France has killed inspections by saying it would veto any use of force resolution, IMO. Saddam will just spoon feed us the obsolete* missiles until we draw down our forces.
*Safire, NYT, “The French Connection,” 3/13/03 (reg. req.)
From what I’ve heard listening to the U.N. speeches, I can recall a couple of reasons. First is that we shouldn’t go to war until absolutely necessary. The threats of force have been bringing about grudging compliance. Granted, you have a bit of a catch-22 there: Iraq needs a credible threat to give it incentive to comply but if everybody votes for war then Iraq won’t have a chance to comply given the realities of Saddam’s fucked up mind. In other words, the administration is seeking full, unmitigated compliance; France is saying that as long as there’s real progress, let it continue.
Another thing the French representative has noted is that the U.S. administration is acting as if a whole bunch of problems will dissapear by invading Iraq. It’s as though Al Qaeda will suddenly disband with the fall of Saddam. But we have no real reason to assume any such thing. Our actions against Iraq to date don’t seem to be causing much anti-American or anti-western sentiment. We have other more pressing problems to deal with. Being the first mover in a war to overthrow Iraq will not solve those problems, but instead could create many more. If we want to eliminate anti-western terrorism, we should start by continuing to concentrate on the campaign against Al Qaeda. We should also do something serious to end the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
Anyway, those are two of the arguments as I understand them. I consider them to be prima facie, i.e. they have to be answered with good arguments.
Seriously, check out this episode of Frontline.
Damn good post Broomstick–I too get upset when people treat war like a freakin’ video game.
One other thing that I just heard from a former Nat’l. Security guy on the news today is that because the Prez. has so frequently framed the war w/ Iraq in terms of a regime change, some European allies are hesitant because that gives (I guess) legal justification for Russia & China to undertake their own regime change. I’ve wondered if taking out Saddam wouldn’t justify Mao’s invasion of Tibet. Given that the official Chinese line is that their gov’t. is a Good Thing, and given that Tibet was ruled by a corrupt theocracy, the regime change argument is certainly justified from thier point of view should we use it to start a war.
Obviously they replaced an evil with an outrageously greater evil, but not from their perspective…
Coldfire is right. US corporations also contributed to Iraq’s arms buildup.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.21A.us.firms.iraq.htm
There was a little scandal called Iraqgate involving Bush Sr. also, involving illegal use of agricultural credits to fuel Iraq’s arms buildup.
First off, Derleth, your quote about “stupidity/malice” is actually from a fellow named Lord Acton, a turn of the century (last) English politician and aphorist. Robert Heinlien, on the other hand, is the single most wildly over-rated SF writer ever, beating out Phillip K. Dick by a nose.
Secondly:
I think vibrotronica is simply on something, and should be forced to share.
That is based on Iraq’s declaration. I don’t actually know how much of it is true. But, if you take the Iraqis at face value, that proves that there was more US involvement than was previously thought. Still ignoring the larger issue though.
The larger issue, the constant misstatement that the US and the UK were the biggest players in arming the Iraqis, remains. France and the Soviets, now Russians, have always been the biggest players in arming Iraq.
Confirmed US connections include some germ samples from US companies, US intelligence help during the Iran-Iraq War, other help during the Iran-Iraq War. I guess the argument here is that the US should have stayed out of arming either side in that war. There is something to that. I wonder why the standard is not applied to other nations?
Meanwhile, France, Russia, and China are the biggest arms suppliers to Iraq.
Maybe I missed something, but these three countries surely don’t supply Iraq with weapons NOW?
Sure, there’s a bunch of antiquated Mirages in the Iraqi air force, and I’m not making light of that for one second. But it’s not like “France stands to gain from Saddam retaining power, as they sell Iraq weapons” is a valid argument here.
Actually, Coldfire, that is PRECISELY a question on the table at the moment - are France, Russia, and China selling contraband to Iraq? If not the governments, then perhaps various private interests in those nations?
If any of those nations are dealing with the current regime then yes, they DO stand to profit from the status quo.
And if Bush stands by his “you’re either with us or against us” stance, then a fall of the current Iraqi regime may bring to light facts that would result in the spotlight of US attention and ire being brought to bear on certain other nations.
So those same, hypothetically involved nations may not only be in a position to benefit from the status quo, but also stand to lose a great deal if the US gets its way.
Well, I suppose one can’t be completely sure about Russia and China, but it would highly surprise me if France (or French companies) turns out to be a current supplier of Iraqi weapons. I mean, that would be a scandal of Iran-Contra proportions.
Well, it’s not like the US is the only nation capable of having governmental scandals.
First, I’m not trying to condemn France (or French corporations) for selling weapons to Iraq. I am saying that the US and the UK had less to do with arming Iraq back in the 1980s than France did. Note: I’m counting all weapons. France and Iraq have a history. The US did aid the Iraqis against the Iranians. Oh, and the Iranians against the Iraqis. The US did not want to see either side win that war.
If the latest Iraqi declarations are true there are a lot of corporations - many US - from all over the world with some explaining to do. All the major players, the US, UK, French, Russian, Chinese have “armed the Iraqis.” We all suck!
This is true. 
I’m just saying it would highly surprise me. Then again, if it didn’t, it wouldn’t be a scandal to begin with, right?
The French Mirage / Gazelle helicopters story.
Other than the long-range rocket fuel and the Mirage parts story, I haven’t heard anything about present connections between France, or French corporations, and arming Iraq recently.
Well, in fairness, from the same article:
So the questions are: did Dassault sell the parts themselves? And if so, did they know the purchaser was a front company for the Iraqi government? I ask this because the UAE Air Force uses Mirages as well, so I’m not sure we can immediately conclude that the unnamed company deliberately deliverd to Iraq.
Eh, do you have a cite or just inane bickering over which author is the most overrated?
See, Jasper, I think that’s exactly what’s going to happen. I won’t link the Guardian story, Beagle already did it. I am convinced, from their historical actions and from the way France tends to treat problems in the Middle-East ( they tend to walk the line of appeasement, which makes little sense to me because that cost them their country in 1940, but it’s their choice to make ) that there is going to be lots of evidence brought out after the war proving active French collusion with Iraq in all facits of weapons development, up to and including WMD. ( And please, folks, spare me the “cite”. I am saying what I think is going to happen, not presenting something as fact without proof ) THAT would explain French reluctance to condone war with Iraq quite well.
I support the war, personally, but with reluctance. I don’t see any other alternative, really. MHO it’s going to happen, if not now, then 3, 5, 10 years down the road. We should get it over and done with sooner rather than later.
I really want to do this with U.N. approval. France has kind of queered that with it’s “We’ll veto any resolution that authorizes war” stance, however. Even if Iraq stepped up to the table and offered unhindered inspection and complete disarmament ( Not bloody likely ) and the U.S. aregeed to shelve their military for now ( Also not bloody likely ), France would veto the mesure. This makes a mockery of everything the U.N. is about. France knows something that would be found in Iraq is more dangerous or embarassing to them than a Sadaam with WMD. MHO also, evidence of French involvement with Iraq could be one of the things the Bush administration is hiding in an effort to win French co-operation.
I just wish we had a different president right now. The shrub is hopeless when it comes to building concensus. I honestly believe that if a different man ( or woman ) was in the White House today, this war would already be over and done with.
Gosh, Derleth, that’s entirely my opinion, of course. What, is there some reliable guide to the Most Over-rated SF Writers somewhere. Wouldn’t matter if there were, would it? Just as I would admit a creepy, cobwebby fondess for H.P. Lovecraft (a fondness I suspect you share), at the same time I would readily admit he is a rather poor writer.
Who cares? He’s Lovecraft.
elucidator, I meant a cite about who first said the phrase I quoted.
Now, are you gonna get off your dead ass and give me a cite that Lord Acton said it first or just bitch and moan?
No, no, no…its “piss and moan” or “bitch and perform”
And looking it up (which you could have done just as easily, you lazy slut…) it turns out to be Nick Diamos. Apperently a very bright fellow despite my never having heard of him.