France shuns the US over Iraq

[Robin Hood]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3084060.stm

It can have come as no surprise in Washington that President Jacques Chirac so rapidly spurned its formulation for a new United Nations resolution on Iraq.


France remains sceptical about US intentions in Iraq
Having warned from the start of the dangers of Middle East adventurism, France today feels a sense of profound moral vindication.

If it was right then, the government in Paris believes it is right again now.

It is not enough, it says, for the US to make more vague gestures to the United Nations in the hope of off-loading some of the military and financial burden.

In the words of Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, an "electroshock" is necessary.

The logic of "occupation" must be replaced by a logic of "sovereignty". True power must be handed over as soon as possible to the Iraqis themselves.

And to garb the process with the necessary legitimacy, it is the UN that must be unequivocally in charge.

Moral high ground

For many in France, moral vindication is the least of it. Every new disaster in Iraq - every new terrorist attack - is further evidence of how right they were.

Memories of the insults flung in their direction before the war from the other side of the Atlantic remain fresh, and the temptation is strong to bask in the glow of schadenfreude.


The US wants Iraqis to assume more of the security burden
"France's only mistake was to have been right too early," said the conservative newspaper Le Figaro.

"Why should it spill the blood of its soldiers and jeopardise the credibility of its diplomacy just to assure the re-election of George W Bush?

"Bush's strategy is insolent. He is calling for help, then trying to dictate the terms of the rescue," it said.

[demnan]

1. Did he think Europe was his good puppy press?

Honestly, has anyone ever stood up to this evil creature? Does he even know how to treat other human beings if he wants their assistance?

What is lacking here is a fundamental sense of humility. And that is not what you look for in a geniuine Christian.

[grytpype]

2. Good. I like it. Don't save Duhbya, let him sink.

[ixion]

3. viva la France!!

Don't take any guff from Chimpy McWhistleAss. The 'right thing' for the US to do is to turn Iraq over to the UN, and admit the abject failure of the idea of preemptive war, IMHO.

[damnraddem]

4. And these are the French conservatives.

LOL!

We must keep up the demand to bring the troops home now; and hopefully the French will ensure that Dubya can't take the UN as a cheap way out.

Let's keep Dubya between Chirac and a hard place!

[Flubadubya]

5. I bet if we kicked "W's ass out of office...

and all his minion loonies, started over with a reasonable President, they would come to our aid in a "Parisian" minute. They just hate George, and you really can't blame them. Oh, how he dissed France unmercifully! The jerkwad!

[xchrom]

6. i don't think any country should help

we created this debacle -- and we should get out.
turn this mess over to the u.n.{like they need this headache} where it rightfully belongs.
and somebody needs to pay for the innocent people who died over the imminent threat that only existed as a fiction.

[Skittles]

7. FRANCE WAS RIGHT THEN AND SHE IS RIGHT NOW

"Bush's strategy is insolent. He is calling for help, then trying to dictate the terms of the rescue" - I couldn't have said it better myself. (Well, maybe I would have added a couple of cuss words).

[myomy]

8. The Bushites have no shame. They owe the French and many others

an apology. Why is it the rest of the world as well as millions here at home knew better?

[David Zephyr]

9. Kicking to the Top! ALL DU'ER READ THIS ARTICLE.

"Bush's strategy is insolent. He is calling for help, then trying to dictate the terms of the rescue."

Thanks, Liberal_Guerilla! :hi:

[Robin Hood]

11. My pleasure. In the words of Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin

An "electroshock" is necessary. Wonder what he meant by that? Could it come in the form of next years election? Time to shock the monkey.

[robbedvoter]

10. Deeply satisfying. Here's another article from Salon:

Would you like some freedom fries with your crow, Mr. President?
Six months after spitting in the face of the world, the Bush
administration is crawling on its belly before the U.N. If the world
doesn't rush to help it, the White House has only itself to blame.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/09/04/un/index.html
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Gary Kamiya

[newyawker99]

12. Liberal_Guerilla

Per DU copyright rules
please post only 4
paragraphs from the
news source.

Thank you.


NYer99
DU Moderator

[Robin Hood]

13. I know,

But it was all so juicy that I couldn't help my self. I'll try to be better in the future.

[Mechatanketra]

14. France does not hold the moral high ground.

So they, and the UN, didn't directly endorse Bush's theoretically illegal war against Iraq. So they're not murderers.

But they also didn't take a stand against the Anglo-American Axis. They didn't take any action to stop the war, they just kept clear of personal involvement -- making Iraqis the international equivalent of Kitty Genovese.

It's not enough to just not have your hand on the gun -- the moral high ground is between that gun and the intended victim.

[Betty]

15. What could they have done

to prevent bush from invading Iraq? Use force? I don't think there was much they could do beyond the diplomatic channels they went through.

[Mechatanketra]

17. We can't afford for "What could they have done?" to be rhetorical.

For what it's worth, I think a UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force in defense of Iraq against preemptive action by America and/or Britain would have put serious brakes on the rush to war -- and would have been completely justifiable (with the presence of UN inspections) and well within the letter and spirit of the UN charter.

But even short of force, there are other options (such as economic sanctions) which could have been put in place and weren't. France (and the rest of the international community) seems content to glare at America over the table once in a while, but otherwise continue business as usual.

What it comes down to is this: to ask "What could they do?" is really to ask what can be done at all about a nation set on war for its own gain. In other words, it calls into question the entire purpose of the UN and 'international law'. If that question is truly rhetorical -- if there really is nothing that can be done by nations as significant as France or Germany about open aggression -- then, irony of ironies, the Republicans are right, and the UN is irrelevant.

[Robin Hood]

18. Chirac has already warned

about the dangers of having one world super power. He was right. There is nothing that France could have done aginst us, including sanctions. The UN does not work when it comes to standing against the worlds only super power. France screwing it's own people by imposing economic sanctions against the US would have been stupid and ridiculos.

They do have the moral high ground, they did try to stop us, all of them. But what were they going to do? Go to war against us? America flaunted it's aggression against a sovereign and defenseless country and now appears to be losing that battle. Now we want other nations to put their sons and daughters out to fight our war?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

19. I'm beginning to doubt that you really understand just how far...

...the Bushies are willing to go. The people that are heading up the Pentagon and squatting in the White House are raving rightwing fanatics that are just itching to use some of their shiny nukes on live enemy targets. And every country in the world recognizes that fact and fears us greatly. If you were the leader of one of those countries, would you have been willing to risk the total destruction of your country by taking the "moral high ground"? It's all well and good to make bold statements when there is nothing at stake, but try it when you have hundreds of millions of people counting on you to make the correct decision.

The trouble with using economic sanctions against the U. S. is the fact that we have historically had the money to buy goods and services, while most other nations have had goods and services to sell. The sad fact is that they need the cash more than we need the goods and services.

I think you have to pick your time and place to confront a playground bully, and you don't do it when he's fresh and strong...it has to be done when he's in a weakened state and waiting for that time takes patience. In the meantime, the rest of the world has been able to see with their own eyes what the Bushies are willing to do to achieve their goals.

Speaking of nukes, I've read some medical reports on the Net that seem to strongly indicate that we may have been using small low-yield warheads as bunker-busters since Desert Storm. The burns and other wounds found on the Desert Storm Iraqi dead before they were bulldozed into their trenches and bunkers are exactly like those described by doctors and survivors of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We also have eyewitness reports on the Net of Afghan soldiers fleeing the destruction of cave bunkers only to die a slow death at home that included skin falling off of bodies, hair falling out of heads, teeth falling out of raw, bleeding gums, and a complete deterioration of the organs prior to death.

And now we have extremely elevated levels of radiation reported in several spots in Baghdad. The Bushies are making the claim that it's merely the depleted uranium from the use of U. S. conventional weapons...except that the highest levels of radiation are coming from the sites of the biggest bunker-buster explosions. Yes, there is a huge amount of American made depleted uranium ammunition lying all over Iraq since Desert Storm, and I'm convinced that the high numbers of acute leukemia reported among Iraqis following that war are directly attributable to those expended rounds. But the radiation levels coming from that stuff is no where near the levels now being detected in Baghdad.

We also have a 20 year old American soldier that recently died from acute leukemia. How many others will follow?

[oasis]

16. France, Russia, Germany and China know that Chimpy's term is up.

And they're not about to help retain him for four more years. It will never be official, but you know that there are secret attaches going back and forth sharing strategy on the question facing the UN..