The Iraq Thread

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SGTKOPP @ Mar. 22 2003,03:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">bbq anyone  <span id='postcolor'>

watch what you are saying. distasteful comments such as this is not welcome.

[Akira 0]

I think the best thing the US can do now is when this is over, indeed go to the UN, and not to just foot the bill. As one retired military analyst on NPR stated, we have to take responsibility for the consequences the Iraqi's will endure. By starting this we become morally obligated to rebuild and PAY for rebuilding.

In order to "convince" the world of our altruistic intentions, after the shooting is dead, the best thing to do is step back and hand the reigns over, but the hard part being not to make it look like we are saying "Ok we blew the hell outta them. You fix em."

We should be in the forefront of the rebuilding, and re-governing of Iraq, while not profitting, nor demanding a "slice of the pie." (Nor should ANYONE get a "slice of the pie.")

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 21 2003,23:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 21 2003,06:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (edc @ Mar. 21 2003,06:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">France's and the majority of the UN SC position was only to let the inspector finish their work. The option of going to war always remained.

<span id='postcolor'>

france said that they would veto any resolution that had any possibility of military action.  <span id='postcolor'>

No, that is what Bush's minister of propaganda Fleischer tried to make it. France said that it would veto any resolution that set an ultimatum that was not approved by the UN inspectors. If the UN inspectors said "attack tomorrow" then France would have attacked tomorrow. Do you wish me to post references?<span id='postcolor'>

I already posted references, the most important being de Villians speech at the UN, stating that not only would France not accept any resolution with an ultimatum, but also ANY resolution using force.

It was a around page 320 or something.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, since you are so stubborn. Interview with Chirac from 16/3

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AMANPOUR: So you are saying you would be prepared to do a 30-day or a 60-day deadline?

CHIRAC: Whatever the inspectors propose and suggest in that respect will be accepted. It has to be accepted, I think. We have given the inspectors a mission, and we have a moral obligation, and a political one, to follow their advice or else to explain why we are not following them. But if we don't follow their advice, then only the Security Council can decide not to.

<span id='postcolor'>

Saying that France was going to veto anything is just pure bullshit. There is no other expression for it.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 22 2003,05:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 21 2003,23:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 21 2003,06:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (edc @ Mar. 21 2003,06:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">France's and the majority of the UN SC position was only to let the inspector finish their work. The option of going to war always remained.

<span id='postcolor'>

france said that they would veto any resolution that had any possibility of military action.  <span id='postcolor'>

No, that is what Bush's minister of propaganda Fleischer tried to make it. France said that it would veto any resolution that set an ultimatum that was not approved by the UN inspectors. If the UN inspectors said "attack tomorrow" then France would have attacked tomorrow. Do you wish me to post references?<span id='postcolor'>

I already posted references, the most important being de Villians speech at the UN, stating that not only would France not accept any resolution with an ultimatum, but also ANY resolution using force.

It was a around page 320 or something.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, since you are so stubborn. Interview with Chirac from 16/3

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AMANPOUR: So you are saying you would be prepared to do a 30-day or a 60-day deadline?

CHIRAC: Whatever the inspectors propose and suggest in that respect will be accepted. It has to be accepted, I think. We have given the inspectors a mission, and we have a moral obligation, and a political one, to follow their advice or else to explain why we are not following them. But if we don't follow their advice, then only the Security Council can decide not to.

<span id='postcolor'>

Saying that France was going to veto anything is just pure bullshit. There is no other expression for it.<span id='postcolor'>

So Chirac said it. And I'm telling you what EXACTLY de Villian said in the UN Security Council and the link I provided in my post was to it.

de Villian said that "France, as a permanent member of the Security Council" would not accept ANY resolution that required force. ANY. De Villian himself said it. I'm not making it up. And it is clearly a direct reference to veto-power.

It appears you are being stubborn. Not me. I'm not linking a news story about it, or an analysis, or an Op/Ed piece. I linked the transcript of his speech.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

It appears you are being stubborn. Not me. I'm not linking a news story about it, or an analysis, or an Op/Ed piece. I linked the transcript of his speech.<span id='postcolor'>

Is my English that bad? Why can't I get through? Or is it you?

Chirac, the president of France said that France would accept any deadline approved by the UN inspectors. What he says goes.

De Villepin said that France would veto any resolution authorizing force <span style='font-size:10pt;line-height:100%'>NOW</span> because the UN inspectors said that they were making progress.

Very simple position: They supported whatever the UN inspectors said. If the inspectors siad that the inspections were working then they would veto any resolution authorizing force. If the UN inspectors said that the inspections were impossible to complete then France would have voted yes on authorizing force.

Do you need me to write this a couple of more times, or to dig up more references. If it is an eyesight problem, I can use larger fonts.

Edit: Here's de Villepin's famous statement to the UN, made on february 14:

(transcript)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">France has said all along: We do not exclude the possibility that force may have to be used one day if the inspectors' reports concluded that it was impossible to continue the inspections. The Council would then have to take a decision, and its members would have to meet all their responsibilities. In such an eventuality, I want to recall here the questions I emphasized at our last debate on February 4 which we must answer:

<span id='postcolor'>

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 22 2003,05:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">de Villian said that "France, as a permanent member of the Security Council" would not accept ANY resolution that required force. ANY. De Villian himself said it. I'm not making it up. And it is clearly a direct reference to veto-power.

It appears you are being stubborn. Not me. I'm not linking a news story about it, or an analysis, or an Op/Ed piece. I linked the transcript of his speech.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, that is a long way from saying htat France would veto ANY resolution authorising force.

He used the word 'require'

Personally, I feel that if the inspectors had been given more time, they would either have gotten to a point where Iraq was conclusively proven to be in compliance, or where they would have said to the UN 'cooperation is done. we cannont verify complete compliance'

And at that point I dont doubt that France would have backed military action if it was required.

Pure and simple, other than Bush, Blair, Aznar and a lot of also rans, the main players on the world stage believed that inspections were working.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Mar. 22 2003,05:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the main players on the world stage believed that inspections were working.<span id='postcolor'>

but not completely. Iraq had to be threatened by Bush to destroy those Al samud (?) missiles, and turned in documents late.

that is, in strict sense, not a full compliance, and also not a full resistance.

so both sides would have hard time convincing each other.

as far as the "requires" phrases goes, de Villepan says

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"France, as a permanent member of the Security Council" would not accept ANY resolution that required force<span id='postcolor'>

they did not specify whether they were talking about some particular resolution, or this one. not a good wording

on the other hand, if you flip above comment, it means that France will accept some resolution that does not require force. Not a good idea either since without threat, UN inspection would go through more problem.

[Pukko 0]

One only need one quote in the matter of TBA desperately wanting a war with Iraq (and the evil French becoming a scapegoat) - the in TBA ever present (even if not spoken out more than once, its everpresent in TBA´s general approach to the rest of the world):

"Either you are with us, or you are against us"

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 22 2003,05:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

It appears you are being stubborn. Not me. I'm not linking a news story about it, or an analysis, or an Op/Ed piece. I linked the transcript of his speech.<span id='postcolor'>

Is my English that bad? Why can't I get through? Or is it you?

Chirac, the president of France said that France would accept any deadline approved by the UN inspectors. What he says goes.

De Villepin said that France would veto any resolution authorizing force <span style='font-size:10pt;line-height:100%'>NOW</span> because the UN inspectors said that they were making progress.

Very simple position: They supported whatever the UN inspectors said. If the inspectors siad that the inspections were working then they would veto any resolution authorizing force. If the UN inspectors said that the inspections were impossible to complete then France would have voted yes on authorizing force.

Do you need me to write this a couple of more times, or to dig up more references. If it is an eyesight problem, I can use larger fonts.<span id='postcolor'>

What about my original post that I cited did you not understand? Could you not read it due to you own venomous condescending attitude and your arrogant "I'm always right" self-rightous tone?

I said in my previous post, since you obviously didn't read it, was that France was just as instrumental in destroying the process of inspections as the US. By automatically rejecting and threatening to veto any resolution that contained measures calling for "automatic use of force" ie if compliance or non-compliance is determined, they removed the only impetus Iraq had to go along with inspections.

De Villepin did not say they would veto any measure requiring force now. If you would bother reading the link and post I keep refering to instead of shooting your mouth off, de Villepin said they would veto any resolution containing "automatic use of force." And as I just said, but clearly I need to repeat it a few more times for you, this removed any credible threat of force against Iraq for not co-operating. It has been accepted that the large army in Kuwait (or was in Kuwait) was in a large part, the reason Saddam decided to co-operate as he was. But by eliminating this one provision, Saddam would have lost all his desire to co-operate, knowing that, by the French plan that de Villepin put forth in the speech, it would have been at least 2-3 months before non-compliance had been determined and then a debate started about force.

Now if you had bothered reading my post, you would have also noted that I supported the French on a number of their proposals. But I guess you wouldn't know that being locked away in your Citadel of Rightousness.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

A little offtopic, but I wonder how popular with the French  Chirac would be without Bush trampling all over the globe giving everyone and their brother a reason to hate us? I mean, last time I checked, the only reason Chirac was reelected was because the only other choice was a neo-fascist. Moreover, I find it hard to believe, what with the France showing sclerotic economic growth at best, that Chirac's domestic agenda (does he have one?) can be doing very well. I mean, even France's wine industry (usually the toast of the town lol) has been taking a beating from Argentinian and Australian competitors. As far as I can see, about the only thing Chirac has going for himself is the convenient target that is the 800-pound gorilla on the other side of the Atlantic, which makes for an easy target. He gets to restore a semblance of France's international stature, he gets a big boost in polls, and he gets a principle opponent who can't muster up anything better than to remove France's name from a food product created in Belgium. If I was Chirac I'd be doing the exact same thing.

At a glance, I'd have to say that Chirac's current position in regards to the US resembles the relationship between Sharon and Yasser Arafat. Despite his innefectual domestic politics, he has an opponent who continues to do stupid things that raise his esteem, both at home and abroad. In short, I think the bush Administration could in some ways be considered Chirac's closest ally, at least as far as Chirac is concerned

Edit: as a side bonus, the rest of the world's incredible animosity towards the US is a great smokescreen for Chirac to pursue France's more cynical interests under a guise of fairness and respect for multilateralism. Let me lay it out for you: if British and the US are out of the picture for a post-war Iraq under a UN rebuilding regime, which country on the Security Council is poised to pursue their own interests in Iraq? C'est le France! But hey, at least it isn't America, right? because we're the only country capable of ulterior motives and hidden agendas. *snort*

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ Mar. 22 2003,05:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One only need one quote in the matter of TBA desperately wanting a war with Iraq (and the evil French becoming a scapegoat) - the in TBA ever present (even if not spoken out more than once, its everpresent in TBA´s general approach to the rest of the world):

"Either you are with us, or you are against us"<span id='postcolor'>

I'm sick of hearing about making France a scapegoat.

I support the troops, but don't support this war. But just because I think the war is wrong, doesn't mean I give in to thinking France was automatically in the right or they were the defenders of morality.

I think everyone screwed up. And I mean everyone.

[Guest]

Again Akira your statements fall flat on facts.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">France has said all along: We do not exclude the possibility that force may have to be used one day if the inspectors' reports concluded that it was impossible to continue the inspections. The Council would then have to take a decision, and its members would have to meet all their responsibilities. In such an eventuality, I want to recall here the questions I emphasized at our last debate on February 4 which we must answer: <span id='postcolor'>

That is what de Villepin said. And here is the full transcript. Your statements are just pure nonsense that have no base in reality. This is very easily verified since France has maintained the same position. Do you want me to find another statement from de Villepin? He has made quite few of them and they make the French position very clear: without the approval of the UN inspectors, no deadlines and no automatic approval of force.

USA/UK wanted to set a second resolution authorizing force last week. France said: "No we will veto any resolution authorizing force since the UN inspectors are saying that the inspections are working". It's fully consistent with their policy and Chirac clarified it in the interview. I don't get what your problem is Akira. I've provided you with a direct statement from Chirac from 16/3 saying that France indeed would authorize both  force and support an ultimatum if the inspectors agreed on it.

It's also funny how France is blamed for the second resolution not passing when both Russia and China had the exactly same position - not to mention the majority of the SC.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 22 2003,05:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as I can see, about the only thing Chirac has going for himself is the convenient target that is the 800-pound gorilla on the other side of the Atlantic, which makes for an easy target. He gets to restore a semblance of France's international stature, he gets a big boost in polls, and he gets a principle opponent who can't muster up anything better than to remove France's name from a food product created in Belgium. If I was Chirac I'd be doing the exact same thing.

At a glance, I'd have to say that Chirac's current position in regards to the US resembles the relationship between Sharon and Yasser Arafat. Despite his innefectual domestic politics, he has an opponent who continues to do stupid things that raise his esteem, both at home and abroad. In short, I think the bush Administration could in some ways be considered Chirac's closest ally, at least as far as Chirac is concerned <span id='postcolor'>

Chirac is a corrupt asshole and an idiot. And yes he is immensly enjoying the domestic support he gets now. That doesn't mean however that his position is wrong.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Edit: as a side bonus, the rest of the world's incredible animosity towards the US is a great smokescreen for Chirac to pursue France's more cynical interests under a guise of fairness and respect for multilateralism. Let me lay it out for you: if British and the US are out of the picture for a post-war Iraq under a UN rebuilding regime, which country on the Security Council is poised to pursue their own interests in Iraq? C'est le France! But hey, at least it isn't America, right? because we're the only country capable of ulterior motives and hidden agendas. *snort*

<span id='postcolor'>

France has much less econimical interests in Iraq then USA has. To quote Chirac on the issue:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Chirac @ ,,,)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for our interests, let us be clear about it. The trade of France with Iraq accounts for 0.2 percent of total French trade. So basically we have no economic interests in Iraq. Iraq isn't even in the list of the 60 largest trading partners of France. Not even the 60 largest.

As for oil import, they only account for 8 percent of Iraqi exports. The U.S. is importing five or six times more Iraqi petrol and Iraqi oil than we are importing. So these alleged motivations are clearly not serious motivations.

<span id='postcolor'>

[HellToupee 0]

france has also stated they would veto any resolution that gives the US admin rights over iraq, if the US wants to fight an illegal war they should not benefit in any way, the UN should have control of rebuilding iraq and the US and its allies should pay for it.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

The inspectors have proved in the past to be entirely more patient than the average human being. It took them eight years of Iraq's version of three-card Monty before they called it quits back in the 90's. The idea that the inspectors could possibly have been toeing the line in order to stall for political breathing room is not at all an outlandish concept, and one that makes an inspector's claim that inspections were working and merited more time seem highly suspect, at least in my view. I'd go back through the fact that 1441 merely stated the fact that Iraq was in violation, and served as a final chance to come clean immediately, but then I suppose we'd be going down the same pointless path (again). The fact that it took nearly 3 months for UNMOVIC to get any real concessions from Iraq, and that at the point of a gun, merely reemphasizes that the inspections were not in fact working. What was working was the clear threat of military force, and even that only brought halting and minor concessions.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Mar. 22 2003,06:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">france has also stated they would veto any resolution that gives the US admin rights over iraq, if the US wants to fight an illegal war they should not benefit in any way, the UN should have control of rebuilding iraq and the US and its allies should pay for it.<span id='postcolor'>

An organization that maintains Libya as the chair-country of the UN Human Rights Commission can hardly be considered the ultimate arbiter of international law. But whatever.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 22 2003,05:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Again Akira your statements fall flat on facts.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">France has said all along: We do not exclude the possibility that force may have to be used one day if the inspectors' reports concluded that it was impossible to continue the inspections. The Council would then have to take a decision, and its members would have to meet all their responsibilities. In such an eventuality, I want to recall here the questions I emphasized at our last debate on February 4 which we must answer: <span id='postcolor'>

That is what de Villepin said. And here is the full transcript. Your statements are just pure nonsense that have no base in reality. This is very easily verified since France has maintained the same position. Do you want me to find another statement from de Villepin? He has made quite few of them and they make the French position very clear: without the approval of the UN inspectors, no deadlines and no automatic approval of force.

USA/UK wanted to set a second resolution authorizing force last week. France said: "No we will veto any resolution authorizing force since the UN inspectors are saying that the inspections are working". It's fully consistent with their policy and Chirac clarified it in the interview. I don't get what your problem is Akira. I've provided you with a direct statement from Chirac from 16/3 saying that France indeed would authorize both  force and support an ultimatum if the inspectors agreed on it.

It's also funny how France is blamed for the second resolution not passing when both Russia and China had the exactly same position - not to mention the majority of the SC.<span id='postcolor'>

Jesus Holy Christ.

Since you refuse to look up the post here it is...cut and pasted: (btw this speech is from 3/7...almost a month after your speech).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote(denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,00:56)

Quote (Akira @ Mar. 19 2003,00:53)

Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,00<!--emo&)

What they have been saying all along is: Unless the inspectors find any WMDs or the Iraqis make the inspection process impossible to complete we cannot vote for a war. What they are saying now is if Iraq uses WMDs then we will support a war. In what way is that contradictory?

Then why did France say they would veto any resolution "watever the circumstances"? To veto any resolution that contains an ultimatum or use of force for non-compliance, which basically removed any enforcablility or crediability to 1441 (or any other resolution regarding Iraq)?

No they didn't. They said that they would veto any resolution that issues an ultimatum that was not supported by the UN inspectors. Do you want me to find some of the 451235235235 sources for that? It's ok to disagree, but try to get at least the basic facts right.

UN Speech

The important part being:

Quote

As a permanent member of the Security Council, I will say it again:

France will not allow a resolution to pass that authorizes the automatic use of force.

That is straight out of  de Villepin's mouth. It does mention that they wouldn't support any ultimatum as long as "... the inspectors are reporting cooperation."

The proposal's set forth in de Villepin's speech hold no benchmarks or yardsticks for consideration of Iraqi co-operation, other than the report every three weeks by the inspectors.

Quote

- First, let us ask the inspectors to establish a hierarchy of tasks for disarmament and, on that basis, to present us as quickly as possible with the work program provided for by resolution 1284. We need to know immediately what the priority issues are that could constitute key disarmament tasks to be carried out by Iraq.

 

- Second, we propose that the inspectors give us a progress report every three weeks. That will make the Iraqi authorities understand that in no case may they interrupt their efforts.

 

- Finally, let us establish a schedule for assessing the implementation of the work program. Resolution 1284 provides for a time frame of 120 days. We are willing to shorten it, if the inspectors consider it feasible.

So...

With no benchmark's, or rather a set amount of tests, to test Iraqi compliance, the inspections could feasibly go on forever, as long as the inspectors say "Iraq is cooperating."

And since there is no backing of force what so ever, where is the imputus for Iraq to comply? Without the "automatic use of force" for non-compliance, the UN loses its ability to enforce it's own multiple resolutions.

First, the inspectors should set up a "hierarchy of tasks for disarmament." Fair enough. The inspectors should prioritize, presumably, what weapon's systems, and locations should be verified first. But to me that seems like something that should have been done before they got there.

Sure, with a progress report every three weeks, the world would undoubtedly learn whether or not Iraq is cooperating. But what if it wasn't? What then? Another unenforcable resolution? There is no threat of "automatic force" remember.

The third proposal asks for a timeframe of 120 days (or less if feasible) to "assess"  the implemantation of the program, what I take to mean a time frame, the length of which and at the end of, the success and/or failure of the program can be established. Sounds fine to me. If I recall the US/UK coalition was against lengthened time as such, due to the "time table" for military action. I agree with de Villepin here:

Quote

The military agenda must not dictate the calendar of inspections.

My big point being, that France, through refusal of any automatic use of force, did just as much as the US to kill the insepction process. It has been acknowledged a number of times in this topic, that one reason the insepctions are presently being effective is the rather large army in Kuwait facing Iraq. That is the threat of force.

No benchmark's and threat of force together make the inspection process useless and Iraq's main reason to co-operate disappear into the wind.

And I should also point out that I disagree with this present course, that the US going to war is a huge strategic and diplomatic plunder. But that doesn't mean I should automatically agree with France's position either. <span id='postcolor'>

How is it my point keeps flying RIGHT OVER your head? My point isn't about France saying no to force....its about France saying no to AUTOMATIC force...and thus hamstringing the only thing that had Saddam co-operating. Jesus wake up!

EDIT: My link is lost in the giant quote...here it is:

De Villepin's Speech

EDIT2: For shits and giggles here the link to my original post:

Post

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Chirac is a corrupt asshole and an idiot. And yes he is immensly enjoying the domestic support he gets now. That doesn't mean however that his position is wrong.

<span id='postcolor'>

And now we hit the crux of the issue. Denoir, how many times have you cautioned against the pursuit of the realpolitick concept "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? By giving France the backing they currently enjoy, the international community is essentially being hoodwinked into providing the political capital that France requires to pole-vault its own agenda over that of the US. Political capital, I might remind you, that France could never generate on its own.

[SGTKOPP 0]

at least some of them are smart

[ralphwiggum 6]

from denoir's link

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Given this context [that inspection works], the use of force is not justified at this time. There is an alternative to war: disarming Iraq via inspections.<span id='postcolor'>

and how was the inspection working? by having Bush taking every chance to threaten war with Iraq. If it wasn't for Bush's stance, Iraq would have not budged, 1441 would not have happened.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This message comes to you today from an old country, France, from a continent like mine, Europe, that has known wars, occupation and barbarity. A country that does not forget and knows everything it owes to the freedom-fighters who came from America and elsewhere.

And yet has never ceased to stand upright in the face of history and before mankind. Faithful to its values, it wishes resolutely to act with all the members of the international community. It believes in our ability to build together a better world. Thank you. <span id='postcolor'>

ah ha! either he is joking or US did make some significant contribution!

well, at the danger of going into France bashing, they gotta start testing their nuclear weapons near France, not French colonies in Pacific.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Mar. 22 2003,06:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">france has also stated they would veto any resolution that gives the US admin rights over iraq, if the US wants to fight an illegal war they should not benefit in any way, the UN should have control of rebuilding iraq and the US and its allies should pay for it.<span id='postcolor'>

I think that position goes without saying. If the USA chooses to fight a war without UN support then they should also take the consequences of that.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The fact that it took nearly 3 months for UNMOVIC to get any real concessions from Iraq, and that at the point of a gun, merely reemphasizes that the inspections were not in fact working. What was working was the clear threat of military force, and even that only brought halting and minor concessions<span id='postcolor'>

They did get enough support to think that the process was working, which they didn't in 1998. One more point is that almost all the information that Iraq gave from the start has checked out. There has been no proof of any serious violations of 1441 and previous resolutions. The only substantial violation were the Al Salmoud missiles and they were being destroyed.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How is it my point keeps flying RIGHT OVER your head? My point isn't about France saying no to force....its about France saying no to AUTOMATIC force...and thus hamstringing the only thing that had Saddam co-operating. Jesus wake up! <span id='postcolor'>

What had Saddam cooperating was the reports from the inspectors. A no to automatic force is a no-brainer if you support the inspections. France's position was that as long as the inspectors say that it's working there is no need for force. France's main point was that only the inspectors and the inspectors alone could be the judge of the Iraqi cooperation. An automatic threat of force not defined by the inspectors was the same thing as saying that the inspections were irrelevant . There are two parties to blame for this conflict, Bush and Saddam. Bush for starting this war with complete disregard to the UN and international law. Saddam for his war on Kuwait in '91 and his lack of cooperation with the UN inspectors from '91 to '98.

France's position was simply that it wasn't USA's call to make that Iraq wasn't cooperating but the inspectors'. The threat of force was still there, just not depending on a a fixed set of unrealistic goals but on the objective evaluation of the UN inspectors. Very simple, very clear and certainly not responsible for the current situation.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Mar. 22 2003,06:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">from denoir's link

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Given this context [that inspection works], the use of force is not justified at this time. There is an alternative to war: disarming Iraq via inspections.<span id='postcolor'>

and how was the inspection working? by having Bush taking every chance to threaten war with Iraq. If it wasn't for Bush's stance, Iraq would have not budged, 1441 would not have happened.<span id='postcolor'>

True, and if it hadn't come to war, I would be congratulating Bush for an excellent round of good cop/bad cop game. The inspections were working because of the US pressure. They were working however and there was no immidiate need to go to war, now this second.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 22 2003,06:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How is it my point keeps flying RIGHT OVER your head? My point isn't about France saying no to force....its about France saying no to AUTOMATIC force...and thus hamstringing the only thing that had Saddam co-operating. Jesus wake up! <span id='postcolor'>

What had Saddam cooperating was the reports from the inspectors. A no to automatic force is a no-brainer if you support the inspections. France's position was that as long as the inspectors say that it's working there is no need for force. France's main point was that only the inspectors and the inspectors alone could be the judge of the Iraqi cooperation. An automatic threat of force not defined by the inspectors was the same thing as saying that the inspections were irrelevant . There are two parties to blame for this conflict, Bush and Saddam. Bush for starting this war with complete disregard to the UN and international law. Saddam for his war on Kuwait in '91 and his lack of cooperation with the UN inspectors from '91 to '98.

France's position was simply that it wasn't USA's call to make that Iraq wasn't cooperating but the inspectors'. The threat of force was still there, just not depending on a a fixed set of unrealistic goals but on the objective evaluation of the UN inspectors. Very simple, very clear and certainly not responsible for the current situation.<span id='postcolor'>

I give up...I feel like I'm talking to FSPilot.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 22 2003,06:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I give up...I feel like I'm talking to FSPilot.<span id='postcolor'>

You took the words right out of my mouth.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 22 2003,06:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Mar. 22 2003,06:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">from denoir's link

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Given this context [that inspection works], the use of force is not justified at this time. There is an alternative to war: disarming Iraq via inspections.<span id='postcolor'>

and how was the inspection working? by having Bush taking every chance to threaten war with Iraq. If it wasn't for Bush's stance, Iraq would have not budged, 1441 would not have happened.<span id='postcolor'>

True, and if it hadn't come to war, I would be congratulating Bush for an excellent round of good cop/bad cop game. The inspections were working because of the US pressure. They were working however and there was no immidiate need to go to war, now this second.<span id='postcolor'>

Wait a second...you just said no use for force...yet you acknowledge that US pressure was making inspections work...

Hello? US pressure was for FORCE. More importantly the theat of force...what I've been saying the whole damn time...

Oh whatever...go sit back on your throne.