..... Instead, de Villepin stayed behind at the U.N. and announced to the world that France would never support a U.S.-led military intervention against Saddam Hussein.
... Even the Washington Post, which highlighted international opposition to the Bush administration's position on Iraq, called de Villepin's performance heatrical.
... Powell and de Villepin continued to duke it out in Davos, Switzerland, during the World Economic Forum that weekend. De Villepin again warned that France would veto any U.S.-backed resolution at the U.N. to authorize the use of force, ...
... to assure the president, the secretary of state and U.S. diplomats working the issue that they backed the U.S. in the showdown with Saddam, even if it included the use of force. ...
... Chirac personally told the president he would be with us, one senior U.S. administration official told me. We didn't know until the ambush that France would not go to war with us. We thought they might complain, or abstain, or not vote - but not that they would actually veto. Added another, who was privy to the Oval Office conversation, Chirac's assurances are what gave the president the confidence to keep sending Colin Powell back to the U.N. They also explain why the administration has been going after the French so aggressively ever since. They lied.
The problem with you Americans, de Villepin hectored a visiting United States senator in Paris last December, is that you don't read Machiavelli. His meaning, the senator's aide told me, was crystal clear. De Villepin and Chirac had lied to the United States during the Iraq crisis, and if we didn't like it, we should get over it. That's how the ig boys played politics.
http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/04/13/National/Book-Excerptfrance.Lied.To.U.During.Iraq.Crisis-645519.shtml
The sudden U-turn the French made during the negotiations short before the Iraq invasion caused the US/UK to realise France would never accept the use of force against Iraq. Why ? The French publicly ànd privately stonewalled this possibility and therefore the negotiations ended to try and reach an agreement about the so called second resolution, also called the 18th resolution. The diplomatic efforts had failed.
France wanted to take away militairy pressure on the Saddam regime built up by US/UK to force Saddam to comply with the Security Council's will expressed in numerous resolutions. The cat & mouse game between the United Nations and the Saddam Hussein regime could start all over again. However things turned out differently as we all know .......
What are your thoughts ? Did the French indeed lie to the US and the UK ? Is this the new French policy of forming a counterweight to the US ? What is your opinion about these issues ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeI nominate this post for the first one in the proposed "Humor" Forum! The Bush administration saying the French lied to them after Colin, George W and the rest of the idiots lied us into a disasterous war! Unbelievable!
..... Instead, de Villepin stayed behind at the U.N. and announced to the world that France would never support a U.S.-led military intervention against Saddam Hussein.
... Even the Washington Post, which highlighted international opposition to the Bush administration's position on Iraq, called de Villepin's performance heatrical.
... Powell and d ...[text shortened]... French policy of forming a counterweight to the US ? What is your opinion about these issues ?
Ivanhoe is again repeating the untrue assertion that the French stated PUBLICALLY that they would NEVER support the use of military force against Iraq. He cites the January 20, 2003 press conference of French Ambassador to the UN de Villepin as when they supposedly did.
Here's the actual relevant portion:
THE MINISTER - France's stance in the event of a second resolution or if the US decided to pursue her path, as we've said from the outset, as President Chirac has clearly said: we won't join in military intervention that doesn't have the support of the international community, UN support. Moreover, we believe that military intervention would be the worst solution, and that the use of force can be only a last resort, implying that all other avenues have been exhausted. If that point is reached, you raise the issue of the right of veto. France, as a permanent member of the Security Council, will shoulder all her responsibilities, remaining true to her principles. Believe me, when it comes to respecting principles we'll go all the way. Regarding the question of military intervention and the legality it might have, our feeling is very simple: so long as cooperation can be explored, so long as progress can be made through cooperation with the inspectors, there is no reason to choose the worst solution, i.e. military intervention. (...)./.
Clearly, he says the use of force should be a "last resort" and as long as progress can be made with inspections military intervention should not be used. This is NOT a statement saying they would NEVER support the use of force. It is consistent with Resolution 1441 which set up an inspection regime with reports that hadn't yet been made on January 20, 2003 and with the UN Charter itself which calls for a peaceful resolution of issues.
What the article cited by Ivanhoe does make clear is that contrary to what we were being told, the Bush Administration had decided to go to war already in January, 2003 (and probably much earlier). Bush repeatedly made statements that he had not yet made up his mind (I will find them if I must) but the phony outrage expressed in the book cited by Ivanhoe at the French statement of January 20, 2003 shows that the US government wanted war as soon as military preparations were finished i.e. in March, 2003. So who are the liars, Ivanhoe?
Ivanhoe,
why do you keep trying to force the same debate on us, even though you and No1 already had this debate, and as far as I could see, you couldn't back up your claims with 1 substantial bit of evidence.
Add newspaper links, direct quotes (as opposed to quotes originating solely from Ken Timmerman, who is crazy enough to think that the US has founds hundreds of WMDs, but for some reason is keeping quiet on the whole thing). Yup. I can see why a lot of your arguments fall down after a while, the majority that I have read seem to be based on the ramblings of your friend Ken.
Also, the opinion of somebody who doesn't have such close links to major corporations via Wall Street and foreign affair policies would be much easier to digest and take credibly.
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/fp/b19authors.htm
Kenneth R. Timmerman is president and director of the Middle East Data Project, Inc., a strategic consulting group that publishes The Iran Brief, a monthly newsletter devoted to strategy, policy, and trade. A former staff member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee (1993), he has written on strategic issues and export controls for the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal for the past 10 years and also appears in the New Republic, the American Spectator
To be honest, he sounds like a CIA man to me, but that's just pure speculation on my part.
your flag confuses me as well, what country are you from, if you don't mind me asking.
D
Originally posted by Ragnorak
Ivanhoe,
why do you keep trying to force the same debate on us, even though you and No1 already had this debate, and as far as I could see, you couldn't back up your claims with 1 substantial bit of evidence.
Add newspaper links, direct quotes (as opposed to quotes originating solely from Ken Timmerman, who is crazy enough to think that the US has fo ...[text shortened]...
your flag confuses me as well, what country are you from, if you don't mind me asking.
D
I'm from the Netherlands.
Originally posted by RagnorakRagnorak: " ..... why do you keep trying to force the same debate on us, ...."
Ivanhoe,
why do you keep trying to force the same debate on us, even though you and No1 already had this debate, and as far as I could see, you couldn't back up your claims with 1 substantial bit of evidence.
Add newspaper links, di ...[text shortened]... ell, what country are you from, if you don't mind me asking.
D
I'm not forcing anything on you.
It is not the same debate. No1 is trying to do this.
Ragnorak: "..... you couldn't back up your claims with 1 substantial bit of evidence."
It all depends of what you call substantial isn't it. I did give evidence. Whether you accept it is up to you.
Ragnorak: " I can see why a lot of your arguments fall down after a while, the majority that I have read seem to be based on the ramblings of your friend Ken."
He is not my friend.
You are not adressing the question whether he speaks the truth.You are simply dismissing him on the fact that he is a politcial opponent of yours.
Ragnorak: " ... Add newspaper links, direct quotes ..... "
Please Ragnorak, you would classify that evidence as "not substantial", same as you did with the other material I presented in the other thread.
It seems to me you are advocating the slogan "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." being the reactionairy French government.
ENTRETIEN DU MINISTRE DES
AFFAIRES ETRANGERES,
M. DOMINIQUE DE VILLEPIN, AVEC LES TELEVISIONS FRANCAISES
(New York, 7 mars 2003)
{^^Iraq^}
About the acceptance of using military force and the acceptance of a deadline:
"Q - Y a-t-il la possibilité d'un compromis malgré tout si l'Anglais, par
exemple, propose qu'on introduise dans ce projet de résolution qu'il y ait une date limite ? Est-ce que c'est quelque chose qui prête à débat ?
R - Je l'ai dit, au nom de la France, très clairement. Nous ne pouvons pas accepter un ultimatum. Nous ne pouvons pas accepter un recours automatique à la force. Nous pouvons accepter d'accélérer, de réduire le calendrier qui est prévu pour les inspections, sur la base des propositions faites par M. Blix et M. El Baradeï. Oui, nous pouvons accélérer, mais encore faut-il faire en sorte véritablement que l'objectif soit bien le désarmement pacifique de l'Iraq.
" Je l'ai dit, au nom de la France, très clairement. Nous ne pouvons pas accepter un ultimatum. Nous ne pouvons pas accepter un recours automatique à la force. "
What message do you think Villepin is sending here to the US/UK on the seventh of March 2003 ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeWow, that's a new tactic. Post a quote in a language the people you're debating don't understand! For all I know he could be saying we're going to nuke Washington if Dick Cheney doesn't wear a pretty dress for Easter!! Want to try citing an English translation (I'm sure it exists and I'm equally sure he won't be saying the French will NEVER accept the use of military force against Iraq)!
ENTRETIEN DU MINISTRE DES
AFFAIRES ETRANGERES,
M. DOMINIQUE DE VILLEPIN, AVEC LES TELEVISIONS FRANCAISES
(New York, 7 mars 2003)
{^^Iraq^}
About the acceptance of using military force and the acceptance of a deadline:
"Q - Y ...[text shortened]... in is sending here to the US/UK on the seventh of March 2003 ?
EDIT: Never mind, I found it myself so nice try! It's at: http://www.un.int/france/frame_anglais/latest_news/new_york/frame_ang_iraq.htm and it is perfectly consistent with what the French position had been since the start of the Iraq "crises". The message that was being sent to the US/UK was that the French, like 90% of the world, didn't want war in March, 2003. I'll quote from it in English (if I must) but you know perfectly well he is not saying France will NEVER support the use of military force against Iraq, so give it up!!
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1, this thread is NOT about a statement I made in another thread. If I wanted to discuss that quote I would have continued the discussion there.
Wow, that's a new tactic. Post a quote in a language the people you're debating don't understand! For all I know he could be saying we're going to nuke Washington if Dick Cheney doesn't wear a pretty dress for Easter!! Want ...[text shortened]... French will NEVER accept the use of military force against Iraq)!
My previous statements are not the subject of this thread.
No1: "Want to try citing an English translation (I'm sure it exists ... "
Try finding it then !
Originally posted by ivanhoeHA-HA-HA!! Check the edit above, genius!!!
No1, this thread is NOT about a statement I made in another thread. If I wanted to discuss that quote I would have continued the discussion there.
My previous statements are not the subject of this thread.
No1: "Want to try citing an English translation (I'm sure it exists ... "
Try finding it then !
Originally posted by ivanhoeReally? Here's the FIRST sentence in your FIRST post in this thread:
No1, I'll repeat it: This thread isn't about a statement I made in another thread.
Instead, de Villepin stayed behind at the U.N. and announced to the world that France would never support a U.S.-led military intervention against Saddam Hussein.
So, what's this thread about again?
Originally posted by ivanhoeNo1, you are being so clever. Of course no Frenchmen ever said LITERALLY : "We will never use military force against Iraq". The French aren't that stupid. I had hoped you weren't so stupid to assume I was so stupid to assume that the French were that stupid. Of course I wasn't citing literally. The French diplomats aren't that blunt. So I guess you are right No1. Formally. Happy ?
No1, I'll repeat it: This thread isn't about a statement I made in another thread.
Please No1, don't ever become a diplomat ......
What I asked is what kind of message this Villepin statement sends to the US/UK ? What it boiles down to ...... Please take good notice of the date when it was said ?
"We cannot accept an automatic resort to force." That sounds even more opposed to force than the quotation in English, but it still isn't saying that France would never approve of force, merely that it would oppose any resolution which urged the use of force after a certain time. However, the connotations of this are such that the US was probably right to conclude that a compromise between its position and France's wasn't possible, since the US would 'automatically' go to war from a French point-of-view if the UN authorised it to do so, and was certainly in no mood to 'wait and see' as the French proposed. Could you explain at what point and in what way the French said 'we're behind you all the way' to the Americans?