We’re not ignoring the missiles, and the link has already been posted - twice (me and World Eater). Here it is again with relevant quote
I think a lot of people (myself included) would feel massively relieved if WMD’s were found, but I think making a pronouncement like “WMD found and were ready to fire. Neener Neener Neener!! Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Fucking peaceniks.” on the basis of unsubstantiated reports just serves to piss people off.
Sorry if I call it an overly biased, and as such inaccurate analysis. Compare the speeches by De Villepin and by Powell, and you should see quite some difference in attitude. Specifically, De Villepin granted everyone on the council the benefit of the doubt on good intent and declared all of them as guardians of certain values, even those known to spit at said values. Powell, on the other hand, threw the party line into the room that everyone not with the US is aiding and abetting terrorists and dictators. The representatives of the general assembly most certainly didn’t consider the French stance as arrogant, but very much the US stance. Especially after it was revealed that the US had misrepresented and outright forged evidence by using outdated photos, raising false claims about the timeframe of a photo sequence, and using pre-91 analyses of Iraq’s military capabilities.
Sorry, but that and the following statements are quite inaccurate and speak of a pretty spotty knowledge of french history.
Nevertheless, revolutionary France conquered German territories up to the Rhine and were only ousted much later, with Napoleon.
By Wellington, with the aid of Blucher. In other words, no single nation was capable of defeating them decisively. In the meantime, they acquired colonial properties rivaling those of the British and had control over much of Africa and challenged british authority in the indian ocean.
They were bitch slapped not by Germany, but by a coalition of German states, which they had always sought to prevent. It was the political genius of Bismarck who thwarted them, but given that German nobility forcefully and bloodily shattered a unification drive by the public in 1848, there was no reason for them to expect that the German nations would rally behind Prussia only a bit more than twenty years later.
An extremely wrong analysis. For one thing, the British were as overwhelmed, and second, the Germans were using until then quite unusual tactics in armored warfare which took more than the French by surprise.
And the British you wanted to say. Does Falklands ring any bell? The British left a whole bunch of their colonies kicking and screaming, and their real overseas territories are minute nowadays. The French, on the other hand, still have plenty of overseas territory.
An analysis in which you neglect the Elysee treaties.
An analysis that is falsified by the mere existence of the above mentioned Elysee treaties.
An analysis which completely ignores the peculiarities of the last French presidential election.
An analysis that fails to explain why they did not fall in line when the war became inevitable.
Sorry, but there was no ‘Holy Shit!’- the last proposal did not contain ANY change of course whatsoever.
A claim that is definitely false.
Funny. You are willing to support a war on FORGED evidence, but unwilling to support one without extremely compelling evidence?
Well shit. I have been keeping my eye out for days looking for something about the missiles and never saw that nor heard anything on TV about them. I knew about the barrels
Guess I fucked up and am an asshole. Sorry people. I’ll eat shit here and shut up now.
I have no interest in the 98th reiteration of this particular catfight, but just one clarification 'cause I’m obsessive-compulsive when it comes to certain things:
Indochina, not Indonesia ;).
Weirddave: "That?s the problem when you get a historian going. 
"
Well far be it from me to object a history digression, but I think you belabor the point you’re trying to make. After all, during French Revolutionary period the Haitians defeated both Napoleon and the British (who lost more men in the Caribbean than they did at Waterloo). So, yes, imperial ironies galore. But I’m not sure what else that epoch has to teach us about today.
If your point is that French diplomacy is driven by a desire to maintain French national importance, I won’t disagree, but then they’re hardly unique there. Have you read the Bush doctrine?
OTOH, I agree with OliverH. that you’re “Holy Shit” analysis of the French response is offbase. I think the French knew that Bush was serious and it would go it alone; I don’t think anyone thinks of him as bluffer. (Though it’s interesting how much he is now patting himself on the back for this very quality in his recent remarks on the UN: i.e., making a virtue out of not bluffing, when no one thought he was bluffing, instead of realizing that his real Achilles heel is that he was too puffed up with himself and obssessed with his goal to be strong enough to back down a bit and make a smart compromise.)
I also agree that there were moments when French diplomacy was less than stellar (e.g., Chirac’s remarks to the Eastern European nations). Sure, there is lots one can say about France’s conduct in this matter, but none of it provides justification for implying that either French blundering, or French arrogance, or French self-interest is the root cause of this war being fought without the UN. Only Bush can have made that decision (with some help from Blair).
“In any event, I see this war as inevitable. Full US cooperation with the UN would simply have meant that SH would have X more months or years to continue to terrorize the Iraqi people. It was coming one way or the other.”
I think that misses the most important point though. The war was only inevitable because Bush was determined to fight it. Had it been fought with the UN that would have been a very substantial gain for the US and, again, the choice was ultimately Bush’s. There are serious human rights violations going on all over the world right now–including among the “coalition of the willing.” So while I did and do sympathize with the plight of Iraqis, I do not believe that Saddam’s brutality is what made this war inevitable, nor that it justifies a war fought in this way, nor that the Iraqis wanted to be “liberated” in this way.
As to the aftermath, it’s already unfolding. We don’t have to wait for hawkish aggression elsewhere. Bush is already telling the rest of the world (including Blair) to piss off by rejecting the latter’s advice to give the UN a primary role in post-war Iraq.
Our Leader has definitiely stated that the UN will play a “vital” role. That might best be translated as “we damn sure don’t want to pay for all of this, howzabout you guys chipping in?”
Next time I thrash a china shop I’ll be sure to ring my friends when the owners come after me for payment.
And just to be picky, they’re fucking rockets, not fucking missiles. The BM-21 is an MRLS launcher.
Stinkpalm, you have been hoist by one of the major traps of media coverage – the big breaking story, if it doesn’t pan out, simply gets tossed out and never metioned again, or at the very best if the editors are having a generous day the correction is buried in the middle of the paper or in a 20 wps crawl at the bottom of the screen.
Spinmeisters, of course, are counting on that the audience will not notice and continue to give their statements a presumption of credibility. That’s why you should leave the neener-neener-ing to respectable professionals like Fox News Channel 
If/when CENTCOM got positive ID of operational Iraqui NBC warheads (or wanted to say they did) you could expect live embedded-reporter tours of the site with much ado made as to how they are looking at it as-it-was-found (with the EmbReps in full MOPP4 gear), PowerPoint slides, chromatograph charts, plastic models of the sarin molecule, geiger counters, dead canaries, the works. Could we all wait for that??
Yes indeed. Here are the details.
I don’t know about that, I think a country with problems would love to sweep them under the rug and deal with some world drama.
Well I’ll tell you what the problem is, since you don’t seem to be capable of grasping it.
SH would have found a way to wiggle out of that agreement as well, just as he had for 12 years prior.
Get it?
10 We get tough and set a date
20 Said date approaches
30 SH makes 11th hour concessions
40 People get the illusion that progress is being made
50 Let’s extend deadline
60 Goto 10
It’s been happening for 12 years and you think another 60 days would make a difference?
Do you think any of those opposing countries would give us an ironclad agreement? No, of course not, and if it ain’t ironclad then it can be broken, and that’s the fucking problem.
First of all, I said that the US frequently has an arrogant stance re: foreign policy, did you miss that? Second, I’ll grant that US “proof” was weak, but “outright forged”? I’ll be charitable and allow that each side was presenting with an eye to furthering their own claims. Denying this flys in the face of what international diplomacy is.
Please, sir, educate me, tell me where I’m wrong. My history degree is powerless against your unfounded claim that I have a “pretty spotty knowledge of French history”.
Hmm. Where did I claim they weren’t?
And my statement “(Napoleon)catapulted them to within a frog’s hair of total domination of Eurasia” denies this?
Translation: Germany bitch slapped them. I would love to se you try and claim that that is not the case.
Again, translated “The Germans won”. Tell me how I’m wrong, please. France should have danced on the German’s graves,( going by the numbers ) but they didn’t. Their military leadership dropped the ball.
How a treaty that states that France and Germany will work together to advance common interests relates to the history of France is beyond me. If you believe that any nation, the US included, dosent act in it’s best interest, than you are living in a world vastly different from reality.
On this, you’ve got me. I freely confess to be ignorant about how the last French election went. Please, tell me how this affects how “the French” as a whole react.
Oh, but my position is that they tried to, that’s what the 11th hour resolution was all about.
Please elaborate on how " we will authorize no use of force whatsoever" went to " well, in 30 or 60 days" without a change of course. I’m very interested in this.
For those of you in the peanut gallery, my claim that is “definitely false” is that Saddam Hussain has been stonewalling the UN for 12 years. I REALLY REALLY want to know what you are talking about here, Oliver, because AFAICT, you’re alone in that claim
Prove that Iraq’s violations of UN resolutions are " forged". Go on, I dare you.
World Eater, I try very hard not to flame people or insult them even when I’m in the Pit because I consider it a waste of my time. But let me tell you that the only thing I’m having trouble grasping right now is how you can possibly so obtuse, and so aggresive at the same time.
So let’s go about this again, really slowly …
There has never been a UN resolution like the one proposed by the French. What the French were proposing would have been a modified version of the second resolution that the US and Britain were urging–in other words, a follow-up to 1441.
Got me so far?
Hence, nothing like this has been happening for 12 years.
As to ironclad agreement, well, I suppose it’s possible that France or some other country might renege on a UNSC resolution that they themselves forwarded and agreed to; but it that were the case then that might indeed be the time to move without them. Presumably, all that would amount to is their refusal to provide troops, because the proposal itself would have stipulated a) terms of disarmament and b) deadline for disarmament.
Adopting the French proposal (assuming, of course, that it wouldn’t be vetoed by Germany or anyone else), would have been a way to give the inspectors more time–which is what France and several other important allies said they required before they could see the legitimacy of war. So even if there were some disagreement in the end about what did or didn’t constitute disarmament–and that’s a genuine “if” since the stipulated terms may well have been clear enough–at the very least the US and anyone else who agreed with their position would be able to make a strong case that France (or whomever) was now refusing to adhere to the letter and/or spirit of their own resolution. (It’s also possible that disarmament would have been achieved peaceably.)
**So the trade-off is between a headlong rush that most of the world sees as illegitimate; and a process that most of the world–or at least a good chunk–would have seen as legitimate. **
To me and many others I know that is a very important difference and well worth the wait involved–in this instance, a matter of months.
Now, I don’t doubt that it’s possible that you don’t recognize the difference, as you don’t seem to understand any nuance of difference in what has been going in Iraq for the last 12 years. In fact, you don’t even seem to realize that there were no inspections in Iraq at all between 1998 and late last year.
So maybe now you understand the point that I am making. And perhaps you understand that, even if you disagree, that is not because there are no distinctions to grasp, but because you personally–with your impressive stock of knowledge about world affairs–don’t deem them sufficiently important to consider. In that case, fair enough.
But if you don’t understanding the point that I am making, if you insist that any disagreement between us occurs because I’m incapable of plumbing some depth of understanding that you reached long ago, then you are simply, to my mind, one of this country’s many incurably ignorant people. I certainly won’t lose any sleep thinking about your opinion of me.
Got it?
:smack: Put it down to late night brain farts. I don’t know how I screwed that one up.
As to the first part, I very much admired the way you dealt with the post detailing “The military history of France” by blowing it out of the water with facts, I would be quite intererested in what you see as inaccurate in my sumation above making it just another “reiteration of this particular catfight”.
Well, I think fantasy resolutions are all well and good, but I don’t think they would have put that forward if there was an actual chance of us accepting it. Too bad we didn’t take them up on it, because I’m pretty damn sure they would have wiggled out of it. You see it was a nice effort on paper, but in practicality it wouldn’t have worked, and we would have ended up in the same spot 60 days later. Of course in that time, someone would have come up with another plan for 60 more days, because SH just allowed an additional inspector in the country, and inspections are working and such. Whether inspectors were on the ground or not, he was in violation of UN regs since 1991! It’s 2003 for christsakes!
Now I like most people am for/against this war for many reasons, but let me tell you one thing that I feel crystal clear on. Most of this goes on Saddam’s shoulders. He should have gone into exile, he should have disarmed, he should have never tried to acquire the fucking weapons. Every single fucking day he had a chance to go on the level, and every single fucking day he passed that opportunity by. If he was truly disarming he would have brought the weapons to the inspectors, he would have been forthright, and he would have cooperated above and beyond what was expected of him. If he had disarmed like South Africa did, this war would have been avoided, if he disarmed like Ukraine did, this war would have been avoided. He could have done it in 1991, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 00, 01, 02, and up until a month ago, but he didn’t.
Do you honestly believe that 60 additional days would have made a difference?
It is ugly to see one make a claim of legitimacy based on the fact that they have a degree in something or other. In a way, it ends up reducing the credence the reader might give when one does this rather than relying on simply employing a reasonable refutation of the other’s assertions. This is true regardless of whether one’s history degree is a Ph.D. from Yale or an A.D. from Tallahassee Juco, and whether one is currently on the faculty at Cambridge or involved in sales.
You should believe the above because I have a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Connecticut. Go Huskies!
in what? in world opinion? yes. in the net result (ending up in warfare) perhaps not.
Yes, of course the word of a retail clerk at Blockbuster should be taken as seriously as a person with a Ph.D. in history from Yale on matters, pertaining to history.
Mandelstam:
I got a bit lost in this thread. 
I guess we’ll never know how binding the 11th-hour plan would have been on Iraq; it’s clear that the US, UK and France and Russia differed on what constitutes “compliance” and also what the serious consequences would be. The 30-60 days might have cancelled our actions, because timing is an issue. I agree with Weirddave in thinking France didn’t realize that we were that serious. I never heard of a plan for regime change being on the table, and I suppose in the narrow focus of WMD it wasn’t relevant.
But for the US it is a relevant issue. France didn’t have to deal with the hostile acts, the warmongering of SH, they are not as responsible for the security of the region, and the global effort to combat terrorism, they do not have the INC in residence lobbying the government (I don’t think), they do not have a steady trickle of Iraqi nationals in residence voicing the atrocities of the regime (apparently.) France has a large Arab population, rampant anti-Semitism compared to here and a preference for soft power methods of solving problems. We’ve little common ground in this. And that’s ignoring oil issues. I do not think an allied invasion would have been welcomed under any circumstances to the French.
So, assume that the two sides are equally opposed, with each seeking to avoid future consequences of equal importance. But each agrees that the regime has got to go…and also the importance of having a unified position, which is not happening. Do you force the issue through the UN anyway? Or do you let both sides walk and remain committed to their positions, come what may. Which side do you want to err on, is what I’d like to know, what is sacrificed first. For me it’s an easy choice: we’ve gone up against the UN on Iraq before, with the UK, and we’ve chosen to act in our own interests. We settle differences later. That there would be a UN role in post-war Iraq was never in question, I don’t think, because I’ve been reading that all along.
Anyway, that’s my only problem, seeing this advertised as Bush’s “failure”, which is the US failure. It’s either a collective failure or a collective answer to a problem not easily solved. The UN should be able to absorb the blow, IMO.
Good post Tee