You really think they need a vote to know what their people want?
So when are we crating up the Statue of Liberty and shipping it back?
What I wouldlike to see happen:
-open the Iraqi records, and reveal to the world how France ILLEGALLY exported rocket fuel, and parts for their Mirage fighter planes to Iraq
-identify the bribes paid to Chirac (via swiss bank accounts) from the Saddam Hussein regime
-show the close cooperation between the French and the Iraqis up to the brink of this war
When these revelations become common knowledge, the French will have a lot more to worry about than the end of their cheese and wine exports!
Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.
Not anymore, unless you like the label ‘bigot’. I still think New Jersey is fair game, though (at least I hope it is). 
How to punish…
I see one day maybe one of our missiles will “misfire” right into the french embassy…
Just like in Libya when Reagan was prez - when they refused the use of their airspace for aout pilots, and thereby increasing the risk / danger to them.
Yes, indeed! How dare they listen to their people instead of doing the right thing by them. How dare they fall back on the excuse of following popular opinion instead of their intelligence sources and advisors. How dare they close a blind eye to a threat for a noble cause of peace by any means possible except war. The french have leaders who are all a bunch of poulets. Hitler wouldve love Chirac…I’m pretty sure Saddam does.
Dont make me tell you where they really get the sour cream from that they put on those tacos…
Gee what national interest did the french have about announcing to veto any resolution that would allow war “under any cirmucmstances”? If France wants to play the Big Dog, I say let them. They forced us to do it, we can return the favor.
Perhaps france has a point, but to derail US diplomatic efforts to garner support not just passively but actively to the point of laying their full weight in front of the US in a conflict even they know will happen, if not sooner then later when the problem has exacerbated??
I have read Sam Stone’s reply. I dont disagree with it. It probably will happen as Sam mentioned publicly, but take note of this. Because France led the way to denying all avenues for the US to garner UN support for this inevitable war, the US now has to swallow at least 95 Billion dollars to fund this war and it will do so by itself. The US leadership agress that this sum is a necesary price to pay to keep the US secure and safe so we are willing to pay for this alone. But that 95 Billion will be spread out, and if comes to the interest of France vs paying this amount, guess who is going to lose that bid. We couldve dealt with with Russia and China, we couldve worked around them but France was stumbling block that would not go away.
I would dare say that Russia probably would not have voted “no” had france not said they would. If china did as france did, very few here would argue so forcefully for them but since France, a European nation and a supposedly US ally did it, somehow the fight for peace is more noble instead of self serving.
Please provide your cites that Chirac’s advisors and intelligence sources contradicted the 2 out of 3 people in France who do not support the war.
Reading the rest of your posts in this thread up to now, I think I may have misread this the first time I read it. My new conclusion:
You think that the US had a need, which France stubbornly refused to fill, for no clear reason.
If this is in fact what happened, then your suggestion is one of ‘turnabout is fair play’.
But I strongly disagree that the US needed to fight this war, especially right now. And it didn’t occur to me, the first time around, that your comment meant that you thought it did.
There’s a big difference. Russia and China voiced their disapproval. That’s their right. France, on the other hand, actively lobbied against the U.S., including leaning on the ‘undecided’ countries - especially in Africa.
Allies can disagree with you and stay out of the fight. What they can’t do is actively work to destabilize you.
Okay, that said, I have to point out that France did a very useful thing yesterday: It told the world that if chemical or biological weapons were used by Iraq, that it would join the battle.
That may seem like too little, too late, but it’s really immensely helpful. Saddam knows that his biggest ally is France, and he also knows that the only chance he has to survive is to turn world opinion against the attack. So Saddam needs France. And France just told him in no uncertain terms that if he uses CBW, the game is over.
Like I said, fences will be mended very quickly. They probably already area. Geopolitics is not a family squabble, and no one can afford to alienate entire countries just because they’re pissed off.
But at the same time, it is now clear where France’s interests lie. That means that the U.S. will not enter into deals with France that require any level of trust. Basically, France will be put into the same column as Russia and China.
“destabilize”? Mon dieu, c’est le merde! Ze Frogs c’est provocatuer le Revolucion!
(Laying it on a bit thick, don’t you think, Sam)
I’ve said this before: you see your best friend has poured gasoline into his lap and is reaching for the matches. Its treacherous and evil to slap them out of his hand?
And I’M laying it on thick??? You think the U.S. is self-destructing???
And I didn’t mean France is destabilizing the U.S. - I meant France was actively destabilizing the U.S.'s effort to gain a majority in the Security Council.
The biggest problem the U.S. has with France isn’t French opposition to a war in Iraq, it’s France’s motive for that opposition. Recent events make clear that France has now fully subscribed to the “hyperpower” analysis that the French foreign policy establishment started kicking around several years ago. This doctrine basically says that France’s main geopolitical goal is to take the U.S. down a few notches.
France has cast itself in the role of spoiler. The U.S. won’t forget this. Like Kissinger said, countries don’t have friends, they have interests. France has decided that its interests lie in weakening U.S. dominance. No U.S. foreign policy wonk of any political stripe is going to forget this and it will have consequences for the future conduct of U.S. foreign policy.
If an ally strongly disagrees with your position, they have to ‘put up and shut up’?
The point of the security council isn’t to decide who’s in the fight… its’ to decide if there will be a fight. Countries that go into the council with an all-or-nothng attitude…
Say, a country that decides that it’s going to war, no matter what, and if the council doesn’t agree, will decide it doesn’t ‘need’ the council…
Say, a country that figures that in diplomacy, ‘you’re with us or against us’…
Say, a country that late in the game hardens its position to ‘No war, no matter what’…
… is undermining the way the council is supposed to work. it’s negotiations, not ultimatum-trading.
[hijack] I’d like to believe that France came to it’s final, stubborn position as a clever, calculated response to the American ‘agree-or-you’re-irrelevant’ attitude. I’m not sure what clever, calculated reason they could have, though… [/hijack]
Our interests lie in “weakening” US dominance. If we set ourselves up as the dominator of the world, it will be our ruin.
As for Kissinger, we should send him as envoy to the Kurds, they would love to get their hands on…they would love to confer with him again. Talk over old times. Discuss the meaning of the quote “Covert action is not missionary work”. Indeed they would.
Dear God, but this is a stunning display of egotism on some people’s parts here.
Number one, France was tabling UNSC resolutions as well. It would not put its name to a resolution which it perceived to be a direct trigger to war, but it was willing to put its name to a REASONABLE resolution. As I’ve said before, there has been some selective quoting of unflattering translations (it might do people good to remember that languages don’t always translate 1:1) with regards France.
Number Two, The US was working in its national interests, you say? It was rude of France to “get in its way”? Well, how about this: it was in France’s national interest to NOT destabilise the Middle East. There is a strong possibility that a War in this region could create more terrorism, and France has a history with Algerian (Islamic) terrorists, AND is geographically closer to the Middle East than Iraq is. Iraqis can drive to Paris, but there’s a whole ocean between them and the USA.
Number Three:
Oh, please!
France is a member of the EU. So is Germany. So is Britain, and Spain, and Italy. If you fuck Chirac over out of spite, you have to fuck Berlusconi and Blair as well. I appreciate that Rumsfeld’s treatment of Blair on the runup to this attack made Blair’s position so precarious that his job remains on the line (He’s really hoping this goes well, because if it doesn’t, he’s out), but do you honestly think that you could go any way towards making France into the diplomatic equivalent of China?
Please, even if Bush wanted to he couldn’t do it.
France is the only EU country which has a veto on the security council. Well, Britain does, but they’re arguably in bed with the US. They rarely fail, it seems, to agree with the US position, even if there is little home support for it, and even if the govenment’s ministers start quitting over it.
China has no friends, and Russia is floundering in a weak economy and domestic politics. Neither of them seems likely to draw much power away form the US any time soon.
But the EU has started to position itself to gain more clout, as a unit, on the international scene, and some have suggested they have designs on providing a friendly opposition to US power dominance on the international scene.
We live in a world where one country (the US) is influential enough, wealthy enough, and military-mighty enough to wage wars on its own, as it sees fit, without regard for international procedure and institution, and without fear of being held accountable - What are the chances that American leaders would be brought to trial in an international court, if the rest of the world decided they had become war criminals? (Not that I’m suggesting they are war criminals. But if they were… would the world be willing or able to do anything about it?)
That’s the state of the world today, and not everybody is pleased with it. Some countries are afraid the US will invade or covertly destabilise them (Iraq, North Korea), some simply don’t trust the Americans to always do right. In a democratic house of parliament, the government has an opposition, to balance its views and keep it honest. Some coutires in the world may feel that the most powerful party in the world, the US, needs an opposition.
France, which seems to see itself as a major cornerstone of the EU, may be part of a European impetus to consolidate their influence so as to become an ‘opposition’ for ‘The world’s superpower’
If this is the case, then of course France would not feel bound to throw in its lot with the US all the time. I don’t suspect, though, that the point of opposing the war was simply to work against the US. I hope that France actually had the idea that war when the inspection process was just starting to show results was a bad move.
As a US citizen I’m very thankful for what the French did. I see it more as an opposition to the Bush administration’s aggressive foreign policy than the US itself.
I don’t know what or if the Bush Admin will do to retaliate, but I hope (against the odds, I know) that Russia and China follow through on their allegations of illegality and push for sanctions against the US.
Lots of folks agree with you, including the French and the Chinese[sup]1[/sup]. However, you cannot expect any American policy maker to agree with you. Obviously, the U.S. is going to take steps to ensure that its dominance is not eroded.
I think you’re going to see the U.S. take a very different posture towards Europe after this, especially after the NATO debacle. For one thing, the U.S. is going to make a much stronger effort to influence internal EU politics, especially after the intake of new members – many of them are much more pro-American than pro-French.
[sup]1[/sup] Ironically enough, it is likely that Russia will ultimately line up primarily with the U.S… Russia likes the idea of a multi-polar world, too. But they very much dislike the idea that the Chinese will be one of those poles. It’s sort of a reverse China card.
The US can try and influence EU internal politics as much as it likes. That’s diplomacy.
It better not assume, however, that we’re going to blindly support its wars, no matter how pally it is. Especially since we’ve seen how screaming and incoherent it can get over its little pet projects.
After Rumsfeld’s trick with Blair, after the diplomatic failure of the Administration, you’re going to have to try REALLY HARD to convince the EU that you’re worth listening to.
Remember, the EU isn’t just “little Europe.” The EU is actually pretty damned big. Hard to buy, even harder to threaten.