Is Chirrac right ??

  • Page

    of 2 First / Last

    Previous
  • Scorpio 18 Nov 2004 13:13:55 113 posts
    Registered 10 years ago
    According to French PM Chirrac, Britain has recieved absolutely nothing from our "special relationship" with the US. As much as I dislike Chirrac, I think he has a point. To me, this so-called relationship, is all one way. OK so Bush is thinking about coming to the UK BEFORE the next election in order to boost his bitch's (Blair) chances at the polls. If anything should turn the electorate against Labour, this should do it!. If YOU had to decide which side of the fence you had to come down on, who would it be??. Europe or America??. For me, it would have to be Europe.
  • Big-Swiss 18 Nov 2004 13:15:04 8,077 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    AGREED

    AMEN.

    TO MORE WORDS NEEDED
  • Nexus_6 18 Nov 2004 13:15:06 3,876 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    europe.
  • Freylis 18 Nov 2004 13:15:36 995 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Scorpio wrote:
    According to French PM Chirrac, Britain has recieved absolutely nothing from our "special relationship" with the US. As much as I dislike Chirrac, I think he has a point. To me, this so-called relationship, is all one way. OK so Bush is thinking about coming to the UK BEFORE the next election in order to boost his bitch's (Blair) chances at the polls. If anything should turn the electorate against Labour, this should do it!. If YOU had to decide which side of the fence you had to come down on, who would it be??. Europe or America??. For me, it would have to be Europe.
    I'd say Europe, but on the outbreak of war, I think Tony Blair got backed into a corner a little bit. Going against the US is something only the French have the audacity to do. I think it would have made things very difficult for us due to how much of American culture and produce seeps into our lives.

    /throws tuppence into pot
  • archonsod 18 Nov 2004 13:19:00 208 posts
    Seen 5 years ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Definitely Europe.

    But then we've bailed them out from dictators how many times and for what?

    The hell with it. I'm forming my own republic.
  • hulahoops 18 Nov 2004 13:32:55 2,311 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    For what it's worth, Europe every time. I'm frankly astounded that Bush thinks he could persuade the British public in any way, unless he promised to step down if we did what he said.

    Edited by BlankOBlank! at 13:47:09 18-11-2004
  • unwashed 18 Nov 2004 13:35:37 1,857 posts
    Seen 7 years ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Here's an idea, instead of saying Europe, or America, or anyone else, why don't we say we're for everyone? Done right it could really boost our and others economies, as well as enhancing all the nicities of life (y'know, culture, sport, whatever...)

    The only problem with this is, to carry it through it needs a bunch of politicos withs the guts and conviction to do it. I don't see many of them around... :(
  • archonsod 18 Nov 2004 13:37:20 208 posts
    Seen 5 years ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    unwashed wrote:
    Here's an idea, instead of saying Europe, or America, or anyone else, why don't we say we're for everyone? Done right it could really boost our and others economies, as well as enhancing all the nicities of life (y'know, culture, sport, whatever...)

    The only problem with this is, to carry it through it needs a bunch of politicos withs the guts and conviction to do it. I don't see many of them around... :(


    Thats what the communists said.....
  • commander-dixon 18 Nov 2004 13:41:04 879 posts
    Seen 3 months ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Scorpio wrote:
    According to French PM Chirrac, Britain has recieved absolutely nothing from our "special relationship" with the US. As much as I dislike Chirrac, I think he has a point. To me, this so-called relationship, is all one way. OK so Bush is thinking about coming to the UK BEFORE the next election in order to boost his bitch's (Blair) chances at the polls. If anything should turn the electorate against Labour, this should do it!. If YOU had to decide which side of the fence you had to come down on, who would it be??. Europe or America??. For me, it would have to be Europe.

    hehe
    you may not like him but you can spell Chirac properly ;)
  • Scorpio 18 Nov 2004 13:43:11 113 posts
    Registered 10 years ago
    archonsod wrote:
    unwashed wrote:
    Here's an idea, instead of saying Europe, or America, or anyone else, why don't we say we're for everyone? Done right it could really boost our and others economies, as well as enhancing all the nicities of life (y'know, culture, sport, whatever...)

    The only problem with this is, to carry it through it needs a bunch of politicos withs the guts and conviction to do it. I don't see many of them around... :(


    Thats what the communists said.....
    Is the world a safer place with the demise of communnism?. The Soviets bitterly regret the fall of communnism, (the ordinary russian that is, not the Abromnovitch,s or whatever his name is).
  • Smiggs 18 Nov 2004 13:44:36 93 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    unwashed wrote:
    Here's an idea, instead of saying Europe, or America, or anyone else, why don't we say we're for everyone? Done right it could really boost our and others economies, as well as enhancing all the nicities of life (y'know, culture, sport, whatever...)

    The only problem with this is, to carry it through it needs a bunch of politicos withs the guts and conviction to do it. I don't see many of them around... :(

    Blair isn't anti European he's pro-euro and with europe on alot of other issues. Blair thinks he can become the bridge between europe and america from the "special relationship". This would be fine if a Democrat was in office but with a republican in the whitehouse, its just the creating a rift in Europe.
  • BartonFink 18 Nov 2004 13:48:47 34,853 posts
    Seen 4 days ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Without a doubt Europe.
  • unwashed 18 Nov 2004 13:49:58 1,857 posts
    Seen 7 years ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    archonsod wrote:
    unwashed wrote:
    Idealistic guff...


    Thats what the communists said.....

    I suppose to a certain extent yes. But what I'm more thinking is along the lines of bollocks to the EU and to NAFTA and all the rest. Basically Britain says to the world 'We want to do business with you, and we want to do it fairly!' And we do business with on as equal terms as possible. So if the Americans want to slap 50% taxes on british steel, we slap 50% taxes on american steel, and they can't complain.

    Now I realise that there's a distance to go with our own laws and such like to acheive this. And also that there would be some advantage taken to start with. But I reckon pretty quickly things would turn around.

    However as I said, it'd take some politicos with guts and vision to begin to even move in that direction. And all I see anywhere is a bunch of politicos following each others tails and keeping their hands on the chairs so they don't get thrown out of the game.

    And before anyone says, yes it's naive, yes it's utopian. But FFS if they even thought about it and started moving down that road then things would be a damn sight better than they are now!!!

    /kicks soap box in frustration
  • jrolla 18 Nov 2004 13:53:01 219 posts
    Seen 7 years ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    unwashed wrote:
    Here's an idea, instead of saying Europe, or America, or anyone else, why don't we say we're for everyone? Done right it could really boost our and others economies, as well as enhancing all the nicities of life (y'know, culture, sport, whatever...)

    The only problem with this is, to carry it through it needs a bunch of politicos withs the guts and conviction to do it. I don't see many of them around... :(

    so were for everyone? such a ridiculously vague & meaningless comment, were for mugabe & kim jong il? for the gangs killing swathes of people in sudan? oh ok were only for the 'good people,' of course because such a thing exists in world politics. i dont see how you can see things in such black & white perspective, blair is trying his best to unite the two sides of the atlantic, something which has only been done before in times of World War. quite whether this is possible or if he has gone in the right way about it is a different question entirely but he is still trying his best
  • Khanivor 18 Nov 2004 13:55:49 40,542 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    A more pertinent question may be is whether or not Europe wants much to do with Britain. Past and current evidence would tend to suggest otherwise.
  • commander-dixon 18 Nov 2004 14:06:26 879 posts
    Seen 3 months ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    would you ask to an irish man the same question ?
  • morriss 18 Nov 2004 14:10:39 70,942 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I've often thought about this. Apart from, their horrible, depressing culture, what do we get out of this special relationship?

    Respect from other nation's leaders I suppose, as the only ones who can get through to the US. Whic adds up to about absolutely nothing.
  • Lutz 18 Nov 2004 14:12:08 48,854 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Europe, easily. In fact I'm one of the people who wants a Europe superstate.

    But then I'm wierd.
  • morriss 18 Nov 2004 14:19:14 70,942 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Lutz wrote:
    Europe, easily. In fact I'm one of the people who wants a Europe superstate.

    But then I'm wierd.

    I want a European army. So we can kiss goodbye to the US's military might and say, oh no you don't >Mr. President when he wants to bomb some more defenceless eople.
  • unwashed 18 Nov 2004 14:19:25 1,857 posts
    Seen 7 years ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    jrolla wrote:
    unwashed wrote:
    Here's an idea, instead of saying Europe, or America, or anyone else, why don't we say we're for everyone? Done right it could really boost our and others economies, as well as enhancing all the nicities of life (y'know, culture, sport, whatever...)

    The only problem with this is, to carry it through it needs a bunch of politicos withs the guts and conviction to do it. I don't see many of them around... :(

    so were for everyone? such a ridiculously vague & meaningless comment, were for mugabe & kim jong il? for the gangs killing swathes of people in sudan? oh ok were only for the 'good people,' of course because such a thing exists in world politics. i dont see how you can see things in such black & white perspective, blair is trying his best to unite the two sides of the atlantic, something which has only been done before in times of World War. quite whether this is possible or if he has gone in the right way about it is a different question entirely but he is still trying his best

    Well then, on your basis the UK should be isolationist. Let's not forget that minor matters of:

    America: Camp Delta/X-ray in Guantanamo. Guantanamo bay itself. The on-going isolation of Cuba and the wrecking of the Cuban economy. The war and occupation in Afganistan. The war and occupation of Iraq.
    France: The treatment of religious minorities. The way assylum seekers are treated.
    Germany: The treatment of assylum seekers. The treatment of resident foreign nationals.

    And on, and on, and on it goes. So yep, let's draw up the draw bridge and isolate us from the rest of the world!!!
  • morriss 18 Nov 2004 14:20:43 70,942 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Just America....
  • ERG1008 18 Nov 2004 14:24:36 656 posts
    Seen 18 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Yup Europe for me.
    Can British people go back to saying film instead of movie then?
  • jrolla 18 Nov 2004 14:31:10 219 posts
    Seen 7 years ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Well then, on your basis the UK should be isolationist. Let's not forget that minor matters of:

    America: Camp Delta/X-ray in Guantanamo. Guantanamo bay itself. The on-going isolation of Cuba and the wrecking of the Cuban economy. The war and occupation in Afganistan. The war and occupation of Iraq.
    France: The treatment of religious minorities. The way assylum seekers are treated.
    Germany: The treatment of assylum seekers. The treatment of resident foreign nationals.

    And on, and on, and on it goes. So yep, let's draw up the draw bridge and isolate us from the rest of the world!!!

    err can you read? where anywhere did i say we should be isolationist? all im saying is your john lennon-esque 'oooh we should love everyone' is ridiculous. why are you now ranting about isolationism?? where anywhere i even go near mentioning that? your examples about france & germany are also horrendous generalisations.
  • Khanivor 18 Nov 2004 14:36:08 40,542 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    morriss wrote:
    Lutz wrote:
    Europe, easily. In fact I'm one of the people who wants a Europe superstate.

    But then I'm wierd.

    I want a European army. So we can kiss goodbye to the US's military might and say, oh no you don't >Mr. President when he wants to bomb some more defenceless eople.

    I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. And untill then it might be a good idea to remain friendly with a country willing to commit troops when needed.

    I find Chirac commenting on Iraq and Saddam most annoying. Jaques, if you hadn't sold him all that nuclear tech a few years back he may have been a little less cocky. And if you hadn't sold him so many damn weapons then he wouldn't have barged into Iran. Or if he still had he may have lost.

    Then Iran would control most of the world's oil. But then, judging by the condemnation of the west's policies to Saddam during the 80s that would have been just fien with most folk on this forum.

    And to come into the modern age. If France was a lot less obstructionist after the war do you not think the security would be much better in Iraq? A lot less people would be dying and the terrorists might not have gotten the foothold that they now have.

    Chirac is Eurpoe's Bush. The only thing is he's been around causing damage for far longer and could be here for a good bit to come. He's gotta stay in power for as long as he can manage cause his ass is going to jail as soon as he is out from the immunity his position provides him with.
  • Juninho 18 Nov 2004 14:40:27 1,825 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Scandinavia for me please.

    They don't get involved in this kind of shit.

    And there are loads of fit women (from my brief visit to Stockholm anyway)
  • jrolla 18 Nov 2004 14:41:06 219 posts
    Seen 7 years ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    some good points khan but the USA & UK sold a number of weapons to saddam in the 80s. also i dont really see how france was obstructionist 'after the war' as for one the war never finished & also many countries objected to the way the war was fought and chose not help which is their choice surely?
    that said chirac is a corrupt bastard, if youve been france their version of spittin image (les guignols) portrays him perfectly :)
  • unwashed 18 Nov 2004 14:43:57 1,857 posts
    Seen 7 years ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    jrolla wrote:
    err can you read? where anywhere did i say we should be isolationist? all im saying is your john lennon-esque 'oooh we should love everyone' is ridiculous. why are you now ranting about isolationism?? where anywhere i even go near mentioning that? your examples about france & germany are also horrendous generalisations.

    Ah, I see, in fact you read what you wanted from my posting... I didn't say 'let's love everybody'. I said the far more pragmatic, ultimately more likely to succeed 'let's do business with everybody'. If you read my second post in this thread I then refined this with the need to set ground rules, and operate on a fair playing field.

    My 'rant' on isolationism was (an admitedly poor) attempt to show the ridiculousness in your own argument. Time and again it's been demonstrated that isolating a country/regime, does not, on it's own have an effect. You need to deal with the country so that the people who are oppressed/treated badly can see that this is not normal.

    Yes, it's right that we put pressure on the leaders of these regimes to change their ways. But isolating them, just makes a bad situation worse.

    Which brings me back to my original point. We shouldn't be 'for' the US, or 'for' Europe. We should deal with them all.
  • Khanivor 18 Nov 2004 14:46:55 40,542 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Well, the US and UK did sell Saddam some chemical precursors for his WMD programme, but that was about it. The Germans did the same. In fact, they built most of the facilities.

    When it comes to conventional weapons France came only second behind Russia in arming Saddam. I don’t mean you, but I dismiss anyone who rants about Iraq and concludes the ‘Well we armed him in the past line’ as it is total shite and easily proven to be so.

    France, by refusing to train police inside Iraq and by refusing to allow the UN security council to pass any kind of meaningful resolution on post war Iraq are, along with others, directly responsible for the continued suffering of civilians in Iraq. The ransom that they paid for hostages has helped to stir the horrible kidnappings (tips hat to Italy as well).

    I’m in no way saying that the majority of the responsibility lies with the coalition countries, the US in particular. But the war is a done thing now, and no amount of withholding help or support is going to turn back the clock. Chirac would rather score political points at home and abroad then try to save desperately needy people.


    Edited by Khanivor at 14:48:49 18-11-2004
  • Foregone-Reality 18 Nov 2004 14:48:03 2,218 posts
    Seen 4 years ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    A European Military would be unstoppable in terms of sheer numbers.

    ...That is...If Russia, who had expressed a lot of interest in the EU in the past (not in regards to membership but it looks like they're heading that way) were able to get their economy back in order and perhaps get rid of one or two of those 'troublesome states' to asia; we'd definately have a much greater say in what America thinks is "best for the world (themselves)".

    EDIT: I should have also mentioned that due to the fact that Ireland has no true Air Force..It'd be nice to transfer and fly for the European flag ;)

    Edited by Foregone Reality at 14:49:41 18-11-2004
  • Juninho 18 Nov 2004 14:49:05 1,825 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Post deleted
  • Page

    of 2 First / Last

    Previous
Log in or register to reply