Note from the Foreign Service

KaRl

From this[^] article (Washington Post) "Some Americans are wondering openly: What is Chirac up to? A few have fallen back on such crude stereotypes as the French being reflexively anti-American, driven by commercial interests or obsessed with restoring their country's lost grandeur.But on this side of the Atlantic, Chirac is more commonly viewed as a principled elder statesmen who reflects widely held sentiments among West Europeans that war with Iraq is wrong, with or without U.N. approval." Quiet everything has been said, so, after this one, I stop to launch this subject again, I swear. Till the beginning of the War.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Jorgen Sigvardsson

KaЯl wrote: Chirac is more commonly viewed as a principled elder statesmen who reflects widely held sentiments among West Europeans that war with Iraq is wrong, with or without U.N. approval. If SH does have WMDs, then I think war against him is ok. He's shown before that he clearly shouldn't possess these things. (I don't believe that anyone else should either, but that's an entirely different story) What would be interesting though, is if the US would lead the inspection teams. A team ten times the size today. Teams which are highly mobile and in constant communication with the command centre. A team which could be deployed anywhere in Iraq within hours. A team which does unannounced visits. If SH is moving stuff around to avoid the prying eyes of the inspectors, then this would seriously hurt his strategy. The US seems to know a hell of a lot more than the rest of the world (much thanks to their highly advanced spy technology). It would be interesting to see if the inspectors would come up with anything. If the inspectors would find anything that would indicate the does have WMDs, then I have no problems showing that little critter what UN resolutions is all about. A good spanking so to speak. I don't understand that view of Chirac. I mean, if you find criminals guilty of crimes, you punish them. You do punish criminals in France right? However, Saddam is no ordinary criminal, and it's quite hard to punish him without punising innocent people. Some people don't have a problem with letting innocent die because of "the cause". "A couple of Iraqis here and there won't matter"-kind of statements just pisses me off. :mad: Replace Iraqi with your nationality and read it again. -- "And God said, Let us make man in our image"

Chris Losinger

China has now pledged to join Germany, France and Russia in opposing Bush's war. now, how do the pro-war people explain away China's position? -c

Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. --Thomas Cardinal Wolsey

Fractals

Mike Gaskey

Cut and paste from the Wall Street Journal - a some what alternative view. My appologies for some of the language, cut and paste as is. In another setback for Schroeder and his fellow weasels, the AFX wire service reports from Dubai that Iraq's foreign minister, in an interview with the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper, "ruled out the deployment on Iraqi soil of any UN peacekeepers." It seems the Germans are even more intent on keeping Saddam in power than Saddam himself is. Yesterday we raised the possibility that French and German leaders may be worried that if America liberates Iraq, it will find evidence that those nations have violated U.N. sanctions against Iraq. An essay in the Asia Times Online claims that "expurgated portions of Iraq's December 7 report to the UN Security Council show that German firms made up the bulk of suppliers for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs"--and that this was true "both prior to and after the 1991 Gulf War." We know from the account of Iraq's erstwhile bomb maker, Khidhir Hamza, that France and Germany have long supplied Iraq with weapons (and at scandalously high prices), but if they continued to do so after the impositions of sanctions, their actions were not merely venal but criminal. The Asian Times link: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EB05Ak02.html[^] Link to the bomb maker reference: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003053[^] Mike

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Chris Losinger wrote: now, how do the pro-war people explain away China's position? Anti-americanism? I don't see any other logical explanation. China is almost as bad as Iraq when it comes to human rights. I don't think they like what Germany says, I think they just dislikes anything that americans say (unless the american saying something is investing in some Hong Kong-business). -- "And God said, Let us make man in our image"

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Serious accusations. If they're true, then I hope someone gets to time for it. Selling military equipment to an obviously dangerous man is not just a criminal act, but an incredible stupid one too. It's like handing out guns to gangs. No good will ever come out of it. -- "And God said, Let us make man in our image"

Lost User

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Selling military equipment to an obviously dangerous man is not just a criminal act, but an incredible stupid one too. It's like handing out guns to gangs. No good will ever come out of it. ...and we (US) ought to know, we've been doing it for decades! :-D Personally I think there may be validity to the claims against Germany and France. If only for the fact that they are so vehement about things. They've been spineless for too long. Mike Mullikin :beer:

I'm not convinced that oil is the problem. I'm pretty sure we could fly over the Middle East and drop bags of money and they'd still want to kill us for blocking the view. - Scott Adams

KaRl

The WSJ is also the one which called chirac a rat, isn't it? So you can imagine the value I give to the arguments of such a "newspaper", even if I don't like my current president. Anyway. The fashion in these days in the US seems to make affirmations first and then find something to prove them. That's true France sold weapons to Iraq, as did all the western nations during the Persian Gulf War. AFAIK, these weapons had always been conventionnal. Moreover, they wasn't the top France could sell. For example, Iraq bought Mirages F1, but equipped with a radar from the 50's (Cyrano II), nothing that should terrify a F4 pilot of the National Guard. About chemical or biological materials, I've never heard about it, so I would like to see justifications of such an hypothesis first, before taking it seriously. Nonetheless, US giving chemical and biological weapons to SH is already a proven fact[^], isn't it?

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

KaRl

Mike Mullikin wrote: They've been spineless for too long. I couldn't agree more. Since the crisis of Suez in '56 and the political bashing from US ahd USSR that followed, european countries haven't the guts to act by themselves anymore. It's astonishing how '56 and '03 crisis have similarities.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

KaRl

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I don't understand that view of Chirac Chirac has no choice on such a subject but follow the 75% of the population opposing war. It's all about internal affairs, in fact. Chirac was elected less than one year ago with 82% of the votes, 'cause he faced the french fascist leader. So chirac suddenly became a symbol of the République, 'cause he got as votes from the Left wing as from the Right wing (IMHO he got even more from the Left, some of the Right wing voters choosing the fascist). Showing super-partisan attitudes wuld be a cause of big, big troubles here. Since 1789, the head of State don't like when too many French go in the streets to protest :) Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Saddam is no ordinary criminal, and it's quite hard to punish him without punising innocent people Even if I know it's true, I don't like that. Both sides of the Atlantic we consider someone can't be declared guilty before being trialed fairly . It's the basement of what we call Justice. Why should it be different when it's about political leaders?

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Jorgen Sigvardsson

KaЯl wrote: It's astonishing how '56 and '03 crisis have similarities. Please enlighten an ignorant bastard like me. What was the '56 crisis? :) You mentioned Suez earlier. War in Egypt and Israel involved? :~ -- "And God said, Let us make man in our image"

KaRl

Yep. In '56 Nasser, a former SH, leader of Egypt, decided to nationalize the Canal of Suez, owned at this time by France and UK. Both countries decided to react by sending a task force and an expeditionary corps, and secretly (both denied) colluded with Israel, then attacked without the approval of the UN. The french and british troops had no difficulties to hustle the egyptian army, but during this time, a diplomatic pressure from USSR, followed by the US, grown more and more, condemning France and UK in the eye of the World opinion. Under such stresses, both countries had no choice but to withdraw pitifully, letting a triumphing Nasser behind them. More details: http://web.mit.edu/cascon/cases/case_sue.html[^] Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Please enlighten an ignorant bastard like me A lack of knowlegde is not a proof of "bastardness". The lack of will to learn is ;)

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Jorgen Sigvardsson

KaЯl wrote: Since 1789, the head of State don't like when too many French go in the streets to protest :rolleyes: Gillette, the best a man can get. :-D (No disrespect/offence intended.) KaЯl wrote: Why should it be different when it's about political leaders? There's this small matter of jurisdiction. Who's going to handle it? The US certainly shouldn't nor Iraq. So it should fall on UNs lap. But how on earth could such a jury/court be fair and/or decisive when no one can agree on anything? Another problem is getting Saddam to a trial. How are we supposed to get him? The only way is to use violence I'm afraid - he'll never surrender. And lastly; if he has nukes or other WMDs, can we allow him to just sit there? He has threatened to use it before. We know he's insane, and is apparently not afraid to press the big red button labeled "All Israels Base Are Belong To Us". (Note that I'm not the biggest fan of Israel, but they don't deserve whatever's on Saddams mind). Best thing would probably be to surround the bastard with tanks and drag him on his ass to Haag. Trial him and put him away for life. That includes his low life offspring which apparently are as brutal as he is. Then put some UN controlled installations in the country and work for a democracy. Putting US military installations there would not be the smartest thing IMHO. That would probably piss people like Usama off even more, and that's the last thing we want/need. Iraq could have been a flourishing country right now if it wasn't for Saddam. Instead of using Iraqs resources to build a strong fine nation, Saddam is plowing everything into his corrupted pockes and on weapons. That's truly a shame. :| And when the Iraqi crisis is solved, I think we should start solving the next thing; the Israeli/Palestinian issue. -- "And God said, Let us make man in our image"

Mike Gaskey

KaЯl wrote: Anyway. I simply responded to a Washington (Com)post article with one from the WSJ. I consider th Washingon (Com)post to be a liberal (leftist) rag and hold it in low esteem. Mike

DRHuff

So there are two extremely opposite views of the situation. At some point such extreme differences of view result in the two sides no longer being allies. Is this what Chirac and France want? The damage to Franco-US relations that his stance has done is incredible! The obstruction of NATO by France, Germany and Belgium may be a nail in the coffin of NATO - or it may result in a restructuring that exclude France and Germany (I am sure that Germany - with its high unemployment rate - wouldn't miss several billion dollars in US spending at all the military bases - noooo not at all!). Even my country (Canada) with its famous fence sitter of a Prime Minister agreed that Turkeys invocation of article 4 was reasonable and agreed to help. Is France expecting that when the war finally starts that they can quickly switch sides and be allowed in? The US will not let that happen now - it might have if they had come around after Powells UN presentation - but not now. From my point of view France is doing everything as an ally of Iraq and not as a supposed ally of the US. And as a certain president once said - If you not with us... Just my thought... Dave Huff Igor would you give me a hand with the bags? Certainly - you take the blonde and I'll take the one in the turban!

Ray Hayes

Chris Losinger wrote: China has now pledged to join Germany, France and Russia in opposing Bush's war. now, how do the pro-war people explain away China's position? China almost ALWAYS abstains from any vote. It'd be a small shift for them to vote against a resolution, but hardly as huge a shift it would be for them to vote for one. IMO, China only cares about two things... China and *free-trade* where China gets sales out of the argeement. Regards, Ray

KaRl

Dave Huff wrote: The damage to Franco-US relations that his stance has done is incredible! In our opinion, GWB made the first steps by pledging consistently the ties with the other allies, by his constant unilateral decisions and his refusal on hearing others arguments, and that far before the Iraq crisis. His intransigent behaviour doesn't give other alternative than submission or rebellion: Be my slave or my enemy. He makes a confusion between allies and vassals. NATO is not the Warsaw Pact. About the NATO incident, I was surprized yesterday never to read in anglo-saxon newspapers that the original rebuff of the three western nations are about a proposal made by the US, not by the Turkey. The invokation of the article 4 came after this (provocating a second refusal I don't understand) France left the NATO integrated command in '66, while staying in the Atlantic Alliance. I don't understand why we came back, we are able to protect us ourselves. Dave Huff wrote: Is France expecting that when the war finally starts that they can quickly switch sides and be allowed in It would have been possible one week ago, but IMO with the harsh reactions of the US France has no more choice than to stay on its position. Dave Huff wrote: If you not with us Life is not binary.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

KaRl

Ok. BTW, I would need to learn the political classification of US newspapers. Could you please indicate me some of them representating the different US opinions ? TIA.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Lost User

The question still in my mind is "If the US had a satellite photo of scud missiles, why didn't they tell the inspectors rather than reveal it at the UN 3 months later ?" Call me cynical but....... :suss: Elaine The tigress is here :-D

Lost User

There is another aspect to this. The US has a history of protecting dictators it has set up (not just them, but mostly so in the past half century). Europe has the international courts which has managed to put a few of those peole away in proper jails for the rest of their lives so others know that they can be caught and punished. If SH is captured, what will be done with him ? Let off and given somewhere nice to live or punished ? Also, the west has created and supported people like this. If we don't learn from this there will just be another later on :mad: Elaine The tigress is here :-D