Not sure if this was already brought up, my excuses if that's the case.

<h3>France warns about blocking resolution on Iraq war</h3>
UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 20 -- France suggested today it would wage a major diplomatic fight, including possible use of its veto power, to prevent the U.N. Security Council from passing a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.
France's opposition to a war, emphatically delivered here by Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, is a major blow for the Bush administration, which has begun pouring tens of thousands of troops into the Persian Gulf in preparation for a military conflict this spring. The administration had hoped to mark the final phase in its confrontation with Iraq when U.N. weapons inspectors deliver a progress report Monday.
But in a diplomatic version of an ambush, France and other countries used a high-level Security Council meeting on terrorism to lay down their markers for the debate that will commence next week on the inspectors' report. Russia and China, which have veto power, and Germany, which will chair the Security Council in February, also signaled today they were willing to let the inspections continue for months.
Only Britain appeared to openly support the U.S. position that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has thwarted effective inspections.
"If war is the only way to resolve this problem, we are going down a dead end," de Villepin told reporters. "Already we know for a fact that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are being largely blocked, even frozen. We must do everything possible to strengthen this process."
The United Nations, he said, should stay "on the path of cooperation. The other choice is to move forward out of impatience over a situation in Iraq to move towards military intervention. We believe that today nothing justifies envisaging military action."
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in the face of such comments, departed from his prepared text on terrorism and implored his colleagues to remember that the Security Council resolution passed unanimously Nov. 8 gave Iraq "a last chance" to meet its obligations. "We must not shrink from our duties and our responsibilities when the material comes before us next week," Powell said. He used a variation of the phrase "must not shrink" three more times as he addressed the council.
During the weeks of debate on the Iraq resolution, French officials had indicated they were open to some sort of military intervention if Iraq did not comply. But now the French appear to have set much higher hurdles for support.
Rising opposition to war, particularly in France, appears to have played a role in the hardening positions on the Security Council. Foreign officials are also aware of polls in the United States suggesting that support for a war drops dramatically if the Bush administration does not have U.N. approval.
While the United Nations was debating today, U.S. military officials announced that the Army is sending a force of about 37,000 soldiers, spearheaded by the Texas-based 4th Infantry Division, to the Persian Gulf region. It is the largest ground force identified among an estimated 125,000 U.S. troops ordered to deploy since Christmas Eve, the Associated Press reported.
At the United Nations, several foreign ministers said a war in Iraq would spawn more terrorist acts around the globe and, in the words of Germany's Joschka Fischer, have "disastrous consequences for long-term regional stability."
"Terrorism is far from being crushed," said Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov. "We must be careful not to take unilateral steps that might threaten the unity of the entire [anti-]terrorism coalition. In this context we are strictly in favor of a political settlement of the situation revolving around Iraq."
Powell replied: "We cannot fail to take the action that may be necessary because we are afraid of what others might do. We cannot be shocked into impotence because we are afraid of the difficult choices that are ahead of us."
But when the foreign ministers emerged from the council debate and addressed reporters, it appeared that Powell's pleas had made little impact. Although President Bush said last week he was "sick and tired of games and deception," Fischer said the inspections were a success.
"Iraq has complied fully with all relevant resolutions and cooperated very closely with the U.N. team on the ground," Fischer said. "We think things are moving in the right direction, based on the efforts of the inspection team, and [they] should have all the time which is needed."
Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan said Monday's report should be regarded as a "new beginning" rather than an end to inspections. The chief weapons inspectors "have been talking about that there is more work to do in terms of the inspections and they need more time. I think we should respect their opinion and support their work."
De Villepin, in a lengthy and at times theatrical news conference, was asked whether France would use its veto power to thwart Washington's campaign for quick action. He said France "will shoulder its responsibilities, faithful to the principles it has."
France would never "associate ourselves with military intervention that is not supported by the international community," de Villepin added. "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution."
France, as chair of the Security Council this month, had organized today's meeting on terrorism in part to draw attention to its contention that the Iraq situation has detracted from the more pressing need to confront international terrorism.
De Villepin reacted coolly to suggestions, made by senior Bush administration officials Sunday, that Hussein and his top advisers be offered political asylum outside Iraq to avert a war. "The problem is something more difficult than a question of change of regime," he said. "Let us not be diverted from our objective. It is the disarmament of Iraq."
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan also indirectly criticized the prospect of war when he addressed the council on terrorism. "Any sacrifice of freedom or the rule of law within states -- or any generation of new disputes between states in the name of anti-terrorism -- is to hand the terrorists a victory that no act of theirs could possibly bring," he said, alluding to frequent U.S. assertions that the confrontation with Iraq is part of the larger war on terrorism.
The only sign of support for the U.S. position came from its closest ally, Britain. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said "time was running out" for Hussein and his "cat and mouse" game. But Straw added that Britain preferred a U.N. resolution authorizing force.
"Iraq has a responsibility now to avoid a conflict, to avoid a war," Powell told reporters. "There is no question that Iraq continues to misunderstand the seriousness of the position that it's in.
"If the United Nations is going to be relevant," he added, "it has to take a firm stand."

Source: Washington Post

[ 01-22-2003, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Not supprised. And though the French sound like they are being peace makers with this, the read is "We have our own financial stakes at heart". France, China, and Russia have VERY lucrative defense and other contracts tied up in Iraq. As much as Europe would like to blame the US position on oil (financial interests) they are just as guilty.

NOTE: I'm talking at the country level, not the individual one.

Well, for the last round of voting both Russia and France were reluctant to insist upon inspections in a forceful manner until they were guaranteed their billion dollar oil contracts would be honored by a post Saddam regime.

Maybe this time they should be promised that if they don't co-operate, we guarantee those contracts will not be honored? ;)

It's a rhetorical question. :D

It would be upsetting if the French try to nix the operation, but I think they will, at worst, abstain after another post Saddam contract guarantee.

With negotiations like these in the works, I find it ironic that the US is considered the "oil monger".

We insist on the enforcement of actions prescribed by the UN's SC, we put the majority of coalition lives on the line, we provide the bulk of materials, and we guarantee our allies' oil contracts with and debt collections against Iraq in order to achieve their co-operation in an effort to enforce a resolution they signed off on a dozen years ago to protect a sovereign member nation, but we get the reputation of being war-hungry oil mongers.

Saddam claimed Kuwait was stealing his oil prior to the Gulf War. Today, the French and Russians have to be promised their oil deals will be protected to agree to force inspectors, and the US is the oil fiend? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

It's not just oil. There's very expensive radar and missile tech too. Alot of which Iraq is not supposed to have according to the armistise.

<font color='white'> There were some pretty good e-mails on The Big Story with John Gibson on Fox today, two of them that stand out in my mind were:

'Maybe we should hold off the invasion of Iraq and invade france, theyre used to it anyway.'

and

'The french do only two good things right: Making champange and surrendering.'

:D

Not saying I think they were appropraite or agree with them, but they were funny :D . </font>

[ 01-22-2003, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: Iron_Ranger ]

Hmm, France bashing, how novel.

Mark

<FONT COLOR=ORANGE>The French are just being....well for lack of a better word... FRENCH!</font>

Oh the SC argument again... You can't say, "we only want to ensure that SC resolutions are adhered to" in the case of Iraq - but ignore Israel which has breached far more SC resolutions. The argument doesn't wash.
As for the reputation of 'oil hungry', it might be to do with the fact that the US quite recently stated that securing Iraqi oil sites was one of its primary aims.

As for France, it has ALWAYS maintained that it would not only SUPPORT but also give MILITARY ASSISTANCE to any war with Iraq IF Iraq did *not* comply with the resolution or if Iraq hindered the work of the Weapons Inspectors.

But Iraq is co-operating with the inspectors and it has yet to breach the resolution. So France's position has remained unchanged - no war without a breach of the resolution. Oil has nothing to do with it.

That isn't true. Russia and France agreed to the resolution because if they did not, the US and UK would have gone alone and that would have literally meant the END OF THE UNITED NATIONS. They gave in to political blackmail.
This time round, it seems that France will vote 'NO' anyway - perhaps on the grounds that the UN would be dead anyway.

Remember, if France votes NO and the US/UK go into Iraq - then they would probably LOSE the contract ANYWAY.

So if oil is their motivating factor, then they would signal that they would vote YES in order to retain their oil rights.

Well put. :D

<font color="#ffccff">Why is it Mark, that you are so quick to jump out at a France bash and so quick to hop on the band wagon if it is US bashing? Just curious.

Edit: I mean bashing France is not a good thing, but you jumped right on that but I can't ever recall having seen you jump out and decry US bashing.</font>

[ 01-23-2003, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Well, France at least will legitimize anything that does happen. They have veto power, and the US most likely will not go ahead without the UN go-ahead. So, if the most stalwart opposition can be negotiated with, then no one will be able to claim US fiat on the whole shebang.

But, you'd think they'd learn a lesson. Best I remember, shortly after France denied the US permission to fly over its air space on the way to Libya, a French Embassy in Libya was accidently hit with a big fat US bomb. Karma, or just a little "oops - tee hee" to make a point? You decide.

Dude..It's called the pot calling the kettle black. Besides it is refreshing to see another nation getting bashed besides the US.

I never jump on anyone bashing the US because America should be able to take it.

It was over 12 hours before I responded...and I did expect your response, though I did not post just for that reason.

Mark

Oh the SC argument again... You can't say, "we only want to ensure that SC resolutions are adhered to" in the case of Iraq - but ignore Israel which has breached far more SC resolutions. The argument doesn't wash.
As for the reputation of 'oil hungry', it might be to do with the fact that the US quite recently stated that securing Iraqi oil sites was one of its primary aims.
<font color=aqua>Um, actually I can say it. [img]smile.gif[/img]

There are not now, nor have there been, SC authorizations of force against Israel, but right along your line of the argument, since you don't believe in following the sanctions and actions against Iraq as authorized, then you shouldn't be concerned about Israel or any other UN action. ;)

And yes, the UN has authorized action against Iraq. The authorization from the Gulf War was only suspended if Iraq submitted to disarming and for the past dozen years they haven't. The inspectors have finally been re-admitted, but even they acknowledge Iraq isn't cooperating fully, and they have found unclaimed items.

As to the oil fields being targets, it certainly makes sense to secure the oil fields before they set them on fire, but since it's the French and Russians with the billion dollar contracts, I'm sure they won't mind that objective whether they vote yes, no, or abstain. ;) </FONT>

As for France, it has ALWAYS maintained that it would not only SUPPORT but also give MILITARY ASSISTANCE to any war with Iraq IF Iraq did *not* comply with the resolution or if Iraq hindered the work of the Weapons Inspectors.

But Iraq is co-operating with the inspectors and it has yet to breach the resolution. So France's position has remained unchanged - no war without a breach of the resolution. Oil has nothing to do with it.

<font color=aqua>France didn't do anything or offer to do anything until the US forced the issue. As a matter of fact, the entire UN has sat on it's hands for the last dozen years regarding Iraq, including the US under the previous administration.

As I mentioned earlier, even the inspectors admit Iraq is not fully cooperating and has not made a full disclosure.

So despite their billion dollar oil contracts with Iraq, the French and Russians are acting altruistically and the US is the one interested in the oil? You can say, and believe it, but I don't have to think it makes sense. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

Quote:

Well, for the last round of voting both Russia and France were reluctant to insist upon inspections in a forceful manner until they were guaranteed their billion dollar oil contracts would be honored by a post Saddam regime.

That isn't true. Russia and France agreed to the resolution because if they did not, the US and UK would have gone alone and that would have literally meant the END OF THE UNITED NATIONS. They gave in to political blackmail.
This time round, it seems that France will vote 'NO' anyway - perhaps on the grounds that the UN would be dead anyway.

Remember, if France votes NO and the US/UK go into Iraq - then they would probably LOSE the contract ANYWAY.

So if oil is their motivating factor, then they would signal that they would vote YES in order to retain their oil rights.

<font color=aqua>You don't think it's true. Your generous description of French and Russian reasoning is nothing more than opinion, while the fact that the French and Russians agreed to vote "yes" after their oil contracts were guaranteed is fact. Of course, I can't prove that's why they changed their minds either, but at least the facts are out there to back my opinion on this matter.

Reality, mere coincidence or a combination of the two?
</font></font>[/QUOTE]

[ 01-24-2003, 06:36 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

Shouldn't every bashing be worthy of comment if any bashing is? After all isn't bashing....bashing?

Any country that is a player is worthy of being bashed. People should not be offended by bashing because, hey, every nation is a target. It certainly is worthy of comment...crying foul over it is just silly. :D

Mark

Crying foul is, of course, silly but isn't France a player and therefore "worthy of being bashed"? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 01-23-2003, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Of course it is. I just commented that it was novel that a country other than the USA was being bashed. Did I say there was anything wrong with bashing France?

Mark

Of course it is. I just commented that it was novel that a country other than the USA was being bashed. Did I say there was anything wrong with bashing France?

Mark</font>[/QUOTE]No, I guess you didn't come right out and say it. ;)

Your explanation of the one-liner though seems to be that "nation bashing" is ok all around, and that your "how novel" comment was intended as an "isn't it refreshing to see someone other than the US getting bashed", but then you say you expected Magik's response to your comment?

Why would you have expected that response from Magik based on what you meant? Why wouldn't you have expected a "yep, it is refreshing"? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 01-23-2003, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Let's just say that my reputation preceeds me here. I did expect somebody (not necessarily anyone in particular) to respond to me in a similar fashion. That said this is way to far off topic, I'm very sorry Grojlach, seems I do this a lot lately (having to explain myself, that is!)

Mark

Rumsfeld isn't smoking marihuana, is he ? What does he mean by "Germany and France are "old Europe" ? does he rather seek cooperation from Malta or Albania ? I don't think that was a very smart comment from him. Is he seeking allies or creating new enemies ?

<font color='white'>Creating? I dont think Rumsfeld is creating new enemys, not at all. You cant create something that already exsist.

Ok sure, we are not going to bomb France anytime soon, but in all honesty, I am not real sure France and Germany are really Allies anymore? I could be wrong, and I am probably being a bit...eh, cynical. </font>

<font color='white'>Creating? I dont think Rumsfeld is creating new enemys, not at all. You cant create something that already exsist.

Ok sure, we are not going to bomb France anytime soon, but in all honesty, I am not real sure France and Germany are really Allies anymore? I could be wrong, and I am probably being a bit...eh, cynical. </font></font>[/QUOTE]Well, just because they don't agree with American views on certain things, doesn't mean they are the enemy. France was always.... a little difficult. They were difficult when the USA didn't even exist, and they will always be like that, that's also part of the charm of the country i suppose. The German attitude is kinda new to me though. it's like they feel they speak for the entire European union, which is absolutely not the case.

<font color='white'>Yes I know that just because they arent agreeing they are the enemie. But, well, take Israel for example, they arent saying 'yes' to the war, they have stated that the only way they will get involved is if Iraq attacks them first. So, they arent going with us to 'invade' Iraq, but they are still an ally.

France and Germany is diffrent. </font>

*looks at the topic title, looks at the first post....looks back at the thread* Ok, I KNOW this wasn't a 'what country is being bashed now and who is pro or con the bashing of said country' thread. ;)

It's back on topic, so let's try to stay in the track, ok? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Well well well. [img]graemlins/1pissed.gif[/img]

To all you U.S. people who have posted here :

For those in here who are genuinely interested by the logic behind the French position, I suggest you have a look there.

Though I am not at all of the same political side as the French current government, I support it fully on that matter. Along with a huge majority of French people.

Now about what I just read in the present thread. [img]graemlins/1pissed.gif[/img] I had always believed, until now, that cultural differences could and should be discussed with respect between me, a French, and you U.S. people. How stupid ! [img]graemlins/1pissed.gif[/img]

May I remind you that the purpose of the U.N. is to decide of matters involving world peace TOGETHER. Now I understand why you say the U.N. is useless ! The idea is : you want to decide of everything all alone, everything is just fine as long as everyone submits to what the Mighty Americans want, and as soon as someone dares disagree with you, he is just just some annoying bug ... and you dare complain when some people tell you you are a bunch of annoying rhinos ? [img]graemlins/1pissed.gif[/img]

I thought there was a Rule about "No targeting of another user by harassing or giving unwarranted attention to or attacking ones race, gender, ethnicity or country." Is it suspended on this forum ? :angry:

Bah. I thought we could talk together in a civilized manner. I now realized we can't. Have fun. [img]graemlins/1pissed.gif[/img] !

Three or four citizens does not an entire nation make Moiraine. You're angry, that's fine, but don't become what you despise here. There are alot of Americans who don't conform to the line of thinking that you've expressed your disgust for.

I am angry at the paternalism running through this thread. During the two years I have been on IW, I have NEVER bashed the U.S. Because I respected the U.S. people there. Now, seeing that all you get is a light pat on the head when bashing other people's countries in the back, why could't I play too ? Apparently it is funny. :(

They are not 'bashing' you nor your country. They are questioning its motives and so far (at least on this thread), I havn't seen any real insults being cast upon France (or yourself).

Memnoch (in another thread) referred to my viewpoints as "unpopular and ...probably ill-informed and naive" - even that is not a personal attack (by my standards) - which is a lot stronger than anything that has been said on this thread.

It's very hard to explain the dividing line between 'attack' and 'criticism' - the best I can do is say that an attack is definitive (for example "You are a racist" or "You are stupid") wheras criticism is greyer (ie "you're stance plays into the hands of racists" or "you are misguided/misinformed")...

In any event - if you have a problem with one (or more) posters - send an email to the moderators. If there is something to be done, they'll sort it out. If not, they will explain why.

Cheer up - I think France is making the right decision for the right reasons, so you have at least one other person 'in your camp'. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I was going to PM Moiraine on this, but I think everyone here should read this:

Moiraine,
I am very sorry if I appeared flippant in regards to the bashing of France in the "France warns about blocking resolution on Iraq war" thread.
My original comment was meant as sarcasm in saying that many Amercans can get really bent out of shape when the USA is bashed but do not seem to have any trouble bashing France (or others). In a cowardly way, I backpedaled and turned it around to make it seem that I thought it was refreshing to see some other country bashed. I went on to say that it is ok for any nation to be bashed if they are a player. I do not believe that at all, really. Nation bashing is not a good thing at all, it creates division between all people.
I do believe that if a person does not like country bashing, they should not bash other nations.
I do criticize the USA at times...I admit, but I feel I have the right to, afterall I do live here. I believe criticism makes a nation better.
Again I apologize for my comments.

Mark

[ 01-24-2003, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

Moiraine, I hope you understand my opposition to the French position has nothing to do with you or your agreement with that position. [img]smile.gif[/img]

As to my comments about the initial French yes vote to "insist" on the return of inspectors coming after being assured the oil contracts would be honored, while I believe it's true, I meant no disrespect to you or any other French person. Such is the way of inter-governmental politics.

I've meant no disrespect. :D

[ 01-24-2003, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Mark, I'm sure Moiraine will appreciate that explanation, and accept your apology, and I hope she'll accept mine for anything offensive I may have said.

Remember, there's no need to back-pedal here. Something is either worth saying, or it isn't.

People would much rather see you stand with your statements, whatever they might be, than see you try to disguise it, after the fact, by saying others misunderstood what you meant.

It was very nice of you, and extremely honest, to post that.
[img]graemlins/cheers.gif[/img]

[ 01-24-2003, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Good to see that chivalry among political rivals isn't dead ;)

Indeed, an overdose of testosterone is a dangerous thing [img]smile.gif[/img] Truth is, most people at IW like and respect both you and the nation of France (I'll be there on holiday in late March! YEAH!!!! [img]smile.gif[/img] ). French diplomatic policy seems to have frustrated many Americans who simply wish to 'get on with it' in Iraq, so to speak. Their lack of self control perhaps shows through in some of their less-than-gentlemanly comments about French people as a whole, but no one means you any personal disrespect. I don't know you all that well personally, but over the past year that I've been at IW I've read alot of your posts and you are certainly one of IW's 'speakers of wisdom' [img]smile.gif[/img] Everyone gets angry, it's fair enough, but sometimes you just have to take an insult on the chin in order to prevent things spiralling out of hand. I hope that as your anger dies down you feel a little better about the war forum.

skywalker i would like to say that your post just above there was very nice and i believe you exactly what you say. And i would like to say it was a very good thing of you to do to and gutsy and honourable to. Very nice.

And this is coming from me.. someone who more often than naught says much stupid things without thinking.. yes it's true.. i have and do all the time it seems.. :D

Moiraine.. i would like to just echo what The Heirophant said. He put it very better than i ever could and to add only to his eloquence Vive le France [img]smile.gif[/img]

My wife and I visited Paris this past Fall and I have to say it was the greatest 2 weeks we've ever spent. I've never seen so many excellent people. The French are friendly and warm. And Paris is a magnificent city too!

Mark

I'll take this opportunity to remind you all that when you start feeling angry, it's best to NOT reply.

It's best to relax a little, maybe go take a walk. Then, when you are back to normal, it's time to go reply.

That's right, mate, and I'm glad you see it that way - shows you've got a thick skin, anyway. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Also, as you have mentioned, there is a difference between attacking someone personally and criticizing their viewpoint. It's only in honest debate that we learn more about a) our own viewpoint; and b) the other person's viewpoint.

This type of forum, with passions and emotions running high, it's easy to see people and people's actions either on your side or the other side. In general moderators try and stay out of these debates as much as we can - I personally stay out of them, I might put in my 2c now and then but I stay out of debating/arguing - but we certainly don't allow our personal feelings to interfere with forum policies. At the end of the day our word is law when it comes to forum policies - but our personal viewpoints on this or that topic certainly aren't. For all you know I could be a damn fool when it comes to being right or wrong about North Korea. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Everyone gets a fair hearing here - be they liberal, warmonger, peacenik or whatever they wish to call themselves - as long as their hearts are true, their interest is in gaining knowledge through discussion and they're not fishing for bites. This is something I'm VERY good at finding out - years of practice and all that. BUT we draw the line at al-Qaeda supporters - that edict comes from above and I happen to agree with it. ;)

Moiraine, next time you see a thread that really makes your blood boil, get up off the PC and go for a walk. If you come back half and hour later and it still makes your blood boil, email me and I'll check it out.

Have fun, fellas - and be prepared to shake hands with each other at the end of the day. It's only a forum, after all. ;)

[ 01-25-2003, 12:20 AM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

Schroder, during the ellections, has promised that Germany will not support the war in Iraq. Should he break that vow, its doubtfull he'll get re-ellected...

Indeed.
I didn't post this topic to give people the opportunity to go out and bash France; this topic is only an example of the opinions of several European countries on the possible War on Iraq, including France and Germany. As far as I know, only the Government in the UK and Italy are supporting the the US completely on this matter (much to the dismay of many of its citizens, btw).
I'd only wish the Government in my country had half the guts France and Germany have shown. :rolleyes: Thankfully, the (rightwinged) Government which decided to almost blindly support the US has already fallen a few months back, and it seems we'll be getting a more leftish Government again, with a bit of luck. ;)

Yeah, well too bad for you Balkenende won again, no leftwinged government, thank goodness. And he also backs up the US, like he should. France and Germany have guts ? You call that guts ? I say they are walking away from their responsebilities, and act like austridges.