Chirac: What an infantile little prick

[The Dark]

Next thing you know, france'll have 'population management' squads out to Silence the dissscord! as it were, hunting down those unhappy and sticking a plug in their holes to get them to shut it...

Oh no...

*Glances to the door*They're here!! Run for your lives!

*the sounds of a running gunfight occur with one dead ewok at the end*

(:D)

Well, they've already passed a law where anyone booing the flag or national anthem can be fined and thrown in jail. They're guilty of "offending against the dignity of the Republic," according to the new law, endorsed by President Chirac as a means of imposing order in France. This was due to the booing of the Marseillaise at a France v. Algeria soccer match last year, when Chirac left his box and refused to return until an apology is made. According to The Times (London), the maximum punishment under the law is six thousand pounds in fines and six months of jail time. Other crimes punishable under this new law are for teens to "intimdate by gathering in stairwells," trespassing, and women "passively soliciting" as prostitutes, which human rights activists decry as being too broad, potentially including anyone who dresses provocatively. Insulting a public servant is also punishable by prison time, and police officers are no longer required to inform suspects of their right to remain silent. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 87,00.html

Somewhat unsurprisingly, Amnesty International is completely silent on this law. Wouldn't want to insult the righteous French.
http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/countries ... &Expandall

[HemlockGrey]

I guess Chirac has picked up a thing or two from our dear friend Ashcroft...

[Crown]

I appreciate the re-education here, Olrik. I used to think the EU might be something worthy of respect — now I know better.

Wait a second, you take the position of one of fifteen in the current EU as an example of the entire union? That's a bit harsh. I will agree that the insult is up there with some of the classics, but really is it any different the Bush's annoucment; 'You're either with us or against us'? While I don't advocate what Chirac said, I certainly do understand what drove him to say it.

Consider, both the letters showing support of the US were undertaken without even the consideration of those nations that were borderline or anit war. Basically Greece, who holds the rotating Predency, was just as pissed off as France and Germany when the letter came out. Not because it held a different view then they did, but because they weren't even asked if they wanted to sign. Okay given, it's a fat chance that they would have signed the letter (as it was), but what could have developed from being asked to sign was what happened on Monday.

That being the EU signed a decree saying that they believed that the best way to disarm Iraq was via the UN weapons inspectors, however this couldn't go on for ever if Iraq its self didn't cooperate. And should Iraq not comply with the will of the international community then an UN backed military incursion would be result of Iraqi actions.

Cut a long story short; was it infantile? Yes. Was it justified? No more than the US claiming that 'old Europe' is betraying it.

P.S. I am not attacking you in any way, it's that I just wanted to dispel the theory that one member's opinion is a reflection of the EU. Any more valid than the UK's support for the US is the reflection on the EU as a whole. Did that make sense?

[Captain Kruger]

I appreciate the re-education here, Olrik. I used to think the EU might be something worthy of respect — now I know better.

Wait a second, you take the position of one of fifteen in the current EU as an example of the entire union? That's a bit harsh. I will agree that the insult is up there with some of the classics, but really is it any different the Bush's annoucment; 'You're either with us or against us'? While I don't advocate what Chirac said, I certainly do understand what drove him to say it.

I was a little uncomfortable with Bush's line. I interpreted it to mean that any country that didn't bend over backwards to help us in every way conceivable would be considered our enemy. I'm not too comfortable with an all-consuming declaration like that.

However, I can give Bush a bit of slack because his country had just been attacked and 3,000 people murdered on his soil. That tends to cause an extreme reaction. Chirac has no such excuse. He is simply a snippy prick.

Consider, both the letters showing support of the US were undertaken without even the consideration of those nations that were borderline or anit war. Basically Greece, who holds the rotating Predency, was just as pissed off as France and Germany when the letter came out. Not because it held a different view then they did, but because they weren't even asked if they wanted to sign. Okay given, it's a fat chance that they would have signed the letter (as it was), but what could have developed from being asked to sign was what happened on Monday.

That being the EU signed a decree saying that they believed that the best way to disarm Iraq was via the UN weapons inspectors, however this couldn't go on for ever if Iraq its self didn't cooperate. And should Iraq not comply with the will of the international community then an UN backed military incursion would be result of Iraqi actions.

The question is this: were the countries who signed on with us obligated to consult their fellow Union members first? They're not like American States who are secondary to a federal government — they're still independently governed nations who damn well have a right to their opinion. And since a heavily-armed and unchecked Iraq would find it quite easy to strike Eastern Europe especially, can anyone reasonably blame their position?

Cut a long story short; was it infantile? Yes. Was it justified? No more than the US claiming that 'old Europe' is betraying it.

Agreed. I wasn't comfortable with Don Rumsfeld's comments either.

P.S. I am not attacking you in any way, it's that I just wanted to dispel the theory that one member's opinion is a reflection of the EU. Any more valid than the UK's support for the US is the reflection on the EU as a whole. Did that make sense?

Yep, perfectly. Don't worry, I don't offend that easily.