France, who has had a long and distinguished record of bold-faced treachery on the geo-political stage, has just outdone itself.
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.
Brilliant. :rolleyes:
Good point - I guess I hijacked my own OP. Sorry about that.
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.
Strange, I thought Brazil held the World Cup. Or could this be an example that you know very little of what you speak???
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?
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.
I’m glad you agree…
Exactly!
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!!! 
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. 
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. Of course, what all foaming-at-the-mouth France-bashers seem to forget, is that countries like Germany and Russia 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.
We’ve helped Saddam in the past, but it appears that Chirac was doing most of the heavy lifting:
Chirac’s Other Iraq Policy
Old Intimacies Between Bagdad and Paris (in German)
Original OP: before coffee.
Subsequent posts: after coffee.
'nuff said.
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?
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.
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.
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!
The UN and France were going to overthrow Saddam? When and how?