TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- It looks like Bush isn't the only one ....


Posted by occrider on Feb-18-2003 17:42:

It looks like Bush isn't the only one ....

that says stupid things ...

Chirac lashes out at 'new Europe'
Tuesday, February 18, 2003 Posted: 10:06 AM EST (1506 GMT)


BRUSSELS, Belgium -- French President Jacques Chirac has attacked eastern European countries hoping to join the EU, saying they missed a great opportunity to "shut up" when they signed letters backing the U.S. position on Iraq.

France has been a leading voice against Washington's press for war in Iraq to disarm President Saddam Hussein and is insisting weapons inspectors in the country be given more time.

But 13 countries either set to join the EU or in membership talks have signed letters supporting the United States.

Chirac said: "These countries have been not very well behaved and rather reckless of the danger of aligning themselves too rapidly with the American position."

"It is not really responsible behavior. It is not well brought-up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet."

"I felt they acted frivolously because entry into the European Union implies a minimum of understanding for the others," Chirac said.

Chirac called the letters "infantile" and "dangerous," adding: "They missed a great opportunity to shut up."

Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, all of whom have dates for EU membership, joined EU members Britain, Spain, Italy, Denmark and Portugal in signing a letter last month supporting Washington's stance on Iraq.

Ten other eastern European nations -- eight with entry dates and Romania and Bulgaria who are still in membership discussions -- signed a similar letter a few days later.

"Romania and Bulgaria were particularly irresponsible. If they wanted to diminish their chances of joining Europe they could not have found a better way," Chirac said.

When asked why he wasn't similarly critical of the EU nations that signed the letter, Chirac said: "When you are in the family ... you have more rights than when you are asking to join and knocking on the door."

CNN European Political Editor Robin Oakley described Chirac's outburst as "pretty grumpy and imperious."

"For him to lecture these applicant countries or these accepted members on their way in was really behavior like the worst of what the French complain about in the United States," Oakley said.

"It was bullying really. ... It was very, very tough stuff. I think some of the other EU leaders will feel it was out of order.

"But perhaps it shows just how much Jacques Chirac was stunned by U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's differentiation between what he calls 'old Europe' and 'new Europe.'"

Rumsfeld angered France and Germany when he referred to them as 'old Europe' -- in contrast to the easterners seeking to join the EU and NATO -- in response to Paris and Berlin's stance against any possible war in Iraq.

Chirac's words have angered some of those aspirant nations with Czech Deputy Prime Minister Alexandr Vondr saying it appeared Chirac was trying to bully them.

And Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Adam Rotfeld told public radio: "France has a right to its opinion and Poland has the right to decide what is good for it. France should respect that."

European Commission President Romano Prodi said he was saddened rather than angry with the candidates because their pro-Americanism was a signal they had failed to understand that the EU is more than a mere economic union.

"I would be lying it I said I was happy," he told reporters. "I have been very, very sad, but I am also patient by nature, so I hope they will understand that sharing the future means sharing the future."

The EU decided last December to admit 10 new members to the 15-nation bloc.

The parliaments of the current EU members still have to ratify the decision that will see Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Cyprus and Malta join in May 2004.

On Tuesday, leaders of the EU aspirants traveled to Brussels for a briefing on Iraq and endorsed Monday night's joint declaration by EU leaders. (Full story)

The candidates were upset over not being invited to Brussels for Monday's emergency summit on Iraq.

Britain and Spain had sought to have the candidates invited to Monday's summit, but France and Germany opposed the idea.

Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency, denied they had been excluded from the summit because of their backing for Washington, insisting rules require the accession treaties be signed first.


Posted by Izzy on Feb-18-2003 23:40:

who's calling who a bully?
hehe


Posted by IronDragon on Feb-19-2003 01:53:

quote:
Originally posted by Izzy
who's calling who a bully?
hehe


Exactly. For shame that Chirac resorts to such petty tactics.


Posted by cycloptor on Feb-19-2003 01:58:

what im wondering is what intrests in iraq does france want to protect so badly. you cant tell me for a minute that there isnt any... i highly doubt its oil though, thats mostly russian intrest. my theory is arms. they have sold them to iraq in the past, perhaps they helpd rebuild the airforce or something (pure speculation on my part mind you) but still...


Posted by occrider on Feb-19-2003 03:04:

quote:
Originally posted by cycloptor
what im wondering is what intrests in iraq does france want to protect so badly. you cant tell me for a minute that there isnt any... i highly doubt its oil though, thats mostly russian intrest. my theory is arms. they have sold them to iraq in the past, perhaps they helpd rebuild the airforce or something (pure speculation on my part mind you) but still...


Yea really ... you hear a million and one American conspiracy theories, how about some french ones


Posted by cycloptor on Feb-19-2003 05:08:

well look...i know im reaching with the example i gave (i only used that because i know that iraq has mirage fighters and french anti aircraft missles). but in all honestly, would you be defending a country like iraq if you did not have vested intrests in it?


Posted by occrider on Feb-19-2003 05:36:

quote:
Originally posted by cycloptor
well look...i know im reaching with the example i gave (i only used that because i know that iraq has mirage fighters and french anti aircraft missles). but in all honestly, would you be defending a country like iraq if you did not have vested intrests in it?


No I actually agree with you ... I'm just surprised how there aren't any french conspiracy theories since so many people talk about America having alterior motives. Jesus it's like the rest of the world is mother theresa all of a sudden.


Posted by cycloptor on Feb-19-2003 05:44:

sorry, i misunderstood, the little smily icon threw me as to what exactly you were referring to. it is a little bit odd though about everyone else trying to wash their hands of this and shift attention away from why they want what they do (hope that makes sense...im very tired)


Posted by arj1o1 on Feb-19-2003 07:33:

some guy at the dutc television was telling some days ago:
1american people are boycotting french products already.
2are the european people forgottten how we helped them in WWII?

1can't believe this, american people on the forum is this real?
2think that after WWII was made clear that nobody wants such war again so why should we help the US


Posted by biznology on Feb-19-2003 14:06:

quote:
Originally posted by arj1o1
some guy at the dutc television was telling some days ago:
1american people are boycotting french products already.
2are the european people forgottten how we helped them in WWII?

1can't believe this, american people on the forum is this real?
2think that after WWII was made clear that nobody wants such war again so why should we help the US


ok, first of all im not really sure what anything you said refers to. as 'boycotting' french products - which ones? french autos have been notoriously unsuccessful in the US, but i think thats due to lousy marketing/products in the 70s/80s. french cosmetics have always been popular, we have benneton here as well - tho most Americans wont justify paying a shitload for pastel clothing.

as for whether the US citizens on this forum being real? thats an illogical question...do all the people from holland on these boards use lots of drugs?!?

so you are saying that people in eastern europe should recognize your 'help' in ww2, but the US deserves no such respect when they 'helped' EVERYONE during ww2- except the Germans of course|


i find it odd that a thread like this attacking the US would get 5 pages of replies, yet a thread discussing french politics gets little if nothing, and mostly N American responses...


Posted by tiesto14 on Feb-19-2003 14:31:

quote:
Originally posted by biznology


i find it odd that a thread like this attacking the US would get 5 pages of replies, yet a thread discussing french politics gets little if nothing, and mostly N American responses...



Biz that actually surprises you.....you should know now that 95% of TA is anti-American.


Posted by biznology on Feb-19-2003 14:55:

quote:
Originally posted by tiesto14
Biz that actually surprises you.....you should know now that 95% of TA is anti-American.


i never said i was surprised, i was just trying to point out a bit of hypocrisy.

i would also not venture to say that 95% of TA is anti-US(since the American label is touchy and gets thrown around a lot). on a personal level i dont think anyone on TA would be anti you or anti me. the impersonality of the internet, and the relatively little *real* information anyone knows or learns about others on the internet or TA confounds this aspect.

people get angry at avatars, sigs, five lines of text or a preconceived notion...doesnt mean they are anti-US in any specific way. sure, maybe some people would be willing to step up and say in NO way do they like, respect, condone, or understand anything american/US- but i would seriously doubt it|


Posted by JudgeJulez on Feb-19-2003 15:20:

quote:
Originally posted by biznology
i never said i was surprised, i was just trying to point out a bit of hypocrisy.

i would also not venture to say that 95% of TA is anti-US(since the American label is touchy and gets thrown around a lot). on a personal level i dont think anyone on TA would be anti you or anti me. the impersonality of the internet, and the relatively little *real* information anyone knows or learns about others on the internet or TA confounds this aspect.

people get angry at avatars, sigs, five lines of text or a preconceived notion...doesnt mean they are anti-US in any specific way. sure, maybe some people would be willing to step up and say in NO way do they like, respect, condone, or understand anything american/US- but i would seriously doubt it|


Word


Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Feb-19-2003 21:59:

There is an important difference between the French reaction and the US one. The eastern european countries are applying for the membership in the EU while at the same opposing two of the major countries that make up the EU. In a situation where their acceptance in the EU depends on positive reactions from every single country that makes up the EU, their opposition of those countries is not a very smart thing to do. France, as far as I know, is not applying for the membership in the US, so it can be allowed to have a different oppinion without consequences.

Also I don't think 95% of this forum is anti-US. Most here, however, are against Bush's ideas of governing foreign affairs.


Posted by occrider on Feb-20-2003 03:11:

quote:
Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
There is an important difference between the French reaction and the US one. The eastern european countries are applying for the membership in the EU while at the same opposing two of the major countries that make up the EU. In a situation where their acceptance in the EU depends on positive reactions from every single country that makes up the EU, their opposition of those countries is not a very smart thing to do. France, as far as I know, is not applying for the membership in the US, so it can be allowed to have a different oppinion without consequences.

Also I don't think 95% of this forum is anti-US. Most here, however, are against Bush's ideas of governing foreign affairs.


So countries applying for the EU can't have their own opinion and view on this matter? In order to get a vote from France you have to agree with them? It's absurd that an applicant nation should have to "keep their mouth shut" when it comes to an issue France supports. If this doesn't define bullying I don't know what does. Give me a break ... if Bush said anything REMOTELY like this you all would be jumping down his throat and crying havoc. I mean, Bush did call France and Germany old Europe but it's not like he said you can't join NATO if you disagree with me. Please explain to me how those countries are being "irresponsible." If ANYBODY feels strongly about democracy and free speech they should be pissed off. I'm curious drug tito ... do you think that Chirac's statements are acceptable? I especially like Chirac's statements as to why he wasn't critical of other EU states in support of a resolution on Iraq. Family my ass. He's picking on the countries that he can pick on. I also like how France and Germany banded together to exclude the countries that support the US from the summit meeting. What a joke.


Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Feb-20-2003 12:41:

First of all, if any country who wishes to join NATO would be acting against the US, there's no way it would ever become a member.

I agree though that the statement was somewhat bullying. But those countries supported the US only because they know sucking up to the americans is the best way to get into NATO. In that way they showed that for them NATO comes first, and then the EU.


Posted by occrider on Feb-20-2003 18:04:

quote:
Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
First of all, if any country who wishes to join NATO would be acting against the US, there's no way it would ever become a member.


Well we don't know that because it hasn't happened yet. We sure as hell know that that holds true for the EU though ...

quote:

I agree though that the statement was somewhat bullying. But those countries supported the US only because they know sucking up to the americans is the best way to get into NATO. In that way they showed that for them NATO comes first, and then the EU.


I love how you can so easily discern what a country's intent is. Like it's impossible that these countries feel that Iraq is a danger to the world and that they need to disarm? No of course not ... since they are agreeing with the US they are OBVIOUSLY sucking up. So is every country that agrees with the US sucking up to them? Oh and fyi, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland are ALREADY in NATO. So if you follow your logic it would be more advantageous for these countries to side with the EU so they can gain membership. But I guess some countries just stand up for what they believe in. Much to Chirac's dismay ... and now he's gonna make them pay for voicing their opinions. And EVEN if these countries are sucking up to the US your statement implies that it's ok for Chirac to bully them. Like these countries can't adopt policies for their own self intersts? They have to follow the French hardline policy? Everybody throws around the word bully so freely and readily when it comes to Bush and now that we see a concrete example of France bullying other countries Chirac is only "somewhat" bullying. Why am I smelling a tinge of hypocrisy in the air.


Posted by King_Mack on Feb-24-2003 03:12:

Rasta

^^

occrider..I do agree with ur statement that Chirac's outburst is taken likely. He is being a very horrible representation of the opposition to the war..in fact, i encourage someone to duct tape his mouth for "crying over spilt milk"

however...how does countries like Czech Republic, Hungary etc. have ANY concern of iraq?? they have never been bothered before, why are they now? I wouldnt be suprised that they are doing this for an easy NATO membership. This DOES NOT justify chirac's actions, but it does give these countries reason to back up the US...they reprsent their own country, and not EU as a whole, which is why chirac shouldnt be trying to put words in their mouths. But Im sure terrorism is the last time on Hungary's mind. Did they come forward right away and offer military assistance to the US for their episode 1-fight bin laden?


Posted by occrider on Feb-24-2003 05:03:

quote:
Originally posted by King_Mack
^^

occrider..I do agree with ur statement that Chirac's outburst is taken likely. He is being a very horrible representation of the opposition to the war..in fact, i encourage someone to duct tape his mouth for "crying over spilt milk"

however...how does countries like Czech Republic, Hungary etc. have ANY concern of iraq?? they have never been bothered before, why are they now? I wouldnt be suprised that they are doing this for an easy NATO membership. This DOES NOT justify chirac's actions, but it does give these countries reason to back up the US...they reprsent their own country, and not EU as a whole, which is why chirac shouldnt be trying to put words in their mouths. But Im sure terrorism is the last time on Hungary's mind. Did they come forward right away and offer military assistance to the US for their episode 1-fight bin laden?


Again, the Czech Republic and Hungary are ALREADY IN NATO. So if they're doing this to get membership into NATO then they're awfully stupid! Also they are not offering millitary assisstance to the US in Iraq. They signed a letter of support of the United States in achieving disarmament in Iraq. And I'm sure that during episode 1 - fight bin laden they did come forward and offer the US support in the war against terror. Remember however, they are not voting for war, it's a vote of achieving resolution. And you ask why they even have ANY concern over Iraq? Well I'm sure they get their oil the same place the rest of the world does. It benefits them to have STABLILITY in the region. And Saddam Huessein isn't one of the most stabilizing factors in the region. I'm sure they don't want to see a repeat of the Gulf war where Saddam invades Kuwait and threatens Saudi Arabia. Therefore a Saddam Hussein without vx gas and nuclear weapons makes for a safer middle east. You can easily ask that question with regards to the war on terrorism. Remember when ALL those countries pledged support to the US? Why would Belgium or Spain offer their support on the war on terrorism? It's very unlikely they would get attacked. The reason why is because by eliminating the roots of terrorism a safer world atmosphere that benefits everybody is created.


Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Feb-24-2003 23:22:

quote:
Well we don't know that because it hasn't happened yet. We sure as hell know that that holds true for the EU though


Those countries are soon to be admitted to the EU. Never has a country entered NATO which opposed the US.

quote:
Like it's impossible that these countries feel that Iraq is a danger to the world and that they need to disarm? No of course not ... since they are agreeing with the US they are OBVIOUSLY sucking up. So is every country that agrees with the US sucking up to them? Oh and fyi, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland are ALREADY in NATO. So if you follow your logic it would be more advantageous for these countries to side with the EU so they can gain membership. But I guess some countries just stand up for what they believe in.


If you lived in one of those countries like I do, you would see that the government reports are not filled with arguments why should Saddam be disarmed, but rather by the arguments that are saying we'll get financial aid from the US and easier access to NATO (for those like us that aren't already in it) if we support them now. Don't be too idealistic and think anyone is doing anything for the greater good and benefit of others.


Posted by occrider on Feb-25-2003 01:12:

quote:
Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Those countries are soon to be admitted to the EU. Never has a country entered NATO which opposed the US.


Ok name one country that had their NATO membership revoked due to a disagreement with the US. What I'm saying is that there hasn't been a case where that has happened. However, we see a case today with the EU where that IS happening. I'm sure if France had their way there would be no way in hell Hungary and the Czech Republic are admitted into the EU.


quote:

If you lived in one of those countries like I do, you would see that the government reports are not filled with arguments why should Saddam be disarmed, but rather by the arguments that are saying we'll get financial aid from the US and easier access to NATO (for those like us that aren't already in it) if we support them now. Don't be too idealistic and think anyone is doing anything for the greater good and benefit of others.


And what government reports do you have exclusive access to in Serbia that outlines Czech, Hungarian, and Polish foreign policy? With regards to NATO admission, we were talking about the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. You said they were doing it to gain access into NATO. THat's not true so what countries are you referring to? This whole debate has been in response to Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic not any other country. Also I was never idealistic in saying that they were absolutely, 100% doing it for the greater good. I was simply saying you can't EXCLUDE that they were doing what they believed was right as you seemed to be saying. If I recall, I remember you saying that they were all "sucking up" to the United States. My final point is, who is France to tell these countries that they can't voice their own opinion on the matter?? EVEN IF they were doing it for their own personal gain that doesn't give france the right to tell them to shut up. And if you read the article I posted on France's oil interests in Iraq, I think a lot of pro-France people are being too idealistic themselves with regards to France's motives in this affair.



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.