La très récente auto immolation du Tunisien Mohamed Bouazizi a entraîné les conséquences que l'on sait, en Tunisie tout d'abord puis en Égypte et en Libye à présent.
A ce titre, cet acte désespéré constitue un événement sans précédent dans l'Histoire contemporaine mais également, par contraste, souligne combien les situations spécifiques des pays actuellement concernés diffèrent radicalement de ce que sont de véritables dictatures.
Il y a eu d'autres cas d'auto immolations dans les 50 dernières années qui n'ont jamais abouti à renverser quel que système politique que ce soit ou même à influencer le cours de l'Histoire.
De Jan Palach à Ryszard Siwiec, de Jan Zajic aux autres inconnus qui peut-être ont recouru à cette forme ultime de protestation, aucun n'a pu ne serait-ce qu'ébranler les systèmes politiques contre lesquels ils manifestaient car ils vivaient sous des régimes dictatoriaux où les individus n'ont aucune importance et sont à la disposition du système.
Aucune révolte personnelle ou collective n'aurait pu venir à bout de l'hitlérisme (Sophie Scholl) ou du stalinisme, du maoïsme ou de l'apartheid sud africain par exemple (Soweto).
Ce qui se passe en Tunisie, en Égypte et bientôt en Libye ou même dans d'autres pays arabes, pour spectaculaire et symbolique qu'en soit la portée, montre bien que ce ne sont pas des dictatures au sens fort du terme qui sont en place mais plutôt des despotismes relativement fragiles.
On comprend que Mohamed Bouazizi soit considéré comme un héros national en Tunisie mais Ben Ali était plus un chef mafieux qu'un dictateur et Moubarack un dirigeant resté trop longtemps au pouvoir -sans pour autant minimiser la nature d'États policiers qu'étaient la Tunisie et l'Égypte bien entendu.
Il faut distinguer les dictatures qui sont des systèmes autonomisés des despotismes qui ne tiennent qu'à l'existence d'un individu dont la chute entraîne celle de son régime.
A ce titre, la Biélorussie de Loukachenko est un despotisme qu'une révolte populaire peut renverser quand la Corée du nord de Kim Jong Il est une dictature dont on ne voit pas d'autre issue qu'un effondrement de l'intérieur ou une intervention extérieure, chinoise en la circonstance.
55 commentaires:
Blogger déconne encore : j'ai une fois sur deux un message qui me dit que mon navigateur n'accepte pas les cookies, et que je ne peux donc pas poster.
Blogger devrait s'appeler Blagger.
Bon, en ce qui concerne le billet, je me suis toujours demandé ce qu'il serait advenu de la cause palestinienne si, au lieu de se faire sauter dans des lieux publics, tuant indifféremment femmes enfants et hommes, les terroristes palestiniens, puisqu'ils allaient jusqu'à sacrifier leur vie, s'étaient "contentés" de s'immoler sur des places publiques d'Israël.
C'est étonnant que Blogger (créature de Google) soit aussi peu fiable de temps à autre. Je ne saurais te dire si mon blog est plus affecté qu'un autre.
L'autre jour Ned semblait dire qu'elle avait souvent rencontré des problèmes avec Blogger.
Cela ira mieux demain comme cela a toujours été le cas mais c'est agaçant c'est vrai.
----------
Je ne m'étais jamais posé ta question mais il me semble que la réponse va de soi.
L'auto immolation est une forme de protestation extrêmement violente mais aussi, paradoxalement, pacifique et par ailleurs rarissime.
Ce n'est pas l'acte de Mohamed Bouazizi qui a fait chuter Ben Ali mais d'abord et avant tout la réaction populaire du village dont il était issu qui a entraîné la Tunisie dans la révolte.
Si des Palestiniens s'étaient immolés au milieu d'Israéliens, contre quoi ceux-ci auraient-ils réagi et auraient-ils même réagi?
De tels actes auraient été considérés comme des suicides protestataires -limite faits divers- qui n'auraient en aucune façon eu une quelconque influence sur la politique colonialiste et annexionniste menée par Israël.
La cause palestinienne aurait été prise moins sérieusement qu'elle ne l'est, semblant se résumer à des suicides occasionnels n'affectant pas le moins du monde l'État d'Israël ou ses habitants donc parfaitement inutiles.
Comme tu l'écris, si les Palestiniens s'étaient "contentés" de s'immoler sur des places publiques d'Israël, cela aurait fait autant de Palestiniens en moins.
Depuis sa création en 1947 Israël tend à la reconstitution d'Eretz Israel, alors les actes de sacrifices individuels sont totalement impuissants à briser cette visée religieuse de nature dictatoriale.
Mutatis mutandis, le sionisme est une idéologie religieuse et comme les autres religions, seule la force armée peut en venir à bout.
--------
Pour info je comptais inclure Thích Quảng Đức comme exemple d'auto immolation qui n'ont pas modifié d'un iota une politique donné mais j'ai appris en préparant le billet que celui-ci ne protestait pas contre la guerre du Vietnam comme je l'avais toujours cru mais contre une campagne anti bouddhiste menée par le président catholique Diem.
Comme quoi on vit dans l'erreur pendant 45 ans et plus et que les Catholiques ne sont pas toujours du côté des victimes même dans nos temps contemporains.
Whatever may be the consequences of the upheaval in Arabic countries, it's clear that they don't have free and fair elections, if indeed, they even have elections. I completely understand their anger and frustration. Yes, they have other contingencies to deal with now, and they know it. And notwithstanding all of the various possible outcomes, this situation must change, and now, as far as they are concerned.
The problem with free and fair elections is that the results aren't always on line with the ruling elites' expectations.
Such was the case in Europe with different referendums re the European Constitutional Treaty which was rejected by the French, the Dutch and the Irish.
In those cases, when politicians really want to look like real democrats, they authorize the people to vote again until the result is what they want it to be.
Or they simply shortcut the people's choice by having their decision validated through parliamentary votes like Sarko did (with the help of the Socialists 4 years ago). Talk of free and fair elections...
In Algeria there were free and fair elections in 1991 when the Islamic Salvation Front won 47% of the votes in the first round, making it sure they would win an overall majority in the second round. --> The elections were interrupted by the army with terrible consequences for the 15 following years.
Also remember the free and fair elections in Gaza which gave the Hamas the majority of the votes.
Free and fair elections as we understand them in the West are no guarantee that freedom, happiness and human rights will be on the menu the day after.
Par ailleurs les situations sont très différentes d'un pays à l'autre, du Maroc à l'Arabie saoudite et de la Tunisie à la Syrie par exemple.
Are you still in touch with your Egyptian correspondant Anijo?
Flocon,
I have a friend here who I agreed to play a game of chess with. While he was setting up the board, I responded to your post. Alas, he's waiting for me. I'll respond tomorrow.
Okay, chess game is over now.
Flocon,
I do know what you speak of re "free and fair elections". Still, I understand that the people in the Muslim countries at least want that at a minimum.
I haven't had an update from my Egyptian correspondant for awhile now. I asked her what she thought about this article but she has not yet responded.
C'est facile de dire "terroristes Palestiniens". Mais d'où vient le terrorisme. Cela a été des terroristes juifs qui ont fait exploser l'Hôtel Roi David et qui ont assassiné le representant de l'ONU, Count Bernadotte. Ils ont aussi assassiné d'autres innoncents avec de bombes en Europe et les bombes lettres.
Israel a été crée par des terroristes. Au moins trois, Begin, Shamir, et Sharon ont devenu PMs.
Deux guerres lancées contra Egypt, deux guerres lancées contre Liban, etc. Mais si on parle du terrorisme juif, on est traîté de "anti-semite".
Pfff...
J'ai relu mon commentaire et nulle part je n'ai écrit "terroristes palestiniens". Je ne suis donc pas visé par l'indignation de Ned :-P
Cela dit, tant ZapPow que toi et moi partageons le même point de vue sur la question. Nous sommes donc bien d'accord avec ce que tu rappelles.
"Mais si on parle du terrorisme juif, on est traîté de "anti-semite".
Oui et si des Palestiniens s'immolaient en Israël sans doute les sionistes parleraient-ils de asymmetric warfare I suppose.
Anijo,
I've read the article by Bruckner where I found this :
"Saying revolution and freedom is not the same as saying democracy, respect for minorities, equal rights and good relations with neighbouring nations."
In my previous comment I wrote this :
"Free and fair elections as we understand them in the West are no guarantee that freedom, happiness and human rights will be on the menu the day after."
Since Bruckner's piece appeared first in Libération I wonder if I shouldn't make contact with Libé...
Other than that, I've also read the results of a poll taken among British Muslims in the U.K some years ago with similar results re issues such as the Sharia, the place of women in society, the pre eminence of faith over citizenship etc.
All isn't rosy with Muslim values even when said Muslims live in western countries.
The fact that Ben Ali, Mubarack or probably Gaddafi have been ousted is just an epiphenomenon in a much, much larger historical perspective.
Je ne suis pas du tout sûr que la cause palestinienne aurait été prise moins au sérieux si des Palestiniens s'étaient immolés au lieu de faire des attentats suicides. L'acte a un pouvoir médiatique très fort, et les Israéliens auraient eu du mal à faire jouer l'argument du terrorisme. De plus, même l'opinion israélienne aurait probablement été plus ouverte à la cause palestinienne : on peut facilement traiter de fous sanguinaires ceux qui se font sauter au milieu d'une foule de civils, on peut éviter de se poser des questions face au désespoir de celui qui s'immole.
Enfin, ce n'est que mon opinion. Et je la partage.
ZapPow,
Je reviens à ta formulation première : "Que serait-il arrivé à la cause palestinienne" etc.
De fait, il est possible que dans le cas que tu imagines une certaine empathie ait modifié la perception de la cause palestinienne par certains Israéliens.
Cela dit la pression internationale aurait-elle été plus intense sur Israël? Elle est déjà énorme ce qui ne change rien à l'affaire.
Par ailleurs, même si la cause palestinienne avait été perçue de façon plus positive, le déroulé des événements en aurait-il été affecté?
L'essence de l'action sioniste est le Grand Israël, advienne que pourra. Peut-on croire que quelques suicides par le feu aurait altéré le fondement même de l'idéologie foncièrement suprémaciste des Juifs?
J'ai le vieux doute tout de même. Quand on se considère le peuple élu, on se croit investi d'un devoir divin auquel rien ne saurait s'opposer.
Comme indiqué dans le billet, ces formes extrêmes de protestations sont rarissimes et n'ont jamais rien changé au cours de l'Histoire. Peut-on croire qu'il en aurait été différemment en Israël?
Quelques immolations auraient-elles ébranlé le régime sud-africain ou la position coloniale des Britanniques en Inde?
Vieux doute, vieux doute...
Mais à s'en tenir à ta formulation première, il est possible -seulement possible- que la cause palestinienne ait été perçue de façon différente en effet.
Mais dans les faits...
Off topic.
This afternoon while I eat my supper I'm watching a movie on Turner Broadcasting Network about Jeanne d'Arc (Joan of Arc)
The woman playing Jeanne d'Arc looks like might be Ingrid Bergman.
And speaking of Ingrid Bergman, it reminds me of Casa Blanca and this scene
And Jeanne d'Arc reminds me of the time that I want to the Château de Chinon
Jeanne d'Arc visited the Dauphin CharlesVII in Chinon at the beginning of his reign on March 8, 1429. She recognized him hiding among his court members in spite of his disguise, which he put on to test her. She helped him reconquer his kingdom from the English invader. For almost a hundred years, Chinon profited from the fact that it had become the capital of the kingdom
Which reminds me of the time that I went to the Basilica de Sacré Coeur in Paris and lit a candle for Jeanne d'Arc. And this reminds me of how she fought against the odds just as certain Egyptians and Libyans are fighting against the odds.
Okay, one more thing. Yeah, I've had a few beers and I'm too talkative.
I am curious about something though.
It seems that there is some concern about what has occured in Egypt because Mubarak was more secularly oriented and now the Muslims and sharia may well rule. Well Palestinians are no different, right? But, you say, the Israelis (the Zionists) are in the wrong. Well, Mubarak was a despot. I don't understand supporting Palestians vs 'Zionists' all the while not having these same opinions vis-a-vis other Arabic/Muslim peoples fighting against their oppressors
Ingrid Bergman played the leading role in Joan of Arc (1948) as you've probably checked since.
I haven't seen the films yet and I don't know how successfull it was in Europe.
I also notice Ingrid "Mountainman" died very early (aged 67) :-(
Great and moving scene from Casablanca sure; I must have seen it in the mid 70s. The music of the Marseillaise is great but the lyrics are atrocious.
Some other people gave the Marseillaise a worldwide boost. You can see Mick Jagger at 2:39/2:41
Thanks for the link to Chinon, it is a renewed opportunity to read a bit about the castle.
The story you recall was very well known to French children at least up to the 60s since it was part of our historical curriculum. Now I couldn't say what kids are taught at school.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn they're studying Justin Bieber's memoirs... ô¿Ô
"this reminds me of how she fought against the odds just as certain Egyptians and Libyans are fighting against the odds."
I must admit one has to be rather talented to make a connexion between Joan of Arc and the contemporary Libyans... :-P
Do you remember this post to which you participated as well as your friend KD and others three years ago?
"I don't understand supporting Palestians vs 'Zionists' all the while not having these same opinions vis-a-vis other Arabic/Muslim peoples fighting against their oppressors"
I don't know who you may be thinking of Anijo; For what I understand it looks like everyone (granted, that is very imprecise) is backing these popular uprisings against the old men who've been around for decades (42 years for Gaddafi!).
Now, some are cautious as was demonstrated by the text from Bruckner that you linked to the other day.
Israel and the Palestinians is another story but I've probably not properly understood your questioning.
The global situation is rather confuse these days.
In Egypt, the army is ruling the country. So far so good.
In Tunisia there are still clashes with the police and the Prime Minister has just resigned. There's a political void but the outcome should be positive in the end.
In Libya it seems it's a matter of days before Gaddafi is hung on a lamp-post or commits suicide. I can't think of any country ready to welcome him. Niger maybe?
Since Libya and Gaddafi was one and the same, there exists no plan B after he's gone.
You can see Mick Jagger at 2:39/2:41
Le jeune Mick est mignon. ☺
Flocon, pour répondre à tes questions vis-à-vis Libya, Eygpt, et la cause palestinienne, il me faut encore réfléchir, et réféchir le matin quand ma pauvre tête est un peu plus claire
Flocon,
Reflecting on my thoughts, I've decided that I no doubt did not fully understand some opinions. I'll leave it at that. I have differing opinions about Israel as you know, but I'm in no mood to get into any debate about it. Sometimes after a few beers I get playful and talkative and more in the mood to debate, and then I change my mind the next day..
Some other people gave the Marseillaise a worldwide boost. You can see Mick Jagger at 2:39/2:41
Your friend has this interesting tidbit.
Jimi Hendrix during an 1967 Paris concert, played a psychedelic version of the anthem. A video recording of the concert was immediately confiscated by the French government due to the perceived insult to national heritage
I didn't know about that but I'm not surprised in the least.
You may remember 1967 was before 1968 ;-) and by then General de Gaulle was President with Georges Pompidou PM.
Pompidou was as conservative as you may think of (although he was a keen amateur of modern art) and as authoritative as Ben Ali or Mubarak were.
When he died in 1974 not many mourned him. Maybe ZapPow did, I don't know.
That's precisely because G.B seemed so open, modern, free minded to young Frenchmen (you can count me in) that it had such an appeal upon us.
1967 or 1968 doesn't matter anyway, France has always been a very conservative country with some outbursts of revolutionary violence every now and then.
I'm not sure the Hendrix version of Stars and Stripes Forever was overwhelmingly welcome all over the US, was it?
My friend also writes:
"In 1978, Serge Gainsbourg recorded a reggae version, "Aux armes et cætera", with Robbie Shakespeare, Sly Dunbar and Rita Marley in the choir in Jamaica, which resulted in him being threatened by members of an association of former paratroopers, who wanted to prevent him from singing it in a public concert."
He actually was physically assaulted and beaten by some thugs about that time.
The flag issue is one that is always fraught with heavy feelings that can degenerate. That's what nationalism is all about isn't it?
Reggae Marseillaise de Serge Gainsbourg (which was a huge hit here)
And also, it is now forbidden to wipe one's a. with the French flag (I don't know about other flags...) and I'm not joking here...
1967 or 1968 doesn't matter anyway, France has always been a very conservative country with some outbursts of revolutionary violence every now and then.
Je me souviens que tu m'avais dit ça une fois et je n'avais pas compris, car moi, quand je pense à la France, 'conservative' n'est pas le mot qui me viens à l'ésprit. J'oublie ton explication.
I'm not sure the Hendrix version of Stars and Stripes Forever was overwhelmingly welcome all over the US, was it?
Oof, je n'ai aucune idée. J'avais 13 ans la première fois que je l'avais écouté sur KGRT underground (le partie underground de KGRT n'éxiste plus. Maintenant ce n'est que la musique 'Country & Western"). Tous ce que je peu trouver sur Google dit It's obvious what all the fuss was about over Jimi Hendrix's performance during the closing hours of Woodstock in August 1969.
Some saw it as an update on patriotism -- stars and stripes turned psychedelic -- while others couldn't even recognize the melody. Hendrix famously told talk-show host Dick Cavett that he didn't mean any harm by it; that, in fact, he thought it was "pretty." Many still hear in it the tragic power of bombs bursting and rockets glaring. A whole new generation experiencing another controversial war can hear the bittersweet emotion of men and women dying for their country through the tenderness of his interpretation of the melody. Musically, it was a shot heard 'round the world, as it changed "The Star-Spangled Banner" from a marching-band piece into a vehicle for solo electric guitar
re Serge Gainsbourg, j'ai un cd qu'un ami français m'avais recommandé avec cette version de la Marseillaise. celui-ci
And also, it is now forbidden to wipe one's a. with the French flag (I don't know about other flags...) and I'm not joking here...
And how would the authorities know whether or not one chose to do such a thing? ô-Ô Life can be rather weird.. Similar to Sodomy laws. How bizarre that the state should be so concerned what one does with one's ass. (blush blush)
L'année dernière un type s'est essuyé le derrière avec le drapeau français au prétexte d'une photo provocatrice pour une exposition parrainée par la F.N.A.C (you know la FNAC do you?).
Here is the picture.
Since then, a law has been voted to prohibit and punish such acts of desecration of the national flag.
In public of course since as you write, how could the authorities know what's going on in everybody's homes?
The law has been voted last July and the price is 1.500 € (about 1,200 $).
L'année dernière un type s'est essuyé le derrière avec le drapeau français au prétexte d'une photo provocatrice pour une exposition parrainée par la F.N.A.C (you know la FNAC do you?).
Eh ben, alors, qqn avait essujé leur derrière en public vis-á-vis l'art..
here is the picture
Whew! Being naturally curious I clicked on your link to see the picture. It was thankfully just an allusion to said event.
1.500 euros for an allusion? I repeat myself... life can be rather weird, or even ridiculous.
Flocon, you must mean "The Star Spangled Banner", "Stars and Stripes forever" is not a national song.
Actually, the American Anthem is from an old English 18th century drinking song, "To Anacron in Heaven".
As I may have mentioned before, the Marine Corps Hymn's music is from Offenbach, "The Gendarmes Duet" or "The Deux Gendarmes". Of course the meaning in Offenbach is completely different from the patriotic fervor of the Marine Corps song.
A reminder, "corps" is pronounced "cor" and not "corpse".
Ned,
Oui j'ai confondu the Star Spangled Banner et Stars and Stripes Forever mais sur Wiki anglais it reads Stars and Stripes forever is the National March of the United States of America.
C'est donc tout de même un chant patriotique officiel it seems, doesn't it?
"As I may have mentioned before"
Yes you did so I went and compared.
Hoffenbach's Le duo des gendarmes et The Marines's hymn qui n'a pas d'autre titre que la première ligne donc.
Il est étonnant que le patriotisme, qu'il soit américain, français ou chinois, ne se soit pas trouvé en la circonstance une mélodie originale.
------------
Merci pour l'aide à la prononciation (corps), I didn't know. I return the favor just in case you don't know (which would be surprising :-D) on ne prononce pas le s final de moeurs. Donc les moeurs de notre temps (whatever) = les meur.
Mais comme la plupart des Français l'ignorent, si on le prononce comme il se doit on passe pour un ignorant...
it reads Stars and Stripes forever is the National March of the United States of America.
Right. U.S. code Title 36, Subtitle I, Part !, Chapter 3, Section 304
National march
Hmm... Do I detect a bad influence on you by SemperFidelis Anijo?
You seem to be so reliable in all things related to the military now...
hmmm ☺
Anijo,
Hmmmm.... It's even worse than I thought ☺
And I meant knowledgeable, not reliable... ;-)
Hmmmm.... It's even worse than I thought (chortle)
knowledgeable, not reliable... ;-)
hmmmmm ;-) :-D
Anijo: One can't help but remark on the silence on the Superfrenchie site re your point about the morality of military action against Kaddafi. I am not surprised. Your challenge cannot be answered. The French position on attacking Saddam in 2003 cannot be reconciled with their current position on attacking Kaddafi today. Even more to the point, the current French position cannot be reconciled with their opposition to the US attack on Kaddafi in 1986. So....silence.
You won't get any action there until you get back on message: Americans are stupid, uncultured, obese, lazy and warlike. Get with it.
Amused,
SemperFidelis
Yes, SemperFi, I also noted the silence. And you asked a direct question along these lines without a single response. Amused indeed.
The most amusing statement though was "simple fly-over, with enthusiasm" without even telling anybody about it! lol! I was picturing you reading this comment which made me laugh even more. But the guy who said that is an American who spends his days posting link after link and is not that capable of actually discussing an issue.
When you asked "Don't you think someone will notice?" and brought up the necessary authority from the U.N. Security Council, again no response.
But then the French posters who still hang out around those parts aren't exactly the Flocons and ZapPows of the French community.
I'm interested in Flocon's and ZapPow's take on this.
SemperFidelis,
I had to go and read what was going on at SF's in order to understand what your comment was refering to.
Anijo,
"Does Gaddafi have WMD? Is Gaddafi threatening France?"
France doesn't take pretence of WMD to (maybe) intervene. You may not know but France has some axe to grind with Gaddafi.
Operation Manta
UTA flight 772
"hitting "some strategic target" is the same as invading Lybia."
I don't think that giving a slap to someone is the same as slaugthering him.
Also we're not talking of toppling a dictator but prevent Gaddafi's urge to perpetuate a massacre.
One can't compare Irak, Libya, Afghanistan etc. Each situation has a contexte of its own which calls for a different reaction.
Re the number of answers Anijo got to her questioning. It looks that no more than four or five French still participate to SF's forum so it's no wonder you don't get as many answers you would have by the time SF's blog had over 50 French participants.
re the attack the US led against Gaddafi in 1986.
What was the result of it all? Gaddafi was unharmed but 60 civilians or rank and file soldiers died.
Gaddafi's revenge came 36 months later and happened over Lockerbie with 270 casualties.
I'm not so sure the 1986 bombing of Lybia was such a good move after all. In other words it was a complete "coup d'épée dans l'eau".
Not only was the 1986 bombing futile and useless, it also was counter productive and led to the death of over 200 American civilians in 1988.
SemperFidelis,
"You won't get any action there until you get back on message: Americans are stupid, uncultured, obese, lazy and warlike. Get with it."
ô¿Ô ???
My understanding is that you were a bit tired last night...
Anijo,
Most important of all:
Again, Sarko is looking for a political coup in view of next year presidential elections.
Sarko acted alone, with the Minister for foreign affairs being left out of the picture. Worse, it looks like he was councelled by BHL who desesperatly has been trying to pass for an engaged intellectual à la Zola or Malraux for the last 30 years.
From the beginning, the French media have been very sceptical about Sarko's initiative a propos Libya.
There probably exists a personal element in Sarko's move since he was so ridiculed by Gaddafi when he welcomed the dictator in Paris three years ago.
The French in general (same meaning as "The Americans") react like Americans do (in general): we must prevent Gaddafi to murder the Libyans people. But who will do the job? And how? And is it legitimate or legal?
Now, contrary to what was the case with the invasion of irak, if France and Great Britain, Canada, Norway and some Arab states eventually act, it will be under the UNO' GA agreement.
Semperfidelis who wishes to pursue studies in law should be sensitive to the argument. The law is the law, no matter what and treaties which have been signed by States must be respected in all of their provisions.
Current headline of le Monde.
So maybe will there be no need for any military strikes.
So, for the time being, Sarko's bold move may be proven efficient.
I'm not exactly sarkophile as you know but if credit must be given, he may be the unexpected recipient.
Gaddafi the mad dog seems to have understood he no longer was on free wheels.
Wait and see...
I keep editing what I want to say and thus end up not saying anything. Flocon, I like you too much to get into a heated debate.
I think that all of us have some degree of patriotism deep in our hearts that colors how we feel about different situations.
"I like you too much to get into a heated debate."
I remember you wrote several times how sick and tired you were about politics and foreign policy issues. Last time was when SemperFidelis addressed a Bush/Obama comparison.
I fear the day when you're interested again in these matters then...
"all of us have some degree of patriotism deep in our hearts"
That is certainly true yet, I've reread my previous comments and failed to see where I was displaying any sort of French nationalism or anti-Americanism for that matter.
I thought I kept factual. But one is often biased without even noticing I guess.
Flocon,
You've got my number... that is, you figured out the weakness in what I had to say.
But one is often biased without even noticing I guess.
Yes, I would come to the same conclusion, I guess... ;)
Okay, I'll say it. The French and Brits can always flex their muscles, but it is the Marines who will have to risk their lives for any mission re Libya. If the threat has subdued Gaddifi, great. At least American boys will not have to lose their lives while implementing a "no-fly zone".
while the United States, which would likely have to shoulder much of the burden of policing Libyan skies, is still cautious over the idea.>
So the Marines are being volunteered for this fucking mission. I say, "no". It's about time that the U.S. ceases to be RoboCop for the damned world. It's time to demonstrate the strength of the U.K. and France and others. Gaddafi has a strong, high-tech military and keeping him from murdering "Libyans people" is not as simple as that.
We'll see though. Perhaps enthusiasm will have more power than one might imagine.
we must prevent Gaddafi to murder the Libyans people.
And what about mission creep?
But who will do the job?
The Marines are expected to be the first on the ground and the U.S. milirary in charge afterwards.
And how? And is it legitimate or legal?
It's legal now that the U.N. Security Council has given its approval.
And yet, Lybia is a sovereign country just as Iraq was.
"So the Marines are being volunteered for this fucking mission."
"The Marines are expected to be the first on the ground and the U.S. milirary in charge afterwards."
Nowhere have I read that Americans would be part of any mission in Libya. And Obama said there would be no Americans on the ground.
Je ne connaissais pas l'expression mission creep mais beaucoup des commentaires que je lis disent la même chose : On sait comment commence une opération militaire on ne sait jamais jusqu'où elle peut nous entraîner.
Nobody is enthousiastic about a possible military intervention in Libya.
Also the situation certainly isn't clear cut between the bad guy and his opponents. Who are they? Who's their leader? What's their purpose?
Contrary to the situation in Irak where there was a conflict between Shias ans Chiites, such isn't the case in Libya.
It looks like it's more a matter of "tribal" opposition between people from the east and people from the West.
Kaddafi seems to enjoy a strong support from a large segment of the Libyan population.
Once again, one man is responsible for this diplomatic offensive, Sarko, who may well be motivated for other reasons than the wellfare of the Libyan insurgents.
Here in France there's also a souvenir of the Spanish civil war where a dictator (Franco) led a military coup against the regularly elected gvt of Spain in 1936 whith France choosing not to intervene whith about half a million dead as a result.
Memories die hard.
Mais une fois encore les medias et les Français en général ne sont pas exactement impatient d'en découdre avec Kaddafi.
--------
So, you see, it's quite possible to have a not-heated discussion on any topic here on Shall we Talk? :-D
You won't get any action there until you get back on message: Americans are stupid, uncultured, obese, lazy and warlike. Get with it.
SemperFi,
I do understand your sentiment here. On the SF forum, one link after another is either a link indicating how great and wonderful that France is, or how inferior anything American is. And yet, your statement is similar to what Poilu said to you on SF's forum. He is fed up from past experiences with French bashing and you and I are fed up with past experiences with American bashing. At least here on "Shall We Talk", the discourse is civil and intellectual.
So, you see, it's quite possible to have a not-heated discussion on any topic here on Shall we Talk? :-D
Yes, Flocon, indeed. ☺ ♪☼
To clarify. Flocon, a Frenchman from Paris, SemperFi, an American Marine from somewhere around North Carolina, and a half-breed American Indian woman met each other on line long ago on a franco-american blog. Since then we have all evolved and now relate to each other in a different way.
Saddam Hussein's governmemt was fairly secularist. After his demise the fundamentalist Islamist Muslims took over. The same result could very well take place in Libya as Gaddfi has a more secularist stance than the opposition rebels who might be taking control.
Of course I understood what SemperFidelis was refering to but I didn't meet any occurence of these prejudice in the thread at SF's (even less on Shall we Talk).
Contextualisation is in order here. When SF opened his blog 6 years ago, there was a specific historical and cultural context which I guess SF, as a Frenchman living in the US, had his fill some day with all the French bashing he was submitted to on a daily basis.
His blog wasn't meant to teach each other how to prepare cookies or to show one another pictures of respective grand-children.
His blog was openly confrontational which also was the reason why it was so successful.
Four years later, SF terminated his blog because the context had changed (And he probably was saturated with the work it takes to run a blog).
Son forum est dans le sillage du blog créé en 2005 et nous sommes en 2011. Les "us vs you" and conversely are now completely irrelevant and I've given up taking part in such futile and harmful exchanges.
As you write: "Since then we have all evolved and now relate to each other in a different way."
"Gaddfi has a more secularist stance than the opposition rebels who might be taking control."
J'ai lu pas mal de commentaires dans les medias Le Monde, le Figaro, Le Point, L'Express etc. et je peux t'assurer que la très grande majorité des participants est très sceptique sur les suites de cette affaire.
Ce n'est pas une question de Chiites contre Sunnites ou Kurdes mais bien plutôt de conflit entre des clans de l'ouest et de l'est qui risque fort de dégénérer en guerre civile.
Je ne sais pas si les insurgés sont "naturellement" des good guys opprimés par Khaddafi comme les Chiites étaient opprimés par S. Hussein.
Une chose est sûre aux yeux de la majorité des commentateurs : il s'agit d'un coup politique de Sarkozy qui veut une fois encore montrer qu'il est un vrai chef!
And what do we do if another dictator takes control of the country?
Both the Washington Post and Le Monde have recently published articles noting that Richard Goldstone, the jurist and lead author of a UN report accusing both Israel and Hamas of war crimes during the Israeli "Cast Lead" operation, has recanted his claims about intentional Israeli attacks on non-combatants. Goldstone now writes that evidence collected since his report was published shows that there was no Israeli policy to attack non-combatants, and that the Israeli state is on course to hold accountable individual commanders who made mistakes in judgment during the conflict.
Goldstone also noted, pointedly, that all Hamas attacks against Israeli non-combatants were clearly intentional and clearly war crimes. And that Hamas has made no effort whatsoever to hold accountable those who made intentional, indiscriminate attacks on Israeli towns.
Goldstone's original report was greeted with enthusiasm by many in France when it was published. Do you think his new position will be equally welcome?
With anticipation,
SemperFidelis
SemperFidelis,
"Goldstone's original report was greeted with enthusiasm by many in France"
Enthousiasm? the word probably doesn't have the same meaning in French and in English then.
As is common on Wiki: Citation needed.
There are about 64 million people living in France. How much does many represent among them?
The Goldstone's report was published in September of 2009 and the recant happens 18 months later. Simply, who cares now?
As you know, most of the French press is rather pro-Israeli (Le Monde, Le Figaro, Libération), televisions and radios not being particularly concerned with the Israeli topic.
The main concern of the French as pertains religions is by far, by very, very far, Islam and not Jewism.
Some pundits may have yelled blue murder 18 months ago and some pundits of the other side will claim that they were right in the first place.
But I can't remember a wave of indignation running through France when the Goldstone's report was first issued.
There may have been one meeting of the far left dedicated to the denounciation of the Israeli action after the conclusions of Goldstone's report were made public though. With 86 people attending...
Hoping your expectation has been met...
SemperFi,
You are in particular mood this morning, no?
Roger Cohen is at it again: He has a soft spot for Sarkozy.
An overwhelming majority of the American comments don't share at all his love affair with the French president and his criticism of Merkel and the Germans re the Libyan war.
As usual the comments are of a very high level
Enregistrer un commentaire