# This French Stodginess is getting ridiculous **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 14, 2003, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-french-stodginess-is-getting-ridiculous/161207 "2003-03-14T00:07:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-french-stodginess-is-getting-ridiculous/161207/21 "2003-03-14T12:50:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fox in the Snow \* > \*\*Clearly the French feel that war is not nessecary at this time. > > \*\* And clearly many of their allies do feel it is nessecary. The US and UK at least acknowledged France’s concernes for the past sx months. And since the alternative everyone agreed to has been demonstrated multiple times to not be working, wht do they do. Do they give a viable alternative for the concernes of others? Do they acknowledge that their agreed upon reslotuition has failed on the merrits of the resolution? They only submit to do more of the same “in the quest for peace”. That is contemptable in itself just for the obviousness of their impotence on their own decisions. that within itself is thier problem as far as I am concerned. they have their own history to live up to. But when their strongest allies have tried for an alternative for others, including the French, they do not even attempt to acknowledge their concernes. Instead of even agreeing at the failures of the current course, all they do in the face of it is give an emphatic _non_. That is not even diplomacy. that is a slap in the face and disrespect. And although others may not be amiable to the decided course, at least they are not bilgerent to the extent of the arrogance and taclessness of the French. And if anyone wants to quip about my last sentence being attributed to the US, please get off your partisan high horse and shw where the actions of the US and Uk are comparable to what I demonstrated the France actions are. ---
**Author:** ![yojimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yojimbo/32/232_2.png) [@yojimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yojimbo)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-french-stodginess-is-getting-ridiculous/161207/22 "2003-03-14T13:06:04Z")
Look the Brits yesterday outlined what they would need to not go to war. 1. Drones issue sorted out 2. Anthrax and Chem. weapons either handed over of proof of destruction. 3. Al Samoud missiles sorted out. 4. Mobile labs issue sorted out. 5. At least 30 scientists to go abroad for questioning. That’s it. If Iraq anti up on these points the UK would be willing to accept compliance with 1441. The French are saying that we have not reached a point were war is needed yet and looking at that list either do I. Last night on the CH4 news it was reported that the Iraqis have said they will move on the Anthrax and Chem. issues early next week but I can’t find a cite ☹ Because of a **possible** leakage from Iraq of these **possibly** still active weapons and a unproven **possible** link with terrorists the coalition of the willing are biting at the bit to go to war and the rest are saying before we start raining cruise missiles down we should give more time. WTF am I missing **if** it’s about the above. If it’s about regime change well then that’s another matter. The French ambassador to Ireland was on the news last night and said that if the US and UK feel that they have all they need for war in 1441 then they should just do that but if France is asked to agree with a resolution that AFAIC is a automatic trigger for war then it will say NON. ---
**Author:** ![torben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5daacb/32.png) [@torben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/torben)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-french-stodginess-is-getting-ridiculous/161207/23 "2003-03-14T13:09:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gorsnak \* > \*\*Well sure he should abide by the UN resolutions. And so should Turkey, Morocco, Israel, Armenia, etc, etc. Oddly enough, it’s the US that has facilitated a lot of the UN resolution defying over the years, which goes some way to explain why the “international community” is doing a bit of :rolleyes: at the strident proclamations of the inviolability of UN resolutions coming from the Bush camp. \*\* And so this makes it okay for Hussein to defy the UN resolutions? I don’t think so. And what do these countries have to do with anything? We’re talking about Iraq. And the U.S. is responsible for all the UN resolution defying over the years? Cite please. ---
**Author:** ![kingpengvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9dc877/32.png) [@kingpengvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingpengvin)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-french-stodginess-is-getting-ridiculous/161207/24 "2003-03-14T13:30:33Z")
The French “non” position is getting a bit much lately. Thery should be flexible enough to set a deadline even if it is a month or two down the raod. I do have to ask why do we have to go in immediately? Why can’t we wait another month or another two keeping pressure up and continuing the disarmament? Maybe because Disarmament is the issue… it looks like the United States wants to force Regieme change, something not covered under the UN Sanctions. ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-french-stodginess-is-getting-ridiculous/161207/25 "2003-03-14T13:32:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yojimbo \* > \*\* > The French ambassador to Ireland was on the news last night and said that if the US and UK feel that they have all they need for war in 1441 then they should just do that but if France is asked to agree with a resolution that AFAIC is a automatic trigger for war then it will say NON. \*\* This opting out attitude is irresponsible and unbecoming of someone who demands a permanent seat on the UN SC that itslef is supposed to deal with these matters directly. Plus this assertion is false considering their veto. they are not just saying no. They are actively blocking the attempt. ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-french-stodginess-is-getting-ridiculous/161207/26 "2003-03-14T13:38:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kingpengvin \* > \*\* > > I do have to ask why do we have to go in immediately? Why can’t we wait another month or another two keeping pressure up and continuing the disarmament? > > \*\* What will happen in a month or two. If we are waiting just for the sake of waiting, why not wait until Saddam dies of old age and all of his government is forced out of power? Because that is laissez faire and would make the SC even more irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Fox\_in\_the\_Snow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/82dd89/32.png) [@Fox\_in\_the\_Snow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fox_in_the_Snow)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-french-stodginess-is-getting-ridiculous/161207/27 "2003-03-14T14:42:10Z")
Hey **Saen** > [@](#): > > please get off your partisan high horse Might be an idea to remove the beam from your own eye before you point out the speck in someone else’s hmmm? I was merely explaining why I thought the French were behaving in the way they are, I was not defending their position. Also > [@](#): > > What will happen in a month or two. If we are waiting just for the sake of waiting, why not wait until Saddam dies of old age and all of his government is forced out of power? Because that is laissez faire and would make the SC even more irrelevant. How about waiting because jaw jaw is better than war war? Or because the weapons inspectors want time to finish their job? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-french-stodginess-is-getting-ridiculous/161207/28 "2003-03-14T15:18:24Z")
> [@](#): > > This opting out attitude is irresponsible and unbecoming of someone who demands a permanent seat on the UN SC. Agreed, but just WHO is opting out URL=http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030314-13934675.htm]here ? > [@](#): > > The Bush administration yesterday abandoned its insistence that the U.N. Security Council vote by today on a second resolution against Iraq, stepped up its criticism of France, and vowed to disarm Saddam Hussein even without the world body’s support. Hint: It’s not France. ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-french-stodginess-is-getting-ridiculous/161207/29 "2003-03-14T15:32:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fox in the Snow \* > \*\*Hey **Saen** > > Might be an idea to remove the beam from your own eye before you point out the speck in someone else’s hmmm?\*\* I know you are but what am I? That’s a bit … redundant. 😉 > [@](#): > > I was merely explaining why I thought the French were behaving in the way they are, I was not defending their position. And I was just explaining why I thaught their actions, like the OP said, were rediculous. > [@](#): > > \*\* > How about waiting because jaw jaw is better than war war? > Or because the weapons inspectors want time to finish their job? \*\* It is not up to the weapons inspectors to dictate anything. Sure they can offer suggestions, and it would behoove the entire SC to seriously take into consideration their opinions. But just because they suggest something, and those that make the decisions may or may not accept them, does not mean they are not considered. ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-french-stodginess-is-getting-ridiculous/161207/30 "2003-03-14T15:47:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Squink \* > \*\*Agreed, but just WHO is opting out URL=http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030314-13934675.htm]here ? > > Hint: It’s not France. \*\* Well, many have argued that the president has opted in too much. Seems to me he has gone the extra mile to keep it into the UN. But, we can ignore that because the President is finally giving up on those that say they will veto any proposal conserning the US/Uk wishes “no matter what.” But your soundbite sounds better and makes the US look more bully-ish. Why argue with something so popular? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bbe5ce/32.png) [@X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X_Slayer_ALE)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-french-stodginess-is-getting-ridiculous/161207/31 "2003-03-14T18:47:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Narrad \* > \*\*Way to shoot yourself in the foot. > > If this is a “UN Inspection Fiasco”, why state in the same breath that “Saddam is cooperating”. > > If Saddam is, as you say, cooperating, why don’t you believe that there is indeed a credible alternative to war? Since you agree that progress is being made, tell us why it can’t continue towards a peaceful disarmament? \*\* Gee… What part of Fully and unconditionally dont you understand? Saddam is cooperating yes but under his terms. If you are frisking me because you believe I have a gun would you accept my word that I threw it away some time ago when no one was looking? and OH btw dont search my right front pocket and gimme a minute before you look into my inside jacket pocket. OH you found a knife!! Heh How’d that get in there?! Hey, its not a gun and its such a little knife too! :smack: ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-french-stodginess-is-getting-ridiculous/161207/32 "2003-03-14T21:24:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yojimbo \* > \*\*Look the Brits yesterday outlined what they would need to not go to war. > > 1. Drones issue sorted out > 2. Anthrax and Chem. weapons either handed over of proof of destruction. > 3. Al Samoud missiles sorted out. > 4. Mobile labs issue sorted out. > 5. At least 30 scientists to go abroad for questioning. > > That’s it. If Iraq anti up on these points the UK would be willing to accept compliance with 1441. > > The French are saying that we have not reached a point were war is needed yet and looking at that list either do I. Last night on the CH4 news it was reported that the Iraqis have said they will move on the Anthrax and Chem. issues early next week but I can’t find a cite ☹ > > . \*\* I read an article about the french position concerning the UK proposal today, but lost the paper (beside, I do not intend to write another long post each time france is mentionned on this board). Very roughly : The british proposal isn’t a resolution but apparently a addendum to the US proposal. The date when a the US would be allowed to wage war if there wasn’t a full compliance by the Irakis would still be march 17 (monday). Though the french government agree with some of the items mentionned in the british list, it considers that for several others (some of them you mentionned) it’s materially impossible for Irak to give the proofs needed before monday (especially since concerning for instance chemical weapons there are currently complicated technical issues to sort out, like for instance : considering the amount of chemicals found in a a given place, the climate in the area and the date at which the chemical warheads are supposed to have been destroyed by the Irakis, how much warheads were actually destroyed and when). In other words, the french government think that the UK demands deliberatly include items Irak can’t comply with and which can’t be verified on short notice, in order to provide a pretext to justify the incoming war, and that waging said war on the basis of flimpsy pretexts when the disarmament inspectors are saying that they’re making significant progress and when the US fail to provide significant evidences of their statements concerning WMD isn’t acceptable. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-french-stodginess-is-getting-ridiculous/161207/33 "2003-03-14T21:44:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kingpengvin \* > \*\*The French “non” position is getting a bit much lately. Thery should be flexible enough to set a deadline even if it is a month or two down the raod. > > \*\* (Some of?) the “non aligned” countries in the SC everybody is currently courting the vote of have apprently tested Washington about a rewording of their resolution which would include a deadline 45 days down from now. The USA would have refused such a postponing. By the way, since the US resolution would allow them to wage war if there isn’t a full compliance of IRAK , without the need of a new UN resolution determining whether or not the Iraki did comply, who would decide whether or not they did? Answer : the US could just say “they didn’t comply”, with good reasons, or without any valid reason, and invade with the “backing” of the UN. So, I strongly doubt that France would accept any such resolution, even if the deadline was postponed. France would only vote a resolution which would state that force might be used if _the UN_ (not the US) decide it because _the UN_ (not the US) notice that Irak isn’t cooperating with the disarmament teams. This resolution already exist, it’s the 1441, tough a new one could give a _reasonnable_ dealine(but still making the UN the final arbiter of the compliance/non compliance of Irak). In other words, there’s no way the french government is going a blank signed check to the US ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-french-stodginess-is-getting-ridiculous/161207/34 "2003-03-14T21:48:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Saen \* > \*\*This opting out attitude is irresponsible and unbecoming of someone who demands a permanent seat on the UN SC that itslef is supposed to deal with these matters directly. How could France prevent a war if the US have decided to invade anyway? By declaring war on the US/UK? > [@](#): > > Plus this assertion is false considering their veto. they are not just saying no. They are actively blocking the attempt. \*\* Voting no and vetoing is one and the same. And this is precisely not an “opting out” attitude (contrarily to abstaining, for instance). ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-french-stodginess-is-getting-ridiculous/161207/35 "2003-03-14T21:52:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Saen \* > **Sure they can offer suggestions, and it would behoove the entire SC to seriously take into consideration their opinions** That’s exactly what is happening currently, and the SC seems to take their opinions into consideration and until now has agreed with them. Now, you might disagree with the SC opinion about the inspectors’ suggestions. ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-french-stodginess-is-getting-ridiculous/161207/36 "2003-03-14T22:28:37Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by clairobscur \* **How could France prevent a war if the US have decided to invade anyway? By declaring war on the US/UK?** By blocking a resolution in the UN in the hopes that it will stop the Uk/US from having the support to go. I am not saying that they will prevent it, that is another matter. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Voting no and vetoing is one and the same. And this is precisely not an “opting out” attitude (contrarily to abstaining, for instance). \*\* If you read the quote I replied to **kingpengvin** indicated that the ambassador said that if the US and UK think they have a UN mandate that they should just go. _But_ if they want France to agree with them then they will vote no. A permanant member must abstain from a vote if they just disagree with it. If they want to block that action then they vote no because they, alone, have that singular power. It is not like a voted member abstaining. Because they would be just opting out. A permanant member can never “opt-out”. They either vot yes, abstain, or block a resolution. That is not the issue though. As a permanent member of the SC thier DUTY is to opt in on all things concerning int’l security. That is what the SC is there for. france’s no vote will automatically invalidate any UN participation in a war. That is what I was talking about opting out. If they think the US/Uk should go if they want, it is not acceptable for an SC member to say that they just want no part of it. > [@](#): > > That’s exactly what is happening currently, and the SC seems to take their opinions into consideration and until now has agreed with them. > > Now, you might disagree with the SC opinion about the inspectors’ suggestions. I am glad you agree with me on that. And it may be that a passing majority of the SC [agrees](http://www.msnbc.com/news/842500.asp?0cv=NB10) with me on the opinions of the inspectors. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-french-stodginess-is-getting-ridiculous/161207/37 "2003-03-14T22:56:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Saen \* > If they think the US/Uk should go if they want, it is not acceptable for an SC member to say that they just want no part of it. Personnally, I would give more weight to the statements of the french president and minister of foreign affairs than to the statement of the ambassador in Ireland. I don’t think nor Chirac nor Villepin ever said “go if you want to”. > [@](#): > > And it may be that a passing majority of the SC [agrees](http://www.msnbc.com/news/842500.asp?0cv=NB10) with me on the opinions of the inspectors. \*\* It might be. But we’ll have to wait for an actual vote to know. And anyway, at this point, it seems that the vote of most of the 6 “undecided” countries will be based on plenty of issues, but only remotely related to their opinion concerning the war in Irak, and that some of them are regretting they even have a seat at the UNSC just now (I’m thinking to the Pakistan, for instance). ---
**Author:** ![X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bbe5ce/32.png) [@X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X_Slayer_ALE)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-french-stodginess-is-getting-ridiculous/161207/38 "2003-03-15T00:53:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by clairobscur \* > \*\* > By the way, since the US resolution would allow them to wage war if there isn’t a full compliance of IRAK , without the need of a new UN resolution determining whether or not the Iraki did comply, who would decide whether or not they did? Answer : the US could just say “they didn’t comply”, with good reasons, or without any valid reason, and invade with the “backing” of the UN. So, I strongly doubt that France would accept any such resolution, even if the deadline was postponed. > \*\* The deadline does not eliminate the inspectors that are already in place right now. They are the ultimate determiners of Iraqs compliance. Neither of the chief inspectors have stated that Iraq is on full compliance and everyone can see that Iraq is calling the shots on these “unconditional” inspections. Balir gave 6 factors for Iraq to comply with. He dropped 1 and thats alright. Were it up to me I would chose just one. Have 30 scientists and their families fly out Spain to be interviewed by UN inspectors. I still dont see why they would object to flybys by U-2s. Inspectors should travel by helicopter escorted by helicopter gunships. They should go where they want, when they want, stop any land or air traffic they want and inspect any of the buildings and screw the “approved” list. Weapons destruction are to be handled and supervised by UN teams. They can comply with these in a day if they wanted to. ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-french-stodginess-is-getting-ridiculous/161207/39 "2003-03-15T05:24:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE) \* > What part of the UN Inspection Fiasco has this guy been missing? Does he seriously believe that Iraq is under full and unconditional compliance with UN Resolution 1441? Resolute progress implies that Saddam is going out of his way to prove he is unarmed. Does anyone here think that? So why is there so much wailing and gnashing of teeth with regards to Iraq not complying with UNSC resolution 1441 from the conservatives? Why do they care about whether a tinpot dictator in a small country so far away having a couple of chemical warheads? What is it to them? ---
**Author:** ![torben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5daacb/32.png) [@torben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/torben)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-french-stodginess-is-getting-ridiculous/161207/40 "2003-03-15T23:59:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Urban Ranger \* > \*\*So why is there so much wailing and gnashing of teeth with regards to Iraq not complying with UNSC resolution 1441 from the conservatives? Why do they care about whether a tinpot dictator in a small country so far away having a couple of chemical warheads? What is it to them? \*\* The concern is that these “couple of chemical warheads” will turn in to thousands of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons that could harm America on a massive scale if we continue to stand around and do nothing. The concern is having someone like Saddam (with a history of violent aggressive tendencies not to mention genocide) being in control of these weapons. Saddam has used chemical and biological weapons to kill thousands of his own people. Do you really think he would hesitate to use these weapons against America once he had the chance to do so? This is exactly what is going to happen if we back off and let him keep doing what he has been doing for the last 12 years. The reason there is so much stink being raised about Iraq not complying with UN resolution 1441 is the fact that they are required to comply with UN mandates (which obviously they are not) and the UN is doing nothing about it. The UN has had 12 years to show that they are willing to enforce their resolutions about Iraq and have done absolutely nothing about Iraq’s defiance thus pretty much showing that the UN is useless and becoming more and more irrelevant. So Bush is stepping up to the plate. Somebody has to. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-french-stodginess-is-getting-ridiculous/161207.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-french-stodginess-is-getting-ridiculous/161207.md?page=3)