which only allows war for self-defence or when authorized by the Security Council. Besides democracy at the end of the gun barrel rarely works. Japan and Germany are the exceptions not the norms and considering how culturally different the Middle East is, if anything it will only de-stabilize the region further.
5. b. In the case of Rwanda, Sudan, and the former Yugoslavia sending in peacekeeping troops authorized by the UN, not unilateral military intervention was the solution. In Burma, I doubt military action will work any better than it did in Vietnam. As for North Korea and Tibet, brilliant idea. You understand these are nuclear powers and attacking them would mean a nuclear war which would probably mean killing far more than not intervening.
6. Diplomacy with dictators does work in some cases. It doesn't mean we have to agree with them, but at least we are best to make our views known to them and know what their reasons are. The USSR collapsed with no war and in fact Reagan and Gorbachev used diplomacy as opposed to war to end the USSR. War is awful and diplomacy is always preferable. War should only be used as an absolute last resort, not the first resort to all problems.
7. I see the UN much the same way Churchill saw democracy. It is the worst solution for world peace except for all the others.
8. France has a mixed history, but at least in recent years has moved away from its imperialist past to promoting multilateralism globally
9. The EU in fact does allow people to directly elect members in the European Parliament while the decision making body is the Council of Ministers who are simply ministers of democratically elected national governments i.e. the minister of foreign affairs in each country if foreign affairs is the issue being discussed. The European Commission is like the civil service, it implements the rules and makes recommendations, but cannot make laws. Most Europeans support the EU without necessarily agreeing on every aspect of it. Canadians may not agree with every aspect of Canada, but that doesn't mean most Canadians want their province to separate. Likewise most Canadians support NAFTA even if they disagree with some aspects of it.
10. We should support reducing GHG be it under the Kyoto Protocol or not. A Liberal majority is not the best way to achieve this, but is better than the alternative of a Conservative majority.
So Miles...only the Useless Nations can declare war?? Better tell that to the Islamofacsists who want to cut off your haed and rape your daughter. So why did the U.N. just approve a resolution AGAINST allowing countries to speak out agains human rights abuses?? Yeah. You heard that right. But then what can you expect from an organization composed of 192 countries, 150 of which are either African tribal countries, dictatorial, and other assorted non-democratic,or for that matter, even monarchies. U.N....poster child for the Dictators Club. Yeah. They are really helping.
miles -- I'm getting bored with this because it's one of those 'agree to disagree' times, but given this is my blog, I will get the last word. Here goes:
In each of your point-by-point answers to my point-by-point criticizms you conveniently fail to address at least one of the pertinent - or crucial elements of the point I've made.
For example: When I wrote about France's post colonial treatment of its colonies and France taking military action without regard to consequences, world opinion and then its countrymen not even bothering to protest -- you implied that I was talking about something that happened 30 or 40 years ago in another generation, when in fact, in a previous comment, I had pointed out France's actions on the Ivory Coast in January of this year -- when they killed civilians, destroyed an airforce and endangered the lives of UN Peacekeepers on the ground. This is France having learned? This is France being responsible? What's the difference between what France did and Afghanistan or Iraq? You know the difference --- no one is protesting and France went in, made a big mess, killed a bunch of people and then got out really quick so they wouldn't have to deal with the aftermath.
You have the audacity to say:
Perhaps you should talk to some people from the Middle East instead of assuming you know what is right for them. I know many Muslims and almost all them oppose US foreign policy in the Middle East.
. . . to a person you don't even know. You don't know who my family and friends are, but you assume that because you are 'liberal' and I am 'conservative' that I couldn't possibly have spoken to people who might have some intimate knowledge and a vested interest in Middle East affairs. That's really arrogant. You don't even know my name and unless you've gone through my archives, I doubt you know my race or religion -- but you've assumed an awful lot to make an argument that is invalid on its face.
Then, when talking of the invasion of Iraq, you border on the paranoid with your talk of 'secret plans in the works' by people connected to Bush, in 1998, long before he even entered federal politics or was assured a shot at the presidency. But you fail to acknowledge that in 1998 Bill Clinton actually did attack Iraq. Clinton admits he believed they were a threat and felt justified going in without even notifying the UN, let alone getting their 'permission.'
Afghanistan attacked the United States not Canada. While we should have shown our sympathy for the Americans who died in 9/11 I don't believe it is our job to put our soldiers lives on the line for another nation if we aren't willing to do the same for other countries. Human beings regardless of culture are human beings and I don't subscribe to this view an Afghan or Iraqi life is worse less despite the fact far more have died than died in 9/11.
All I can say to this is, HUH? So, what are you saying here? We shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan if we are also not willing to bomb Israel for the deaths of Canadians in Lebanon? Talk about twisted logic.
Or do you mean that if we are in Afghanistan as a sort of 'human-rights' ensurer, then we should also go to Darfur or North Korea?
Or are you saying that Muslim lives are worth just as much as Western lives so we should have just let it go and realized that whatever happens it's the US fault and we should just hide up here and not get involved because we're to small to bomb the US and get away with it and their the ones who deserve it.
Okay, I didn't really think you meant that, but what you said is just so confused that it really could mean just about anything.
We are never going to agree on France, or the wars overseas, Kyoto, or the EU, or the UN and the US -- and that's fine.
But oh-my-gosh -- you'd STILL vote Liberal?
Such a shame. You seemed like a nice boy, too.
"The fact you refuse to respect the opinions of others and take such an arrogant attitude is why I shouldn't even bother listening to people like you. Thank God most people don't share your views. The World use to have leaders with this attitude back in the Middle Ages, but thankfully we have moved from beyond this era. "
You have the right to your opinion, you have the right to vote, and if you were to run for office and win, you'd have the right to voice your opinion in parlement. That doesn't make it any less wrong....
I don't need to take crap from someone who is obviously on a ventelator. (I mean really, if he wasn't, this dude wouldn't know how to breathe...)
I hate Europe. I am ashamed of being white just because I technically have roots in Europe, despite how un-European Ireland really is.
One day, Europe will be very similar to the middle east, over run by Jawas (Sand people), and living under Sharia law. Soon, if your great grand daughter disagrees with one of these Jawas, she'll be raped, and it'll be perfectly legal. You apparently have no moral objection to this.
I'm trying to figure out what gives a Liberal its moron opinions.
So Miles...only the Useless Nations can declare war?? Better tell that to the Islamofacsists who want to cut off your haed and rape your daughter. So why did the U.N. just approve a resolution AGAINST allowing countries to speak out agains human rights abuses?? Yeah. You heard that right. But then what can you expect from an organization composed of 192 countries, 150 of which are either African tribal countries, dictatorial, and other assorted non-democratic,or for that matter, even monarchies. U.N....poster child for the Dictators Club. Yeah. They are really helping.
If another country starts a war in legitimate self-defence I have no problem. My problem is I don't want to live in a world where one country decides who can govern in each country or not.
Canadianna - Yes we will always agree to disagree. Certainly France on the Ivory Coast has screwed up somewhat, although I understand that was a peacekeeping force, not a war per se, although the two are sometimes blurred. I am also not assuming anything about you, I am simply pointing out my knowledge of the Middle East. I lived in Vancouver up until two weeks and now live in Toronto both multicultural and diverse cities.
Bill - I've read your blog and must say your hatred of anyone who doesn't agree with your is absolutely disgusting. Also your bashing of Canada is disgusting. One can disagree with a certain given government at a given time but that doesn't mean that have to hate the country. If you are a Canadian who hates Canada so much I suggest you move somewhere else, and if you are an American interested in bashing Canada and I suggest you keep it off Canadian blogs. I strongly dislike Bush, but that doesn't mean I totally dislike the United States, and although I have no intention on ever moving there, were I an American I would still be proud to be an American. In fact I would probably be proud of whoever I was no matter what country.
miles -- No, the French actions on the Ivory Coast had nothing to do with the UN Peacekeeping force there. It was the French military acting unilaterally, killling civilians and putting non-French UN Peacekeepers in harm's way.
I also live in TO, but living in a multicultural city hardly gives weight to any argument. Our own personal experiences might frame our debates, might colour our perceptions, but have no value in a debate.
As for Bill . . . I know Bill personally. He's 14 and challenging the status quo as teenagers are apt to do. In the '60s the status quo was conservative, today the status quo is socialist. He's speaking against what he perceives as being societal expectations of his place.
I've read his blog too, and although I don't like some of the content and his method of expressing himself, I also see that most of it is an ill-advised attempt at humour. It's meant to be parallel to Maddox.
You might take offense at some of what he says, but I know Bill to have an ethnically diverse group of friends who cross the religious and political divide.
He's Canadian, BTW, born and bred. And even if he wasn't, I wouldn't censor what he has to say or chide him for opinions that he didn't even put on my website. Why would you suggest that he should keep his opinions off Canadian blogs simply because they aren't in line with yours.
This is a kid who supports our troops, who respects his elders, who takes pride in Canada's role in history, but who tired of teachers telling him that conservatives are bad and that America is to blame for all the ills of the world and that there is only one legitimate and acceptable point of view in Canada.
I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but if you manage to turn off your hyper-sensitivity switch and read what he has to say, much of it, though kind of dark, is also funny.
It's a difficult world we live in, and he's finding his way though. Expressing himself (albiet profanely) is an important step in becoming an adult.
If you're the same person now as you were at fourteen, I'd be surprized. In time, Bill will likely distance himself from some of his more extreme opinions, but in the meantime, he does contribute knowledgeably to the debate and I'd much rather him spend his time doing that than hanging out doing drugs or otherwise getting in trouble.
If I don't think someone should be making comments on my blog, I'll be sure to tell them. He's been spoken to about the swearing and his use of some words, but I don't censor people who are expressing an opinion, even if I disagree.
Dear Miles,
I do admire you for honestly addressing each of my points. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that I vehemently disagree with you on each & every point. You remind me a lot of the American author, Howard Zinn, who wrote "A People's History of the United States". I tried to read this book, really, really tried, but just couldn't accept his treatise that "all white men in American history are bad ... except union leaders who represent the highest form of achievement known to mankind". What rubbish!
Like me, Mark Steyn has also identified the thinking of you & your ilk (think Jack Layton, Noam Chomsky, & Michael Moore). You absolutely have the right to your opinion. You clearly think your views are righteous & noble. I happen to find them selfish, poorly thought through, & just downright scary.
I'm 100% convinced that if the majority in Canada and the U.S. were to think like you that you'd soon get us all killed. And before that, your views will get tens of millions of people oppressed, tortured, raped, and murdered.
Make no mistake, Miles, your views and the pressure they exert on politicians are why millions of people in Rwanda are dead. Your views are why genocide is occurring in the Sudan. Your views absolutely and clearly would have kept Canada and the U.S. out of WW2. Hitler would have taken over the UK and many more than just 6 Millions Jews would have been murdered.
I realize as you read these words that you think I'm exaggerating but no Miles, I'm not. I'm simply making you realize that you have to accept responsibility for your views and am relating examples of historical consequences to that responsibility.
To this point in your life you feel that it is perfectly fine to criticize the actions of others but absolutely refuse to accept, let alone think about, the likely consequences if people were to follow the actions (or lack thereof) that you're proposing.
When new terrorist actions occur, when new genocides are uncovered and we learn that these things happened because Western powers chose to do nothing to prevent them then I will remember your name and hold you accountable; not in whole, but definitely in part.
As Canadianna said, this discussion has grown pointless because it's clearly "agree to disagree" time. However, please do us all a favour and remove the "centre-right" description from your blog. It's insulting and is clearly a lie. I know many people of many political stripes and you are absolutely far, far left in all of your thinking. This is not a criticism, just a fact.
Canadianna - I am glad to hear Bill is only 14. Hopefully his views do mature by time he is old enough to vote. And I am not saying that he should become a liberal, but at least hopefully he is little less vicious as a conservative.
Pelalusa - I could argue if your views were in place we would constantly be at war and perhaps the world would cease to exist he would used your views during the Cold War, which might have started a nuclear war. And BTW I do support Canada's involvement in World War II, but the threat posed by Nazism is far greater than threat posed by terrorism. Also I am still centre-right when you consider my economic views are generally quite conservative. If anything I lean in the libertarian direction. The Late Harry Browne who was a former presidential candidate for the Libertarian party is even more anti-war than I am. Check out his site at www.harrybrowne.org. I will keep up my centre-right since on economic issues such as tax cuts, private sector involvement in health care, privatizing crown corporations, regulation, and the size of government I am centre-right. I also was a staunch BC Liberal supporter when in British Columbia, and plan to vote Ontario PC in the next provincial election. I was also a Progressive Conservative pre-merger, my problem is with the Reform/Alliance. I am even one of the few Liberals who think Mike Harris did more good than harm and who also feels the same way about Ralph Klein.
Post a Comment