France Begs to Be Relevant

[5stringJeff]

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

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
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.

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.

 

[HGROKIT]

"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.

on France

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
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.

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.

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. [/B]

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.

 

[freeandfun1]

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

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).

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
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

What tragedy??

 

[Annie]

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.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by Kathianne
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.

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".

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
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.

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.

Originally posted by gop_jeff 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..[/B]

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.

Originally posted by gop_jeff 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.[/B]

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.

Originally posted by gop_jeff 3. We have had dozens of countries providing military support throughout the conflict. It's hardly begging..[/B]

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.

Originally posted by gop_jeff 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..[/B]

Fair enough Jeff.

Originally posted by gop_jeff 5. France was the most vocal voice against the Iraqi War. There is also documentation that France was benefiting 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. [/B]

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.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by Kathianne
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.

Not quite getting ya here---Ya mean it was a "tradegy" for US to ask for thier support in the war in Iraq?

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
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.

OK, I understand now. My only argument would be that, given the volatility of the country in the aftermath of the war, it's still pretty incredible that we're set to had over sovreignity to a provisional government after 15 months.

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.

It is certainly important that the US isn't the only one involved in this effort. At the same time, I don't think it would be wise for us to wait for all countries involved to agree on every part of the plan before we act. The terrorists and Iraqi insurgents will use that time to act to sow discord and discourage any action in Iraq. As Patton once said, a good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow - and if that means that not every country in the UNSC is involved, I'm willing to go forward without them.

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.

I'm not going into the Halliburton argument... I think it's been discussed elsewhere in the forum.
Don't forget that millions also marched in support of this war and in support of the soldiers that fought. I was one of them.

But you are right... where do we go from here? Bush has laid out his plan. I think he is pretty much right on. While we have not executed the war perfectly, the facts remain: Saddam is gone, Iraq is free, and we are on our way to seeing a sovreign Iraqi government being elected, which replaces an Iraq that was friendly to terrorists.
I would like you to explain one thing to me, though, that I have yet to understand: why do you feel it is necessary to build an international framework in order to fight terrorism? I ask this not in an acussing manner, but because I truly don't understand the reasoning behind it. Given the results of the last 2 1/2 years of the GWOT, why do you feel it necessary to have a "real international coalition" to continue the fight?

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Well, then they weren't "there" for "us" they were there for themselves.

And how is that different than the U.S.? Every war that we have gotten into benefitted us.

A prime example would be the Revolutionary War, WWII and this current war. We didn't get involved or start any of the wars until it affected us directly. So we're no different in my opinion.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
And how is that different than the U.S.? Every war that we have gotten into benefitted us.

A prime example would be the Revolutionary War, WWII and this current war. We didn't get involved or start any of the wars until it affected us directly. So we're no different in my opinion.

Hi and welcome.... Did you follow the discussion before this, or did you just pick it up where you quote me?

My question was: We always say the French have been there for us, but have they really? When did the French ever provide us assistance when it was not in their interest?

In the Revolutionary War, they supported us only because we were against Britian. That is the only time I can think of when the French actually assisted us in anything.

Now, in WWI and WWII, we could have sat on our butts and waited and waited and waited to see if we would have been invaded. Even if the Germans had tried, they would not have been successful. Our distance from them would have made it impossible. However, in both Wars we saved Frances butt when, in reality, we were not really threatened.

That was my point.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Thanks for the welcome!

I did read the thread from the beginning, but thought that what you had posted was a little silly because I don't personally see America any different as far as our reasons for getting into wars.

Now as for whether or not France has been there for us, I don't think they have. But you have to look at their reasoning I suppose. To me they are no different than Canada or Sweden as far as that they want to stay as neutral as possible. Whether that is reason enough for some people is obviously up for debate. I do not hate them or hold anything against France for not wanting to get involved in a war that many other countries did not want to get involved in.

As for us "sitting on our butts" during WWII, that's pretty much what we did until we were personally attacked.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
Thanks for the welcome!

I did read the thread from the beginning, but thought that what you had posted was a little silly because I don't personally see America any different as far as our reasons for getting into wars.

Now as for whether or not France has been there for us, I don't think they have. But you have to look at their reasoning I suppose. To me they are no different than Canada or Sweden as far as that they want to stay as neutral as possible. Whether that is reason enough for some people is obviously up for debate. I do not hate them or hold anything against France for not wanting to get involved in a war that many other countries did not want to get involved in.

As for us "sitting on our butts" during WWII, that's pretty much what we did until we were personally attacked.

But my question was.... we keep saying in the past that France has been there for us. But have they? As you indicated, not really and I agree. I was just making a point that we should not really be all that upset that they are not there for us now, as they never really have been there for us.

As for us not getting into it until we were attacked.... well, you are right. But if we took the stance the French are taking today, we would not have gotten involved in Europe as Germany did not attack us. The Japanese did.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

I agree with you completely.

 

[dilloduck]

We didn't just sit on our butts--heard of the Lend Lease Program?

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Don't forget that millions also marched in support of this war and in support of the soldiers that fought. I was one of them.

I respect that Jeff, but don't mistake opposition to the war for opposition to the soldiers. I know a lot of people who oppose the war but none that oppose the troops. I've been to Iraq myself on the feds dime, but not in a combat capacity.

Originally posted by gop_jeff But you are right... where do we go from here? Bush has laid out his plan. I think he is pretty much right on. While we have not executed the war perfectly, the facts remain: Saddam is gone, Iraq is free, and we are on our way to seeing a sovreign Iraqi government being elected, which replaces an Iraq that was friendly to terrorists. [/B]

Saddam is gone, but the outcome remains in doubt. I think Powelll had it right with what has come to be known as the Powell doctrine, which, in a nutshell is: Only fight when you have to, use overwhelming force to execute your war plan (a lesson from the mission creep of Vietnam), set clear military objectives and exit strategy.

I wish Powell had Rummy's job.

Originally posted by gop_jeff I would like you to explain one thing to me, though, that I have yet to understand: why do you feel it is necessary to build an international framework in order to fight terrorism? I ask this not in an acussing manner, but because I truly don't understand the reasoning behind it. Given the results of the last 2 1/2 years of the GWOT, why do you feel it necessary to have a "real international coalition" to continue the fight? [/B]

---Sorry, I’ve been away on an errand.----

That is a good question. I have to preface my response. One of the primary reasons that I opposed the war against Iraq is that I've never bought the link between OBL and Iraq. I have never accepted Iraq as center of the war on terrorism. I would refer you to the finding of the US Army War College (where Bush spoke yesterday), which concluded that Iraq was a “war of choice” that has significantly strained the US military. General Zinni has made similar comments.

I realize you do not, but if you shared the views of Gen. Zinni, Gen. Brent Scocroft, the US Army War College and many others, than the war in Iraq is a best a distraction from the war against terrorists, at worse, it undermines our military’s capability to deal with the real threat of Islamic fundamentalist, drains resources needed to respond to that threat, increased the threat, and has alienated the international community whose support in the war on terrorism we need.

Which brings me to your question.

My first response is that it is simply pragmatic. It is in the interest of all Western countries, to contain radical fundamentalist terrorist movements. Nobody is immune. It seems self-evident that the efforts to contain international terrorism will be more effective if we cooperate in our collective self-interest.

When I think of terrorists, I think of 9/11, not Saddam. In that context, (in retrospect) we need the cooperation of the international banking community to track the money trail, the German government where many of the 9/11 terrorists lived, the Saudi government where most came from, the Canadian government where I believe Mohammad Atta boarded his airplane (if I remember correctly). More recently we’ve cancelled a dozen flights from France because of terrorist threats. Do you think the US would be safer if the countries where U. S. bound flights originate cooperate in an international passenger screening? Terrorists don’t need to build an ICBM to drop a bomb on Manhattan. A shipping container will do. How about international cooperation among nations that flag vessels?

And how about bio-medical research? Do you think US security would be enhanced if Western countries cooperated in developing bio-medical screening devices or treatment methodologies? And how many Saudi (don’t mean to pick on them, obviously there are other “states of concern”) students are studying in biomedical research labs in the US, in Brazil or in Italy. I don’t know either, but I sure as hell would like to.

Terrorism is a virus. It can cross borders without being detected, lay dormant for years, strike nearly anywhere, attack without being detected. It is what you folks at the Pentagon call asymmetrical warfare. What that means is that 12 carrier task forces are largely irrelevant to the war on terrorism. Terrorists are not trying to protect shipping lanes, hold territory or take over a country. The targets of terrorists are often non-military like the World Trade Center.

I guy I know used to say “when your only tool is a hammer, all of your problems begin to look like nails.” Our military is second to none, and the American soldier is the best trained, led, and equipped in the world. But to defeat terrorism we’ll need other tools as well.

Of course, there is an important role for the military to play in fighting fundamentalist terrorists movements, but military means along can never defeat terrorism. Terrorism does not have defined borders, a national identity, armies that can be defeated in the field (for the most part), a government to negotiate with. Terrorists are non-state actors. Our vast nuclear arsenal means nothing to them.

Not only do we need international cooperation to share the burden and costs when we do have to fight, we need the support and cooperation of international trading community, bankers, telecommunication companies, universities, law enforcement, medical research to name just a few.

And on top of all of that we need to establish an international framework of law because terrorism is often a transnational event. It would suck if the CIA had specific information about a credible threat in Thailand, but there were no laws in Thailand to extradite the suspects or detain them. Do you think international treaties to control the transfer of dangerous chemicals, toxins or nuclear material is in our security interests? You bet. And what about the enforcement mechanisms to make them effective?

We need a diplomatic tool as well. Fundamental wahabbism (spelling?) is largely funding by our allies the Saudi’s. They sit on the largest reserves of oil in the world, a resource we need. We need to cooperate with the government in the Philippines.

We also need to cooperate in looking at, and addressing the causes of terrorism. Hasn’t it occurred to someone that if we help send kids to proper schools then they won’t be going to Madrasses where they learn to hate American’s and Jews? Could we do more to move the Middle East peace process to a just peace. Do we support ruthless dictatorships in the Middle East and elsewhere that create a burning resentment towards the US? Do we ignore genocide in Rwanda, Sierra Leone, the Congo but discover “humanitarian intervention” when our strategic or economic interests are at stake? What message does that send? Surely we need a more nuanced understanding of terrorism than a simplistic and inadequate expedient that they “hate freedom.

Sorry I’ve gone on so long here Jeff. This is a big subject. I’ll just stop here.

 

[5stringJeff]

st8, I will have to reply later, as work is getting busy. But thanks in advance for the reply.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Kathianne
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.

Problem is the french didnt even show up then as they promised till the last battle and then they simply kept the British from escaping. And while that was very important, i dont think it is equivalent to thousands dying on Dday to liberate France.