France does a 180!

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by miko2d
 Iraq is miniscule in power compared to France and cannot bully it if it wanted to. The alleged contracts with Iraq are trifle compared to the french economy - which is so socialistic, that financial considerations would not play major role in their decision making anyway.

[/B]

Sorry, but that argument doesn't fly for me.  Are you actually asserting that France isn't protecting its economic interests via the United Nations because it's "so socialist?"  Utter nonsense.  France, like every other country, predictably protects its own political and economic interests -- the same as the old "socialist" Soviet Union did in casting veto after veto during the 1950s.

I don't fault France, BTW, for protecting its interests.  Any good government should endeavor to do so for its citizens.  I believe, however, that France errs by failing to consider the long-term economic and political consequences of dividing a European Union that it hopes to lead and strengthening American/British ties.  As well, American "unilateralism" undermines the United Nations and, as such, France's ability to utilize the United Nations to strengthen its sphere of influence.  In addition, if war is in fact inevitable, they stand to lose all of their economic ties to Iraq without gaining anything measurable in return; and that's just bad politics.  

-- Todd/Leviathn

[mietla]

Originally posted by Rasker
rumors are that US intelligence has pictures of France in a compromising position with Germany a number of years ago

[miko2d]

Dead Man Flying: Sorry, but that argument doesn't fly for me.  Are you actually asserting that France isn't protecting its economic interests via the United Nations because it's "so socialist?"  Utter nonsense.  France, like every other country, predictably protects its own political and economic interests -- the same as the old "socialist" Soviet Union did in casting veto after veto during the 1950s.

 Sure it does - just not in this case. Not enough money involved for them to earn animocity of the major world power and cause inernational uproar.
 You do not break up with your friends and relatives for $20. For a million, maybe. For principles - certainly. Not for trifles. They will lose more money on US trade than they will ever make in Iraq.
 What, do you think we would not guarantee their companies contracts and profits if money was the only issue? Surely we would, we just offered $26 bil to Turkey and $15 to Israel.
 France cannot be sure that we will not go in anyway and if we do despite their resistance, they will lose all contracts - not a penny for them in occupied Iraq.

In addition, if war is in fact inevitable, they stand to lose all of their economic ties to Iraq without gaining anything measurable in return; and that's just bad politics.

 Oh, I see you made the same conclusion yourself. So it is politics, but not necessarily the money considerations.
 So my argument does fly. Whatever they are doing, France is surely not "protecting its economic interests".

 miko

[weazel]

Who was the first foreign diplomat to visit Ground Zero?

Chirac was the first to line up with us in solidarity against terrorism.

Guess who pissed that good will away with his ham-handed attempts at diplomacy?



Chimpy did...that's who.

I don't excuse Chiracs actions in regards to Iraq...but it's common sense for him to try to protect French financial interests there.

Just as Spurious George is doing for Americas corporations....war is about making money, and chimpy will make sure Poppy Bush, Unka Dick Cheney, and his Carlisle Group and Haliburton cronies get theirs.

[funkedup]

"Spurious George"
LMAO

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by funkedup
"Spurious George"
LMAO

See? Hatred can be humor!  Weazel is like a good comedian, sucks in facts, great with fiction.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by miko2d
Sure it does - just not in this case. Not enough money involved for them to earn animocity of the major world power and cause inernational uproar.

[/b]

And this is exactly why France's position is myopic.  Where you perhaps see strategic brilliance or maybe even altruism, I see short-sightedness.  You're right, there isn't enough money involved in Iraq to risk earning the animosity of the one superpower in the world, and yet here they are doing it anyway.

Perhaps France had hoped to forge a strong European alliance against military action in order to position itself firmly as Europe's de facto leader for the next century.  A unified Europe, after all, could act as an effective counterbalance to the United States.  Chirac's outburt a few weeks ago would seem to indicate that he had longed for a united front against the United States.  However, any semblance of European unity on the issue was shattered with British, Spanish, and eastern European support for America's position.  Yet still unable to find any kind of face-saving egress, France battles on, burning trans-Atlantic bridge after trans-Atlantic bridge and almost guaranteeing, at this point, its irrelevance in a post-war Iraq.  Plus it has demonstrated little promise as a self-proclaimed European leader.

Oh, I see you made the same conclusion yourself. So it is politics, but not necessarily the money considerations.
 So my argument does fly. Whatever they are doing, France is surely not "protecting its economic interests".

[/B]

No, your argument doesn't fly because you stated with some absolutism that "financial considerations would not play major role in their decision making anyway."  France's annual GDP is about $1.3 trillion, and if we consider that Iraq owes France tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions, of dollars since 1981, you're looking at debt valued at almost 10 to 20% of France's total annual GDP!  That's pretty substantial.  Plus France conducts over $3 billion in annual trade with Iraq, a number that is not inconsequential as a matter of GDP.  So of course economic considerations matter to France in Iraq.

And we are agreed that political considerations also matter.  I've never denied this.  I hardly think the matter is as simple as "America wants oil" or "France wants oil;" it isn't.  But to deny that the economics of it don't matter, or to marginalize their importance, is wrong-headed IMO.  

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Horn]

Originally posted by weazel
Unka Dick Cheney, and his Carlisle Group

Who is this "Carlisle Group"?

h

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by weazel

I don't excuse Chiracs actions in regards to Iraq...but it's common sense for him to try to protect French financial interests there.

Its also common sense for "chimpy" to protect American interests.

Why is it ok for France to act in their best interests, but its not ok for the US to do the same?

[Animal]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Bringing France to the brink of nearly complete international irrelevancy by undermining the very organization through which it exercises international power is hardly brilliant.

France is playing a very dangerous game here.  They may win the public relations and moral war when it's all said and done, but at a long-term cost that seems to far outweigh those benefits.

-- Todd/Leviathn

100% agreed.

[miko2d]

Dead Man Flying: And this is exactly why France's position is myopic.  Where you perhaps see strategic brilliance or maybe even altruism, I see short-sightedness.  You're right, there isn't enough money involved in Iraq to risk earning the animosity of the one superpower in the world, and yet here they are doing it anyway.

 I surely hope you are right and they are not just trying to prevent world going to hell...
 Since I and many others do not believe Saddam Hussein poses any threat to US or Israel, WMDs or not, our reasons to stir up all that trouble seems pretty short-sighted too.
 If Bush believed we are in danger, he shoudl have struck immediately and unilaterally in our defence. That's his primary duty. Since he is trying to persuade us that he is doing it for UN - than UN is telling him pretty clear it does not consider Hussein a threat enough to warrant an invasion.

 We - americans - take "If only we stopped Hitler in 38" and make analogy "We do not want to be sorry that we did not stop Hussein in 2003". But french say "We do not want to be sorry that we did not stop Bush in 2003".

 Somebody is surely wrong here. I hope it's me.

Perhaps France had hoped to forge a strong European alliance against military action in order to position itself firmly as Europe's de facto leader for the next century.

 There will not be France in the next century - at least not populated by christian french - and France is doing it's utmost to dissolve itself in favor if the European State in this century. Can't have both.

No, your argument doesn't fly because you stated with some absolutism that "financial considerations would not play major role in their decision making anyway."  France's annual GDP is about $1.3 trillion, and if we consider that Iraq owes France tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions, of dollars since 1981, you're looking at debt valued at almost 10 to 20% of France's total annual GDP!  That's pretty substantial.  Plus France conducts over $3 billion in annual trade with Iraq, a number that is not inconsequential as a matter of GDP.  So of course economic considerations matter to France in Iraq.

 They risk it all by opposing us on the slim chance they succeed to prevent us from invading? They may never see their money anyway. Do you think Hussein will live forever? Do they? What will happen when he dies in a few years? What will his obligations be worth then, if he did not pay them in 20 years?

 Sure, money matters. I just do not believe it matters much in this case. Some role. Not "major". Since you cannot have exact numbers - and neithe can anybody, how can you be sure my argument is invalid rather than just suspect? "Does not fly" usually means major, obvious defect in reasoning.

 miko

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by miko2d

 They risk it all by opposing us on the slim chance they succeed to prevent us from invading? They may never see their money anyway. Do you think Hussein will live forever? Do they? What will happen when he dies in a few years? What will his obligations be worth then, if he did not pay them in 20 years?

 Sure, money matters. I just do not believe it matters much in this case. Some role. Not "major". Since you cannot have exact numbers - and neithe can anybody, how can you be sure my argument is invalid rather than just suspect? "Does not fly" usually means major, obvious defect in reasoning.

 miko

Controlling 25% of Iraq's oil is pretty good incentive for France to oppose war.  Not buying 25% but actually controlling it through concessions granted to develop two of Iraq's largest oil fields, one of them with an estimated 30 billion barrels of oil.


Ack-Ack

[weazel]

Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Its also common sense for "chimpy" to protect American interests.

Why is it ok for France to act in their best interests, but its not ok for the US to do the same?

Those nasty knee-jerks blur your vision?  

Horn I spelled it wrong.

Carlyle Group

[Rasker]

IMO France is ensuring that no future democratic Iraqi government will honor the contracts the Butcher made with French interests.   Why would those people victimized by Saddam for so long send money to the country that tried to keep him in power out of sheer greed?

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by miko2d
I surely hope you are right and they are not just trying to prevent world going to hell...

[/B]

I'm not so naive as to believe France is just an "old country" that has lived through enough war to understand its horrors and oppose it.  Spare me.  France would have been the first on the war bandwagon if they would have seen an improvement in their status quo by doing so.  This is the same France that threatened to veto all EU business if they weren't allowed to entertain Mugabe last month.  And the same France that outfitted Argentina with Exocet missiles that were used against British forces in the Falklands War.  They play the geopolitical game as much as anyone, and I'm convinced that their position right now is purely pragmatic and self-interested.  If the world going to hell benefitted France, I'm sure they'd be all for it.

Since I and many others do not believe Saddam Hussein poses any threat to US or Israel, WMDs or not, our reasons to stir up all that trouble seems pretty short-sighted too.

[/B]

First of all, I'm not defending Bush's position.  What I am doing is noting the short-sightedness of France's position.  Regardless of the long-term wisdom of the Bush administration's efforts in Iraq, France's strategy in the United Nations has been myopic and self-serving.  They only stand to lose by it one way or another, and it's pretty amazing that they persist regardless.  Their only real control over the United States is via the United Nations, and if they undermine that organization's legitimacy (when there are far better fights to fight without giving the appearance of defending a recalictrant dictator), they've eliminated the one pretext they have to check American aggression on other matters.

Say, for instance, that the United States wishes to follow up an Iraqi invasion by planning to attack Iran and its nuclear infrastructure.  Given a young population, a reformist-minded government, and a generally moderate political disposition among its electorate (though not its religious leaders, who hold real power), Iran presents a far trickier problem than Iraq.  It's making slow, democratic strides and it hasn't violated United Nations dictates or conditions of a cease fire.  Yet having burned its political capital and undermined the legitimacy of the United Nations, France can't do anything but wring its hands if the United States pursues unilateral military action against Iran without consulting the UN first.

But french say "We do not want to be sorry that we did not stop Bush in 2003".

[/B]

Perhaps the French people say that.  But this is not now, nor was it ever, the primary motivation behind France's position.  It is as pragmatic as the United States, and it plays geopolitics just the same.

There will not be France in the next century - at least not populated by christian french - and France is doing it's utmost to dissolve itself in favor if the European State in this century. Can't have both.

[/b]

Surely you aren't suggesting that France, which legally protects its culture against the infringement of banal, outside forces, would willfully "dissolve" itself or its self-identity.  Instead, it envisions itself as the greatest among equals in a European Union.  However, as its recent actions have demonstrated, it will never receive the support it desires to achieve such a position.

They risk it all by opposing us on the slim chance they succeed to prevent us from invading? They may never see their money anyway. Do you think Hussein will live forever? Do they? What will happen when he dies in a few years? What will his obligations be worth then, if he did not pay them in 20 years?

[/B]

Hussein's children or someone from his Baathist regime would continue in his absence given the status quo, and they would have little reason to not honor their debt obligations to France.

Since you cannot have exact numbers - and neithe can anybody, how can you be sure my argument is invalid rather than just suspect? "Does not fly" usually means major, obvious defect in reasoning.

[/b]

I'm curious what you honestly believe France's angle is in this affair.  And let's not approach it naively.  As time-series analysis tells us, any item's value today is a function of its value yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that.  By this, I mean to say that looking at France's history, distant and recent, it has shown little inclination to act in a altruistic, peace-loving manner.  To suggest that it acts in such a way now when it didn't do so just yesterday, or the day before that, or the day before that... well, let's just say that alone raises huge red flags.  When you consider the strong political and economic forces behind their behavior, it makes sense even if they behave myopically.

-- Todd/Leviathn