3 ms·

That focus on Iraq is strange. I'm French and when Bush provided so-called "evidence" at the UN, people here were laughing and media were skeptic. From comments

by aragot 12y ago

That focus on Iraq is strange. I'm French and when Bush provided so-called "evidence" at the UN, people here were laughing and media were skeptic. From comments on HN, it seems Bush was taken seriously in other circles of the world, which may explain why some US citizen boycotted French products after we said we would create a worldwide axis against war.

duaneb 12y ago
> From comments on HN, it seems Bush was taken seriously in other circles of the world, Not sure if you heard the news, but Bush quickly invaded Iraq. I think it's safe to assume he was taken seriously. > which may explain why some US citizen boycotted French products after we said we would create a worldwide axis against war. Some US citizens just like to complain about foreigners to be more patriotic (as if that would help). I would doubt most people could explain anything about french foreign policy.
arjie 12y ago
Exactly! It honestly beats me. The tone around the news in India was that the so-called "evidence" was total bullshit. I, too, was amazed to learn that there were people who believed it.
barrkel 12y ago
The net effect was to shout "he's got a gun!" at the critical moment of action - a security council vote, IIRC. I didn't think Saddam was a serious threat to the west at the time, but the relentless hype did make me think it over one night: what if? And then I saw that anything asymmetrical he could do would quickly result in his destruction. Even if he had all the dirty weapons possible at his disposal, he wouldn't have been able to use them. And, of course, what came out later makes governmental prognostications now from secret evidence almost impossible to believe. Western governments, in particular US and UK, lost their credibility. Secret evidence is used for political purposes, not for security. The case for covert interception of communications is severely weakened. Probably even our security is damaged.

by aragot 12y ago

duaneb 12y ago

> From comments on HN, it seems Bush was taken seriously in other circles of the world, Not sure if you heard the news, but Bush quickly invaded Iraq. I think it's safe to assume he was taken seriously. > which may explain why some US citizen boycotted French products after we said we would create a worldwide axis against war. Some US citizens just like to complain about foreigners to be more patriotic (as if that would help). I would doubt most people could explain anything about french foreign policy.

arjie 12y ago

Exactly! It honestly beats me. The tone around the news in India was that the so-called "evidence" was total bullshit. I, too, was amazed to learn that there were people who believed it.

barrkel 12y ago

The net effect was to shout "he's got a gun!" at the critical moment of action - a security council vote, IIRC. I didn't think Saddam was a serious threat to the west at the time, but the relentless hype did make me think it over one night: what if? And then I saw that anything asymmetrical he could do would quickly result in his destruction. Even if he had all the dirty weapons possible at his disposal, he wouldn't have been able to use them. And, of course, what came out later makes governmental prognostications now from secret evidence almost impossible to believe. Western governments, in particular US and UK, lost their credibility. Secret evidence is used for political purposes, not for security. The case for covert interception of communications is severely weakened. Probably even our security is damaged.