Dear Mr. Chirac.
I have some ambivalences about the current war in Iraq. I am not a flag waver, nor do I believe in knee-jerk support for a leader in time of war.
Your posturing at the United Nations has been unfortunate, a transparent tactic to erode support for the United States because of your nations longstanding Napolean complex. All the same, we can do without you.
But now you are threatening to veto a U.N. resolution that would help establish order in Iraq once the shooting stops.
Chirac, you are a silly fellow. I can no longer take you seriously. I want to smack you with baguettes soaked in Grey Poupon. I want to smear escargot on your tie. I want to beat you with a strap – it’d be a Jacques strap! I want to change the beeper on your clock radio to sound like the yapping of a French poodle (freedom poodle?) and I want it to go off at random times during the night. I want to call you up and impersonate Jerry Lewis. Or maybe I could tell you a joke like “What do you call 100,000 Frenchmen with their hands in the air? The army.” You are a subtwit. You are, mon ami, what we might call le ass beret. I fart in your general direction.
If you’re going to insult a Frenchman in his own language, you would make less of a fool of youself if you at least used correct grammar/spelling. It’s *s’il vous plait, * with an accent on the “i” in “s’il” that I have no patience to code at 2:30 am.
Speaking of which, I was at Friday’s today, and ordered some fries. The waitress laughed and said, “Oh, freedom fries!” I laughed back and said, “No, enslaved fries!”
GeeDubya puffs out his sparrow chest and gets all huffy about how he’s going to have his vote, yessirree Bob, gonna see everybody’s cards, he ain’t backing down, not our GeeDubya…
Takes a quick “whip count” and finds out he’s about to be seriously embarassed. Gonna lose, and big.
So then he says he doesn’t need the 2nd resolution (legally, he did), the previous resolutions give him all the authority he needs (which does for bullshit what Stonehenge does for rocks) and says its all France’s fault.
Isn’t it blindingly obvious that if he could have gotten a majority vote from the Security Council, he would have gone for it? Even if France vetoed it, he could claim that majority as moral authority, if not strictly legal authority. He was gonna get clobbered, so he blames France. He’s peeing on your shoes and telling you its raining, and you buy it.
I for one think the threat of veto “under any circumstance” contributed equally to the damage done to the UN by GWB’s administration. That was just stupid. Anyway, Chirac’s a well-known fucksock.
Here we have the essential failure of the UN’s veto system: One country in the right spot, for good or ill, can bring the process to a halt by merely saying it will veto anything pertaining to a pertinent issue, regardless of the item’s content. Since any one nation can veto without external ratification, this puts the whole at the mercy of any one of the parts.
Think how the Senate would run if any state could unilaterally kill a bill. Imagine how effective and fast it would be. Just try.
The UN is salvageable. It is worth salvaging, too. But the whole notion of unilateral veto must be eliminated before that can happen. The entire purpose of voting, majority rule, is eliminated when any one body can kill the process.
What are you talking about, it was the expressed majority view of the fifteen on the Security Council, even the majority view of the five permanent members (those with the power of veto).
The minority view was held by approx four of the fifteen, including the UK and the US, and by two of the five permanent members (same).
Chirac said he would veto any resolution under any circumstances that was an automatic trigger to war. The resolutions that the Brits and US were talking about were just rubberstamps for war. They were not pushing further time or investigation. France disagreed that war was needed now and so said it would veto any resolution that called for war now in meaning if not in word.
It is now saying the UN should be 100% in charge of reconstruction. Not the US or the UK but the UN. I agree.
I hate the fact that I’m on the same side as fucks like Chirac and Piers Morgan from the Mirror newspaper in the UK but c’est la vie
And there are none more adept at doing this than the United States.
The United States pull out their veto with monotonous regularity. But when the French threaten the same they throw a tamtrum and say they’re going home.
The US regard for the UN only lasts as long as the UN falls in with US objectives. The moment it fails to do this it ignores it.
And why should the US and the UK oversee who controls Iraq? Either this war is in accordance with previous UN resolutions, as Bush would very much have you believe, or it’s an invasion outside of international law. If it’s the former then it’s not up to any individual country who gets to be in charge and Chirac is entirely correct. If it’s the latter then he’s correct again, but for different reasons.
I was going to start a thread entitled “Help me hate Chirac more” but this one will probably hit the bill. Anyone care to go over all the asshole things he’s done?
Sorry, dude, this is the wrong issue to be pissed at Chirac over. France’s stated position is that the Hussein regime should NOT be toppled by military force at this time. The US and UK are taking his ass down anyway. Obviously, France isn’t going to give the thumbs up to having those two leading the rebuilding effort alone. The countries who were against the action are going to want a say in how the rebuilding goes, along the lines of “You shouldn’t have done this in the first place, so I’m going to make sure you don’t screw it up more.”
Chirac blew it big time. Not only did he fail to avert the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq; he managed to cause France to forefeit approximately 36 billion Euro worth of oil contracts with Saddam Hussein’s soon-to-be defunct regime.
Chirac wants French involvement in post-Saddam Iraq so he can salvage any hope of furthering France’s commercial interest in that country. Chirac knows that without further French or U.N. influence, all of the key reconstruction contracts will go to British, American, Japanese, Spanish, Dutch, etc. firms.
The people from Bovis, Bechtel, Clark, Halliburton, BP, ExxonMobil, etc. are already making plans and submitting bids to rebuild, repair Iraqi roads, oil fields, infra-structure, schools, hospitals, etc.
After all the “big” contracts are awarded, the French will simply sell cheese, wine, and perfume to middle class Iraqis.
Futile: Exactly. Nobody should have that kind of power. It makes the whole UN rather, well, futile.
London: I didn’t mention any specific instances. If France’s veto would have been the will of the council as a whole, why would it need the veto to get its way? A majority vote would suffice. But if France wasn’t speaking for the rest of the council, it shouldn’t be able to hold the majority hostage. Nor should the US, for that matter.
Well Brutus you should very carefull with things you post. After all Big Ashcroft (is that his surname?) could be watching you.
You do realize of course that many dopers are dirty foreigners who hate america and would use any excuse to trash it?+
So how can you sir have the audacity to post that picture? Don’t you realize that the antiwar crowd is going to use this for an attack to your glorious leader. You should be advised, I sent that link to all my hippies friends and also to the FBI, in my mail I wrote that I found that piture here and pointed a big sweaty virtual finger at you.
Pray that they don’t send you to Guantanamo because with a nick like yours (the name of two famous traitors) you are screwed.
Incidentally every time the news mentioned anything that in anyway is related to a) the war b) your soldiers c) America I will be having a mental image of that photo you kindly provided us. I know it is not fair but this couple of days I have learned a very valuable lesson, a lesson that my naive 23 years couldn’t teach me before. That this fucking letrine we call our planet is not a very fair place.
I think there are three ways of looking at Chirac.
One, that he opposes war in Iraq strictly out of altruistic concerns for peace. I don’t buy this one.
Two, that he has a more pragmatic outlook – that war is bad for all sides and there are better ways of going about this. I’ve tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but his actions point me toward …
Three: He is being obstructionist and subversive of Western influence. France makes no bones about believing that it ought to be a counterweight to U.S. superpower influence. When you take that sort of stance, when you play obstructionist for decades, don’t be surprised when people look at you that way.
As for the U.N. dictating how a post-Saddam Iraq should be administered, let’s remember that the United States supplies about 25 percent of the U.N. budget. So France dodges the financial and human costs of supporting efforts to oust Saddam, then demands a voice in how the U.S. is going to spend its money rebuilding Iraq.
From where I sit, France’s role in a post-Saddam Iraq would still be as obstructionist, just as intent on undermining the U.S., as it is now.
Zoot-suit alors, but zee language flame is so – 'ow do you say? – poulet merde. In fact, m’sieur Chirac eemself is so much the poulet merde. I want to pour out my expensive French wine on him, by way of my bladder. I want to put him on a diet of vichyssoise – and make him eat it warm. I wish to pin his nose shut with a frog leg. He is a silly, silly fellow. I laugh at his cuff links and sneer upon his lapels.
