Why France, Germany and Russia are pissed about Iraq

[straffo]

Originally posted by AKIron
Maybe a few Americans were mixed up in this scandal. However, they did not influence their country to avoid ousting this dangerous and murderous dictator. There is a pretty significant difference between having a few criminals as citizens with no influence over their government versus countries that balked at removing this genocidal maniac for profit. I know some of you are so blinded by your hate for America that you will refuse to see this.

I've read the name of the French involved in this document as far as I know their influence is and was pretty limited
More influent than I , certainly but not to the point they have the hability to change the French decision.
Plus they were not on the political movement leading France at this time and at the other end of the policial spectrum of the more anti-war people.

Originally posted by anonymous
i see. that explains why fdr never backed the normandy landings that never happened? as for vichy well those were frenchmen right? what right had fdr to oppose soveriegn french rule? i mean if people of france didnt support vichy they would have rose up and overthrown vichy? isnt current wisdom saying its wrong for us to intervene for oppressed when they should free themselves? mistake to protect south vn from communists. mistake to protect innocent iraqis from murdering dictator. mistake to protect french from their own french vichy govt. wasnt our business, right?

That suppose the vichy government was legal ,but it was not according to our law and constitution.
But in the 40's the average French believed it was legitim and legal ,how do the rise against a governement you sincerly trust ?

Don't forget the media were all controled by Vichy and all informations were filtered ,it's not before 1943 that most the French started to question the ligitimacy of Vichy.

Some like De Gaulle and lot of Free French knew this since 1940.

[Gixer]

And another cut n paste by Ripsnort to try and justify the war. Keep searching.



...-Gixer

[anonymous]

Originally posted by Fishu
Well..  just had a though of you thinking of yourself as better person and better educated than the foreigners, who live in the fantasy world.. which reminded me of the aryans.

Which was also powered by this what you said: "id say your naive or your hatred of america above all else is showing." - they're out to get us!

For better educated person, you don't seem to have much insight into the foreign cultures or politics.
But that isn't a big surprise... the other world gets news of US politics every day, while in US people could care less of the foreign politics, unless it has something to do with them.

i dont know where you get that i have a lack of insight into foreign cultures. ive spent a large part of my life interacting with them on a very personal level.

[anonymous]

Originally posted by straffo
Please document yourself next time ....

I'll give you some insight anyway :

1.corrupted Frenchman who believed Germany will be the next superpower and "flip flipped" like fishes ...
1a. they did help the Gestapo like the *****es they were.
2. yes an so ?
3. FDR supported 1st Vichy, an illegal and illegitimate governement
Next recognizing his error he played some political stunt , supported Darlan and next played the Giraud card to get ride of De Gaulle (essencially because of personal reason).
Meanwhile Churchill recognized the legitimacy of De Gaulle years before.
The free french were equipped by the English not the US.
It's exact anyway the USA provided lot of equipement  after the invasion of N. Africa and the renaissance of the French army

concerning the act of our different governement (and especially algeria and Bosnia , I can't disagree...)

 
Plain wrong it's not the commie that made France leave NATO.

 

I'm mad at them , but you should know it's a grey area some fought the German other collaborated, in my own familly we had the 2 sides of this coin for reasons I'll not post here (mostly the collaborator where weak minded and misled).

meant commies only for before second world war and during battle of france didnt mean they caused france to leave nato.

didnt know anything about fdr and vichy until you explained it.

as for the french in bosnia and payback over algeria i cant say i wouldnt feel same way. i dont know that id protect the guys leading the death squads but that was a few bitter extremist in french military and intel community from what i gathered. i talked to many french soldier who told about brutal stuff being done by muslim terrorist in algeria. arab culture can seem insane but i have to say bosnia and kosovo were most screwed up situations i have ever been involved in by far.

dont worry i know plenty of french were resisting germans and vichy. reading book about that right now. kind of funny interviews with french who resist in '41 they are bitter they say "after september of '44 EVERY frenchman was a resistance fighter" apparently the "come latelys" were trying to take the credit for the guys who had the real nerve and were resisting in '41 and '42. some things never change.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by AKIron
I'll grant you the possibility that governments weren't influenced to keep Saddam in power for the money, time may reveal otherwise.

A significant issue before the UN was cooperation to which Saddam had agreed and yet refused for many years. If for no other reason he should have been removed so the UN could maintain some semblance of functionality.

Cooperation on what? As far as UN resolutions are concerned, it's cooperation on WMDs and the disposal thereof.

Well it's a similar story — for the most part, it appears Saddam did cooperate: He let in inspectors, although — as you'll no doubt point out — when UNSCOM were being used as US spies, Saddam said so, and did not allow them access to presidential palaces and other areas that had no link to WMDs. And it was the US, not Saddam who told UNSCOM to get out when the US denied this and sought to strong-arm him into shutting up by bombing Iraq (the targets selected by using the latest intelligence gleaned from their informers in the UNSCOM inspectors).

And perhaps the best evidence of cooperation is that according to the latest US intelligence, he destroyed his WMDs mostly in 1991.

So perhaps France, Germany and Russia felt that he had cooperated enough to not need the UN to invade and depose him — and in this they would of course have been correct too, according to the Bush Administration, at least.

Besides if oil-for-food was such a dreadful scam — stopping the UN from functioning and so forth — surely the bulk of the blame rests on the UN member that called for this ill-considered or perhaps deliberately corrupt resolution's introduction in the first place?