A terrorist with 72 virgins on his mind and a nuke in a box. Unless we kill the motherfucker first.
Sunday Times, by way of Fox News (Sunday Times article requires subscription)
[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.
Oops. december beat me to that. I should no longer be surprised when people slap those cites up as fast as light. Sorry.
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?
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.
No! Who would believe the USA would do such a thing! Ridiculous!
What else did the French tell the Iraqis?
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.
Collounsbury:
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:
Indeed. So what is your view as to the best course of action given the problem?
Their need is twofold:
- They need our markets, as you mention.
- They also need us as a military ally. France isn’t much of a power by itself.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 country basically taken intact with no quagmires or significant horrible atrocities.
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?
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.
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.
Yeeeeeeesssss! As you stress the importance of Cred earlier I trust I don’t have to hear [sub]motherfucker[/sub]
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.
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.
I agree that we had a military timetable. So we have that much in common.
I’m thinking about the world 20 years from now. What’s your benchmark?
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?
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.
**
The US also needs the market they regulate, and far more so.
**
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.
Less cooperative with the French? Would be a bit hard, given that in any relation that matters, the French are representative of the EU.
**
The gear didn’t cause the casualties at all. The ego might have been more relevant.
**
Read: Ít should come at no surprise that the US engages in wholesale violation of the Geneva Conventions.
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.
For nationalistic morons, that reads that any obligations as an ally to the US are secondary to obligations under the UN charter.
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?
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 think you have precious little idea about France, the political situation in France, or in Europe in general.
It is composed of more than rabid nationalism.
**
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.
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?
Here’s more info on French collusion with Iraq.
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.
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?
Is it too late for me to sign up to “punish” Laetitia Casta?
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.
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.
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’?
Sorry, but this is nonsense. If the US decides to avoid dealing with France, they’ll just deal directly with other member states.
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.
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.
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
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.
mhihi, yes, the brits weren’t even invited to attend
aaah, the clean, crisp world of politics…
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…