Plain and simple. There's not much to debate here. The sources are all over if you look hard enough (this has been buried by the media). Here's one.

Iraq's three main trading partners, in order of most trade to least:

1. Russia
2. France
3. Egypt

Why would France attack a country with which it trades, especially when Iraq currently holds quite a bit of debt with France.

So all you pot smokers and SUV owners remember-- you cannot buy any French products or travel to France without supporting terrorism.

Mike

--another source here:

I don't smoke pot, yet I still wouldn't travel to France. They have never supported the United States in anything since we liberated the whiny little rifle-droppers from the nazis. When we bombed Ghadaffi (sp?) France refused to let our bombers fly through their air space. They've ignored our trade sanctions against anyone we have sanctions against. They're rude and obnoxious to travelers. Yet you'll be surprised at the amount of Americans who ooh! and aah! at the mention of going to Paris. They think Jerry Lewis is the finest American actor? Yeah.....that's culture.

Should we post our opinions on why the rest of the world won't support it either or is this just for French bashing?

Stinky Frenchies.

I vote for French bashing!

Just the French. They are back-stabbing hypocrites.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you're with us, or you're with Iraq.

France's actions (amazingly) haven't spoken louder than its words.

Mike

You don't really mean this do you? What if we wanted to start putting Iraqi's in gas chambers and concentration camps. Should the whole world follow along like a pup...er...like Blair?

So, why shouldn't they question something as serious as war? Way back in the good ol' days even the U.S. would question the necessity of something that serious and deadly.

What I find most interesting is the way the US is portayed as going it alone. What is fascinating in the fact that 15 outa 19 NATO countries are with the US!!! I couldn't frigging believe that when I read it! You would think by the main stream media and some on this discussion board we were on our own. Goes to show you should always check things before you start believing them.

Darcaine

I get so tired of seeing this notion we are going to war with the people of Iraq. If(or when) we go to war it will be against the dictatorship in Iraq. We are not going to target civilian locations. Yes there will be casualties which Iraqi people will get killed. We dropped a couple of devastating bombs on Japan and killed many people, but stopped a war that could have killed 10 fold more......

Sleeper

Yeah. It'll just hurt for a minute...then they can be like us. Only 200,000 dead last time. That's worth it to force our government on them isn't it?

I'm sure they don't mind all the uncertainty that comes along with being occupied by the Americans for the next decade or so either. This entire fiasco is stupid.

Last time I checked Saddam Hussein was the one doing the gassing. Why should we leave him in power?

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The dacayed and decrepit state of human patriotism that believes 'nothing is worth war' is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he values more than his own personal safety is a wretched creature who will never have a chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
Anonymous

Save the patriotic crap for people who want to be saved. How many years ago did those people get gassed? What took so long for the U.S. to finally become so morally indignant about the whole thing?

THIS IS ABOUT FRANCE AND IRAQ NOT THE US.

Jeeeeeeez.

Did I touch a nerve? I'm just wondering why you will go out on a limb to vehemently oppose ousting a tyrannical villain who supports terrorism, gasses his own people, and would probably use weapons of mass destruction on the U.S. if he could develop them. AND, do this at the cost of criticising the U.S.. I'm not out to fling epithets, just to discuss the topic and hear your arguement.

Then I guess you'll have to start a new thread about it.

lol. Not nearly as long ago as the US bombed Japan, yet you bring that one up everytime we talk nukes

*******************

Mike, thanks for bringing this up. I've often thought about motives for opposing war with Iraq. I've heard things about Russia, China and France using their power of veto. Then I got to thinking....hmmm...I know Russia and China are big trading partners with Iraq...wonder if France is too....

Sure enough. heh. France won't go war with Iraq, any more than the Taliban would turn over OBL. Ya can't bite the hand that feeds ya

--cheers

And the U.S. would do the exact same thing. Money is King in this country more than any other.

Does anyone have a link to what France(and Germany) actually said about war in Iraq? I think that would help. If as it is suggested they would oppose war no matter what they are, in effect, crippling the Security Council and obstructing international law.

I believe it was yesterday that I saw the ministers from France and Germany speaking to the press, and if I recall correctly, the French minister said that war is never necessary - and the German minister was nodding affirmatively.

I suppose one could do a search on the New York Times....

All I have read is that they are opposed to a military solution and feel it could be handled diplomatically and through continued inspections. They see no evidence of a clear and present threat that requires military action.

It comes down to a question of who is it, really, that is being unreasonable? The U.S. is proposing pre-emptive war which is something that most civilized countries would agree is a bad thing and goes against international law.

What is the special, unprecedented, threat that Iraq has posed that allows us to change our course on that way of thinking? Is it convincing enough to expect every other country to follow suit? Has Bush presented any clear and present danger Iraq currently poses to anyone?

If this is true I believe it is quite obvious that such a nation should never be on the Security Council. If a nation wants to be pacifist is should not be given a leadership position regarding world security. That is simply ridiculous.

I would agree if this were a war council. But, if I'm not mistaken, their goal is to promote peace between the nations. When many countries have nuclear weapons it's a wise thing to try to maintain peace over aggression even at the risk of being called a pacsifist. Would you prefer a bunch of gun totin rhetoric spewing cowboys on the council? That wouldn't be very smart.

Danya: You're right it isn't a war council, or a peace council it is a Security Council. Nation that are on the Security Council must be able to consider all options to protect the security of UN member states.

This includes war.
Those who are unwilling to consider war under any circumstance are pacifists. Such nations should not be even partially in charge of world security.

The goal is not simply peace, it is security.

Russia and Germany and France have more experience with war then the we do. Just because Russia, (for example) only has enough nuclear power to blow the world up two times over, versus our ability to blow the world up ten times over, does not mean they are unimportant and a council is useless.

It is not experience or power that is in question. Rather, it is the willingness to protect the security of UN member states. Without that willingness the UN Security Council means nothing...

This is not entirely correct. Attacking Iraq would be a resumption of war. Iraq signed a cease fire agreement, and has not lived up to it.
As this is the case, I don't believe that war with Iraq goes against any international law, nor would it be in violation with any UN security council resolution. I will re-read the relevant resolutions to be sure, but if anybody feels I'm incorrect on this, please post the quote or link.
And I have not seen where France or Germany have made the case not to hold Iraq accountable for it's non-compliance, other than 'war is bad'.

We need more people to question this case. Blindly following the leader, which is essentially what many Americans are doing, is never a wise idea. These countries are opposing military action because they feel that America has failed to make its case against Iraq. At this point, evidence has yet to be presented to make me believe with any certainty that Iraq has WMDs. I, like you and everybody else can only speculate, until Bush finally decides to show everybody his "solid evidence". Why he's dragging his feet on it is beyond me, but that's getting into another thread.

It's sum will always be as effective as it's parts. The U.S. has always held the majority of power and influence on the Security Council. Where the U.N. fails the U.S. fails. War is not always the consequence or solution to world security. It's actually the least effective and a last resort in the civilized world.

The war ended when Kuwait was liberated. That was the purpose of the first war and that has already been accomplished. The purpose of this war, a decade later, is entirely different.

Yes, but merely liberating Kuwait does not satisfy the tenants of the cease fire agreement. It must prove the destruction of WMD's. It must abide by the terms of UN resolution 678 and 1441 specifically relating to our present dilemma.

From UN 1441:

Using that ten years later is a pretty big stretch. Especially without the backing of those that approved of it at the time. We weren't crying about any of that while we were buying his oil and going on about our lives. Bush has claimed a victory by getting the inspectors back in and tightening an already tight noose around Saddam.

There is nothing to gain by attacking and occupying that country and trading in Saddam for....for what exactly? It surprises me that American's are hardly curious over what happens after Saddam. Most people here aren't interested in how long we might occupy Iraq or how much it may cost or if we can ever find a less dangerous replacement. If we never ask these questions the chances are Bush is only creating another Bin Laden that our kids will be dealing with ten years from now.

"I have said that for Germany we cannot approve legitimising war" against Iraq in any future resolution on military action at the UN Security Council, said Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.

"Everything has to be done to ensure that it is applied by peaceful means," Schroeder said in reference to resolution 1441 on Iraqi disarmament. "It's a common position and we plan to stand by it."

"It's our common foreign policy," added French President Jacques Chirac, in a good humoured exchange with a youth parliament of 500 students who grilled the two leaders, in celebrations marking Paris and Berlin's 40-year alliance.

french news

There is a VERY good reason why France or Germany will not support war with Iraq.

Of the seven major powers that contested WW2.

Germany..Lost 3,250.000 military and 3,810.00 civilian.
Japan..Lost 1,700.00 military and 360,00 civilian.
Britain and Commonwealth..Lost 452,000 military and 60,000 civilian.
France..Lost 250,000 military and 360,000 civilian.
Soviet Union..Lost 13,600.000 military and 7,700.000 civilian.
China..Lost 3,500.000 military and 10,000.000 civilian.
USA.. Lost 295,000 military and ZERO civilians.

http://ww2bodycount.netfirms.com/

The infrastructure of these countries were devastated and took around 40yrs to recover wheras America's was untouched.
Now why would any of these want to join another war in someone elses backyard just because a comparitive few American civilians were killed.

Other than the UK and its "puppy dog" Australia the above countries have had their fill of bloodlust and want no more.

Question.
If America had suffered the civilian losses and infrastructure damage of the above countries would it feel the same about war?.

Regards.....Alan

Until a war is fought on American soil we will continue to have no real grasp on what war means. Our news reports will show little or none of the resulting damage done by our military. As long as we can go about our lives with only a small rise in gas prices we have no objections.

Yup........

Thats my point Danya.
It seems to be a big game to Americans who have never had their houses, factories, next door neighbours etc destroyed.
I can remember the destruction in Plymouth (UK) and the loss of my grandparents, uncle and aunt and living on bare subsistance rations for years, as did most of Europe and I'm just one of millions.

To Americans it appears all too much like a Hollywood Movie that can be discussed but not felt, not real.

Anyone who has experienced the devastation of War knows better than to provoke it and that is why America is finding it hard to drum up support, especially in Europe.

Regards....Alan

ROFL

I wonder what "Occupied France" would have said about that 50 years ago? :/

Never is a powerful word. Use it wisely.

***************

Yes, the European loss (of life of infastructure) is tragic. But isn't it worth preventing more of the same? That is what we are trying to accomplish. The Eurocrats can't talk Saddam into doing anything. He may or may not use any WMD's, but, if obtained, probably would sell them to someone who would.

The potential for loss of life and infastructure from a WMD, would make any one country's loss during WWII, look like a border skirmish.

--cheers

Let's suppose (hypotheticly) a certain Russian scientist who developed a strain of smallpox that is 7 times stronger than the original smallpox mysteriously moved to Iraq about three years ago. I would want some questions answered.

1) Where is she now?

2) What precautions would the U.S. take to protect its citizens?

3) How do we prove it?

Oh, and another thing, Danya and Alan Wood seem to be in agreement about war on American soil. I wonder WHY Europeans are not backing us against Iraq? I wonder if it has anything to do with where Saddam would use a weapon of mass destruction?

After 911, the world saw that terrorist actions are possible on American soil. I wonder, if Saddam would unleash a WMD in France, I bet they would be behind the U.S. 100%.

It kinda plays out like this if you really pay close attention:

SADDAM vs. (Insert any nation) --- Help! America! Come save our *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***! We love Americans! Go America Go!

SADDAM vs. AMERICA --- Screw it. You damn cowboy Americans. Always meddling in other people's business.
You're on your own.

It's not a stretch at all. Resolution 687 is explicitly referred to in Resolution 1441, it is standing international law. Just because some members lost their nerve in enforcing it doesn't mean that it's invalid. Refusing to engage in military action with Iraq under any circumstance is no different from outright refusing to uphold international law. A nation that does so should not be on the Security Council.

Viva La France!



The French lost 100,000 men in six weeks when the Nazi's steamrolled into their country. Far from being snively little cowards they fought hard and the French resistence was a model organisation displaying great courage and sacrifice.

The only REAL appeasers in World War 2 were Sen Taft and the Republican party. They loved the Nazi's who I guess represented the New Europe (as opposed to the old Europe of England and France, Holland and Denmark.)

As I remember Prescott Bush was an agent of the Nazi government and the Bush family derived a small fortune from their interest in Thysson's Silesian mines. (Those mines, by the way, were worked by the slave labour camp at Aushwitz)

Learn a little history - PLEASE - before indulging in all this ignorant anti-european rubbish. You say its just because they do business with Iraq? Oh, and the British/US push for Basra has nothing to do with the fact that they've been excluded??

I would love to refute Padraig's argument, but according to his logic, I'll be off to jail since we're obviously guilty of the sins our forefather's committed. (One of mine robbed a bank, therefore I must be a thief. Good thing it wasn't a minority owned bank, or, according to Padraig's logic, I'd be even guiltier since the crime would be more deplorable).



Good thing I'm fairly ignorant of history. Evidently, if I was fairly knowledgeable, I'd be doomed to live in it.

I believe the current thread is on what France is doing now. In the present. Which is: Ignoring sanctions, trading (maybe supplies-who knows?), and opposing (WMD be damned) the ousting of Saddam Hussein.

The question is why are they doing this? To hell with how heroic their resistance was in WWII.

My opinion is: probably money. (Not that the United States has never looked out for it's monetary interests. But, I bet we would honor the sanctions France imposed on another country, because they're supposed to be our ALLIES.)

Wow..where do you even begin on this rambling.

Darcaine

Darcaine, why bother making such a statement? Either address the post or don't. Why mock a post and not support yourself?

France is our oldest ally, but it is also our most reluctant ally.

It may be of interest to note that Denmark, Holland and other countries that were steamrollered by the Wehrmacht, did not then set up a Vichy government as a puppet to appease the Nazis - and then set out to destroy their own fleet at Toulon so that the allies wouldn't get it. That's a mite more than surrendering.

......................................

As for now......France likes to posture a bit. This allows them to construct a reluctance and therefore implies independence from anything the United States tries to do. But there's a bit more to it than that, in my opinion. It's more than not automatically endorsing what we do/ask. They want to say "we are more civilized and more sophisticated than those upstart Americans."

That's ok - if they need to do that, fine. As they continue to do that they marginalize themselves from the world stage. But, that will irritate them too. You can't have it both ways saying "I'm better/independent/different and still be part of the crew." Isn't that what they did with NATO? They wanted to be part of NATO but threw the headquarters out of Paris. As I recall that's how NATO headquarters ended up in Brussels.

It will be interesting to see, that when push comes to shove if France suddenly decides that it' best interests (i.e. millions of francs) are better served joining than jeering.

(as an aside - the fact that California produces very fine wine upsets them too )

I hope the rest of the world continues to hold firm against what Bush is trying to do. People can continue to try to justify Bush's stance all they want but wrong is wrong.

According to their own policy statement towards Iraq (From the Brookings Institute, Jacques Beltran, Research Fellow, Institut Francais de Relations Internationales:







Sounds to me like France is indulging in a little anti-American rubbish.

According to Eric Alterman of The Nation:

The French don't even dislike the United States, Rather, they dislike its leader. President Bush's religiosity, self-righteousness, and indifference to allies justify France's low opinion. Alterman is essentially saying to Americans what Bush told Iraqis in the State of the Union address: "Your enemy is not surrounding your country—your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation." If President Clinton—or even Ronald Reagan—were in charge instead of Busharoo Banzai, the French would embrace America with open arms.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chris Suellentror:

"France sees itself as a great nation worthy of power, the birthplace of democracy, with a cutlure and system ofo government that the world would be wise to emulate.

Which is why, in the end, France will go along with the Bush administration on Iraq. If France vetoes a Secuirty Council resolution and the Bush Administration goes to war anyway, France will have been proved powerless. But if it accedes to the war after demanding more evidence, it will be able to claim that it influenced American policy--whether it's true or not. Germany will likely stand on principle and oppose the war. But France will never do such a thing. IT MATTERS TO MATTER TO FRANCE."

Madtown

These losses would have never occurred if Hitler had been stopped when he first violated The Treaty of Versailles. Sometimes little wars are necessary to prevent big wars.

Also your facts are wrong, six picnicers in Oregon were killed by a Japanese balloon bomb.

French antipathy toward America and Americans has a history long before President Bush. He is just being used as the present day excuse. There was already substantial feeling along these lines back in the early days of NATO. It's one of the reasons that NATO headquarters was asked to leave Paris.

If you read Charles DeGuaule's autobiography, his scorn for both America and England are blatent. Roosevelt and Churhill were very mindful of this even during the Second WW.

France's opinion of its own importance is out of all proportion to present day reality. It's having an empire hang-over.

If it decides to eventually go along with America's foreign policy vis a vis Iraq, the fact that it protested initially will only serve to further inflate its self-view of that importance as well as heighten the disparaging reality.

Until a chemical weapon is used effectively, by a terrorist in a large metropolitan area we will have no real grasp on what terrorism / appeasement to avoid war means.

It seems to me that our constant objective and Military purpose is to always keep "War" off American soil and our current objective is to keep Chemical weapons out of the hands of Terrorists.


I came across this article at the Rush Limbaugh site.


"As the New York Times put it in 1986: "Chirac has said many times that he is a personal friend of Saddam Hussein." "
Friends?

http://rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_02...ctor.guest.html

I understand that this is basically an editorial but it has several interesting quotes and sources.

Anything by Rush or O'Reilley cannot be taken seriously...I won't even look at Limbaughs site out of fear I may throw up at his empty hateful rhetoric.

I did hear on CNN that emails have been pouring in to the French...5000 by American's thanking them for their position. I missed who exactly these were going to, if it were the French gov or if it were the French delegates or whatever.

I don't know why

The French obviously want to keep a psycho in power. Of course, all that oil in someone else's hands makes them nervous at the thought. I guess they would rather support Saddam financially than some democratic government