For what other reason?
What's not to like at C'est chez nous, who's always eager to bug the people that bug me, right now waving this Guardian survey under the nose of that specific branch of u.s. francophobia specialized in the "why do they hate us" anthem.
It's always nice to rub their noses in it, but sadly, i feel it's like pissing in a violin, as we say. That's why :
According to the war nuts, france opposed the irak was out of an array of lunacies. U.s. hating, nostalgia for the "grandeur" (they love this word) of france, envy for the u.s. etcetc. Of course, simply imagining that a country would endanger its diplomatic/economic relations with a partner as big as the u.s. out of pique is ludicrous, and yet they painted themselves in that corner.
The killing question is "but for what reason, other than lunacy, would the french oppose the war?". You simply don't want to see that kind of question answered while you're whipping your domestic audience to war. That may lead to things like "hey, after all, why not wait for the inspectors to do their jobs?". So, it's not like the war nuts have a choice : there must be a french lunacy to insert here, "explaining" its opposition to this war in a way suitable to the pursuit of the propaganda, instead of the obvious, simple, reason.
It's notable that, as the u.s. policies divorce from, you know, the real world, they rely more and more on these representations of the world-as-lunacy.
The last example was spain. So little time after feeling the instant unanimity and gathering of forces that follows a catastrophe like the 9/11, a big part of the u.s. opinion found no objection in seeing the spaniards cowered by the bombings into choosing another governemnnt. The "what other reason" test would yield here too uncomfortable answers about aznar (ptooey) and the arm-twisting (97% against) of spain into irak.
So now, of course the spaniards are so incredible cowards as to change government to please the terrorists. These foreigners are like that anyways, and good lord, for what other reason?
It's always nice to rub their noses in it, but sadly, i feel it's like pissing in a violin, as we say. That's why :
According to the war nuts, france opposed the irak was out of an array of lunacies. U.s. hating, nostalgia for the "grandeur" (they love this word) of france, envy for the u.s. etcetc. Of course, simply imagining that a country would endanger its diplomatic/economic relations with a partner as big as the u.s. out of pique is ludicrous, and yet they painted themselves in that corner.
The killing question is "but for what reason, other than lunacy, would the french oppose the war?". You simply don't want to see that kind of question answered while you're whipping your domestic audience to war. That may lead to things like "hey, after all, why not wait for the inspectors to do their jobs?". So, it's not like the war nuts have a choice : there must be a french lunacy to insert here, "explaining" its opposition to this war in a way suitable to the pursuit of the propaganda, instead of the obvious, simple, reason.
It's notable that, as the u.s. policies divorce from, you know, the real world, they rely more and more on these representations of the world-as-lunacy.
The last example was spain. So little time after feeling the instant unanimity and gathering of forces that follows a catastrophe like the 9/11, a big part of the u.s. opinion found no objection in seeing the spaniards cowered by the bombings into choosing another governemnnt. The "what other reason" test would yield here too uncomfortable answers about aznar (ptooey) and the arm-twisting (97% against) of spain into irak.
So now, of course the spaniards are so incredible cowards as to change government to please the terrorists. These foreigners are like that anyways, and good lord, for what other reason?
posted by yabonn at 2:15 AM
<< Home