News Flash: No Wmd In Iraq

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by PLATO
French Duplicity.

The "split" in the west came at the desire of the French Government. The French had lead the US to believe that they were on board. They had even sent a General to the US command to help co-ordinate planning and troop integration. The first inkling the US had of the French "moral" position against the war was when they saw DeVillipin on TV saying the French could not support an invasion. They politically stabbed the US in the back when they could have made things clearer earlier in the process before we were so committed to the position on the ground. Some allies! Talk about a power play? The French made a huge one to protect their corrupt money pipeline from Iraq and they did it at the expense of damaging a hugely important alliance. IMO, they have ended up the long term loosers. They could have been handed a piece of a reshaped ME (economically speaking) and will now have to scramble for everything they get there.

The French weren't protecting the money they were getting from Iraq. There is no good evidence proving any high level corruption.

Face the facts, France just doesn't like America being the sole Superpower and feels it has to check the U.S. now and then. This was such a time, and quite frankly, it was a pretty good time.

-Drachasor

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ramo
Recent election?

For something minor, I don't recall what it was.

[Ramo]

I wonder why the PUK is boycotting.

The government will be a Shia Islamist super-majority. The only thing they can do is discredit the election.

[Ramo]

Google is coming up short, do you remember any more details about the recent election?

[chequita guevara]

No. I heard on This Morning with George Stephanopolous a couple weeks back. One of the guests mentioned that the most likely outcome of the elections in Iraqi is that the government is going to ask the U.S. to leave, based on the support of a recent election.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by PLATO
French Duplicity.

Yup, forgot to write after the *

Here it is:

"* you'll note that Plato quotes me in his sig saying the very opposite. The quote is true, although Plato conveniently forgets to add the "for the sake of the argument" which I wrote right before that quote. I have always believed the Bushies had manipulated intelligence. However, in a thread, I admitted to agree with Plato's premise that they didn't, in order to have our argument progress."

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by PLATO
The "split" in the west came at the desire of the French Government. The French had lead the US to believe that they were on board. They had even sent a General to the US command to help co-ordinate planning and troop integration. The first inkling the US had of the French "moral" position against the war was when they saw DeVillipin on TV saying the French could not support an invasion.

It is true the French position radicalized in January 2003, whereas before, France didn't really know which side to take. Chirac even warned the military, in his new-year speech, that they should be "ready for anything".
I don't think France stabbed the US in the back... Unless our diplomats made our involvement with the US very clear, when our PR pretended to be unsure (actually it didn't pretend much at that point)

Talk about a power play? The French made a huge one to protect their corrupt money pipeline from Iraq and they did it at the expense of damaging a hugely important alliance.

Actually, I think there are three realpolitik reason why France radicalized its position like that:

1) Chirac saw the opportunity to make the first Great Disagreement between Europe and the US, thus promoting the creation of a European pole (Chirac strongly wants a multipolar world).

2) January 2003 was the moment when Chirac and Schröder decided to resume the role of the Franco-German couple as the main force in Europe. Since it looked obvious that Europe would agree with their opposition to the war, this stance was a facile way to show who was playing the European Music. You'll notice that all other important countries (UK, Italy, Spain, Poland) who pretend to be in Europe's directorate, supported the war one week later, at Spain's initiative.

3) Saddam was one of our clients. With his removal by the Americans, we would have lost a client. And many others to come, if the neocon agenda had worked (reshaping the ME). That wouldn't be too bad if the Americans were known to be grateful to their allies, but it certainly doesn't look like it. Even last week, Chirac repeated that the British didn't reap enough spoils of war as the Yanks kept everything to themselves (it was wrong to say it publicly, but the statement is true)

The reality is that as long as there is oil in the ME and as long as the world needs oil there will be power plays by all who are able in this area. Economic dominance demands it. The French are just as culpable in how the ME looks this very day as we are and it sickens me to see them spout of about a "moral high ground" when their pockets are lined with blood stained Iraqi money.

It sickens me as well. Our diplomacy reeks of realpolitik and greed. The very difference is that our diplomacy uses soft language and the "peace" word, whereas yours uses uncouth language and openly wages war.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Spiffor

The reality is that as long as there is oil in the ME and as long as the world needs oil there will be power plays by all who are able in this area. Economic dominance demands it. The French are just as culpable in how the ME looks this very day as we are and it sickens me to see them spout of about a "moral high ground" when their pockets are lined with blood stained Iraqi money.

It sickens me as well. Our diplomacy reeks of realpolitik and greed. The very difference is that our diplomacy uses soft language and the "peace" word, whereas yours uses uncouth language and openly wages war.

The thing about it is, the ME can tell that these nations are just being self-serving, and they HATE it. Any major change in the ME to get rid of terrorism will probably require a change in this aspect of our policy as well. People can and will rebel against things related to a self-serving individual interfering in their lives. If good things happen to be mixed in with this individual, there is a strong tendency to toss those out as well. It can take a long time before the good things get the proper recognition.

-Drachasor

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No. I heard on This Morning with George Stephanopolous a couple weeks back. One of the guests mentioned that the most likely outcome of the elections in Iraqi is that the government is going to ask the U.S. to leave, based on the support of a recent election.

If the Shi'ites control the new assembly, I hardly think they will ask us to leave as they have no means themselves of controlling the Sunni's.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drachasor


The thing about it is, the ME can tell that these nations are just being self-serving, and they HATE it. Any major change in the ME to get rid of terrorism will probably require a change in this aspect of our policy as well. People can and will rebel against things related to a self-serving individual interfering in their lives. If good things happen to be mixed in with this individual, there is a strong tendency to toss those out as well. It can take a long time before the good things get the proper recognition.

-Drachasor

What it clear is that the likes of al Jazeera do not like the US or any European for that matter interfering in Arabia. They want us out, regardless of our good deeds.

However, a free Iraq might change their attitudes if they can see some real benefits flowing from a closer relationship between the countries of Islam and the countries of Christianity.