RE: How's it all playing in France itself?

From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Feb 27 2003 - 16:25:34 MST

  • Next message: Andrew Clough: "Re: The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect"

    Christian does that which I really hate, post only the
    irrelevant part of a reply.

    He writes

    > Lee Corbin <lcorbin@tsoft.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > Let's start with a dose of reality: Just what significance has the
    > > > position of Poland etc. in the big picture? [...]
    > >
    > > What? Are you saying that might makes right?
    >
    > Huh? How do you get that notion?

    Well, if you read YOUR ENTIRE PARAGRAPH,

    > Let's start with a dose of reality: Just what significance has the
    > position of Poland etc. in the big picture? These countries cannot
    > project military force; if any of them happen to be in the Security
    > Council they have no veto power; they do not have the financial
    > resources to significantly contribute either to a war effort or to
    > the rebuilding afterwards. In short, their position is irrelevant
    > in practice and only an expression of moral support and political
    > association.

    Then my question, "What? are you saying might makes right?"
    is sensible because you explain your position by referring
    to the fact that these countries like Poland cannot project
    military force. And that they have no veto power. So that
    they are irrelevant.

    > I'm merely pointing out that there are only two European countries
    > you have to take serious in the context of the Iraq conflict: Britain
    > and France. Those have some non-negligible military reach, and
    > they have veto power in the Security Council. They are the ones
    > for which a pro-war decision would inflict direct costs. Everybody
    > else does just political posturing, which is cheap.

    So everyone else should not express an opinion? As I
    carefully explained, we appear to have a cultural gap
    here. Your point of view seems repugnant to some of
    the rest of the people here (doubly so, I might suggest,
    for the residents of those small "less significant"
    countries).

    > My reality check wasn't about speaking up but about whose voice
    > matters. Britain and France are relevant here, at least if you go
    > the Security Council road, Spain and Germany as temporary members
    > rather less, and the rest of Europe is irrelevant.

    That's a little bit better, but your earlier remarks
    definitely denigrate such "posturing", as you call it.

    > > This really is a cultural divide between you and the Anglosphere.
    > > In some places, like Oz, giving the underdog a "fair go" is almost
    > > a national obsession.
    >
    > So I hope those places of the Anglosphere are cheering for Iraq in
    > the upcoming military conflict, where "underdog" is too favorable
    > a description for a country that in its present state could have
    > been blasted by any of the major combatants of WWII.

    Yes, some of the more obsessive types seem completely
    incapable of rooting for the bigger guy, no matter now
    evil the smaller guy is.

    > > Even in the U.S., there exists an egalitarian spirit
    > > that seems foreign to what you say.
    >
    > I think you are totally misconstructing what I say.

    Oh yeah? See the next section; I'm telling you that
    there is some kind of psychological or cultural
    difference going on. You next dismiss the countries
    of Eastern Europe as "unruly children" (!)

    > > Now if you or Chirac really blasted "those idiots" in
    > > Eastern Europe "for wrecking the chances of peace", or
    > > any other thing you might say, that would be one thing.
    > > But to attempt to intimidate and threaten them---well,
    > > we just shake our heads at that.
    >
    > Intimidate? Threaten? Chastising unruly children is more like it.
    > The message is that associating yourself with the USA to gain
    > political leverage against the EU when you are about to join it
    > will backfire badly.

    The arrogance of looking down one's long nose at the
    "unruliness" of these incompetent children---who should
    obey their superiors---is quite remarkable, and galling.
    At least it would be in the Anglosphere, I submit.
    Yes, La France will "chastise" these poor inferior types.

    I repeat: you make such warnings *in private* if you
    don't want to be seen as extremely arrogant. But then,
    is there a word for arrogance in French? Or does it merely
    translate as "acknowledgment of one's own strength"? ;-)

    > > But thanks---it's becoming clearer that many Europeans
    > > see power politics as more explicit (and less subtle)
    > > than we do here. The bullying can be upfront, instead
    > > of hidden.
    >
    > I have no idea where that conclusion comes from, especially
    > since it's just the opposite of the commonly held view.

    Hmm. Yes. To you, it's invisible, I guess. So telling
    the smaller countries "shut up, or else", is not bullying
    to you? Or what? (Thanks for any insight you have, here.)

    > > > As you may know if you follow European politics, there have been
    > > > ongoing efforts for the last several years to forge a common European
    > > > foreign policy in order for Europe to be able to speak with a single
    > > > and correspondingly more powerful voice. The candidate countries--who
    > > > after all have much to gain from EU membership--now seem to be
    > > > sabotaging this effort, which is already painful enough as is.
    > >
    > > Okay, then you TELL THEM THIS. You TELL THEM THIS publicly, even.
    >
    > That's just what Chirac did. The "family" thing and all.

    No, he added the "or else", didn't he? It was *not* a high-minded
    lecture on unity, as I recall, but a blunt warning. Isn't that
    so?

    Lee



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 27 2003 - 16:22:05 MST