France: Jacques-come-lately

[Rywill]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/18/sprj.irq.france.chemicals/index.html

France has suddenly declared that if Saddam uses chemical weapons, that would "change everything" and they would join the war coalition. Since it is widely assumed that Saddam will at least order chemical weapons used (whether the soldiers will actually use them is unknown), this strikes me as nothing more than a cynical attempt to change sides at the last possible second.

My assumption is that the US is going to tell France where they can stick their assistance, and freeze them out of the rebuilding effort in Iraq. I'm guessing Russia and Germany get frozen out as well; Britain, Australia, Spain and Japan will likely get fat contracts. This seems like a serious miscalculation by the French...if they had changed sides a month ago, they'd probably be in like Flynn.

[Daniel Morris]

France's long-expected backpedaling from obstructionism commences the very morning after diplomacy collapses. Doesn't propriety dictate waiting a day or so before jumping back into America's ship?

[Anonymous]

Oh My God. Do the French really believe that they'll be allowed to assist and partake of the spoils after what they've just put us through? Hell, they've even managed a blood enemy of Colin Powell, who was the most moderate of Bush's team and the one who was desperately trying to work with the French while they were constantly backstabbing him and cutting him off at the knees.

We've made our bed, and now we get to sleep in it. Jacques made his own bed. Lock him out.

And speaking of the French...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43041-2003Mar17.html

[Brian Rubin]

Give me a frigging break. The French painted themselves into their own corner, and they can't simply backpedal weeks of declarations on a whim.

[Rywill]

Extra-amusing fact: France says that the reason this would change their minds is because chemical weapons are a world apart, that their use is "forbidden" to all countries at all times, and anyone who uses them deserves war. They make no mention of the fact that Saddam has used chemical weapons already, dozens of times, well documented, against his enemies and even his own citizens, but France has steadfastly blocked any attempt at war.

I know it's fashionable to hate the French, but seriously, I really hate the French.

[Brian Rubin]

Give me a frigging break. The French painted themselves into their own corner, and they can't simply backpedal weeks of declarations on a whim.

[Captain Cookiepants]

Oh My God. Do the French really believe that they'll be allowed to assist and partake of the spoils after what they've just put us through? Hell, they've even managed a blood enemy of Colin Powell, who was the most moderate of Bush's team and the one who was desperately trying to work with the French while they were constantly backstabbing him and cutting him off at the knees.

We've made our bed, and now we get to sleep in it. Jacques made his own bed. Lock him out.

And speaking of the French...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43041-2003Mar17.html

This one line from that story caused a catastrophic brain shift that left me clinically dead for about ten minutes:

"Ivorians are also posting pictures of famous black Americans like poet Maya Angelou and abolitionist Frederick Douglass on kiosks around the city and blasting Britney Spears from radios tuned to the Voice of America."

Maya Angelou...Fredrick Douglass...Britney SpeeeEEEAAAAARRGGGG!!

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

Oh My God. Do the French really believe that they'll be allowed to assist and partake of the spoils after what they've just put us through?...We've made our bed, and now we get to sleep in it. Jacques made his own bed. Lock him out.

I thought this was being done for purely moral reasons; because this is the rigt thing to do. You're not telling you see the U.S. and U.K. somehow profiting from this, are you?

EditBad tag.

[Anonymous]

[quote="Woolen Horde"]Oh My God. Do the French really believe that they'll be allowed to assist and partake of the spoils after what they've just put us through?...We've made our bed, and now we get to sleep in it. Jacques made his own bed. Lock him out.
[quote]
I thought this was being done for purely moral reasons; because this is the rigt thing to do. You're not telling you see the U.S. and U.K. somehow profiting from this, are you?

There are always spoils in any conflict. If the US stance is so immoral, then why are the noble French suddenly backtracking in order to get in?

Simple: they do not want to get locked out of the post-Saddam equation. The US will wield enormous amount of influence in shaping the post-Saddam Iraq. It's not just commercial interests, but geo-political interests as well.

And for the French, who style themselves being Middle East experts (thanks to their years of colonialism), they don't want to get locked out of that.

And I'm telling you that Big Oil is Big Oil everywhere, and the holders of most Iraqi oil contracts are the French and the Russians. The French oil companies have a huge stake in the post-Saddam Iraq that they don't want to see disappear.

[Tim]

Profit, no; income yes. I don't think it'll come close to recouping the full costs involved in 12 years of military patrol & pressure and presumably invading Iraq.

Iraq is a wealthy nation and shouldn't have any problem paying for the rebuilding and building done after an invasion.

That said, in the long run, a stable and free Iraq will certainly contribute to the prosperity of the US, UK, and most of the rest of the world.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

There are always spoils in any conflict. If the US stance is so immoral, then why are the noble French suddenly backtracking in order to get in?

Simple: they do not want to get locked out of the post-Saddam equation. The US will wield enormous amount of influence in shaping the post-Saddam Iraq. It's not just commercial interests, but geo-political interests as well.

And for the French, who style themselves being Middle East experts (thanks to their years of colonialism), they don't want to get locked out of that.

And I'm telling you that Big Oil is Big Oil everywhere, and the holders of most Iraqi oil contracts are the French and the Russians. The French oil companies have a huge stake in the post-Saddam Iraq that they don't want to see disappear.
So is the U.S. good, and the French bad, but good when they join the war, or is the U.S. as bad as the French, or is it all just up in the air?
In other words, what exactly are you saying about the relative moral motivations of the different countries' governments here?

[Tyjenks]

I cannot say i am surprised, but the gall of having an ambassador already speak of back-pedalling the f*cking day after Bush's ultimatum makes me want to scream. Chirac could have just stayed quiet and bided his time and then jumped back in at the last moment and probably been fine.

He actively campaigned in other countrys against any new resolution. He stated no matter what a new resolution said, no matter what, he was going to veto it. He has made this exponentially more difficult for the U.S. and its allies and had his faced plastered all over every paper in the world. Now that his time is done, his barking accomplished nothing, he is about to be yanked from the world stage and he holds no sway whatsoever where worldwide issues are concerned, he decides France might help out!!!

Can someone get out Carolyn Parrish and Jaques Chirac's family tree and see if they intersect anywhere in there. I think I will be more angry if we let them back into the loop than nearly anything else Bush could do.

[Mark Asher]

Oh My God. Do the French really believe that they'll be allowed to assist and partake of the spoils after what they've just put us through?...We've made our bed, and now we get to sleep in it. Jacques made his own bed. Lock him out.

I thought this was being done for purely moral reasons; because this is the rigt thing to do. You're not telling you see the U.S. and U.K. somehow profiting from this, are you?

EditBad tag.

Well, our soldiers will grab lots of ancient crap to sell on eBay. I'm hoping I'll be able to find a piece of a cunieform tablet cheap. I guess if Iraq doesn't blow the wells, we can scoop up some oil too. Otherwise, what the heck do they have in the way of spoils? Persian rugs?

[Mark Asher]

"That said, in the long run, a stable and free Iraq will certainly contribute to the prosperity of the US, UK, and most of the rest of the world."

Of course, if this action increases the threat of terrorism, we may never recoup the expense of this war and subsequent occupation.

[Tyjenks]

Otherwise, what the heck do they have in the way of spoils? Persian rugs?

Didn't you see that Marky Mark movie? There is gold and Mercedes' everywhere. Oh, and lots of free cell phones, evidently.

[Anonymous]

Oh My God. Do the French really believe that they'll be allowed to assist and partake of the spoils after what they've just put us through? Hell, they've even managed a blood enemy of Colin Powell, who was the most moderate of Bush's team and the one who was desperately trying to work with the French while they were constantly backstabbing him and cutting him off at the knees.

Pardon, mon ami, but what exactly have the French "put us through?"

Can we really not stand anyone disagreeing with the policy of our current administration so much that it becomes an act of treasonous sabotage to do so? If so, I'm getting a beret to go with my newly purchased collection of the complete works of Natalie Maines.

Why do we care so much if we have such a bad-ass military that we can destroy Iraq ten times over? Those awful French! If only we'd had their support we could have blown it up eleven times, not just ten.

What a load of crap.

[Daniel Morris]

What does Chirac care? He gets to be De Gaulle now, re-elected for life.

[Anonymous]

Here's your company in the France-hating movement:

http://i.abclocal.go.com/@v=0358289@/images/ktrk/31703_france.jpg

This was spraypainted on the home of a woman who immigrated to the US from France 23 years ago.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/31703_local_vandalism.html

Feel the pride.

[Jason McCullough]

Did anyone actually read the article?

If the war starts and if (President) Saddam Hussein uses chemical or biological weapons, it would change completely the situation for the French president and for the French government, and President (Jacques) Chirac will have to decide what we will do to help the American troops to confront this new situation.

But I confirm it would change completely the perception and the situation for us," said Jean-David Levitte, who told CNN he hoped that biological and chemical weapons would not be used.

In Paris, officials emphasized Tuesday that Levitte's remarks were based on what a spokesman in the foreign minister's office called a "strictly hypothetical question."

And an official in the French president's office referred to statements made Monday by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, who said, "If the U.S. and our allies face a new and unforeseen situation in a new crisis, France would obviously be on their side to show solidarity in the face of an exceptional crisis.

How dare the French come up with a hypothetical that would change their mind!

[Rywill]

Yeah, I read the article. What's your point? Because here is mine:

1. It's ludicrous for France to say "Hey, hypothetically, if Saddam used chem/bio weapons, that would change the whole picture and make war the right thing to do." Because they know, and everyone knows, and we've been pointing out to them all through this, that he has ALREADY used chemical weapons, many many times. So for them to suddenly jump on that possibility as "changing the whole situation" is laughable.

2. It's also ludicrous for France to posit this as a hypothetical. Because they know, and everyone knows, that Saddam is going to order the use of chemical weapons when we invade Iraq. The weapons may or may not actually get used, because his orders might be disobeyed. But I think pretty much everyone agrees the order will be given. So what France is actually saying here is not so much "We would change our mind if X happened," but rather, "We have changed our mind." It's like saying "If Saddam doesn't leave the country, that would change everything." Give me a break. You already know that's going to happen.

Which leads to the question, Why did they change their mind? The only answers I can think of: 1) they don't want to miss out on the financial end of helping Iraq to rebuild; and 2) they don't want to look irrelevant on the world stage. In both cases, what a bunch of hypocritical, whiny, immoral dickheads. I'm surprised that even you are coming in here and trying to defend this as France just trying to be reasonable about the whole thing.

Edit: spelling

[Anonymous]

It's also ludicrous for France to posit this as a hypothetical. Because they know, and everyone knows, that Saddam is going to order the use of chemical weapons when we invade Iraq. The weapons may or may not actually get used, because his orders might be disobeyed. But I think pretty much everyone agrees the order will be given.

If everyone knows that why weren't the inspectors able to find any chemical or biological agents in this last trip? How is he going to order the use of stuff that couldn't be found. If we're all that sure that he's got the shit, you'd think we could have presented more conclusive evidence of the possession of said material.

[Jason McCullough]

5 minute hate! 5 minute hate!

[Tyjenks]

So your good with France saying "You Americans are nuts there is absolutely none there, buuuuuuut if there is, we'll help". If they are sure there is nothing there, there is no need for hypotheticals that will never come to pass.

AS to Rywill's question, I choose:

3) Both.

[Anonymous]

If they are sure there is nothing there, there is no need for hypotheticals that will never come to pass.

The French position is that weapons inspectors should be in Iraq. They would not support this positon if they believed "it could never come to pass" that Iraq might have them. However, the inspectors haven't found any chemical or biological agents yet, this time around. Perhaps there are some. But it has yet to be proven definitively.

[Brad Grenz]

Is it just me, or is Jumping Jesus Sinner?

[Anonymous]

Is it just me, or did Brad Grenz run out of ideas on how to counter my reasonable political arguments and decide that ad hominem was his only possibility of winning this argument?

[Anonymous]

"That said, in the long run, a stable and free Iraq will certainly contribute to the prosperity of the US, UK, and most of the rest of the world."

Of course, if this action increases the threat of terrorism, we may never recoup the expense of this war and subsequent occupation.

When I read statements like this, I shake my head at its complete ignorance.

Please tell me how leaving Saddam in power LOWERS the threat of terrorism.

[Rywill]

If they are sure there is nothing there, there is no need for hypotheticals that will never come to pass.

The French position is that weapons inspectors should be in Iraq. They would not support this positon if they believed "it could never come to pass" that Iraq might have them. However, the inspectors haven't found any chemical or biological agents yet, this time around. Perhaps there are some. But it has yet to be proven definitively.

Do you realize that position is completely inconsistent with the one you posted two posts ago? And with the one you (I think it was you) posted somewhere else saying that Iraq must not have a nuke program because nobody found a nuke?

But to answer your question: the reason those things might exist, despite never having been found, is that those things are small. Bio and chem labs can be put in a tractor-trailer. A nuclear device is about the size of my desk. OTOH, Iraq is big. It's 437,000 square kilometers. That's the size of California. It's full of trucks. And buildings. And basements. And places where you can bury stuff that you don't want found. Searching this California-sized country, there were (until the other day) 108 UNMOVIC inspectors. They were opposed by roughly 20,000 Iraqi intelligence agents. If you don't think I could hide my desk from 108 inspectors who had to search all of California for it, you're crazy. Hell, I could probably hide my desk from 108 inspectors just here in LA. WITHOUT the help of 20,000 intelligence agents. Christ, I could probably just drop my desk somewhere at random in California and I don't think 108 people could find it in the space of a year.

And Saddam is way better at this than I am. And the UN is pretty lax about preventing him from hiding stuff. In addition, many chem and bio weapons are made with the same stuff used to make medicines and industrial or commercial chemicals. So it's easy to have a factory making pesticide today and nerve gas tomorrow.

But I guess we'll see once the shooting starts. From your prior posts, you have taken the position that Iraq has no N/B/C weapons, because the inspectors haven't found any. I assume that if any such weapons are used or found during the war, you are going to come back here and admit what a fool you were. I look forward to it.

[Captain Cookiepants]

Is it just me, or did Brad Grenz run out of ideas on how to counter my reasonable political arguments and decide that ad hominem was his only possibility of winning this argument?

I don't know who you are, and I have no idea who 'Sinner' is, but could you point out your 'reasonable political argument' for me? I can't seem to find any.

[Anonymous]

However, the inspectors haven't found any chemical or biological agents yet, this time around. Perhaps there are some. But it has yet to be proven definitively.

I assume that if any such weapons are used or found during the war, you are going to come back here and admit what a fool you were. I look forward to it.

What part of "perhaps there are some" don't you understand?

[Tyjenks]

However, the inspectors haven't found any chemical or biological agents yet, this time around. Perhaps there are some. But it has yet to be proven definitively.

I assume that if any such weapons are used or found during the war, you are going to come back here and admit what a fool you were. I look forward to it.

What part of "perhaps there are some" don't you understand?

I have cracked the code. This is the king back-pedaller himself.

Jaques I have a case of Evian here. Should I send it to you directly or do you have a new govt. position in charge of returned French goods?

[Matthew Gallant]

With regards to hating the French, do we hate all French or just the ones who agree with their government's policy?

[Tyjenks]

With regards to hating the French, do we hate all French or just the ones who agree with their government's policy?

I would say all the men and ugly women*. If you want a statistical breakdown, I will have to get back to you.

*I am giving a pass to the hot women who do not shave

[Anonymous]

The majority of the world's population, including the majorities of the populations of Britain and Japan (whose governments are part of the "Coalition of the Willing") agree with the Franch government's opposition to the US declaring war on Iraq, so I guess you'd better get busy on that hating.

[Bullhajj]

Please tell me how leaving Saddam in power LOWERS the threat of terrorism.

Maybe it's that Saddam has never terrorised the US. You're thinking of bin Laden. Please try to keep your Middle East role cards handy kiddies. ;)

[Anonymous]

Please tell me how leaving Saddam in power LOWERS the threat of terrorism.

Maybe it's that Saddam has never terrorised the US. You're thinking of bin Laden. Please try to keep your Middle East role cards handy kiddies. ;)

Ok, first it's terrorized.

Second, so you're telling me that it's rational logic to deduce that since Saddam has never terrorized the US that he never will or never fund the terrorizing of the US.

You could have said the same thing about Bin Laden before the WTC 1993 attack. Guess that means, by your logic, that if we had intelligence that Bin Laden was massing weapons or training terrorists, that we should just let him be since he never did anything to us before.

It's logic like yours--a parallel to the inactivity of the Clinton administration--that allowed 9/11 to occur.

Personally, I'll take my logic--otherwise known as death prevention--over your logic, which I'll call "Bloody Hands Imadumbass" logic.

GG, 0WnED.

[Bullhajj]

ohhh, it's a logical right wing guest with a spelling fetish, come to explain how Osama and Saddam are in league with one another!

[Greg Williams]

Jumping Jesus must be French

[Anonymous]

Tim, Fatal1ty wasn't talking about a connection between the two. I'd like to hear your response to it. Read it carefully again and understand what Fatal1ty is saying before responding next time. The podium is yours.

[Bullhajj]

I was being facetious implying a connection. Nevertheless, his post still uses 9/11 to justify war in Iraq. Yet there is no connection between al-Qaida and Iraq. Still gotta keep those role cards handy, kiddies!

[Anonymous]

Jumping Jesus must be French

No. I'm the son of a US military engineer. I spent my youth moving from place to place every two or three years. Some of those places I grew up were in Europe and Japan. The experience taught me that stereotypes some Americans have about foreigners are pretty much idiotic, as are the prejudices that some foreigners have about us. We are all people who happened to be born in a territory that someone pissed on hundreds of years ago and gave a name. French people do not stink and are not cowards. Americans are not louder or more rude than other nations. Japanese people are not more obsessed with tourist photography than others. The same types of people can be found around the world: jocks, nerds, glamorous types, religious zealots, rich, poor, artistic, pragmatic, hard working and lazy. Most of us are just trying to make a living and be left alone.

That's why it makes me angry to read these things that are being said about the people of Europe, particularly France and Germany. Not because I am French, but because I am American and I don't like to many people of my nation mouthing idiotic prejudices about people from other nations being cowards and backstabbers, when any reasonable person should know that every country under the sun has probably been given an equal percentage of saints and assholes, and that the military victories and defeats of World War II are nothing that the current generation had ANYTHING to do with. I am not more brave than a Frenchman because "we saved their asses in World War II." WE were not alive then. WE did not save their asses. The old people in our Veteran's Hospitals did. Honor them. Feel pride in them. But we, the young, had nothing to do with it. If the American in question was Carrottop and the Frenchman in question was Jean Reno, I think I'd rather have Reno covering my ass if the shit ever hit the fan.

Fuck nationalism.