http://slate.msn.com/id/2079784/ Top This The French-German Iraq con game. By William Saletan Posted Friday, March 7, 2003, at 6:26 PM PT Suppose I have a couple of tickets to a play, but I can't go. I know you and your spouse want to see it, so I call you up and offer the tickets to you for what they cost me. It isn't a convenient evening for you to go, but you tell me that if nobody else wants them, you'll take them off my hands for half price. I don't like that, but I can't find anyone else who's interested. Then I get an idea: Your spouse is at the office and doesn't know I've spoken to you. I call your spouse, explain that I've got a half-price offer, and come away with a bid for the tickets at two-thirds of what I paid. Now I call you with the bad news that somebody else is getting the tickets at two-thirds of face value. You raise your offer to 75 cents on the dollar. And the game goes on, as long as you don't realize you're bidding against yourself. That's the game that France, Germany, and their allies on the U.N. Security Council are playing against the United States. In Friday's council debate, they made two arguments against a U.S. invasion of Iraq. First, they said it was unnecessary because Iraq has begun to comply with U.N. inspections. Second, they warned that an attack on Iraq without U.N. approval would ruin the credibility of the United Nations, on which the security of every nation, including ours, depends. Are inspections more effective than force? Is the United Nations a better guarantor of U.S. security than American power is? Both questions are fraudulent. Inspections depend on force, and the United Nations depends on the United States. The French and Germans are telling us not to mess with the status quo, when the status quo is us. In his speech to the council, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin compared the efficacy of war to that of inspections. "Why smash the instruments that have just proven their effectiveness?" he asked. "Why should we wish to proceed by force at any price when we can succeed peacefully?" He continued: The adoption of Resolution 1441, the assumption of converging positions by the vast majority of the world's nations, diplomatic action by the Organization of African Unity, the League of Arab States, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and the Non-aligned Movement—all of these common efforts are bearing fruit. The American and British military presence in the region lends support to our collective resolve. Lends support? Saddam Hussein doesn't care what the United Nations or the League of Arab States says. He has ignored their words for years. The only reason he's crushing his own missiles today is to stave off invasion by the troops poised on his borders. In a press conference after the debate, de Villepin asked, "When the inspectors are telling us that active cooperation is seen on the ground, how can we at the same time say … that we should prepare [for] war? There is a strong contradiction, and we don't accept this contradiction." But coupling the current inspection regime with preparations for war isn't a contradiction. It's a tautology. Our war preparations are the reason Saddam is cooperating with the inspectors. In short, the alternative to which de Villepin unfavorably compares our prospective use of force is our current use of force. If that approach is working so well, the way to extend it is to send even more troops and armor to the Persian Gulf. Yet de Villepin neglects to include that element in the French proposal for further inspections. Indeed, he excludes it. "We would not accept a resolution that would lead to war," he declared after the council debate. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer stressed a different point in his remarks to the council. "What is at stake now is the unity of the international community," said Fischer. Unilateral war should be avoided, he argued, because a multilateral solution would encourage further collective security arrangements and "strengthen the relevance of the United Nations." Should the United States yield to the United Nations? The question makes no sense. The United States practically invented the United Nations. Franklin D. Roosevelt coined its name. The U.N. charter was drafted and debated here. We host the organization's headquarters and fund the lion's share of its budget. Other members are important, but the United Nations needs us a lot more than we need it. Fischer is asking us not to put our national interests ahead of an organization we built to advance our national interests. Nice try, Joschka and Dominique. We aren't fooled. We're touched by your pleas for relevance. And we're flattered that the only rival you can put up against us is ourselves.
Second Gulf War is under way By George F. Will Published 2:15 a.m. PST Friday, March 7, 2003 http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/will/story/6230422p-7184773c.html "We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security." -- President Kennedy, during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis WASHINGTON -- Wars do not always begin with an abrupt, cymbal-crash rupture of conditions properly characterized as peace. There can be almost seamlessly incremental transitions. The war against Iraq has begun -- much as America's war against Nazi Germany really began months before Pearl Harbor and Hitler's Dec. 11 declaration of war on America. It began when President Roosevelt ordered aggressive patrolling by the U.S. Navy against German submarines in the North Atlantic. On -- note the day -- Sept. 11, 1941, he said: "Do not let us split hairs. Let us not say, 'We will only defend ourselves if the torpedo succeeds in getting home, or if the crew and the passengers are drowned.' This is the time for prevention of attack." The Second Gulf War was under way weeks ago, with special operations forces in Iraq and U.S. and U.K. aircraft expanding their target lists in the name of enforcing the no-fly zones. Soon the bow wave created by the movement of the great ship America into full-scale war will wash away Lilliputian nuisances, such as French diplomacy. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, on ABC's "This Week" last Sunday, said: "Do you want me to tell you, really, what France is worried about? How many boys, American boys, are going to die in Iraq." The effrontery of his expectation that gullible Americans will believe that French policy flows from compassion for American "boys" is exceeded by that of his innuendo that France has more concern for those "boys" than does their commander in chief. Such smarminess is the least offensive of current French stances, some of which, if successful, would increase the threats to American troops. No longer in any meaningful sense an ally, France does not disguise its aim to be a counterweight to the United States. It seemed uninterested in the fact that the deployment of defensive missiles to protect Turkey from Iraqi attacks, a deployment France opposed, also would protect U.S. forces at Incirlik air base in Turkey. Many in the Bush administration believe that France is comprehensively complicating NATO actions for no better reason than that the United States favors the actions. For example, because the buildup around Iraq requires increased shipping through the Strait of Gibraltar, the United States has favored increased NATO maritime patrols there. Although France in the end acquiesced, it did so only after NATO was forced into diplomatic and institutional contortions to counter French bloody-mindedness. Asked about anti-French feelings in the United States, Villepin said, "We've known that in the past. I've known that in the past. I was in the French embassy (in Washington) in '86 when happened the crisis of Libya." Thank you, Mr. Minister, for reminding us that in 1986 France, true to form, tried to encumber one of the most effective blows ever struck against terrorism -- the bombing raid President Reagan ordered in response to Libyan involvement in a terrorist bombing targeting Americans in Berlin. France denied U.S. planes fly-over rights. On "This Week," Villepin was asked: Given that Saddam Hussein has said that his mistake was invading Kuwait before he acquired nuclear weapons, do you now believe that Israel was right to bomb the reactor outside Baghdad and that France was wrong to help build it? French diplomacy has sunk to this Villepin gaseousness: "I think you cannot remake history. You can take lessons, you can imagine different scenarios. I don't think it's possible, today, definite answers. I think that the idea of pre-emptive strike might be a possibility. Have it as a doctrine, as a theory. I don't think it is really useful. Sometimes by using force pre-emptively we might create more violence and we have to be always thinking to what are the consequences." It is not a "scenario," it is a virtual certainly that absent Israel's 1981 pre-emptive attack, Iraq would have had nuclear weapons in 1991, and today, as Gerard Baker of the Financial Times writes, Kuwait would be the 19th province of Iraq -- and Saudi Arabia would be the 20th. France's goal -- less violence -- would have been achieved because the First Gulf War could not have been fought. Fortunately for the United States, which has serious things to think about, the French foreign minister continues to demonstrate the absurdity of his country's demand to be taken seriously.
Just go already.....forget the French.... It is easier to ask for forgiveness then permission. We should not be asking the UN for anything. DD
Our Will against the other Will! Who will win out?? Do Will and Will agree? Is this possible? News at eleven!
It is interesting to me, though, that a country like France will say things like how they won't support any resolution that has war as a potential outcome. To me that says that no matter what happens in Iraq, the French will never support a war there. I mean, if you put together a resolution that says a certain list of conditions has to be met by Iraq in a certain length of time, there needs to be some consequence. France believes Iraq is cooperating, so the war would still be unnecessary if Iraq continues to cooperate and meets the conditions that was already set forth in previous resolutions. The only way there would be a war, under a UN sanctioned scenario, is if Iraq wasn't cooperating. It France thinks they are and will continue to cooperate, then what's the problem with having force be a consequence for non-cooperation? You only vote against any mention of war if you believe that there should be no war even if Iraq doesn't cooperate.
Actually, this sounds like the supposedly suspenseful endings to that campy Batman show. "Same bat time! Same bat channel!"
Exactly. France doesn't care if Iraq disarms or not. Yet people think we need their permission to act?
"I eat babies. I drink pee. I must be FRENCH FRENCH FRENCH!!! " La France est la terre de la merde. Baisez les Français!!! Buy your shirts here!!!
Hopefully MTV will get the heads of state of France, China, German, Russia, Britain, America, and Turkey into one house together and have the Real World 15 or whatever it's up to now. Cooky antics will ensue.
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amusing that the anti-war crowd crows about US oil interests, but never acknowledges the millions in contracts, both above board and under the table, that the (suprise suprise) main opposition has with Iraq. Is it just coincidence that France, Germany, Russia, and China ALL have substantial monetary interests in a continuing Saddam regime?
Actually I would suggest that a recenbt browse through the threads in here would suggest that, in the last,say, week or two, the pro-war-at-this-time crowd has dismissed Germany, France and Russia's objection to war to war etc. because of oil much much more than the anti-war crowd has dismissed our war stance for the same reason. I am sure that people who are good at that type of thing could check it out...
Not really following that... do you mean that the pro-action now people say we should act for oil? Or that the anti-war people are not talking about oil interests anymore? Regardless, there is a lot of talk about these main opposing countries, and the fact is that they have HUGE interests in continuing the current regime, not the least of which are the under the table deals that will be uncovered when Saddam's regime falls. It just seems foolish that people actually believe these countries are not realpolitiking on the Iraq issue. 'Oh no, they really care about the people of Iraq. They really care about multilateral peaceful solutions!' I think that is simply wrong.
Sorry if I was unclear...what I was trying to say was that, IMO, there has been much more mentioning of Russia/Germany/France's oil interests having a role in their decisions in here lately than there has been of the US's oil interest in Iraq...Yeah, that is a mouthfull...
Ah, ok. I haven't been following all of these threads, so I can't comment on that accept to say that it is inherent in the 'the whole world is against us' commentary that they are not just acting out of their own self interest. And I don't agree with that. Of course those 'invasions' were for annexation, which this clearly is not. Nice try. And there are also many examples of individual interests preventing action from a collective organization, or loose alliance, and the endgame being horrific for the populace in question. No, but its just silly to think that these other countries are 'right' because they somehow can objectively look at the situation while we are somehow clouded by our egocentrism. Or that their number somehow makes them 'right.' What IS clear is that France, Germany, Russia, and China have HUGE stakes in keeping the current regime in Iraq, not in some objective assessment of what is 'right.' We know your frog lovin' ass is sitting at home with pate' as facepaint, but stop being so naive.
I was hearing something very interesting (and funny). Not sure where it was from, but whoever it was said that instead of doing this "Freedom Fries" bullsh!t, make all of the bad foods named for the French. For instance, name all of the bad American cheese "French cheese". That way it will piss them off like you couldn't even imagine. I suggest making all bad foods, objects, or other various things named for the French or prominent French people (Chirac, de Villepin). Heck, include the Germans.
Rename Napa Valley. Call it Bourdeaux. Make the new slogan for Velveeta "the finest of French Cheese.'
