From: Christian Weisgerber (naddy@mips.inka.de)
Date: Thu Feb 27 2003 - 18:53:31 MST
Lee Corbin <lcorbin@tsoft.com> wrote:
> Christian does that which I really hate, post only the
> irrelevant part of a reply.
And Lee seems to systematically misinterpret every word of mine.
> Well, if you read YOUR ENTIRE PARAGRAPH, [...]
> 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.
Sorry, I don't see it. Your question is still a non sequitur to
me. I pointed out a fact, nothing more.
> > 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?
You keep talking about expressing an opinion as if this were a
matter of free speech. This is a matter of political alignment and
alliances to increase one own's leverage. As I tried to explain,
there is no direct cost of taking positions, so it's all "ulterior"
motives.
> 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).
If I am to believe the press, the overwhelming majority of the
common people in these countries is opposed to a US-led war against
Iraq in the first place. Whether they think that their government
should take an individual stance or try to align with some common
EU opinion, I can't judge. Depends probably on whether they're
nationalist or pro-EU.
> 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" (!)
I say that this a better discription of Chirac's statement then
your interpretation of threats and intimidation. Those words are
far too strong. (I think if you took some time to probe me on that
point you would find that I'm far less dismissive of Eastern Europe
than the society surrounding me.)
> 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.
It's not about obeying, it's about sitting together and coming to
a common position or at least statement, versus ignoring the family
and blurting out a stance judiciously judged to be politically
profitable.
> 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.)
When have you stopped beating your wife?
> > 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?
It was uncharacteristically out-spoken as far as French diplomacy
goes, but it was not the gag order as which you seem to make it
out.
Anyway, to come back full circle to your original question: You
seem to be under the impression that Chirac committed a terrible
gaffe with his statement, and that it would obviously considered
such domestically and internationally. I can only negate that.
It is also plain weird seeing you try to characterize France in a
way that is commonly associated with the USA in this part of the
world.
-- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 27 2003 - 19:33:57 MST