French-American relations - a new look

[lord of the mark]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013101081.html

[Verto]

synagogue

[Provost Harrison]

Even my thread was funnier than this!

[Verto]

I blame the Zionist

[Spiffor]

Interesting

[Adam Smith]

Is this because Bush froze Powell out, but heeds Rice's advice?

And what's up with LOTM's friend Hillary, who used to complain that

It has been a continuing theme of my criticism and others that we would be further along, we would have more legitimacy, we would diminish the opposition and resentment that is fueling whatever remains of the insurgency if we had been willing to move to internationalize our presence and further action in Iraq. I believe that today. And in fact, I think that we now have a new opportunity for the administration to do just that.

Remarks Before Council on Foreign Relations, December 15, 2003

but now complains that

Sen. Hillary Clinton may have been using political hyperbole last month when she charged that the administration has been "outsourcing" its Iran policy to France and other European countries, but she wasn't entirely wrong.

(from LOTM's link)

[OneFootInTheGrave]

main driver for the change according to the article

- US failure in Iraq.

Just shows what a bunch of incompetent morons sit there in Washington. They needed a war to show them that they can't do it alone, and that undoing what their predecessors built for hundred years is not a good thing. Idiots.

[StarLightDeath]

Could you do me a favor and put your other foot in the grave as well?

[Fake Boris]

Ah, the voice of wisdom.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath
Could you do me a favor and put your other foot in the grave as well?

done

[Japher]

They needed a war to show them that they can't do it alone, and that undoing what their predecessors built for hundred years is not a good thing. Idiots.

So we should of done nothing and just lived with the "not a good thing"? Admitting you are/were wrong is now a bad thing? You can't win with the French

I guess we should of done nothing and wait for the country to descend into civil war and still do nothing. And let them kill themselves even though it was us who caused the problem in the first place.

That is, after all, the French way of doing things.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Japher


So we should of done nothing and just lived with the "not a good thing"? Admitting you are/were wrong is now a bad thing? You can't win with the French

I guess we should of done nothing and wait for the country to descend into civil war and still do nothing. And let them kill themselves even though it was us who caused the problem in the first place.

That is, after all, the French way of doing things.

taking the foot out (sorry SOD )

since you ask - first about the Iraq war causes I believe most of us have been a thousand times over, and there are more or less two camps of opinions what were the motives why was it started, but the "official reason" is clear and it was not for charity it was for "now fake" WMD.

The article able would indicate that these days US considers the opinions and influence of its allies a lot more and in the case of Iran (which presents much greater thread Iraq ever did) they are even ready to wait a month to get eveyone on board *gasp*- so gone is the cocky unilateral attitude so prevalent under Bush administration before the war. If US considered legal UN process and was keen to respecting the international law, listened to the "allies", it would not have acted unilaterally, and all the current mess would never have happened in the first place. It seems that now the current admin finally realised that working with allies such as France is the better approach.

This current action and cooperation is good of course, but the sad part is that Bush admin needed Iraq to blast their "unilateral" attitude, and make them think straight, thus my utter disgust.

Still, eventually is better than never.


So to clear up:

What changed? the attitude (and for the better)
What was needed for the change? - Iraq war
Thus ,

but better ever than never.

* & to add my first post above has nothing to do with France (unless your comments relate to "why whe started the war, or why the Franch wouldn't do it" at the time). I say that the public face of the reasons for the war was WMD at the time pure and simple, where the French/Germans/Russians/ most of the rest of the world said that the threat is not sufficient to start a war. Anyhow Bush admin just plainly dug its collective head into the sand and said "no problem for us", screw you, came in, did practically no "post-war" planning and is now reaping the consequences.

[lord of the mark]

I think Rice was inclined to return to multilateralism immediately. Doing something ally X doesnt like (and even interferes with) doenst mean you stop seeing ally X as an ally. Rummy no longer has a big role in foreign policy. That has more to do with the ascendancy of Rice than it does with the situation on the ground in Iraq.


My main point was to show how we've moved past the disputes of 2002/2003. Which is why im not inclined to discuss those yet again in this thread.

My friend Hillary - well even my dearest friends sometimes say inconsistent things. I can think of several ways that her two statements could be reconciled, but wont bother - shes a pol, and is entitled, as other pols are, to a cheap shot A nice cheap shot in this instance, since it appeals to both the left (we shouldnt be outsourcing iran to europe, we should be talking to them ourselves, and guaranteeing Irans security) and the right ( we shouldnt be outsourcing to Europe, we should be getting ready to send in the smart bombs) without saying exactly where she stands.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

My main point was to show how we've moved past the disputes of 2002/2003. Which is why im not inclined to discuss those yet again in this thread.

well it's good that this phase is technically over, but it is trully sad that this was needed to get the situation straight (and now we could argue) - you saying that it has only to do with Rice ascenacy. I'd say that Powell was much a bigger "internationalist" than Rice ever was, and that only the realities of war and occupation have got this admin in line on this aspect of their "rule".

Anyhow it is good that this phase is behind us, and hopefully the future challenges such as Iran at the moment or NK can be dealt with in a suitable manner and together.

[Japher]

We all love Powell. Yet, he couldn't deal with the mistake and had to leave.

If you can't forgive for errors, no matter how well founded they are, then I can't argue with you. It is just a grudge that you then posses, and not a real complaint.