several days old news

Maybe we should be looking in the French Embassy at Bagdad to see if any on our "wanted list" are there.

Well, here's more news of the UN human rights committee then.
Libya, the chair, along with france, and the arab league, now has elected sudan, Zimbabwe, Syria, and a few other of the worst human rights violators of the world to be the new(UN) world human rights committee.
how fucked up is this? I'm amazed, dumbfounded, shocked, etc.
what the hell is going on with tthis world?

Canada, the USA, Australia, the UK, and all democratic countries voted NO, but they were out voted by the guess who? (islam) block.
(add france to that group)

So some reporters say that the French government provided the Iraqi with some information. These are the same reporters who likely told of Umm Qasar's fall on day one. :)

There's a critical between the reporting of
information assessed during the confusion
of battle - one does their honest best. And the
historic national charactor of deliberate
collabation with dictators.

A distinction, weasels can never comprehend.

Never mind whether it is true or not. Nobody will ask us to provide the evidence.

This is an exageration of an earlier report.

Why not just replace the word "weasel" with "senile"? It would be more accurate.

From the Waco-Tribune Herald>>>>The French denied these reports at the same time that French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin met in Iran with the terrorist-supporting Shiite mullahs who are attempting to undermine U.S. efforts to prevent the formation of a Shiite state in Iraq.

The French fought to lift U.N. sanctions on Iraq before the war. They had no concerns about weapons of mass destruction in Saddam's hands. Now they oppose U.S. efforts to lift the sanctions because of phony concerns about the need for U.N. inspectors to certify the destruction of all WMD.

Chirac recently met privately with the leaders of Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg to plan for a new joint military defense system for Europe despite the similar role of NATO, which has U.S. membership.

Rowland Nethaway is the Waco Tribune-Herald editor.

I see some really nasty 'writing on the wall' of a much larger picture that the French are painting.
Why don't the wingnuts running France grow some balls and just step up and tell their people and the US, what their mission is, instead of pushing us to the edge of being total enemies? Unless, of course, that is their mission.........Hmmmmm......

French people.......are you paying any attention to what in going on in your govt.?????????? I realize that all you have to go on is the propaganda your flakey govt provides you, but come on, any marginally intelligent human being would be smart enough to see through them.

The Dissident Frogman sees through it:

http://www.xanga.com/home.asp?user=dissidentfrogman

"I realize that all you have to go on is the propaganda your flakey govt provides you"

Are you sure? It is easy in France to get access to British, American, German, Spanish newspapers. CNN, BBC, Spanish channels are on television.

"Now they oppose U.S. efforts to lift the sanctions because of phony concerns about the need for U.N. inspectors to certify the destruction of all WMD."

Lie. France has repeatedly said it wants to lift sanctions, despite a lack of an accounting.

BTW, those so-called papers which purport to hold that France tried to block the visas of people travelling to an Iraqi National Congress meeting in Paris is hogwash. The meeting went forward, there were no blocked visas.

locra,

Yeah, that's why even know, in the calm after the storm they keep mis-identifying jet fuel for mustard gas. *chuckle*

Folkert is right on the money. I have access to any media outlet I want. Its unfortunate that Americans have such a myopic vision about the world.

This is a silly story to bash the French on. There are dozens and dozens of uimes when our own government has done the same thing.

Rebecca,

The argument that "The US has acted in an unethical manner in similar prior situation and thus it should not act in an ethical manner now" is a type of ad hominem. The non- or misapplication of a thesis is not relevant to the truth or falsehood of the thesis itself.

The anti-war crowd constantly engages in this type of invalid argument. I blame the demise of mandatory university logic courses.

Jacques,

As you note, both the US and France have acted in their own interests in Iraq. Now, even if the US acted with the most unethical of motives (say, a desire to monopolize control of oil), the practical effect of their position was to end Iraqi state torture, rape and killings. (The Iraqi people have vindicated this position by showing their gratitude towards US troops. The anti-war crowd should just admit this an move on.)

The practical effect of the French position, however, was to allow continuation of Iraqi state torture, rape and killings. The French aren't irrational people, so we have to assume this consequence was considered in conjunction with their other - as you say - self-interested motives. The French condemned the Iraqi people to further slavery in favour of French interests.

The evidence of French complicity with Saddam's regime is consistent with French self-interest and shouldn't surprise us. After all, France was, at best, pragmatically indifferent to the survival of the Iraqi regime, so there would be nothing wrong, from its view, of giving aid to Saddam if it served French interests.

Crying that the evidence of French complicity is false or that it was planted is disingenuous, because it is indicative of a lack of objectivity on the matter. Either tell us why you believe the evidence is false or explain why French complicity with Saddam's regime wasn't immoral.

Jacques - Just as I thought, weasels will never comprehend the difference between mere reporters and a national character of willful collaboration with dictators - A quote from a magazine I subscribe to:

" We (French) were recently pleased to confront American narrow-mindedness with French intelligence and to confront the New World, led by “King UbuBush,” with Old World wisdom. And what was the result? One of the most appalling dictators in the Middle East fell, and France did nothing to contribute to his demise. "

http://www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3232--316794-,00.html

Mark,

Well, I have already pointed to one inconsistency. The claim concerning the Iraqi National Congress meeting in Paris in 2000, and that French tried somehow to block this, when in fact the meeting went on as planned and no visas were blocked. I doubt their existance because such actions would in fact be against French interests. I also know that it has been the Murdoch news outlets that have run with these, and given how rabidly anti-French those outlets are, and how they have fabricated stories in the past, well, you see my point.

As far as the end of torture, etc. in Iraq, and let me be quite blunt, this is no real concern of France's. I am a firm believer in, just like Condoleeza Rice, "reaslistic" foreign policy, not "idealistic" foreign policy. And quite frankly, it is hypocritical for you to imply that it is really a concern of the US. If such nasty actions were really on the American radar screen, then the US wouldn't have voted against a UN resolution, as it recently did, which criticized China for its human rights abuses, it wouldn't sell arms to Jordan, and it wouldn't have normal trading relations with Nigeria. As I wrote earlier, any benefit this invasion has for the Iraqis is tertiary to what the US interested in ("cracking heads"). You may preen yourselves for ending a brutal regime, but your reasons for going there weren't to end a brutal regime, and as such I don't see how that makes the US moral exemplars, though it does make you the US PR oppurtunists. Which I don't begrudge the US. You've got have that to spin it to the folks at home.

lcora,

The US wilfully collaboated with Saddam, the Shah of Iran, the Phillipine dictator, Noriega, Pinochet, the dictator who ruled Indonesia until quite recently, and whose government slaughter hundreds of thousands of people, and all other manner of despots and tyrants around the world. Whose national character looks more besmirched now? :)

About Saddam's demise see my comments above to Mark.

Jacques, what we did during the cold-war, was done to win the cold-war. It is only fitting that the vanquished is now a fellow weasel of France. No apologies here, or ever.

4 of the 6 examples you cited now have relative, democracies - and one is on its way - with little or no help from a national character of surrender.

Appeasement and surrender to despots that defines France did not make these nations what they are today.

The 3 reasons why France wanted to protect Saddam Hussein:

1) The favorable contracts for France's petroleum giant, TotalFinaElf, to receive $75-billion worth of Iraqi oil at below market prices - valid only as long as Saddam remains armed and in power.

2) Saddam had promised France protection from terrorist acts.

3) The loans for palaces debt needs to be repayed.

I noticed that Qadafi of Libya will compensate the victims of PanAm 103 - I also noticed that the family members of France's ATA flight 772 hve to get a dime or an admission of guilt.

'Besmirched' ? I'm sure France and Libya are best of friends.

mark
I don't think you understand the language you are using. "ad hominum" is not applicable to the actions of a state. Do you even know what you are talking about? I note you did not counter the example presented.

You also then go on to rationalize and actually making a very French argument for pragmatism and realpolitik.

Jacques,

As I've stated elsewhere, the argument about hypocritical application of a thesis is a type of ad hominem. If the US has acted inconsistently in the past, this is irrelevant to the rightness of its actions in Iraq. If you believe that the "hypocritical" argument has merit, please explain how it is relevant to the moral application of force in Iraq.

As far as fabricated evidence goes, simply making a vague reference to past faked stories is no evidence of the fakery of present stories. Fair minded people need more than this. I believe the story about the human rights conference centered around French complicity in attempts to intimidate the organizers. That fact that the French failed only speaks of incompetence, not absolution.

You have not addressed the story about US-France diplomatic conversations passed to Iraq by the French.

But I think we come to the rub of it here: "As far as the end of torture... in Iraq, this is no real concern of France's."

Fair enough. We agree that the French position was immoral, although self-interested. But let's set aside for the moment the contempt Iraqis might feel for the French, and the objections they might have for French "help" in rebuilding their country.

The distinction between realist foreign policy and idealistic foreign policy begins to blur when you consider the following proposition: Given that democracy is a good thing in itself, and that democracies rarely, if ever, attack one another, democracy should be promoted around the world.

I bring it up not to bore you with political philosophy, but because the proposition is, in part, at the center of new US foreign policy. Wolfowitz et.al. have made this clear for some time. At this level of foreign policy analysis, anti-terrorism and democratic human rights converge.

Now, I'm not foolish enough to believe this new doctrine will be consistently and perfectly applied by the US, but it has merit nonetheless.

That France wants to adhere to old, safe, self-interested realist foreign policy is not surprising. But we should recognize that France is no longer an ally and should be isolated as much as possible.

didn't the fastest growing US airline just buy four billion dollars worth of French Airbus jets? so much for the "boycott." All this anti-French stuff is for joe sixpack at home wacthing Fox, no one in Washington or the centers of power is going to change anything with France. Even Bechtel has large french shareholders.

Rebecca, I think you'll find it's "ad hominem"--Mark at least spelled it correctly.

Of course it doesn't LITERALLY apply to a state, since it means "to the man"--but Mark used it in the correct spirit.

When you argue that a person's argument is compromised because of who they are or what they've done, you are arguing to the man. There is no reason why the phrase can't be extended to cover the sense in which Mark used it.

Rebecca, you say there are dozens and dozens of times when the US has done the same thing as France has done just now. So is it wrong, or right, to do that? Should the US continue to do something wrong because it has done it in the past? Does France get a free pass to do something wrong that the US once did?

Mark did answer your question, though you didn't realize it.

As for Jacques' argument, France's actions in its self-interest perpetrated one of the world's foulest dictatorships. The US's actions in its self-interest ended it. I think the matter speaks for itself. And as Icora pointed out, most of the dictatorships we supported in the Cold War are democracies now. South Korea, Taiwan, Chile, the Philippines, and Indonesia are all democracies, with the first three admittedly more democratic than the other two.

And speaking of "ad hominem" perhaps Jacques would like to explain why France just occupied Cote d'Ivoire without any UN resolution to back the action?

Rebecca,
I think "Mark" is a little confused and perhaps using some terminology he has heard somewhere and trying to be erudite an to appear informed.

To counter an argument that a nation state has done what it accuses another of doing, as "ad hominem," betrays a basic misapprehension of logic and language.

To make an assertion of ad hominem fallacy

E.g.:
If I say, “you should not smoke at the nursery school;”
And you say, “you position is wrong, your haircut bothers me;”
That would be an ad hominem assertion and your response would be guilty of and ad hominem fallacy.

O.k. But if one says France is guilty of dealing with Saddam and of autocratic regimes, and you counter with asserting the fact that the US has done the same, that is not ad hominem, as it is the same issue.

Now poor Gabriel made himself look a little silly by actually creating his own ad hominem fallacy when noting your typo. Of course that gets into hypocrisy and irony.

Anyway. Your point is well taken. All nation states and their commercial actors deal with nasty governments. For one to point to another and exclaim, they are “shocked…shocked” to find it going on, is just meaningless. It betrays chauvinism and ignorance of the world and nothing else.

David, thank you for illustrating the ad hominem usage by accusing me of being superficial. Your argument of the form "Mark is wrong about ad hominems because he is trying to appear erudite" is invalid. I assume you were being ironic, rather than foolish.

I don't believe I am misinformed.

Your example of an ad hominem is incorrect. If the response had been "Your position is wrong because your hair cut bothers me", then it would have been an ad hominem. The personal attack has to be advanced as a reason for the wrongness of the argument. That is what we mean when we say personal attacks are irrelevant.

The ad hominem tu quoque is a type of ad hominem that the anti-war camp has used over and over again. Gabriel has done a nice job of articulating the fallacy.

David Levin, the Oxford English Dictionary defines ad hominem as:

A phrase applied to an argument or appeal founded on the preferences or principles of a particular person rather than on abstract truth or logical cogency.

I used the argument ad hominem against Jacques deliberately, knowing full well what it was, having defined it previously, and SAID I was doing so in my post. Here's your troll hat. Or your "inability to comprehend irony" hat. Take your pick.

Before this thread grows to critical mass, and so that it does not continue ad infinatum, I'd like to toss my deux francs at Jackie...
We're all part of some very human institutions here, and as they are of human construct, they have weaknesses as well as strengths. Your statement that '...as for the end of torture...is no concern of France's...' belies your unconcern. I could pull a 'logical' conclusion out of my ass that you think it's okay to subjugate women, rape, torture and murder little kids, gas people you don't like, and basically act like Saddam did. Is that conclusion valid? Probably not. We're supposed to be treating each other humanely, and by distancing itself from the Coalition of the Willing, France made an ass of itself. And for what? Money? You have to be kidding me. If you're French, Jacques, I'd be ashamed of myself. If you think you're a philosopher, don't give up your day job.

"Jacques, what we did during the cold-war, was done to win the cold-war.."

In other words, your nation followed its self-interest.

"4 of the 6 examples you cited now have relative, democracies - and one is on its way - with little or no help from a national character of surrender."

With no help from the US I might add in getting to that point. The US did not push for any of these thugs to be undermined.

"1) The favorable contracts for France's petroleum giant, TotalFinaElf, to receive $75-billion worth of Iraqi oil at below market prices - valid only as long as Saddam remains armed and in power."

What contracts? If you actually read Le Monde, you would know by now that the contracts never existed. There were some negotiations in 1999-2000, but they broke down, and TotalFinaElf never signed on the dotted line.

"2) Saddam had promised France protection from terrorist acts."

If that's the case, then we didn't get a very good bargain. But I'd love for you to prove this accusation.

Everytime you write Libya, all I have to do is write Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt. Each is run by a cabal of thugs, despots, and the like, yet the US is on friedly terms with them all. In fact, arms sales to Jordan have increased during the current American administration, and your government still pays that bribe to Egypt for signing the peace accord with Israel.

Mark,

"As I've stated elsewhere, the argument about hypocritical application of a thesis is a type of ad hominem. If the US has acted inconsistently in the past, this is irrelevant to the rightness of its actions in Iraq. If you believe that the "hypocritical" argument has merit, please explain how it is relevant to the moral application of force in Iraq."

Well, the question is whether it was a fallacious ad hominem attack.

Actually, said incosistency bears on the whole nature of the Iraqi enterprise. It illustrates that the US does what is in its national interest. If human rights and the like were a primary concern of the US, in other words, its use of the issue wouldn't be so checkered.

"Fair enough. We agree that the French position was immoral, although self-interested. But let's set aside for the moment the contempt Iraqis might feel for the French, and the objections they might have for French "help" in rebuilding their country."

Actually, I don't agree that the French position is immoral, and I have not indicated that I think this is the case. However, thanks for attempting to put words in my mouth.

"Now, I'm not foolish enough to believe this new doctrine will be consistently and perfectly applied by the US, but it has merit nonetheless."

In other words, the US will do whats in its national interest, whether this means toppling or trading with despots. Thanks for your honesty. :)

"That France wants to adhere to old, safe, self-interested realist foreign policy is not surprising."

Nor is it surpising, as you impliedly admit, that the US follows the same as well.

"But we should recognize that France is no longer an ally and should be isolated as much as possible."

The re-alignment between the US and Europe has been happening since 1991. France and Germany have long realized this reality.

JACQUES: I can't keep up with you! We're leaving Saudi Arabia, or haven't you heard? Jordan? They have problems of their own, and a bankroll to support themselves. Egypt? The birthplace of the Islamist state? Here I thought you were potentially looking to score a degree in philosophy, but now you give me some minor tidbits pointing toward HISTORY! Go back to school...

David Dude,

Well, the point is, and this should be very obvious, that the US has full diplomatic, trading, etc. relations with these nations, not that there is a US military presence there. Jordan really doesn't have a "bankroll" to support itself. Its an aid dependent country like most of the nations in the region that lack significant oil reserves. Actually Egypt is the birthplace of the secular socialist Islamic state (i.e., see Nasser).

Gabirlel Hanna,

Because its in our national interest to occupy it. It doesn't suit us for Cote d'Ivorie to turn another Rawanda.

Thouigh I agree the fact that a person/nation makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (the ad hominem tu qouque), I have in fact not made such an argument. I never wrote that the US was wrong to attack Iraq because it was inconsistent in its FP regarding human rights issues (which it clearly is), I did write, however, that such inconsistency undermines the claim that the US invaded Iraq to "liberate" it. In fact, I used such inconsistency to illustrate my point - the US follows its national interests, and any benefit this might for others is not its primary concern. In this case, the US wanted to crack some heads in the middle east to send a signal to the other nations of the area that attacking the US is not profitable.

As far as South Korea, the Phillipines, Chile, etc. turning into democracies, all I need write is that the US rarely encouraged any democractization in these nations (ex: when the South Korean government was slaughtering students in the 1980s, the Reagan administration said nary a word about it), and that you appear to be perpetuating an unsubstantiated causal connection between the US support for a dictatorship, and that dictatorship's eventual toppling in a place like say South Korea. This is known as the fallacy of cause and effect.

Jacques,

Ad hominem attacks are always fallacious.

The anti-war response that "the US has inconsistently applied its doctrine of intervening in favour of human rights" is no response to the argument that interveing in Iraq to promote the human rights of its citizens was ethically worthwile. This is an ad hominem tu quoque.

If you are now switching targets and suggesting that the US is acting in its own self interest, my response would be "so what". It may have had multipe intentions, some more or less pure, but its actions were also ethically sound, whatever their intentions.

In opposing the war, French actions, informed by its own self interest, were not ethically sound. You admitted as much when you stated that the torture of the Iraqi people was no concern of the French. The French placed their own self-interest above the interests of the Iraqi people. This puts the "real" in realistic foreign policy. Moreover, France's position would have left the Iraqis in their torture chamber because it was in French self-interest to do so.

Trying to equate the US and France as both equally self-interested, and arguing that France was therefore justified in leaving the Iraqis to rot, is a weak response, imo.

I agree that the US can be criticized for trading with with despots. But that is the point: in the US, there is a recognition that bad regimes should be opposed. In France, there is not - if French self-interest dictates that foreigners live in thrall so that France is dominant, then so be it.

France acted immorally in opposing the war.

Jacques: I noticed you sidestep all the really touchy stuff and lose yourself in semantics. France has no business being a bottom feeder, which was just exactly what was happening up to and including the day we brought an end to Saddam's private little paradise. What is it that was important about the Oil-for-Palace program? 12 letters. TotalElfFina. I'll give you spy stories, 'cause everyone's doin' it, but justifying Iraqi (read that Saddam's) inhuman behavior because it meant more Francs in your pocket would be an honest admission on YOUR part. France and everyone else knew what was going on, and it just didn't serve anyone's interest to interfere according to you. That's tragic.

Mark,

"If you are now switching targets and suggesting that the US is acting in its own self interest, my response would be "so what"."

All I have ever written is that the US was acting in its self-interest. At the same time I have said that any benefit the Iraqis might gain from such is (1) tertiary and (2) not really related to US FP concerns. I never claimed that the US was wrong to invade Iraq because of past inconsistencies, and I challenge you to post such if you think that I am not being truthful. I think you are confusing my arguments with someone else.

"It may have had multipe intentions, some more or less pure, but its actions were also ethically sound, whatever their intentions."

Well, that's your claim at least. I have as yet to see it substantiated.

"In opposing the war, French actions, informed by its own self interest, were not ethically sound. You admitted as much when you stated that the torture of the Iraqi people was no concern of the French. The French placed their own self-interest above the interests of the Iraqi people."

Well, this claim is based on the unsubstantiated premise that putting the self-interest of France over the interests of the Iraqis is unethical. In fact, I would argue the opposite, that any government which places its own population at risk or does some disservice to that population or treats the interests of another nation more highly than its own to serve the interests of another nation is acting in a manner that is ethically unsound. My government exists to serve me and my interests and the interests of my countrymen.

"Moreover, France's position would have left the Iraqis in their torture chamber because it was in French self-interest to do so."

If the Iraqis wanted another type of government, they should have worked to get one. You and others act like the Iraqis are somehow blameless victims in this whole enterprise. They aren't. Millions were complictly in league with the Ba'athists at one level or another, and millions more simply turned a blind eye to his regime.

"But that is the point: in the US, there is a recognition that bad regimes should be opposed."

If that is the case, then why is there so little opposition to bad regimes in the US? Americans as a rule, like most people, have amnesia when it comes to the rest of the world, until some part of the world becomes important. In other words, there is only such recognition when it fits US interests, and the same is true for France.

"In France, there is not - if French self-interest dictates that foreigners live in thrall so that France is dominant, then so be it."

And if it suits US interests that others live in thrall to so that the US is dominant, that will also be the case. I think the US relationship with China is a perfect example of this. The fact the US recently ducked out of a resolution criticizing China's human rights record so as to please the Chinese leadership is ilustrative of such. In other words, Ameirca, despite all your jingiostic claims, isn't really all that exceptional or moralistic when it comes to its FP decisions.

I think Mark and Gabe don't understand the usage of ad hominem, they used it incorrectly. Whoever suggested the meant ad hominem "fallacy", which is a different thing than an ad hominem statement, was correct.

Unfortunately the case cited is not an illustration of ad hominem fallacy, which by definition requires a response that is non-sequiturious, or to put it simply, a response on a different matter. It is factual that the US worked with Saddam and gave aid to his war machine; it is also factual that US interests have done the same with other non-democratic regimes. So to accuse someone of being ad hominem, or even of using an ad hominem fallacy, is reflects a basic lack of knowledge of logic or the terms used.

What Mark and Gabe -- and this is funny, but sad -- fail to apprehend, is that they themselves are making ad hominem fallacies by saying France’s position on other issues surrounding Iraq are not legitimate due to France’s prior sins. I give them both a resounding “F” in debating -- but a nice “troll” hats, which look a bit like dunce caps.

Michelle, given that you've suggested "Mark's arguments are incorrect because he is a troll and a dunce", guess which one of us has failed to understand basic logic?

Jacques, I take it as uncontroversial that freeing people from oppression and giving them a chance to live in a democracy is an ethically sound thing to do. I don't know how to substantiate this other than to appeal to basic human decency. (If the French are troubled by post-modern attacks on moral justification here, I sympathize, but that's another issue.)

The liberation of France in WW2 by the US, Canada, Britain, et.al. was a good thing. Those who opposed it were wrong to do so. Western powers may have had many motivations to liberate France (some even based on self-interest), but the French were better off after liberation than before. Thus, although motivations of the parties may be mixed, the results of an action may morally vindicate the endeavour.

"If the Iraqis wanted another type of government, they should have worked to get one. You and others act like the Iraqis are somehow blameless victims in this whole enterprise. They aren't. Millions were complictly in league with the Ba'athists at one level or another, and millions more simply turned a blind eye to his regime."

This is unresponsive to the claim that France acted immorally in leaving the Iraqis to die under Saddam. That many Iraqi's couldn't or wouldn't overthrow a murderous tyrant does not nullify the argument that the US was morally justified in doing so.

"And if it suits US interests that others live in thrall to so that the US is dominant, that will also be the case. I think the US relationship with China is a perfect example of this. The fact the US recently ducked out of a resolution criticizing China's human rights record so as to please the Chinese leadership is ilustrative of such. In other words, Ameirca, despite all your jingiostic claims, isn't really all that exceptional or moralistic when it comes to its FP decisions."

I didn't claim that the US acts morally all the time. Why would I? I don't need to. It's obviously too strong a claim, and not necessary. If you want to suggest that the US does not act with consistency in promoting human rights and democracy around the world through its FP, then say so. But that is not relevant to our discussion. My claim is that the French acted immorally in opposing the Iraq war as they did. Your counter-argument that the US acts with little regard for Chinese human rights is not response to that claim.

What is it about French opposition to the Iraq war that you find moral, exactly? A fear of civilian casualties? Adherence to international law? Fear of US dominance? How do these things measure against continued torture and murder of Iraqis under Saddam?

Everyone (including the French themselves) would be better served if the French did some real analysis of the tough questions instead of telling us how US motives were impure or that the US has acted badly in the past.

speaking of China, I noticed that today we announced that Paul Bremer, who was a former lobbyest for China at Kissinger and Associates is to be our point man in Iraq. I don't mind us criticizing French realpolitik, I say pave France, but I don't like us copying them!

Okay, let's stop arguing with Jacques. America acts in its own interests. Its interests now involve marginalising France. Other nations can align with us or with France. Given that we have the stronger economy and that several other large economies have already aligned themselves with us I'd say France is going to be rather isolated. Have a nice life.

I'm sorry, Michelle, but Mark and I are perfectly right about the argument ad hominem. I cited the OED on this, but since you obviously didn't read it:

A phrase applied to an argument or appeal founded on the preferences or principles of a particular person rather than on abstract truth or logical cogency.

Nothing in there about non sequiturs. Ad hominem arguments can be quite relevant--the preferences or principles of a pedophile, for example, should be considered if he is applying for a position as an elementary school teacher. But it is still argument ad hominem. It's not always a fallacy. Incidentally, I don't know what your distinction between an ad hominem STATEMENT and an ad hominem FALLACY is intended to mean. A fallacy is when you supposedly show something to be logical when it isn't. I think you are trying to say that Jacques' ad hominem is relevant to the argument, and the one you accuse Mark of making is not. But ad hominem is not always fallacious.

Neither is argument tu quoque. Properly, tu quoque is when you show that your opponent's argument is inconsistent with other views he is known to hold. Strictly speaking, it can't prove anything other than that one's opponent is a sophist, more concerned with scoring points in the debate than actually trying to articulate a reasoned and consistent opinion.

Jacques' argument has always been, that the US has only been selfishly pursuing its interests in Iraq and so none of the good of liberation is to our credit--liberating Iraq is the point at issue and Jacques dredges up our Cold War behavior, and the Cold War has nothing to do with whether Iraq should have been liberated, so he is arguing ad hominem. Mark is countering that every nation pursues its interests, ESPECIALLY France, and that France has in this case done so in an especially egregrious manner, and so Jacques' ad hominem is irrelevant, because France's pursuit of self-interest supported a dictator and the US's self-interest overthrew one. If you like, you can characterize Mark's argument as a higher-level tu quoque, where Mark is pointing out that Jacques' arguments are inconsistent--he praises France for following its interests while condemning the US for following its interests.

You can call us trolls if you wish--name-calling is not debate. Mark and I have answered points that our critics have brought up and have responded with other ones.

But I'm not going to respond to "you're accusing people of ad hominem to discredit their arguments so you're committing ad hominem and you don't understand ad hominem anyway".

Mark,

You are quite daft it appears.

"Jacques, I take it as uncontroversial that freeing people from oppression and giving them a chance to live in a democracy is an ethically sound thing to do."

Well, you see, that's the rub. You aren't freeing people from oppression. Its not the primary, or even secondary, concern of the US. Its tertiary at best, and mostly for the consumption for the folks at home. See my "knocking heads" argument above.

"Western powers may have had many motivations to liberate France (some even based on self-interest), but the French were better off after liberation than before. Thus, although motivations of the parties may be mixed, the results of an action may morally vindicate the endeavour."

The US wouldn't have invaded Europe (that's the only "Western power" that mattered in this case) if it weren't in its self-interest to do so. Which is what Churchill spent quite some time trying to convince the Roosevelt was the case. Germany's threat was the primary cassus belli of the US entry - there was very little in the way of a "mixture" of motives. I appreciate the fact that France was liberated in the process, but I don't see the American action as pointed toward such either. I know that if Germany didn't serve as a threat to the US, that the US wouldn't have lifted a finger to help France, or the rest of Europe for that matter. That's simply how such things work. And none what you have written has yet to undermine my position in this regard.

"I didn't claim that the US acts morally all the time. Why would I? I don't need to. It's obviously too strong a claim, and not necessary."

Now you've made yourself a liar mon frere.

Let me qoute you:

"But that is the point: in the US, there is a recognition that bad regimes should be opposed. In France, there is not - if French self-interest dictates that foreigners live in thrall so that France is dominant, then so be it."

Here you quite clearly try to insinuate that the US recognizes bad regimes, and that France does not. In fact, in doing so, you clearly that the US is always an agent which acts morally.

"If you want to suggest that the US does not act with consistency in promoting human rights and democracy around the world through its FP, then say so. But that is not relevant to our discussion. My claim is that the French acted immorally in opposing the Iraq war as they did. Your counter-argument that the US acts with little regard for Chinese human rights is not response to that claim."

Actually, my statement concerning China was directly in response to the "in the US, there is a recognition that bad regimes should be opposed" statement that you made. It doesn't trouble me to point out the errors in your statements, but please do pay attention when I do so. After all, your statement at heart states that the US is always consistent when it comes to human rights issues, etc., one of the more jingoistic bits of nonsense I've read in quite sometime.

"What is it about French opposition to the Iraq war that you find moral, exactly? A fear of civilian casualties? Adherence to international law? Fear of US dominance? How do these things measure against continued torture and murder of Iraqis under Saddam?"

When have I ever written that French opposition was moral or immoral? Where the hell are you pulling these red herrings out of your ass from? I have never explitily or implicitly written that such were moral or immoral. I have written that for the French government to take another nation's interests over the interests of its own people would be immoral. On this point you need to refresh your memory of what Washington said of people grow to fond of another country besides their own.

France made its calculations that not supporting the US invasion and occupation of Iraq was in its interests. That was the moral decision to make because it was the decision that best benefitted France and the French people.

"Everyone (including the French themselves) would be better served if the French did some real analysis of the tough questions instead of telling us how US motives were impure or that the US has acted badly in the past."

What's funny is that you are the one who has continued to preach about morality in FP. It has not been me at all that has shown any interest in issue of morality. In fact, I have consistency eschewed the call for such in this discussion. Furthermore, I have as yet to say that US motives were impure, but I have written that they were primarily self-interested, as they quite frankly should be. If America were running its FP any other way I would assume that Powell, Rumsfeld and the lot had lost their minds. As usual you miss my point entirely.

As far as your "tough questions" remark is concerned, we have looked at them, or at least I have, and I totally agree with the Chirac (which is really de Gaulle's going back to his speech in 1966) position. France, Germany, etc. need to start thinking about a unified European military as a counter-weight to the US. I really don't care how nice you think the US is, with power comes corruption, and other nations need to keep the US in check. The history of mankind is littered with nations which let others determine their destiny, which let down their guard in front of other powers, etc., which led to their destruction. France does not intend to go that route.

Gabriel Hanna,

"Jacques' argument has always been, that the US has only been selfishly pursuing its interests in Iraq and so none of the good of liberation is to our credit--liberating Iraq is the point at issue and Jacques dredges up our Cold War behavior, and the Cold War has nothing to do with whether Iraq should have been liberated, so he is arguing ad hominem."

Actually, if you would pay attention you would realize that none of my remarks regarding the Cold War or current American activity say in Jordan were made so as to condemn US actions in Iraq, they were to answer Mark's ludiicrous statement that the US always recognizes bad regimes and therefore presumably doesn't deal with them. So that deflates your renarks considerably.

"If you like, you can characterize Mark's argument as a higher-level tu quoque, where Mark is pointing out that Jacques' arguments are inconsistent--he praises France for following its interests while condemning the US for following its interests."

Again, you are not paying attention at all. I have as yet to condemn the US for following its national interests. I have simply stated that they do and in the case of Iraq any benefit the Iraqis might receive is tertiary to the US' main designs in the war. Now, because of this I don't see much reason to praise the US (nor do I condemn the US either - see the difference not praising does not mean I condemn) for whaever happens in Iraq. No more than I praise the UK for whatever benefits India got because it was part of the British Empire. The UK had interests to serve by conquering India, and the US has interests to serve by conquering Iraq.

If you used the argmenet of 'ad monimem" in the context Hanna and Mark used it you would be laughed out of any debating society in the world. They failed to actually answer any of the issues and instead asserted the statements were ad hominem. One can easily argue that the charges against France itself are "ad hominem" and therefor invalid.

Jacques, how is my daftness relevant to the strength of my argument?

"In fact, in doing so, you clearly that the US is always an agent which acts morally."

This statement is a bit garbled, but I think you mean that I implied that the US always acts morally. You base this on my statement that the US government sometimes considers the moral aspect of its actions before acting. I didn't say it always considers the moral aspect, nor did I say that the US always acts morally. (If I recall, it was troubling to sophisticated Euros that the US thinks this way; French intellectuals were "uncomfortable" with Bush's "good and evil" justifications.)

I maintain that the moral aspect is one of a number of factors in US decision making. If you think I have argued for the stronger position that the US always acts morally, please back up your claim with actual quotes.

The question at issue is whether French opposition to the war was moral, not whether the decision to oppose the war was good for the French people. Are you suggesting that there is never any larger issue for France than its own self-interest? Why is this? Are you basing your case on post-modern grounds?

This seems odd, given that France claimed its opposition to the war was based on its belief that war is wrong. What was all the talk about "French conscience"? Are you suggesting that France lied to its allies and the world about such a crucial matter?

"You aren't freeing people from oppression. Its not the primary, or even secondary, concern of the US. Its tertiary at best, and mostly for the consumption for the folks at home. See my "knocking heads" argument above."

I actually agree with you that "knocking heads" as you call it was another reason for the war. It has a deterrent effect that is useful. I just don't agree that it was the only motivation, or that this makes the war immoral.

Also, the admission that there can be many motivations in state action is not inconsisent with the claim that the US considered the ethics of the war (among other things) or that the war was moral, and French opposition to it was not.

But your claim that the US is not freeing people from oppression is clearly false. I haven't heard anyone in the anti-war camp claim that Saddam wasn't oppressing his people. Even the French government has welcomed the removal of Saddam's tyranny; they, and everyone else, recognized that a regime that uses torture, murder and rape as tools of statecraft is oppressive. Are you suggesting otherwise? The regime has been removed. The Iraqi people are clearly glad about the turn of events. I think one can make a strong argument that the Iraqis are now free from oppression. (Perhaps not free from restrictons, given the military presence; but that is another matter.)

"France made its calculations that not supporting the US invasion and occupation of Iraq was in its interests. That was the moral decision to make because it was the decision that best benefitted France and the French people."

You seem to be saying (1) that French opposition was purely self-interested, and (2) that France was therefore justified morally in not caring about the miserable plight of Iraqis.

I agree with (1), but not with (2). That is, I think France was acting self-interestedly. This wouldn't have been a bad thing, except that it meant abandoning Iraqis to slavery, torture and death. So I don't think you're entitled to claim that French opposition was moral. It might have been good for France, but it was bad for Iraqis. And it was bad for anyone else who believes that state torture, mass murder and rape are wrong and should be stopped or, when they are stopped, it is a good thing, regardless of French self-interest.

I've found this insight into French moral thinking quite useful, and it confirms what I've long suspected.

That is, I think France was acting self-interestedly. This wouldn't have been a bad thing, except that it meant abandoning Iraqis to slavery, torture and death.

Just like Reagan and Bush I did? seems you are being hypocritical.