"[W]hatever the circumstances, France will vote no."

[clairobscur]

*Originally posted by nogginhead *
**“My position is that whatever the circumstances, France will vote no.”

• JACQUES CHIRAC (As quoted in the New York Times, 3/11/03)
  Is this responsible leadership?

I believe there are valid reasons to vote on either side of many issues. And that there are currently valid reasons to vote against this resolution as well.

And, I’ve respected France’s stance in the past.

But by declaring that no facts can change his mind, Chirac now looks as biased towards Iraq as Bush is towards war. **

A clumsy translation of the speech :

“What are we talking about? Today, we’re in a system based on the resolution 1441 […] Some of our allies, which have their own reasons, believe that actually it’s necessary to end quickly this situation and by another aproach : a war. […] . They want to switch from a system which was carrying on the inspections in order to disarm Irak to another system which is stating : “in so many days, we’re going to wage war”. France won’t accept, and actually will refuse this solution. […]. ** My position is that whatever the circumstances, France will vote no. ** because she believes that, as for today, there is no reason to wage war to achieve the objectives we have determined, i. e. the disarmament of Irak”
My understanding is that, in the current circumstances (as for today), france will vote no to the US/UK resolution (which is stating “in so many days we’re going to wage war”, according to him), whatever the circumstances (IOW, whether or not the US is gathering a majority at the UNSC, and whether or not other permanent members of the SC are vetoing the resolution).
His speech is refering to the current US/UK proposal, not the declaration of an absolute opposition to war, forever, and whatever could be the future circumstances. In other words, he said : “we’re definitely going to use our veto on this one”. Nothing else.

[Estilicon]

You see, there is good business to be had in hating the USA. France likes to sell weapons & such- and they like to sell them to dudes who hate the USA. Thus, an anti-USA position is “good for business”. Besides, with the threat of USSR out of the way now- what does France have to lose? Of course, French politicians don’t lose many votes by US bashing either.

Well America is not an innocent bystander, I think that you rank higher than france in the weapon selling buisness.

You have to feel sorry for the President of Mexico- inside Mexico, he has to maintain an anti-US policy, blaming US for all his internal woes- but then also fly across the border & kiss GWB’s butt for help & aid.

In fact I am sorry about Fox, he diserved to show Bush the middle finger, after all “the special relationship” policy that Bush was going to implement with Mexico was another of Dubya’s lies. Fox bet a lot of his political capital with Bush and he lost. Now the american administration says it will “discipline” (Bush words) Mexico if they don’t vote in favour of America. The only thing I find funny is that Bush doesn’t seem to know why so many people hate his country.

[Kalhoun]

My understanding, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that France has a huge oil contract with Iraq, as well as arms agreements of some sort. If that’s the case, why don’t we buy the French vote the way we’ve bought other strategic countries’ support? How hard could that be?

I personally believe that we have not exhausted peaceful alternatives to this war, and Dubya is a schmuck. The whole concept of France sticking it to us (under these particular circumstances) is unbelievable.

[Misery_Loves_Co]

I think Clairobscur has it -

The quote, as expressed in the OP, is the perfect blipvert to rile up war-hawks and anti-french sentiment. This is one of those cases where research and analysis leads to better data - and the death of a strawman.