There’s been a lot of discussion on oil-for-food. In today’s LA Times, the French Ambassador responds, and raises at least one factual point (re banking) that should be addressed. Over to you, Roger!
First ‘Freedom Fries,’ Now Oil-for-Food Lies: Give France a Break
By Jean-David Levitte, Jean-David Levitte is the French ambassador to the United States.
…I have been deeply surprised in the last few days to see a new campaign of unfounded accusations against my country flourish again in the media. These allegations, being spread by a handful of influential, conservative TV and newspaper journalists in the U.S., have arisen in connection with a recent inquiry into the “oil for food” program that was run by the United Nations in Iraq during the final years of Saddam Hussein’s government.
These allegations suggest that the government of France condoned kickbacks — bribes, in effect — from French companies to the Iraqi regime in return for further contracts. They say Paris turned a blind eye to these activities.
Let me be absolutely clear. These aspersions are completely false and can only have been an effort to discredit France, a longtime friend and ally of the U.S.
As the former French ambassador to the U.N., let me explain how the oil-for-food program worked. Created in 1996, it was intended to provide Iraqis with essential goods to alleviate the humanitarian effect of the international sanctions that remained in place. The program authorized Iraq to export agreed-on quantities of oil, and allowed money from the sales to be used for food and other necessities. The program was managed by the U.N. and monitored by Security Council members.
Between 1996 and the end of the program in 2003, every contract for every humanitarian purchase had to be unanimously approved by the 15 members of the Security Council, including France, Britain and the U.S. The complete contracts were only circulated to the U.S. and Britain, which had expressly asked to see them and would have been in the best position to have known if anything improper was going on. Though a number of contracts were put on hold by the American and British delegations on security-related grounds, no contract was ever held up because malfeasance, such as illegal kickbacks, had been detected.
Was there corruption and bribery inside the program? Frankly, I don’t know. Iraq was not a market economy; it was under sanctions at the time. Customs experts had little choice but to assume that the prices set by outside companies were “reasonable and acceptable,” a criterion of acceptance used by the U.N. secretariat, and they had no way of checking whether some contracts were overpriced.
That is why France fully supports the independent inquiry set up by the U.N. The truth must come out.
Was France a major beneficiary of oil-for-food contracts, as several conservative columnists have claimed recently? Definitely not. From the beginning of the program to its end, French contracts accounted for 8% of the total. We were Iraq’s eighth-largest supplier.
In addition, throughout the program a sizable proportion of the contracts dubbed “French” were in fact contracts from foreign companies using their French branches, subsidiaries and agents. Among them were U.S. firms providing spare parts for the oil industry (including several subsidiaries of Halliburton). They submitted contracts through French subsidiaries for more than $200 million.
It is also suggested that the money from the oil-for-food contracts passed exclusively through a French bank, BNP Paribas. Wrong again: 41% of the money passed through J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, which, like BNP, was contracted by the U.N. with the approval of Security Council members.
This leaves us with one remaining accusation: that the French positions on the oil-for-food program and Iraq in general were driven by the lure of oil. Yet France was never a major destination for Iraqi oil during the program. In 2001, 8% of Iraqi oil was imported by France, compared with 44.5% imported by the U.S., which was the No. 1 importer all along.
At a time when the U.N. is considering a return to Iraq, and we all agree on the need for close international cooperation to help a sovereign, stable Iraq emerge, I don’t understand this campaign. Or the hidden agenda behind it.
No tome to research and comment now, but I’m sure a few of you folks have some time on your hands…
Levitte is a twit. (Hey, that rhymes!).
I remember as a kid watching the scene in Casablanca where the Nazis walk into the place, threaten everyone, and the French break out singing La Marseillaise. It would sort of make my eyes moist and I would hum along with them. Didn’t you? Would you today?
Btw, his reference to percentages of Iraqi oil going to the U.S. and France is deeply dishonest.
I think he lost me at the “…longtime friend and ally of the U.S…” part. Anyone who believes that is probably gullible enough to also believe that the U.N. inquiry is interested in getting to the bottom of anything.
I will say that if U.S. companies can be shown to have played improper roles in this fraud of a program, they should pay – dearly.
Is there any reason to think that Jean-David Levitte is a credible source? I’d not be surprised to see his name on the (potential) future list of indictments.
Is the Frenchman playing a shellgame?
He completely ignores the issue.
The nuance of fraud is that it is not spelled out in contracts.
The French (and others’) support of Saddam layed in the execution part. (pretending to deliver 100 witgets to iraq, but delivering 30 to iraq, the value of 30 more to Saddam’s sons, another 20 to Koffe’s son and pocketing 20 more)
That, of course, is the punchline here. First the French stole Iraq’s oil money while Iraq’s people starved, and now the French accuse the United States of doing just that, when the United States is rebuilding Iraq with money out of its own pocket. (which the French want a piece of)
Can’t expect anything but bad faith from the French.
One other omission in the French ambassador’s comments:
were the favorable contracts for Total Elf the result of conveniently looking the other way with regard to the oil for food scams?
Note that M. Levitte carefully states “France was never a major destination for Iraqi oil during the program”. That’s true – the favorable contracts were due to kick in after sanctions were lifted IIRC.
hmmm, I’m going to wait and see. Lots of speculation bandied about above me.
Fair enough. I’ve read a lot of allegations, don’t know which ones are true and which are half-true and which are untrue.
However, I think Roger Simon’s right, that the UN is facing two scandals which undermine any usefulness it might have in Iraq and other places right now.
Robin, that assumes that the UN was useful before hand. Which is questionable.
The degree of dubious dealings with Hussein’s regime over thirty years (mirage aircraft, embargo-busting Roland missiles, nuclear technology and plutonium, multibillion dollar oil deals conditioned upon lifting of sanctions, etc.) is enough to cast doubt on Levitte’s basic plea for France’s innocence. However, this statement – denying “the government of France condoned kickbacks — bribes, in effect — from French companies to the Iraqi regime in return for further contracts… They say Paris turned a blind eye to these activities” – is demonstrably false. It was not until June 30, 2000 that France even ratified the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. Prior to that time it was entirely legal in France for a French company to pay bribes to a foreign government. In fact, not only was it legal, the bribe was fully tax deductible:
“Indeed, if a company to obtain a public sector contract must pay a “commission”, the corresponding charges, and even penalties incurred (other than [foreign] criminal penalties), are not considered as unusual management acts. In other words, despite the illicit nature [in the foreign country], the bribe is thus deductible from taxable profits of the firm paying it (French Supreme Court decision, 15 April 1988).
“Article 1763-A of the Tax Code however poses conditions for taking advantage of this benefit. Any company subject to corporate income tax that pays such amounts to persons whose identity it refuses to reveal to the tax administration is subject to a penalty equal to 100% of the amounts in question.”
Sounds a lot like “condoning” to me. I will agree that France did not “turn a blind eye” to these practices: You had to declare the bribe to get a tax deduction!
Since 2001, it has been (technically) illegal for French companies to pay bribes abroad to foreign officials (or get a tax deduction!). There is some speculation that the new international anti-bribery provisions may not be enforced with full vigor.
Actually, I must not have been paying close enough attention. I haven’t heard people saying that France had been on the take in the U. N. scandal. I had heard that Frenchmen–along with Englishmen, Scots, Belgians, Russians, etc. including a couple of Americans–had been on the take.
I suppose that it depends on what the meaning of is is…
Actually, I must not have been paying close enough attention. I haven’t heard people saying that France had been on the take in the U. N. scandal.
Well, Levitte seems sure worried about it!
“Iraq was not a market economy; it was under sanctions at the time.”
Damn, I’m going to have to change my pants after that line was said with a straight face.
France is bound to selectively release things from their files that might be favorable to France. The problem is still the overall lack of transparency in the U.N. records and under-the-table dealings which were revealed from Saddam’s own records. We need to see all the facts to see the whole picture.
This drivel is nothing but a few carefully worded denials and obfuscations. The bribes and kickbacks were designed to be difficult to detect; notice his not so subtle hint that the UNSC is implicated because they “approved” all the contracts. Throughout the screed, there is the typical French attempt to direct fault at other nations instead of accounting for their own conduct.
The accusation isn’t that the French position was driven by the lure of oil, it was that the French position was driven by the lure of illegitimate and abusive contracts that by their nature contributed to the suffering of ordinary Iraqis and empowered a genocidal regime.
Notice that he doesn’t address the more devastating accusation that the French anti-war position, in general, was driven by the promise of post-conflict oil contracts, as the letters of understanding signed by Saddam and French oil companies attest.
The agenda is far from hidden; it is quite transparent. France traded Iraqi blood for petro-dollars; in a quite literal sense, the French became nothing more than slave-traders and pimps. France, motivated exclusively by venal, mercenary and amoral motives, is the enemy of Western civilization. It should be isolated and neutralized so that it may mercifully fade from history.
“. . . France traded Iraqi blood for petro-dollars; in a quite literal sense, the French became nothing more than slave-traders and pimps. France, motivated exclusively by venal, mercenary and amoral motives, is the enemy of Western civilization. It should be isolated and neutralized so that it may mercifully fade from history. . . .”
Hmmm—and what will we do when we all end up with egg on our faces? I don’t think any of the major economic powers are going to come out clean in any of this. The U.S., France, Germany, Russia, Canada et al. have blood on their hands.
It should all come out rather nicely when Saddam goes on trial. But, lots will leak out before.
We can make “lemonade” toward a new, peaceful world order. 😉
Lili
The one crucial difference between France and the Coalition was that the Coalition went to war, in part, to end a genocidal regime, where France chose to profit by its continued existence. The fact that more Iraqis would have endured state-sponsored rape, torture and genocide had France won the debate makes the French position demonically immoral.
Uncomfortable information may come out at Saddam’s trial, but nothing can excuse this foreign policy choice.
unfounded, adj (fr.): tactless expression of an uncomfortable truth best dismissed by skepticism and adoption of a wounded air and exhibition of a Gallic shrug.
Careful, we’re being nice to France now that we need help bad.
Can the freedom fries.
“The one crucial difference between France and the Coalition was that the Coalition went to war, in part, to end a genocidal regime, where France chose to profit by its continued existence.”
That’s a stretch! The “coalition” of the “dragged-along” and the “bribed” went to war because the Bushies lied and twisted their arms. GW planned this as revenge prior to the election. Once he got in they began to immediately plan for war with Iraq. There has been testimony to that effect.
“we’re being nice to France now that we need help bad.”
Yup! Ya gotta have friends. Aside from the Bushies having insulted half the world, now that the mess in Iraq is so terribly, terribly dangerous why would they help us?
This is going to be much more interesting than Watergate was.
Lili
Hmmm—and what will we do when we all end up with egg on our faces?
Makes you want to just throw up your hands and say “Hell they’re all the same!”. Let’s just write off international security, democracy, human rights, etc.
Nixon, Kissinger and Pinochet couldn’t have put it better. Congratulations.
Gabriel
Prior to that time it was entirely legal in France for a French company to pay bribes to a foreign government. In fact, not only was it legal, the bribe was fully tax deductible
That’s not true, and you know it.
Bribes or bakchich were illegal under penal law long before 2000 and were considered a penal offense.
It’s true that they were, and still are, tax deductible to the certain extent. And, in any case they has to be declared. Strangely enough maybe, french tax code is almost blind to the legality of a profit/income or a charge. A prostitute (that’s a common example) may be charged with a penal offense and stiil had to pay taxes on on her illegal income.
Sorry for the typos and poor grammar. Preview is my friend…
Lilith- By your analysis, the only legitimate coalition is one based solely on altruistic motives.
A logical stance, but historically unprecedented and diplomatically unworkable in practice.
That’s not true, and you know it.
Philippe,
No, I don’t. You are right that there was a pre-existing doctrinal debate among law professors about the legality of bribes. But the fact is that before France’s implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention the entire business class as well as the judiciary and government administration acted on the basis that bribery was legal. Indeed, French businesses use to hire lawyers to structure their bribes to meet administrative criteria and requirements for confidential disclosure to the tax authorities. It is true that this was not specific to France: Bribery was also legal and tax deductible in Germany and the Netherlands, for example. Virtually the only country that had stong anti-bribery laws was the U.S., having adopted the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in 1977, and it was the U.S. that had pushed the hardest for an international anti-bribery treaty to level the playing field.
If bribery had been previously outlawed in France, there would not have been a need for the adoption of legislation in France (in June 2000) to outlaw corruption of foreign agents to bring France into line with the OECD Convention. You may also note that the French law eliminating tax deductibility was adopted in 1997, but its entry into force was expressly postponed until the enactment of legislation in France implementing the OECD Convention, ie, until bribery was actually outlawed, as it was in June 2000.
Further, had bribery previously been penalized, French businesses would not be scrambling wildly as they now are to adjust to the new system. This includes not only finding alternative ‘structures’ for payment of ‘commissions’ with plausible legality but also the unwinding (or adapting) pre-existing arrangements. There is in fact a fair amount of litigation (almost all in confidential international arbitration proceedings) arising out of pre-existing deals, where the French bribing company has asserted the present illegality of a previously concluded commission arrangement, as a defense to further payment. Indeed, OECD unwinding/adaptation has virtually become a distinct specialty for international business lawyers in France.
Lili,
Please provide evidence that Coalition partners did not join the Coalition voluntarily.
The “friendship” of France ultimately condemned Iraqis to slavery, torture and genocide; please explain why you believe any sane Iraqi would seek cordial relations with France.
If there is some conduct that should put one beyond the circle of humanity, slave-trading is certainly one of them. The French opposed the liberation of Iraq, and now oppose the wider democratization of the Middle East, for reasons of mercantilism and self-aggrandizement.
France is a rogue, pariah nation and should be treated as such. This is not an insult; it is an indictment and a condemnation.
Gabriel, thank you for your argumented answer.
I’ll agree with you that before France’s implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention the entire business class as well as the judiciary and government administration acted on the basis that bribery was legal. Indeed, prior to 1997, through a special authorization of the Ministère des Finances such bribes were widely tolerated (though called commissions…)
It’s also true there was no general prohibition of foreign officials bribery.
So, I retract my statement that bribery of a foreign official was a prosecutable penal offense per se. But I’ll maintain that such behavior was a debated subject, as you noted it, and also prosecutable as an abus de biens sociaux (translation unknown to me…). A common practice, of dubious legality.
And, yes, that’s a retractation !
Lilith:
So say the “Bushies (have) insulted half the world“. Who? I certainly can’t recall any insults directed at China or India.
In this context, I assume you mean France and Germany. Maybe Russia?
Setting aside the fact that they are not half the world, assuming they acted out of pique is a slur on the French government (Russian also).
The Quai d’Orsay is staffed by professionals pursuing the French national interests, not a bunch of hypersensitive adolescents.
French policy summed up: “it’s nothing personal, it’s just business.”
France was not available as an ally, given the circumstances regarding its perception of positions in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere.
Germany has it’s own historical neuroses and it’s government had particular political problems.
If there was a failure of US public diplomacy it might have been there; but again, I doubt the best efforts would have made any difference.
As for a “coalition of the dragged-along and the bribed (who) went to war because the Bushies lied and twisted their arms.”
Which category does Her Majesties Government fit into, in your opinion? And Australia?
“GW planned this as revenge prior to the election.”
Revenge for what? Not the line about revenge for the failed attempt to blow up his father again, please.
Certainly there were concerns that military action, possibly invasion, might be necessary before the election.
Such concerns had also been present in the Clinton administration, and in the UK government as well, for years.
(See Desert Fox 1998, and other crises of the 90’s)
By the time G.W. Bush took office, it had been apparent for some years that sanctions were nearing the end of their utility, that France and Russia were ready to ‘renormalise’ Iraq (probably in exchange for deals), that sanctions as they had come to operate were harming the people of Iraq rather than the regime.
And the underlying nature and actions of the Saddamite state were unchanged, dangerous and repugnant.
And the Middle East stasis continued to fester.
If President Bush and his officials had not be considering the option of war, they would have been culpably negligent.
Lilith wrote
Why, yes he did. It’s one of the reasons I voted for him. Of course, he was just following official US foreign policy, ratified by both Houses of Congress and signed by then President Bill Clinton in 1998.
However, Lilith, I get the impression that you intended this claim of Bush carrying out a long standing policy of the American federal government as a negative thing. Could you explain why?
The “coalition” of the “dragged-along” and the “bribed” went to war because the Bushies lied and twisted their arms. GW planned this as revenge prior to the election.
Ex-Dean supporter? Kucinich?
I was planning on voting for Kerry, but I am less and less sure. Are we pretty certain that people who think like this will remain at a safe distance from the White House for the duration of a Kerry presidency?
Gabriel,
Riddle me this:
What is the difference between BCCI and a French government owned and French state insured bank?
Hint:
BCCI had to obey international banking laws and the latter doesn’t.
Whew! Ya go work for a while and look.
“Makes you want to just throw up your hands and say “Hell they’re all the same!”. Let’s just write off international security, democracy, human rights, etc.”
No, I am not suggesting “throwing up our hands.” I am, however, suggesting that there is probably a better way to do this than via war alone.
“By your analysis, the only legitimate coalition is one based solely on altruistic motives.”
Certainly not, Tom, I don’t recall making such an “analysis;” that is your interpretation. By my “analysis” a legitimate coalition is one of people going voluntarily for common interests. This coalition is, for the most part, one of the bribed and the coerced—and the lied to. Many of the participants were promised all sorts of things by the U.S. including aid (millions to Turkey, who didn’t bite) and U.S. troop bases (Poland) for example. If they had gone of their own free will, in service to humanity and their own security, that is another story. Given that Saddam was not a direct threat to ANY of the participants and the WMDs story was a lie they are not there for the proper reasons.
Gabriel, Philippe, “backsheesh” is a way of life in the Middle East. You will never get away from it. Whether it is legal in the U.S. or not, I will bet my bottom dollar we pay it in one way or another. However, technically “backsheesh” is a small amount of money like a gratuity in the rest of the world. After all TIPS means “to insure proper service.”
“France is a rogue, pariah nation and should be treated as such. This is not an insult; it is an indictment and a condemnation.”
Mark, you are making LGF type libelous and slanderous comments (not to mention stupid ones) about a nation that has done much for humanity in the way of civilization including that of freedom and democracy. France is a much beloved and admired nation. They get the most tourism of ANY nation in the world each year. France is considered one of the freest and most democratic nations on the planet! I would say that freedom in France is much more so than in the U.S. For example, we don’t permit anything but two parties and the commies are illegal. Not so in France. That is not to say I don’t think the Nazis and the Commies should not be illegal. But, they do have a point in pointing out that outlawing “undesirables” is not freedom.
“The “friendship” of France ultimately condemned Iraqis to slavery, torture and genocide; please explain why you believe any sane Iraqi would seek cordial relations with France.
Oh, please! The U.S. didn’t give a damn about the welfare of the Iraqis until recently. We still don’t care about Iraqis as a national policy. The reason we are there, and this is not necessarily a bad reason, is for OUR national interest. But, we are not there to “liberate” the Iraqis. We are there to secure our liberty from terrorism and not doing a very good job of it.
France, like the rest of the world warned against poking a stick into the hornets nest. Now, whether you believe in the “fly paper” theory is another story. I do not! I believe we have lopped off the head of the hydra. The more we cut the more heads it grows—exponentially.
“GW planned this as revenge prior to the election.”
Revenge for what? Not the line about revenge for the failed attempt to blow up his father again, please.
You betcha! There is ample evidence that the Bushies began planning for this war very early. Bush Jr. was known as the “enforcer” during daddy’s administration. He is a very mean spirited guy. He had no proof and the bottom line is that he and his administration lied.
If President Bush and his officials had not be considering the option of war, they would have been culpably negligent.
That’s funny, John. Saddam was not involved in 9/11, he was not a direct threat to the U.S. Sure, he was a very bad guy. But, that is not the reason the U.S. gave for taking him out. The Iraqis are and will suffer much more because of this war than they did under Saddam for many years to come. The whole world will suffer as a result of it—for many decades to come. The Bushies are criminally culpable for causing this suffering—not just negligence. Let’s just see who takes a hit for deliberate deception and lying.
I get the impression that you intended this claim of Bush carrying out a long standing policy of the American federal government as a negative thing. Could you explain why?
Yes, indeed, AOG, I do think that our government policy has been and continues to be a bad one when it comes to many nations not just those of the middle east. We know next to nothing about other cultures. Hell, many of our people barely speak English, never mind a foreign language. Had the Bushies understood something about the tribal cultures of the ME, and the concept of revenge not just in the culture but in Islam they might have approached things a bit differently.
Ex-Dean supporter? Kucinich?
LOL!!! I think Dean is rather undisciplined 😉 and have no opinion on Kucinich because I have not followed him.
Oh, Gabriel you aren’t trying to paint me as a liberal are you? LOL In my circle of friends and acquaintances I am known as the one with the hardest line against the ME and Islam. But, I don’t think war is the sole answer.
I believe that Kerry would do the right thing. I don’t believe he has a problem fighting. But, only as a last resort. That is because, unlike Bush, he really did see the horrors of war—and would like to avoid them.
I predict that the U.S. will be held solely responsible for this war and may even be charged with paying reparations. Of course, we can turn that around and make the terrorists and their sponsors pay their share of what they broke in the name of Islam. 😀
Anyone see Condi try to blather and blather and blather her way out of the corner?
Lili
Lili,
“[W]e are not there to “liberate” the Iraqis. We are there to secure our liberty from terrorism and not doing a very good job of it.”
This is a bit garbled, but from what I can tell, it is simply a re-iteration of the leftist position that the Coalition did not argue for the war on a human rights/democratization basis.
It is demonstrably false.
I understand why the left is now attempting to make this move; they implicitly recognize that (1) they lose on the human rights argument and (2) they have no adequate response to the democratization argument.
So their game is to try and change the historical record. The left figures that if it can erase these pro-war arguments from our memory, it won’t need to refute them. Obviously, when the left had greater control over media and academia, this was a more viable project. Now, though, the internet has made tradional marxist falsification all but impossible.
The US Administration explicitly tied US and global security with human rights and M.E. democratization. This is easily demonstrated with a review of online archives of numerous pre-war American & British sources. I’ve quoted from those sources before, and I’m not going to do your research for you, Lili. A competent search of White House archives would be a good start.
I’m aware of the contributions France has made to the arts and sciences in the distant past. I’m also aware that some people admire and love France, and that many people travel there.
However, these observations provide no relevant counter-arguments to my own arguments. They do not excuse France’s grossly immoral profiteering from Iraqi slave-trading. It seems that you disagree, so it should be no problem for you to either deny that France was slave-trading (with relevant evidence) or justify such conduct. I look forward to your well-reasoned argument.
France not only denied freedom to their fellow human beings, but openly profitted from their enslavement. Your suggestion that France is a model of liberty is offensive.
“Your suggestion that France is a model of liberty is offensive.”
Mark, your comments about France are just as offensive as they are libelous.
“France is a rogue, pariah nation and should be treated as such.”
France is NOT a rogue nor a pariah nation in anyone’s minds but a bunch of warmongering rightists. France is a world leader, just as the U.S. is and a civilized nation.
The U.S. has no leg to stand on. Our hands are NOT clean. We are the largest weapons dealer in the world. We had plenty of business dealings with nations with whom we should not have had them. We had more slaves than anyone, we annihilated a whole continent full of indigenous peoples and those who are left are not treated very well. We started a war under false pretenses. Now, saying that it “did not matter” that there are no WMD is just so much BULLSHIT.
Regardless, I believe in the U.S. But, unlike you, I can see the warts and admit that we too have faults. The administration LIED!
Get off the “liberal” bandwagon will you. I am not a liberal. 🙂
Lili
Lili, I’m still waiting for you to give me a substantive refutation of my charge that France engaged in slave-trading during the Iraq war, and, thus, is the enemy of civilization.
Pointing to bad conduct by the US or any other nation is not relevant to the moral or immoral nature of the Iraq war. Those issues are logically separate. When you are finished reciting all the alleged crimes of the US, you will still have to argue the rightness or wrongness of the Iraq war. I don’t know how to convince you of this, except to refer you to one of the many websites on basic logic. If it’s any consolation, you are not the only person to make this mistake; Noam Chomsky commits the same error, and he’s supposed to be an “intellectual”.
I’m not sure who you expect to persuade by cursing and calling my comments libelous. Do you find that this type of rhetoric is normally effective? Do you hold your audience in such contempt that you believe they won’t know the difference between good and bad reasoning?
I agree, though, that France is leading some European nations in opposing democratic reform of the Middle East. One can only wonder why you see this as a good thing.
There will be NO “democratic reforms” in the ME. Islam and democracy are fundamentally incompatible. Apparently you , right along with this administration, don’t know enough about Islamic and ME culture to comprehend that.
You don’t appear to know much about French culture and thier contributions to civilization either.
Mark, go play your baiting games on LGF. You will not get me with the Chumpsky comment. 😉
Lili
Lili,
I don’t need to bait you; it’s much more fun to ridicule the weakness of your position.
“There will be NO “democratic reforms” in the ME. Islam and democracy are fundamentally incompatible. Apparently you , right along with this administration, don’t know enough about Islamic and ME culture to comprehend that.”
This paragraph looks like it’s explanatory, but, upon closer inspection, it actually says little.
What is it about Islam (as opposed to Christianity or Buddhism, say) that makes it incompatible with democracy? There are many Muslims who are democrats, so it’s not the religion that is the issue. What is it about the ME culture that makes democracy impossible? Are you saying that middle easterners are culturally defective in this regard?
Given your claim that you are much more knowledgeable about these matters than I, you should have no problem epxlaining the impossibility of ME reform. Feel free to send a copy of your thesis to Iraqis, who will want to know why they are doomed to some form of dictatorship.