# So now we're going to "punish" the French **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 22, 2003, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454 "2003-04-22T23:50:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Read\_Neck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e19b73/32.png) [@Read\_Neck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Read_Neck)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2003, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/141 "2003-04-27T17:34:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elfje \* > \*\* > > and who has the power to inflict consequences on the United States? An international Security Organization cannot stop the US from going to war, against its wishes. Who then, pray, will ever punish the Americans if/when they act like dicks? > have they not already placed themselves above the law? \*\* A terrorist with 72 virgins on his mind and a nuke in a box. Unless we kill the motherfucker first. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2003, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/142 "2003-04-27T19:25:37Z")
[Sunday Times, by way of Fox News](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85274,00.html) (Sunday Times article requires subscription) > [@](#): > > BAGHDAD, Iraq — France gave Saddam Hussein’s regime regular reports on its dealings with American officials, documents unearthed in the wreckage of the Iraqi foreign ministry have revealed. > > The first Iraqi files to emerge documenting French help for the regime show that Paris shared with Baghdad the contents of private transatlantic meetings and diplomatic traffic from Washington. > > [On the reported finding, a U.S. government official told Fox News: “We have nothing at this time to substantiate it and have not seen the documents the story reports were found. We are looking forward to taking a look at the documents to see if they provide any useful information. [But] Until the documents are provided to the U.S. government or the British government, they stand as just a single news report.”] > > The information, said in the files to have come partly from “friends of Iraq” at the French foreign ministry (search), kept Saddam abreast of every development in American planning and may have helped him to prepare for war. One report warned of an American “attempt to involve Iraq with terrorism” as “cover for an attack on Iraq.” [ **Note Fox’s disclaimer**. That being said, it fits with everything else we know about the French, providing material support to Saddam, laundering the oil-for-food money, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2003, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/143 "2003-04-27T19:28:11Z")
Oops. **december** beat me to that. I should no longer be surprised when people slap those cites up as fast as light. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2003, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/144 "2003-04-27T20:09:10Z")
> [@](#): > > France gave Saddam Hussein’s regime regular reports on its dealings with American officials, documents unearthed in the wreckage of the Iraqi foreign ministry have revealed. So what exactly is wrong with that? Because I don’t get it. OTOH I think it was a shameful thing for the USA to do after the cdecision was made to attack to pretend they would not attack if Iraq destroyed their weapons. Until the las few days before the attack iraq was destroying their weapons under UN supervision and then the US attacked anyway. makes you mighty proud, doesn’t it? So what if the French were telling Saddam the US was going to attack anyway? What did the French do wrong? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2003, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/145 "2003-04-27T21:12:17Z")
Yeah, right. There’s Saddam, blissfully unaware of the gathering storm, picking daisies and frolicking amongst his concubines when suddenly…word arrives from the French! Alert! Alert! The USA is plotting to attack! Saddam gasps with surprise and astonishment! “Call out the guard! Release the hounds! Ship all the Evil Nasties to Syria! Order another gross of those ticklers!” Sure. Right. You betcha. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2003, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/146 "2003-04-27T21:27:03Z")
> [@](#): > > One report warned of an American “attempt to involve Iraq with terrorism” as “cover for an attack on Iraq.” No! Who would believe the USA would do such a thing! Ridiculous! What else did the French tell the Iraqis? ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2003, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/147 "2003-04-27T23:45:21Z")
I guess being completely disingenuous about the inspections and disarmament regime counts for nothing. What the French were apparently doing is essentially what the left condems the US for doing during the Iran-Iraq War, where the US provided intelligence to Saddam’s regime. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/148 "2003-04-28T02:56:09Z")
Collounsbury: > [@](#): > > See, my dear fellow, as far as I can see from my following things on an international front and rapping with the international diplo corps, the Iraq issue is not being understood in isolation, as I said it is not a single transaction, it is being understood as part of a longer series of ?my way or the highway? type deals, and worse yet, a growing view the US will talk the talk but not walk the walk ? free trade is good for you, not me?. > > Fair or not, the impression has gotten real credence in solid circles, not just the usual anti-American suspects. Gratuitously engaging in ?pay-back?, I see little upside to this in the context of the big picture. In a response to Xenophon on the previous page, I discussed my thoughts on exactly how we should handle this. I thought they were pretty good. At this point I’ll ask what your thoughts are. If they seem better and more reasonable I will gladly abandon my viewpoint for yours on this. It is a conundrum and I’m not married to a solution. We seem to agree on the conundrum, as you say: > [@](#): > > Well, that is the motherfucking problem in the end, now isn?t it? Indeed. So what is your view as to the best course of action given the problem? > [@](#): > > Scylla my fellow, do live on the same planet? The US treats France as a privileged ally? I am hard pressed to think of a rational for this characterization. Allies, sure, but hardly privileged. GB, yes GB is privileged. France? > > Now, I have to think, how does France need the US more than we need them? The bulk of French trade is EU and Med Basin, although the US market is very important on the margin for key sectors. France is a net creditor nation as I recall so their monetary position, ex-Euro of course which obiviates that, is in not great danger. Where is the greater need I ask myself Their need is twofold: 1. They need our markets, as you mention. 2. They also need us as a military ally. France isn’t much of a power by itself. > [@](#): > > Well, we have upcoming trade neg. following on Doha, and the sticky issue of Agriculture and other sensitive items that need to be dealt with, in re developed countries lowering barriers in key sectors. > > More directly there are a number of outstanding issues between the EU and the US on application of WTO rulings, e.g. in regards to the taxation issue decision (2nd round even), the tariffs etc. It would be helpful not to have a yet more antagonized EU, esp. France and Germany, driving hard for WTO authorized trade sanctions against the US for non-application of the rulings I don’t think we should seek trade sanctions against them. We just need to be obviously and generally less cooperative and friendly, as we are being. > [@](#): > > Well then that is your ignorance. I am beginning to think you worked for Sally. One can indeed manage image and manage perception to achieve positive results. You can call it diplomacy, you can call it building a buzz, you can call it a number of things, but the idea one can not control one?s image is just pure ignorance. I wasn’t with Gutfriend and that crowd, but I apologize for not being clear. I have no problem with spin or managing perception. What I mean is that you don’t let other people’s passing opinions influence you unduly so that you behave foolishly. A case in point example of this might be the matter of Armor in Somalia. Clinton thought that heavy armor would send the wrong impression. He was probably right. On the other hand we sent our soldiers into battle with equiptment that caused them heavy and unnecessary casualties in order to cater to the political impression we wished to create. It was a bad trade off. It usually (but not always) is. > [@](#): > > I presumed when working on the biotech seeds that some percentage of folks were going to be screaming Frankenstein Food no matter what, but only a moron would think you don?t work against that. You fucking manage the image, manage the goddamned brand as it were. Part of that may be spin, a lot of it has to be honest effort, which people should know about and be able to trust. That way you minimize the basis on which you can get whacked and minimize the numbers of the screamers. As I said, I apologize for explaining my position poorly. I agree. My point was there will always be Frankenstein Screamers. You don’t let worrying about them stop you from genetically engineering seeds. > [@](#): > > Don?t give me fucking bullshit and spare me the fucking decemberisms. > > Better than the most optimistic people hoped, what the fuck are you reading? The most optimistic statements has Baghdad falling in days, Americans being welcomed as Liberators and nice clean confirmation of the American position Iraq was a clear threat via NBC evidence. What statements are you referring to? I watched most or Bush, Ari’s, and Rumsfeld’s press conferences. Before and throughout the war the consistently talked about how difficult it could be and that it could take months. I never saw an official source high enough to merit attention saying we would sweep through in days. In fact, Baghdad did fall in days, and esentially without a fight. It just took us to weeks to get there from Kuwait. Whether or not it’s a “Decembrism,” it still happens to be true. > [@](#): > > There is further no small degree of anger over the inability or lack of willingness of US troops to protect ?national treasures? and for the Anglo-American troops having allowed initial looting of ?symbols of power? to get out of hand ? a clear tactical error that has turned into a strategic error. > > Quite fucking wrong indeed. The situation is not disastrous as of yet, but many of the elements of Lebanon c. 1980 are in place. This is not better than expected, this is moderately worse than envisioned, and dangerous. Although salvageable ? presuming someone gets Rumsfeld to stop saying stupid things and riling people up. The looting and chaos thing. Excuse me, these are some pretty big changes going on. This is not a major deal, though some make it out to be. The expectation was that Baghdad would have to be taken street to street, and that it would basically be a bombed out shell by the time it was captured. It was going to be another Mogadishu. We took it basically whole. Nevertheless some serious civil unrest should come as no surprise. We get it here every over much less instigation. > [@](#): > > A good portion of the risk is now gone? Are you smoking crack? What fucking situation do you think there is now? A country basically taken intact with no quagmires or significant horrible atrocities. > [@](#): > > The problem is the population, and the population is no where near as friendly as the Neo-Cons had managed to convince themselves, and now the country is awash in arms, in chaos and lord the fuck knows what happened to the NBC programs. If you think a good portion of the risk is gone, I have a nice fucking super company out here to sell you, priced just fucking right. I need more suckers. And I may buy it. There are a lot of groups out there vying for control and making as big a fuss as they can. What percentage of the populace they represent, I really don’t know. At this point anyway we have gotten pretty far off topic. I lack your middle east expertise. There are problems but it still looks pretty good to me. Very good actually. You disagree. Ok. We’ll find out soon enough, won’t we? > [@](#): > > France is pretty popular in the region right now, they hold cards in re Iraqi sov. debt and have influence. They also hold some precious street cred on principal, which the US with our lack of NBC?s and the less-than-super situation on the ground, could use right now. No shit. That’s part of the reason I argue that we need to address this issue with France and exact some prudent payback. it sure looks to me like they sold us out for credibility and goodwill in the region. They’re supposed to be our ally, aren’t they? You don’t sell out your allies for advantage. I would even maintain that the war might not have happened had France been towing the line. They undermined our efforts. [quote] Bullshit. That?s fucking bullshit, and stupid bullshit at that. Don?t try to peddle ignorant bullshit to me of all people. [quote] Oh come off it, Collounsbury. I grant you insights into the region but not an omniscient viewpoint from which to talk down at me. > [@](#): > > Are you trying to pimp to me that fucking French oil firm story, motherfucker, they had some useless MOUs ? rather TotalFinaElf had them ? that weren?t terribly actionable until sanctions went away, which was clearly not happening. They hold some $8b in sov. to sov. debt, which wasn?t going to be paid anytime soon under the old regime. I don’t know if I’m reading that right. Did you just call me “motherfucker?” That hurt my feelings. I think I’m going to be sad. > [@](#): > > Now the French did have some nice influence with Iraq they thought they could play ? the history by the way ain?t so different from that with Rummy et al, 1980s chumminess when Sadaam was more kosher. Yeeeeeeesssss! As you stress the importance of Cred earlier I trust I don’t have to hear [sub]motherfucker[/sub] > [@](#): > > Sitting a whole lot fucking closer to the region, the French did not see an Iraq war as being a particularly great calculation right now, given the pandora?s box it would open. They also did not like the ?my way or the highway? approach of the Bush Admin, nor the piss-poor and ever shifting justifications for the policy ? that clearly played into pre-existing resentments in re high-handed, and ham-handed policy actions. I disagree, and I don’t think your position offers you any better insights into what the French’s position and motivations were than what I have. I think that France thought they could play opposition to the US very well in a no-lose scenario. Thwart the war, and they’ve got cred and goodwill in the region. If the war still happens, France is now percieved as a friend by Mideast interests that do not like the US. It panders to the terrorists and hopefull diverts their attentions away from France (they do have a history of doing this if yo’u’ll recall the Libya flyover debacle.) Their position is very strong among those oild producing nations if the war or the aftermath go badly and the region is destabilized. **They** are the modern westernized country with goodwill in the region. And, if everything goes great, war and aftermath, they are still our ally, and they know we still have to treat them like one. We still have to take them onboard because A. They our ally and partner B. We’ll look horrible if we don’t to everybody concerned and C. They will have the cred in the region so we’ll **need** them. By opposing us they couldn’t lose in this. This is the problem that needs to be addressed. I am sure the French saw that situation as clear as day and took advantage of it. We need to address that to them and throw a kink in it, so that this kind of thing doesn’t become sop, and more importantly because allies aren’t supposed to fuck each other over like that. You don’t play off your ally. You play with your ally. > [@](#): > > Don?t repeat bullshit december arguments to me, it annoys me. Treachery, no fucking treachery. Serious differences. The US came to the table with a shaky set of arguments, a timetable driven by internal politics and bullshit justifications. The fact the majority of the Sec. Council was unwilling to by the compromised goods is hardly due to French ?treachery,? however comforting and easy the explanation may seem. I disagree. It was treachory for the reasons I outlined above, and I think it’s pretty clear that France was a keystone player in the SC. We still might have had a problem with Russia and China, maybe even a veto, but with France the whole shebang might have worked and it certainly would have put more pressure on Iraq, possibly even averting war. Again just because December says it doesn’t make it wrong. I’m sure OliverH agrees with you but that’s hardly a point in your favor. > [@](#): > > Both sides played to perceived self interest, and frankly I find it moronic to argue the French ?betrayed? the US. They played hardball on the same basis the US played hardball. We came to the table with clearly trumped up and disingenuous arguments that very clearly convinced almost nobody from the get go. The US neg. state was clearly driven by a pre-set military time table, and it showed. I agree that we had a military timetable. So we have that much in common. > [@](#): > > Yeah, I can tell, just like the Administration is strictly big picture, long view. I guess we must have different ideas on the benchmarks then. I’m thinking about the world 20 years from now. What’s your benchmark? > [@](#): > > If you can convince me you have a clue in regards to the dynamics we are facing I might be inclined to give your argument more credence ? I do respect the points in regards to ensuring respect for US ?cojones? however I do not see an understanding of the larger picture. Perhaps, then, we shall just have to differ. You’re opinion of my understanding of “the larger picture,” is hardly germaine. It seems to me that the “larger picture” is primarily composed of having your viewpoint. My arguments either hold water or they don’t. I am not unreasonable. Rather than talking down at me, explain your alternative position and show how it encompasses the larger picture that I have so horribly missed. Then my igorance will have been fought. If I still refuse to see than it is my own stubbornness at fault and not your problem. Vague admonitions that I am missing this ethereal “larger picture” don’t do a lot of good. How would you suggest exactly that we handle ourselves vis-a-vis our French friends? > [@](#): > > In any case, I am getting far too sucked into these convos so I shall have to beg off digging into this further, and shall have to enforce that on myself given my excessivly argumentative nature Had that registered the first time I read your post I wouldn’t have wasted the last half hour replying. That’s my fault though. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/149 "2003-04-28T11:16:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\* > Their need is twofold: > > 1. They need our markets, as you mention. \*\* The US also needs the market they regulate, and far more so. > [@](#): > > \*\* > 2. They also need us as a military ally. France isn’t much of a power by itself. \*\* They do? Funny. They have precious few people with any intent to attack them, and quite a bunch of troops and nukes to deal with anyone woul would anyway. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I don’t think we should seek trade sanctions against them. We just need to be obviously and generally less cooperative and friendly, as we are being. \*\* Less cooperative with the French? Would be a bit hard, given that in any relation that matters, the French are representative of the EU. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I wasn’t with Gutfriend and that crowd, but I apologize for not being clear. I have no problem with spin or managing perception. What I mean is that you don’t let other people’s passing opinions influence you unduly so that you behave foolishly. A case in point example of this might be the matter of Armor in Somalia. Clinton thought that heavy armor would send the wrong impression. He was probably right. On the other hand we sent our soldiers into battle with equiptment that caused them heavy and unnecessary casualties in order to cater to the political impression we wished to create. It was a bad trade off. It usually (but not always) is. \*\* The gear didn’t cause the casualties at all. The ego might have been more relevant. > [@](#): > > \*\* > The looting and chaos thing. Excuse me, these are some pretty big changes going on. This is not a major deal, though some make it out to be. The expectation was that Baghdad would have to be taken street to street, and that it would basically be a bombed out shell by the time it was captured. It was going to be another Mogadishu. We took it basically whole. Nevertheless some serious civil unrest should come as no surprise. We get it here every over much less instigation. \*\* Read: Ít should come at no surprise that the US engages in wholesale violation of the Geneva Conventions. > [@](#): > > \*\* > No shit. That’s part of the reason I argue that we need to address this issue with France and exact some prudent payback. it sure looks to me like they sold us out for credibility and goodwill in the region. They’re supposed to be our ally, aren’t they? You don’t sell out your allies for advantage. I would even maintain that the war might not have happened had France been towing the line. They undermined our efforts. \*\* They are supposed to be your ally? But the US is not supposed to be their ally, right? The US can demand that they scoff at the will of their constituents, the US can demand that allies violate their constitutions, and the US can ignore parliamentary resolutions of its allies, right? Give me a break. If anyone demonstrated un-allylike behavior, it was the US. The French had no leeway in their actions whatsoever, and your whining merely demonstrate that you don’t see the US under ANY obligations by ANY agreement whatsoever. > [@](#): > > From the UN charter: > > Article 103 > In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail. For nationalistic morons, that reads that any obligations as an ally to the US are secondary to obligations under the UN charter. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I disagree, and I don’t think your position offers you any better insights into what the French’s position and motivations were than what I have. I think that France thought they could play opposition to the US very well in a no-lose scenario. Thwart the war, and they’ve got cred and goodwill in the region. If the war still happens, France is now percieved as a friend by Mideast interests that do not like the US. It panders to the terrorists and hopefull diverts their attentions away from France (they do have a history of doing this if yo’u’ll recall the Libya flyover debacle.) Their position is very strong among those oild producing nations if the war or the aftermath go badly and the region is destabilized. **They** are the modern westernized country with goodwill in the region. \*\* They? Who ‘they’? The President who just was reelected with a landslide that was actually a demonstration of DIStrust? The President, who has DAs sharpening their knives for whenever he quits office? > [@](#): > > \*\* > This is the problem that needs to be addressed. I am sure the French saw that situation as clear as day and took advantage of it. We need to address that to them and throw a kink in it, so that this kind of thing doesn’t become sop, and more importantly because allies aren’t supposed to fuck each other over like that. You don’t play off your ally. You play with your ally. \*\* Unless, of course, you are the US of A. In that case, you can ignore your ally, pee on your ally, spit at your ally, lie to your ally, insult your ally all you want and expect him to swallow it. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I disagree. It was treachory for the reasons I outlined above, and I think it’s pretty clear that France was a keystone player in the SC. We still might have had a problem with Russia and China, maybe even a veto, but with France the whole shebang might have worked and it certainly would have put more pressure on Iraq, possibly even averting war. > \*\* I think you have precious little idea about France, the political situation in France, or in Europe in general. > [@](#): > > \*\* > You’re opinion of my understanding of “the larger picture,” is hardly germaine. It seems to me that the “larger picture” is primarily composed of having your viewpoint. \*\* It is composed of more than rabid nationalism. > [@](#): > > \*\* > My arguments either hold water or they don’t. I am not unreasonable. Rather than talking down at me, explain your alternative position and show how it encompasses the larger picture that I have so horribly missed. Then my igorance will have been fought. If I still refuse to see than it is my own stubbornness at fault and not your problem. \*\* What arguments? You have presented nothing but claims, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. All you have presented is propagandistic bullshit about how everyone else is not behaving like an ally. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/150 "2003-04-28T12:18:49Z")
**Scylla** , you attribute cunning and treacherous motives to “the French”. Do you regard the entire French population as conspirators in a stealthy enterprise to undermine America? I rather doubt that you do, but you are not specific. The point you consistently ignore is that the French govt. was directly reflecting the will of the people of France. As dreadful a prospect as this may be to you, it is a widely accepted premise that this is precisely what a nations governing officials are duty bound to do. Would you have it otherwise? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/151 "2003-04-28T12:22:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beagle \* > \*\*That being said, it fits with everything else we know about the French, providing material support to Saddam, laundering the oil-for-food money, etc. \*\* Here’s more info on [French collusion with Iraq](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/28/wfra28.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/04/28/). > [@](#): > > **French helped Iraq to stifle dissent** > France colluded with the Iraqi secret service to undermine a Paris conference held by the prominent human rights group Indict, according to documents found in the foreign ministry in Baghdad. Remember the fuss when Rumsfeld insulted France by calling them a part of “Old Europe”? That insult sounds mild in retrospect, given what we now know. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/152 "2003-04-28T12:44:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > **Less cooperative with the French? Would be a bit hard, given that in any relation that matters, the French are representative of the EU.** I’ve already questioned you on this sentiment twice to no avail, but I’ll try again. Please provide any evidence or reasoning of your statement that “in any relation that matters the French are representative of the EU” - Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Greece, United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Sweden and Spain? Tell me how France are in any way representative of such a disparate set of interests? Also, going back to an original claim of yours, why is there any problem with the US dropping its dealings with France, and dealing with other EU countries instead? ---
**Author:** ![Michael\_Ellis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@Michael\_Ellis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael_Ellis)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/153 "2003-04-28T12:47:44Z")
Is it too late for me to sign up to “punish” Laetitia Casta? ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/154 "2003-04-28T13:44:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gary Kumquat \* > \*\*I’ve already questioned you on this sentiment twice to no avail, but I’ll try again. > > Please provide any evidence or reasoning of your statement that “in any relation that matters the French are representative of the EU” - Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Greece, United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Sweden and Spain? Tell me how France are in any way representative of such a disparate set of interests? > \*\* The point is that wherever you encounter the French, you are likely to encounter them in their function as a EU member, and as such, there is no way dealing with them in a fashion without dealing with the entire EU in such a fashion. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Also, going back to an original claim of yours, why is there any problem with the US dropping its dealings with France, and dealing with other EU countries instead? \*\* Quite simply: The choice is not for the US to make. The EU decides who holds what position, and when the French, for example, hold the EU presidency, then the only way to deal with the EU IS dealing with France. The trade commissioner of the EU is french. Deal with the EU in trade related areas, and you will first and foremost deal with the French. There is no way for the US to go around it unless France allows it. The two points for the US to interact with France, and as such to try and sideline France, are foreign and security policy and trade. All of which are issues in which the French act through the EU, and the US will have to act through the EU to deal with the French. Not to mention that the attempts to sideline France so far have harmed the US more than France by demonstrating ignorance and pettiness as prime characteristics of US policy making. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/155 "2003-04-28T13:47:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*Here’s more info on [French collusion with Iraq](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/28/wfra28.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/04/28/). Remember the fuss when Rumsfeld insulted France by calling them a part of “Old Europe”? That insult sounds mild in retrospect, given what we now know. \*\* It is funny how Iraqi statements are considered ridiculous as far as they concern the US but authentic and accurate as far as they concern France. Did you want to apply for the job of ‘Information minister’? ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/156 "2003-04-28T14:35:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > **The point is that wherever you encounter the French, you are likely to encounter them in their function as a EU member, and as such, there is no way dealing with them in a fashion without dealing with the entire EU in such a fashion.** Sorry, but this is nonsense. If the US decides to avoid dealing with France, they’ll just deal directly with other member states. > [@](#): > > **Quite simply: The choice is not for the US to make. The EU decides who holds what position, and when the French, for example, hold the EU presidency, then the only way to deal with the EU IS dealing with France. The trade commissioner of the EU is french. Deal with the EU in trade related areas, and you will first and foremost deal with the French. There is no way for the US to go around it unless France allows it.** And again, nonsense. Again, the US just deals directly with other member states. Your arguments require a solidarity that the EU does not have. How many times has the UK disagreed with Italy, or Spain with France? The idea that somehow the US will not be able to deal with the member states it wants to is blatantly wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e19adc/32.png) [@Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/157 "2003-04-28T14:57:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*This would mean that France really agreed with the need to use force to replace Saddam’s regime. They understood that his WMDs and missiles were a threat to many countries. They knew that he supported terrorists. They understood that his regime tortured, imprisoned, maimed and killed thousands of Iraqis each year. > > But, because they were miffed about the ABM Treaty (were they even a signitory?) and the ICC, they used their veto power to stop the US from dealing with these enormous problems. > > **Barbarian** , your theory is the meanest anti-French comment in this entire thread. \*\* This interpretation of what I wrote is completely laughable, ridiculous, and contrary to everything I’ve written in this thread and others. Much as I dislike _ad hominem_ attacks, you’re being deliberately obtuse and stupid. Saddam was a bad man. Everyone has always agreed on that. The dilemma was how to deal with him, and there were three options. The US wanted the most violent option with the highest level of civilian deaths, and the lowest odds of actually succeeding in confirming Saddam’s death. Other countries \* could \* have rubberstamped this option, but, according to the game theory being espoused in this thread, may have chosen not to support the US, _and instead support a less-violent option_, as a way of putting the US in its place. Dork. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/158 "2003-04-28T15:16:39Z")
OliverH, as further proof of the EU’s fragmented nature, have a look at this story: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2981933.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2981933.stm) > [@](#): > > Italy has warned against the creation of a mini-military alliance within the European Union, on the eve of a defence summit between four nations. > > Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said any attempts by France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg to forge closer military ties would be viewed “with a very critical eye”. > > …the apparent exclusion of the EU’s pro-war nations - including the biggest military power, the UK - prompted accusations that the move would only deepen the union’s divisions on the issue. And yet you claim the France and the EU are such intertwined entities that the US could not possibly deal with one but not the other? As this story shows, the member states form private deals all the time. ---
**Author:** ![elfje](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19b73/32.png) [@elfje](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfje)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/159 "2003-04-28T16:23:46Z")
mhihi, yes, the brits weren’t even invited to attend aaah, the clean, crisp world of politics… 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/160 "2003-04-28T18:58:22Z")
Ah but elfje, when France, Belgium and Germany do it it’s politics. It’s only when the US do it that it becomes temper tantrums, hypocrisy, bullying, etc… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454.md?page=9)