| GREG-STRANGE.COM |
"If you haven't found something strange during the
day, it hasn't been much of a day." -- John A. Wheeler
day, it hasn't been much of a day." -- John A. Wheeler
PROVIDING SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTARY ON THE
PEOPLE, POLITICS, EVENTS AND ABSURDITIES OF
OUR TIME. SERVED UP WITH ACERBIC WIT, YOU
SHOULD FIND IT QUITE SATISFYING.
PEOPLE, POLITICS, EVENTS AND ABSURDITIES OF
OUR TIME. SERVED UP WITH ACERBIC WIT, YOU
SHOULD FIND IT QUITE SATISFYING.
When Silence Isn't Golden
"I'm not going to answer. You have not been listening
carefully to what I said before. You already have the answer."
--- French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin after being
asked the question: Who do you want to win the war?
Sometimes it seems as if the whole darn world has gone
mad--or at least that part of it which has never seen a
mass-murdering tyrant too despicable to appease and
mollycoddle. For instance, take France. Please.
But seriously folks . . . You all know to what lengths France
went to try and thwart regime change in its favorite Middle
Eastern country/charnel house. See, the French had this
globo-strategic plan to try and regain long lost stature in the
world. What it involved was trying to be the leader of a
coalition of countries unwilling to do anything about Saddam
Hussein even as America was bound and determined to. In a
world of morally bankrupt, anti-American cowards, who better
to try and advantageously position itself than France?
As could have been expected, the plan failed miserably and
now the war is on, but nothing seems to stop the flood of
diplomatic injudiciousness coming out of that has-been
country. Case in point, after a recent speech given in London,
French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin, whose primary
foreign policy goal is to keep intact Saddam's nightmare regime
of rape, torture, murder and fear (and sweetheart oil deals for
France), was asked this question: Who do you want to win the
war?
To the ordinary Joe, that sounds like an easy question, but
in fact it was what you call a classic "gotcha" moment. Since,
as the entire world knows, France was against the use of force,
this question put Villepin between Iraq and a hard place and
he failed as miserably as his foreign policy. He refused to
answer the question and in so doing, basically allowed that
France would have no particular problem if one of the most
brutal regimes in modern history is somehow able to defeat the
forces of freedom (the selfsame forces that saved France's
posterior on more than one occasion) and continue its
unspeakable crimes against humanity.
They say silence is golden, but in this case it was pure
poison. Even knowing full well the innumerable atrocities that
have been committed by Saddam in the hell on earth that is
Iraq; even knowing of the rape camps; even knowing of the
torture of men, women and children, the cutting out of tongues,
the human beings dropped alive into shredding machines; even
knowing of the rewards paid to suicide bombers; even knowing
of the mass murder and genocide, the endless fear and
intimidation; even knowing all of that, the Frenchman Villepin
couldn't bring himself to unequivocably assert that he hoped
for a victory by the coalition forces.
Can the foreign representative of a so-called civilized nation
sink any lower than this?
Rattled French officials immediately found themselves
scrambling to try and repair the damage done by Villepin's
faux pas, insisting that France clearly stands on the side of the
U.S. and Britain, but who is really convinced? It didn't exactly
help when a few days later a poll appeared in Le Monde
magazine showing that fully one third of the French population
hopes that Iraq will be victorious in the war.
Villepin's London speech was all about why France opposes
the war: "We do not oppose the use of force. We are only
warning against the risk of preemptive strikes as a doctrine. In
endorsing this doctrine, we risk introducing the principle of
constant instability and uncertainty."
The war against Iraq comes after twelve years of defiance
and atrocities by Saddam. Preemptive? How about long
overdue? As for "instability and uncertainty," what in the
world does he think we have now with medieval Islamic crazies
bringing down skyscrapers in Manhattan?
But even if you want to describe what we're doing in Iraq as
preemptive, it's hard to understand why France should have
such a colossal hissy fit over it. After all, if such a course of
action had been taken against Hitler, France could have
averted a world of misery and shame for itself, not to mention
the most catastrophic war in human history. But then,
learning valuable lessons from history is apparently not one of
France's fortes.
Also in his speech, Villepin fretted over a potential "clash of
civilizations" and argued that the use of force should be
subordinated to "law, justice and legitimacy."
Clash of civilizations? The problem is, one part of the world
is civilized and the other ain't, and the part that ain't is the one
causing all the problems. And if America ever takes a truly
catastrophic hit from the terrorists, there will be a war in the
Middle East that will make the current Iraq war look like a
schoolyard fisticuffs. Preempting such a war would be a
decidedly healthy thing for Arab civilization, such as it is.
"I'm not going to answer. You have not been listening
carefully to what I said before. You already have the answer."
--- French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin after being
asked the question: Who do you want to win the war?
Sometimes it seems as if the whole darn world has gone
mad--or at least that part of it which has never seen a
mass-murdering tyrant too despicable to appease and
mollycoddle. For instance, take France. Please.
But seriously folks . . . You all know to what lengths France
went to try and thwart regime change in its favorite Middle
Eastern country/charnel house. See, the French had this
globo-strategic plan to try and regain long lost stature in the
world. What it involved was trying to be the leader of a
coalition of countries unwilling to do anything about Saddam
Hussein even as America was bound and determined to. In a
world of morally bankrupt, anti-American cowards, who better
to try and advantageously position itself than France?
As could have been expected, the plan failed miserably and
now the war is on, but nothing seems to stop the flood of
diplomatic injudiciousness coming out of that has-been
country. Case in point, after a recent speech given in London,
French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin, whose primary
foreign policy goal is to keep intact Saddam's nightmare regime
of rape, torture, murder and fear (and sweetheart oil deals for
France), was asked this question: Who do you want to win the
war?
To the ordinary Joe, that sounds like an easy question, but
in fact it was what you call a classic "gotcha" moment. Since,
as the entire world knows, France was against the use of force,
this question put Villepin between Iraq and a hard place and
he failed as miserably as his foreign policy. He refused to
answer the question and in so doing, basically allowed that
France would have no particular problem if one of the most
brutal regimes in modern history is somehow able to defeat the
forces of freedom (the selfsame forces that saved France's
posterior on more than one occasion) and continue its
unspeakable crimes against humanity.
They say silence is golden, but in this case it was pure
poison. Even knowing full well the innumerable atrocities that
have been committed by Saddam in the hell on earth that is
Iraq; even knowing of the rape camps; even knowing of the
torture of men, women and children, the cutting out of tongues,
the human beings dropped alive into shredding machines; even
knowing of the rewards paid to suicide bombers; even knowing
of the mass murder and genocide, the endless fear and
intimidation; even knowing all of that, the Frenchman Villepin
couldn't bring himself to unequivocably assert that he hoped
for a victory by the coalition forces.
Can the foreign representative of a so-called civilized nation
sink any lower than this?
Rattled French officials immediately found themselves
scrambling to try and repair the damage done by Villepin's
faux pas, insisting that France clearly stands on the side of the
U.S. and Britain, but who is really convinced? It didn't exactly
help when a few days later a poll appeared in Le Monde
magazine showing that fully one third of the French population
hopes that Iraq will be victorious in the war.
Villepin's London speech was all about why France opposes
the war: "We do not oppose the use of force. We are only
warning against the risk of preemptive strikes as a doctrine. In
endorsing this doctrine, we risk introducing the principle of
constant instability and uncertainty."
The war against Iraq comes after twelve years of defiance
and atrocities by Saddam. Preemptive? How about long
overdue? As for "instability and uncertainty," what in the
world does he think we have now with medieval Islamic crazies
bringing down skyscrapers in Manhattan?
But even if you want to describe what we're doing in Iraq as
preemptive, it's hard to understand why France should have
such a colossal hissy fit over it. After all, if such a course of
action had been taken against Hitler, France could have
averted a world of misery and shame for itself, not to mention
the most catastrophic war in human history. But then,
learning valuable lessons from history is apparently not one of
France's fortes.
Also in his speech, Villepin fretted over a potential "clash of
civilizations" and argued that the use of force should be
subordinated to "law, justice and legitimacy."
Clash of civilizations? The problem is, one part of the world
is civilized and the other ain't, and the part that ain't is the one
causing all the problems. And if America ever takes a truly
catastrophic hit from the terrorists, there will be a war in the
Middle East that will make the current Iraq war look like a
schoolyard fisticuffs. Preempting such a war would be a
decidedly healthy thing for Arab civilization, such as it is.