The Coalition of the Willing

[Charean]

Israel has been asked to keep a low profile. So they ARE one of the anonomous ones.

The reason they have been asked not to take part is because it would make it a lot more difficult for them after it is over. Sharon isn't thrilled, but he is playing along, for now.

If they are directly attacked, however, all bets are off.

[Thoran]

IMO France acted consciencously throughout this whole ordeal (I respect anyone who has a reasonable dissenting opinion, communicates it intelligently, and sticks to it).

I think it would be totally consistant for France to support action if it turns out that Saddam starts using chemical weapons... but I think overflight rights for attack aircraft VERY unlikely unless this happens.

[Ronn_Bman]

Chirac already said a week or two ago that he would allow over-flights by the US - "it's what allies do".

He also said special teams and equipment would be available if Saddam uses WoMD.

Masklinn, you may well be right.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Charean: If they are directly attacked, however, all bets are off.

If Saddam can hit them, he will try. I hope this time, like last time, they can be convinced not to retaliate.

[Masklinn]

but I think overflight rights for attack aircraft VERY unlikely unless this happens.

If you are talking about French Airspace, it has been already discussed on another thread : Chirac has clearly stated that the French Airspace will be open to US. "It goes without saying" he said, "USA are still our allies".

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Masklinn: Quote: but I think overflight rights for attack aircraft VERY unlikely unless this happens.

If you are talking about French Airspace, it has been already discussed on another thread : Chirac has clearly stated that the French Airspace will be open to US. "It goes without saying" he said, "USA are still our allies".[/QUOTE]well... that's interesting. Didn't France block US overflight for the attack on Libya some years back? Perhaps my memory is faulty (quite possible), but it appears that this is a different policy from past French positions.

[Shaide]

Well, all world know that Spain will help to USA to attack Irak, but, the spaniard don't like this attack, the most of spaniard (the 90%) dont like this attack, but Aznar (the first minister) say: Spain will help them to fight Sadam... and he didnt ask us.
This is the reason for we are in desagree with a War for oil.

Hey Masklinn, Spaniard are with La France

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Shaide: we are in desagree with a War for oil.

There is no war for oil, so there is no reason to disagree.

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Donut: the Netherlands

Yeah yeah, rub it in... 89% of the people in our country is against a war in Iraq, and still the Government decides to do the exact opposite... Oh well. Maybe we should just change the definition of "democracy" in the dictionary one of these days.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Quote: Originally posted by Shaide: we are in desagree with a War for oil.

There is no war for oil, so there is no reason to disagree. [/QUOTE]Those that say this is a war for oil are naive, as are the people that say it isn't [img]tongue.gif[/img]

It's one of many reasons and to deny that oil is not a factor is to be disingenuous at best. One of the early analysis I read is that once the Iraqi oil is controlled it will give the administration leverage in 'reforming' the other oil-rich countries in the area without fear of an embargo.

edit:spelling

[ 03-19-2003, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: Rokenn ]