Can we cut the French a little slack now?

The BBQ Pit
61

I’d have a lot more faith in their courage if they hadn’t been profiting handsomely from the “Oil for Palaces” program. France’s position wasn’t necessarily that Iraq didn’t have WMDs, but that there were “no circumstances” under which military action would be authorized, which sounds to me like they wouldn’t have supported it regardless of finding WMDs.

And I thought it was agreed on by all countries that yes, Saddam did have WMDs. It was a question of whether he destroyed them as he claimed.
[sub]French keywords yet to be mentioned, but will be soon: antisemitism, Eurodisney, Jose Bove[/sub]

62

It was compellingly obvious to me, here on the inside, in the US and subject to US patriotic media influences, that the events of 9/11 had absolutely positively nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. (And that even if such were not the case, the blithering idiots in Washington who were pursuing this course of action had done such a pisspoor job of making the contrary case that it was compellingly obvious that it was the wrong foreign policy decision to make).

I cheered the French at the time, and I was among the protestors who turned out in force, worldwide (me of course doing so here in NYC, home of the Hole In The Ground Formerly Known As the World Trade Center, along with a pretty hefty crowd of folks with similar sentiments)

The absence or presence of WMD is almost completely irrelevant to the fact that the French were right and that we had no business pursuing this war or trying to get other countries to follow our foolish lead.

63

Personally, I never thought this war was in the strategic interests of the United States, so it doesn’t really bother me that France opposed it. YMMV, I suppose.

64

And I think that the absence or presence of WMDs is fairly irrelevant to the fact that Saddam was not cooperating with the UN Weapons inspectors. I didn’t want us to go to war, but I wanted it to be because Saddam pulled a Qaddafi and decided to comply.

I don’t think this is a case of “we were right, they were wrong” or vice-versa. Post 9/11 we (the US) decided that Saddam’s non-compliance was something that needed to be addressed and dealt with by force if necessary.

65

So France is in big trouble now that it’s lost its symbiotic partner ?

I can’t even begin to understand this… So you suspect that Saddam Hussein was going to suddenly turn around and start arming Al Qaeda with the non-existant WMD ? Had SH supported Al Qaeda in the past ? Did Al Qaeda need SH to arm them ? Wouldn’t Pakistan be a more likely source of weapons ?

In what way was the relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein synergistic ?

66

Did you bother to read your cite?

Is waiting for the inspector’s report before going to war really that unreasonable? We don’t know for sure, but it is certainly possible that the discovery of WMD or the expulsion of the inspectors by Saddam could have led to a UN sanctioned war. What was happening, though, was that the inspectors were going to the places where US (I mean Chalabi) intelligence claimed there were WMDs and found nothing.

That’s why the “everyone thought there were WMDs” argument is bullshit. Maybe everyone did, once, but new evidence from the inspectors was making this proposition more and more unlikely. Given this, what is the more reasonable thing to do - wait and get more evidence, or give a deadline to make sure the evidence doesn’t come in.

But the war, based on a non-existent threat, non-existent WMDs and a non-existent tie to aQ was perfectly justified in the Bushites minds still. If Bush decided to bomb the North Pole because of the threat of Toys of Mass Destruction and evil elves, SA would be right behind him - can’t disprove their existence, right?

67

So if one of our allies is doing something patently absurd and illegal, but says its doing it to “defend itself” against a phaontom threat that DOES NOT FUCKING EXIST, we should just sit back and not do anything to protest? Bullshit.

We were WRONG. France was RIGHT. The war was stupid, and now Americans who should be alive are dead, all because of George Bush and the other monsters who didn’t listen to France, Germany and the rest of the entire fucking world.

68

:confused: How were they not complying in any significant way? In the '90s you’d have a point, but the inspectors were being allowed into the palaces also. Sure the Iraqis were not strewing flowers at their feet, (might scarce commodities there) but the lack of cooperation, such as it was, was not even close to justification for war right then.

Remember that Saddam did provide information saying the WMDs had been destroyed, which we refused to believe (and tampered with - remember the claim that only the US had copiers that could handle it?) I haven’t seen anyone compare the report to reality, but the bottom line that there were no more WMDs was true. War because of shoddy paperwork?

Bottom line is that Saddam was more truthful than Bush - and that is truly depressing.

69

Saddam wasn’t complying with the inspectors. UN Inspectors want to interview scientists without Saddam’s goons present? Not gonna happen. An Iraqi trying to give weapons inspectors a notebook? That’ll get you hauled off to Saddam’s prisons (as well as a lecture from Blix on how you should find “more elegant” ways to pass info to the inspectors). And while not ever listed as a reason, I’m pretty sure that Bush & Co thought long and hard about the payments to the families of suicide bombers as well.

70

Sorry, forgot the link to the notebook thing.

71

The decision on whether Iraq was complying, was one for Hans Blix and the UNSecurity Council.

Their view: Iraq was complying adequately.

Hence forcing the US to reveal the bad faith it brought to the UN deliberations. It was all pretext & dishonesty.

72

And not having resolution on talking to the scientists is a threat urgent enough to invade right then, at the costs of thousands of lives?

As for the payments - do you really think a suicide bomber wouldn’t have done it if Saddam hadn’t given some money to families? Do you think that Saddam paid all of this by himself. Perhaps, just perhaps, there are one or two more countries in the region from which money was obtained - perhaps some that funded the bombers themselves, not gave charity to their widows and families.

Or do you think that if a murder is shot down by the police anyone giving charity to his widow should be shot too as an accessory to murder?

Yep, 900 American lives is sure worth it to stop Saddam giving money to widows.

73

Yes it is. Except you, like the Bush administration have spent the last doing the utmost to muddy the waters, throw weasel words about and backtrack on what was said previously.

The point is that France was of the opinion that the US did not have adequate proof to warrant an invasion. End of story. You can sit there flipping “believes” or “who knew what”, or “who thought they knew what” or even, god help us, “who said what they thought they knew when they actually thought another thing.” The bottom line remains; the US failed to prove its case to the French satisfaction and it was their responsibility to do so. It was not up to the French to prove otherwise. So they were perfectly with their rights to decline to join in. And the French were right. I totally, utterly fail to comprehend why they should be criticized for this. Quite the reverse.

As for accusations of ‘undermining’. Just who exactly was it that was undermining the United Nations, the only international body with any legal rights to enforce Iraq’s weapons, efforts? Who was it that was running around prevent it from establishing the facts? Who was it that stopped them concluding that no WMDs were in Iraq? Peacefully? Without a single shot? It wasn’t France.

Until you produce evidence of either;

a/ Real links between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
b/ Proof that Iraq was any threat, whatsoever, to the US or its allies

Would you kindly stop playing the 9/11 card. It’s insulting, irrelevant and isn’t fooling anyone. There was no proof either before the invasion, and there’s certainly no proof now.

And as I have pointed out; all Dubya has done is increase the chances of another terrorist attack. If he thought his actions would prevent this he’s even dimmer than we thought. You should be thanking France for trying to save the US from its own reckless, stupid, government’s actions.

I see France valuing a relationship with facts and reality, and a reluctance to join in Bush’s fantasies, schemes and vendetas. When a someone is being led astray who’s their true friend? The one who tries to stop him, or the one that joins in?

74

I don’t think there has ever been a friendship or camaradarie between Chirac and Hussein. But Chirac, IMO is in “realpolitiks”, and proved a number of times he had no qualms dealing with less than savory characters. And if you’re refering to the 70’s/80’s, remember that it was the time when the western countries all played the Hussein card in the middle east.

Indeed. The US governement made everything it could for its stance to prevail, twisting some arms in the process, and the french government did exactly the same (some testimonies about the pressures some minor countries who hapenned to be member of the UNSC at the time are telling). What do you expect? France didn’t want a war to be wagged at this time in these conditions, thought it was a major issue hence did whatever she could to prevent it. I could as well say : why did the US fought to persuade other countries to fight this war when France was opposed to it? The USA actively worked to thwart France. Doesn’t it go both way?

Stop playing this card. Everybody knows the war in Irak had nothing to do with an (unexistent) threat from Irak the US was under. France sent troops, planes and ships to Afghanistan which was actually a threat, for instance. But in the Iraki case, the US administration could have had a number of reason to fight this war, but most certainly not any kind of alleged “threat”.

First, it wasn’t an issue of remplacing Saddam or not. As I said above, I don’t think that Chirac feel that much concerned about having bloody dictators in charge. Of course, it would be fine and dandy if they weren’t there, but as long as it comes with a cost, he’s not necessary willing to pay this cost. Especially if the bad consequences seem to outweight the good ones. That’s the only thing which was taken into account, IMO.

I mentionned at least a couple times the main reasons why, IMO, the french governement was opposed to the war in Irak (not by the way that it wasn’t necessarily the case at the beginning. The french president made a couple public speeches were he warned the nation that french troops could have to be sent to Irak. But given the way things evolved, it became obvious after some months that there was no way both countries could come to any kind of agreement on the Iraki issue). I probably won’t remember all of these reasons, but out of my head and briefly, some of them :

  • As for the “WMDs”, for what I understand, though I don’t think it has been stated officially, the french government thought that Irak had some (sarin gas, for instance, and troops to be send to Irak were to receive NBC equipment) but in small quantity, and probably unusable for the most part due to old age, lack of maintenance, etc…The french view was that not only Irak wasn’t a threat for western countries, but not even in a shape to be a threat for its neighbors.

-Multilateralism, consensus and reinforcing the role of the UN were and are actually a diplomatic priority for the french government and Chirac. Western nations wagging a “preventive war” doesn’t fit well in this picture. France was only willing to back the US position if the Iraki government was refusing to comply with UN demands giving a somewhat valid motive for military action.

-France has a long standing position of not only not aligning with the US (contrarily to the UK) but also to keep it in check. The government doesn’t like at all the concept of a too dominating USA in the diplomatic field. Especially when the US admnistration is completely unilateralist. Limiting the US influence in world affairs is certainly one of the french diplomatic goals.
-Related to this, France is concerned with the US gaining control by proxy (regimes friendly to the US) on the world’s oil reserves (France is essentially 100% dependant on oil imports). Obviously that would include Saudi Arabia and Irak, but also the US policies in, for instance, Venezuela or Nigeria. I’m not talking about “juicy contracts” or such things, but about the concept that someone (the US) could be in position at some point in the future to open or close the oil faucet (you may think that the USA will always act for the greatest good or something, but other nations aren’t necessarily that confident). There was no much guarantees from the US on this issue.
-France has close diplomatic ties with a number of arab nations, and these nations are one of the priorities of french diplomacy. Alienating them by participating in a war fought on very dubious grounds wasn’t perceived as a good idea.
-The french government and diplomats didn’t believe the USA would be able to handle the situation and stabilize Irak, and expected at best a good level of chaos after the end of the war, and at worst that this chaos could spread outside Iraki borders to more or less stable arab nations, or also could result in a new “terrorism nursery” like the one which appeared in Afghanistan during and after the soviet occupation.
-The french population was massively opposed to the war. French politicians also think about the next elections.
Two things I don’t think played a significant role in the french decision though they’re often mentionned :

-Contracts : the best bet if France wanted to keep economical advantages in Irak would obviously have been to support the USA in order to get as much contracts or similar things after the war. Besides, the business interests were worried by the governement stance, and lobbyed for a more understanding position regarding the USA, not against a french involvment.

-The muslim population in France : its political influence is extremely limited (not organized, a lot of people not voting,…).

75

This canard has been discussed a number of times on this board. People have provided links to english-speaking medias reporting the real circumstances of the “no circumstances” statement. I even once gave a link to the actual speech (in french), and translated it. It was entirely related to the last US/British attempt to have a resolution passed, and the “circumstances” weren’t the presence or absence of WMD, but whether or not other countries member of the UNSC would vote this particular resolution. The text can’t be interpreted in any other way if you read it in plain french. It refers all the time to this resolution and nothing else, like other future resolutions, or a general stance re Irak. It never has been a general statement, but a specific one concerning a specific resolution at a specific time. Of course, the “under no circumstances” sentence has been taken out of context and largely twisted by the american and british admnistrations to further their propaganda and paint France in a negative light.
Besides, as I already mentionned, at the beginning (until perhaps january, IIRC, France envisionned a military involvment in Irak. At the time you’re refering to, such a possibility had been written off, but France was negociating (as mentionned in your link) about a delay to allow the inspectors to actually inspect and Irak to comply with possible resulting UN demands, and acccepted, on principle, not to oppose the war at the UNSC, but only if Irak failed to comply (with the inspections/resolutions), not just because the USA felt that the moment was ideal to start the war.

76

They claimed no such thing. George W. Bush claimed that Iraq had WMD and his smug asswipe of a lapdog Tony Blair chimed in with the whole “45 minute” farce. Chirac and Schroeder simply said that there was no evidence that Bush and Blair’s claims were true and that the UN Weapons Inspectors should be allowed more time to complete their inspections before any action could be taken. Not once did either government claim that there weren’t WMD, just that there was no evidence that there were. See the difference?

As it is, France and Germany have been proven correct - there was no evidence, and given the time they wanted, Hans Blix and his team would have proven that there were no WMD in Iraq. Had Bush and Blair not been so caught up in their dreamworlds of being War Leaders and the world listened to France, 10-15,000 innocent lives would have been saved, Al Qaeda wouldn’t have been given the greatest recruitment campaign they’ve ever had courtesy of their sworn enemy, the world would almost certainly have been a safer place than it actually is right now, and perhaps our armed forces could have got on with the job of actually finding and capturing the guy who actually perpertrated the attacks on the Twin Towers, rather than a guy who, it has been proven, had nothing to do with it.

77

Gah! Hit submit too soon.

I was going to add that I for one believed that France in particular, as it took an active stand against a war built on no evidence, should have been praised at the time. War should always be the last resort.

Now they’ve have been proven correct, I believe that they and the Germans deserve a full apology from the American and British governments. It won’t happen of course, which just adds yet another reason to the already Everest-like mountain of reasons for voting Dubya and BLiar out.

78

I am not mad at France for the Iraq incident. True, France did it for reasons of cowardice and greed, but so? No- France has been a worthless sack of shit since Napoleon. Other than the Italians- no one has less reason to feel superiour over others than the French.

79

Ok, do you have any cites for France blocking efforts to go after Al-Qaeda or the Taliban?

80

Can I have some of whatever you are smoking? :rolleyes: