And so it goes...this was predicted weeks ago. ______________________________________________ Dextrous president begins to manoeuvre away from anti-war axis with Germany http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,888948,00.html President Jacques Chirac may have shown no sign yesterday of softening his opposition to swift military action against Iraq, but diplomats and analysts are convinced that Paris, having unwittingly painted its way into a corner, has already started looking for the way out. The unscheduled departure from Toulon early yesterday of France's nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle for three weeks of manoeuvres in the eastern Mediterranean - including joint exercises with America's USS Harry Truman - is as clear a sign as any that Mr Chirac has no intention of burning France's transatlantic bridges just yet. The French president last night reiterated his opposition to war against Iraq without giving UN weapons inspectors as much time as they needed to search for banned weapons. But analysts say the perception of France as belonging to the same determinedly anti-war camp as Germany is a false one that Paris stumbled into, more or less by accident, during last month's emotional celebrations of the 40th anniversary of the Franco-German friendship pact. "To say that France and Germany's positions were the same was an error," said Jacques Beltran of the French Institute of International Relations. "Germany is against a war under any circumstances; that is not and has never been France's position. It was a gesture of solidarity towards Berlin that upset Washington." Together with some unexpectedly fierce anti-war comments - also, diplomats say, largely unintended - by the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, the result has been to bracket France with Germany in a pacifist alliance that has exasperated America and angered eight European leaders enough to push them into publishing their support for the US position. That is not to say that Mr Chirac will necessarily swing behind a war, and certainly not one that risks getting under way in the next few weeks. But he is plainly unhappy at France's current contretemps with the US, and well aware that if Paris does veto a second UN resolution, the United Nations itself - and therefore France's weight within it - will be severely weakened. French observers expect him soon to start "repositioning" France, or restating its original position, very soon. "France's initial position was clear and will end up earning the respect of almost everyone - even, eventually, the US," said one French foreign ministry source. "It was that war is the last option, and that it is down to the security council alone to make the final decision. That message has somehow got muddied in the past few weeks." If Paris could accomplish the "relatively straightforward" task of reoccupying that lost ground, Mr Beltran said, Mr Chirac could then find "the perfect way out" of its current impasse in any halfway solid evidence against Iraq presented by Colin Powell today or by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, on February 14. The other factor Mr Chirac will have to take into account is French domestic public opinion, which is firmly set against war: between two-thirds and three-quarters of the French are opposed to any action against Iraq, even with UN backing. But after a crushing election victory and at the beginning of his second term, most analysts say this should not prove a significant obstacle. Similarly, Mr Chirac is likely to discount the likely domestic political opposition: the Socialists have in recent days set out a firm anti-war stall, demanding that France use its security council veto. "I think Chirac will consider France's position on the international stage more important than his short-term popularity at home," Mr Beltran said. "My estimate is that he will end up backing a firm second resolution and a clear ultimatum to Iraq, and then - if there is plainly no other way out - he will back a war."
Don't mistake that tidbit of information to mean that I support France in this instance. From what I've heard today, I'm partially ready to get this thing going.
They must have been going to throw it away anyway.. "No Andre, don't throw eet away...geev et to those stupeed americans, tell them eets a geeft from the French peeple"
this is why i like you, B-Bob...you don't take yourself too seriously...you don't pretend you're smarter than everyone else you disagree with. this board needs more B-Bobs!!!
Funny, I made an earlier comment about former Soviet states being more supportive of the U.S. than some of our historical allies, then I came across this: East Europeans to Declare Support for Bush on Iraq Tue Feb 4, 3:47 PM ET http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=584&u=/nm/20030204/pl_nm/iraq_usa_support_dc BUCHAREST (Reuters) - Up to 10 east European countries are preparing a declaration of support for President Bush's drive to disarm Iraq, government officials said on Tuesday. Officials in Romania, Bulgaria and the Baltics said NATO candidate countries were working on the wording of the document. It is to be issued in the United States on Wednesday after Secretary of State Colin Powell delivers a speech to the U.N. Security Council laying out Washington's case against Iraq. The latest show of support comes on the heels of a similar statement by eight European leaders last week and in the face of grave misgivings by traditional U.S. allies France and Germany. Eastern Europe remains grateful for American patronage during its fight against communism and Washington's strong support for expanding NATO. The declaration underlines east Europeans' belief that Washington remains the main guarantor of their security. A Romanian Foreign Ministry official told Reuters the declaration of the so-called Vilnius 10 would be announced in the United States. A Bulgarian Foreign Ministry official added: "It is expected that it will be announced tomorrow at the end of the U.N. Security Council session." EAST OFFERS WAR AID The Vilnius 10, a group of nations set up in 2000 to seek NATO membership, includes the seven new alliance members Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, as well as hopefuls Albania, Croatia and Macedonia. Many countries in the region have already offered the United States assistance for a possible military strike on Iraq. Bulgaria said on Tuesday it had received an official U.S. request to provide its airspace and troops in case of war. Government spokesman Dimitar Tsonev said Washington had asked Sofia to allow the transit and temporary stay of its aircraft on Bulgarian territory and for specialized troops to be deployed close to the conflict zone, but not on Iraqi territory. In Lithuania, a Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said the idea of a joint statement had been discussed for some time but said the final go-ahead hinged on Powell. "Everything depends on Powell's speech," she said. Powell is to address the Security Council at 1530 GMT on Wednesday, and has said he will show Iraq is concealing banned weapons programs from U.N. arms inspectors. The United States has threatened war if Iraq fails to disarm of weapons of mass destruction and is massing military forces in the Gulf. Iraq denies having such weapons. France and Germany insist Iraq must be disarmed peacefully, a position further underlined on Tuesday when British Prime Minister Tony Blair failed to win the backing of French President Jacques Chirac for an early war. But eight European countries, including several European Union members, issued a statement last week supporting U.S. policy. The leaders of the Czech Republic, Britain, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Spain published a joint article backing Bush and appealing for unity. Andrejs Pildegovis, a foreign policy advisor to Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga, told Reuters: "We think the link between Europe and the United States should not be weakened by the Iraq crisis." (Additional reporting by Anna Mudeva in Sofia and Erik Brynhildsbakken in Riga)
Thanks for the compliment. Let me see if my stupid ass can deconstruct what I had said relating to what you said and see if I can make it clearer for you. My post showed that we, at some point since you said "when have you ever" (i.e. historically), could rely on France. As for "Who really gives a **** what they say and think," I should have told you right from the start that apparently this country's current President and Administration gives more than a **** since they are going out of their way with the time they still have (The military will be ready by Mid March to attack Iraq) to convince France that war is necessarry. Ok, who's up for intelligent conversation.
Sure, we saved them bc we felt sorry for them. Now if they had... ummm... let's say... oil we could have just taken them over
so now we have: UK Czech Republic Hungary Denmark Italy Poland Portugal Spain Bulgaria Estonia Latvia Lithuania Romania Slovakia Slovenia Albania Croatia Macedonia and very strong statements today from the Spanish and Chilean delegates, who serve on the UN Security Council...and now Chirac is singing a different tune, perhaps? I'm confused...who's going it alone again?? Ridiculous...the criticism has been premature, smelling out conspiracies at every turn.
I don't think the criticism was premature when you had Bush and Powell saying that the U.S. would go it alone if they had too. Many people simply wanted a more unified front, for good reason. I'm sure many of those people, myself included, are happy that if we're going to do this thing, we have a lot of nations on board. Nothing wrong with that.
