France Surrenders!

The Mad Monk · November 8, 2002, 01:30

I hear they just signed on to Bush's UN Iraq resolution.

Skanky Burns · November 8, 2002, 01:45

Spiffor · November 8, 2002, 01:46

I always said my Prez was all bark, no bite.
Tsk tsk tsk. At least I hope Bush gave some economic concessions. But with the pathetic diplomacy skills of Chirac, I highly doubt it.

DRoseDARs · November 8, 2002, 01:51

'Bout g*dd*mn time!

Better to take Bush's postition on Iraq than the "business as usual" position they'd wanted to take. I don't support war, but it may be necessary if Saddam continues to defy the terms of HIS surrender after the Gulf War. He agreed to those terms, if he doesn't like them, then he shouldn't have lost the war, but he did. End of story. His continued defiance of those terms MUST be dealt with decisively, even if that means war again. We've given him TEN YEARS of chances to comply fully, and he has TEN YEARS of non-cooperation under his belt. This must be his last chance. No more. Saddam needs to go: in a fiery expolsion or in an orange jumpsuit for the rest of his natural life.

Urban Ranger · November 8, 2002, 01:55

His violation of UN resolutions is just an excuse.

Spiffor · November 8, 2002, 02:02

Well, I'm sure there can be other means to achieve the removal of Saddam : political assassination, strong support to democratic opposition, etc.
But to get Irak's oil through a mock regime, and respect from the American population, war is the only way

I'm still thinking Saddam is the good excuse to make people accept this war (how many countries don't obey UN resolutions ? How many powerful madmen are there in the world ? Why should we strike now rather than yesterday or tomorrow ?), but let's face it, the only true intend is oil, even if the fall of the despotic regime will be good news.

Not that having a reliable source of oil for the west is bad : it will allow the US and its allies (incl. France) to yell at our Saudian friends, who are the brains & wallets behind islamic terrorism.

What I criticize are the means to achieve this : with war, we'll slaughter thousands of innocent people, like we did 10 years ago, and like we let do by starving the country for 10 years.
Plus, the west in general, and the US in particular, will get even more resent from the Arabic world, including resent from Irak, one of the very few non-religious societies in the region. In the end, we'll probably get more evil than good from this whole operation.

Edit : France's traditional diplomatic stance, which is to discuss with Arab countries, seems less pointless than war in most cases. The withdrawal of France position is bad news for our credibility, and for future world geopolitics as a whole IMHO.

Urban Ranger · November 8, 2002, 04:21

From BBC:

Quote:

After France announced it was satisfied with last-minute adjustments to the text on Thursday, US and British officials have been predicting unanimous support for the resolution with perhaps one abstention.

I would like to know what those adjustments are.

Dry · November 8, 2002, 05:02

Is there something I missed?
The need of a UN resolution was the french position since ever. Many americans complained a lot about it here on Apolyton.
Looks a french victory to me.

High diplomatic skills are needed to be able to make the most powerfull president of the world change his mind.

Roland · November 8, 2002, 05:14

Was it portrayed that way in the US media ? That's too hilarious.

France got pretty much what it wanted. Actually surprising for an idiot like Chirac....

Tolls · November 8, 2002, 05:23

France surrenders because it got what it was asking for in the first place?

What an unusual piece of spin that is...

Roland · November 8, 2002, 05:24

Usual Washington spin.

Harovan · November 8, 2002, 05:24

Yes, looks as if France won the battle for a UN resolution, and the USA the battle for playing their favorite bombing game if the UN (as US vassal) considers it necessary.

As for the French diplomatic skills, well, it's mostly "Annoy your partner with continuous whining and spawning fears till he gets sick of it and gives in". Maybe that's a method of successful diplomacy, but probably not very apt to make friends. I generally despise most of the German politicians, but I adore their ability to talk with the French for longer than 5 minutes. And as the last weeks and months show clearly, they even learned a bit from the French.

notyoueither · November 8, 2002, 05:27

We'll see what happens...

The Mad Monk · November 8, 2002, 05:40

Well, this is what Drudge had up:

Quote:

UN falls into line behind Bush's war ultimatum
By Rupert Cornwell David Usborne and Paul Waugh
08 November 2002
Internal links

UN falls into line behind Bush's war ultimatum

Fresh from his mid-term election victory, President George Bush told the American people last night that he expected the UN Security Council to vote as early as today on forcing Iraq to surrender its weapons of mass destruction or face almost certain military punishment.

As the leading powers on the Security Council came together last night to push for one of the most critical votes at the UN in years, Mr Bush said: "I'm optimistic we'll get the resolution voted tomorrow [Friday]." He spoke after phone contacts with the leaders of France and Russia, who were pressing for 11th-hour adjustments of a draft submitted jointly by the United States and Britain on Wednesday.

"It's time for the world to come together on Iraq," a relaxed but forceful Mr Bush declared in the wake of the sweeping Republican mid-term election victory. He insisted that war was not his first choice, "it's my last choice, but it's an option." But "if he's not going to disarm, we will disarm him."

The draft resolution gives Saddam Hussein a stark choice: to comply in full with intrusive and permanent UN disarmament demands, or face a catastrophic war.

In London, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, made that clear for the first time, saying the text would allow Britain and the US to go to war without further approval from other Security Council members.

In an emergency statement to the House of Commons, Mr Straw said that "serious consequences" in the wording meant military action against President Saddam.

Tony Blair held a 20-minute phone call with Vladimir Putin yesterday to persuade the Russian President of the draft's merits. But amid strong criticism from Labour MPs, Mr Straw indicated that the resolution permitted military action once Iraq breached disarmament terms, despite opposition from Russia or France at a reconvened Security Council.

Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, indicated last night that some last-minute changes were being made in the text, and UN diplomats were confident that both France and Russia were now ready to vote in favour.

France said last night it hoped the Security Council could pass the resolution today. "We hope a consensus can be reached in the Security Council," a spokeswoman for President Jacques Chirac said.

China indicated it would probably back the resolution. "The Security Council should and must speak with one voice and only in doing [it] this way can we send a clear signal to Iraq," China's deputy ambassador to the UN, Zhang Yishan, told reporters after a meeting of the Council last night. He said positions in the Council were "getting closer and closer".

Syria asked for a delay in attempting a final vote until Monday, raising the possibility – still viewed as slim by most western diplomats – that Damascus could unexpectedly come into line with the US and give its support to the text.

A positive vote by Damascus is the key to achieving unanimity and strengthening the message of determination that Washington wants to send to Iraq. However, much would hang on a meeting of Arab League foreign ministers in Cairo on Sunday, at which Iraq will be present.

Much still hinged on what final demands Moscow and Paris could make to alter the text now

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=350002

The Mad Monk · November 8, 2002, 05:41

Now, what had you heard, Roland?

TheStinger · November 8, 2002, 05:44

its a compromise that allows both sides to saythey got what they wanted. In france they will say they won in the US they will say they did

notyoueither · November 8, 2002, 05:47

... and everyone wins except Saddam. How delightful.

Tolls · November 8, 2002, 08:53

This from the Guardian:

"It makes clear that if Hans Blix, the UN's chief weapons inspector, encounters Iraqi obstructions, the security council will be reconvened to assess their significance. Crucially, though, it states that such obstructions will automatically constitute "material breach" - theoretically allowing Washington to use them as a trigger for war regardless of how they are interpreted by the council.

Last night's agreement between the US and the French, with which the Russians are expected to go along, came when Washington agreed to an apparently microscopic change in the text: the replacement of a single occurrence of the word "or" by the word "and".

In the new version, if the US or any other state wants to report an instance of Iraqi non-compliance, and thus to reconvene the security council, it will have to do so "in accordance with paragraph 11 and 12", not "11 or 12".

That means a consultation must be held with the weapons inspectors, led by Mr Blix and Mohamed el-Baradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Before the change, the French feared that Washing ton might hear of an inconvenience faced by the inspectors - a locked door at a suspect facility, for example - and use it automatically to reconvene the security council and begin the march to war, even if the inspectors themselves did not consider the incident a breach of Iraq's obligations."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...835969,00.html

In other words the hair trigger that had been causing a lot of problems for the past several weeks has been removed.

gsmoove23 · November 8, 2002, 09:33

How is this what France wanted? They certainly didn't want a basically American resolution that will ensure an Iraqi war if Saddam even breathes funny. Isn't the resolution one that Saddam will surely never except? One that will give UN(American) forces free reign in Iraq, a general problem with the last inspection team which it was revealed was used to infiltrate US intelligence operatives into Iraq? Or am I completely off here, anyone got any opinions? hehe stupid question.

mrboo123 · November 8, 2002, 09:38

Well, I don't know if Canada is going to go, most likly will, still its thorght the UN, and I was scared for the America, last time the US when to a war will out NATO, they got there asses kicked, in the Veitam War.

Lefty Scaevola · November 8, 2002, 10:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
His violation of UN resolutions is just an excuse.

If all we required was an excuse, he had among other violation of a, cease fire agreement (note note a oeace traty ending hostilities but a cease fire conditionally suspending them) targeted and shot as our aircraft dozens of times.

Dry · November 8, 2002, 11:12

Quote:

Originally posted by gsmoove23
How is this what France wanted? They certainly didn't want a basically American resolution that will ensure an Iraqi war if Saddam even breathes funny. Isn't the resolution one that Saddam will surely never except? One that will give UN(American) forces free reign in Iraq, a general problem with the last inspection team which it was revealed was used to infiltrate US intelligence operatives into Iraq? Or am I completely off here, anyone got any opinions? hehe stupid question.

France did not want that US goes on his own and only conditions.
They always said you may not go WITHOUT a UN agreement.
Now that the UN (I wrote UN, not US) resolution is there, and (second condition that is to come) Saddam does not satisfy it, then, and only then, US may go.
It is more or less like when the white hats go after the black hats. If they go without a silver star and it happen they kill one of the black hats, they are considered murderers. But, if they receive wearing a silver star, then, if they may legally go after the bad guy.
France wanted that IF you go, then you must go the civilized way, WITH a silver star.
If US go according to US condition only, everybody can then say: it's unfair, US are imperialists, dictators,... Terrorist organisations would have no problem recruiting members (revenge). Arab governments would have difficulties to fight fundamentalism because of public opinion.
Now that US will go, not at their condition, but at a 3rd party condition (UN), nobody will be able to call US the bad guys. Terrorists will have more problems recruiting. Arab governments(*) will have an objective, legal reason to fight it if they do.
France gave Bush an international diplomacy/relationship lesson, my friend. They saved his international image. He should thank them.
Because he will fight wearing the silver star, the brother of the bad guy will not be able to take revenge, except by fighting the law itself.

(*) And european countries that have a large islamic immigration too.

DinoDoc · November 8, 2002, 11:15

That's the most strained and confusing analogy I've ever seen.

gsmoove23 · November 8, 2002, 11:25

France got what it wants is just semantics. Yeah they said you can't go without a resolution and now they can save face, sort of, but what they wanted was no go, no war. I like France, I appreciate the annoying little shits for speaking their mind

and I'm disappointed that they backed down here. Oh well.

gsmoove23 · November 8, 2002, 11:27

By an american resolution I meant a UN resolution on basically american terms. Yeah I know this is the sad reality of most UN resolutions...

DanS · November 8, 2002, 11:32

"its a compromise that allows both sides to saythey got what they wanted. In france they will say they won in the US they will say they did"

This is the thing to keep in mind. We didn't give up much, and certainly nothing important. If the French want to portray it as a win, then they are welcome to do so. But we have the bigger press machine.

"That's the most strained and confusing analogy I've ever seen."

Dry's fond of those.

TheStinger · November 8, 2002, 11:34

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
"its a compromise that allows both sides to saythey got what they wanted. In france they will say they won in the US they will say they did"

This is the thing to keep in mind. We didn't give up much, and certainly nothing important. If the French want to portray it as a win, then they are welcome to do so. But we have the bigger press machine.

Not in french you haven't

DanS · November 8, 2002, 11:37

Bah. Who reads and speaks French, anyway?

Dry · November 8, 2002, 11:40

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Dry's fond of those.

My english beeing so poor, I need them to try to explain my views.

DanS · November 8, 2002, 11:44

Analogies never work in international relations, Dry.

My favorite was when the Chinese public kept repeating the analogy of breaking into your neighbor's house when they rammed our spy plane a couple of years ago.