Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: StSanta on March 13, 2003, 11:34:13 AM
-
Now they want a unified UN and are in support of the US position!
Wonder what the US intelligence agencies have on them.
This is GOOD news, gentlemen. The war, like it or not, is inevitable. We need it to be according to Rule Of Law, or the US will stand in a bad position.
I disagree with the war, but know it is a reality and can understand the concerns. I personally think they are exaggerated but am open to the idea that the US administration knows more than me.
With a unified UN, the world will be safer in case of a war.
Phew.
-
rumors are that US intelligence has pictures of France in a compromising position with Germany a number of years ago :)
-
Are you fluff'n kidding ME!?!?
Going to CNN.com now...
If true... this is excellent news. Excellent.
-
Where'd you get that Santa? Haven't seen or read anything on it here yet.
-
Just went to CNN and MSNBC... nothing there - where'd you get this?
-
Don't believe it, I think AKAK has it right. France is defending their illicit and illegal (in terms of UN resolutions) trading partner and hoping to hide their mercenary financial lust.
First take care of Iraq, then lets level France.
UNITED NATIONS - The fissure in the U.N. Security Council deepened Thursday when France rejected a British compromise on Iraq infuriating London and prompting the United States to consider postponing a vote on an ultimatum against Baghdad until next week.
Iraq, reveling in the turmoil at the council,
dismissed Britain's plan, which lists six
disarmament requirements Baghdad would have
to meet or else face "serious consequences."
Britain proposed the list in a bid to win votes on
the council for a U.S.-backed resolution
authorizing war unless Baghdad meets a
deadline. To sweeten the offer, British officials
also suggested pushing back the deadline from
Monday, as originally proposed by the United States.
France's flat rejection of the proposals clearly
angered British leaders. Foreign Secretary Jack
Straw called the French attitude "extraordinary."
Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites)
feels the French "have become completely
intransigent and have literally threatened to veto
almost anything that is put forward to the U.N.
Security Council," Conservative Party leader
Iain Duncan Smith said after meeting with Blair
in London.
-
just watching Fleischer's news conference on Fox News; nothing earthshaking yet, just scrollling references to "interesting comments" by the French.
apparently France rejected the British plan before Iraq did perhap France's punishment should be being forced to accept Saddam and his entourage in exile, but without their stolen money :)
-
Just heard it on Danish news. Hold on, waiting for them to talk about it...will update soon.
Well, this is BS. They said France had changed their position, that France wanted a unified UN and that they'd say more later...
Went to the loo, came back...they didn't run the story. If this turns out to be a bogus publicity stunt from one of our national channels, I apologize to those reading this thread. Took it at face value, as it is usually an extremely reliable source of information.
Gonna check out some places to see if I can either verify or disprove this. But I am positive (as is my neighbor sitting right next to me) that they stated what I wrote in the initial post. 100% positive. Will know more in an hour :/
-
Word out of Iraq recently was that many of the Iraq military units are stocking up on white flags. How dare they equip themselves with the French national flag?
dago
-
Posted on March 5th.:
... And don't bring the "honour" or the "hipocricy" or the "interests" flags around. Everyone here follows his own agenda, and France is paramount. They are only playing his cards to protect their national interests (Elf Aquitaine comes to mind). They are appearing as if they are defending the weak (Iraq) against the powerful (USA) but they will step with America once the war begins. Mark my words. In the very moment they perceive they have a losing hand, they will run for their share of the winning pie. French diplomacy is absolutely brilliant and excels over time. Arguably the most efficient in the world since Louis XIV. But that's it ....
The situation is not ripe yet. It will be when the US goes to war and they emerge as the "savers" and "mediators" between the US Army and Iraq's "resistance". Then they will appear as the humanitarian face, and the will appear as a peaceful nation who cares about international legality (UN).
IF one have to think in two brilliant actors in this situation, both Jack Straw and Villepen come to mind.
-
IF one have to think in two brilliant actors in this situation, both Jack Straw and Villepen come to mind.
This is creative thinking indeed. You should write fiction.
-
Originally posted by Pepe
IF one have to think in two brilliant actors in this situation, both Jack Straw and Villepen come to mind.
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
-
Fox says France is expressing hope to reach a consensus. The Security Council will be meeting behind closed doors this afternoon. Apparently one sticking point is the inclusion of the ultimatum "or else" in the proposed US/British resolutions. France allegedly wants a separate, later vote on the "or else"
-
Dead Man Flying: ...by undermining the very organization through which it exercises international power is hardly brilliant.
The organisation in question - UN - was created specifically to prevent aggression. Which is exactly what it is currently doing according to french.
I think calling them appeasers was the major mistake on the part of Bush administration and it's neocon media. By blaming french in what we really want them to do, we've effectively prevented them from submitting the bully's pressure and appeasing USA by giving us a green light to invasion.
We should have stuck to accusing them of financial dealings with iraqi's or weapons contracts, etc. - all things that can be given up in exchange for other considerations without losing face.
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.
But the french, educated in arithmetics, know pretty well who is stronger than they and who is bullying them and it's not Iraq. We wish they were appeasers... We would have been in Iraq already.
miko
-
BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2848593.stm) France aims to break Iraq deadlock
Tronsky
-
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
-
Originally posted by Rasker
rumors are that US intelligence has pictures of France in a compromising position with Germany a number of years ago :)
(http://www.raf303.org/mietla/france.jpg)
-
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
-
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.
-
"Spurious George"
LMAO :)
-
Originally posted by funkedup
"Spurious George"
LMAO :)
See? Hatred can be humor! Weazel is like a good comedian, sucks in facts, great with fiction.
-
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
-
Originally posted by weazel
Unka Dick Cheney, and his Carlisle Group
Who is this "Carlisle Group"?
h
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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? :D
Horn I spelled it wrong.
Carlyle Group (http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html)
-
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?
-
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
-
Originally posted by weazel
Horn I spelled it wrong.
Carlyle Group (http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html)
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
Sure it won't change that.
Increasing their recruiting pool is very bad.
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
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.