Kreth said:
At look at recent news will answer this. One example: look at the international outrage over US soldiers' abuse of Iraqi prisoners vs. the relative silence when bodies of Americans were hung from bridges.
OK... here you bring up two incidents. Let's make a short examination of each.
American bodies hung from bridges.
This occurred in the city of Fallujah.
Incidently, this is the city, early in the invasion, in which precision munitions dropped from British aircraft impacted a busy marketplace. Between 50 and 150 Iraqis were killed for going to the market that day. Now, this, on top of having your homeland invaded is, no doubt, going to create some tension.
It might be helpful to remember the first confrontation between the US Military and protestors in Fallujah. Members of the 82nd Airborne fired on a crowd of approximately 200 Iraqis, wounding 75 and killing between 13 and 15 protestors. There is, of course, disputes about how this incident started. I think, perhaps we will never know.
Anyhow, on to the 'relative silence', as you put it.
SPAIN -
Yesterday's savagery deserves no forgiveness.
LEBANON -
“The scene of the dead bodies of the four American contractors in Falluja is frightening, disgusting and condemned at all levels.
I have found some other comments and many of them are not flattering. Not one country supported the actions of those in Fallujah. But many countries did warn the United States that the contractors deaths are a symptom of what we have made for ourselves by invading Iraq. You will recall that most of the world opposed our invasion. While the 'I told you so' may be childish, it may also be considered accurate.
And what is the net result ... The United States Military has destroyed the city of Fallujah, in order to save it.
Street after street, it is difficult to pick out a building or a house that has not been damaged. Many structures have been reduced to little more than giant piles of rubble.
United States abuse of Iraqi prisoners
Rather than discuss this topic through international outrage, let's please talk about my outrage. (I'm sure you'll find my arguments neatly parallel those international arguments).
When the United States could not locate Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, the weight of justification for the invasion shifted
from those weapons
to the world is a safer place without Saddam Hussein. (I will point out the world was not safer for the Black Hawk contractors in Fallujah, was it).
If the United States is going to claim 'Moral Authority' as the justification for invading a nation that posed no threat (no WMD), it is demanded of us that we act with 'Moral Conviction'.
That these soldiers acted with torturous intent is in violation of that Moral Conviction. The United States military has tried to portray the actions in Abu Ghraib as that of bored, mis-guided soldiers.
However, White House Council Alberto Gonzales (currently nominated for the Cabinet position of Attorney General) advised the CIA in several memos on 'Acceptable' torture techniques. It has been shown that the CIA was present in Abu Ghraib and in Guantanamo's camp X-Ray. That Mr. Gonzales is being promoted by the Bush Administration acts further to counter the 'Moral Authority' argument used to justify our presence in Iraq.
Certainly, there is in enough information here to be outraged by this behavior.
Kreth said:
Yes.
Kreth said:
France has been an ally to the US in name only for quite some time.
A cursory search on the internet can show many, many treaties common to the United States and France. These treaties are still in force. In addition to the bi-lateral treaties between the two countries, we also share a number of multi-lateral agreements, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations (both permanent members of the security council).
Perhaps you can show an incident in which France has terminated any of these treaties?
Perhaps you can show where France did not honor these treaties?
Unless you can so demonstrate, I think to claim that 200 years of mutual agreements are 'in name only' is quite a bit hyperbolic, don't you think?
Kreth said:
To be honest, I think it's become the exception rather than the rule to see a news item about US foreign policy without an opposing comment from a French official.
Jeff
Well, you can make the same claim about me,
and you need not limit this to an issue of foreign policy. Again, this begs the question, on what topic would you like to discuss US foreign policy, visa-vi French opposition? I think we need to be open to the possibility that an opposing point of view has validity, wouldn't you agree?
I find many of the US policies incorrect. I will gladly debate them with you, but I will ask that we stick to discussing actual topics in foreign policy.
ref:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/fallujah.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/04/wwwh40407.htm
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/21/1535224
http://www.info-france-usa.org/franceus/pacte.asp
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Fallujah_042903.htm
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200501/200501070010.html
