http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81787,00.html
This article details french oppostion to post-war administering of Iraq …
Have the french made their point and now isn’t it time to move on ? Will this not hurt the Iraqi people further by preventing the admin of their country after the hell they have been through these past dozens of yrs ??
Have the french offered an alternative ? Can they, or are they just saying no without regard its consequences ?
Yes, Klas. He’s yet again being petulant in the cause of “notice us! pay attention to us! We’re a world power! No, really, we are!”
I think they just want to be in control without having to have their hands dirty.
They are already positioning themselves (using the UN) to gain a prize they neither worked to get or supported.
I think Chirac just doesn’t want the US and Britain to administer the government. He probably envisions the UN running it as a body. This is something the US should take seriously, since ending our presence as soon as it is practical is in our best interests.
So Iraq is a prize now? I thought it was a country in need of “liberation”
Iraq is not the prize. The prize is the gratitude of a liberated Iraqi people.
The worst thing about the French is that they are so very French.
This is just politicking for additional power. Let’s face it, France has been trying to treat the EU like its personal hegemony for a while–consider how they insisted that Portugal be held to budget austerity measures but that France should be exempted. And, of course, there is the infamous “they missed an opportunity to shut up” speech…
Naked aggression should not be rewarded. I think the French have taken the only position to take towards two countries that have decided that international law should no longer be respected. This preemptive doctrine that the US is now operating under can quickly get out of control and needs to be stood up to right now, otherwise serious problems could ensue.
France and Germany?
Assuming, arguendo, that you are correct, doesn’t an ineffective stand actually cause more harm then good? France has destroyed the relevance in US eyes of the only institution that could possibly constrain the US - and the US’s actions were not affected.
So if you are correct, France has made the world more dangerous rather than less dangerous.
Sua
I believe France’s behavior now has the exact same motivation it has had all along: it is turning America’s unilateralism to its own advantage. Chirac has seen from early on that America was going to pursue exactly the policy America chose, no matter what France said about it. By opposing America, France positions itself as the Arab nations’ friend and supporter. So much the better to arrange trade treaties and oil agreements after the war, by posing as the “good” Western power, not like those nasty Muslim-hating* Americans and Brits.
then we should set a shining and definitive answer to these islamic propagandists and build Iraq to what it was before Saddam ruined it and foster equal treatment of the Jews and the Muslims. Lets give back to the Iraqis the dignity and pride they have lacked under Saddam’s oppression and show the world that we did not invade iraq to capture a slave, but we went in there to help a friend.
Cut the bull people, this war is not at ALL about liberating the Iraqi people! Bush doesn’t give half a hootnanny about the freedom of the Iraqi people.
It is about the national security interest of the US, if Saddam was a totally democratic leader, Bush would still be going in.
France has taken this position because the US is very unpopular in France and Chirac gains popularity in this way. Also because they don’t like American unelateralism (and rightly so). Another issue is the fact that France has important oil interest in Iraq which might be harmed in the war.
the blunder on the part of France is threatening to use its veto power, there was no need since I don’t think the US had majority in the security council to begin with.
No blunder. The SC of the UN doesn’t operate by popular vote. If one member of the SC uses its veto then the resolution fails.
Marc
Cite?
Cite?
You know, this is great debates. Your not just supposed to talk out your ass about any opinion you happen to hold.
Quite simply, Chirac obviously wants to be the next Napoleon. Not an emperor by force, but rather of politic and platitude. Let’s check some of his recent pronouncements, from the most recent:
France (that is Chirac) will determine what will happen to Iraq after the war
France will veto any UN resolution for war
Those pathetic Eastern European countries missed a good opportunity to keep quiet.
In other words:
[Chirac]
My word is law. You will obey! How dare you question the superior wisdom of your Emp^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HFrance?
Hey, what are you peons laughing at?
[/Chirac]
The guy’s a fruitcake and a hypocrite. Once Hussein’s regime is wiped away and all those juicy oil contracts with french companies disappear, France will have completed its slide into irrelevancy, along with the UN.
For the US, the UN only exists now (ironically) so that we can exercise our veto to keep them from going completely nuts against the US.
Fugazi:
Do you really need a site stating that Bush is going to war not just to liberate the Iraqi people??? Then the US might as well start invasion plans for a dozen other oppressive regimes around the world to free those people too. Liberating the Iraqis is just a nice side effect of getting rid of Saddam (the main goal). I’m entitled to state what I want and I think most people will agree with me on the assertion that the point of the war is NOT to liberate the Iraqis, it is to eliminate the threat of Saddam, and if you really need a site to convince yourself of this then I don’t know what planet you are living on.
MGibson:
The veto vote is not always necessary in the SC, if you already have a majority in your favor, you don’t need to veto. Threatening to use the veto vote simply gave the US the excuse of saying the this issue could not be resolved at the UN.
The France can’t vote “nay” without using their veto. Their position on the issue is “nay”. So was the position of the majority of countries in the SC.
The views expressed by Chirac is shared by the majority of western european countries, as well as China & Russia. It is shared by the overwhelming majority in Spain although the administration officially sides with the US. In no “aye” country other than the US is there strong public support for the US policy.
So this french-bashing only embarasses the US and the people carrying it out.
RandySpears-The France can’t vote “nay” without using their veto. Their position on the issue is “nay”. So was the position of the majority of countries in the SC.
Are you sure? I was under the impression the veto was used after the vote. It seems otherwise you handcuff the veto holders to not being able to follow the majority and vote their concience at the same time.
Then Russia, and China would aslo have vetoed right?
Why is all the attention against the French? most of the world is against this war. I think that whole “freedom fries” thing is the dumbest thing I ever heard.
CarnalK:
No, the permanent members have only the opions “aye”, “naye” (which mean veto) and abstain from voting. The US/UK position, as i understand it, was that France should abstain from voting.
This is by many viewed as a big flaw with the veto system, including me. The US on the other hand has been a supporter, and has on numerous occassions alone blocked many a resolution, by the use of it’s veto.