[Article]US signals action against France

Dawg

Like Daveirl said, wasn't it about WMD's? No country should be allowed to invade another for regime change regardless of what they think of that regime. Its internal politics.

Is there anything in the UN charter related to regime change in foreign countries? I doubt it. If the US had of said they wanted a resolution supporting the use of force in Iraq in order to depose a corrupt and evil regime they would have been laughed at. Not even the Bush administration were that stupid. They came out with every rubbish excuse (not to mention the blatant lies) they could but knew better than mentioning regime change until the war was under way, they'd exhausted every other reason and it was too late for anybody to do anything about it.

France opposed them, which they, and any other country has the right to do. After all, the US are pushing democracy right? So now its something like 'You're entitled to your opinion, as long as its inline with our opinion, if not we'll punish you for undermining our authority'. Screw that. As far as I can see, all their doing is adding insult to injury.
It makes me give a whole lot more consideration to the boycott America side of things. Maybe someone should explain diplomacy to George W's lot, they seem to need a little help understanding it.

surely the US must now be regarded as a foe to the peoples of the European Union?

My jury's still out on that one but the US aren't doing themselves any favours. I'll take the wait and see approach for the time being but as it stands I think 'foe' might be a little over the top. That being said, I do think more of myself being European since this conflict began, and would take any US action against France as action against Europe and would be highly opposed to it.

swiss

I'm a little drunk when posting, so please excuse any errors/omissions in the following diatribe .

I must agree with daveirl and dawg in their summation of the points raised above. For a start the US, in their determination of pursuing war against Iraq, has consistently underlined Iraq's posession of WMD's. Now that war with Iraq is over, and WMD's have not been found, the US is under increasing pressure to provide such evidence.

Now that war against Iraq is over, France seems increasingly justified in it's stance. Of course the US does not want this, and seeks to undermine the credibility of French diplomatic relations with both themselves and the rest of the world.

IMO, the US is not going to provide such evidence of WMD's on the part of Iraq, (or it would have done so already) or is going to provide some questionable evidence which it is going to propose is conclusive evidence that the war against Iraq is justified. Again IMO, this "evidence" is going to be used as a convenient excuse for the US to launch unilateral military action against any target that it deems open to "terrorist groups".

I actually find it disgraceful that the US should seek to punish the likes of countries like France that "opposed" it during the war, when really they should (IMO) attempt to justify this war by demonstrating evidence which they claim they have existed all along of WMD's. Economic sanctions against countries like Cuba and Iraq are not likely to affect the US, but I find a staggering confidence by the Bush administration that sanctions against France will not affect a struggling US economy very adversely. France is of course one of the largest economies in the world, and hence any sanctions against this burgeoning Economy will affect any other economy dependent on this thriving European economy very severely.

Given that the US economy is in a recess at the moment, arguably because of GWB's policies, demonstrating a diplomatic "coldness" towards France is likely to affect the US more than France. This is why I suspect any sanctions against France are likely to be no more than face saving exercises, involving no real executive power or sanctions. In a couple of months, excepting a large disaster, it will be business as normal.

If the US had of said they wanted a resolution supporting the use of force in Iraq in order to depose a corrupt and evil regime they would have been laughed at. Not even the Bush administration were that stupid. They came out with every rubbish excuse (not to mention the blatant lies) they could but knew better than mentioning regime change until the war was under way, they'd exhausted every other reason and it was too late for anybody to do anything about it.

Is there much difference though between , in the case of Kosova, for instance, the U.S knowing that Russia was going to Veto Regime change( because Milosevic was a friend ), and in the case of Iraq, where they knew Regime change was going to be opposed for selfish reasons by France, and Russia.

Several selfish reasons for the U.S involvement in Iraq have been openly speculated upon, and many are probably true.
But the equally selfish actions of Russia, Germany and France would have kept their interests in place while the people of Iraq remained under a brutal Regime.
It's interesting that, in both cases , there are similar results, ie, in Kosova, muslims are freed from guaranteed torture and on go-ing genocide while in Iraq, Musims are free to go to Karballa in their tens of thousands to celebrate Rituals that were banned under Sadam for 30 years or more.

To my mind, it's a question of which selfishness has more morality,paradox as that may seem.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Europe places a greater priority on social programs and other money traps

Would US military expenditure not cancel this out?

It reminds me of an article i read in the Irish Times over the mobs getting upset over Bertie keeping Shannon open for the US- the article dealt with the fact that there actually *are* consequences to foreign policy decisions - that if you go against someone they will hold it against you and vice versa.

So was the point of the article that its better to do what you're told than to exercise your right to choose freely, or was it just pointing out that choice carries reprecussions.

Did it point out, for example, that there actually are consquences (potentially some negative ones) for us having opened Shannon as well? Or was it just another "see, if you don't suck up to Uncle Sam, you will pay for it, so we were right all along" article?

France also did its best to undermine and derail the coalitions liberation of Iraq - to the point where it became clear the allies were wasting their time even talking to them anymore as they said they would veto any resolution allowing the overthrow of Saddam.

Can you explain why the US are still attempting to find a
solution with North Korea??? Surely it is clear that diplomacy has already failed here as well? They have been even more intransigent than the French, for a longer period of time. And yet strangely enough, the US wants to keep those negotiations going.

How can it be that when dealing with Korea, the US tell us diplomacy cannot be given any timeframe - things could last decades, and until every avenue is explored, diplomacy must continue.

When dealing with Iraq, 12 years of pseudo-diplomacy qualifies as diplomacy failing. The line here seems to be "we tried everything we were willing to try, and he didnt capitulate, so diplomacy has failed".

With France, 12 weeks seems more like the timeframe. The line here seems to be more like "we asked, they said "never", we declared diplomacy to have failed and not be worth pursuing. Sod them, those cheese-eating surrender monkeys. Dont they know diplomacy means doing what we tell them".

I'm just curious how anyone can claim that there was no way forward with France and yet insist that negoriations with other nations can realistically take years and that things shouldnt be rushed and all avenues explored.

Thats not the definition of an ally. France cant have it both ways - it cant act completely against the US and then claim to be their bestest buddies.

So what you are in effect saying is that the purpose of all allies is to shut up and do what the largest nation in the alliance tells them to do? Failure to do so signals the end of the alliance, because if you dont do what you're told, you aint an ally any more?

Since when did "alliance" become synonymous with "subservient" in the english language?

jc

Éomer of Rohan

Since when did "alliance" become synonymous with "subservient" in the english language?

When it became the American-English language.

These posts about how France embarassed America on the world stage have a really skewed perspective.
GWB "They hate our freedoms" referring to terrorists. One of these prided freedoms is freedom of speech and though it was used cynically by Chirac and Schroeder, neither the world stage nor NATO nor the UN are American dictatorships and I think it important to point out that by the recent bellicose behaviour they are treating it them all as such. France and Germany had every right to do what they did and what we ignore in the light of Gerhard Schroeder getting re-elected and so on is that these politicians acted in true democratic fashion, unlike Britain and Spain, in opposing the war on American terms just as their people wanted them to otherwise why would Chirac have soared in popularity over it, the same with Schroeder.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
When it became the American-English language.

These posts about how France embarassed America on the world stage have a really skewed perspective.

Oh here I go with my people and countries are similar argument again.
This is a true story though.
There is a shop down the road from where I live, where the owners wife, is an impossible person to get on with.
She snaps at the customers, can never find anything good to say about them and comments ad nauseum on their morals, while ignoring her own.
And for good measure, is in to the council objecting if anyone wants to build a house in the locality, even though it should mean more business for her in the long term.
I hardly ever go in there, because of that behaviour,it's hostile to me and a lot of other people, as I'm entitled to take that stand as much as she is hers.
The shop is still open surviving on it's captive market-just!

now as I see it, Americans or rather this administration may ( wrongly ) feel strong enough to feel the need to use their influence against French interests when they needn't as they are more than a little peeved with Chiracs behaviour towards them.
I feel strongly enough to avoid that shop, but I'm not going to the extreme of maybe making phonecalls to health inspectors, the VAT man etc.
what action the U.S take in relation to France, remains to be seen, but I reckon it will as suggested by some, of the cold shoulder diplomatically, and no Xmas cards for a while variety.
They are entitled to do that and are as open and entitled to their stand as France is for her's on Iraq.
mm

Sand

If the US had of said they wanted a resolution supporting the use of force in Iraq in order to depose a corrupt and evil regime they would have been laughed at.

Sad but true given the UNs membership.

Now that war against Iraq is over, France seems increasingly justified in it's stance.

If you held a poll of who is more popular in Iraq, Chirac or Bush and Blair whod youd think would be closer to the hearts of the Iraqi people?

I actually find it disgraceful that the US should seek to punish the likes of countries like France that "opposed" it during the war,

So was the point of the article that its better to do what you're told than to exercise your right to choose freely, or was it just pointing out that choice carries reprecussions.

You two lads should understand best of all that there are consequences to free speech and the choices we make - were I to come on this board, read a post and reply calling the poster this and that and saying what a beep beep they are then I could do that. Then one of you moderator lads would come along and demonstrate *some* of the consequences for my choice. The other consequences being that the other poster wouldnt think much of me, and perhaps bystanders as well wouldnt think much of me.

Wook, for example, made a choice, and exercised his freedom of speech to say what he really felt and then he suffered the consequences.

When nations are in disagreement and the stakes are infinitely higher are we suddenly to expect no consequences to actions taken?

Would US military expenditure not cancel this out?

Short answer I dont know - Id assume that milatary spending that creates jobs to the tune of at least half a million directly and god knows how many indirectly whilst also creating the sort of milatary that gives you a certain diplomatic prestige and ability to enforce your position abroad, with a bit of a sideline in research and development, wouldnt be my idea of a money trap.

Can you explain why the US are still attempting to find a
solution with North Korea??? Surely it is clear that diplomacy has already failed here as well? They have been even more intransigent than the French, for a longer period of time. And yet strangely enough, the US wants to keep those negotiations going.

Well I dont think theres any chance of the US going to war with either of them to start of with. The NKs are more likely just making life difficult for the US and sabre rattling so they can get a better deal out of them when they thrash this agreement out. The US thrashing of Iraq has probably alerted them to the fact that they can push things only so far.

So what you are in effect saying is that the purpose of all allies is to shut up and do what the largest nation in the alliance tells them to do? Failure to do so signals the end of the alliance, because if you dont do what you're told, you aint an ally any more?

Nah, your ally is meant to support you though - enemies oppose you. Failure to act as an ally means that in most cases you wont be treated as one.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sand
If you held a poll of who is more popular in Iraq, Chirac or Bush and Blair whod youd think would be closer to the hearts of the Iraqi people?

Justified, not popular Sand. And even the latter is becoming increasingly questionable.

Well I dont think theres any chance of the US going to war with either of them to start of with. The NKs are more likely just making life difficult for the US and sabre rattling so they can get a better deal out of them when they thrash this agreement out. The US thrashing of Iraq has probably alerted them to the fact that they can push things only so far.

The first and last sentences in that paragraph contradict each other.

Nah, your ally is meant to support you though - enemies oppose you. Failure to act as an ally means that in most cases you wont be treated as one.

Neither France nor Russia are allies of the USA.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
Nah, your ally is meant to support you though - enemies oppose you. Failure to act as an ally means that in most cases you wont be treated as one.

So shouldn't the US, as an ally of France, have supported the French position? Or do the most powerful nations get to have one-way alliances - you're my ally so you have to support me, but I'm not your ally so I don't have to support you?

If that's the case, all this talk of alliances is just diplomatic gamesmanship - the US is clearly not interested in real 'alliances' which might involve it tempering its own ambitions, or in fact in any kind of real 'relationship' with other countries that doesn't involve it getting its way all the time.

To be honest, I get very tired of this discourse of 'alliances' and 'special friendships' in international relations - they only last as long as countries agree, then everyone throws up their hands in horror when the 'alliance' dissolves and we start talking about the next world war.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Nah, your ally is meant to support you though - enemies oppose you.

So by opposing France, China, and Germany's insistence that a peaceful solution be obtained, the US is now an enemy of these countries, just as they are enemies of the US for opposing its plans for war?

Come on Sand - I know you dont believe that, but its a direct implication of what you're saying.

jc

Originally posted by The Corinthian

The first and last sentences in that paragraph contradict each other.

But don't tell the NK's that, I hope they don't read this board;)
Kim does have the interweb, you know:eek:
mm

vorbis

how could the US take Frances side ????
Its entire position was a reactionary response to US policy. As for being an "ally", France did not need to make the political capital they did out of the crisis. The French know themselves that they have as much dodgy history as the US yet they used the war as an opportunity to portray themselves as somehow superior. Also as mentioned before, Schroeder openly used Anti-Americanism to get re-elected. His entire campaign ran along the lines of "Aren't those Americans stupid".

Sand

So by opposing France, China, and Germany's insistence that a peaceful solution be obtained, the US is now an enemy of these countries, just as they are enemies of the US for opposing its plans for war?

Come on Sand - I know you dont believe that, but its a direct implication of what you're saying.

The US and its allies made a decision to deal with Iraq militarily/effectively - France decided to oppose that, for a variety of reasons. As I said, allies back each other up whilst enemies do their best to oppose each other - its almost a definition of the terms. Whilst I wouldnt view France as some sort of "neo-USSR thwarting the US at every turn with the threat of global nuclear conflict ever present" enemy, if political capital and national interests appear to be served by opposing US interests openly then they dont seem to be compatible as allies but quite suitable as enemies?

The shocking conclusion may be that if a supposed allys leadership can make political mileage out of opposing you then why would they bother supporting you at all? Why does France claim to be an ally of the US if it ( and nominally at least its people ) is apparently so idealogically opposed to the US and its actions? Clinton bombed countries to get attention off himself, Chirac wraps himself in the flag and gives the fingers to the US so that he can be a little more popular than the guy who was only elected cos the other one was le Pen - if it works for Chirac, why wont it work for other French leaders?

In short I dont see the US and the French as out and out enemies, but I cant see how they can be described as allies. The US is just treating them as such.

So shouldn't the US, as an ally of France, have supported the French position?

Bit of chicken and the egg there I think. Personally I view the French position as a reaction to the US position, so its hard for the US to make a position and then support the position opposing them because a supposed ally holds that position. Such paradoxes are solved by stopping the pretence their allies - which it seems is the US view on the matter.

the US is clearly not interested in real 'alliances' which might involve it tempering its own ambitions, or in fact in any kind of real 'relationship' with other countries that doesn't involve it getting its way all the time.

Its true - the US is a juggernaut in terms of world power and for any particular course of action doesnt really *need* widespread support - it can always bribe/intimidate two or three nations that it needs and do the rest itself. Thats frightening for mere mortals who can only accomplish their goals in a watered down fashion with the agreement of a wide assortment of other nations. How do you deal with that? Confrontation and bitterness? Didnt seem to work for the French, they damaged their relations with the worlds hyperpower, divided the EU, lost *ALL* influence over the way the war was planned and fought, and have lost any say in the reconstruction of Iraq. The British seem to have the right idea in that as allies they can influence the US - They managed to get the US to go the UN route and get one successful resolution and try for another ( And this despite the Washington hawks which viewed the UN, rightly in the end, as a waste of time and which are idealogically opposed to the notion of the UN in the first place ) before the French plainly said forget it.

The US cant be dictated to - thats just the plain reality of its sheer economic, diplomatic and milatary power. It can be influenced into courses of actions that it may be nominally opposed to as the British showed by getting them to go to the UN looking for international support.

Justified, not popular Sand. And even the latter is becoming increasingly questionable.

When you see US soldiers rescuing children from Saddams prisons I think it is hard to say its not justified. The Iraqis certainly seem to think it was justified, ask Mustapha - the disagreements with the US tend to stem from worries over the future, not the fact that the americans got rid of Saddam for them.

At the end of the day a good thing was done - an evil regime was overthrown, and people there are now able to do things that we take for granted - such as criticise the government:x

The first and last sentences in that paragraph contradict each other.

Not really - the first says the US isnt going to attack NK. The last says ( in a roundabout fashion ) if it comes to blows the US will win so the NKs arent going to do more than talk a good fight. No one is going to push to war on that one.

Neither France nor Russia are allies of the USA.

Id agree.

Éomer of Rohan

Neither France nor Russia are allies of the USA.

The US has one ally in the entire world! The rest are bought, dependent on US goodwill, were put into power by the US or find that their needs coincide with those of the US at that point in time. Only Britain has ever stood the whole way with the US on all issues - though this was only after the complete loss of her empire - the Suez canal debate being the real end to that debacle and the beginning of UK '52 state' mentality.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sand
When you see US soldiers rescuing children from Saddams prisons I think it is hard to say its not justified.

Depends of which version of the truth your listening to doesn’t it. CNN and Fox/Sky will give you one version and Aljazeera another. French, German, Italian and Spanish TV will give variations too. You’re very trusting.

Not really - the first says the US isnt going to attack NK. The last says ( in a roundabout fashion ) if it comes to blows the US will win so the NKs arent going to do more than talk a good fight. No one is going to push to war on that one.

Let me get this straight; the first says the US isn’t going to attack North Korea, while the last says if it comes to blows the US will win theoretically, even though it won’t attack.

Then what you’re saying is the US is bluffing?

Sand

Depends of which version of the truth your listening to doesn’t it. CNN and Fox/Sky will give you one version and Aljazeera another. French, German, Italian and Spanish TV will give variations too. You’re very trusting.

Whats the other version? US troops put the children in the prison? As for the story it was in the Irish Times, dont think it was Marlowe though.

Let me get this straight; the first says the US isn’t going to attack North Korea, while the last says if it comes to blows the US will win theoretically, even though it won’t attack.

Ummm, yes - if a war starts it will be when the NK artillery opens up on SK. And if a war starts the US will almost certainly win it. The NKs must know that, hence theyre not going to open up with their artillery hence the hand wringing over a war between NK and the US is extremely premature.

/me shrugs - whats the difficulty with that?

Then what you’re saying is the US is bluffing?

Diplomacy is pretty pointless unless there is the threat of force/something worse to concentrate minds. Both sides are bluffing in my opinion. Neither wants to go to war but both need to come to the table appearing strong and *willing* to go to war if their demands arent met.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
The US and its allies made a decision to deal with Iraq militarily/effectively - France decided to oppose that, for a variety of reasons.

Really? I coulda sworn that for the last 12 years, the international community at large was united in an approach (which had its ups and downs). The US then decided was no longer acceptable and decided that it wished to do something new.

France didnt oppose the US - it continued to take the stance that it had taken regarding Iraq for the previous 12 years - a stance that the US had also taken.

It was the US who chose to abandon the existing course of action, and oppose what was in place and functioning.

In short I dont see the US and the French as out and out enemies,

But hang on Sand...you say "enemies oppose". France opposed the US. Now you're telling me that they're not enemies.

Which is it?

I dont even agree that allies back each other up. Allies work towards a common goal. No more, no less. They do not have to agree on every aspect of every issue, regardless of whether or not those issues are relevant to the common goal.

Both France and the US are members of NATO - a military alliance which exists for a specific purpose. Your implication is that because France opposed the US on Iraq, they can no longer be considered allies. Does this mean that NATO is no longer functional, or that one of them must leave it?

Personally I view the French position as a reaction to the US position,

How have the French changed their basic position in the last 12 years? They have - from the end of the previous Gulf War - been in favour of a peaceful solution obtained through the UN, via the weapons inspection processes etc. They have never changed this position. They were opposed to the limited bombing form of "diplomacy" favoured by the US and UK, and they were opposed to this new abandonment of peaceful approaches.

They reacted to the US change of position by re-iterating the stance they have taken all along. It was the US who ceased favouring a peaceful solution and who wanted to go to war.

So, while its true to say they reacted, they didnt change their position - the US did. Their "reaction" was a reiteration of their established position.

So all the French are guilty of is not changing their stance when the US did. So surely it was the US who walked away from the existing position of the allied nations?

Such paradoxes are solved by stopping the pretence their allies - which it seems is the US view on the matter.

So - like I asked - which one will leave NATO, or will NATO just become another "non-functional" international body because its membership isnt subservient to the American dream?

Or is NATO not an alliance?

They managed to get the US to go the UN route and get one successful resolution and try for another

Sure - the US decided to go to war, started its preparations, and then decided that it might as well allow the UN to have a hand in it for a while because it wouldnt stop them and it might gain them some support.

If you have no intention of following the decisions of a body like the UN, then to say that they went "the UN route" is stretching it a bit. Again, its a classic case of the US stance being "the UN is useful if it does what we tell them".

Had 1441 not been passed, the US would have gone to war. 1441 was passed, and the US went to war.
Had 1442 (or whatever number it would have been) passed, the US would have gone to war. It didnt even get tabled and the US went to war.

You call this "going down the UN route"? I call it showing nothing but pure and utter contempt for the organisation from the get-go. I would have more respect for the US if they hadnt bothered going the UN route from the start and just had the courage to admit that they were dictating policy on this issue and that was that.

This pretence of "we're willing to work with the international community" is insulting. What it is saying is "we are willing to allow the international community to uphold the illusion that it has a democratic say in these issues, but only as long as it remains an illusion and they do what we tell them".

The US cant be dictated to - thats just the plain reality of its sheer economic, diplomatic and milatary power.

Thats not the issue. The issue is that the US wishes to dictate to others, and if they refuse to co-operate will face the ire of the juggernaut.

Indeed, if the US is so big and so strong, and doesnt need all this international assistance, then isnt it incredibly petty for it to complain when its not given to it?

You know..."we dont need your help, but because you didnt give it to us, we dont like you". If you didnt need it, what the hell is the problem?

When you see US soldiers rescuing children from Saddams prisons I think it is hard to say its not justified. [

Sure, but when you see children with their limbs blown off by weapons fired by the same soldiers, its just the reality of war.

Funny how the good stuff is always "justification" and the bad stuff is just "irrelevant".

The last says ( in a roundabout fashion ) if it comes to blows the US will win so the NKs arent going to do more than talk a good fight.

Yeah - those North Koreans are bluffing. They'd never take the US on in a fight.

The reason the US will never attack North Korea is because even if they won they'd have to explain to people why a nuclear exchange was really in everyone's best interests, because the NK (IMHO) would have no hesitation in using nukes.

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sand
Whats the other version? US troops put the children in the prison? As for the story it was in the Irish Times, dont think it was Marlowe though.

Regardless on who it is, one should be very weary of present media sources. Each is censored to one degree or other (either officially or unofficially) and each may be subject to commercial policies (For example, Murdoch’s policy of reports that refuse to criticise governments with human rights issues such as China is directly related to his attempt to open up such markets).

Manipulation of the news can also be much more subtle than that too: For example, following the explosion of the store or ordinance in a residential area of Baghdad, anti-American protests took place. Everyone reported that. However, depending upon whom you were listening, these were either “spontaneous” (giving an impression of popular support) or “carefully orchestrated” (giving an impression of subversion and conspiracy). Protests were the central to the report for some and almost an aside for others. Facts were not altered, but the manner in which they were presented was radically different in both cases.

TBH, if you’ve not seen the other versions of the news, you’ve not really been looking very hard. As with any conflict, the truth probably lies in between the lines of the two propaganda poles, and if you’re only watching one of them then you won’t get a very good picture of what is going on.

/me shrugs - whats the difficulty with that?

No, just you weren’t very clear about that when I questioned it - of course, it assumes that North Korea is not ruled by a completely insane fruitcake who might be deluded enough to believe his country to be powerful enough to handle the US, but that’s another discussion.

The US cant be dictated to - thats just the plain reality of its sheer economic, diplomatic and milatary power.

Is this in someway related to your argument about justification?

Cork

US signals action against France.

I would be far more concerned about the future US atitude to the UN security Council. I hope that the US will continue to use the UN security council as a forum to solve international desputes.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Regardless on who it is, one should be very weary of present media sources. Each is censored to one degree or other (either officially or unofficially) and each may be subject to commercial policies (For example, Murdoch’s policy of reports that refuse to criticise governments with human rights issues such as China is directly related to his attempt to open up such markets).

As far as I can tell, the story came from a reporter with the French news agency AFP embedded with US troops.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Cork
I hope that the US will continue to use the UN security council as a forum to solve international desputes.

I'm not entirely sure if you're taking the piss or are serious with that statement...

Sand

France didnt oppose the US - it continued to take the stance that it had taken regarding Iraq for the previous 12 years - a stance that the US had also taken.

It did a bit of tap dancing to switch positions with the US on Iraq - something different needs to be done , as opposed to "no-no, everysthing is just grand the way it is". Not so long ago the US and the UK were trying to bring in smart sanctions to deal with Saddam whilst alleviating the strain on the Iraqi people. France and co werent in favour of smart sanctions, they just wanted to drop them altogether. Who was moving farthest from the 12 year position?

http://www.akingump.com/docs/publication/236.pdf

When the allies decided to bring in a solution that removes the threat of Saddam, allows for the dropping of sanctions and generally presents a pretty good deal for Iraqis in general the French suddenly decide sanctions arent so bad after all, that they were the best way forward etc etc.

This isnt the position they held in 2001 when the sanctions themselves came up for discussion in the security council.

Which is it?

If you pushed me to file their relations under a nice labelling system, Id say enemies but feck all chance of milatary conflict. Doesnt mean they wont share short term goals - even the US and the USSR came together to beat the nazis afterall.

Why? When France dreams of a strong united Europe with France at its heart with US influence removed from european affairs, which the US would probably not view all that happily - they whine and moan about europeans not standing up for themselves defence wise but lets be honest, NATO gives them an awful lot of clout in europe, hence their championing of a post cold war role for it - how can they be described as having the same long term goals? Theyre going to come into conflict at some point or other.

The UK and the US on the other hand seem to synch nicely as allies because there doesnt seem to be any major conflicting long term goals. In international politics in general it seems the French have adopted a strategy of doing their best to hamstring the US. The recent events have just demonstrated a rather large gap ( warning , understatement ) in viewpoints.

Can I ask you Bonkey - what would you classify the Franco-American relationship as being? Allies or or enemies?

Both France and the US are members of NATO - a military alliance which exists for a specific purpose. Your implication is that because France opposed the US on Iraq, they can no longer be considered allies. Does this mean that NATO is no longer functional, or that one of them must leave it?

It exists as a mutual defence treaty whereby effectively the US guaranteed it would protect Western Europe from any soviet milatary adventures. As for who should leave it the French withdrew their forces from the NATO command structure back in the day so thats pretty much already been sorted. As I understand it the US is now moving to make the council on which France is not represented as the main arena for decision making in NATO - again giving France the cold shoulder. Its how they got agreement on providing Turkey with assistance.

Ironically enough, the US can punish France whilst keeping NATO fully functional all thanks to the French themselves.

You call this "going down the UN route"? I call it showing nothing but pure and utter contempt for the organisation from the get-go. I would have more respect for the US if they hadnt bothered going the UN route from the start and just had the courage to admit that they were dictating policy on this issue and that was that.

Yeah they went to the UN looking for a mandate and in doing so they offered the UN a large degree of say over the how the war would be fought and the reconstruction.

They didnt have to do that, as you admit yourself. They didnt want to do it. Blair got them to do it though. So yes, the US can be influenced.

Thats not the issue. The issue is that the US wishes to dictate to others, and if they refuse to co-operate will face the ire of the juggernaut.

Of course its not the issue. Its not up for debate, beyond Star Trek type musings of world governments and the like.

You know..."we dont need your help, but because you didnt give it to us, we dont like you". If you didnt need it, what the hell is the problem?

Well you couldnt really characterise it like that. Youd better characterise it as "We dont need your help, were not asking for your help, were just asking for you to not try and stop us, but because you have tried to stop us, we dont like you". That might be the problem, and why Bush isnt ringing up Chirac "Awwwwwh, you guys!!!! You guys!!!! You really had us going there, ah well - fancy popping over to watch the game tonight?"

Funny how the good stuff is always "justification" and the bad stuff is just "irrelevant".

Never irrelevant bonkey, I dont recall ever saying that civillian deaths or injuries were irrelevant. Id view them as the lesser of two evils.

Funny how pro- war types have civillian deaths dumped on them ( thats fine, anyone who is in favour of the war but hasnt taken into account civillian deaths before reaching that position is just plain foolish ), but those against the war dont have to ask themselves if the war didnt happen where would those kids be? Still in that prison? No, no, lets imagine theyre skipping gaily in fields and theyll never be mistreated or tortured or killed, and that no other Iraqi children will be thrown into that jail with them. Same for all those other political prisoners and victims of Saddams thugs.

Kinda venting but I get sick of people who seem convinced that people are somehow unaware war means civillian casualites, but themselves are unwilling to confront even the possibility that Saddam and co could have been inflicting far more suffering that didnt make the front page of your local newspaper.

Yeah - those North Koreans are bluffing. They'd never take the US on in a fight.

The question would be whether China would take the US on in a fight:)

The reason the US will never attack North Korea is because even if they won they'd have to explain to people why a nuclear exchange was really in everyone's best interests, because the NK (IMHO) would have no hesitation in using nukes

Yeah, pretty much - why pick a fight with a nuclear armed country - its why the proliferation of nuclear weapons in worrying - it means repressive regimes could get an insurance policy to do whatever they like within their borders. Imagine a hitler type with a hatred of jews and nukes to keep the world off his back whilst hes shoving them into the ovens?

NK would probably use nukes if it began to look desperate for their leadership, afaik they cant hit the US tho so whilst SK and probably Japan would get cooked the US might actually be able to win a nuclear conflict with NK at least. Mind you if *anyone* starts launching nukes far too many trigger fingers will get itchy:|

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand

When the allies decided to bring in a solution that removes the threat of Saddam, allows for the dropping of sanctions and generally presents a pretty good deal for Iraqis in general the French suddenly decide sanctions arent so bad after all, that they were the best way forward etc etc.

When did they say that? As far as I can see the French position on sanctions has been entirely consistent: they wanted them lifted, and only way for them to be lifted was for weapons inspectors to verify that Iraq had no WMD. Thus the calls for the weapons inspectors to be given the time and resources to do their jobs.

Their position now seems to be a reasonable continutation: "sanctions should be suspended immediately and lifted entirely only after U.N. arms inspectors certified Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction". The second part of the proposal is obviously resisted by the US, who have undermined the weapons inspection process throughout its short history and who have thus blocked the lifting of sanctions.

mike65

Just a note to add the French have been up to thier old tricks again it seems, the Sunday Times tells Paris was
keeping Baghdad informed of US/UK policies just as they did during the wars against Yugoslavia/Serbia when they kept Milosoivich and co informed of NATO strategy....and the WDM it looks like the Yanks may finally have found something of substance today...not to mention Bin Liner
envoy meets Saddam....could all be rubbish of course....?

Can't find link on the France story as SundayTimes on the web is now a subscription service..:(

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2979405.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2979195.stm

Mike.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by SkepticOne
As far as I can tell, the story came from a reporter with the French news agency AFP embedded with US troops.

Which story (I touched on a few in my post)? Which version? And your source?

Originally posted by mike65
Just a note to add the French have been up to thier old tricks again it seems

I doubt you can say the French have a monopoly on those kind of 'old tricks', assuming this is the case.

As for WMD, let's wait for UN confirmation of the find, shall we?

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
[BNot so long ago the US and the UK were trying to bring in smart sanctions to deal with Saddam whilst alleviating the strain on the Iraqi people. France and co werent in favour of smart sanctions, they just wanted to drop them altogether. Who was moving farthest from the 12 year position?[/b]

Allow me to quote from your article :

While there is agreement that a change in the existing policy must be
made, a stalemate has been reached between the United States and Britain, which favors maintaining
sanctions on Iraq, and among Russia, China and France, which favor an easing and eventual lifting of
sanctions.

Seems to me that France always took that stance - that the solution was to get inspectors back in (after they were kicked out on allegations of US spying which would appear to have had some credibility) and that this would pave the way to achieving the result - as per the already agreed UN resolutions.

The issue was how to get the inspectors back in.

In the article you referenced you will see that the French were opposed to the idea of smart sanctions, but willing to reach compromise on it.

When the allies decided to bring in a solution that removes the threat of Saddam, allows for the dropping of sanctions and generally presents a pretty good deal for Iraqis in general the French suddenly decide sanctions arent so bad after all, that they were the best way forward etc etc.

Which is a nice way of saying "the French didnt see war as an alternative to sanctions". Funnily enough - the French have been in favour of a peaceful sanction-based solution since the start.

They were willing to negotiate on the smart-sanctions, because while they disagreed it was the best way forward, they didnt have a better alternative they could sell at the time, and it was still a peaceful avenue to explore.

Replacing sanctions with smart sanctions is one thing - replacing sanctions with war is another.
The whole point of all of the sanctions was to find a peaceful solution - to avoid war.

The French had their preferred position and compromised on others - as long as they were relatively compatible. Their position was always "find a peaceful solution". As a nation which was literally razed to the ground by war twice in living memory, I can understand why they may hold that position.

[/quote][/b]This isnt the position they held in 2001 when the sanctions themselves came up for discussion in the security council.
[/b][/quote]

Your article says that it was - as I quoted above. The French always maintained sanctions were the best way forward, until they could be lifted as a result of the WI process. They were willing to give Smart Sanctions a chance - but openly questioned whether or not they could offer any improvement. They were not willing to go to war.

I see a solid, unchanging stance there - exploring peaceful solutions, while remaining dedicated to the belief that one particular avenue was the correct one.

[q]

Why? When France dreams of a strong united Europe with France at its heart with US influence removed from european affairs,
...
The UK and the US on the other hand seem to synch nicely as allies because there doesnt seem to be any major conflicting long term goals.
[/b]

So the difference would be that France doesnt want to be dictated to, but Britain has no effective problem with that?

Come on Sand......

Are you saying that the UK does not want a more powerful EU, and a place of prominence within that?

Can I ask you Bonkey - what would you classify the Franco-American relationship as being? Allies or or enemies?

I see no reason why it shouldnt remain as a cordial alliance...unless the French have a problem, not the US.

You say the US never wanted to go the UN route. It went that way and got nothing. What did it lose?

It has gained in that the French gave the US the perfect vehicle to further undermine the UN.

It has gained in that it has achieved what it wanted, in the timescales it wanted, and in the manner it wanted. Indeed,

it has gained in pretty much every way except one : The French made them look bad in the UN.

Now - given that you're telling me constantly how the US didnt want to go there, and have no time or respect for the UN - exactly what is the problem here?

The US got what it wanted. It has no reason to be angry with France, except for sheer petulance. Indeed, it would be a far greater slap in the face for the French for teh US to turn around and say "its not worth getting upset over", because thats a polite way of saying "its not like you guys were gonna make any diference to our plans, so we dont care what you do/did, and hey - in the long term you probably helped us by letting us blame you for undermining the international community when were the ones doing it in the first place".

The only other way the consequences can be anything more than childish "tit for tat" petulance is if the US actually was undermined in some way by the French - if the French opposition cost them something they needed .... but that would then contradict the idea that the US didn't need to go to the UN, didn't need alliances etc.

IMHO, the French knew from the start that the US would go to war on their own if they had to. Personally, I think the French are actually trying to provoke the US into showing further and further its contempt for any international organisation that it (the US) cannot dictate policy to. The idea would be to make it absolutely clear to as many people and nations as possible that "international organisation" is rapidly becoming a polite term for "US subservient", because the only way it will ever change is if enough nations decide not to play ball.

I'm pretty sure its not just France who dont want a world controlled by the US.

I even think if the UK (your chosen "not in conflict with US policy" nation) populace lost their blinkers that they were somehow partners with the US, and realised that they are just lapdogs, that they would pretty quickly change their stance too.

Indeed, if the US carries through on its plan for rebuilding and cuts the UK out of it to all intents and purposes, I think you might see the start of the UK realising exactly what sort of a "partner" it is to the US.

Yeah they went to the UN looking for a mandate and in doing so they offered the UN a large degree of say over the how the war would be fought and the reconstruction.

Where did they offer anything? I saw resolutions of "this is what we want to do. Say yes or we go do it anyway". Exactly where was the UN going to get any say - the US was always holding the "our way or the highway" card, and was always going to play it as soon as needed.

They didnt have to do that, as you admit yourself. They didnt want to do it. Blair got them to do it though. So yes, the US can be influenced.

Why did Blair get them to do it? Because the UK government would fall if it tried entering a war in Iraq without having even made the attempt to go through the UN. As it was, Blair just about held on through it all.

Why was the US willing to do this? Because it had nothing to lose - it was always going to war, and making this gesture of allowing the UN the privilege of agreeing to do what the US told it would guarantee that they had someone else to share the cost of the war with, and then screw on the rebuilding. Again, a win-win scenario.

Thats not being influenced....thats aggreing to a meaningless gesture that costs nothing so you can let someone climb on board and pony up some of the costs without getting an equivalent share of the rewards at the end.

Influence is where the US would have agreed to do something that would cost. What did going to the UN cost?

Youd better characterise it as "We dont need your help, were not asking for your help, were just asking for you to not try and stop us, ".

So you admit that the message to the UN was "you are irrelevant, but you have a chance to rubber-stamp our decisions here and look good" ? So when the US says the UN had a chance to "prove its relevance", they were redefining the term "relevant" once again to mean "subservient".

That might be the problem, and why Bush isnt ringing up Chirac "Awwwwwh, you guys!!!! You guys!!!! You really had us going there, ah well - fancy popping over to watch the game tonight?"

I never suggested he should. Then again, he wasnt doing that before the war either. I'm suggesting that it should be business as normal, except possibly that someone who backed the US on this play might be favoured over the French in some near-future situation where there are no other deciding factors.

Thats no different to me saying that in an interview I would hire a mate over a stranger all else being equal.

Are they "consequences"? No, I dont believe so.Consequences are - for me - when you elevate the importance of this event to become a policy-driving factor, rather than a "clinch-decider".

The US has nothing to gain from estranged relations with France. If the French are so powerless, then why do we need such heavy-handed implications of somewhat more serious consequences? They benefit no-one - including the US. The only way that these consequences are somehow merited is if the French cost the US something, and that is only true if the US dominance / UN impotence argument is fundamentally untrue.


<ctd...>

bonkey

<...>

but those against the war dont have to ask themselves if the war didnt happen where would those kids be?

The question is where will those kids be in 10 years time, not where they are today. The only possible way war is justified is if it brings genuine long-term improvement. Any claim that the war was "right" before those improvements have been secured is - IMHO - premature.

You can argue the reverse, that condemnation/criticism before that is also premature, but I dont necessarily agree in all cases (most cases yes, but not all).

My fundamental opposition is that the US cannot know that they will ultimately make things better, and I maintain that no single nation has the right to play god with other nations in this respect. Thus, regardless of whether or not this whole thing ends up in an improvement, I still have a fundamental objection to it which is not dependant on the outcome.

You disagree, and so do many others, and I accept that. I just disagree with the underlying reasoning behind why it is a good thing that the US plays god.

Yes its the most powerful nation. Does that give it the right to do what it wants, rather than consider the opinions of the international community? Well - if it wishes to send a message that Might is Right, then fine....but surely thats what they were just opposed to in Iraq? Might may be Right when its used responsibly, but what checks and balances are the US putting in place to make sure that their might is used responsibly? All I can see is them tearing down every barrier they can - internally and externally - against such enforcement of responsibility.

I also have serious concerns about the ability of the US to manage the post-war situation correctly. Here, they are just concerns...I will wait and see, although I must say that the media aren't casting their work in the best of light at the moment....it all seems somewhat heavy handed.

Kinda venting but I get sick of people who seem convinced that people are somehow unaware war means civillian casualites, but themselves are unwilling to confront even the possibility that Saddam and co could have been inflicting far more suffering that didnt make the front page of your local newspaper.

Oh - I accept that fully. I accept that Saddam being out of power is a good thing in and of itself. However, I do not believe that the entire issue is as simple as whether or not he was a bad man, or whether or not people are dancing on the streets in joy today. I'm delighted that people are being released from prison, that the oppression has been removed, and so on, but I havent seen any lasting improvements made yet, and this is the only criteria that the justification of the war can be based on.

Using this opportunity to vent a bit (as you did) I get sick of people telling me that smiling faces on the day of the liberation of Baghdad make it all ok. Last time I checked, you can lose your smile in a heartbeat, but you can't bring the dead back. The smiles will be valid when this is all over, and not a moment before.

The question would be whether China would take the US on in a fight:)

True. Very true. I think they just might call the US bluff at some stage - they are even more opposed to US dominance than the French, but to date have not been too adversely effected by anything, especially while the US continues to fall over itself to gain access to Chinese markets.

However, if push comes to shove with the US butting in / trying to bully in to the Chinese sphere of influence, I fully expect to see a replay of the Cuban Missile Crisis, only with the Chinese being the ones putting a line on a map and saying "you shall not pass".

Personally, I think the US knows this, which is why it wont force the situation....because it knows that if China ever draws that line, its either time for a major war, or its time for the US to admit that its not unopposable.....neither of which is in the US interest.

afaik they cant hit the US tho

The official US line is that they can, although there seems to be little evidence in the public domain to support that.

The US line is basically that the new generation of NK missiles, with a "lightened payload" would have an extended range (obviously) which would put the western seaboard of the US in range.

I dont know, however, if the US have ever clarified that the lightened payload would be large enough to carry a nuclear warhead. They've never even been asked in any interview that I've seen.....

so whilst SK and probably Japan would get cooked the US might actually be able to win a nuclear conflict with NK at least.

Interesting definition of "win"

jc

bonkey

One last thing reagarding that article linked to by Sand....

while it oft repeats that France, China and Russia favoured easing and eventual lifting of the sanctions, it fails to mention once that they had conditions attached to such easing and lifting....such as the compliance with and completion of the weapons inspection process.

jc

Originally posted by bonkey
<...>
I see a solid, unchanging stance there - exploring peaceful solutions, while remaining dedicated to the belief that one particular avenue was the correct one.

jc

But just as you would see, problems with the policy underlying the U.s action to get rid of Sadam, I have an equally suspicious mind regarding frances solid unchanging stance and what interests she may have had with Sadam to underlie that stance.

My fundamental opposition is that the US cannot know that they will ultimately make things better, and I maintain that no single nation has the right to play god with other nations in this respect. Thus, regardless of whether or not this whole thing ends up in an improvement, I still have a fundamental objection to it which is not dependant on the outcome.

So you would disagree with any military action the U.S leads outside of the U.N, even if it meant watching any Regime (who had a permananent member of the UNSC as a friend) conduct attrocities against it's people..you would have left milosevic in control of Kosova??
I know it would be better,if an unselfish approach was taken over , other unpleasant regimes, worldwide in a similar fashion.

the UK does not want a more powerful EU, and a place of prominence within that?

I would have thought the situation regarding the pound and the Euro, bears this out.
Browns so called Economic tests for entry to the Euro are just delaying tactics, in the certain knowledge that in the UK, the Scepticism over Europe is so engrained that passing a referendum there on the Euro will be a Very, Very difficult task.
Nationalism in the UK and particularily in England has always fertilised a preference for closer ties with the U.S than with Europe.
The big test for this, was the switch in favour of the war once troops went into battle and Blairs, but more especially Straw's reasonably successfull attempts to villify the French for their UNSC stance on the war.
Believe you me, it doesn't take much to stir up anti French and German feeling in Britain and this from what I see most definitely transfers to whether, the British people would like to see Britain absorp itself into a stronger Europe at the price of more and more of it's own sovereignity.
Blair may not like that, but he has to live with it.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
So you would disagree with any military action the U.S leads outside of the U.N, even if it meant watching any Regime (who had a permananent member of the UNSC as a friend) conduct attrocities against it's people..you would have left milosevic in control of Kosova??

Well, first of all, I wouldnt say "the US", but rather "any nation".

As for Kosovo....its a fair point you make. Im not entirely sure I see them as the same situations, but Ill need to consider how I phrase the distinction before replying properly. Strangely, its something no-one has asked me before, which is somewhat surprising.

For now though, heres my initial take....

Mostly I see the difference in how the aftermath was handled in that case, and how it is being handled in this case. I would also suggest that there was a precipitous event which triggered the reaction to Kosovo. I would ask what the equivalent precipitous event was in the case of Iraq.

As for France's motives...I never suggested that they were entirely trustworthy or honourable either, but in general it seemed to be a case of protecting contracts and so on that the French had won from changes proposed to the system which (to me) seemed to be designed to have no other effect than to change the economic reality of trade with Iraq, rather than solve the underlying problems.

One could argue that the war was such a case, but I wouldnt accept that. I think economics played a part[/] in everyones stances, but only a part. Allegations that it was "all about oil", to be are just too simplistic, regardless of who the allegation gets levelled at - France or the US.

jc