The French Plan In Irak vs. The American Plan In Iraq
French President Jacques Chirac said France would use its UN Security Council veto to block a resolution authorising war against Iraq."Whatever happens, France will vote 'no'," Chirac said on LCI television in his first televised interview on the Iraq crisis.
DEFIANT IRAQIS VOTE IN THEIR MILLIONS DESPITE BOMBS
And, we might add, despite the French.
Ah, so the war was about Democracy in Irak... you could have fooled me.
Anyway, I wonder why Bush called Chirac (and Schroeder) yesterday...
M. Zmx,
But of course, you are so easily fooled. You begin every post from the premise that you are informed and in a position to knowledgeably comment. Surely you are fooled in this.
The liberation of Iraq was about many things, its manifold objectives were stated before its undertaking. This has been tirelessly pointed out since day one. It just doesn't suit the tiresome one-note nuance of your posts.
You suggest that GWB felt compelled to call Jack, why would this be? Your chauvanism is getting the better of your credulity if you think that GWB feels compelled to seek out Jack's opinions.
Perhaps the French media are reporting the phone call came from Mr. Bush. Our news source (AFP) suggests Jack dropped the dime and headlines the article:
CHIRAC CONGRATULATES BUSH ON IRAQ ELECTION
It's worth noting the headline -- the essence of the story to follow -- does not read: GWB CALLS PARIS FOR JACK’S VIEWS ON IRAQ ELECTIONS. Regardless of who made the call, Jack's end was all "let me on the Iraq bandwagon".
Phone calls to or from l'Elysée don't get much mention in the American press there being so much important news about sports, fad diets, cosmetics, and TV programming. So, of course, we -- and AFP -- could be all wrong.
But while you sit and smirk in France, America is changing the world and France changes nothing. America has deposed a tyrant, something real, something concrete -- even Jack and M. Barnier concede this -- and France? France proposes world taxes. To us this seems to be a telling difference.
You might do well to scroll down and read this post where M. Barnier calls for "a "new relationship" with the United States. M. Barnier, your French foreign minister, and we presume someone in a position to know, goes on to say:
Sometimes we [scil., the French? the Chirac crew?] are arrogant... Americans can count alone, the Chinese can count alone, the Russians can count alone, but we do not count alone. We have to be together. The French know that.
Well, all the French spare one, M. Zmx.
Lastly, whatever your opinion of America, we would hope you could leave off smirking for a moment and join us in celebrating the abundant good of democratic elections in Iraq.
Regards,
DGB
Can Saddam go to the bathroom now?
The liberation of Iraq was about many things, its manifold objectives were stated before its undertaking. This has been tirelessly pointed out since day one.
WMD's.
Phone calls to or from l'Elysée don't get much mention in the American press
Oh I know that Damian, neither do state visits from the interim Iraki president and other Iraki officials, not to mention US officials. I could care less what the mainstream American press doesn't report. Oh, and Condi Rice will be in "old-Europe" Paris to adress EU-US relations next month. She could have picked a more "relevant" EU capital, couldn't she?
But while you sit and smirk in France
(says the tireless Damian)
Even Le Monde's recent editorials wished the elections success "without reserve" as well as congratulated the Iraki people for their courage. You just do a great job at editing what Pavers want to hear, but that's your job.
The French know that.
But Pave doesn't.
poor little zoomer. Feeling a little shell shocked about the election in Iraq. Just how could those dumb Americans led by that dumb Bush have pulled it off? After all, the press said the elections shouldn't have taken place.
poor little zoomer. He's also feeling a little blue about Bush being elected. Makes you want to swear off elections, eh zoomer?
So zoomer, as a sake for argument, lets suppose that the only reason the war started was because of WMD, as you wrongly suppose. But, lets say that you are correct. OK. No WMD. So then what? Pull out of Iraq and just leave it to the terrorists to take over? Put Saddam back in power? What? Or, as the French did just stand around and do nothing?
What? please tell us if you think France did the right thing after no WMD were found. I said she did not. Doing nothing was the wrong response.
Don't forget, many of Zoomer's ilk still rue the democracy and freedom that formed in Nicaragua. You see, it would have been much better for Nicaragua to have remained a tolitarian state than for Reagan to have won one.
As for WMDs being the only argument. Whatever Zoomer. We have pointed out the pre-war speeches time and again, yet you continue to insist that they do not exist. Forgive us for not wasting the Google time to provide you more links to ignore.
And you wonder why the French are regarded so risibly.
zoomer, I'm still waiting.
Please tell us if you think France did the right thing after no WMD were found?
Zoomer can only think one thing at a time. Have pity.
M. Zmx,
It's hard following your responses.
First does your cryptic "WMD's [sic]" comment mean in France's multipolar world™ all international actions are causally singular and exclusionary? How then to explain France’s reinventing her missions in Côte d'Ivoire, Haiti, and, well, Iraq? As always we recommend actually reading UNSCR 1441. This will give you a clue about what Iraq was about.
Second, Do you take issue with our depiction of the French Plan in Irak? Please clue us as to just what France had in mind. As you see, several people in this thread have the same question.
Third, as for Ms. Rice, let's see she was in London Friday:
Ms Rice said she chose to come to Britain first because America has 'no better friend and no better ally.'
So I suppose she did pick the "more 'relevant' EU capital". Hhmmm, who else is she visiting?:
After leaving London, she flew to Germany for talks with Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
Her whistle-stop tour is also scheduled to include stops in Belgium, Luxembourg, Turkey, Italy and Poland.
Ms Rice will round off the trip by making a major speech on US-EU relations in Paris.
That would be Paris, France. The last stop. That would be after Turkey, not of the EU. And after Luxembourg, apparently a bigger draw than France. Here is a little reminder of the esteem in which Ms. Rice -- and for that matter, Pave -- holds France.
Fourth, are you suggesting that France is a player in the Allies' Iraq project? Please tell us anything meaningful and sustained France has done to further it. We are keen to know.
You appear to smirk. Do you not? If not, our apologies, but how would you describe the misplaced superior and condescendingly critical tone of your bromidic posts?
Lastly, what could your enigmatic comment on M. Barnier's acknowledgement of a diminished France mean? You seem to suggest that Pave considers this a misstatement. Clearly we do not given the context in which we have reported it. Contrary to M. Barnier's claim, you, a French person, seem unaware of France's subsidiary status. Of course, you can easily disabuse us by clearly stating, as has M. Barnier, your conviction that France does not count by itself.
We look forward to your clarifications.
And yes, we are tireless because France requires us to be tireless.
Regards,
DGB
Pull out of Iraq and just leave it to the terrorists to take over?
There were radical muslim terrorists in Irak? Link? God I'm so releived andy, knowing Irak was the problem. Thanks.
By the way, how do you call General Zinni and many other American experts who beleive Irak was not a priority - "Freedom-Haters", "Chirac-Lovers", "Appeasers", "Anti-American"?
M. Zmx,
Regarding General Zinnin and the cast of undisclosed Americans who believed Iraq was not a priority, we call them gravely mistaken. Glad to oblige.
We are not inclined to your histrionic characterizations.
Regards,
DGB
we call them gravely mistaken
And "anti-American" in the case of France? Very objective, Damain ;-)
"There were radical muslim terrorists in Irak? Link? God I'm so releived andy, knowing Irak was the problem. Thanks."
Iraq told UN inspectors that Salman Pak was an anti-terror training camp for Iraqi special forces. However, two defectors from Iraqi intelligence stated that they had worked for several years at the secret Iraqi government camp, which had trained Islamic terrorists in rotations of five or six months since 1995. Training activities including simulated hijackings carried out in an airplane fuselage [said to be a Boeing 707] at the camp. The camp is divided into distinct sections. On one side of the camp young, Iraqis who were members of Fedayeen Saddam are trained in espionage, assassination techniques and sabotage. The Islamic militants trained on the other side of the camp, in an area separated by a small lake, trees and barbed wire. The militants reportedly spent time training, usually in groups of five or six, around the fuselage of the airplane. There were rarely more than 40 or 50 Islamic radicals in the camp at one time.
I can already tell Idiot's reply: "But I didn't mean those radicals..."
Ooo, so they were , at one time , terrorist camps in Irak (did I deny that?), I can't beleive it! Guess what Sherlock? Even if true, this is not news! Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Sudan, Pakistan etc... all have been accused of the same thing. Regime change, anyone?
By the way, I'm sure you're also a great beleiver of Mr Allawi's claims of WMD's?
UN final reports have NEVER made a connection between Irak and al-Quaeda (you know, the really bad ones running terrorist camps and cells all over the world and still carrying attacks in Irak, whose boss I don't remember the name... help me with this, Sherlock).
UN final reports have NEVER made a connection between Irak and al-Quaeda. No kidding??? Can't believe it! The UN would have defended a dictator?! It has never been seen before...
And of course, terror groups linked to Al-Qaeda like Ansaar Al-Islam of Kurdistan have never been paid by Saddam, neither Palestinian terror groups... Nope, never... Just Republikanazi-Zionist propaganda!
The UN, just like France, is clealy blameless, you do know that.
Pull out of Iraq and just leave it to the terrorists to take over?
There were radical muslim terrorists in Irak? Link? God I'm so releived andy, knowing Irak was the problem. Thanks.
My point was not an assumption that there were terrorists in Iraq before the invasion. My attempt was to say that a pull-out, after WMD were not found was not an option. If we had pulled out, terrorists most certainly would have attempted a takeover of Iraq, and most certainly, would have succeded. After WMD were not found, there was no other option than to go forward toward the elections, with or without the help of France or the UN.
Speaking of, Kofi Annan wrote an editorial in the Washington Post on Saturday. You can read it here
Some of my favorite lines:
I want to capture this moment, and I encourage the international community to come together around Iraq through the United Nations. So, where you been? Out selling oil vouchers?
The United Nations is proud of the assistance it was able to give [the elections] You have got to be kidding me, right? 50 election workers and calls BEFORE the election to call it off?
After reading this editorial, one would get the impression that the only reason the elections were held in Iraq was because of the UN....
Zoomer, thanks for your email answers.
