Pity France. An agrarian economy that lusts for domination of Europe, even at the cost of joining with Germany to get it. And yet, there is "no there, there." Even in this treacherous gambit, they were a day late and a dollar short. Sneaking and cheating with a reprehensible dictator out of a lust for cheap oil, personal corruption, and most of all a bitter hatred of the US.
And they are still at it. Doing anything and everything to try to isolate and dominate Europe, willing to sacrifice all to once again feel strong, as they did under the Louis or Napoleon Bonaparte.

The new motto of France: "It is better to be Prince of Hell, than a Servant of Heaven."

Whether the above report is true or a fabrication, it seems yet too early to know. Aside from the Fox News report, none of us really knows any of the details yet.

I imagine some people are sore at France for blocking the Bush Administration's war plans. But if it hadn't been France, it would have been another permanent member who would have opposed it. Most of the world was and is opposed to the war in Iraq.

This was not because folks wanted Saddam to continue, I'm sure we all agree about that. But if we want Democracy in the world, then we have to respect international consensus and law. The Bush Administration cannot flaunt international law one day, and then try to invoke it the next.

But if the US had presented tangible, credible evidence as to why the world should agree to depose Saddam, then most of the world probably would have agreed. Instead most countries had wanted to allow UN Inspectors more time, and wanted a peaceful resolution. But the Bush administration grew impatient, even though in retrospect it seems unlikely that Iraq was posing an immediate threat to Americans at home.

Fact is, the evidence that was presented, was faked, the CIA said so. But this "evidence" was still used to sway Congress, even though this fact was known to some insiders. Now even the British Government is thinking maybe it's been mislead in order to gain its approval.

For whatever reason, France was merely excercising it's right to have an opinion, and was reflecting the opinion of the majority of it's citizens. Just because you insist we should go to war this morning doesn't mean we all have to agree with you. We have a right to agreeably disagree! We can all vote... it's the American way, right?

Besides, the US was pretty far in bed with Saddam on earlier occasions, too, and had during the 80's provided Saddam with weapons and technical help during the Iran Iraq war... as had many countries. Osama, too, received large sums of money from US taxpayers... but many folks don't know that. GHW Buch (Sr.) had very close ties to the bin Ladin family, too.... maybe that would be world looking into?

I hope I haven't offended anyone, but we are 6 billion people on earth, and we have different ideas.
But I guess the best we can do is stay informed, be objective and try to be polite.

Thanks for reading this.

Chris,

While I respect your right to disagree and to voice your own opinion, I feel the need to respond to a few of your comments.

You say that: "Most of the world was and is opposed to the war in Iraq... ...But if we want Democracy in the world, then we have to respect international consensus and law."

That is a perfect illustration of the danger of majority rule (a/k/a mob rule). You are using the concept of majority rule to lend credibility to an otherwise immoral regime.

Had a majority of people wanted to ignore apartheid in South Africa, would you stand up with them? Similarly, a majority of Americans didn't support the end to slavery, or women's suffrage. Would you have stood up with them? To borrow an example from Walter Williams, would you want majority rule to dictate the kind of car you drive, the person you marry, or the job at which you work? I would imagine that those are personal decisions that you want to make yourself.

The simple truth is that just because everyone goes along with something, doesn't necessarily mean that it is the right thing to do.

The previous post is little more than hedging, platitudes, wishful thinking, and speculation. No, I do not agree with you, I do not accept your axioms, nor the notion that everyone but the US has good intentions in this matter. The post WWII history of France is one of ignorant self-interest, greed, astoundingly poor judgement and a willingness to betray its friends. Germany and Russia certainly had incentives for the US not to attack Iraq, but France's commitment to that nation was both *illegal* and treacherous.
The US is not on an ethical par with France. It sails above France in honesty and integrity. And while the US might "punish" France in the short term, its long term intention is forgiveness. France, however, will continue in its filthy ways and seek to stick it to the US in any way it can.

"An agrarian economy "
The French economy is less agrarian than the US economy. You might wish to consider that in the past week alone US airlines have newly purchased four billion , yes, Billion, dollars in Airbus aircraft.
Tos epurchases were mostly underwritten by US taxpayer bailouts of the US airlines.

Ravenwood :-)

Thanks for your welcome comments. I am trying to understand your point of view.

I agree with you on most things. I think my main objection is the US anger that most of us didn't want to rush to war with Iraq, but insisted we should want to.

How would it be if the Iraqi people, in the vehicle of their new democratic, self-elected government, decided to opt for a Taliban style governement... one that opposes US policy? Would it be right to forbid them this? Who should decide for them what they should want?

There's no question Saddam was an immoral tyrant and needed stopping, but he'd been at it for years. And while I'm sure Iraqis are pleased to see him gone, it's also clear they don't want US occupation, either. To be specific, the only alternative to majority rule, seems to be totalinarianism.

To "anonymous" I would add this:

I was not defending France as being other than what you said. What I meant was that " the pot shouldn't call the kettle black". Many people question the motives of both George Bush and his administration's interest in Iraq, but I guess only time will tell.

Thanks for all your comments ... I'll be thinking about them.

Chris,

The Taliban regime was a government that imposed moral authority on it's citizens. Women were forbidden from being educated, and people's basic human freedoms were denied. There was no freedom of religion, no right to a fair trial, no right to life or liberty outside the Taliban style of life.

That said, I would say that YES we have every right to forbid that type of government.

Chris,

While nations can have principled objections to the war (none of which were very strong, imo), I think a great many people in North America, and probably the US administration, believed that French objections weren't principled.

France explicitly stated that it desired to set up a "third way" in opposition to American "hyper-power". It did so in an effort to increase its prestige on the world stage and within the EU. The Iraq conflict provided the French with an issue around which they could build this "third way". Thankfully, they failed.

The fact that the French were willing to condemn the Iraqi people to an indefinite period of slavery and torture under Saddam's despotism for the sake of French self-aggrandizement is beyond contempt. It is grotesque.

Now, most people (even Americans) recognize that nations can have disagreements. However, the French weren't willing to simply state their objections (as odious as they were) and leave it at that. They then proceeded to undermine American efforts in ways that were unacceptable given their status as allies. The actions we know about (Iraqi arms sales; interfering with a Parisian anti-Saddam human rights organization; reporting on French-US diplomacy to Iraq) are probably less ignominious than what we'll never know about.

It is not a question of "punishing" France for its behaviour. What the US government should undertake is a re-evaluation of France as a valued and trusted ally. The US should (and probably does) recognize that France is willing to promote its own interests ahead of other nations, even if this brings harm to American citizens, and notwithstanding stated allegiances and friendship.

I assume the French, and its government, knew the consequences of taking an anti-war position and acting as they did. They cannot be heard to complain about the consequences.

Geezo pete...what's up with the grammar and spelling of 'Chris'? No wonder he thanks people for reading his writing...it's quite an effort. And where does he get his Indymedia facts? A Swedish Peace Institute report states unequivocably that the US total military sales to Iraq were .07 percent of theat country's purchases over the last 30 years! And that's from Sweden, no friend of US. The US and Great Britain together were less than the sales of Brazil to Iraq. The vast majority of military sales came from France and Russia. Quelle surprise!

And the CIA admitted it faked the facts? Where? When? Is this a private 'tin beanie' communique to Chris? Isn't the death and torture of millions of citizens and neighbors (Iran, Kurdistan) by a rogue regime, with proven connections to Al Qa'eda enough reason? Poor kid...sounds pretty bummed out that the US won and the Iraqis are free. I doubt even a military assault on this child's brain could free him from his delusions.

Chris,

"Most of the world was and is opposed to the war in Iraq."

Most of the world is governed by dictatorships, at least if measured by population. Does that make it right?

"But if we want Democracy in the world, then we have to respect international consensus and law. "

So, I suppose you have an explanation as to how France was respecting international consensus and law when it violated the terms of UNSC Resolution 1441?

"Instead most countries had wanted to allow UN Inspectors more time"

They already had twelve years. How many more years should they have had?

"For whatever reason, France was merely excercising it's right to have an opinion, and was reflecting the opinion of the majority of it's citizens. "

They were also violating all sorts of international laws and treaties. Besides that, they were clearly acting to benefit TotalFinaElf, who, reports have it, was paying cents on the barrel for Iraqi oil as a quid pro quo for French cooperation, first in lifting sanctions circa 98, and later at the UNSC.

why are you guys hiting him with logic and critical analysis? he sounds like a moral relativist.

thier is no way to reason with a moral relativist,

and with this gem-----

"To be specific, the only alternative to majority rule, seems to be totalinarianism."

wow where do you start when someone makes this big of a skewed leap in logic? where do you live where thier are only the two extremes? I got news for you -------

you dont have to look any further than our own electoral college system that is 200 years old and still keeping the tyranny of the majority at bay and giving small states a chance to have a voice in our system, along with our federal legislature made up of congresspeople alotted seats by population balanced by only 2 senators per state regardless of population size to counter the afore mentioned congresspeople

I mean really is it that mysterious?

is it so hard to see the forest through the trees?

Chris

My father fought in France in WW1.

I helped defend France as an RAF pilot in Germany in the 1960's.

From that standpoint, can I say 3 things.

1. Grow up. Get some moral fibre, stop being clever-clever argumentative.

2. Stop talking nonsense in public. If you have to talk nonsense keep it between consenting adults in private.

3 You have as much chance defending the French as you would have playing cricket.

So give up, grow up, and ship out

Sorry, Chris, saying Saddam "but he'd been at it for years" is not even remotely a logical argument for leaving the regime alone to continue its depredations. If a bully slapped you around for years, and you finally had enough, would you then sit still for ever more of it, because you'd not fought back sooner, and thus had no right to *ever* act? This type of thinking is echoed in your either/or dichotomy for majority-rule vs totalitarianism. You are letting the 'perfect' become the enemy of the 'good', and used in defense of France, the ultimate moral relativist, this absolutist notion neatly stitches together the far left to the far right, back on the dark side of the circle of truth, where the Chirac government actually does operate.

Guess I really hit a hornet's nest here!

Sorry if I provoked you with my opinions, poor grammar and lousy spelling, but it was interesting to watch the sparks fly. Most of you have been pretty nice, but a few of you are just too rude to answer my honest doubts, instead choosing to nit-pick.

To john@ 's question:
"--And the CIA admitted it faked the facts? Where? When? Is this a private 'tin beanie' communique to Chris?--"

Don't you read the Washington Post...or UPI or any major newssource at all, John? Is Fox your only source? I read dozens of official news sources from around the world in 5 languages daily. (learning multiple languages can sometimes screw up one's grammar and spelling, I've discovered).

All of the claims I've made come mostly from US sources... nothing "tin beanie" about it, John@.

Some of you would do well to open your minds to other possibilities and stop insisting the US can do no wrong. Run a web search on some of the claims I've made ...stick to news sources you trust and it might surprise you what you'll find.

Here's a link for you, John@:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030308-100622-7817r

or

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,910113,00.html

"WASHINGTON, March 8 (UPI) -- Some evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the Washington Post reported Saturday. The faked evidence was described as a series of letters between Iraqi agents and officials in Niger. "

So, to please John in London -whoever the hell that is - I'll follow his advice and ship out now.

Thanks again for showing me the other side of things.

I love people who think hashing politics should be like a game of touch football played with padding and a book of ettiqette

instead of what it really is bare knuckle fighting for adults. hell even don the wmd troll can take a hit.