Okay. I give up. The French are bastards...

The BBQ Pit
1

THIS LINK is to the article that’s got me all hot and bothered.

When the French opposed the war in Iraq, I couldn’t really blame them. Hell, I agreed with them on some major points. I didn’t trust our President, I didn’t think there was sufficient reason for a war, and I didn’t trust Bush any further than I could throw Saddam Hussein when it came to ending the war, setting up any kind of stable nation there, finding any WMDs, or getting our boys the hell out.

Admittedly, the French can be irritating, sure. But I didn’t think they were necessarily wrong, and I refused to bash them for opposing our war on moral grounds. And I thought that “freedom fries” nonsense was a bad joke.

…but now, I’ve had it. I mean, I’ve really had it. Any government that would pull this kind of stunt has NO room to preach, NO claim to the moral high ground. This is goddamn blackmail on an international scale, and I for one will laugh like a bastard if some crazed Islamic fundamentalist hijacks a croissant wagon or whatever and uses it to blow up the Eiffel Tower.

In a nutshell: The UN and Libya have been negotiating for many years now to reach an agreement on Libya’s acceptance of responsibility for the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. This agreement will involve reparations to be paid by Libya, among other things. We’re talking a real step in the right direction, here.

…and France has, out of the blue, hinted that they will VETO this agreement in the Security Council… unless, as a part of the whole negotiation process, Libya agrees to raise the amount of compensation PREVIOUSLY AGREED to be paid for the 1989 bombing of a French airliner.

Man, with allies like these, who needs screaming homicidal Islamic fundamentalist terrorist maniacs?

2

It’s a negotiating tactic and a diplomatic opportunity. Just because it’s not reported as much, do you think the US doesn’t use strong arm “hints” to get better deals whenever it can ? Doesn’t puff it’s chest out to show the watching crowd it’s a real player ?

All I can see is business, realpolitik is all. Did I miss ?

3

Well, yeah, but I already KNOW that OUR government is full of scumheads.

I expected better from the people who wanted to take the moral high ground over the Iraq war, for potato’s sake.

And I still think it’s a slimy tactic. These negotiations have been going on for more than a decade, now, from what I understand, in some form or fashion, and I have been led to believe that they are on the ragged edge of being sealed and agreed upon…

…and then France wants to hijack the whole thing to milk a little more money out of a dead cow, to mix a metaphor?

Bastards.

4

I was with you on every point but this one.

I’m not your mom; I’m not going to bother lecturing you. But this is the first disagreeable thing I’ve seen you post, and I’m disappointed that you did it.

5

So France isn’t a wonderful, saintly country always looking out for truth, justice, and freedom around the world. (That would be Canada. :wink: ) We DID know this before… As despicable acts go, it rates pretty low on the despic-o-meter. A stupid, self-interested, unhelpful thing to do.

But…

… Jesus Christ, that’s pretty sick.

6

Point: No one lives in the Eiffel tower. Property damage can be funny. I however disagree that specific instance would be all that funny. I’d still laugh, though.

7

“Point: No one lives in the Eiffel tower”

No one lives there, but the place is crawling with tourists at all hours. People would still die and I doubt all of them would be French.

Sanscour

8

No one lives at the Hoover Dam, either. That sort of property damage would probably cause you to spit spray soda on your monitor or something, huh?:rolleyes:

9

Well, in all honesty, Casey is quite right; if nothing else, it could fall over and land on the Louvre, or something. And yes, I know the Louvre isn’t anywhere near the Eiffel Tower… I was making a joke.

…as I was when I mentioned a croissant wagon. It occurs to me, however, that in the wake of other events of the current time frame, perhaps some might regard this joke as being in poor taste. I certainly do not wish any harm to come to any innocent French folks, any more than I wish it upon innocent New Yorkers, or innocent Iraqis, for that matter.

If I have offended anyone with my admittedly half-cocked japes, admittedly made in anger, I offer my sincere apologies.

Unless, of course, you are an official of the French government, in which case you may go “ayez le sexe avec vous-même.”

And I mean that in the New York manner, not the French.

10

Yes, I’m afraid you did miss.

I know some of the families affected in this incident. This compensation package, although obviously of some comfort to them, isn’t the main goal. The main goal is to answer some of the many outstanding questions on how this atrocity happened. This settlement was actualy part of the process of bringing libya into a full inquiry on the bombing (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3149883.stm )

Some of the most searching questions have been asked by campaigners such as Jim Swire, whose daughter died in the explosion. There’s long been doubt and suspicion over the official explanation,with many valid questions unanaswered. The families of the victims deserve to have these doubts and questions addressed.

So this tactic by France may be just dealing and realpolitik, but it’s at the expense of people who have already suffered endured many barriers and delays in their search for answers.

Frankly, it fucks me off completely.

11

The Eiffel Tower is roughly equivalent in significance to the Statue of Liberty. I don’t think anyone would like to see a world icon like this destroyed, despite their not being occupied. Mind you, the SoL was originally French, too, so maybe someone from the US’ll end up blowing it up themselves.

I agree with most of the sentiments expressed above re. the French government, though not “the French”. Chirac is a fuckwad of the highest order, and the majority of the French population dislikes him (for further info on this, read what happened at the last election).

12

Gary - I’m sure you’re fucked off. But probably not as much as the relatives of the 170 on the Niger plane or the 290 on the Iranian plane.
Without knowing much, I understand some of the French position (outside the political manoeuvrings) can be explained by their frustration of how the ‘incident’ (in which only 170 or so people died), has been treated in comparison with Lockerbie - some argue because most of the passengers were either very poor or French (or both, I guess). I don’t know enough yet.

Allegedly, the case has had no media profile outside of France (in the West) and the families of the victims unfairly/unreasonably treated if Lockerbie is the high-profile benchmark, or so the argument (in part) goes. YMMV.

In addition and fwiw, many subscribe to the view that Lockerbie (at least) was revenge for the actions of the USS Vincennes
In July 1988 the US Navy battle cruiser Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner over the Persian Gulf, killing all 290 people on board. It was, of course, claimed by the US Navy that this was “an accident”. Sure. Just one of those little mistakes that happen from time to time. And pigs can fly.”

  • I don’t believe those families were compensated in any way, and their relatives are dead, regardless of ‘intent’. But I’m quite happy to be educated further on the subject.
13

You think only the Lybian government covers things up and does not stand up to its responsibilities? Think again. The USA has just issued a report on the attack on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdag and it is a shameful coverup which makes no sense. And the families of the dead have not been compensated.

Shame on the US government.

14

London, I can honestly say that for once I cannot see what your line of reasoning is.

I am not trying to downplay the significance of any other event - but neither am I trying to connect them. I’m sorry if France feels that the UTA bombing has not received adequate world attention. I’m sorry if they they think that they should have received further compensation, or answers to questions. If that’s the case, I think they should campaign Libya on those points.

But to cynically threaten a veto on a completely separate affair is pathetic. If that’s the best the current French government can do to seek recompense or further info, then they really are second rate players on the world stage. These are separate affairs, and the people they hurt the most are the families of those killed in Lockerbie.

As for the point of the Vincennes - perhaps that is the case, perhaps it was a revenge strike provoked by this incident. That’s one of the questions that the relatives want to see answered. How does this justify France’s actions here?

15

The French Government view:

“We are determined to have the same equitable issue with this UTA aeroplane which has been bombed by the Libyans as the British and the Americans have reached with the Lockerbie case,” Jacques Myard, an MP from French President Jacques Chirac’s party, told the BBC on Thursday.

“We are not going to accept, let’s say, a different solution on both cases.”

Mr Myard added that talks were under way with Libya."

  • In order for an equitable solution to be reached in both cases, the French argue they are ‘linked’, or more exactly perhaps, of the same.
16

Their excuse is garbage, from the OP’s link

If this is true, that means the French considered it seperate, not linked. They’re royally pissed that they negotiated so poorly for their people, and now are calling ‘foul’! It’s sad and pathetic.

17

Indeed, that’s what the French governement is claiming is the basis for this action. Let me ask you if you think it’s a valid point, or just a blatant lie?

Because when the French struck a deal with Libya, back in July 99 I believe, I don’t recall the US or UK crying outrage that the victims here weren’t getting compensation. And I don’t recall Paris saying then that they couldn’t treat these as separate incidents then.

So why does it work one way, but not the other? Unless it’s just a blatant lie, of course.

18

Once the French accepted the $20m settlement, any possible “linkage” ended.

They negotiated a settlement, and Libya paid it. Case closed.

This is reprehensible.

19

All I’m saying is it’s the basis for Crirac’s action now - that action being grandstanding or * realpolitik* of some description.

And sure, Cricac is trying for the moral highground on the issue becasue it’s worth Brownie points with his domestic audience. Whether it has merits of it’s own, I don’t know.
As I said above, I don’t know the full history. If you want to believe “the French” are “lying”, that’s fine by me. Just looks to me like Chirac’s working his angle.

20

Since no French official has mentioned a veto we can tentatively call this BS. There is domestic pressure fo the French gov’t to show oputrage over the (massive)disparity in the judgements so they are at least putting on a show.

And if true what does it prove? The French play realpolitik too. Well I guess that means they were wrong on Iraq, eh? Feh.