French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier has lots of ideas about smoothing down Iraq:

Any international conference on the conflict in Iraq ought to discuss the question of whether the US-led forces should withdraw from the country, and should also include representatives of the armed opposition, French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said on Monday.

[M. Barnier] hinted that France could make discussion of the withdrawal of foreign forces a condition for agreeing to the conference.

"It is an issue which should be on the agenda of such a conference, if we want it to take place," he told France Inter radio.

Barnier said that any conference should include "different communities and countries of the region as well as all (Iraqi) political groups, including those that have chosen the path of armed resistance."

[Emphases added.]

"Those who have chosen the path of armed resistance", they would be the terrorists who recognize no laws, who respect no limits, who freely and openly kidnap and murder, and delight in their lurid murders. M. Barnier is anxious to have these Iraqi patriots at any table where France parks her ample fanny.

M. Barnier is, of course, a jackass. We invite you to e-mail the Ministère des Affaires étrangères and clue them in.

UPDATE 10.01.04:

The head of the Figaro press group went to see [French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin] about the kidnapping of two French journalists in Iraq; Raffarin assured him they would soon be freed, reportedly saying, "The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies."

M. Raffarin is another jackass. We invite you to e-mail him, should the long ears have escaped his notice.

Yes, we need to legitimize terrorists right away. Brilliant.

For those frenchmen who are still unclear on why France is referred to as "irrelevant" today, THIS IS IT. Take a good look.

You'd be wrong to think France is "irrelevant" in its influence in Middle East affairs. King Abdullah of Jordan was in Paris recently and reiterated this fact in several interviews. The word is often used cluelessly by many who are in clueless themselves.

As far as inviting "terrorists" to the table, we're not talking about the bloody henchmen in person, but the Iraki opposition in a broader sense. Dealing with the enemy in order to achieve a common goal is not foreign to the US, ask Oliver North, look at the CIA (in particular the recruitment and protection of known Nazi war criminals after WW2), etc...

Once again, a flagrant example of self-denial.

M. Zx,

Your form of argument amounts to nothing more than "I say no makes it so".

The French enjoy making fun of fat Americans. But you say no, though you are caught out making fun of fat Americans. The French press, the French people say they are shocked by the kidnappings of French nationals. But you say no. The French are wrong. M. Barnier is inviting terrorists to France's chat fest. But you say no. M. Barnier cannot speak plainly.

You apparently think it a benediction that France is never any worse than imagined American standards. That is not a principled argument, it is your perverse celebration of France's failed political imagination. You cannot take France's measure independent of America. Your France seems to be a shadow, something that without the object of America to attach itself to becomes a ghosty nothing.

Who is in self-denial? I'd say the person who never manages anything more convincing than tu quoque finger-wagging in France's defense. (That would be you. You, M. Zx, in denial.)

"Those that have chosen the path of armed resistance," is pretty plain speech. "Iraki opposition in a broader sense," is pure hooey.

Jack has said, "France, like all the democracies, welcomes the collapse of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship." Furthermore France has pushed and pushed and pushed for the return of Iraqi sovereignty. Saddam is gone and Iraq sovereignty has been returned, solemnized by the UN. Relations have been reopened between France and the government of Iraq. Now let me ask you this simple question: By what principle does France recognize the legitimacy of "those that have chosen the path of armed resistance" in Iraq?

BTW, your wordplay on "clueless" is lost to us. Since it is you employing the word and not us, are you saying you are using the word cluelessly being clueless yourself?

DGB

By what principle does France recognize the legitimacy of "those that have chosen the path of armed resistance" in Iraq?

Does France "recognize the legitimacy" of the armed resistance or, as you quoted Barnier earlier, advocating a conference with the "inclusion of different communities and countries of the region as well as all (Iraqi) political groups, including those that have chosen the path of armed resistance"?

Big difference. You "don't do nuance" either, do you Damian?

M. Zx,

The above is no answer to my simple question. Why can't you answer this simple question?

You, and by your lights M. Barnier and France also, nuance France into legitimizing terrorists. To ask terrorists to have a seat at your table for political chat is to recognize their claim against the standing government of Iraq.

Do I nuance that? You, France, and John Kerry can all pretend to a subtility you do not possess. Chatting up terrorists gives standing to their claims. You truck with terrorists.

Again, simple question, yes or no: Does France recognize the legitimacy of the "armed resistance" against the standing government of Iraq recognized by France?

If you answer no, then France cannot deal in the terrorists. If you answer yes, then France is a fraud. So much for nuance.

DGB

Pardon me if it seems a stupid question....

What is France 's right to be even present at this conference?
I 'd think France has as much "right" than, say,uruguay?

Or may be because of France's weight in the "quartet" negotiations on israeli-palestinian issues?

Seriously, why should France have a voice in Irak's future?
I can imagine that a "EU" seat would be appropiate enough, along with the US and Irak's neighbouring countries.(ok, throw in Russia to be polite)

M. Frenchfregoli,

France's right is a presumptive claim proceeding from her unshakeable notion of self-importance, which in turn proceeds from her self-admiring navel-gazing. Nothing more.

France has come to resemble the obnoxious drunk who, draping herself around your neck, insists that you share her sloppy fascination with her every opinion, then, having robbed you of your evening, discovers she has forgotten her purse leaving you to pay the bar tab.

DGB

The only way i could understand barnier's statement was to think "well, 'those who have chosen the path of armed rsistance' must be different from the terrorists"... and then came the question:"but who are 't.w.h.c.t.p.o.a.r'?"

could a co-national answer my question? i'm not joking.

France's pretention to have a seat is...well, pretention. imho, a EU seat would be fine.

If you answer no, then France cannot deal in the terrorists. If you answer yes, then France is a fraud. So much for nuance.

In case you are not aware, Damian, the Irak Council has asked Al Sadr for negociations before, and likely to do so later, that's an internal matter, something France Russia and Germany have been trying to push for some time, in the form of a conference (endorsed by all M.E. nations), not a "recognition of legitimacy" as you put it so loosely. You must be aware that the murders we're witnessing are likely connected to foreign sources, possibly Al Quaeda (remember Bin Ladin?). The goal is to stabilize Irak first and foremost. Al Quaeda is a different matter, something no one to date, not even France (you wish), has "recognized its legitimacy", nor has been invited for any negociations, that is out of the question, of course. And you thought Vietnam and Algeria would have tought you something...

Seriously, why should France have a voice in Irak's future?

If you were more aware of international news (you know, outside your own borders...), you would find out that many Iraki officials, including the French-educated minister of finances recently, have already been to Paris for official talks. Of course they don't have to, but they will decide of their future, not you, not France.

and then came the question: "but who are 't.w.h.c.t.p.o.a.r'?"

Too tired from your job at MacDo to write a full sentence, Goldsoundz? ;-)

"Those who have chosen the path of armed resistance" refers mostly to Al Sadr followers as well as various nationalist groups, not foreign Al Quaeda-linked thugs. Wherever, whenever there is an occupation, there's armed resistance (often requiring diplomatic negociations). Some of us learned that the hard way a long time ago.

Zoomer,

One of the unwritten rules of blogsphere is never to fire a cheap shot to your opponents, because you NEVER know who , or where they are, and stick to facts and subjects!

Since i am living in France, i don't know what "borders" you're refering to.

As for the iraqui minister statements, they perfectly make sense, as france is among irak's major creditors(along with others gathered in "paris club"), and that debt reduction remains a touchy subject which will have to be dealt with later on.

My "faux-naif" question remains as i refered to the political weight(granted one can argue about the relation of politiacal vs economical,in this case debt, weight).
Judging by the real and concrete results of french diplomatic power in the past,be it on iranian nuke issue(with germany and uk), or the recent US-French initiative on lebanon constitution(the us went the french way and got rbuffed by assad) , it is safe to say that french diplomatic clout is nothing more than empty speeches and lots of "y a qu'à", "faudrait que".
And beleive it or not, this state of affair deeply saddens me, beacuse sicerily, i think we(the french) deserve better .

M. Zx,

Why can you not directly answer the questions posed? To wit:

By what principle does France recognize the legitimacy of "those that have chosen the path of armed resistance" in Iraq?

Does France recognize the legitimacy of the "armed resistance" against the standing government of Iraq recognized by France?

Spare us your tangental meditations and just answer the questions, thank you.

DGB

Hpw about some tangental (and un-twisted) questions, Damian? Do you "recognize" there is an armed Iraki resistance in Irak, YES or NO? The answer is YES. Who's talking about the "legitimacy" of a popular uprising? (Was the war "legitimate" by the way?).

Another question: Did the US-backed Iraki government attempt to negiociate with Al Sadr? Yes or no?

i One of the unwritten rules of blogsphere is never to fire a cheap shot to your opponents

Isn't PAVE a cheap shot? ;-)

Seriously.

Nuance? Down to the depths whatever man that thought up “nuance!”

That would be the French.

[French, from Old French, from nuer, to shade, cloud, from nue, cloud, from Vulgar Latin *nooba, from Latin noobas.]

Figures.

If any of you as much as thinks the word “nuance,” I’ll have your guts for garters.

M. Zx,

Answer the original questions directly if you expect the courtesy reciprocated.

If you can't answer the questions because you lack a principled basis to do so or do not command the relevant facts, then just say so and the discursus will progress a notch.

Otherwise, if your barstool philosophy can't encompass their import, well, then just stick to what you know, drinking yourself blind.

Regards,
DGB

Iraki officials, including the French-educated minister of finances recently, have already been to Paris for official talks. Of course they don't have to, but they will decide of their future, not you, not France

Why do the Iraqi people have a future? What event happened that allows them to have a future?

Ummm, liberation comes to mind.....

What part did France play in them having a chance to have a future?

France's "best allies" targetted and killed three dozen kids on Thursday.

Wait, that's not having a chance to have a future, is it...

Zoomerx asks "Who's talking about the "legitimacy" of a popular uprising?" Uh, that would be the French, who as true scum of the earth, are treating/supporting the terrorists as legitimate, by demanding that the terrorists be included in negotiations, while French Prime Minister Raffarin refers to the child killing fascists as "our best allies"

any other questions?

Kudos to andy for pointing out to French underachievers that the ONLY reason Iraqis are able to discuss their future now is because of the sacrifices and efforts of the US led coalition, a coalition which France continues to undermine