God, I can't believe I am defending the French.

Anyway I believe the French are actually on the right track and I feel we have been fed an exaggerated form of the truth by North American media. Apparently the French will even agree to force at some point.

Interview with French Ambassador to Canada:
http://www.macleans.ca/xta-doc2/2003...QA/56864.shtml

I am sorry, but I didn't see any difference in how they are portrayed on NPR (National Public Radio) than this article. Am I missing something?

France would be ready to go to war if it were necassary and they had absolute solid proof from inspectors.

Hasn't the media NA media portrayed them as cowards unwilling to fight for any cause.

Nope. It pretty much says the same thing.

Odd.

The only question in my mind is would they be as sanguine if it was their country that Saddam had openly threatened? Saddam has vowed to take us out - and that makes me nervous.

<font color="plum">I appreciate what the French ambassador to Canada is saying...however, the French U.N. representative has stated unequivocally that France will veto ANY resolution that calls for going to war with Iraq.

So which one is right? :confused: </font>

France would be ready to go to war if it were necassary and they had absolute solid proof from inspectors.

Hasn't the media NA media portrayed them as cowards unwilling to fight for any cause.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=orange>Nah, not really. The late night talk show host/comediens like Leno, Letterman and Conan O'brein are the ones that are really getting the French down the road for being cowards. I think most everyone else just gets after them for being what most Americans consider obstinate or stubborn.
</font>

The French have said all along they would fight. The comment by the French Foreign Minister after the Valentine's Day Blix report was that France would be willing to consider that option if the Inspectors would come forward and say they could not work with the Iraqis any longer. Not that nothing was being done, or that nothing was being achieved, but that they could not work with them any more. Basically as long as the Iraqis cooperate procedurally, it doesn't matter if it's substantive or not.

The French government admits Saddam is bad, that he needs to be removed, and they know he has not disclosed or accounted for his WoMD, but they want to use inspectors as long as possible.

<font color=plum>I stand corrected. Thanks <font color=dodgerblue>Ronn</font> [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] </font>

Cerek, the French government has said, as you mentioned, that it will VETO anything that could be thought of as an authorization for war. No, fighting isn't completely ruled out by the French government, but their bar is set so high they may as well have ruled it out. The inspectors have to say "we can't work with the Iraqis anymore" before the French government will even consider a use of force. ;)

And the Iraqis are clever enough to string along the inspectors and the UN by barely cooperating - enough to say that some progress has been made, but not enough to ensure that disarmament will happen.

I mean, he's had 12 years to disarm. This is the second round of inspections. Do the anti-war people honestly think that Saddam is going to roll over and surrender all his WMDs now?

Without the threat of war, I very much doubt that Iraq will voluntarily disarm.

As for letting weapons inspections run its course, it will take a very looonnnggg time for them to ferret out what Saddam has had years to hide.

So my opinion is that the UN should say to Iraq, "Look, stop pussyfooting around. You either surrender all WMDs (including th emeans to manufacture new ones) or we come in and do it for you."

My fear is that the UN would let Saddam play his games, and if any of his WMD falls into terrorist hands, and an incident happens somewhere in the world, ot would be too late then. The US and UK could say, "I told you so!" but what good would it do then?