Our wonderful French Allies

[Michael A Barnhart]

Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote: But I'll say it again - the US Government screwed it its diplomacy royally at the outset, and got enough diplomatic backs up that it guaranteed opposition to future resolutions. I agree with you. To many stupid statements made "off the cuff" etc. Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote: In contrast (I believe) to the US, the countries of Europe now bear very, very, little relationship to those of the past. In many ways the social history of most European nations restarted after the last War, and our social and political views reflect that. Actually I think the world changed after WW2. The influence that the cold war had on the US totally dominated actions taken. Iran, Vietnam direct fall out. We are not the same nation either. Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote: And why oh why didn't you finish the job the first time round when you had the support?? Because that was not the point the first time. I believe the Saudi's were very strong about the limits of the engagement. Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote: I just hope it's over soon, one way or another. I am going to say I hope not. Anything quick and it will be with a lot of anger following that will take a long long time to work through. If only a firm schedule can be agreed to. Let the US troops go home and have the world act if the schedule is not met. ""

[KaRl]

AFAIK, the french official attitude about Time was that this element has to be evaluated by the inspectors, who are the ones who can say the time needed to do their task. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Do you deny these countries signed contracts with Iraq for $38 billion in oil development in 2002? I would rather say companies from these countries signed contracts, which is IMO a little bit different, when the comapines aren't state-owned. I don't know if these companies are lobbying, I suppose they do. IMo, there are several possibilities to explain the position of the french government. 1) There' no evidence yet a war is necessary, and the risks caused by such an adventure are potentially very high for everybody. 2) With the events which occured during the last presidential elections here, Chirac has not the possibility to go against the french public opinion (80% of the french oppose a war today). 3) It's a good occasion to reinforce the links with Germany 4) there's a concern about the seizure of a strategical raw material by another power, which already "control" the other oil fields in the middle east. 5) There was a possibility to unite Europe even if it was against the US 6) The French Republic defends an internationalist point of view, and believes the problems between countries should be fixed by a supranational organization There's probably others I don't see for now, but I'm sure the ultras will invent some others ;)

---

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons

[Michael A Barnhart]

KaЯl wrote: AFAIK, the french official attitude about Time was that this element has to be evaluated by the inspectors, who are the ones who can say the time needed to do their task. Not to be argumentive but that does not really address what I was trying to convey. Infinite time is not an option for the issues I stated and that is what is being perceived by myself and those around me. Will the French people still accept statements "If the Iraqi Government starts to cooperate with the inspection team, we can make better progress" in another 12 years? I agree one week is equally ridicules and do not support that. I would like to here what the other limit is, given infinite will likely mean certain war. KaЯl wrote: I would rather say companies from these countries signed contracts, which is IMO a little bit different, when the comapines aren't state-owned. Again not looking for an argument but sharing perception. Many of these reports either state or indicate that France has large ownership of these companies. http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/2003/02/02/news/editorial/5088466.htm[^] http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/france.html[^] "France is one of the most centralized countries in Europe with a strong history of state ownership in the aviation, telecommunications, and energy industries." It does go on to say this is changing. But the perception of involvement is there. :rose: ""

[sajid hassan]

Chris Losinger wrote: al-Q leadership is apparently currently hiding out in a country ruled by a military dictator, which sold nuke tech to North Korea, which we also love to death (Pakistan). Pakistan is helping USA by capturing any Al-Q member found, and blindly handing them over to your authorities, recently the second most top leader was handed over to your authorities and now the only left is Osama who, if caught will definitely be handed over to you. And what you have given in the past ?? Just taken the money from Pakistan to sold F-16s and in return provided them soyabean oil.

[Chris Losinger]

Sajid Hassan wrote: Pakistan is helping USA by capturing any Al-Q member found and we appreciate it. but we probably would have appreciated it even more if Pakistan didn't let al-Q run around freely before 9/11. -c

---

Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

[Doug Goulden]

KaЯl wrote: The inspections have had more effect about the weapons destruction than the Gulf War 1. See for example the arguments presented by Scott Ritter, a US republican who leaded the previous inpections teams First things first, are you talking about the guy who quit in disgust because he thought that the Clinton administartion was being ineffective in the inpection process? Or the guy who took $400,000 dollars from one of SH buddies? http://slate.msn.com/id/2071502/[^] I honestly can't accept this guy as a impartial observer, I get the feelinng he's in this for the money. KaЯl wrote: Who rebuilt the German Power after WW1 if it isn't US and UK, causing a big sensation of betrayal in France in those days ? This point is often avoided. I wouldn't disagree that the US or the UK helped to try to rebuild Germany, but would it have been better not to? Lets just assume the US had not helped rebuild Japan or Germany after WW2, would you consider that the harsh terms that France wanted to impose might have helped lead to the rise of Adolph H? Its just a thought, but IMHO if the US were to leave Afghanistan or Iraq in rubble after a military confrontation, that would only lead to further hatred of the US in the region. By helping to rebuild a stable and hopefully prosperous nation, hopefully some stability might be brought to the region. That is one of the reaons that a lot of Americans look at the French kind of harshly. I wonder if Hitler might not have gotten so much traction if the French hadn't have come across as being so vindictive after WW1. I'm not making the comment to make you angry, I really wonder if that might be the case. Fanaticism nlike that found in Al Quada or even the Third Reich needs some sort of roots, and I wonder if anger and desperation might tend to be one of the root causes. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

[KaRl]

Doug Goulden wrote: I honestly can't accept this guy as a impartial observer, I get the feelinng he's in this for the money. What about dick chesney? Doug Goulden wrote: I wouldn't disagree that the US or the UK helped to try to rebuild Germany, but would it have been better not to? After WWI the anglo-saxons power were eager to rebuild economically Germany, not to secure the weak Weimar Republic. To reach their goal, they had to play France down, France asking for the reparations of 4 years of War on its soil. I son't say it's the major reason for the rise of Adolf, but it's IMHO the one to explain the diplomatic decline of France during the 30's. Doug Goulden wrote: By helping to rebuild a stable and hopefully prosperous nation, hopefully some stability might be brought to the region AFAIK, democratisation of Afghanistan is for the moment a failure. Except Kabul, the country is still dominated by warlords, and the civil war is not that far. About Iraq, I don't even know if a democratic process should create several new countries. Manipulating a nation from the outside, artificially, is something very risky, even with the best intentions in the World. Iraq has no experience of democracy and our histories show a the democratic feeling doesn't appear in a few days, weeks, even months. Doug Goulden wrote: I wonder if anger and desperation might tend to be one of the root causes. There's always somebody to exploit these bad feeling and try to manipulate the crowd. With an objective point of view, it's a little what is doing your current administration, using the shock of 9/11 to sell its wary agenda for the Middle East.

---

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

[KaRl]

Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I would like to here what the other limit is, given infinite will likely mean certain war. I've made some searches to find the position of my government and this point, and it's not very clear, so I suppose it's a subject of discussion. AFAIK, the foreign ministers agrred on the concept of timetable, but nor the goals described by UK nor an automatic authorization for a war without the final agreement of the security counsil. We have seen the quality of the US evidences in the past, and think we have to be careful. Note: this describes what I think my government wants. It's not always corresponding with my personal views. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Again not looking for an argument but sharing perception. Many of these reports either state or indicate that France has large ownership of these companies. Frankly, it's possible. The french oil companies have made really dirty things in the past, and are IMO always able to do some. I don't trust them, as I don't trust any other oil company in the world. However, we've known several scandals recently related to the links between one major oil company and the different governments. However, at this time, this company was state-owned.

---

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

[Doug Goulden]

KaЯl wrote: AFAIK, democratisation of Afghanistan is for the moment a failure. Except Kabul, the country is still dominated by warlords, and the civil war is not that far I think at this point it seems to early to tell how Afghanistan is going to turn out. I did hear a news report that the Afghan government was going to start a program to disarm the warlord and to try to assert control over other regions of the country. Its going to take a long time to undo the damage that 25 years of war has done to that country, it isn't going to happen over night. IMO the US has to stay engaged and try to assist the people there to find their own way. But I think it is way to early to call the process a failure. For that matter I don't know that a Democracy is going to be where they end up at initially. But didn't the Afghani's have a King and a fairly liberal form of rule before the 1980's? Its going to be interesting. Along the same note, look at the German re-unification. I don't claim to be an expert, but from what I've heard the German people have had some difficulties rebuilding the prior East Germany, and look at the resources they have in comparison to the Afghani's. By comparison the Iraqi people have much more in the way of resources, including their oil wealth to rebuild their country. And from the info I have heard I would suspect that the military is going to go out of their way to prevent damaging the country' infrastructure any more than necessary. I'm mor econcerned about what the die hards will do, it look like Iraq is readying itself for a scorched earth policy. KaЯl wrote: With an objective point of view, it's a little what is doing your current administration, using the shock of 9/11 to sell its wary agenda for the Middle East I don't know if I agree with that, I can see though why you might feel that way though. The US has always reacted strongly to attack whether it was against Japan in WW2, the Cubans and the loss of the battleship the Maine, or 9/11. I don't know that the Bush administration would have led the US along this path if we hadn't been attacked. But I would also admit it has made a hell of a rallying cry. Its kind of the chicken or the egg thing..... Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?