I believe the time has come to take the neccessary steps to distance ourselves from France and to kiss them off as an ally.

There are a whole litany of reasons. It appears they have been selling military equipment to Iraq as recently as January of this year. They have formed an alliance with the Arab world that is based in large part on anti-Semitism in return for oil contracts.(see previous link). They are working feverishly against us in the UN, insisting that we not take military action without UN sanction, and yet they lead the world in taking un-sanctioned military action themselves.

These are not the actions of an ally.

Firstly, where is the evidence for your assertions that France has : -





And that they: -



Also, in refrence to: -



What link are you referring to?

Secondly, what exactly is it that you want to discuss?

The stories on sales of military equip were all over the TV news yesterday. I dont have the link.

Here's the link for the Euro-Arab connection..here

Leads in un-sanctioned military action....statements made by 2 former US officials (one from defense and one from state) on TV panel....sorry, no link.

As for what I hoped to discuss, seems the title makes that clear, no?

Musings, it would be easier for you to be taken as credible if you did actually provide the links instead of simply saying "it's all over TV." Odds are that if something is going to get that much air-time a newspaper somewhere will print it. Go digging...

As for the link you DID provide: Is that serious, or a satire site like the Landover Baptist Church webpage? It proves nothing and offers nothing more than a loosely constructed conspiracy theory. Here is my favourite passage:

Even if you accept these ramblings as truth, since when is an alliance binding to the point that other relationships can't exist? Or are you suggesting that the entire Arab world is an enemy of the US?

And do you really suppose the 400 million odd Europeans are interested in joining the ranks of the Muslims?

To save MM, i have a link describing this:

Iraq getting French Jet Parts

Well, its certainly no secret that the French are actively leading the coalition against the US in the UN. They're certainly not behaving like an ally. Maybe the relationship can be salvaged, but it probably won't ever be the same.

But that do you mean exactly?

Are you asking whether the US should kick France out og NATO completely? Can they do that? Should the US now regard France as an enemy?

I wonder if any of the other countries watching the bashing that is going on towards our old ally is considering if it's worth the trouble being involved with the U.S. and it's tantrums.

I am embarrased by the behavior of our congress trying to pass laws to punish another country for not caving into the demands and threats to go to war. Especially as this is not a war of imminent threat but a precedent starting war of prevention. I'm horrified at the childish response by our network news to boycott anything french and I am ashamed of those that think changing the name from french fries to patriot fries believe it will somehow make them look anything but stupid.

The world does not evolve around Iraq as some believe. It is not in the best interest of any other country but ours to destabalize the Middle East and destroy homes and citizens and hospitals.

The arrogance and ignorance of the president is showing in the citizens now. I expect an angry mob to rush the Statue of Liberty and knock it into the water while screaming their hateful slogans. This is a sad and ugly time in America. I hope we survive it.

Can France accurately be called an ally? It has tried to throw a wrench into the gears of Nato repeatedly since De Gaulle, most recently refusing to lend military equipment to defend Turkey against attack. France also refused to lend its airspace to the United States to strike at Lybia, after terrorists trained and sent by the Lybian government blew up a German disco.

I don't think France behaves like an ally at all.

So its Ok for nations like France to actively campaign against us (France's whirlwind tour of Africa to gather support), but when we do something is not OK?

The President has identified a risk to US security. The bottom line is, he has information that you or I do not have. Either you trust him to lead us, or you do not. It is not a tantrum when the president says that "My job is to protect the American people, and that is what I am going to do". That is not a tantrum. Other nations can disagree. That is fine by me. But don't get in our way when it comes to defending what we see as a danger. Diplomacy has failed, sanctions have failed, all that is left is military action.

France is not an ally is this matter, although it still is on other fronts (I hope). Disagreement does not equal being enemies. France has a hidden agenda, so be it. I don't think that means we throw away all ties to them.

Actually, it's the patriotism and wisdom that is showing.

France's motives in this affair are becoming ever clearer. From their arming of Iraq to their oil deals to their anti-Semitism.

The U.S. having Temper Tantrums? What about Chirac saying to EU wannabes won't be allowed to join if they support the U.S.?



So what? The Saudis made it a law that Americans coming in be fingerprinted right after we made it a law

France is keeping us from doing our job, which is keeping nutballs like Saddam from becoming a dominating leader with a nuke. Saddam was VERY dangerous with chemical weapons before 99% of them were destroyed. Just think how dangerous he can be with a nuke & no sanctions to prevent the materials to make one get in his hands!

I do not believe Bush has identified a threat to U.S. security. I believe his actions put is in more danger, not less. This was pointed out last September during the Congressional hearings with George Tenet who said Saddam's weapons would not be a danger unless we attacked. No verifiable information has been submitted by the administration since. As a matter of fact their information submitted has either been deemed fraudulent or has failed to help inspectors locate anything of substance.

The plan to attack Iraq goes back to 1998 or before. Those who think he's protecting us either agree with his earlier agenda and would support it anyway...or they are being led by fear and 'misinformation' that has plagued this President since election day.

My position is that showing how hateful and mean American's can be when they don't get their way does nothing to stop the anti-Americanism that is raging along out there. All it does is justify it.

I don't remember seeing this in the job description, GA. When did the world give the United States the mandate to keep nutballs like anyone from doing anything? One could just as easily - and more convincingly - argue that it is France's job to keep nutballs like Bush and his masters from using their dominant leadership position (with nukes) to do whatever the hell they want whenever the hell they want wherever the hell they want. Both arguments are unfounded and ridiculous - though I'd argue that the Bush administration does poses a bigger threat to the sovereign nations of the world at large than Saddam Hussein could ever hope. If France is preventing us (or anyone else) from acting like some global vigilante, then Vive la France!

Wait a minute, I thought Iraq wasn't supposed to have these weapons in the first place?

France is getting in the way because Saddam's regime owes France about $4B (That B-b-b-billion) from helping build all kinds of things including a nuclear plant that Isreal took out several years back.

Seems to me that France's interest in this whole thing is far from the moralistic peace-loving message that they're trying to send. So I hope people do not accuse the US of ulterior motives, when they can't see $$$ motive from France also.

And yes, I too think we have an obligation to take out nut-cases, before they take us out. Bush has never used weapons of mass destruction on civilians, Saddam has.

French Connection

But since France is Veto Waving in the UN Security Counsil, they are gonna remain friends it seems unless Bush has guts & tells the UN to bug off & go it alone with the handful of supportive few

France might be a very cool partner to Saddam if the UN is stupid enough to lift sanctions against him as well.

Of course, that hasn't stopped them here:
France giving Iraq Jet Parts

Should I have to put 'alleged' in front of everything the U.S. claims is true? Maybe so.

In the mean time...I thought this quote was funny....



Isn't Belgium one of our huge coalition of the willing nations?

(no, that's Bulgaria but what's the difference? )

I just call em' "fries".

The whole fry renaiming business is silly. It reminds me of Sauerkraut being renamed "Liberty Cabbage" during the First World War. If people want to protest the French, boycotting their exports would be a much better solution.

Besides, French fries aren't even French.

As helpful and productive as it is to provide links and resources, it's even more productive to actually read the article all the way through...

Now, I'm not a reporter, but it seems counterproductive for a journalist to report that "French company has been selling spare parts to Iraq" only to later conclude an "unidentified company sold the parts to a trading company in the United Arab Emirates, which then shipped the parts through a third country into Iraq by truck" and that "intelligence reports of the parts sale did not indicate that the activity was sanctioned by the French government or that Paris knows about the transfers."
Now, there's fault to be placed on the doorstep of those in the post using this to verify their claims that the French have been providing Iraq with weapons. On the other hand, when stories are being treated with such an obvious slant, I don't suppose I can really blame them... though I would encourage a more thorough reading in the future.
Real quickly for anyone who decides to go back and review the article, it goes on to paint a further slanted picture detailing the actions of Jaque Chirac in the 1970's and by telling how the French supplied weapons to Iraq during their war with Iran. Naturally, if we are to learn to detest the French, the article can't include America's support of Iraq during their conflict with Iran or former President Bush (Sr.) signing an executive order shortly after obtaining office, planning to better American relations with Iraq. After all, it's only the French we're trying to fry this month. We mustn't lose sight of American interests!
We don't have a whole lot to build a conspiracy theory of the French; all we have is a bunch of wishy washy propoganda. So they don't support us in the war with Iraq... what do we expect them to do? It's my understanding that France operates under a democratic government and the majority of their population doesn't want to bomb Saddam or his sand castles. Now, maybe I'm wrong, but in a system that's supposed to place the power in the hands of the people, what else is Chirac supposed to do?
Ah, but Turkey has taught us a lesson in democracy. For a base price of $16 billion, we can convince the government of a nation, where over 80% of the population opposes war, that they should re-vote to support American troops and interests during a second Gulf War. And we want to "jettison the French"? We just haven't paid them enough! Vive the cash flow, baby!

The middle-man in the arms deal is a normal part of doing business. It is naive to think the gov't had no knowledge of these sales. No interest in halting them is more likely.

To answer your question about 'what can they do'. They could abstain. In the words of their fearless leader, they could 'find this to be a good time to just shut up'. We hadn't ask France to directly participate in this war so to work so avidly against us puts them on the wrong side and it will come back to them haunt them. In spades.

A reporter who investigated the issue said that the French government had no knowledge. Do you have any PROOF (and jingoism and racism don't actually count you know...) that the French government did have knowledge? You know, proof.

Are you suggesting that, after Iraq, France might be next on Bush's hit-list?

Perhaps you would be more qualified in understanding the workings of illegal arms trafficing than I, but the report doesn't simply state that it is the opinion of the (clearly bias) reporter that the French had no knowledge. It was our American official working to undermine the French who had to concede that, for all intents and purposes, the French were unaware of the illegal trading. This is one of the same officials you leaned on to start your argument about the arms trading... unfortunately for the argument, the official back pedaled faster than he could say "freedom fries."

"Those darned French! They've been supplying the Iraqi's with fighter Jets! Some allies they are! Huh...? Oh, well, no... the fighter jets weren't assembled. Spare parts, yes, that is correct. Uh, well... no, they didn't actually have knowledge that Iraq was receiving the equipment. But it's the French! C'mon, man! I mean, look, Saddam wears a beret! They have to be in on it! You can't just buy those things anywhere..."
And in regards to abstaining, the French could, I suppose. But as key members of the United Nations Security Council, they are expected to have some input on issues; especially issues that threaten to destabilize an entire region of the world.
I still applaud the French for their ability to continue functioning as a democracy at a time when our government has made a mockery of it. Even the "coalition of the willing" can't drum up support at home and are forced to abandon the fundamental principles of democracy to support our march to war. What have we promised their governments in return? The very term "coalition of the willing" just screams coercion!
Oh yeah, the Bush administration is the perfect group to attempt introducing democracy to the Middle East.

Personally I don't mind the French sending the Iraqis band-aids & bailing wire for Mirage planes. At least it won't be a complete turkey shoot on grounded birds.

ABS,
Although France may indeed be a pillar of democracy........
Are you saying that lucrative oil and machinery contracts with Iraq, both current and forthcoming, are playing NO role in the French veto threat?

In my posting frenzy I don't think I've yet addressed that topic on this forum.
I'm sure it has some bearing on their opposition to the war, but I don't see it as an issue to be brought up in the propaganda being hurled at the French. As I see it, they don't have any more interest due to their current contracts with the Iraqi oil fields than our governments thirst for our own. I guess I consider them kind of cancelling each other out.
And while I applauded the French for "their ability to continue functioning as a democracy," I still wouldn't go so far as to call them a pillar. It appears that all the industrialized nations find it convenient to set aside the thoughts andn voices of the people when pursuing capitalist interests both at home and abroad. In this case, since the French are no more guilty for their desire to maintain lucrative contracts than we are for our desire to possess our own, I see it as a moot point.
Until we really have something to stand against the French on it's nothing but a mud fight instigated by the Bush administration (Rumsfeld and Perle especially) in a childish reaction to somebody blowing the whistle while they tried to play cowboy and Indian.
We certainly don't have any reason for wanting to abandon them as an ally and such jestures only make us look more and more foolish to the international community. We've shown very little tact.

I guess the French knew that the parts were going to the might UAE air force...

In the arms business, if you don't know who the final buyer is, then that is criminal behavior. I am sure the company knew, now whether the French government knew or not is up for debate (I would be that it did know, since it is potentially an issue of national security to France.)

I'm sorry, maybe you need to clarify yourself here.

Saddam gets tossed=French loose $4,000,000,000.00. Plenty of reason($) I'd think.

And if I'm interpretting your statement of our interest in oil correlating to that of France's. Then we could've just turned a blind eye long ago and our gas prices would not be through the roof as they are right now. Sorry, Abs that doesn't make sense to me.

Hercules



And if Saddam stays, the Dollar loses its oil trading monopoly. link

I'll try painting a picture:

France and Iraq have oil and money changing hands. This is one reason we perceive them to be standing in opposition to our war with Iraq.


The United States has most recently run the Taliban out of Afghanistan and established Mr. Karzai as the interim prime minister. By sheer coincidence (of course) Mr. Karzai has connections to former CIA director during the Cold War, George Bush (Sr.). By another stroke of good luck, Mr. Karzai also has close ties to UNOCAL oil company, whose pipeline was most unfortunately not allowed to continue through Afghanistan while the Taliban were in power. As you might imagine, Mr. Karzai, thankful of his good fortune, agreed to restart construction of the pipeline (extending from the Caspian Sea oil reserves) for Texas based UNOCAL.

Now, we had a good jaunt in Afghanistan whipping the Taliban this way and that, and performing a noble deed at the same time. We just happened to luck out and nab some profit for an American oil corporation.
And now we're going to Iraq, with or without international support. You've already figured out that France is going to lose out since their contracts will be nullified by the change in power. Good ol' Uncle Sam looks to prosper again... by sheer coincidence, of course. After all, Iraq only has the second largest proven oil reserve in the world behind our buddies in Saudi Arabia.

So we sneer at the French for possibly letting money and contracts contribute to their opposition... but it seems just as likely that money and lucrative oil contracts are a driving force for us to engage in a war.
But don't forget: as with the Taliban, our mission is a good and noble one. All we want to do is free the people and help them establish a government so they can be truly autonomous. If we luck out with lucrative oil contracts and such, it will be only through the generosity of the thankful crowds and our good fortune. And, down the road, when their infant democracy votes not to partake in a war with Iran, we'll send 'em $16 billion to change their minds.
Basic jist, if this hasn't cleared it up: the French are no more driven by greed in opposing the war than we are in pursuing it. A key difference being that we've already started one war, they haven't yet opposed one...

I wonder how many high ranking Afghani officials DIDN'T have ties to one or more US companies...

Just saying something like that doesn't make it sinister. It's just a fact.

Like saying, well Bush and Chaney were in the oil business....of course this war is over oil.

No evidence besides circumstantial.

Like I said, "sheer luck."

But does not America stand to gain from France's loss once/if we invade Iraq? If the contention was that France was motivated by their oil and machinery contracts, we wouldn't have much room to criticize and slander them for this if it is potentially contributing to our march to war. Considering how we managed to turn a profit for Corporate America in Afghanistan, it stands to reason that with a prolonged occupation we'll turn yet another decent profit while the French are left high and dry.

If both the United States and France have corporate interests at stake in the standoff over Iraq, neither administration has any real room to criticize the other with greed as a motive for their position. French officials should abstain from claims that the U.S. is only after oil, and the U.S. officials should abstain from claims that the French is only trying to preserve their lucrative contracts.

We're still without any reason to abandon our friendship with France or to really even slander them as many have been doing in America. As I've said, it's ridiculous, it's infantile and it's only disgracing us in the eyes of the international community.

Um, exsqueeze me....when did we start the war? If you're referring to the Gulf War, I believe that started with the military occupation of Kuwait by Iraq.

Other then that, your long post still does not convince me that France, who is bound to lose a helluva lot of money, is pushing for peace for peace's sake. Their watching out for their own butts just like we are.

The U.S. stands to gain more than anyone else once we get in there. The gas prices are going up but I'm sure the administration's thinking 'this will just hurt for a minute' and then things will be all better.

I'm referring to the war in Afghanistan... which can be argued was not started by us but rather by Al Qaida, who was being harbored there. Still, while an attack on Al Qaida was warranted, I'm not sure the means by which we went about doing it were necessary... how many Al Qaida did we actually get, versus civilians, bombing the whole country?

Still, perhaps I shouldn't have phrased it as "we started one war," but rather proceeded to engage in one already.



I'm not trying to say the French are doing it just for peace's sake. I've openly agreed that the French have just as much financial interest in the promotion of peace as anything. Beyond that, I've really only emphasized that they are behaving democratically by obeying the will of their people not to support or partake in any military action against Iraq.

To rail against them for this is juvenile. To consider abandoning them as an ally -- as was the original opinion for this topic -- is complete folly. I expect more from people in government then to hurl insults and propaganda ("old countries," etc.) at those who do nothing wrong but disagree.

William Safire uncovers illegal French Connection

The French government has been in bed with Saddam for a long time.

We were once hopeful to share that bed with them. It was during the worst of times that we supplied intelligence and support for Saddam's terrible regime, when we feared our worst threat coming from Iran.

I did read the article, but it seems it is drawing conclusions as yet unverified and questionable. I suppose we'll see after the smoke has died down.

Regardless, in keeping with the "time to jettison France?" topic, I still see no reason to jettison any of our allies. The devil's forgotten mistress is shouting to her reflection in criticizing his latest affairs.