Chirac's motives?????

[sytaylor]

President Chirac has said he would veto a second resolution.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2773771.stm

Chirac is opposed to a second "tougher" resolution, never mind action, i have to question how serious his choice to veto is and how much personal involvment there is in this situation :confused:

What you :afro:'s think?

[sytaylor]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2775579.stm

More of Chiracs bullying tactics and veto weilding nonsense. Whats with this guy?

[jnd3]

It's all about oil. Seriously. It's much more about oil for France than it is for the U.S. France has or is working on numerous lucrative oil and technology contracts with Iraq that probably violate any current UN sanctions. It would be quite embarassing for them when, after victory, any that stuff comes to light.

And then there's a general resentment of American power. I can't remember where I read it (maybe another thread here?), but if France wielded the power that the United States currently has, it would try to take over the world (Napoleon, anyone?). They can't comprehend how we could use our power so relatively benevolently around the world (just name another world superpower any time in history that's used their power as benignly as the United States has done -- we don't expand our empire, we liberate other nations).

French sophistication...enabling tyranny and attempted world conquest (by others) for centuries! ;)

Cheers,
JND

[vampireuk]

He is listening to what his people want, they do not want a war. Although he should keep the veto out of it, he can opt out if he wishes but if other countries want to unite against saddam they should be allowed too. Respect for each others decisions, it works both ways.

[UDawg]

I'm sure if we look further into France's and Germany's firm position on this war we will find the truth and it wont be pretty.

Germany just shipped ( I believe it was) sodium sionide to N. Korea. This has been confirmed by N. Korea and get this it was in the same ship what delivered the scud missles to Yemen. :confused: Sodium sionide is a dual use agent used for serin gas and other nonleathal uses.

France I believe wants a bigger roll in the EU and the world at large. They also are implicated in major weapon sales and equiptment and technology secrets that may have been sold to Iraq. This is all unconfirmed but the intelligent community says this may be the fact for their opposition to war in Iraq.

Might be a bunch of hoohaa but they are French so I would put it past the frogs.

France reminds me of a country filled with smegulls :eek:
*the peanut gallery whispers, "did he say that"?*

I do have one question to you Brits.
Why would you want a chunnel that leads to France?
There is no light at the end of that chunnel. :scarey:

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by vampireuk
He is listening to what his people want, they do not want a war. Although he should keep the veto out of it, he can opt out if he wishes but if other countries want to unite against saddam they should be allowed too. Respect for each others decisions, it works both ways.

This pretty much sums up what i think as well, he has been plainly insulting and im convinced he's going ott with it not because of what people say but because when the torch shines on his hands they will be red.

[vampireuk]

Originally posted by UDawg71
I do have one question to you Brits.
Why would you want a chunnel that leads to France?
There is no light at the end of that chunnel. :scarey:

I cant believe its a crime to try and brick it up, I was doing a national service!!:D

[jnd3]

http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/saddam-and-chirac-75.jpg

Second from the left: Saddam Hussein.
Far right: Jacques Chirac

From Saddam's 1975 visit to France for nuclear technology (destroyed by Israel in 1981).

Cheers,
JND

[UDawg]

Originally posted by vampireuk
I cant believe its a crime to try and brick it up, I was doing a national service!!:D


LOL bahaha!! Is that true!!! Sounds like you have French spies in you government, because no right thinking Brit would allow this. :p

So it is true you really do have "Frogs" in your sewers. LOL
I'm sorry buddy. Would you like us along with your help mount another D-Day but this time to invade and fence off France? ;)

[PtrToNull]

We left one option out!! What if France, Germany...etc just simply don't want war because it's a Bad Thing (tm) ?

How about the Pope? He's anti-war and he's not linked to oil corporations or AlQaeda... just yet.

[UDawg]

Originally posted by vampireuk
He is listening to what his people want, they do not want a war. Although he should keep the veto out of it, he can opt out if he wishes but if other countries want to unite against saddam they should be allowed too. Respect for each others decisions, it works both ways.


Vamp I agree with you and this is what makes me wonder about their motives. Just wait till all the cards are on the table. We shall see then why they are opposing this. I think they are dirty as well.... French. :eek: No one puts up this big a stink unless they have something to hide. Look they are putting up a bigger block than Iraq. Doesn't that open any eyes. I consider France not a ally any more and quite the opposite.

[Ryo-Ohki]

Originally posted by UDawg71
Vamp I agree with you and this is what makes me wonder about their motives. Just wait till all the cards are on the table. We shall see then why they are opposing this. I think they are dirty as well.... French. :eek: No one puts up this big a stink unless they have something to hide. Look they are putting up a bigger block than Iraq. Doesn't that open any eyes. I consider France not a ally any more and quite the opposite.

Well, we shall see when my fellow French come marching on Washington... We'll take over the World, muhahahahaha !

[Ryo-Ohki]

Originally posted by UDawg71
Vamp I agree with you and this is what makes me wonder about their motives.

I can't even begin to tell you how WE in France are thinking the same thing about you americans - more specifically, your governement (since it would appear there ARE reasonable americans after all).

What are your exact motives behind this demonstrated insistence of yours in beating an already bloodless country to death, even more so when your arguments backuping your position in front of the United Nations are inane, at best, and when others, like France, are proposing an alternative which would in effect produce the same result - disarming Iraq and maybe even busting Saddam out of office, with the notable difference however of SPARING hundreds of innocent civilians.

May I remind you that No one is arguing against disarming Saddam. You whine about France backing up his sorry ass - teh laugh! We sold him nuclear plants and airplanes, may I remind you US also sold weapons to Iraq in the late 70's - early 80's?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html

Welcome to the dirty world of politics, state manipulation and shifting alliances, my not-quite-friends-but-still not-quite-enemies.

Oh, and quick note to UDawg71 and jnd3 especially. Take a look in your history books. There's no such thing as a good and benevolent western nation, no more the US than anybody else, the above paragraph being a good example. We all have blood on our hands, and pretty dirty blood for that matter, so please stop that insufferable collective patting in the back of yours and dig up the skeletons in your own closet first.

[sytaylor]

Then if nobody is arguing about disarming Saddam howcome Chirac is weilding his veto irresepective of what the UN resolution says?

Sureley this has a clear motive, Chirac has something to hide, why else would he be so bouystrous? Lets not forget this man is supposed to be a right wing leader, hence one who is willing to accept that sometimes there are no alternatives to force. Do you honestley think he's being an :angel: in all of this?

Are you forgetting that he told some smaller european nations to shut up? I can't help but think if the resolution is passed allowing the use of force and he weilds his veto in effect he has done more to damage world polotics than Bush or Blair combined!

He is essentially rendering the will of the UN useless in having a private agenda!

[vampireuk]

Originally posted by sytaylor
Then if nobody is arguing about disarming Saddam howcome Chirac is weilding his veto irresepective of what the UN resolution says?

He could be arguing against the los of civilian life, of course I have no idea since i dont know him ;)

Personally I think bush and saddam should just have a bitch slapping contest and get it over with:angel:

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by vampireuk
He could be arguing against the los of civilian life, of course I have no idea since i dont know him ;)


Ok i guess i wasn't very clear... Chirac is going to weild to veto irrespective of whether the UN decide to use force OR NOT!!!... Are these the actions of a man with nothing to hide?

[vampireuk]

Swap it the other way round, bush was going to act wether the UN said no or not. They are both at fault here.

And talking about things to hide I have not heard one bit from the bush administration regarding the weapons they gave saddam.

[Ryo-Ohki]

Originally posted by sytaylor
Ok i guess i wasn't very clear... Chirac is going to weild to veto irrespective of whether the UN decide to use force OR NOT!!!... Are these the actions of a man with nothing to hide?

You're so persuaded Chirac has something to hide. I'm not in the man's agenda either but nowhere is mentioned France WILL oppose its veto to ANY resolution - at least this isn't the official position we hear about in France (or please show it to me, I'll gladly back off from my position). OTOH France might just be vetoing the way of the weapons if it feels all other options haven't been given a fair chance, and that's exactly what the US are threatening to do.
AFAIK we didn't had much problems striking Iraq in 1991. The idea is to give us A VERY VALID POINT TO DO SO.

I dunno, can't you guys at least photochop Saddam and Bin Laden shaking hands, something convincing ? :D

Concerning Chirac backlashing at the Europeans newcomers/smaller nations, I think it's more a matter of "European pride" - call it the way you like - than anything else. It's no biggie to guess Chirac would be more happy if Europe spoke with one voice in front of the US. Add to this Poland recently bought F16s to the US instead of European alternatives like the SAAB's or Mirage 2000's, and I think you've got the root of the problem... But this is only my opinion.

[Sazar]

why is it that if the leader of one country is opposed to sanctions/war v/s another he is automatically enemy no.1 ?

I would have though it would have been OBVIOUS with the latest round of worldwide protests (yes... incl the man many tens of thousands all over the us) that perhaps george bushes plans for a unilateral strike to depose a soverign nation's leadership was NOT what everyone though was in the best interests of the world..

because france has been vocal about this everyone has started to say stuff like they are chickens/cowards/ungrateful since the US helped during WW II... remember history though... the US NEEDED the french during the struggles v/s the british... back in the days when we were fighting for a seoverign nation...

now comin to the question of oil... the us is as much into this as any other nation out there.. I refuse to believe that france has more interest in oil than dubyah... thats ludicrous...

the latest newsweek (US issue) had a very interesting little article... about the french diplomat calling for further rounds of inspections and alternatives to war... thunderous applause throughout the un general council hall...

powell is next... gets up and shows the same old info... same stuff from the 9/11 days and there is one person who claps @ the end of the speech... and realising they are alone... they stop...

morale of that little tid bit? perhaps public opinion around the world of civilians AND politicians does NOT support the united states when it comes to war... the PR engine is revving to ever higher gears to convince not only the world.. but the us to strike v/s iraq... seemingly not because the US needs to.. but because it can..

you do realise any attacks on iraq will lead to an escalation of mistrust and terrorist attacks around the world... regardless of ethnicity... it is really sad how the war-mongers fail to see the bigger picture instead of relying on info from george "it honestly IS NUCULAR" bush and his cronies...

war = us economy will suffer far longer = oil prices will go higher = world wide economies will suffer = possible rise in terrorism = more attacks v/s us..

hans blix himself... whose presentation to the UN was spposed to give the us the greenlight to go to war... shot down various aspects of powells presentation... saying there were many exagerations... I will trust this man because he happens to be a well educated person who should have an idea about what he's talking about... and has no political ambitions unlike g.dubyah...

iraq can be contained... by strong arm tactics we are not endearing the us to the millions and millions of people involved in protests around the world...

[intercede007]

Iraq can be contained by strong-arm tactics? WHAT??? What kinda good stuff you been smokin' these last 10 years?? Hook me up with some of 'dat!

So CONSTANTLY having to take out his Surface-to-Air missile sites and radar installations in the Southern No-Fly zone because the man keeps instructing his troops to target our aircraft isn't strong arm? We've been doing it for YEARS. Almost weekly you hear about an F-15 or 16 that engaged a target and obliterates it, and Sadaam gets on his puppet TV channel and claims it was an orphanage or hospital or mosque or whatever he comes up with.

He still smuggles Oil out into Lybia for sale outside of the Oil-For-Food agreement we have with his regime. The estimates on the amount of money he recieves range from the mid hundreds of millions up to a billion or so dollars. But his people are still starving.

He still gassed the Kurds in Northern Iraq.


What would you have the world do to him? Hmm? Blockade his shipping? Uhh ohh, then he cries foul, says his people can't eat, then Chirac gets all uppity after protesters put his panties in a bunch and we are back to where we are again...nowhere..with a man who LOST A WAR AFTER INVADING ANOTHER SOVREIGN COUNTRY, WHO SIGNED A CEASE-FIRE TREATY WITH THE COALITION AND HAS SO FAR, FOR A DECADE, FAILED TO UPHOLD HIS END.

What else is there to be done?????????

How can you deal with a man who has no intention of doing anything he is required to do??

I mean common, as a Muslim, he isn't ever supposed to kill a fellow muslim, but he got into a war with Iran and invaded Kuwait. But ever week they show him praying in Mosques. Has no one seen that the man is a hypocrite???

[Sazar]

Originally posted by intercede007
Iraq can be contained by strong-arm tactics? WHAT??? What kinda good stuff you been smokin' these last 10 years?? Hook me up with some of 'dat!

So CONSTANTLY having to take out his Surface-to-Air missile sites and radar installations in the Southern No-Fly zone because the man keeps instructing his troops to target our aircraft isn't strong arm? We've been doing it for YEARS. Almost weekly you hear about an F-15 or 16 that engaged a target and obliterates it, and Sadaam gets on his puppet TV channel and claims it was an orphanage or hospital or mosque or whatever he comes up with.

He still smuggles Oil out into Lybia for sale outside of the Oil-For-Food agreement we have with his regime. The estimates on the amount of money he recieves range from the mid hundreds of millions up to a billion or so dollars. But his people are still starving.

He still gassed the Kurds in Northern Iraq.


What would you have the world do to him? Hmm? Blockade his shipping? Uhh ohh, then he cries foul, says his people can't eat, then Chirac gets all uppity after protesters put his panties in a bunch and we are back to where we are again...nowhere..with a man who LOST A WAR AFTER INVADING ANOTHER SOVREIGN COUNTRY, WHO SIGNED A CEASE-FIRE TREATY WITH THE COALITION AND HAS SO FAR, FOR A DECADE, FAILED TO UPHOLD HIS END.

What else is there to be done?????????

How can you deal with a man who has no intention of doing anything he is required to do??

I mean common, as a Muslim, he isn't ever supposed to kill a fellow muslim, but he got into a war with Iran and invaded Kuwait. But ever week they show him praying in Mosques. Has no one seen that the man is a hypocrite???

you raise the same points everyone else raises...

but to say a country is in violation of whatever sanctions does not always mean they will get attacked... his SAM sites are not exactly the most advanced in the world and the kurds.. though I do not agree with their killings... they are also being used by some nations to try and incite revolution in the country... they are in that sense a little bit like the gauls v/s rome during the 2nd punic war... though a lot less useful... the oil smuggled out is not solely to libya... there are other countries buying this stuff... but concerning the amount he is getting... that is chump change compared to the money that the US is throwing @ turkey in order to use turkey's bases...

he is a dictator and will do as dictators do... putting forth a proposal to exile him and asking for democracy to be restored in more than just name will be a much better solution for everyone... depending on the terms and PR surrounding it.. he can keep face and everyone can be happy... but thats a little too utopian :)

the oil-for-food agreement was setup against the wishes of the US if I remeber correctly... I mean there are so many things on both sides...

you are not seeing the overall point of these people all over the world and myself as well...

saying do not go to war in iraq is not the same as saying saddam is right.. you cannot equate the 2... saddam is most definitely in the wrong.. heck peopole who are his supposed allies say he is 'mildly' unstable... do not mistake the sentiment of those not clamoring for a war as that of cowards... that is not the case... :)

regardless of if a person wants to or does not want to do something... you can't go in and bomb them... how many countries come bomb the us everytime they feel the us is not working with the sentiment of the world...

as a christian also... you are not 'supposed' to kill people... especially civilians... calling saddam a hypocrite.. you will have to add bush to that list too :) its that simple...

also there are other countries around the world that are not complying with various resolutions... how can you put that as a criteria for attacking a country?

war never solves issues.... it just puts them out of sight till such a time as another group comes along and chants REVENGE.. and the cycle begins again...

if there is fighting.. I sure as hell am not going to go support the campaign by going off to the middle-east... I will sign up to defend the homeland but sod the international wars I have no agreement with...

decided to link this from ryo's post in another thread :)

http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by Ryo-Ohki

Concerning Chirac backlashing at the Europeans newcomers/smaller nations, I think it's more a matter of "European pride"

omg, bullying is european pride? since when?!! Bullying a smaller nation is wrong no matter how much you think you're right. I mean Mr Chirac is not criticising Italy, Spain or Portugal about their decisions to back the US. Why on earth is he bullying?

I have seen it quoted and unfortunatley can no longer find it that chirac is not afraid to weild his veto at ANYTHING the UN agrees on if he does not like it.

Now on to a pet peive of mine

Do you REALLY think that if Bush wanted oil he wouldn't have cut a cheap deal with SADDAM? After all saddam would be more than willing to cut him something riddiculously cheap for international favour. With regeime change Bush would have to pay full price for the oil like everybody else, because there would be a proper democracy with companies controlling the oil.

If bush wants oil leaving saddam in power is his best bet so please people get off that bandwagon!

[Sazar]

Originally posted by sytaylor
omg, bullying is european pride? since when?!! Bullying a smaller nation is wrong no matter how much you think you're right. I mean Mr Chirac is not criticising Italy, Spain or Portugal about their decisions to back the US. Why on earth is he bullying?

I have seen it quoted and unfortunatley can no longer find it that chirac is not afraid to weild his veto at ANYTHING the UN agrees on if he does not like it.

Now on to a pet peive of mine

Do you REALLY think that if Bush wanted oil he wouldn't have cut a cheap deal with SADDAM? After all saddam would be more than willing to cut him something riddiculously cheap for international favour. With regeime change Bush would have to pay full price for the oil like everybody else, because there would be a proper democracy with companies controlling the oil.

If bush wants oil leaving saddam in power is his best bet so please people get off that bandwagon!

and the us is not pushing for countries to join its coalition?

using 'diplomacy' ? same things... different terms... different pr...

btw the bribing of turkey is a really low low move by bush...

[sytaylor]

i'd certainly say theres a difference between asking someone if they want to be a part of something vs telling someone to shut up!!

[Sazar]

Originally posted by sytaylor
i'd certainly say theres a difference between asking someone if they want to be a part of something vs telling someone to shut up!!

asking more than once... after you have said you don't want to do it... putting things on the table...money to 'sway' the opinion???

I would rather someone told me to shut up than put my country in harms way... but thats just me..