Is there any real world price the Bush administration is going to make the French pay for leading the sentiment against us in the UN?
Ha, ha.
We’ll send Nelson the bully to taunt them?
I would think any consequences would come in the form of not giving the french any preferential treatment in the future. I would be suprised if we responded with any overt animosity.
They’re on the list of future invasions:
- Irkutsk (we don’t really want to invade this place, but after Afghanistan and Iraq, we’ll have 3 cards and can get lots of extra armies.)
- Arctic Wildlife Refuge (those musk oxen have been dissing us for too long)
- France
- Paraguay (long overdue – we haven’t invaded a Latin American country in ages.)
If France ever needed the US to bail them out of a very bad situation in the future, we will veto any resolution under any cirmcumstances.
Oh, good. So in addition to not playing by the Security Council’s rules, US foreign policy is based on spite?
Even if you were being sarcastic, I have a sneaking feeling there might be an element of truth to this.
EuroWalmart
Nah, Bush won’t retaliate, he’s grateful to have the French as an excuse for his own diplomatic incompetence. Besides, now the US has got to make nice or the UN won’t help in the reconstruction of Iraq.
No, it won’t. The U.S. will begin to repair bridges with France the minute the war is over, if not before. This is the world of realpolitik, and you don’t alienate countries just out of spite.
However, what the U.S. won’t do is trust France. Not for a long time. That means France’s position in NATO will be more precarious, and the U.S. will not accept assurances from France when it comes to U.N. negotiations. And that just makes sense. France ‘showed its cards’, and it looks like France is setting itself up as an oppositional power to the U.S. The U.S. will respond in its best interests to that revelation.
I’m going to look and see if there’s another thread about if France really shit on us as so many say they did.
Peace,
mangeorge
Is that what spite is? Putting national interest above the world’s? Gee, I call that payback.
As much as all of the muslim nations vehemntly oppose the way by which we remove Saddam from power, all of them silently agree that Saddam is not someone you would want to be right next door to. The US understands that and France does not. It would be fitting justice allow France to stand on its own and see how it fares when it needs to do what it thinks is right.
Last I checked, neither France nor the U.S. was right next door…or even in the same neighborhood…as Iraq.
And it’s silly to believe that the French really desired that Saddam stay in power. They were, just like the muslim countries you mentioned, against the way we remove(d) him from power.
Enough of this juvenile “the U.S. is always right and those stupid French are just idiots.”
Sam Stone has it exactly right. (Although I wouldn’t put it past Bush to personally wish to spite the French, he’s got enough people around him who understand that’s not the best path)
What national interest does the US uphold by vetoing resolutions ‘under any circunstances’? Revenge? Is it in the national interest to oppose what might help France, just because they opposed the US this time?
I doubt internationaly diplomacy is based on this idea. At least, I hope it isn’t.
“You opposed us back in 2003, so even though there’s something sensible that could help you out, we will veto it. Under any circumstances. You should have known better than to diasagree with us.”
Payback? I hope the people at the UN and in the governments of the world have more sense than to hold to playground ideology like that. Cowboy diplomacy doesn’t sound like a great plan to me.
This whole “France” thing is a load of crapola, cooked up to lend a scapegoat to a failed diplomatic endeavor. Witness the utterly odious Tom Delay speaking execrable French to Tom Daschle to deride him for daring to suggest that Our Leader may be something other than a reborn Churchill.
Witness Our Leader last week, jutting out his jaw in a manly fashion, sure to make virgins swoon, asserting that no matter what, we were going ahead with the vote on the second resolution, time to “see the cards”, no matter what the count looked like, stern, resolute men like GeeDubya would call them to show what they’re made of.
The plan was a good one, really: bully, coerce and bribe enough members of the Security Council to vote correctly, and then when France voted ixnay, GeeDubya would have some cover, he could say “Well, the Security Council was with us, but France backstabbed us.” Not China. Not Russia. France.
Myself, I am surprised it didn’t work. I am surprised Vincente Fox had los cojones grandes to stand up to GeeDubya and vote the way his people wanted him to. “Pity poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the USA”.
The USA was going to lose the Security Council vote, whereupon the happy discovery was made that a second resolution wasn’t needed after all (surprise! surprise!) and anyway we couldn’t get one cause of nasty ol’ France. How dare a supposed “democracy” vote in a fashion approved by an overwhelming majority of its people! The gall of the Gauls!
It is a load of treacly, self-serving, self-righteous bullshit.
Quien es el mas macho? Fernando Lamas o Vincente Fox?
HaHa, maybe we’ll just let Germany kick their ass again.
They’ve not been silent about Saddam being a bad influence on the neighborhood, however:
Perhaps France understands that, while many in the US do not. Re-read Sam’s take on the situation. My only quibble with him here is with his, perhaps unintentional, implication that the US has ever trusted France.
Well now, this is the correct thread.
So who is next? Senor Fox? He did (sorta) side with France. And his democracy isn’t exactly like our’s.
“Boycott Taco Bell” Call chilis “Patriot Peppers”
We embarass us.
Peace,
mangeorge
I’m going to go kill a chihuahua. No, nothing political, really, just hate the nasty little fuckers.
Hey hey, my my,
That Taco Bell dog has got to die,
Don’t even need a reason why,
Let’s make that rat-sized doggy fry.