France Begs to Be Relevant

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by 5stringJeff, May 25, 2004.

  1. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    It looks like France still thinks that their opinion regarding Iarq matters, even though they sided with Saddam. Now they are essentially begging, "Please listen to us!!!"


    -------------------
    France Proposes Talks by All Iraq Parties
    By LAURENCE FROST, Associated Press Writer

    PARIS - The U.S.-British draft resolution on post-occupation Iraq (news - web sites) "needs improvement," the French foreign minister said Tuesday, adding France hopes to have a say in new talks over Iraqi sovereignty.

    Foreign Minister Michel Barnier was speaking a day after Washington and London presented a draft Security Council resolution setting out plans for a partial handover of power to an interim Iraqi government by June 30.

    "This resolution needs improvements," the minister told reporters after meeting with Javier Solana, the European Union (news - web sites)'s foreign policy representative.

    Barnier declined to go into details but said France would be "frank" with the United States and Britain as it seeks to make the proposal "credible for the Iraqi people and the international community."

    "Our concern is to be useful in putting an end to this tragedy and to speak up about our convictions and our ideas to do so, hoping that this time we will be listened to," he said.

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&e=5&u=/ap/20040525/ap_on_re_eu/france_iraq
     
  2. st8_o_mind
    Online

    st8_o_mind Guest

    Ratings:
    +0

    Pretty much everyone agrees that the draft needs improving. A State Dept. spokesperson said that the "draft resolution is just that, a draft," responding to criticism that the resolution left a lot of central questions unanswered.

    The draft being floated is just the first round of horse-trading that will take place. I think everyone knows that.

    Regarding begging, it is Bush, that is begging the UN to bail him out. US plans to form an interim government fell on its face, thus we now have a UN Envoy putting together a government despite that fact that the US did almost all of the lifting to depose the last regime.

    The US is seeking a legal basis for its presence in Iraq through this resolution.

    The US is pleading for more international military support to relieve some of the pressure on the US military.

    The US is begging for international financial assistance.

    The Bush folk are asking Russia, France and others to forgive the debts they are owed by Iraq.

    Finally, making the case that opposing the US rush to war without a UN resolution authorizing force is the same as siding with Saddam is absurd.
     
  3. HGROKIT
    Offline

    HGROKIT Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Thanks Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Federal Way WA, USA
    Ratings:
    +19
    "needs improvement"..."Our concern..."

    Frankly Scarlet, I don't give a damn.

    The French have been there for us int he past, I will give them that. But that was the past.

    For them to come in today and make comments regarding the proposed resolution "needing improvement" and espousing their "concerns" are a day late and a franc short (or is that Euro now, I get so confused).

    No, France still has no relevance - in my humble opinion.

    :piss2: on France
     
  4. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    That's fine. I know that stuff like this goes through drafts, revisions, etc. My point is that France is trying to get their say in regarding the reconstruction of Iraq, even though they didn't want to be involved in the war.

    1. The interem government fell apart? Maybe you are talking about something different, but we haven't handed over control to any interem governments yet. We will on June 30.
    2. We had a legal basis for the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam: 14 UN resolutions, the credible threat of WMDs, and credible ties to terrorism.
    3. We have had dozens of countries providing military support throughout the conflict. It's hardly begging.
    4. Yes, we are asking countries for financial assistance and debt forgiveness. Is this any different than the calls to give other Third World countries' debts? I would imagine that Iraq has a better case than other countries, given the history of Saddam's raping of the country during his rule and the subsequent formation of a new Iraqi government.
    5. France was the most vocal voice against the Iraqi War. There is also documentation that France was benefitting financially from Saddam's regime, both from arms dealing and the Oil-for-Food program (check the France forum). It's not just that France said, 'We don't like this war, but we won't get in the way of it.' They opposed this war at every step with everything they had, save with military force. Given that, I think it is ludicrous that we should involve them in the process at all.
     
  5. freeandfun1
    Offline

    freeandfun1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,201
    Thanks Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +296
    I know we always say the French have been there for us in the past, but I wonder..... when have the French TRULY ever been there for the USA?

    Was it when we were saving their asses in WWI or II or were they "there" for us when we picked up their mess in Vietnam? I am not lambasting you, I am just truly asking the board member this question:

    When has the French ever "been there" for the USA? I can't think of one time. (well, the did send the French Foreign Legion to Gulf War I, but they are pretty much mercenaries anyway).
     
  6. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    What tragedy??
     
  7. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I believe they are referring to the Revolutionary War, when France eventually agreed to aid the US against their #1 enemy at the time, Britain. More or less it was kind of asking the US to support an enemy of the USSR in 1963.
     
  8. freeandfun1
    Offline

    freeandfun1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,201
    Thanks Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +296
    Well, then they weren't "there" for "us" they were there for themselves. The same goes with Vietnam. They hoped we could save Vietnam so they could continue to reap the benefits of trade there.

    I honestly cannot think of one time when the French came to our aid because they wanted to help us without having an ulterior motive.

    I guess one could argue we had an ulterior motive in WWII (not being taken over by the Germans), but that's a stretch. We could have just waited for the Germans to try and invade the USA which they never would have been able to do.

    Maybe I am being too hard on the French, but frankly, I think we give them way too much credit for their past "support".
     
  9. st8_o_mind
    Online

    st8_o_mind Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Fair enough Jeff. France and Russia are also owed billions by Iraq, but the US has spent (so far) about 200 billion to overthrow Saddam and to a far less degree for reconstruction. I agree that US taxpayers should not be overly concerned about France's financial claims.



    Yeah, I was talking about something else. The US advanced several plans for an interim government. You may recall that the US wanted to have regional caucuses instead of direct elections to form an interim government. Also the plans for organizing the so-called governing council went through several incarnations before we found something that the Iraqis could live with.



    I think you could make a case that the use of force resolution passed by the Congress gave Bush authority under US law to invade Iraq, however none of the UN resolutions you cited authorized a war, in fact, Bush withdrew an actual war resolution from consideration at the UN in the face of certain defeat. The current resolution being considered will - or should - provide some internationally recognized legal authority which is very important to achieving one of the President five primary points outlined in his speech last night, getting more international support for the Iraq effort.

    In my opinion, a day late and a dollar short, but unless we are going to "cut and run" (which I don't support), necessary.


    Yeah, the coalition of the willing. Thank God for Latvia! Seriously, If we don't bring international support and credibility into the process (if its not too late), I don't think Operation Iraqi Freedom has a chance.


    Fair enough Jeff.

    Haliburton is benefiting financially from the war aw well, so are a lot of others. I'll agree that the US taxpayers are taking it in the *** on this. But a lot of people opposed the war from the outset. I certainly did. Millions marched in the streets in opposition to the war. (Gotta love the first amendment!).

    But the important question of the day is where do we go from here. I opposed the war, and think dubya has botched the job about as much as possible. That does not mean that I support the 'cut and run" crowd, for a lot of reasons. We have to succeed in Iraq. To do that, and ensure long-term stability in Iraq, and most importantly, to promote our own security in the war against terrorists, we need to build a real international coalition. France's past opposition to the war (or mine) is not relevant, or at least not nearly as relevant as forging an international framework that allows us to more the process forward. As a permanent member of the Security Council, France, Russia, and China will have significant roles to play.

    Sorry for getting so long-winded.
     
  10. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Not quite getting ya here---Ya mean it was a "tradegy" for US to ask for thier support in the war in Iraq?
     

Share This Page