Spiteful Chirac Threatens Eastern European Nations

[adios]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...&printer=1

BRUSSELS, Belgium - French President Jacques Chirac launched a withering attack Monday on eastern European nations who signed letters backing the U.S. position on Iraq, warning it could jeopardize their chances of joining the European Union
"It is not really responsible behavior," he told a news conference. "It is not well brought up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet."

Chirac was angered when EU candidates Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined pro-U.S. EU members such as Britain, Spain and Italy last month in a letter supporting Washington's line on Iraq against the more dovish stance of France and Germany.

Paris was further upset when 10 other eastern European nations signed a similar letter a few days later.

France argued that the moves aggravated splits in the 15-nation EU and backed the ideas put forward by U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld who had earlier spoke of France and Germany as "old Europe" in contrast to the easterners seeking to join the EU and NATO (news - web sites).

"Concerning the candidate countries, honestly I felt they acted frivolously because entry into the European Union implies a minimum of understanding for the others," Chirac told reporters after an emergency EU summit on Iraq.

************************************************** ********

I would call this intolerant of other opinions. Why should Eastern European nations positions on Iraq have anything to do with EU membership? Reprehensible conduct on Chirac's part.

[IrishHand]

Why should Eastern European nations positions on Iraq have anything to do with EU membership?

Umm...maybe that particular regional organization would prefer that it's members not consider war a preferred method of dispute resolution.

What if Hungary started launching missiles at a neighboring country? Would you consider that relevant to their potential EU membership? In the end, there's not a big difference between cheering on an aggressor nation and being one.

[Nick]

Chirac is taking his lead from Bush and Rumsfeld. His posture is no different than our Govt.'s statements to the effect that nations who disagree with our aggressive war schedule are 'irrelevent' and 'old world'.

[censored], Bush and Rumsfeld have zero tolerance or sympathy for other's views. Look how Bush dismissed the opinion of millions of protestors inside and out of his own nation.

[Jimbo]

Millions of others dismissed the opinions of those millions of protestors as well, myself included. I suggested in another post that they should have volunteered their time to help underprivileged children rather than stand in the street on a cold day and accomplish nothing other than make themselves "feel good". What did they think would happen? Were they so naive to actually believe that any reasonable government was going to change their position because a small minority of vocal protestors stood in solidarity for half a day whining about how much we are gonna hurt poor Saddam?

[IrishHand]

Yet another genius who associates opposition to war with a love for Hussein. Your powers of logic and reason are beyond reproach.

[adios]

So according to you anyone who disagrees with Chirac and supports the USA's position on Iraq has war as the preferred method of dispute resolution. According to you Hungry's support of the USA's position on Iraq indicates that they would have a propensity to recklessly use missles on other European countries. Wow is that twisted. You're on my ignore list.

[adios]

"Chirac is taking his lead from Bush and Rumsfeld."

If you despise Bush then Chirac has a character flaw doesn't he?

" His posture is no different than our Govt.'s statements to the effect that nations who disagree with our aggressive war schedule are 'irrelevent' and 'old world'."

So if his, Chirac's posture is acceptable, then our Govt.'s statements about nations who disagree are acceptable no? How can one be wrong and the other be right?

"[censored], Bush and Rumsfeld have zero tolerance or sympathy for other's views."

That's simply not true and it's hyperbole and you know it.

"Look how Bush dismissed the opinion of millions of protestors inside and out of his own nation."

When he does not hold the same opinion as millions of people do (even though many more millions may share his opinion) he should bow to their will? That's crazy.


I notice you didn't comment on the responses from the Eastern European nations to Chirac in the post I made about it.