Primordial Groove

When did he state that the war was to secure Americas future energy needs?

beth

Greg's post made me realize how much of an idiot my family must think of me now, so I sent them all another note:

"I am sending one more reply out there and then I'll drop it. Yesterday I made some very stupid remarks. They were pure speculation. I guess that I was trying to add my own conspiracy theory slant to this situation. I'm sorry Ellen.

The main reason that I oppose the war with Irag is that I feel that N.Korea poses a much greater threat to us at this time. I feel that Bush is ignoring the situation over there while he campaigns for the war on Iraq. I do feel that Bush is trying to bully the world into supporting us in these actions. It is only causing more anti-American sentiment. I do feel that we have a legitamate reason to do war with Iraq, but I feel that we should allow the UN inspectors to carry on for the time being. I do understand the threat that Iraq(Saddam) poses. I do believe that we have the right to disarm him by force, if it comes down to it, but at this present time I do not feel that the threat of Iraq outweighs the threat of N.Korea.

I did vote for Bush and I think he has proven himself to be a strong leader in the after-math of 9-11. But I also feel that he is thinking with his heart and not his head.

I also am quite offended at the anti-French hoopla that is out there right now. I feel that changing that name of French fries and French toast to Freedom fries and Freedom toast is just retarded propaganda. I feel that France has every right to act in it's own national best interest. I found the use of our slain service men as part of the anti-French propaganda quite offensive. The sanctions I mentioned are in reference to the outcry I hear on talk radio and see on the Net. They are not, to my knoweledge, an actuallity. I do not support a trade embargo, nor to I support a tax on French imports. If we do war with Iraq and France proves itself to be an enemy of the US, then I will consider them as one, but not until that occurs.

Thank you. I'm sure that I could think of better things to say, but my brain has not yet had it's fix of caffeine and it is still in a fog. I just had to clear this up. I do not like my family thinking that I'm an idiot. ;-) Love you guys."

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Thanks--I couldn't find terribly accurate figures when I searched (quickly--I had to leave for work when I read that).

Blake

I agree that nuclear proliferation must be resisted and that it poses an enormous threat. However, as far as I know the issue has nothing to do with Iraq. After the "evidence" that Iraq had been trying to obtain nuclear capability was widely revealed to have been forged, Bush & Blair have suddenly stopped talking about nukes & Iraq.

Calling that belief "silly" was rude. Moreover, while winning the Gulf War didn't get Bush the Father re-elected, it did push his approval numbers above 80% for a while. If the election had been held in 1991, he might well have won.

I've stopped trying to understand Bush. I do think his capacities are so limited, and his advisors so venal, that any reasons he has are wrong & insufficient. I think Hussein is a threat to many of his own citizens, and that's bad; but the same is true of many other regimes around the world, so one has to ask, why aren't they getting the same treatment?

John/nyc

Does anyone think that Bush may be motivated by visions of a pax americana ? One based more on economic power than military power?

Gurdur

blondegoddess,
your remarks were very sensible, not idiotic at all, and you are to be commended on your moral courage.

All the best.

beth

This is the official reply to my letter from my family:
(looks like I started a flood of controversy)


**The real reason why France is trying to block America**

The French claim they are fighting for peace and taking the

moral high ground by attempting to block support for

America's campaign to eliminate Saddam Hussein. That's a

pack of self-serving lies. The reality is that France has

been in bed with the genocidal Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein

for decades. As the New York Post reports:


"France has massive investments in Iraq (and has made a

fortune out of the U.N. oil-for-food program). Everyone

knows that it is worried that a successor regime might not

honor contracts made by Saddam."


For decades France has been taking blood money from one of

the worst dictators on earth, and now they're guardians of

morality? I don't think so. Paris is in fact a charter

member of the "Axis of Weasel" and they don't care that

their efforts may cause American men and women to die

needlessly and put millions in the U.S. and throughout the

world at risk of a new wave of terrorist attacks, so long as

they can protect their blood money.

**France's long "hate America" campaign

Whether it�s supporting terrorist-abetting Cuban dictator Fidel Castro or nosily denouncing U.S. capital punishment, France seldom passes up an opportunity to oppose America in the United Nations and elsewhere.
The sad reality is that current French leaders envy and hate America for our power and wealth. While America has been prospering, France (along with much of Western Europe) remains deeply mired in economic stagnation created by a failed socialist economy and myopic leaders.

France�s new �hate America� campaign is particularly despicable when considering the history of American aid to France.

When Germany threatened France during World War I, American doughboys came to the rescue.

Thirty years later, when France was conquered by Nazi Germany and her people enslaved, tens of thousands of Americans gave their lives to defeat their German conquerors and free France.

After World War II, France was one of the largest beneficiaries of the U.S. Marshall Plan which saved the French from destitution and rebuilt their economy.

Then, when the Soviet Union threatened Europe during the Cold War, for over 40 years the American nuclear shield again protected France from Soviet conquest.

Again and again America has saved France from political annihilation and slavery. But instead of appreciation, again and again we have received sneering derision.

When America went toe to toe with Castro during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the French said they would not stand with us.

When President Reagan bombed Khadafy�s Libya after it sponsored terrorism that killed American soldiers, the French refused to allow US bombers to cross its airspace.

Today, as Chairman of the Pentagon�s Policy Advisory Board Richard Perle observes: "France is no longer the ally it once was. I have long thought that there were forces in France intent on reducing the American role in the world."

�Beneath Contempt�
And it gets even worse. Even Left Coast Democrat Rep. Tom Lantos of California said he was "particularly disgusted by the blind intransigence and utter ingratitude" of the Axis of Weasel after it gave Saddam the green light to attack Turkey.

"If it were not for the heroic efforts of America's military, France, Germany and Belgium today would be Soviet socialist republics," Lantos noted. "The failure of these three states to honor their commitments is beneath contempt."

So fanatical is French President Jacques Chirac's jealousy and hatred of America that even his fellow Europeans are now expressing outrage at his implication that France would block now independent former Soviet satellites from joining the European Union because they are too "pro-American."

"They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet," Chirac huffed, and went on to claim that those who support America were "childish and irresponsible."

But what can you expect from politicians from a country that virtually surrendered to the Wehrmacht without a fight, and then eagerly collaborated with Nazi Germany?

It�s no wonder that more and more Americans and others throughout the world are sick of France�s arrogance and cowardice, and there is a growing global movement to boycott French goods.

Alonzo Fyfe

What you "started" largely depends on you.

These charges are answerable -- if you want to get into a prolonged battle. But I fear that such a decision would mean giving your family (or large portions of it) up as a lost cause.

And the way things like this often develop, both sides are willing to give up the conflict -- as long as they are the ones who get the last word in. Which means, the conflict never ends.

So, where the controversy ends depends on who is willing to let the other side get the last word in. Given that this is the "official reply" from your family -- and they obviously spent a huge amount of time and effort writing it -- they will not allow you to have the last word. If you attempt to answer, they will be compelled to answer back. The only place that this confrontation can end is with you.

I am sorry for that.

Personally, I would answer. But, then, I wrote off my family a long time ago -- or, a huge percentage of them.

In that reply, I would focus on this:

80% of the world's population agrees with France, and the U.S. cannot even get a majority vote on the Security Council. The only governments that are siding with Bush are governments that are ignoring the majority of their people. Obviously, Bush is not as big a fan of democracy. Else, why is he so intent on trampling it -- praising governments that ignore the will of their people and condemning governments that listen to their people?

The choice to continue this confrontation or end it is not a choice that I wish on anybody. But it is your choice to make. I think it is quite certain that they will not make it.

You have my sympathies.

Blake

Alonzo brings up extremely valid points concerning the "family dynamic" that I hadn't considered. What a bind.

If you're going to take no prisoners, I have another recommendation for a reply: confronting the glaring unstated assumption that while France's motives are entirely venal, America's are & have been entirely altruistic and "heroic." It's possible to reconsider our entry into WWI, WWII, the Marshall Plan, and all the rest of it examining what our own not-so-hidden agendas were.

Not to mention the classic overlookings of the facts that as well as Castro, our government aids & abets terrorists; that half of France actively resisted & fought the Nazis; and that there is a growing campaign to boycott American goods worldwide.

By the way, what do you mean by "the official reply"? Did the sender of the original email send this one, with the explicit endorsement of most of the rest of the family?

Treacle Worshipper

the Axis of Weasel
I've not heard of this one before. Is the US going to break out the tuppenny rice & treacle? (Ref: children's nursery rhyme: Half a pound of tuppenny rice/Half a pound of treacle/ That's the way the money goes/ Pop! goes the weasel.)

blondegoddess,
You have a perfect right to express your opinion to your family, even if it was inadvertent. As you are worried about the possible repercussions, I think it might be better if you ignored their latest mail. You already said that you "made some very stupid remarks". If they aren't prepared to accept your apology, then I think any further communication from you is unlikely to improve the situation.
OTOH, if you want to defend the French, I would follow Alonzo & Blake's advice. But I'm pretty sure the French don't care about what your family thinks of them.
I hope things calm down in your family situation.
Best wishes,
TW