Comments on: Sarkozy’s French Election: when elephants fight only the grass gets trampled

By: PressPosts / User / NaturalRush / Submitted

PressPosts / User / NaturalRush / Submitted — Wed, 09 May 2007 08:31:52 +0000

http://pressposts.com/Art/Sarkozys-French-Election-when-elephants-fight-only-grass-gets-trampled/

Submited post on PressPosts.com – “Sarkozy?s French Election: when elephants fight only the grass gets trampled”

By: fairlane

fairlane — Mon, 07 May 2007 22:05:42 +0000

If past behavior is an indicator of future behavior then I can only conclude that Bush will not change. For almost his entire Presidency, Bush has had zero stable relationships with other world leaders. (Even his “friendship” with Tony Blair is tenuous). And what has done to rectify this situation? Nothing. It’s either his way or he’s taking his toys and going home.

Although I hate to admit it, maybe keeping the status quo is the best thing for now. Bush is going to do what he wants anyway and everyone else be damned. He’s essentially holding the rest of the world, including our country, hostage to his will, and I can’t see how finding support will make things better. It will only embolden him.

He doesn’t care about Africa, or anywhere else. Look who he chose to represent the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz. One of the driving forces behind this war and a “neo-con” who believes the US can create some kind of world wide “Utopia” by using it’s power and influence. In other words, he’s insane.

I don’t mean to piss on your parade, I’m just convinced that Bush is a sociopath, and sociopaths don’t change.

By: whythawk

whythawk — Mon, 07 May 2007 20:10:35 +0000

Again, maybe. But nothing much has been solved by having Bush keeping one corner and Chirac another. Sarkozy is never going to suddenly become all chummy with Bush. He still has a French support-base and they’d never accept France, for instance, getting involved in Iraq or Iran. But not sending troops doesn’t mean that France can’t choose to stand out the way, or be a little less aggressive. I think Bush responds the way he does because he gets defensive. If the French are more yielding, perhaps he will be too.

By: fairlane

fairlane — Mon, 07 May 2007 19:56:12 +0000

I have to admit I’m a little bit nervous about a “Conservative” winning in France. The last thing Bush needs is another “friend”. Bush is completely surrounded by sycophants who remind him endlessly how “resolute” and “steadfast” he is. He doesn’t need someone else, especially from France, adding to his self-perpetuating delusion.

As for Bush learning “humility”? I have about as much faith in that as I do in Dick Cheney finally admitting he’s a vampire. If anything, Bush has demonstrated he possesses no intellectual or moral depth. He’s an adult still playing with the Big Legos. And introspection is a four letter word to this Administration.

By: whythawk

whythawk — Mon, 07 May 2007 19:19:47 +0000

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Sarkozy is brilliant. It’s just that he isn’t a navel-gazer. He does know that there is a world outside France. Something Dubya still battles with. Thing is Dubya needs friends now, and has to work to get them. Sarkozy will, at least, give him a chance which Royal wouldn’t. Now we just need to see if Bush has learned some humility in the last year and is willing to accept the opportunity.

By: Sam Smith

Sam Smith — Mon, 07 May 2007 17:30:59 +0000

No matter how optimistic you’re able to convince me I should be about Sarkozy, I still have to deal with the other half of the equation – Bush. I’ve seen no evidence to make me hopeful on that front. But who knows – maybe Sarkozy can connect on a more personal level. If he can convince Dubya that they’re buddies, it could lead to something.

By: whythawk

whythawk — Mon, 07 May 2007 16:04:15 +0000

Sarkozy is certainly conflicted, so worrying that the elephants may cause more damage is warranted. First on the list of concerns is Iran.

But engagement also means that the US may spend more time actually listening to the opinions of others. And France won’t become more interventionist, just more open to compromise. The US needs to realise this and take advantage of the opportunity to climb out of the corner they’re in.

And, yes, protectionism can be carefully used to create a platform for local businesses to thrive. But it shouldn’t be used to support an entrenched elite at the expense of the poor.

By: Brian Angliss

Brian Angliss — Mon, 07 May 2007 15:51:22 +0000

One thing that bugs me about this is that unfettered competition is not how most smaller nations have truly extracted themselves from poverty. Brazil, IIRC, is a rising economy precisely because of a careful mix of protectionism and regulated markets.

Now, I’m not claiming Brazil is a model economy by any stretch – there is a massive disparity between the rich and the poor, just as there is in most developing countries (and in some developed ones).

By: Sam Smith

Sam Smith — Mon, 07 May 2007 15:31:41 +0000

Okay, a question. On the one hand, then, it looks as though Sarkozy might be good for Africa on the economic front. But on the other, if he’s able to strengthen French ties with Dubya, doesn’t that imply that he’d be likely to be more enabling of foreign adventures like Iraq? If so, then he’d be contributing to the elephant fight that was causing the trouble to start with.

I’m certain I’m missing something here, right?