• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Does this not piss you off?!

Status
Not open for further replies.

sonshine

PLC06 Applicant
Chirac Says War in Iraq Spreads Terrorism
By CRAIG S. SMITH
Published: November 18, 2004

PARIS, Nov. 17 - On the eve of a visit to Britain, President Jacques Chirac said Wednesday that the world was more dangerous because of the American-led invasion of Iraq.

"To a certain extent Saddam Hussein's departure was a positive thing," Mr. Chirac said in an interview broadcast on the BBC Newsnight television program. "But it also provoked reactions, such as the mobilization in a number of countries of men and women of Islam, which has made the world more dangerous." Ensuring that his country's relations with the United States and Britain will remain cool, he said, "There is no doubt" that terrorism around the world has increased because of the war in Iraq.

President Chirac's comments followed an equally acerbic assessment of American-led foreign policy that he made in an interview published in British newspapers on Tuesday. In that interview, he expressed doubt that "with America as it is these days," Britain or any other country could be an "honest broker" in improving trans-Atlantic relations.

The comments were a pointed rebuke of Mr. Bush's contention that the world is safer since Mr. Hussein was deposed, and of Prime Minister Tony Blair's view that Britain is a bridge between the United States and Europe.

French-American relations, rarely easy, have lingered near historic lows since Mr. Chirac's government fought bitterly last year to avert the war. His unwillingness to reach out to the United States as the Bush administration heads into a second term is certain to keep those relations at a low ebb for now.

Perhaps more striking than Mr. Chirac's disdain for the Bush administration (he referred in the newspaper interview to the secretary of defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, as "that nice guy, I've forgotten his name, who talked about Old Europe") was his dismissal of Mr. Blair's unyielding support for Mr. Bush.

Recalling a French-British meeting on the eve of the Iraq war, Mr. Chirac told the British reporters that he had counseled Mr. Blair to get something from Washington in return for Britain's support for the war.

"Well, Britain gave its support but I did not see much in return," the French president was quoted as saying in The Times of London. "I am not sure it is in the nature of our American friends at the moment to return favors systematically."

The unvarnished tone of Mr. Chirac's remarks surprised many people in the normally discreet diplomatic corridors of Europe. But several senior foreign policy analysts remarked that if Mr. Chirac's view of the Bush administration is borne out in the next four years, the weight of Europe may swing behind him.

"Chirac is in a fairly strong position," said Guillaume Parmentier, director of the French Center on the United States, an independent research organization at the French Institute of International Relations.

He argued that Mr. Chirac is appealing to both the British public and people within Mr. Blair's own party to work with France. "Blair needs to show that his support for Bush hasn't broken his ties with Europe," he said.

Mr. Chirac's strong words are also likely to resonate in other European countries, particularly Germany, where frustration with American foreign policy runs high. European support for the war in Iraq has faltered, with both the Netherlands and Hungary planning to follow Spain by withdrawing their troops from Iraq.

In his interviews, Mr. Chirac repeated his vision of a "multipolar" world in which "there will be a great American pole, a great European pole, a Chinese one, an Indian one, eventually a South American pole," with the United Nations mediating.

Despite his remarks, Mr. Chirac insisted that he feels no anger toward the United States and said that French-British relations were always based on mutual esteem. "We enjoyed hating each other," he said in the newspaper interview. "It was a kind of violent love."

Mr. Chirac's two-day visit to Britain, which begins Thursday, is meant to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Entente Cordiale, a pact that ended centuries of intermittent warfare between the two countries. The French president, who turns 72 next month, will be the guest of Queen Elizabeth II and stay at Windsor Castle, where he will be treated to a production of the musical Les Misérables.
 

Slammer2

SNFO Advanced, VT-86 T-39G/N
Contributor
It sad when all that the leader of a country has left is to talk trash
 

boobcheese

Registered User
It doesn't really piss me off. It seems to me that Mr. Chirac has a point. Our war on Iraq has further destablized an already unstable region and has only succeeded in further inflaming a decidedly anti-American mentality in the middleast. Am I saying that we shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq for fear of pissing off some muslims? No, I'm saying that we shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq because there wasn't sufficient provocation to warrant it. Though the official justification for our current war in Iraq has shifted somewhat I believe it was initially predicated on the assertion that Iraq had the potential to develop WMD and that they would be disposed to use them against the US and/or its allies. Well that assertion can be applied to numerous countries throughout the world most notably Iran and N. Korea who almost certainly have WMD and are likely on the verge of having nuclear capabilities if they don't already and with whom we seek diplomatic solutions rather than decades long occupations in hopes that we can convert an entire culture to a democratic and peace loving society. So once again no, it doesn't really piss me off that Mr. Chirac as a democratically elected leader of a free country chooses to speak his mind and not just blindly follow the US into a war which he obviously doesn't feel is justified. Just my humble opinion.
 

Slammer2

SNFO Advanced, VT-86 T-39G/N
Contributor
Something I was just thinking about - everyone opposed to the war keeps throwing out the fact that iraq supposedly had WMD and this is the only reason that we to war with them. Then they usually say why not go to war with other countries that we KNOW have weapons. My question is how do we know that Iran, for example, really has these weapons. I don't understand how someone can attack claims of a country having WMD because we havent found them yet, and then use the similar claims to go invade Iran or North Korea. After all, the majority of the world was of the belief that Sadam had these weapon ready or near-ready. What are the Bush-haters going to say after we take down another country and dont find big weapons right away?? The only way that people "know" that other countries have them or are developing them is through the media or governmental officials makign statements. And I'm pretty sure that people who really know stuff and see the latest intel aren't posting about it on websites...unless of course, you're AQ Khan :)


Patmack - sounds like a good plan!
 

spidie

Applying for CEC, USMC
Chirac is worried because there is some other military problem that they are getting into I think somewhere in Africa, that he knows his country's a$$ is going to probably need to be pulled out of again, no offense to any frenchmen out there. Hindsight is always 20/20, yeah he made alot of noise before the Iraq war started, but only because there was alot of French tech that the Iraqis were using for "peaceful" means like nuke reactors. I think they should act like grown up allies of America and either help out with the situation or just but out, debates are worth nothing now, now that were in we need action that is, even if we need the french. :)

quoting boobcheese - "Well that assertion can be applied to numerous countries throughout the world most notably Iran and N. Korea who almost certainly have WMD and are likely on the verge of having nuclear capabilities if they don't already"

Not taking anything away from you or your view but if we would have went from Afgan to N. Korea, or Iran there would have been too many bad memories from the Korean war, and the Iranian hostage crisis, maby we chose Iraq because we already had a clear win, keeping everyone's spirits up. Besides we had already beat the odds in Afgan, I mean England lost what 2 or 3 times, and who can forget the problems Russia had.

Also anyone ever hunt snakes? Well if you did you know that you don't reach in the hole to get them you flush or smoke them out, maby this is the grand scheme, flush out the terrorists to fight in Iraq, then we get to kill or capture them.

Hey I don't want any part of politics, too much crap flying around, for right now at my humble age just tell me where to go and I'll lead (once I get my comission that is) :)

Yeah patmack I agree pony the money
 

Cate

Pretty much invincible
spidie said:
maby we chose Iraq because we already had a clear win, keeping everyone's spirits up.

Nitpicky me - not arguing with anyone else's sentiment here - however: You don't risk the lives of American troops (and civilian lives as well) and blow up insane amounts of infrastructure and spend millions of dollars to "keep everyone's spirits up." And it wasn't a clear win. It was a win, sure, and we had the world's greatest military to our credit, but it was neither an easy nor a clear win.

I have no doubt that the administration has justification for going into Iraq; I haven't heard it yet, but don't doubt that there is one. That one, however, ain't it.
 

boobcheese

Registered User
All I am saying is that there are other ways to view the world than how W does. I don't claim to know Chirac's or any one else's thinking but they are certainly entitled to a dessenting view on our actions in Iraq if they don't feel its justified.
 

spidie

Applying for CEC, USMC
quoting Cate - "And it wasn't a clear win. It was a win, sure, and we had the world's greatest military to our credit, but it was neither an easy nor a clear win."

The clear win I meant was the first Gulf War, we did get a technical win on this one but we are still fighting so declaring a clear win is a little hazy, no doubt we will win though.
I'm not trying to take away from Chiracs view he has an opinion and an ability to speak his mind so millions can hear him, so let him talk. It just gets a little annoying when he is still debating whether America should have invaded when we did already. Was the argument for it perfect? certainly not, but the time for debating the original decision is over, lets move on to fixing the current problem, if he wants to really make a difference.
Just as a side note, does anyone know if Blair is up for re-election soon, I'll look into it also, but this would be pretty nice timming on Chirac's part if Blair is (the british girl in my office says it should be next year). :)
 

Jolly Roger

Yes. I am a Pirate.
Yes, but it seems more and more that Chirac's and Putin's opposition are not on moralistic grounds, as say Germany, but greed. They accuse us of invading Iraq for oil, but who was benefiting the most from Saddam? A la Oil for Food. What's even sadder is that they are masquerading around as if OF never happened with their holier than thou attitude. Yeah, their holier, assholier. (Sorry bad pun, couldn't resist)
 

spidie

Applying for CEC, USMC
Yeah Jolly Roger, but also look at all the tech that France has sold to Iraq never asking them what they were going to do with it. Also we had to holf off invasion for what a month or more because of Rhamadan or however spell that word their holly month. I think a month was enough time to hide or sell off what weapons or chemical or bio agents capable of making weapons. Just do a mass balance (sorry engineering term but cannot think of another way of putting it), Iraw had x amount of chem and bio agents takin in, and y were used in pharmasutical, or oil refining etc. Well if y does not = x then you have stuff missing, and opps we didn't find that either, and I remember hearing once or twice that y did not = x. So where did the rest of the crap go?
 

HueyCobra8151

Well-Known Member
pilot
boobcheese said:
It doesn't really piss me off. It seems to me that Mr. Chirac has a point. Our war on Iraq has further destablized an already unstable region and has only succeeded in further inflaming a decidedly anti-American mentality in the middleast.

Has a policy of appeasment for the last 20 years resulted in anything different? At some point you have to take a hard stand and do what is right; sorry, but we can't turn a blind eye - hoping that they will go away - forever

Am I saying that we shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq for fear of pissing off some muslims? No, I'm saying that we shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq because there wasn't sufficient provocation to warrant it.

I think you need to reread your history books. I will break down the big stuff though.

S/RES/678 = US Ceasefire with Iraq in 1991
S/RES/687 = Stipulation that if rules are broken (Americans attacked, WMD obtained, IAEA not allowed access, etc...), then S/RES/678 is nullified
...Yadda yadda yadda, 16 resolutions detailing Saddam's intransigence with regard to weapons inspectors...
...Yadda yadda yadda Several Americans attacked in the no fly zone...
...Yadda yadda yadda Iraq put on the US State Department's list of Nations that Sponsor Terrorism in 1993 (where it remained until 2003)...
...Yadda yadda yadda Attempted assassination of former President...
...And don't forget attempted bombing of the World Trade Center...
which brings us to:
S/RES/1441 = Entire world unanimously agreeing that Saddam had WMD and calling for "grave consequences" if he did not comply with inspectors/previous resolutions.

Saddam failed to comply with 1441, the UN failed to act. As we now know, much of that was probably due to the fact that Kofi Anon was lining his pockets with kickbacks and the French and Russians were selling weapons like it was going out of style.

Though the official justification for our current war in Iraq has shifted somewhat I believe it was initially predicated on the assertion that Iraq had the potential to develop WMD and that they would be disposed to use them against the US and/or its allies. Well that assertion can be applied to numerous countries throughout the world most notably Iran and N. Korea who almost certainly have WMD and are likely on the verge of having nuclear capabilities if they don't already and with whom we seek diplomatic solutions rather than decades long occupations in hopes that we can convert an entire culture to a democratic and peace loving society.

Your initial assertion is grossly inaccurate. I see you have failed to read the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq. Perhaps you should do your homework before offering your inaccurate comments, it just makes you appear ignorant (willfully or otherwise).

If I were to humor you (to make your second assertion practical), then you would STILL be incorrect because of the lack of UN Resolutions detailing these issues with regards to Iran and N. Korea. There are some, but nothing on the level with what there was for Iraq. Further, there are no cease fire agreements for Iran or N. Korea that have been broken.

So once again no, it doesn't really piss me off that Mr. Chirac as a democratically elected leader of a free country chooses to speak his mind and not just blindly follow the US into a war which he obviously doesn't feel is justified. Just my humble opinion.

I cannot argue with you, it is France's right to elect who they want. And it is their elected officials right to say what he wants. Apparently 200+ years of friendship and 100 years of us bailing them out is worthless as soon as we interrupt their "oil-for-food" kickbacks and arms deals with terrorist states...

By the way, what is up with France's unilateral actions in the Ivory Coast? They acted unilaterally for 5-6 months before taking anything before the UN.

They also withdrew in true French fashion after being soundly defeated by citizens of a 3rd world country with antiquated weaponry...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top