Dunno if I’d use the term “psychosis,” but “dangerously arrogant” would be an apt term.
The Dubya Administration’s foreign policy (when it isn’t ignoring anything outside of the U.S.) is the diplomatic equivalent of flipping off the rest of the world – “We’re the biggest dog on the block, so what we say goes, and f*ck you if you don’t like it.” While the neocons might like such a view because it puts the U.S. firmly at the top of the food chain, those of us who’ve advanced past the fifth grade know it’s a dangerous game to play; you run the risk that enough people get pissed off and unite to kick your ass. Bad enough on the schoolgrounds, where you risk getting a bloody nose or some teeth broken, and IMO intolerably dangerous on a global scale.
Not that I believe George W. Bush thinks about things like that – the neocons underneath him (Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, to name the top three) probably feel this is all in the realm of “acceptable risk,” since (a) American military superiority gives us the edge to fight off the challengers, and (b) the rest of the world still believe in niceties such as diplomacy and the United Nations. George simply takes stage directions from those guys, and gladly accepts it because it fits so well into his simplistic, black-and-white us-versus-them worldview he has.
IIRC, the French and co proposed resolution stipulated a timeline, but when asked* (italics for Elvis), they refused a deadline. I think it is highly disengenuous for those that claim that Franch wanted to dissarm Iraq with the use of force under any circumstances. Because those circumstances where never allowed by the French. They wanted a continuation of the last 12 years period.
Also, IIRC the “tonight” reference was Chiracs vow to veto any resolution proposed by the British when they where working on changing it for a better chance to not get veto’s. France promptly nipped any resolution proposed by the Brits before they where even on the fucking table. And poor France is so misunderstood? They made their bed, sleep in it.
No, Spite, they refused the one-week timeline Bush insisted upon. They did not refuse any deadline whatsoever, or military action whatsoever, or say they’d veto anything whatsoever, as you’re claiming here for some reason.
The appropriate cites are already in place in this thread. Please read them.
Is it that France would have NOT vetoed if the resolution was proposed and that his interview was all a bluff?
Or is it that since there was no proposal presented, France is absolved of any responsibility (vis-a-vis the new resolutions’ derailment) for forcing the US to initiate military action without UN approval?
True. But hearing that his remarks were being taken so grievously wrongly, I am surprised that the Chirac administration didn’t make an effort to correct the record.
One possible inference to draw from that failure is that the record was not in need of correction.
However, having read the above, I am inclined to say the issue is far less cut-and-dried than I originally thought.
That’s right! If the evil French hadn’t FORCED us, by way of their overwhelming superiority in weapons of mass taunting, to attack Iraq, we would never have invaded.
So this was really a FRENCH invasion of Iraq, because they forced us to do it.
Darn those French, forcing a warlike course of action on the peace-loving Bush Administration! Darn them to heck, I say!!
May as well continue the hijack, since the OP is long gone (and it was just a thinly veiled opportunity to insult the Bush administration, anyway).
That France wanted a continuation of the last 12 years is only partially true. Prior to the Bush admin’s hard-line stance against Iraq, France wanted the sanctions against Iraq withdrawn altogether (presumably so that French companies could start dealing with Iraq over, rather than under, the table).
Nothing has changed in Iraq over the course of the past several years. Yet for some reason, we’re to accept that France’s position went from “we don’t think Iraq is a threat, and sanctions should be lifted” to “we believe Iraq is a large enough threat to warrant an invasion”? While this change of heart isn’t impossible, wouldn’t there have to be some evidence that a change of heart had, in fact, taken place? That France called for a few more months isn’t compelling - that’s the same tactic a five year old uses when they want to stay up later. “Just a few more minutes, Mom” is kiddie-code for “you’ll have to drag me upstairs kicking and screaming if you want me to go to bed, because I sure as hell ain’t gonna do it on my own.” If France puts an invasion off long enough, maybe there’ll be an election in the US, and maybe the inconvenient (to France) Bush administration will be replaced by somebody who doesn’t give a fig about Iraq, at which point this whole untidy matter can be pushed aside, and we can go back to more important things.
So, any evidence that France ever had any intention of okaying a war, under any circumstances?
Jeff
As if the people misconstruing it weren’t doing so either deliberately or lazily? Would it have made a difference what you thought of Chirac no matter what he said? Obviously not. Place the responsibility where it belongs.
I fail to see how that has any relevance to the question of whether or not Chirac ever had any intention of supporting a war. Is this one of those diversion things, where you hope to draw attention from a legitimate question by posing a non sequitor?
Jeff
Speculation of future events that will never take place. Would there exist circumstances where France would ok a war? My 2 cents says: hell yeah!
But that’s all speculation now.
Had the United States followed the appropriate, legit process then your questions would have been answered in the real world. And if it then really became clear that France would not authorize war under any circumstances then the war could have been waged with substancially more legitimacy than it has been.
So, the appropriate, legit process to prevent a brutal dictatorial regime from carrying out activities already banned under numerous UN resolutions is to sit on your ass, passing more resolutions, accomplishing nothing, while the brutal dictatorial regime PROSPERS because your supposed allies are actively working to help this brutal regime?
But see, there’s a problem here, in that this argument could be used whenever the US chose to go to war without France’s approval. We could’ve spent 5 years unsuccessfully trying to woo France, and had we gone to war, it would still be possible, at least in theory, to say “Well, if the US had just gone through the appropriate channels, and jumped through the proper hoops, of course France would’ve been on board!” At some point, if you accept the assertion that war is necessary, we would need to say, “Enough is enough, anyone we haven’t convinced can’t be convinced, and we need to get this show moving.” So at what point do we know that diplomacy has failed?
I saw no indication that France would ever concede to invasion, under any circumstances. Would you suggest that, even if we didn’t think that the coalition was going to get any broader, and even if we believed war was necessary, that we should’ve continued to play the diplomacy game just for the sake of putting on a good show? And can you give me a sufficient criterion for assuming that France is not going to go along, ever, under any circumdstances?
Jeff
The appropriate, legit process is to respect the UN charter which your country has signed.
And to get off your high horses, should you currently be giving military and economic support to other brutal, repressive and corrupt regimes in the same region.
Maybe in an abstract, fictional what-if world. In the real world other factors come in to play. Hans Blix set a rough time frame of a couple of months for his work. After that he would have to declare the inspections a success or a failure.
Furthermore, if France would have blocked in absurdum as you seem to believe, world opinion would in all likelihood have shifted in US favour.
But thats all academic. France would not have blocked in absurdum. That’s just a hawk demonisation, manufactured for the american domestic market with poor interest and insight of foreign countries and affairs.
Regarding the OP, I think psychosis is an inaccurate term.
Perhaps the OP is referring to “groupthink”. The classic texts of this phenomenon are Irving Janis’ 1972 book ''Victims of groupthink", and the 1982 book “Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes.” (available from Amazon).