Hi, this is for the french member's

I got this off another board from a guy in London. I would like to know if this is true?

-----

i believe the french are entirely self serving,as has been proven many times with their actions in the EU(asylum,beef,etc etc etc).

they are led by a morally corrupt leader,the only leader in europe to have met saddam.

they are led by a man who has described saddam as "a friend" .

they are led by a man who would now be in prison if he had not conjured up his own court to keep him out of prison due to his corruption as mayor.

they are led by a man who,when no-one else would,agreed to help saddam build a nuclear power station which thankfully the israelis blew up

they are led by a man who invites another murderous dictator to france,against the wishes of all of europe,and shakes his hand,Robert Mugabe.

they are led by a man who threatened to veto any future EU travel bans unless Robert Mugabe was allowed to travel to france to attend a summit.

they are led by a man who has said "no matter what" they will veto a second resolution,although they fully signed up to 1441 which does have the proviso of military action,that is grade A french diplomacy right there for you.

for jaques chirac to claim any moral ground with his stance is utterly laughable.

having the opinion that the impending war is un-nessesary is a valid one,not one that i agree with,but a valid one nonetheless.im sure there are many french men and women who believe that war is the only way to depose saddam,and should happen,after all,he's already killed 500,00 of his own people

the thing is,with all the words flying round about the french,its easy to mistake them for referring to the french people,when they should be more directly reffered to the french politicians.

---------

interesting huh?

[ 03-14-2003, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: Mordenheim ]

In overal this guy is attacking Chirac and not his statement
I dont like Bush either, but i never used that as an argument why the US should not attack
I dont think we should use such arguments because it's just not valid and it's playing on the man

I was focusing more on the aspect's of his friendship with Sadam. If he almost went to jail. If he supported the dictator Robert.

Since he lives in Europe I would assume he would have a better idea. I think if even half that is true it most definitly call's into question his stance or at least his honesty.

It's very stylish to slam Bush so how about we take a look at peace loving Chirac.

Hypocrisy is a bad thing.

Most of it would require too much time to explain it well.

If your main problem is with Chirac's "friendship" with Sadam, I can ensure you that you have no reason to be worried about. (that means no they are not friends :D )

Interesting reading from the BBC World desk:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2851159.stm
About the difficult relations between France and the UK during the Iraqi crisis. Be careful, the British sense of humor may be dry, but it is evident here!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2849189.stm
More on the disappointment the UK feels over the lack of support from France.
This article was more tongue in cheek than the first.

Just a side note - Australia, France, Russia and Germany all have arms deals or some other trade with Iraq.

Only Australia is supporting the use of force to disarm the country. Seems to me even though they would lose trade, they have integrity.

The others are hardly objective observers. They stand to lose a great deal of trade/money over a conflict with Iraq.

[ 03-14-2003, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Charean ]

distorted

I would say the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) is the best example - but who really want to give up easy money. Strassburg is another example. Sometimes I wish the other members could kick France out of the EU [img]smile.gif[/img]

When exactly? - timing is everything as Donald Rumsfeld can testify to ;)

I can't remember when he did that conjuring-trick ;) .He has avoided all talk of a trial due to his Presidential immunity - f.x. has he been able to avoid answering the questions of an investigating judge. Still - innocent until proven guilty - right ;)

It's hard to say no to a few billion in exports - but building a nuclear reactor in Iraq was a mistike - seen with 20/20 hindsight ;)

Robert Mugabe was invited because the other African leaders threathed to boycott the event if he wasn't invited - and his welcome by Chirac was noticebly 'colder' than the other leaders who were kissed on the cheek.

1441 doesn't have a provision for war - IIRC it speaks of 'serious consequences'. IIRC (again) all previous resolutions which authorized force used the phrase 'By all means necessary'.

yes around 10% or so in France support the war

[ 03-14-2003, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Ar-Cunin ]