France does a 180!

[Horn]

Originally posted by weazel
Horn I spelled it wrong.

Carlyle Group

Thanks for the link, Weazel. Remember that even though there are some big names in Carlyle, there are a number (lots) of much smaller investors, too. I think the fund is up to 1.3b now....

h

[Dowding]

Todd - Absolutely, spot-on, bulls-eye, 100% veracity.

Why is the US so shocked by France protecting French interests by using the veto? Take a wild guess at which permanent member of the security council has used the veto the most since the UN's creation. And it's not the UK, China, Russia or France.

[Pepe]

I think you mistook my statement about Villepin and Straw. I am not saying that France's position is right, nor France's Government is making a good job. It was not Villepin who is putting france on the brisk of a catastrophe. Chirac is. Villepin is making US pressure on UN Security Councils members fail. I think it is a great diplomatic achievement. It is not easy to contravene US intentions. I think he is doing a hell of a work defending his country's position. I bet it is not an easy job. This in no way alters my perception and beliefs about France's position in the conflict.

Straw has the merit of being the one and only (at least that's how I see it) able of putting France on the real playground, the one that they desperatly avoid to acknowledge: they are just protecting their national interest. His last movement, with the 6 requisites and deadlines that Saddam has to comply if he wanted to avoid war, has put a lot of pressure on France, and made them appear as if they were just a Iraq supporter and not a "peace loving" country. I think he is one of the very few that is showing some common sense on how to deal the issue with UN and general public.

Of course, I can be wrong, It's must my impression.

[straffo]

DMF you forgot a important fact : each move GWB make in direction of war draw a bigger target sign on US citizen


FYI I don't think France backed Argentina in the Malouines war.If yes so the US ,the Argentinian used US weapon also.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by straffo
DMF you forgot a important fact : each move GWB make in direction of war draw a bigger target sign on US citizen

The islamic fanatics who attacked us have allready clearly stated their intent to destroy the west no matter what...

[straffo]

Sure it won't change that.
Increasing their recruiting pool is very bad.

[GRUNHERZ]

It doesnt matter. The 911 attacked showed us that it took very few people to cause tremendous damage - the problem is that they just wanna destroy us, thats their fantasy.  Go read the article I mentioned, it explains the true problem extremly well.

[Pepe]

Originally posted by straffo
DMF you forgot a important fact : each move GWB make in direction of war draw a bigger target sign on US citizen
.

And you forget that doing nothing after a terrorist attack or a threat issued (WMD ... now they are appearing VX gas containers, AFAIK) will be drawing an even bigger target.  

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Pepe
Of course, I can be wrong, It's must my impression.

Great stuff, Pepe.  Sorry for the confusion earlier.  I think you've covered things very nicely.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[straffo]

When facing terrorism I think covered operation work better than a military agitation.

I would better see the US increase their effort in the intelligence departement than in a conventionnal conflict.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by straffo
DMF you forgot a important fact : each move GWB make in direction of war draw a bigger target sign on US citizen

[/B]

I haven't forgotten anything, as I haven't really talked about Bush's position one way or another.  My argument has been, simply, that France's position is not an altruistic or peace-loving one.  And as a result of going after their best self-interest, they've come into a diplomatic conflict with the United States and its own interests.  The problem for France is that it now appears to have painted itself into a corner without much to show for it.  Unless they win major concessions from the United States in order to abstain, I don't see them coming out ahead in this one.  They'll be worse off than the status quo no matter what happens at this point.

FYI I don't think France backed Argentina in the Malouines war.If yes so the US ,the Argentinian used US weapon also.

I don't dispute that.  My point in drawing that connection was to show that France has hardly demonstrated a peace-loving demeanor in the past, and I find Chirac's argument that a century full of European wars has led France to understand the horrors of armed conflict to be insincere.

The fact is that France, like the United States, pursues its own self-interest in the world, and this self-interest is not altruistic.  At times we may witness, as De Tocqueville called it, "self-interest rightly understood" -- that is, where one country's pursuit of self-interested ends leads to positive and ostensibly altruistic outcomes for other countries.  In this case, I don't buy that France and Chirac oppose war for humanitarian reasons.  That's just a cover for whatever the actual goals may be.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Pepe]

Originally posted by straffo
When facing terrorism I think covered operation work better than a military agitation.

I would better see the US increase their effort in the intelligence departement than in a conventionnal conflict.

Hmmmm....not sure about that. I think acting openly against terrorism has an added value, and it is showing determination. I think terrorism is partly based on terrorist's belief about the inability of western democracies to take decisive action against them, based on his skills to evade and remain unidentified or, better, fuzzy against some country or religion or ideology background. This difficulty in identificating precisely what our foe is would paralize democracie's actions. Lice Cesar said, divide and you will win.

I think intelligence is paramount (if not the most important single issue) in this war, but only as a mean of identifying the foe. Providing solid proof of the involvement of certain subjects or nations in terrorist affairs. And then let the dirty work to the military. The most important single failure of US in all this Iraq crisis was, in my opinion, providing false documents to support his point of view. It has no justification whatsoever.

Western countries have the moral ground and the reasons on our side in the war against terrorism. We can't afford to lose our moral ground by cheating. And we absolutely must give a clear signal about our reaction against aggression or menace. That's why I think the military should handle the response. Covert operations will not elliminate or even decrease the moral conflict if they are taken without solid proof. If we have proofs, open operations will strengthen the message sent to terrorists (for me, the one sheltering is exactly as terrorist as the one with the blood tainted hand).

Just my opinion.

[straffo]

I agree it's certainly not altruistic.

But I don't think the motivation of Chirac are purely economic either ,lot of poster here keep saying (in substance ) : France is backing Iraq because of $$$.

As far as I know we make a lot more money with the Us than with Iraq (I think you agree ?) so it's not economic. What is the real reason ?

My guess is that Chirac think the US are shooting in their feet with their actual behaviour.

And my thought is : this is the real motive.

Many poster have show a lot of picture of Chirac in Iraq none posted picture when he was in the Us ...

[Pepe]

Originally posted by straffo

My guess is that Chirac think the US are shooting in their feet with their actual behaviour.
 

Mine is that Chirac thinks the US are shooting in France's feet.