>From: Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Where is Tiresias when we need him/her?
>Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 00:24:24 -0500
>If your point is that there are fools in France, who is to say it is
>impossible? If your point is that France has made mistakes and/or done
>terrible things, who would say it is impossible? If your point is that many
>French people believe foolish books, again, who
>would think this surprising?
>And how is this different from the fact that every country has fools, makes
>mistakes, does terrible things, and has masses of people who read foolish
>books? I'm sure you know anyone could list the same for America.
(ill remark that none of my claims have been rebutted--not that they could
be, of course, but its fascinating to notice how one can always parry facts
w/ vague generalizations)
i hope prof gish is purposefully being obtuse here. nobody can argue any
which nation of the world is perfectly blameless, but whatever faults or
obsessions we are plagued with are nowhere near the order of magnitude the
french have clearly exhibited in the past year.
its simply inconcievable that you could, in this day & age, have a
presidential candidate with a documented nazi-sympathizer past, much less
one who gets almost a fifth of the vote on account of overt xenophobic
rhetoric. i mean, what was pat buchanans percentage in the last election,
so of course its not "just aimless name calling," and shame on you for
resorting to that kind of a dimissive tactic when you have not bothered to
confront any of the facts ive documented: first of all, they are all
factually true, and second of all, they are perfectly relevant to the
a political argument does not exist in vacuo, much less one as complex &
truly global as potential war on iraq. if we are to be reasonable we must
take into consideration the credibility of the parties involved--not that
any nation or administration can claim saintlyhood--but rather what recent
facts show about the policies of said nation/govt. at the very worst, one
could say the bush administration is infatuated with its military and
economic hegemony, and is willing to put it to use in order to stamp out
oppressive regimes around the world, collateral damage be damned.
its not saintly, but its not devious either.
on the other hand, france has supported an interminable list of dictatorial
african regimes, offered saddam hussein billions in lucrative oil contracts,
bullied its former colonions by landing troops within their borders w/o as
much as bothering to ask for permition, bullied recent additions to the EU
because they, in chirac's words, "have missed a great opportunity to shut
up," not to mention standing by as ethnic massacre was committed in rhwanda.
comment est ce qu'on dit, 'dipshit' en francais?
>The only arguments that would be worth making are arguments about the
>issue, not about who makes them. If you have proof that the Bush
>administration knows better than France, by all means bring it forward. I'm
>sure the world is waiting.
what youre saying is, it makes absolutely no difference whether its a
convicted felon or just a regular guy, no better or worse than anybody else,
asking you to take a leap of faith. thats insane. im not insisting that the
bush/blair administrations DO have definitive proof at all, but, all things
equal, whom do you believe? out of two very bad choices (war vs saddam in
power for an indeterminate amount of time) which do you choose?
im no fan of this whole mess myself, really; im anxious about what appears
to be a ground campaign, which will mean relatively large casualties, as
well as long-term financial commitment to iraq despite gross budget deficit
et all, but its simply mind-boggling to witness the kind of ideological bias
some, apparently, cannot help but deploy.
regardless, i think we all realize this is just a mailing list and no
positions will be changed because of html paragraphs flying left & right, so
i will recuse myself from all talk of iraq, france, or ot matters in
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*