# Chirac's Latest Announcement **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 10, 2003, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chiracs-latest-announcement/167778 "2003-04-10T13:59:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![chigger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7bcc69/32.png) [@chigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chigger)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chiracs-latest-announcement/167778/21 "2003-04-10T15:13:54Z")
France, who has had a long and distinguished record of bold-faced treachery on the geo-political stage, has just outdone itself. ---
**Author:** ![pennylane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@pennylane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pennylane)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chiracs-latest-announcement/167778/22 "2003-04-10T15:14:02Z")
Were you not talking about righteousness or ethics when you asked us if Chirac knows no shame? I’m a bit confused here… I didn’t realise you actually wanted a debate on the realistic effectiveness of the U.S.'s actions relative to the prime directives of U.S national security. ---
**Author:** ![booka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e0b2c6/32.png) [@booka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/booka)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chiracs-latest-announcement/167778/23 "2003-04-10T15:17:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by alice\_in\_wonderland \* > \*\*Wow **booka**. You’re really an idiot, huh? > > Perhaps you should get that looked at. \*\* Brilliant. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![booka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e0b2c6/32.png) [@booka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/booka)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chiracs-latest-announcement/167778/24 "2003-04-10T15:18:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pennylane \* > \*\*Were you not talking about righteousness or ethics when you asked us if Chirac knows no shame? > > I’m a bit confused here… I didn’t realise you actually wanted a debate on the realistic effectiveness of the U.S.'s actions relative to the prime directives of U.S national security. \*\* Good point - I guess I hijacked my own OP. Sorry about that. ---
**Author:** ![Lizard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@Lizard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lizard)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chiracs-latest-announcement/167778/25 "2003-04-10T15:19:52Z")
**booka** , pretty much agree with what you said, except that the Mid-East’s oil supplies are “strategic” to the United States. The U.S. produces more oil itself than any single nation in the region, and we aren’t even tapping our full potential. I think the political unreast and resultant Anti-Americanism that has fomented in the region for years are more significant. ---
**Author:** ![Futile\_Gesture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f05b48/32.png) [@Futile\_Gesture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Futile_Gesture)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chiracs-latest-announcement/167778/26 "2003-04-10T15:23:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lizard \* > \*\*Hey, did you hear the French national soccer team hasn’t been able to practice to defend it’s World Cup title for more than six months? They lost all their balls. \*\* Strange, I thought Brazil held the World Cup. Or could this be an example that you know very little of what you speak??? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chiracs-latest-announcement/167778/27 "2003-04-10T15:26:23Z")
I think it’s ridiculous to say you’d veto action X, but then when X is performed successfully without your approval to say you’re delighted at the outcome. This is exactly what was intended all along by the military action, if Chirac is delighted with the outcome, why could he not support it initially? ---
**Author:** ![Lizard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@Lizard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lizard)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chiracs-latest-announcement/167778/28 "2003-04-10T15:27:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Futile Gesture \* > \*\*Strange, I thought Brazil held the World Cup. Or could this be an example that you know very little of what you speak??? \*\* Sure, I’ll freely admit I don’t know much about soccer. Guess I was thinking of 1998. Brazil’s always in the mix, so their championships just seem to all blend together. ---
**Author:** ![Who\_me\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/958977/32.png) [@Who\_me\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Who_me_1)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chiracs-latest-announcement/167778/29 "2003-04-10T15:28:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lizard \* > \*\*Sure. I mean, he only kicked all the weapons inspectors out of the country for _years._ But it’s really Bush’s fault. It’s all Bush’s fault. \*\* I’m glad you agree… ---
**Author:** ![Lizard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@Lizard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lizard)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chiracs-latest-announcement/167778/30 "2003-04-10T15:28:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cheesesteak \* > \*\*I think it’s ridiculous to say you’d veto action X, but then when X is performed successfully without your approval to say you’re delighted at the outcome. This is exactly what was intended all along by the military action, if Chirac is delighted with the outcome, why could he not support it initially? \*\* Exactly! ---
**Author:** ![Misery\_Loves\_Co](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7cd45c/32.png) [@Misery\_Loves\_Co](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Misery_Loves_Co)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chiracs-latest-announcement/167778/31 "2003-04-10T15:29:09Z")
What puzzles me is that the author of that narrow-minded thinly veilded peice-of-shit-of-an-OP followed it up with such a well-reasoned, intriguing post (starting with "vitriol aside. . . ") You actually managed to sum up beautifully my underlying impression of this whole mess (unspoken motives, distracted public, pointless uninformed “debate”), and actually scored points against your own OP, in accepting the question of whether or not the U.S. is acting (essentially) like a thug (my read on “dominant nation-state”). Get your act together, **booka**!! Either be a jingoistic, narrow-minded dick-swinging war-hawk asshole, or start a reasoned debate!!! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![booka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e0b2c6/32.png) [@booka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/booka)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chiracs-latest-announcement/167778/32 "2003-04-10T15:35:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cheesesteak \* > \*\*I think it’s ridiculous to say you’d veto action X, but then when X is performed successfully without your approval to say you’re delighted at the outcome. This is exactly what was intended all along by the military action, if Chirac is delighted with the outcome, why could he not support it initially? \*\* I’d figure that Chirac decided that it was in France’s best interests as a nation to not go along with the coalition 4 weeks ago. Then today, he decided that it was in France’s best interests to hail the fall of Saddam, and to declare France’s willingness to help with aiding and restoring Iraq. At least he’s being consistent. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chiracs-latest-announcement/167778/33 "2003-04-10T15:36:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lizard \* > **This seems a lot like typical European hair-splitting to me. I don’t doubt Chirac _is_ delighted. . . . especially since he and his country didn’t have to lift a finger to bring Hussein down themselves. As for “having the U.N. take care” of it, _bullshit_. Many sincere efforts were made to get U.N. backing for this whole deal. They failed directly because of French oposition. To claim that “he wanted the UN to take care of it” is revisionist history, at best.** European hair-splitting. Nice one. What happened, is that the US proposed a resolution allowing for military force to be used against Saddam Hussein. Since the weapons inspections led by Hans Blix were still underway, the Security Council largely disagreed with the US notion that a mandate for military force should be incorporated. [France even threatens to veto the proposal.](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2838269.stm) Of course, what all foaming-at-the-mouth France-bashers seem to forget, is that countries like Germany and [Russia](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2837943.stm) were just as prepared to use their veto right. Or are we just going to get a Putin and a Schroeder thread as well, should they -perish the thought!- express joy at the liberation of the Iraqi people? So, to recap: after years of delays because of Saddam’s stubbornness (yes, **Brutus** , what a surprise! I admit to Saddam Hussein being an asshole!), the weapons inspections are resumed. After a few months, the US decides (together with unlikely partner in crime the UK) that not enough progress is being made (i.e. no weapons of mass destruction are forthcoming, much like when the US finally DID go in, so far), so they propose military action. They really want to get rid of Saddam. Other countries, France included, basically say, “Not just yet. We have finally resumed the UN inspections, and would like to explore this route first”. The US then presents some proof that is later at least partially debunked, and partially fraudulent, doesn’t sway the opposition, gets mad, takes its ball, and goes home to play war in the Gulf. And this is tantamount to “French opposition” to “get(ting) U.N. backing for this whole deal”, as you so eloquently put it? France ratified the UN weapons inspections. French inspectors were part of Blix’ team. France just didn’t agree with the US when the latter proposed a military solution. How in the world does that equate to France opposing a UN solution, or France not “having to lift a finger to bring Hussein down themselves”? Honestly, guys. I can see how opinions can differ. I stop at the complete twisting of facts that seems to occur whenever someone is trying to prove a point that can’t be made. It’s OK to be in favour of this war. It’s OK to think I’m a jackass for opposing it. It’s OK to think Chirac is a Grade A prick. It is NOT OK to accuse Chirac of back-pedaling when all he does is express his delight for the Iraqi people, now that they’re free. If anything, the fact that he _does_ openly state this makes him a bigger man than I would have thought, and as said, I’m no fan of his. ---
**Author:** ![Mojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Mojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chiracs-latest-announcement/167778/34 "2003-04-10T15:36:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Coldfire \* > Fer FUCK’s sake. > > Now, I’m no fan of Chirac, myself. I think he’s a sly bastard that abuses his position of power in the international field as annoyingly as some other current presidents of large democracies I know. > > But the mere fact that he and his government opposed the war **does not mean that he was pleased to see a dictator oppressing a people**. A dictator who was helped to power by one of the forces that are overthrowing him now, we might add. We’ve helped Saddam in the past, but it appears that Chirac was doing most of the heavy lifting: [Chirac’s Other Iraq Policy](http://www.boston.com/news/packages/iraq/globe_stories/030203_chirac.htm) [Old Intimacies Between Bagdad and Paris (in German)](http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/15/0,1872,2018799,00.html) ---
**Author:** ![booka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e0b2c6/32.png) [@booka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/booka)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chiracs-latest-announcement/167778/35 "2003-04-10T15:38:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Misery Loves Co. \* > \*\*What puzzles me is that the author of that narrow-minded thinly veilded peice-of-shit-of-an-OP followed it up with such a well-reasoned, intriguing post (starting with "vitriol aside. . . ") > > You actually managed to sum up beautifully my underlying impression of this whole mess (unspoken motives, distracted public, pointless uninformed “debate”), and actually scored points against your own OP, in accepting the question of whether or not the U.S. is acting (essentially) like a thug (my read on “dominant nation-state”). > > Get your act together, **booka**!! Either be a jingoistic, narrow-minded dick-swinging war-hawk asshole, or start a reasoned debate!!! 😃 \*\* Original OP: before coffee. Subsequent posts: after coffee. 'nuff said. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chiracs-latest-announcement/167778/36 "2003-04-10T15:39:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cheesesteak \* > \*\*I think it’s ridiculous to say you’d veto action X, but then when X is performed successfully without your approval to say you’re delighted at the outcome. This is exactly what was intended all along by the military action, if Chirac is delighted with the outcome, why could he not support it initially? \*\* This isn’t rocket science, kids. The anser is: because the UN option France was backing was aimed at overthrowing Saddam Hussein as well. Therefore, just because the road from A to D passed through B instead of C, Chirac is at least pleased we still arrived at D, rather than back at A with a few thousand bodybags. Is that so hard? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chiracs-latest-announcement/167778/37 "2003-04-10T15:42:59Z")
BTW, has Chirac ever mentioned that he thought it would be a good and proper thing for Saddam to no longer lead Iraq? I don’t hear much news, but I’ve never heard such a thing attributed to him. Now that Saddam is gone, he’s saying it’s so great. It plays out like a backstabbing type of comment, never having a bad thing to say about someone until they’re gone, then you let the vitriol fly. ---
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chiracs-latest-announcement/167778/38 "2003-04-10T15:43:56Z")
**Mojo** , I’ll be the first to back you up when you suggest that the US isn’t the only nation to sway their position on Iraq over the last 15 years, and I wholeheartedly agree that France did this as well. However, we’re talking about the timeline from, roughly, 9/11/2001 onward. France did, during this time, in no way obstruct a UN solution to the Iraqi problem. Period. ---
**Author:** ![Misery\_Loves\_Co](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7cd45c/32.png) [@Misery\_Loves\_Co](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Misery_Loves_Co)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chiracs-latest-announcement/167778/39 "2003-04-10T15:48:47Z")
It’s not hard, Coldfire, but it’s so much less . . . satisfying. It’s far more fun to have someone we can accuse of playing Renfield to Saddam’s Dracula, truth-be-damned. Remember - “If you’re not with us, you’re against us”. So when do we invade France? I hear they’ve got _nuclear_ weapons! ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chiracs-latest-announcement/167778/40 "2003-04-10T15:55:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Coldfire \* > \*\*This isn’t rocket science, kids. The anser is: because the UN option France was backing was aimed at overthrowing Saddam Hussein as well. Therefore, just because the road from A to D passed through B instead of C, Chirac is at least pleased we still arrived at D, rather than back at A with a few thousand bodybags. Is that so hard? \*\* The UN and France were going to overthrow Saddam? When and how? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chiracs-latest-announcement/167778.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chiracs-latest-announcement/167778.md?page=3)