[Article]US signals action against France

Sand

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.

Hmm , I dunno - they wanted the sanctions gone altogether whereas the US and the UK were in favour of the sanctions - they seemed to be making the greater movement by relaxing and refining the sanctions, something is better than nothing from the French point of view afterall.

The smart sanctions were apparently the sanctions lifted except for milatary and dual use military goods which would require approval. Its not like the French were being forced to take a really bad deal or anything.

The cynical side of me thinks the only constant aspect of the French position on Iraq was what benefitted Saddam.

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.

Youre assuming that was their position - as you say later theres no mention of any linkage between relaxed sanctions and weapons inspections, or indeed seemingly anything to prevent a buildup of weapons once the sanctions end, Russia being the only state that apparently made a link between the two.

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

Actually its probably more France wants to do the dictating - its never quite accepted its not the empire it was.

As for the British its generally accepted they have quite a different view of the EU and where it should go, they in general seem to reckon it should remain an alliance of nation states, with the economic free trade area being the big/only selling point for it.

But its not that the French dont like being dictated to whilst the British do - my point was that Frances ambitions and the US's interests clash, whereas the thats not case with the UK - hence the US and the UK make more natural allies.

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

Really? After all the bitterness and rather easily stoked up nastiness between the two peoples - on a side note I hear a french wine company has resorted to donating $1 to buy care packages for US troops in Iraq for every bottle sold in the US - theyre cordial allies?

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

Well time for starters. It also reinforced if only briefly the notion that it *should* go to the security council to look for permisson - something that the hawks in washington heartily disagree with. It also gifted the French the opportunity to, as you say, make the US look as bad as possible - none of which is in the interests of the concerned.

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".

Doesnt it make much more sense to make an example of the French? Cross us and youre in the dog house. Theres nothing sinister in that - every nations does it, its just a tad unerving when a hyperpower is annoyed with you. Hence the French trying to rebuild the bridges they burnt by the recent noises theyve been making about dropping the sanctions - something the US wants, and the talks theyre having with Belguim, luxemburg and Germany about a milatary pact - stuff that might annoy the US like joint units etc etc have been taken off the table.

You can understand why theyre worried and the US has only hinted at how theyre going to deal with the French. Far more effective than ignoring them and reassuring them that they can get away with acting against the US surely?

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.

Well it could say " Grand, well support your war - BUT we want some conditions attached , like how are you going to deal with restoring civil authority in the immediate aftermath of victory, whats your humanitarian planning like, we (The UN ) want to be the post war authority, etc etc " Colin Poweel for one would fall over himself for any sort of deal that gave authority to the war, same for Blair,and as they convinced Bush to go to the UN they could convince him to accept such a deal. But in the end they UN surrendered its authority, left Powell looking like a fool and the hawks moved into the ascendancy - hence the shut out of the UN from Iraq.

The US has nothing to gain from estranged relations with France.

Hey, a semi-official boycott of French goods can only help the balance of trade figures.

Sand

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.

True, the only thing that can be said is they have been given a far better opportunity to live a better life than they had when whiling the hours away in Saddams care.

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.

So do I - The US should simply lay the foundations of a functioning democracy and hand it over to a representitve government and then support that governments efforts. This is their stated aim but well see.

Its better than dropping sanctions and sending Saddam a letter asking him please not to be so nasty imo.

Interesting definition of "win"

Hey, I did say the US - not SK or Japan:x