I agree with some of your remarks, but please keep in mind that this article
is an opinion piece and like virtually all articles in the New York Times,
it reflects the biases of the author.
My thoughts on the article (not feelings, who cares about my feelings, or
even my thoughts for that matter, but you asked,) was that it presented an
interesting point of view on a very confusing subject.
At the moment, France and Germany are dead set against forcibly disarming
Saddam Hussein. I have absolutely no problems with pacifism, but the
shenanigans they are involved in go way beyond mere pacifism. They are
acting almost as if they were allies of Saddam. I have not seen a recent
popularity poll on Chirac, but Gerhardt is down to 24% the lowest ever
recorded in Germany. This fascinates me as he just got reelected a few
months ago, by the barest of margins. His campaign was so inflammatory
against the USA, it was remarkable. It even got down to the point where
they compared Bush to Hitler and his National Socialists, this coming from
the German Socialists. By contrast, his opponents now register at around
54% support. It's almost like the German people now believe they elected
the wrong gang. BTW, Gerhardt and his party suffered a stinging defeat at
the polls in a couple of regions last week.
All this to say that Germany is acting in a very strange manner, way beyond
mere pacifism. They are willing to destroy NATO and make a farce of the UN
resolutions and by extension the UN, but I can't figure out for what
purpose. Gerhardt has painted Germany into a corner from which it may be
unable to extricate itself. Methinks they are hiding something very big.
Something very damning that would be found once American and allied troops
are on the ground in Iraq.
France is also acting way beyond mere pacifism, but we know they have huge
oil contracts and other projects with Iraq. The French have always been
flexible with their diplomacy, making sure commercial interests were
respected but I think you may see a change in their posture within 48 hours.
I may be wrong, but some of the things they are now saying are definitely
not as forceful as before.
The next witching hour is tomorrow when the inspectors report back to the
Security Council. What is interesting is that in the last few weeks, they
have actually discovered WMDs. They were certainly not supposed to find
anything, but in a country awash in these things, it is probably very
difficult to hide everything all the time.
I would keep an eye on the lunar calendar from now on.
Denys
-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
fred White
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 10:27 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: OT: Terry Jones (from Monty Python) on War
On Wednesday, February 12, 2003, at 07:53 PM, Denys Beauchemin wrote:
> http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/
> 02/11/d
> o1101.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/02/11/ixnewstop.html
>
> Denys
I read the whole article. It had some good points in its criticisms of
the Franco-Belgo-German moves. However, Andrew diminished my ability
to accept his overall thesis when he:
1. Described Colin Powell's presentation as a "devastating expose of
Iraq's concealment and deception campaign". I followed Colin's
presentation live and was disappointed. I would never have referred to
it as a "devastating expose". Even if I were Andrew, I would have
refrained from doing so. It made him appear to be other than
even-handed.
2. He also applied the inflammatory phrases "despicable", "disgraceful"
and "blackmail" to the actions of the Franco-Belgo-German group.
I got the impression that he decided to be the judge, jury and
executioner, rather than the reporter.
What were your feelings about the article?
FW
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
