Chuck wrote after others (including me) :

> As far as world opinion goes the US cannot win no matter what
> action, or
> inaction, it takes in any situation.

It all depends on what we call winning. What's the point in winning a war if
you can't win peace after ? I was delighted to see the US interventions in
Bosnia and Kosovo because wars were won, then, and peace (or at least
sufficient stability) was won in these regions. In both cases, Europe
remained unable to make a collective decision. The US then stepped in and
brought back peace, or at least stopped the fighting. US casualties were
limited, and civilian casualties were ... well ... higher than zero so in
excess of what any civilized person expects, but (I hate that expression,
really) "within acceptable standards". And yes, there was the
much-publicized incident of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade inadvertently
bombed. The US then very publicly apologized.

In other words, in these two recent cases, I was delighted to see US
interventions. They helped break the gordian knot of inaction. They also
(most likely) prevented more civilians being slaughtered, and staunched the
bloodshed. In that perspective, yes, they can be called victories. One may
regret that US intervention was required on European soil, but the FACT is
that BEFORE US intervention civilians were killed, but AFTER US intervention
the massacre mostly stopped.

> If a government is starving its own people and we send food,
> we are propping
> up a repressive government.
>
> If a government is starving its own people and we do not send
> food, we are
> heartless and greedy.
>
> If a government is facing revolution and we assist it, we are
> propping up a
> repressive government.
>
> If a government is facing revolution and we do not assist it, we are
> heartless and greedy.
>
> If a government is facing revolution and we assist the
> revolutionaries, we
> are interfering in another nations internal affairs.

Unfortunately, this is true of any goverment, not only of the US. France
recently tried to broker a cease-fire between various Ivory Coast leaders at
war with each other, much (as I can understand it ...) on the model of the
1995 Dayton Accord. So what ? Did France honestly tried to stop a slaughter
or meddle in someone else's internal affairs ? How will history judge the
accord ?

BTW, irony has it that I live in the city where that accord was negotiated
and signed.

> Europeans like to use the Palestinian issue as a way to
> attack the US and
> Israel.

As far as I'm concerned, I tried my best to refrain from attacking anyone.
I'm certainly not attacking Israel (why would I do that ?), I'm the last
Frenchman who would attack the United States (once again, why ?), and I'm
certainly the last Frenchman you would call anti-American. But I'm not blind
and, while I generally adhere to most of the values shared by the American
people, I can recognize a bully when I see one, and President Bush is
clearly acting bully these days.

Which, but I repeat myself, certainly does not make Saddam an innocent man.

> This is another no win situation because to the Arab world the
> Palestinian's are a weapon in the war of world opinion and
> nothing more.

It's with great, great sadness that I agree you may have a point.
Unfortunately, the Palestinians are more or less held hostage of various
propaganda proxy fights. TIME Magazine a few months ago ran a very
interesting in-depth article which basically explained  in 4 pages what you
summed up in 2 lines, i.e. some Arab governments use the Palestinians as a
way to 1) deflect attention off their own corrupt regimes and 2) put
pressure on the West to further their own goals without seriously attempting
domestic reform. Let's remembers that the only country in the Middle East to
have some form of democratic process is Israel. No Arab country has free and
fair elections.

> They will never permit a peaceful resolution to this crisis
> until something
> happens to shake up the status quo in the region.

Unfortunately (insert a big sigh here) that may exactly be true. See your
statement and mine above. If someone holds someone else hostage and then
frees the hostage, then where's the bargaining power ? Nowhere. It's simply
lost. So it's all about bargaining and not much about furthering world
peace.

> If you truly get your opinion of the US from our media, it is
> no wonder you
> have such a distorted view of our president.

I may be quite privileged there. As a long-time internet user (I've been
online since 1994, long before the average Jean Dupont (French for John Doe)
learned what the internet is. Thus I may have in the process gotten a little
more direct information than most of my fellow Frenchmen and -women. That
certainly explains why my view is not a gut feeling of primary
anti-Americanism, but a more balanced one. At least I'm not confusing
President Bush's statements with US public opinion.

> Every Republican
> president
> since I have been old enough to follow politics has been
> accused by the news
> media and Democrats of being intellectually inferior and out
> to kill old
> people, children and wounded puppies. Many in the US have
> finally woken up
> to this fact and it has sparked a panic in these
> organizations that is a
> great deal of fun to watch.

I admit I (like others ...) may have been the victim of this process. When
Bush was elected in 2000, it was common to deride him as a gung-ho former
oilman intent on spoiling the environment, equalling the Lone Star State
with the 49 other states (rest assured I have nothing against the Lone Star
State, and no offense is meant), helping his friends in business make
millions and reducing world issues to a binary debate of "who's not with me
is against me".

Then came 9/11, and Bush acquired the stature of a true statesman. He
displayed a knack for leadership, and he (along with Giuliani and others)
helped steward the US out of self-doubt. That came as a brilliant surprise.

But now ... It seems that Bush is once again restricting himself and his
view of the world to short-sighted statements.

> One thing I have found common with liberals in the US media
> and around the
> world is that they surround themselves with people who think
> only as they
> do. They ignore any dissenting opinion to what they say as
> their opinion is
> free speech but what others say in disagreement is hate speech and not
> worthy of consideration. So I guess it is natural that they
> begin to believe
> that everyone thinks the same way as they do. And if they do
> not, they must
> be discredited and destroyed at all costs.

I would agree to be called a Liberal. IMHO, a liberal is someone whose
beliefs and opinions are wide enough to accomodate other people's beliefs
and opinions. In that respect, yes, I am proud to be a Liberal.

The big difference between money and ideas is as follows : If I come up to
you with 5 bucks (or euros, who cares ...), and you come up to me with 5
bucks, you give me your 5 bucks and I give you my 5 bucks, each of one
leaves with 5 bucks. If I come up to you with 5 ideas and you come up to me
with 5 ideas and you give me your 5 ideas and I give you my 5 ideas, each of
us leaves with 10 ideas. In that perspective, ideas are a much smarter
investment than money. "All it needs is some understanding" (Tina Turner,
IIRC).

> After the 9/11 attack Bush was accused of seeing the danger
> and not doing
> enough to stop it. Now he says he sees the danger and is
> moving to stop it.
> Of course, the same people who spoke up before now say he
> cannot do this. He
> must wait until we are attacked and we have new casualties,
> for which he
> will be blamed, before he can take action against the danger.
> Gee, what a
> surprise, another no win situation.

AFAIK (I'm ready to stand corrected), the Pentagon/Pennsylvania/WTC attacks
were not carried out by Saddam or anyone even loosely related to Saddam. I
would prefer to refrain from finger-pointing, but out of the 19 suspected
terrorists, none was an Iraki national. It's also my understanding that
these terrorist acts were not directly sponsored by a state government
recognized by the international community. The Taliban, then in power  in
Afghanistan and whose close ties with Al-Qaeda (sp?) were already
well-known, certainly escape that category. So why blame Irak for 9/11 ? I
am missing a link.

> With Iraq, the French and German governments have aligned
> themselves against
> the US.

So what ? Back to the "who's not with me is against me" days ? I regret
that. This is a free world, and its leaders are free to express their
opinions and those of their constituencies. If Schroeder and/or Chirac
somehow got it wrong, one day they will have to face the consequences in the
polls. So far all indications are they bith mostly got it right, as far as a
possible war against Irak is concerned.

If free speech offends President Bush, then let's regret the
misunderstanding, but so be it. It surely can't offend the American people,
who have embedded free speech in their Constitution with the First
Amendment.

[a few lines snipped ...]

Christian

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *