Powell: France Will Face Consequences

I guess relations between the U.S and France aren't going wel?!?!? I wonder why ?

www.cnn.com...

that we should be involving the UN in the search for chemical weapons though...without it...any finds will be suspect by the rest of the world....

France is ticked because they get a lot of oil from Iraq, and right now, they aren't getting squat...forcing them to pay more for it elsewhere....

I dont understand the logic behind the US Policy .. is there any ? France was but one out ten or more countries in the security council that opposed the war. If anything, France's intention to veto the blanco cheque Bush was asking for could have incited neutral countries to vote pro second resolution, getting "friends" with Bush, and having their own preferred result of no resolution in any case because of France's veto. So if anything, France's veto was easing Bush's way to the "moral" majority he was in fact looking for. I dont understand this.

I'm a little worried with you Gazrok, over the US refusal to have independent inspections. Let's assume the US has no intention of forging WMD's. (ahem ) Then the only logical explanation for refusing them is that the US rhetoric criticised their effectiveness in the past, and is now upholding that past line only for the sake of continuity of their rhetoric today. This worries me, because it would mean they arent reasonable people, since they have much credibility to gain from UN inspections.

the charge of "planting" evidence wil be there. Besides, while they are there, we can use the same tactics Saddam used to use to shuffle them around, to plant them! Sorry, just had to make that point, hehe...

I don't know if the US should let the UN back in just to avoid the charge of planting evidence. I don't see the US saying something like "we're bringing the UN in just to avoid others saying we would plant evidence."

No doubt if and when they find the WMD's someone will make that claim (that the US planted them) however; only France, Germany, and ATS members will believe that.

Originally posted by Bob88
I don't see the US saying something like "we're bringing the UN in just to avoid others saying we would plant evidence."

So your worries are that bringing the UN inspectors in would alienate the conservative electorate at home ? If these guys followed Bush all the way through the war preparations and the war, they wont have a problem swallowing "UN legitimacy" as a concept. In fact that could be the point where Bush, with his immense popularity could do something good to the american people : conciliate them with the idea that international law is applicable to everyone, including to them, and that other people can disagree with them without this having to trigger a "how dare you, face consequences!" psychosis.





[Edited on 23-4-2003 by Maxwell Smart]

We will plant them. As I've said before, is Saddam that stupid as to leave weapons lying around? No, he's going to either hide or destroy them.(and he hasn't showed to much incline to destroying them)

Saddam may not have been smart to challenge the US, but he's definatly not stupid.

I don't mind having the UN "assisting" in inspections but I would have a problem with Blix being in charge. He's not the only person qualified to head up those teams and from what I've learned of his background and his role surrounding Cherobyl, I think it would be wise to have someone more "educated" to handle the leadership role...but definetly not an American. I'm not saying that Blix is an idiot or anything to that extreme but just considering his past failure upholding 1441, (by his own testimony) I think it would be better to let him assume a little less of an authoritarian role. Not even saying he should get the boot just not be in charge of the entire operation. And for those of you who doubt WMDs, France Germany, Russia, and China along with Anon from the UN have stated that the oil embargo that was place in action 12 years ago still cannot be raised until all WMDs are accounted for and destroyed and that this is per the original UN sanction relating to Iraq. France then retracted and agreed that the embargo should be lifted as soon as possible after speculation that possible reasons for the refusal to lift the embargo and keep the oil for food program in place even as Hussien's regime is gone related to possible violations of the program. The UN will also lose 1.4% of the total program's moneys that it was collecting as cost for operating and monitoring the program.

running the show either...but I would agree with them being present, and I think it would be a really good idea to do so. So far though, this whole situation hasn't been handled very well, so there's no doubt the trend of incompetence will continue....

Let me help you out, there, Max. France was not merely taking a meek and neutral role. It was agressively fighting the war, lobbying every country to vote aginst America that it could. It made every maneuver it could think of to keep us from going to Iraq. Why? Obviously, one reason is the oil it has been receiving from Iraq. Another? I think there's going to be alot of evidence found connecting France to other dealings with Iraq. Same with Germany. I doubt we're going to hear everything that is found. Above and beyond all else is the shadow ties between the countries, and these are stronger than this squabble.

Max, this was only a few months ago and you've already forgot the obvious? Are we having a "senior moment"?
Don't feel bad, I'm finding my 40 year old brain isn't recalling all the details as it used to, either!

If i recall well, the security council wasnt to decide war-yes or no, but merely debating whether the inspections regime, with the intent of disarming Saddam Hussein (thereby making him a paper tiger), was to continue as stipulated by resolution 1441 or if military action was urgently needed to ensure world safety. France wasnt excluding war in any eventuality, but certainly excluding it as long as Iraq actively complied with the resolutions.



[Edited on 23-4-2003 by Maxwell Smart]

He didn't look like that much of a paper tiger to those he put through his plastic shredder...feet first.

Thomas, although you're probably right about the oil dealings, it doubt that the US has any intention of bringing those to light. France is being given plenty of room to do the right thing as far as that goes and from their rapid story shift, I think someone's head just popped out of their bottom. Whether anyone on this board will admit it or not, I'd say France got a clue and finally realized they are being given an out and they should just take it and shut up. We never wanted to expose France we just wanted the guy funding and sheltering those guys that hit the WTC. Basically, thats all we really wanted. We realize that a lot of people have dirty hands here but I think they'll have time to wash up a little before the world community sees them. I don't think we're ready to hit Syria either. i think they are just being given a chance to get the terrorist elements out of their country and I think they have began to get a clue too. Basically, what this action is doing, is making it impossible for anyone who pushes a political, social, or religious issue through the blatant murder of innocent to operate openly anywhere in the world.

Making it for dictators impossible to slaughter people is a noble goal, yet it has to be achieved by lawful means. The people of these dictators perhaps think their regime is less diabolic than the capitalist regime in the united states, where millions are exposed to daily poverty and humiliation and social violence has an astronomical death toll. I'm not saying the US is better or worse than Iraq. I'm saying international legitimacy is needed to act against other countries lest you act in vigilantism. And then you cannot claim doing the right thing. And then blaming people who don't go to war is on the very edge of honesty.



[Edited on 23-4-2003 by Maxwell Smart]

And by the way .. if justice had been the aim of the Bush administration, Resolution 1441 had been in different wording..

the position of the French government towards the neo-colonial US effort in Iraq, is of course partly determined by financial and economic interests, but what else could we have expected from a capitalist and proto-fascistoid regime like Mr. Chirac's (since they seized power a year ago, they incarcerated as many as an incredible 20 000 from the most alienated and innocent French toilers, while French prisons had already been reporting an alarming lack of space) ? i could carry on with the sombre history of French mercenary activity and fascist neo-colonial networks in martyred workers-peasants continent of Africa, but that would be off-topic.

other factors are at stake as well : emergence of a common EU foreign and defence policy for instance. or internal French politics, such as the high popularity of the government's foreign policy stance. perhaps even elements from French political culture. etc.

however, the idea that the French government is trying to hide "proof" of further past connections with Saddam's Iraq, appears like a highly doubtful hypothesis imho. first of all, these connections have never been a secret to anyone. true French communists like Mr. Besancenot, were already marching along with the innocent people of Kurdistan in the streets of Paris, demonstrating their opposition to Saddam's regime as well as all Western governments (including the French), for their collaboration with the Ba'thist regime. during the Iran - Iraq war, before the invasion of Kuwait, progressist forces were already aware of the situation. and fortunately, journalism in free Europe, despite many obstacles due to capitalism and its superstructure of military dictatorship, has managed to maintain a sufficient degree of independence, so that any such link between French governmental agencies and a given dictatorship abroad, would sooner or later be published, authentified and democratically discussed. something which the innocent, hard-working and exploited peasants and subproletarians of the USA might soon not be able to benefit from anymore, since the regime of Mr. Bush started its crackdown on freedom of thought and expression.

finally, German Tageszeitung has published a list of companies that dealt with Iraq's Saddam for the development of wmd. in Germany, Tageszeitung is a well recognized source of serious journalistic information, not a propaganda organ. the list includes German, French, British and US companies.

the interesting question is neither about the quantity, nor the quality of military and diplomatic support by nearly the whole 'West' to Saddam Hussein during 20 years : it is rather about the essence of this cooperation - what kind of actors were involved in these policies (for the record, the Republican party, especially during the military reign of Mr. Reagan, was notorious for such businesses, see Irangate etc) ? what rationale led them to do it ? in doing so, what were the priorities and linkages of their "interests" ?

most obviously, the USA have more to "hide" about their support of Saddam Hussein during more than 20 years, because it would contradict the official justifications of their poorly legitimized military agression and occupation of Iraq. indeed, no other government than the USA was so actively involved in the 1969 coup which brought the Ba'th party to power; the CIA handed over to the Ba'thists a list of 700 people to be instantly eliminated so to ensure the stability of their regime.

i wonder, what would the US arms industries become after the total establishment of the pax americana ? is the pax americana, as advocated by the military junta of Mrs. Rumsfeld, Bush, etc., an ultimately stable system, or does it permanently require enemies to attack, and wars between others to sell arms to ?

Originally posted by abstract_alao
I guess relations between the U.S and France aren't going wel?!?!? I wonder why ?

www.cnn.com...

Seems like we're forgetting that most of the world is against the "Coalition". Not just France. Germany was against the war too, but I guess that the US learned after WW1 that sanctions don't work well with the Germans. And then we ofcourse have Russia and China. Russia has always acted as an allie to Iraq, supporting them with weapons and intelligence and also big contracts have been signed with Saddams government to renew their infrastructure with electronics, electrics and taxi cabs etc. Much of these services rely on deals made between Iraq and Russia, that Russia was given very good deals on oil as back payment. We must also remember that Russia alone has about twise as much nuclear weapons as does the USA. And together with China, the third greatest atomic power this could mean, well I don't wanna know..... Makes me wanna puke!

Blessings,
Mikromarius