You’d categorise the French government as pacifist? You really don’t know a fucking thing about France, do you?
jon, the interesting part is what’ll happen with Turkey. France, Germany and Belgium are already saying they won’t necessarily back their NATO ally’s defence when it comes to war. THAT is worth a flame. The French government not wanting a war in the first place is just another opinion, and a widely shared one, I might add.
For your information, Turkey DOES border on Iraq, unlike, say, France.
Ok well how about this for a cup full of irony with your breakfast. Turkey was asking for DEFENSIVE weapons such as protections vs bio weapons anti missle weapons. Apparently the French think its more important to appease sadamn and not upset him rather than fufil your obligation to defend your allies and neighbors. I mean i could moreso understand if Turkey was asking for French help to build an invasion force but to deny Turkey DEFENCES in an unquestionably imminent war is an absolute disgrace to that country and an insult to Turkey and they should be deeply ashamed of thier unbelievable behavior.
Coldfire i KNOW Turkey is on the border of Iraq and thats why its all the more outrageous
There’s a difference between getting attacked out of the blue and getting hit back after you hit first.
That is the difference the Germany, france and Belgium are talking about.
Please define “attacked out of the blue” Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting we are just throwing darts at a map and picking random countries to attack next?
No, but a lot of countries think the diplomatic route still has possibilities. Wanting to prevent a US-Iraq war is not a horrible thing, even though you may disagree with the opinion itself.
I see you heartily took my Turkey/NATO bait, but I don’t see you acknowledging the difference between that debate and France’s opinion on the potential war per se. You just took it as another opportunity to curse at the French some more. It was a test of your objectivity, and you failed it.
Gee goldfire a test you trickster you. And here i didnt even get a chance to study. Did i get the extra credit answer right? The point is how can France in its right mind POSSIBLY object to DEFENSIVE measures, a war withstanding or NOT?
sorry coldfire didnt mean to spell your name wrong. And please cite where i “cursed” at the French and fell into your umm “evil?” trap since you entered this conversation this morning.
Not a trickster at all, compadre.
You seem to have missed that I agree with you with regard to France, Germany and Belgium refusing defensive help to a NATO ally. I was offering this as a legitimate gripe, as opposed to calling the French annoying just because they oppose the war to begin with. I can understand the latter, and I can’t condone the former.
You didn’t really curse at the French, I suppose. You do seem to jump from one debate to the other, though. So I suppose I’ll just ask you: can you understand that some nations oppose a war with Iraq (at least at this stage), and do you see that this doesn’t necessarily make them cowards, or annoying?
Coldie. I understand that other countries can and do have different opinions on the war issue. What I cant understand and ive repeated it several times now is what POSSIBLE objection France can have to Turkey setting up now ill say again for "triple bonus emphasis"TM setting up DEFENSIVE measures including protections from WMD. That doesnt make France complicit in a war it doesnt agree with it just allows an ALLY not to get gassed to death with weapons that supposedly dont even exist. With such an imbalanced and insane ruler as sadamn as a neighbor, those resources should be in place REGARDLESS of war imminent or otherwise.
I agree, as stated.
Therefore if not guilty of cowardice they are at the very least guilty of being complete assholes, potentially jeapordizing the lives of tens of thousands of innocent Turkish civilians for no good reason. In fact IMHO if France doesnt back Turkey once war starts i think it should be grounds to remove France from NATO entirely. Then they can natter and wring thier hands all they want. We should make France “irrelevant” just like Arafat. Im sick of them putting other peoples lives in jeapordy so they can be contrary. We dont need them for anything and again IMHO good riddance!
NATO is not an alliance based on certain members needing other ones. It’s an alliance that came into existance to prevent war, to form a united front against the Commies, so to speak. The old thread is all but gone, but the alliance lives. France (as well as Germany and Belgium, it must be stressed) is using its NATO stance as a pressure tool in a bigger context: the UN debate on the war on Iraq. Dishonest, perhaps, but should push come to shove, I doubt France or any other nation would back down from their NATO responsibilities.
If war starts, France (and Germany and Belgium) will back Turkey. the reason they aren’t allowing military buildup is they are trying to prevent war.
The problem i have here is France is exactly using NATO as a pressure tool just as you say. In doing so they are potentially jeapordizing the lives of tens of thousands of innocent Turkish civilians. I honestly think that France will come around as well to be perfectly honest…they just have to make thier traditional international stink though before they do. The way NATO is set up all 19 member nations have to agree to do much of anything involving military issues, so France can hold the whole ball of wax hostage to their whims. And im personally none to fond of the whims of the French. Assholes.
Please explain to me how a military buildup automatically means war? Sadamn can prevent war EXTREMLY easily, military buildup or not withstanding. All he has to do is turn over his WMDs. Since he is clearly unwilling to do this please tell me how Frances position of not helping its allies will further the no war agenda?
<Sorry to keep multiposting myself> In fact it can be reasonably argued that military buildup can PREVENT war. Do you really think that inspecters would be in Iraq this very second if Iraq didnt think that we were willing to put our army where our mouth is?
France et al. are not jeopardizing any lives yet. When war breaks out, European NATO members can have their squadrons in Turkey in a matter of hours. And I honestly don’t think Saddam Hussein is impressed by NATO installations across the Turkey border. Nor is he impressed by the American build-up in Kuweit. You’re assigning him too much rationality: this is a madman who’s abused his own people numerous times before. He doesn’t give a shit if 20,000 Iraqis die in the potential bombings. The fact that the inspectors are in Iraq is due to effective diplomacy. Had this been done by the Americans alone, there would not have been any inspections. Not because the US sucks at diplomacy or anything: Saddam just wouldn’t react the same to the same request, when it was the US demanding access to their weapons supplies. The US IS the Great Satan in his eyes. Handing over all authority to the US in this matter will only lead to more bloodshed, not necessarily because that’s what the US would pursue, but because Saddam would be willing to risk many lives to fight the “Great Satan”. Since the loss of innocent lives is highly undesirable, many nations are arguing for a postponement of the war, and expansion of the inspections.
And how exactly is Iraq going to attack Turkey, given the northern buffer zone let alone inflict that level of casualties? A few scuds possibly? If they have bio warheads (and we’ve seen no evidence they have) I don’t particularly want them blowing up in the atmosphere anyway.
This seems a US straw man.