For every time the French saved our asses, we’ve saved theirs twice.
Disingenious argument.
Anyway, fuck the French. They’re good in bed.
If it wasn’t for a multitude of countries France wouldn’t be free.That list includes France. America played a good part in it, but it is far from the only country that helped win World War 2. This idea of every other country helping the US to win is a self centered, pathetic attempt to justify the current pax americana that conservatives feel should dominate world affairs.
America was in absolutely no danger from Iraq. Everyone in the world recognised this except the blinkered and the easily led.
Not exactly. There’s a significant difference in the trials “in abstentia” in France and in the US (or at least in some US states). In France, criminals are indeed tried and sentenced in abstentia, but the sentence is only valid temporarily. Once she’s caught/surrender/whatever he must be tried again (the idea being that a trial can’t be fair if the accused isn’t present to defend himself). The only actual consequences of a trial “in absentia” are conservatory. For instance, the criminal can be held in jail while awaiting his new trial after he’s been caught (assuming he’s been sentenced to jail), his property can be seized if the court ruled so, etc…
On the other hand, in the US (or in some US states, once again), a sentence pronounced in abstentia is valid and doesn’t require a new trial. For this reason, France don’t extrade people sentenced in abstentia, if they aren’t going to be tried again, since according to french law, they didn’t get a fair trial.
Well there was to main reason for denying the flyover. The first one was simply that the french government didn’t think sufficient evidence of the lybian involvment had been provided.
The second one is more complicated. At this time, France was involved in the Chad war. Very roughly it was a long bloody mess, involving on one side the current Chadian (??) governement, and on the other side a rebellious movement, but more importantly the “islamic legion” (Lybian suppletives) and occasionnally the Lybian army and airforce (Lybia had views and claims on the northern part of Chad). France was supporting the Chadian (??) governement, and besides providing weapons, advisors, etc…also had ground troops in Chad, and the french airforce was occasionnaly involved in the fights, both in northern Chad and sometimes IIRC against bases in Lybia.
Both states weren’t in a state of war, they officially just “supported” one of the sides in the conflict. The year before the american bombings, the french president and Khadaffi had somewhat defused the situation, but without lasting results, since the Chad war was to continue for several years. In such a situation, and with its troops directly involved, France was very reluctant to poison even more its relations with Lybia. And facilitating an “out of the blues” (in the sense that it was suddendly coming in the middle of a long franco-lybian crisis) american bombing in Lybia wasn’t considered as a great idea in this context.
Since you’re singling out France, I would add by the way that Spain didn’t allow the US airforce to fly over its territory, either.
Except that’s not what the US govt. said. It said they did have the weapons, and they knew they did. The French said “You don’t know that, you haven’t proved it, and we don’t think you can.” It was therefore the US responsibility to prove it.
As it turned out; the French were totally right to doubt what the US said. Are they supposed to apologise for this? Feel guilty?
And there was no evidence to say that al-Qaeda had any links at all to Iraq, far less any agreement over sharing arms, either. The connection was purely Dubya’s implication and insinuation.
Or, as most people would now agree, it was a case of waiting around while something that didn’t exist didn’t appear. That could pan out to be a very long time, you know. How is their insistence that the evidence be shown before they approve a massive step like a war a bad thing? It’s a good thing, surely? It usually is for most other things. 
Isn’t it?
The only urgency Bush had was the longer the inspections went on the slimmer his excuse for invasion would become.
So anyone who disgreed, and has retrospectively shown to be right, is to be held in contempt? Those bastards! Why couldn’t they have been in the wrong like us!
:rolleyes: Keep clinging to that little raft of denial you’ve built yourself there. It’s afloat in a whole ocean of facts you’ll drown in.
I saw your first post, it was your second that I had a problem with, since it seemed you were restating these items as fact. Perhaps I misinterpreted your intent.
I believe it was also (or mainly) an issue of timing. The US administration wanted the military operations to begin at the lattest at a given date, to avoid, IIRC to wage this war in very hot wheather. Besides, the maintenance of the troops already deployed was costly. And there was no doubts in anyone’s mind (american or french) that this war would be wagged anyway. So, there wasn’t much point in waiting when it became clear that the US wouldn’t get a UN resolution, or even a (non valid, but still symbolic) majority in the UNSC for its resolution in “due” time.
I suspect (but of course it’s only an IMHO) that the US administration really believed that at leat some “WMDs” would be eventually found, so rather backing its stance. But was simply unwilling to wait for an undetermined duration until the inspectors would stumble on some mustard gas.
Of course, there was also the risk that Irak would comply with any UN demand (destroying under control any illegal weapons found, for instance), as they already had begun to do, making the US war looks more and more arbitrary (“They did everything you demanded, and you still want to attack Irak?”).
Anyone who still badmouths the French for being RIGHT when Our President was WRONG is a braindead idiot. Sorry; I meant that they’re addlepated Republicans.
I don’t see how you could have misinterpreted anything. His ignorance is crystal-clear:
(underline mine)
Starving Artist, you need to apologize for spreading ignorance. You have clearly based your entire “French-bashing” folly on a bunch of idiotic misinformation. Perhaps it’s time to rethink your position - and quit listening to the nonsense spouted by those who will do anything to justify this administration’s blundering.
If only it were that simple, you might have a point.
I probably did, out of expediancy, as I hadn’t as yet received further informaion.
As I’ve said here often, all the world’s major countries believed Iraq had WMD; the CIA and the FBI believed Iraq had WMD; Hussein wanted his neighboring countries to believe he had WMD and fostered the belief they really did; he played games for 12 years as to whether he did or not and there was absolutely no reason to think he’d stopped, much less that concrete evidence would prove he had in the next two months; and even Bill Clinton has gone on record as believing Iraq had WMD. Bush knew Iraq had WMD in the same way Kennedy knew Russia was installing nuclear weapons in Cuba. His intelligence services told him so! Please don’t drag out this tired “but Bush didn’t know” criticism. If you expect that any U.S. president can have absolute, first-hand knowledge of goings on inside the borders of a hostile foreign country, you just being silly and refusing to face reality. No president knows any such things as an absolute, and I’m sure you know it.
As I said, they didn’t know they were right, anymore than we knew we were wrong. They’ve been contentious and contemptuous with us for decades.
There was no evidence that there wasn’t either, and the potential synergistic relationship with them was too great to ignore.
Not when you’re racing to try to keep thousands more of your innocent citizens from being killed by you’re country’s enemies.
I hate to be so succinct, but bullshit! You couldn’t possibly know any such thing.
Faulty premise. Addresses views I haven’t expressed.
You are so close to undertanding. It is difficult to percieve the invisible yet apparently indestructible membrane that inhibits you from the final step.
No, a thousand times no. His intelligence services, gave him a heavily caveated estimate that it was probable, based on sources who were less than fully reliable.
You are quite correct that he couldn’t know as an absolute. The problem is that Bush, the man himself, told the world at large, the very opposite, that his knowledge was absolute. Any number of times.
Did it matter? Damn right. Had he told the plain truth, had he represented what his intelligence agencies were telling him - then the option the French put forward would have been compelling. Weapons Inspections would have concluded and there would have been no war.
But as I said earlier, there’s a large contingent of the US that will never forgive the French for this. Case in point?
You misunderstand. What I said was the US government said “we know he has WMDs”. Not “We think.” Not “We suspect.” “We know.” The French said ; “We think you’re wrong.” They were right.
Of course no-one has full knowledge. You act on the best information you have to hand, and it’s to be hoped that the France and American had the same information. So why wasn’t it enough to convince the French? Unfortunately the US government (and the UK’s) were all too willing to overlook how poor the information was, talk-up the threat, paper over the cracks. And the information was wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. It was lacking in exactly the way the French said it was.
No-one likes a smart-arse. Eh?
I see. So US foreign policy is based on where evidence is lacking rather than where evidence is. It’s the guilty until proven innocent policy! We have nothing on Switzerland, but they haven’t proven they’re not up to something either! The threat of al-Qaeda bombs combined with accurate Swiss timing is too great to ignore! Pack your climbing boots, we’re going in!
And here’s the “War Against Terrorism Justifies Everything” policy. Security analysts agree; the war in Iraq has uniformly increased the threat of terrorism against US citizens throughout the world. Nice job protecting the innocents there, George.
The French were of the opinion that an invasion of Iraq, apart from being unsupported by the available evidence, would not achieve what the US government claimed was its objections. And they were right again, they haven’t. Am I crediting Dubya with too much by supposing that he had an alterior motive? Or is he and his administration really just a bunch of clueless klutzes?
ulterior.
I recall reading an article online by one of the necons* a year or two ago in which the issue of French attitudes towards the Libya airstrikes and the first Gulf War were discussed. Essentially the article said that the French were willing to participate in action against Libya, provided the goal was replacing Khadafi rather than just sending him a message.
The article also said that France similarly preferred a replace Saddam campaign in 1991 to the US strategy of reversing the agression but leaving him intact. That is, if we are going to go to war with Saddam (and peaceful resolution is preferred) then we shouldn’t do a half-assed job of it. Not saying I agree necessarily though.
The jist of the article was that the French government was in general more in favor of strong measures and finishing the job as it were, as long as there were at least nominally reasonable casus belli.
*how’s that for useless attribution?
Starving Artist:
Does the fact that they were right, and courageously so in standing up to us, make no difference to you here?
If this is so it would mediate my feelings toward France (i.e., it’s government, **Zoe **:)) more than a little.
I suppose France, given its proximity to Libya and Iraq, didn’t want to be a sitting duck in the event Khadafi or Hussein were left in power, and I could certainly understand how they could be reluctant to join us given that we would be relatively impervious to retaliation whereas they wouldn’t. You can’t fault a government for trying to protect its own people.
(And, just for the record, I couldn’t believe that Bush Sr. would just withdraw like he did, after encouraging rebellion on the part of Iraqi citizens, and just leave them to be slaughtered like they were. I also couldn’t believe Hussein allowed to retain power. Perhaps he agreed to these things as part of his pre-war coalition building. But still, I’m generally against pulled-punches wars, just as I was against pulling punches in Vietnam, although admittedly an all-out war there would have risked a war with China.)
However, I’m still somewhat skeptical. I could see how France might want to keep these sentiments behind closed doors as Libya and Khadafi still wouldn’t look too kindly upon it once the U.S. military action was over. And if such was the case, I could see how France would be inclined to tell us to stuff it when we went back to ask for their help now.
However, that doesn’t account for the apparent friendship and camaradarie between Chiraq and Hussen, and France’s efforts to not only withhold its own assistance but to fight to persuade other countries not to join us. France actively worked to thwart us – when it knew the extraordinary threat we were/are are under and the type of attack we were striving to prevent – and to me that says France just really didn’t want Hussein replaced, for whatever reason, and that it was determined to do all it could to prevent it.
You mean from those WMDs that we still jhaven’t found?
Or that they realized the whole “Iraq is an imminent danger” claim was bullshit, and didn’t want to participate in an immoral invasion built on false premises.
It’s really not nearly that simple. In the first place, it isn’t a case of their knew the truth wehreas we foolishly didn’t, it is a case of both countries holding certain beliefs. They believed Hussein didn’t have WMD (or least they claimed so), and we believed he did. Events thus far have shown what they believed (or claimed they did) to have actually been the case. But they didn’t know Hussein had no WMD, any more than we knew he did. And don’t forget that Hussein himself was duplicitious in creating the confusion as to whether or not he had them, and he’d been doing so for 12 years. He wanted his neighbors in the region to think he probably had them. And besides, whether he had them at the moment or not, he was working to develop and/or obtain them. Had that happened, such weapons could easily have fallen into the hands of al-Qaeda. I know you and many of the other posters to this board disagree, but I think the synergistic relationship between the two is undeniable.
And secondarily, I don’t see much courage involved in running around the world working to prevent a country that had suffered an attack like 9/11 from taking action to try to prevent such a thing happening again. I see arrogance and obstinacy and a desire not to be thought of as America’s puppet, and I see a symbiotic relationship between France and Iraq that France seemed to value more than its relationship with the U.S.