LibriumArcana.Games

Posted: **Mon May 01, 2006 1:53 pm**

French President Jacques Chirac has called for international aid to the Palestinians to continue, despite the recent election victory of Hamas.
Mr Chirac said the World Bank should set up a fund to pay the salaries of Palestinian officials.

It comes after the US and EU cut off direct aid to the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, which is struggling to pay the wages of more than 100,000 workers.

Mr Chirac was speaking after meeting Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Washington and the EU define Hamas as a terrorist organisation and say they will not consider relations with a PA under its control unless it renounces violence and recognises Israel.

Escrow account

Following talks with Mr Abbas in Paris, Mr Chirac suggested the World Bank could pay PA officials directly, thereby bypassing Hamas.

The creation of a special account to receive funds intended to pay the salaries could be studied urgently, Mr Chirac's office quoted the president as saying.

Mr Chirac said he would raise the issue with members of the Middle East peace quartet - the EU, US, UN and Russia - at a meeting on 9 May.

The president also called for the continuation of humanitarian and technical aid to the Palestinians "for human and political reasons".

But he called on Hamas to "rally around the positions agreed by the international community", AFP news agency quoted him as saying.

"It is an essential and necessary condition for the establishment of normal relations with this government.

"What is vital is the re-establishment of a negotiated political process so as to allow the establishment of peace between two states living side-by-side," he said.

'Heading for disaster'

Mr Abbas, who is in France on the last leg of a European tour, welcomed Mr Chirac's suggestion.

"Aid to the Palestinian people must continue, especially humanitarian aid and salaries, because these are crucial and sensitive issues for our people," AFP quoted him as saying.

Without international help, he said, the Palestinians were "heading for a disaster".

Earlier this month, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya said the Palestinian finance ministry had no money left, while accruing mounting debts.

The PA had received about $600m (500m euros) a year in aid from the EU since its foundation in 1994, with another $400m coming from the US.

According to the UN, a quarter of the Palestinian population depends on government salaries

Not only do I disagree, I think you're fucking idiot Chirac who has found in himself a strong desire to surrender to someone, anyone, as long as they don't speak English and talk about a free market economy. The Arabic world has already pledged plenty of money to HAMAS, Omar alone promised 50 million dollars. Let HAMAS pay those salaries from the money they recieve from the Arabic nations and from Iran, let's not make it one bit easier for them to use that money for human bombs instead.

HAMAS claims to want to take of it's poeple in between screaming for genocide, let's see them prove it and back away from the Nazi imatation before they get a single fucking cent from us.

Posted: **Wed May 03, 2006 12:17 pm**

On the bright side I read on the CBC that Canada will not supply Hamas with any money! As for the French, I have to wonder how much of this is simply to spite the US?

Posted: **Wed May 03, 2006 2:33 pm**

Cpl Kendall wrote:On the bright side I read on the CBC that Canada will not supply Hamas with any money! As for the French, I have to wonder how much of this is simply to spite the US?

However much it is, it is way too much. Asking people to support what is at least partially a terrorist organisation just to say' Up Yours' to the US is pushing it, even for the french.

Posted: **Wed May 03, 2006 3:04 pm**

Ah yes, but we're the evil empire. Anybody who doesn't get along with the US can't be all bad, see.

Posted: **Wed May 03, 2006 3:16 pm**

Petrosjko wrote:Ah yes, but we're the evil empire. Anybody who doesn't get along with the US can't be all bad, see.

Your country isn't helping its own image, however. Bush-impeachment should happen, and it should happen five years ago.

Posted: **Wed May 03, 2006 3:21 pm**

Narsil wrote:
Petrosjko wrote:Ah yes, but we're the evil empire. Anybody who doesn't get along with the US can't be all bad, see.
Your country isn't helping its own image, however. Bush-impeachment should happen, and it should happen five years ago.

I can't say I disagree all that much, but how is financing people who happily blow up innocent civilians in droves help to make that come about? (even leaving alone the time travel requirement)

Posted: **Wed May 03, 2006 3:30 pm**

Batman wrote:I can't say I disagree all that much, but how is financing people who happily blow up innocent civilians in droves help to make that come about? (even leaving alone the time travel requirement)

It wouldn't have gotten this way if it weren't for Shrub and his whole cabal of uberwanking posse. I'm so fucking sick of this fucking world, why the hell did the yanks vote him back into power?! I'm sorry, but this has gone far enough, and if our Prime Minister had the balls for it and the personality for it, he'd probably be decrying the USA right now.

Posted: **Wed May 03, 2006 3:42 pm**

Narsil wrote: It wouldn't have gotten this way if it weren't for Shrub and his whole cabal of uberwanking posse. I'm so fucking sick of this fucking world, why the hell did the yanks vote him back into power?! I'm sorry, but this has gone far enough, and if our Prime Minister had the balls for it and the personality for it, he'd probably be decrying the USA right now.

All of which is true and none of which is relevant. I repeat: How will Chirac asking people to give money to terrorists increase the chances of Dubya the Stupider being impeached?

Posted: **Wed May 03, 2006 3:45 pm**

Batman wrote:All of which is true and none of which is relevant. I repeat: How will Chirac asking people to give money to terrorists increase the chances of Dubya the Stupider being impeached?

There could be a slight knock-on effect to the idiots who have the odd capacity to notice things. If whole countries are turning against America and going for the support of terrorists, then they could be convinced that Bush is doing something wrong.

Of course, this is a very bad way to go about it. I wouldn't do it this way myself, I'd probably consider Invasion of the USA (as much as it hasn't actually been invaded all that much) before supporting terrorists.

Posted: **Wed May 03, 2006 4:32 pm**

I'm not sure I'd want the support of people who are that thick.

Posted: **Wed May 03, 2006 6:01 pm**

There could be a slight knock-on effect to the idiots who have the odd capacity to notice things. If whole countries are turning against America and going for the support of terrorists, then they could be convinced that Bush is doing something wrong.

I'm very much anti-bush, but you know what? I think this may be the biggest case of cutting off your nose to spite your face I have ever heard. And frankly while Jr. is about has great a leader as your average drunk driver, this doesn't excuse Chirac's actions at all, he caved to rioters in his own nation remember? I honestly believe this has nothing to do with Jr. and everything to do with Chirac.

Seriously folks this blame Jr. rants are getting as bad as the blame Clinton rants. I seriously hope I won't be hearing them in 2010 as an explation as to to why President X can't get whatever done. It's tiresome and immature.

Posted: **Wed May 03, 2006 6:08 pm**

I do not support the idea. But this is a world leader we're talking about here, it seems to be a 'leave all intelligence at the door' type club.

Posted: **Wed May 03, 2006 6:58 pm**

Narsil, you'll find I'm a card carrying member of the no excuses club when it comes to world leaders. When you carry the fate of millions, it's not the time to act like a 6 year old on crack.

Jr's actions can only be blamed on one person's Jr's.

Chirac's actions can only be blamed on one person's Chirac.

Any questions?

Posted: **Wed May 03, 2006 8:36 pm**

Conversely, Narsil, shall we now justify American foreign policy as having some air of legitimacy based on the prospect that it spites the French?

The Bush hate has serious parallels to the Clinton hate. It's eerie to watch so much history repeat so quickly, but when you view the fundamentally similar behaviors and attitudes of the base on both sides, it's not terribly surprising. More depressing than anything.

Posted: **Wed May 03, 2006 8:50 pm**

Petrosjko wrote:Conversely, Narsil, shall we now justify American foreign policy as having some air of legitimacy based on the prospect that it spites the French?

The Bush hate has serious parallels to the Clinton hate. It's eerie to watch so much history repeat so quickly, but when you view the fundamentally similar behaviors and attitudes of the base on both sides, it's not terribly surprising. More depressing than anything.

I don't know; the Clinton hate was so often engendered because he wasn't a Republican or a Dixiecrat and little more. Bush hate springs from things like, oh, violations of the Constitution and declaring himself literally above the law. While there are no-doubt some mindless partisans, to declare them equal is laughable.

Posted: **Wed May 03, 2006 9:58 pm**

SirNitram wrote:I don't know; the Clinton hate was so often engendered because he wasn't a Republican or a Dixiecrat and little more. Bush hate springs from things like, oh, violations of the Constitution and declaring himself literally above the law. While there are no-doubt some mindless partisans, to declare them equal is laughable.

I wouldn't piss on Clinton if he was burning in front of me, and I'm anything but a Republican or Dixiecrat. We could talk about his bungling of Somalia, we could talk about the atrocious mishandling of the Branch Davidian situation and how there were damn few consequences for grotesque abuse of Federal power. We could talk about his habit of launching cruise missile attacks at times that suspiciously corresponded with his domestic scandal issues, which in my book amounts to murder.

I'm no Bush defender, and this is no Tu Quoque. They're both swine. Clinton set the stage for the affairs that Bush is bungling.

Posted: **Wed May 03, 2006 10:07 pm**

It should be noted that Clinton is not beloved in the military as well. Held against him is the retreat of from Solmalia over the deaths of a handfull of troops. It is widely felt that retreat is what embolden many of the terrorist who would strike at us in Jr's first term.

Also held against him is Bosnia. Troops were not opposed to going, anything but, however the Rules of Engagment are widly considered crippling and at direct odds with the objective given. Troops cannot stop enthic cleasing unles they are allowed to shot the people doing it. Instead the troops were told to only fire when fired upon, when the enemy in Bosnia realized this they often conducted criminal campagins right under the noses of the western military. It's interesting to note that the media consistently underreported this.

Also held against him is underreaction to terrorism. Osama did not magically appear in 2001, he was very active in the 90s. He funded and planned the attacks on the World Trade Towers at the time and the assualt on a barricks of US troops in Saudi Arabia. I'm willing to give Billy Boy a pass on this one, all he did was continue the policy of Regan and Bush Sr, of treating terrorist on the same level as mobsters.

This in no way is to excuse our current leaders failures in the current conflicts. It should be noted however, that the enemy did not gather the resources, men and confidence to start a major fight overnight.

This is the same military that has no love for Rumsfield and idolizes Colon Powell, to claim it's all partsin is to ignore some real and deeply held complaints.

Posted: **Wed May 03, 2006 10:21 pm**

I'm not going to get into Clinton's screwups.. Many and varied that they are... Or who is reponsible for the current mess(Hint: The answer includes the phrase 'Everyone in power in the last several centuries. This shit ain't brand new.). I was simply pointing out there's alot more to do with Bush's unpopularity than simple partisanship(One need only notice the fact that, apart from one-day surges on big events, every month of his polling drops, even among the Faithful of the Party.).

Posted: **Thu May 04, 2006 12:18 am**

Oh, Chirac- what a fellow. My favorite European technocrat, bar none.

Posted: **Thu May 04, 2006 12:21 am**

What does technocrat mean, anyway?

Posted: **Thu May 04, 2006 12:39 am**

Techonocrats if I remember right are heavily trained, well educated rulers who very much favor techonolgy as a way to solve problems.

The rule of technocrats in France as resulted in it drawing 70% of it's power from nuclear plants slicing it's air pollution down heavily for example.

However France's technocrats are also very buercratic technocrats with little to no spine who live in a enclosed world of priviledge and isolation from the poplace at large. Thus we have current day France's many, many problems.

Posted: **Thu May 04, 2006 1:18 am**

Our beloved ice mage is correct. Check out books by John Rolston Saul for critique of technocracy in general as well as a damn interesting read.

LibriumArcana.Games

Chirac rolls over, plays dead.

#1 Chirac rolls over, plays dead.

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11

#12

#13

#14

#15

#16

#17

#18

#19

#20

#21

#22