Something I've just come across (so to speak) ...
Much fun was had at the expense of the French in 2003 when they refused to back war in Iraq, or even stop opposing it, arguing that Saddam's WMD programs were not a serious danger, that a western occupation of an Arab country was likely to go poorly, and that such a war would hinder the fight against al-Qaeda.
Hmmm .....
0
Comments
Are you trying to say the French were right?
Fact is they weren't willing to back up weapons inspectors with a UN resolution that would have proved the WMD either way.
In my view they are as much to blame as the Yanks for invading, as a UN Security council consensus would arguably have made the war unnecessary.
"they are as much to blame as the Yanks " - good to hear that we've been absolved though!
best quote of the whole flippin thing.......
'Going to war over weapons of mass disruction, is like f**king for chastity'
144 million people wporldwide said not in our name....... stoped the war effort for twenty mins....
dont get me started I could be here ALL day ....
If you are alleging corrupt motives were behind their refusal to get involved in Iraq why didn't the Americans just offer them more money?
The second UN resolution - the one they refused to back wasn't about seeking an extension to the deadline to search for the WMD but about giving the UN a mandate to invade Iraq if they were found, which would have meant that having supported it they would be honour bound to support the subsequent war/invasion and supply troops. That UN resolution was merely a diplomatic tactic to give George Bush the legal protection to invade Iraq. I doubt there were any French motives behind not supporting the war, perhaps they foresaw the chaos that would follow and suspected that it wasn't all that good an idea? After all the three main miltary conflicts they involved themselves in after WWII - Vietnam (Indo China) Suez and North Africa were similar wars against third world opposition that like Iraq appeared to be push-overs and all resulted in defeat. That and the dubious legality of the whole war...
what else would they be hiding??
good job im on the ball today;)
Good job we've stopped all the unnecessary killing, then.
The UN weapons inspectors were given full access to everywhere in Iraq. Everyone they wanted to interview was interviewed, everywhere they wanted to search was searched, including Saddam's palaces. They found nothing other than a few missiles that exceeded the limits by literally a few KM. Sure Saddam was a homocidal nutcase but the Iraq war wasn't fought over that but because of the "45 minute" warning...and remember the other quotes - Rumsfeld, Bush and others claimed they knew that Saddam had WMD, was building a nuclear bomb and so on. Invading Iraq because Saddam was giving Hans Blix the run-around is a pretty flimsy excuse for a war don't you think?
[quote][cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]yup, perhaps if the French had got involved instead of opting out we could have avoided it. A properly backed up UN resolution with teeth might have got results and none of this would have happened? Anything short of that and you get nuclear weapons, see Iran, North Korea, etc[/quote]
Not sure how you work this out...the French made it clear they didn't want to get involved in any capacity. The second UN resolution was a diplomatic tactic to get them on-board and if not then to silence them on the grounds that by voting for the use of force they could hardly object to any subsequent use of force. In all France out-manoeuvered the US. The invasion was going to happen and France distanced themselves from it...in my view very wisely, Subsequently they were proven right to do so...
So it's a different Russia that's run into the same problems in Chechnya ?
America/Bush wanted France's help/diplomatic support to give their invasion a legal cover. Around 40 nations joined the "coalition of the willing" not all sent troops though...I'm sure if France had agreed like Italy and Spain to send a token number Bush would have been more than happy.
Apparently there have been Iraqi's killed violently since the invasion than were killed by Saddam.
Plus of course Saddam was using for the best part guns, helicopters, and poison gas sold to him by the West...in which case we are responsible for some of those deaths.
While I obviously would never question such genius and clearly understand (now) that this is all down to the French, I do wonder if somehow, in some tiny way charging in armed to the teeth, randomly slaughtering people, flouting UN policy, replacing one corrupt regime with another much weaker one and generally being ill equipped to deal with the resultant chaos, hasn't contributed to the problem. Just a thought. I also think we should move the whole dog and pony show to Belieze NOW. Because anything short of that and you get nuclear weapons, as you so cleverly point out.
Out of interest given that N Korea admitted from the start to having nukes, how come us and the yanks have been steering clear of there? Chicken or no-oil. I know you'll know.
A united Security Council is better than a disunited one, and a resolution was never achieved which backed up inspections with force. Who you blame for this is up to you. If the French didnt want to be involved they could have abstained instead of using the veto.
As I understand it weapons inspectors were being given the run around.
Do I blame the French? Yes, as well as the Yanks and the rest.
As for Chechnya, isn't it inside the Russian federation..
Classic Simpsons :-)
Have you people forgotten Hastings, 1066. Poor Old Harold - all that having just seen off the Eriks too.
;)
Robert Newman's History of Oil is brilliant. I recommend it to anyone who's interested in what's going on. It's about 45mins, but it's really well done and you can watch the whole thing online. And he argues that we did try and "sort out the region when we were in charge", explaining how the grab for oil now is related to that history (Iraq, Iran and UK/USA oil interests).
If anyone wants a genuinely balanced "just the facts" account of the whole Iraqi debacle I would recommend "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward, a genuinely eye-opener even for someone like me who has followed the whole mess closely from the beginning.
Also, the most prescient quote on Iraq, and it was made 12 years before the war started, is probably this, "Going into Baghdad would be disastrous. Can you imagine an American army invading an Arab capital? The Arabs would not tolerate it and we would be stuck there for decades with no way out."
Who said it? George Herbert Walker Bush in 1991 after Gulf War 1 in 1991. Says it all.