More French Chicanery - Passports Given To Iraqi's To Escape From Syria To Europe

IF THIS IS TRUE...and I don't know if it is or not....but if it is....what credibility do the French have left on Iraq? Those of you who defended the French position pre-war...what do you think about this? This goes beyond merely saying, "Force isn't necessary...let's keep the inspections going and seek to remove the regime by other means." This is actively assisting the escape of men who committed all sorts of atrocities on their own people. Where is the outrage over this?? These guys were human rights nightmares...where is the outrage?

 

Oh please!This is another Washington rumor to discredit France.
We didn't support US therefor we're the bad guys.
This is pure garbage!



ALA

 

it may very well be..please note that my first sentence was IF THIS IS TRUE.

funny how the US is capable of all this evil in the eyes of many on this board...bombing indiscriminately...implications of ignoring 9/11 warning signs...but THIS story about the French government is clearly pure US garbage. huh.

 

Well first off,I never even mentioned the US's "evil" deeds pre and during the Iraqi war.
On the other hand I'm reproving the attitude they're adopting towards French-US relations.This is geting very childish: u didn't want to play with me so I'll be mean with u.
These SPECULATIONS(coz that's what they are!) are one the results.



ALA

 

Presumption: that US' policy on Iraq and Iraqi officials should dictate policy for other nations, and that we, as global lawmakers, have the right to determine who other nations should and should not help...We, it might be noted, who 'secreted' more Nazi officials away post WWII to help with our intelligence/scientific development, than any other nation in the world.

Why does everyone assume that officials which France would have had every right to help emigrate, relocate, etc. before we, contrary to global opinion, decided to invade are now political pariah, merely on our say so? Are they good guys? Most likely not...but where does our deciding to invade dictate to the rest of the world that their policy towards these people has changed, and if it hasn't, it's " a-HA! Caught red-handed! Proof that your opinion re: Iraq was biased!" !!?!?!?! Why should France, or anyone else, help us do what they and everyone else ( practically) said we shouldn't do, or else they're the bad guys?

 

We're not trying to dictate policy for France, we're just asking for a little help. After all, we sort of helped them a few years ago. A little beach called Normandy, maybe you've heard of it? Those frogs would be speaking German right now if not for us. Cliche, I know, but it's true.

It amazes me that the US is damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we look the other way when another nation has problems, we're un-caring. If we try to help, we're EVIL IMPERIALISTS. The real reason everyone hates us is because we actually have a high standard of living, God forbid.

 

Originally posted by MacBeth
Presumption: that US' policy on Iraq and Iraqi officials should dictate policy for other nations, and that we, as global lawmakers, have the right to determine who other nations should and should not help...We, it might be noted, who 'secreted' more Nazi officials away post WWII to help with our intelligence/scientific development, than any other nation in the world.

Were they 'officials' or scientists?

Why does everyone assume that officials which France would have had every right to help emigrate, relocate, etc. before we, contrary to global opinion, decided to invade are now political pariah, merely on our say so? Are they good guys? Most likely not...but where does our deciding to invade dictate to the rest of the world that their policy towards these people has changed, and if it hasn't, it's " a-HA! Caught red-handed! Proof that your opinion re: Iraq was biased!" !!?!?!?! Why should France, or anyone else, help us do what they and everyone else ( practically) said we shouldn't do, or else they're the bad guys?

And if these folks are wanted by the Iraqi people for crimes against them?

Why do you totally ignore human rights issues when it suits you?

 

Presumption: That France is a NATO member and an ally.

 

What you've got right there is a pretty accurate summary of the pro-war/anti-global opinion argument...a little revisionist history, an assumption that our acting in our own interests after ignoring those of, among others, the French for years in WWII somehow makes them beholden to us, especially because the ( as yet unvoiced, drummer, I agree ) whole France helping us with a little thing you might have heard of called the American Revolution occured before the Convenient Relevant History Best Before Date...an assumption that we have the right to invade other nations when we have spent years telling other nations they didn't have that right, and them to adopt the Poor Old Us, we're just so gosh darned picked on for no reason attitude...a sprinkling of sarcasm to overlook the fact that we have had an incredible deperture from US foreign policy to date and are doing nothing which we wouldn;t have called Imperialist before ( see Suez, for example)...and then the capper: We're only disliked because they're jealous. Yep...good job.

 

1) Both. And irrelevant, as both bodies were subject to/wanted for Nuremberg trials, among others.

2) "if"...Who has determined this? Until such time, what has/should have changed France's policy?

 

Right...and your point? the coventions of NATO in no way allow members to designate foreign nations as presumed threats and then obligate other NATO members according to that policy...and considering that we are the ones who bailed on UN decision, and that your NATO point is moot, I don't get your argument. NATO means that other members have to automatically agree with you/support you? Ok...why aren't we automatically agreeing with/supporting France's stance on Iraq? Why didn't we agree with/support France and Britain's planned invasion of Egypt re: Suez? Point?

 

MacBeth. -- were Nazis rounded up BEFORE the convening of the Nuremburg Trials?? I'm guessing so. We all knew what they were guilty of before any international court convened to make it official...the same is true here. Secreting these guys away smells bad, and you know it. Hell, even our resident Frenchman here isn't denying that...he's merely denying that it happened, which may be true. But if you think it's a good idea to hide away officials of a regime like Saddam's...well...then....I can't think of anything derogatory or catchy to say here. sooooo...out!

 

What a silly statement, you just have to find some way to lump the "anti-war" crowd in with some foolish French people that made an obvious mistake. Remember the US granted new Visas to the terrorists AFTER they were dead. Does that mean the US supports terrorists MadMax? Where is the outrage...

 

my point is that these guys are actively working AGAINST us. this isn't "we disagree with you...we remain neutral...we're wishing you success because you're a democracy and so are we...oh, and by the way, we've been allies for hundreds of years now...but we don't want to get involved with force on this one...we don't think it's the right call." this isn't that at all...this is secreting away men who were part of a regime that was a human rights disaster. is anyone denying that??? are the french denying that??? come on. defense for this is absurd. just say it can't be true, and move on.

 

1. clerical mistakes when we granted visas to terrorists...whom we didn't know were terrorists...failures of a bureacracy...quite different than actively participating in the escape of a murderous regime. please tell me you can see that distinction.

2. the article's tone does not denote "mistake" on the part of the French. again...IF IT'S TRUE...but the article spells out something very different than mistake. The first sentence indicates they did so "secretly." That implies more than mere mistake. And that's pretty clear from the tone of the article.

 

They weren't rounded up by, for example, the Swiss...or the Irish. They were rounded up, and expected to be rounded up, only by those who were thier declared enemies...Difference here is that then we were representing the global majority, and most nations agreed with/supported us...without knowing that we were the ones secreting Nazis ( our common enemy) away for our own purposes..Today we are the minority...and the nations 'secreting' them away have not, unlike us in '45, agreed to help us do anything regarding this war of ours.

And Max, come on...you're a lawyer. The point isn't whether hiding away officials of a regime like Saddam's is right...it's about legal precedent, and obligation. What grounds would we have for expecting France to alter it's diplomatic position re: Iraqi officials? We are the ones who have changed our position, not them. They are merely being consistent, and what has happened other than us saying to the world "Screw your opinion, we're invadin!" that should alter French policy?

 

1. Wait...I'm not asking the French to come in and round them up for us. I'm simply asking them not to hide them away...not to give them free passage out to escape.

2. Precedent?? What precedent? What courts are you talking about? Legal precedent? I don't even get that in this context. Grounds for change in diplomatic position? Are you serious?? And how did we change our position? We've accused these guys of all sorts of human rights atrocities..we've been doing that for about 12 years now. Our invasion doesn't have to change French policy...was it previously French policy to hide these guys away? To do so secretly? If it were kosher, would they being doing this in secret.

 

1) You are asking them to not assist Iraqi officials by refusing to engage in diplomatic process which otherwise would be routine. The only altering factor is that we have unilateraly declared these people to be enathema. France had the ability/right to help Iraqi officials emigrate before we invaded, why should they stop now? Unless you assume that we dictate policy to the,...


2) Precedent...Legal precedent of disallowing Nation A from securing visas/D.O.s/passprts, etc. for diplomatic officials of Nation B because Nation C has invaded nation B...This is an international legal matter. You are aware of this.

Imagine the revers...Imagine France decides to invade Sudi Arabia...Now we all agree that S.A. had human right's issues, correct? Ok...now imagine France says that it has decided that S.A. represents some presumed threat to them in the future, is a human rights nightmare, etc. and decides to invade...and it gets Israel, Belgium, and a few other nations to agree, but the majority of the globe, along with us, opposes said action. Forget about the legitimacy of the invasion for a minute...just remember that we and most others have said "Don't do it, it's wrong." and France did it anyways.

Ok, putting aside all the assumptions that France would/could pull this off by itself, and focus on the what if. What if they did invade Saudi Arabi contrary to our admonission and UN dissaproval...and succeeded in occupying Saudi Arabia. Can you imagine US reaction of, follwing this action, and our subsequent continuation of diplomatic policy regarding Saudi Arabia ( which would, given the circumstances, involve helping countless Saudi diplomats escape the invasion unharmed) France demanded that we not asssist Saudi officials!?!? Can you see the headlines about French arrogance and ignorance? How many pages of posts in here would be filled with recriminations regarding the French doing what we and the Un said not to, and then expecting us to cow tow to their diplomatic decrees...And would the probable human rights violations of some Saudi officials enter into it? Without some sort of World Court or Saudi decree, whould we suddenly declare Saudi officilas actions illegal, and refuse them aid, coinciding with the unpopular French invasion!?!?

 

So that's it, huh? Precedent. Then why are the French wholly denying it? I'm thinking they had plenty of justification for denying an otherwise, as you say, "routine" procedure given the circumstances. I can't imagine anyone would give them any heat over it. And it really seems to undermine the whole, "we're not picking sides but we're really rooting for our allies, the US and the UK" thing they had going for a while. Oh, well.

No one is saying they don't have the right to do this, MacBeth. I'm not saying they don't have a right to do it. I'm saying they should not have done it. I think the reasons are obvious. Diplomatic relations aren't built on precedent...they're built on trust. Clearly the Iraqi regime has a good friend in the French, if this story is true. That's what's being called out here.