doc

For the record, I personally very much like France, the French, their food, women, language, bicycle races, and so on!

---

France Wants More Compensation From Libya

France insisted Monday that Libya must pay more compensation to victims of a 1989 French jetliner bombing, but stopped short of a full threat to block a possible U.N. resolution to lift sanctions against Moammar Gadhafi's government.

Embarrassed by the size - $2.7 billion - of the compensation deal Libya recently struck with victims of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, France wants to renegotiate an earlier agreement for the French UTA jet.

A new round of talks between Libyan authorities and families who lost relatives on the UTA plane has made ``important progress,'' the Foreign Ministry said, but has so far yielded no breakthrough.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...041499,00.html

doc

Russia backs lifting sanctions on Libya

http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/ne...tr1061006.html

PineyBob

Just for the record. The bombing of Libya was carried out under 2 UN articles and as those articles relate to the US Constitution. No laws US or International were broken. What was broken was Khadhfi's will to wage a terrorist war IMO becuase the US bombed him and killed his children. That's why we don't invade him, we don't have to, he is impotent internationally.

As for the French, my uncle was one of the soldiers that landed in that first wave in Normandy that was so vividly shown in "Saving Private Ryan" He was one of three that survived from his Higgin's Boat. He along with millions of others are the reason you sir do not speak German.

While we were rasing an army to free you, your people were pimping themselves out to the Nazi's and helping them ferret out Jews for slaughter. French anti-semitism is well documented.

I spoke many times to Uncle Ken and he was honored to serve his country and he fought all over France to help liberate you and several of the death camps as well.

Personally I am glad we spent the financial & human capital to liberate France. Not because your people deserved it but because it was and would be today the right thing to do. Freedom & Liberty is the most precious gift you can give and I am personally glad that we were able to restore yours. See Freedom & Liberty restores your God Given right to be stupid and IMO your government chooses to be really stupid way to often. But Freedom and Liberty also allows us these types of forums for lively and spirited debates and that is a good thing.

As for Iraq, I don't know if ivasion was the right thing to do. But I do know that doing nothing was the wrong thing to do!

manfromoz

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

PineyBob

Hey I was speaking of the French Government! You want to go into the atrocities that can be attributed to the Brits? We are certainly not the pack of Boy Scouts that the US media would like you to believe, but on ballance we get it close to right far more than our European Brethren. Do we screw up? YES WE DO!, TSA, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Viet Nam leap out at me for a start.

Dovster

Do you guys mind if I confuse this thread with some historical facts?

While it is true that American (along with British and Canadian) forces freed France, that is NOT why America fought the Nazis.

France and England had been at war with Germany since 1939 and apart from providing materials, America stayed out.

On Dec 7, 1941, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. The following day, America declared war -- but only on Japan.

On Dec 11, Germany and Italy declared war on the US. Obviously, this meant that America would be fighting in Europe whether it wanted to or not.

Now that I have outlined some historical facts going back over half a century, I would like to point out some newer ones.

France has a strong record of supporting Arab nations and Arab terrorist organizations.

When Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq fought Israel in 1967, France immediately refused to deliver the Mirage fighter planes which Israel had already bought and paid for.

When Israel was attacked by Egypt and Syria in 1973, France refused to allow the United States to use airports to resupply Israel.

France built the nuclear reactor in Iraq which Israel destroyed in an air attack. The French, of course, immediately condemned this infringement on their right to supply Saddam and other mass murderers with nuclear power.

In 2002, French President Jacques Chirac refused to ban Hamas (the organization which has been behind most of the suicide bombings in Israel), saying that it is not a terrorist organization.

France has repeatedly provided aid to Yasser Arafat and continues to meet with him, even though both Israel and the United States have said that Arafat is an enemy of the peace process and the current Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen says that Arafat is undermining his authority and his attempts to reach a peace agreement.

Why SHOULD the Libyan government pay out big time to France for a terrorist attack? It knows that France, in the end, will kiss and make up -- as soon as Libya has enough money to make it worth while.




[This message has been edited by Dovster (edited 08-19-2003).]

JOUY31

While you accurately point out flaws in French foreign policy, I understand the families of the passengers murdered on the UTA flight, all of whom are not French, when they fight for fairer compensation

[This message has been edited by JOUY31 (edited 08-20-2003).]

Dovster

D'accord. All the passengers' families, whether French or not, deserve fair compensation.

The problem is that people always suffer from the weaknesses of their governments. The French people suffered because their government did not react when Germany entered the Rhineland in 1936. (Hitler said afterwards that if they had, Germany would have retreated and he would have been hounded out of office.)

The British people underwent the blitz because Chamberlain showed weakness at Munich.

American hostages in Iran suffered because Carter was too weak to do anything.

The families of those passengers (and I can identify with them as I fly Air France often) are now suffering from France's history of weakness towards Arab dictators.

TGV

Well in this case :

may also be considered old news ?


I am always flabbergasted by the habit of some people to always go back to WWII, and the Holocaust. Yes it has been an important part of the 20th century, but it is now nearly 60 year old !
Fortunately here in Europe we are not always referring to this, and have been able to overcome all this hate and build friendship (and with the Germans, yes sir !).

In any case, as Dovster rightly pointed out, US real involvement in WWII started only after Pearl Harbor, and only when US interests were at stake.

Regarding French anti-semitism it may exist, as well as US "anti-arabism" exists today.

My personal opinion (and I am waiting for the flames of many Americans now !) is that most of these problems stem from religions.

And especially religions which state that its members are "God people" (it may not be an accurate translation of what is written in Jewish texts, and surely an oversimplification, I apologize in advance, but I think this is the idea), or religions considering that members of other religions are "infidels" and that, by killing them, you will deserve the Paradise (same apologies for Muslims !).

Because in the end, and whatever the reason, if somebody thinks he is superior to his neighbour, this is the beginning of troubles.

An now I stop quickly, because I am, no doubt about it, totally off-topic !


[This message has been edited by TGV (edited 08-20-2003).]

Arcolaio99

Maybe if France had a government that actually did something worthhile these passengers families might be getting more than enough money to buy an ice cream cone!!

Occupationalhazard

Solely as point of information, in English, this notion is expressed as "God's Chosen People" or "the Chosen People of God", or similar.

There is an unfortunate tendency among some, most notably on the American Left, to assert that self-interest (as if by magic!) abnegates all other motives, accordingly, the current action in Iraq can only, says the Left be about oil, whereas the (preferred!) action is one where no discernible US national interest is at stake, such as Liberia or Kosovo/Bosnia/whatever Yugoslavia goes by these days.

Viewed in a historical context, the perspective that America should not get involved in yet another nastly little European war was an certainly defensible position to hold.

The fact that the US was invited into the War by Japan in no way diminishes the sacrifices made by the American people in liberating Europe. (I note that, in order for the self-interest theory to apply, prior to 12/7/43, one must completely ignore the Lend-Lease program.)

Returning to the subject at hand, the French gov't is clearly embarassed at the disproprotionate settlement amounts, and is attempting to use its UN veto power to re-open a settled matter, and leverage their UN veto.

While I understand the French position--and, really, what do they have to lose? It's not like relations w/Washington could get much worse--their action could have the effect of limiting the recovery of the Lockerbie families. My recollection from reading about the settlement is that part of the payments are keyed to the lifting of UN sanctions, and to the extent that the French action deprives the Lockerbie families of that portion of the settlement, it is deplorable.

Regards,

O/H

Dovster

The concept of the "Chosen People" in no way implies that Jews have any special rights or guaranteed Heavenly entry.

The Jews were "chosen" to receive the Ten Commandments and, by passing them on to others, to be "a light unto the nations."

Judaism, which is quite ambivalent on the question of the afterlife, makes no promises of Heaven for its adherents nor does it deny it for others.

On another issue, I don't really think that I can be considered a card-carrying member of the American Left. I consider myself a Conservative and generally vote Republican. As a dual American-Israeli citizen I also vote for the center Right Likud party.

However, I do recognize that America often (but not always) works in its self-interest -- and I see absolutely nothing wrong in that.

Lend-Lease WAS in America's interest, as was "Cash and Carry". Roosevelt was certain that America would become involved in the war and wanted the Allies to be in the best possible position when the U.S. entered.

PineyBob

TVG,

Yes we go back 60 years because we sent the flower of our youth to the fields of France. Take a look at the very well maintained "Gardens of Stone" that litter your countryside. Talk to the old men that were young boys then and kissed the fresh faced youth from the farms of the Great Plains, the cities of the east & west, the cotton fields of the deep south. All came to preserve and defend liberty. Some of them never left.

I makes me sad that it has come to this, General Lafayette must be rolling in his grave. You don't have to agree with us every time, but just every now and then don't block us just because you can. Try to realize that if you're not good negotiators you don't get as good a deal. Don't penalize families because you want to prove you aren't 3rd world banana republic. When you behave as you do, you just confirm our worst fears

[This message has been edited by PineyBob (edited 08-20-2003).]

beergut

And as I recall the UK has only recently made the last payment for lend lease. Also I believe the UK gave the US Jet engine technology as part of the lend lease.

Thanks for the extended credit guys, can we have our patent back now

Nigel

Occupationalhazard

Dovster, as a good portion of what you have written appears to be in response to my post, I would like to revise and extend my remarks.

As I noted, I provided TGV with the accepted English translation, solely as a point of information; I will leave any further discussion of The Covenant for you and TGV to work out on your own.

Conveniently enough, I never asserted that you were.

This view--with which I concur-- would, indeed, disqualify you from being a member of the American Left. Nevertheless, your observation "but not always" would also exclude you from the particular group that I was remarking upon.

Indeed, America frequently acts in ways that are not directly linked to a definable national interest--the character of its relationship with Israel is an excellent example.

Was it? This is a view that seems obvious *now*, but at the time was not a forgone conclusion. I am not so certain that FDR was a certain, as you certainly think that he was.

Indeed, as an example, there were very serious communications, conducted through Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King, as to what the disposition of the British Fleet would be in the event of a British surrender. FDR (and King) wanted the Fleet ordered to the New World should Britain sue for peace, whereas Churchill (correctly) pointed out that a "Vichy" Britain, under a government led by, say, Sir Oswald Mosley, would likely have to turn the Fleet over to Germany under the terms of a negotiated surrender, rather than scuttle it, or order it to the Eastern Maritimes.

A British defeat (Dunkirk?) or surrender was a very real possibility--recall that, at one point, there were cabinet-level back channel negotiations going on b/w Lord Halifax and Berlin regarding a negotiated peace.

Regards,

O/H