I do not share the blood-lust of some of my fellow Samizdatistas, but I could not help thinking that if the [economic] Planning Ministry in Bagdad has indeed been destroyed, that a more suitable target would be hard to imagine for a free-market individualist. If President Bush hates Iraq, he’ll have a bigger one rebuilt later…
I have been silent about the former Mayor of Paris Jacques Chirac for some time now, but all I can say is that since I wrote this, this, this, this, this and this, nothing the so-and-so has said or done in the last month has come as a surprise. Chirac has only ever caved in to the left in his entire political career, apart from his infantile attempt to ban a royalist wreath-laying ceremony in early 1993.
Some voices I hear are talking about French loss of influence on the world stage and Chirac out within two years. On the first count, that’s pure wishful thinking. For a start there is an element of this argument about the apparently incongruous alliance of France, Rusia and China. If you’re looking for a reason to sack Colin Powell, his failure to keep Russia onside, or apparently to even realise what was happening are serious lapses on a par with Britain’s judgement in 1939 that Poland would be a more capable military ally than the USSR against Nazi Germany.
On Chirac’s imminent departure, I wish it were that simple. Chirac is in until 2007, unless he dies in office. I don’t think he actually can be impeached: an investigator into his affairs can be either appointed by him (or by his appointees) or switched to other cases, if they come too close to finding anything, and his almost worse henchman Alain Juppé controls the party machine which has the majority in both houses. It would take street protests or a foreign invasion to remove Chirac, which is why his pandering to the left is so handy.
Sadly I suspect you may be right about President Bush having a new economic planning ministry built.
Not out of hatred of Iraq of course (I understand that was tongue in cheek), but simply because President Bush goes along with quite a bit of the ideology of our age.
“Schools and hospitals” (government schools and hospitals funded by taxes) are inevitable – President Bush clearly goes along with all that. There is a chance that he will oppose supporting economic planning – we shall have to see.
Still there is the matter of winning the war first.
It has been reported here that Chiraq’s trying to cut a secret deal to have Hussein and his family leave Iraq and move to an African country.
Russia, we’ll have to see.
Of course, if there’s no UN….
And time to move NATO out.
Now Chiraq wants a European defense between Germany, France and Belgium.
Antoine,
Naughty, naughty. I do not ‘lust for blood’. Like most people. I lust for peace, freedom, security and prosperity.
What am I supposed to think of anti-war people then? Do they ‘lust for tyrants’? Maybe they do.
Why in 1939 would it be wrong to think Russia would be a bad ally? The Soviets and the Nazis signed a non-aggresion pact a little under a month before WWII started. The only reason the USSR ever wanted to be Britain’s friend during WWII was because without the stuff we sent them they would be destroyed.
Maybe the mistake was thinking France would be a capable military ally, the Biritish were pissed off for a long long time that the French caved so easily.
Why in 1939 would it be wrong to think Russia would be a bad ally? The Soviets and the Nazis signed a non-aggresion pact a little under a month before WWII started. The only reason the USSR ever wanted to be Britain’s friend during WWII was because without the stuff we sent them they would be destroyed.
Maybe the mistake was thinking France would be a capable military ally, the British were pissed off for a long long time that the French caved so easily.
That was an exceedingly sloppy post Antoine. Your silly assumptions about France and Russia expose your disappointment about events as well as the weakness of your views.
France has little influence now and it is diminishing. France, China and Russia are not allies, they simply have similar interests, mainly economic, which are threatened or diminished by current events.
You misunderstand the US governemnt if you think that it is the Secretary of State’s job to set policy. It is simply idotic to assert that Powell didn’t understand the situation as well as you do. It is moronic to compare the current situation to 1939 Europe.
Get a grip!
according to Iraq civilians, that so called Planning Ministry “house” was a known place where tortures took place and it probably has a lot of skulls down in the basement. And indeed, I agree with back40, sloppy blog and I was surprised to read that here of all places…
President Bush goes along with quite a bit of the ideology of our age.
On the contrary, Bush and the Republicans resist it as much as possible.
As for schools, Bush has been pushing a School Voucher plan which would allow people to take their kids out of public, state-controlled schools and send them to private ones. Long ago, Reagan attempted to abolish the Federal Dept. of Education to relinquish Fed. control from education.
As for health care, it’s very expensive here and most Americans want the govt. to do something about it. The Republicans at least shot down Hiliary Clinton’s attempt to utterly socialize our entire system.
And Bush cut taxes a year ago, and is trying to do so again.
He’s no libertarian, but he’s not Demo-socialist statist you suggest.