France Surrenders!

[The Mad Monk]

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

[Skanky Burns]

[Spiffor]

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]

'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]

His violation of UN resolutions is just an excuse.

[Spiffor]

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]

From BBC:

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]

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]

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]

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

What an unusual piece of spin that is...

[Roland]

Usual Washington spin.

[Harovan]

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]

We'll see what happens...

[The Mad Monk]

Well, this is what Drudge had up:

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/politics/story.jsp?story=350002

[The Mad Monk]

Now, what had you heard, Roland?