France calls for a new start to relations with USA

[raildogg]

U.S. a 'vital ally' for Europe

From CNN Correspondent Jim Bittermann
Wednesday, January 19, 2005 Posted: 8:01 PM EST (0101 GMT)

PARIS, France (CNN) -- The French Foreign Minister has called for "a new trans-Atlantic relationship" between the United States and its European allies.

Too many challenges face the world for the two not to work together in addressing them, Michel Barnier told CNN, but said France will not bow to the will of the United States.

"We are allies. Alliance is not submission."

"We have to work together in the broader sense, and probably in what I call a new trans-Atlantic relationship, and get in the habit to talk more to each other -- even when we don't agree, because that happens -- to talk more about politics," he said Wednesday.

Relations between France and the United States took a blow after the two disagreed over the war in Iraq.

The "French-bashing" that followed the disagreement may have hurt U.S.-French ties, Barnier said.

"It's not fair to ridicule France. France and the U.S. are friends and allies in the world, in history, since the beginning. Once again, alliance is not submission and we can disagree on certain subjects.

"We didn't agree on Iraq. Frankly ... I say and repeat that President (Jacques) Chirac's state of mind and my own is to look ahead and not in the rear-view mirror."

Asked whether the French are willing to compromise, Barnier said, "The French can change and the Americans can change.

"A discussion should be something frank, direct, lucid, where each one can make an effort. ... I heard my colleague Condoleezza Rice say to the Senate herself that the American administration will use more multilateral dialogue in diplomacy rather than unilateral talk."

But, he said, France will not make a "one-way compromise."

"The U.S. can't be alone to face the challenge of terrorism, poverty, development, instability in the world -- we need to be together," Barnier said.

"And why are we allies? We're allies to face that together.

"I think American people are lucid, realistic and pragmatic. We have to see that the alliance between Europeans and Americans is vital, and it should serve peace, freedom and democracy."




hopefully this will be a new start of a relationship, which is necessary for both sides

 

[CADsortaGUY]

:thumbsup:

CsG

 

[yllus]

Ah, good. And good timing.

Though we may complain often and easily become irritated by France's deliberately and sometimes childishly contrarian positions, they learned their lessons in the post-WW2 period and would be a tremendous ally in military operations.

 

[illustri]

does this mean we're going back to frenched fries?

 

[RabidMongoose]

It's not fair to ridicule France.

That sounds kind of funny.

Anyways, it would be pretty great to mend the relations again. It probably won't be enough until both Bush and Chirac are out of office.

 

[Stunt]

good news...

 

[GrGr]

Meh, the French government (not the people) wanted to be on board all along but the neocons (Rumsfeld and Cheney) didn't want them so they started the 'Old Europe' campaign and stabbed Powell in the back.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: GrGr
Meh, the French government (not the people) wanted to be on board all along but the neocons (Rumsfeld and Cheney) didn't want them so they started the 'Old Europe' campaign and stabbed Powell in the back.

How did the French government want to 'be on board all along' anyways?

 

[SuperTool]

France was right to not go along with the Iraq invasion. They took a lot of flack for it, but standing up for what's right often involves that. Had we listened to our allies, we would not be in the mess we are in.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
France was right to not go along with the Iraq invasion. They took a lot of flack for it, but standing up for what's right often involves that. Had we listened to our allies, we would not be in the mess we are in.

There are other threads if you want to bring up Iraq. Lets stay on topic please.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: SuperTool
France was right to not go along with the Iraq invasion. They took a lot of flack for it, but standing up for what's right often involves that. Had we listened to our allies, we would not be in the mess we are in.

There are other threads if you want to bring up Iraq. Lets stay on topic please.

OK, without bringing up Iraq: France was right on a previous issue of great importance that the US was wrong on. We should listen to them more.

 

[lozina]

It's very honorable for the French to take the initative in this

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: lozina
It's very honorable for the French to take the initative in this

Viva la France!!

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: GrGr
Meh, the French government (not the people) wanted to be on board all along but the neocons (Rumsfeld and Cheney) didn't want them so they started the 'Old Europe' campaign and stabbed Powell in the back.

How did the French government want to 'be on board all along' anyways?

The French wanted to remain 'friends' with the US governement over the Iraq issue but the US government made it impossible politically and diplomatically.

Foreign Affairs

"About the same time, the French also reversed their position. After insisting from the beginning that war would require a second vote to authorize it, suddenly Paris began scrambling to avoid a showdown with the United States. France's ambassador in Washington, Jean-David Levitte, told Cheney in February that Washington and Paris should simply "agree to disagree." Through other diplomatic channels, the French advised the Americans to bypass the council entirely. "Your interpretation [of 1441] is sufficient [to justify war]," they counseled Washington, and "you should rely on your interpretation."

...

As for the French, until the very end of the process they feared ending up in the minority. They desperately wanted to avoid using their veto and thus being excluded from any role in a post-Saddam Iraq. This is why de Villepin went on his infamous trip to Africa to line up opposition to the United States and why, at the 11th hour, even after his explicit veto threat, Chirac proposed a 30-day timetable based on a weaker version of the British benchmarks.

But from the White House's perspective, Chirac had already crossed the line. In a phone call with Bush, Chirac told him, "I am convinced there is no immediate or urgent threat," but Bush insisted that Iraq "threatens the American people." Rightly or wrongly, the administration believed that vital U.S. interests were at stake and thus regarded Chirac's veto threat as profoundly unfriendly.

It is true, then, that France's opposition made passage of a second resolution impossible. But it is also true that the United States' failure to lay the diplomatic groundwork and offer modest compromises made achieving even a moral majority on the council impossible.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: SuperTool
France was right to not go along with the Iraq invasion. They took a lot of flack for it, but standing up for what's right often involves that. Had we listened to our allies, we would not be in the mess we are in.

There are other threads if you want to bring up Iraq. Lets stay on topic please.

OK, without bringing up Iraq: France was right on a previous issue of great importance that the US was wrong on. We should listen to them more.

:laugh:

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: GrGr
Meh, the French government (not the people) wanted to be on board all along but the neocons (Rumsfeld and Cheney) didn't want them so they started the 'Old Europe' campaign and stabbed Powell in the back.

How did the French government want to 'be on board all along' anyways?

The French wanted to remain 'friends' with the US governement over the Iraq issue but the US government made it impossible politically and diplomatically.

Foreign Affairs

"About the same time, the French also reversed their position. After insisting from the beginning that war would require a second vote to authorize it, suddenly Paris began scrambling to avoid a showdown with the United States. France's ambassador in Washington, Jean-David Levitte, told Cheney in February that Washington and Paris should simply "agree to disagree." Through other diplomatic channels, the French advised the Americans to bypass the council entirely. "Your interpretation [of 1441] is sufficient [to justify war]," they counseled Washington, and "you should rely on your interpretation."

...

As for the French, until the very end of the process they feared ending up in the minority. They desperately wanted to avoid using their veto and thus being excluded from any role in a post-Saddam Iraq. This is why de Villepin went on his infamous trip to Africa to line up opposition to the United States and why, at the 11th hour, even after his explicit veto threat, Chirac proposed a 30-day timetable based on a weaker version of the British benchmarks.

But from the White House's perspective, Chirac had already crossed the line. In a phone call with Bush, Chirac told him, "I am convinced there is no immediate or urgent threat," but Bush insisted that Iraq "threatens the American people." Rightly or wrongly, the administration believed that vital U.S. interests were at stake and thus regarded Chirac's veto threat as profoundly unfriendly.

It is true, then, that France's opposition made passage of a second resolution impossible. But it is also true that the United States' failure to lay the diplomatic groundwork and offer modest compromises made achieving even a moral majority on the council impossible.

Sure doesn't sound like they wanted to 'be on board all along' and from their own actions it could be interpreted that they did not wish to be friends either.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: SuperTool
France was right to not go along with the Iraq invasion. They took a lot of flack for it, but standing up for what's right often involves that. Had we listened to our allies, we would not be in the mess we are in.

There are other threads if you want to bring up Iraq. Lets stay on topic please.

OK, without bringing up Iraq: France was right on a previous issue of great importance that the US was wrong on. We should listen to them more.

OBL does not agree with you....

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: SuperTool
France was right to not go along with the Iraq invasion. They took a lot of flack for it, but standing up for what's right often involves that. Had we listened to our allies, we would not be in the mess we are in.

There are other threads if you want to bring up Iraq. Lets stay on topic please.

OK, without bringing up Iraq: France was right on a previous issue of great importance that the US was wrong on. We should listen to them more.

:laugh:

:thumbsdown:

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: GrGr
Meh, the French government (not the people) wanted to be on board all along but the neocons (Rumsfeld and Cheney) didn't want them so they started the 'Old Europe' campaign and stabbed Powell in the back.

How did the French government want to 'be on board all along' anyways?

The French wanted to remain 'friends' with the US governement over the Iraq issue but the US government made it impossible politically and diplomatically.

Foreign Affairs

"About the same time, the French also reversed their position. After insisting from the beginning that war would require a second vote to authorize it, suddenly Paris began scrambling to avoid a showdown with the United States. France's ambassador in Washington, Jean-David Levitte, told Cheney in February that Washington and Paris should simply "agree to disagree." Through other diplomatic channels, the French advised the Americans to bypass the council entirely. "Your interpretation [of 1441] is sufficient [to justify war]," they counseled Washington, and "you should rely on your interpretation."

...

As for the French, until the very end of the process they feared ending up in the minority. They desperately wanted to avoid using their veto and thus being excluded from any role in a post-Saddam Iraq. This is why de Villepin went on his infamous trip to Africa to line up opposition to the United States and why, at the 11th hour, even after his explicit veto threat, Chirac proposed a 30-day timetable based on a weaker version of the British benchmarks.

But from the White House's perspective, Chirac had already crossed the line. In a phone call with Bush, Chirac told him, "I am convinced there is no immediate or urgent threat," but Bush insisted that Iraq "threatens the American people." Rightly or wrongly, the administration believed that vital U.S. interests were at stake and thus regarded Chirac's veto threat as profoundly unfriendly.

It is true, then, that France's opposition made passage of a second resolution impossible. But it is also true that the United States' failure to lay the diplomatic groundwork and offer modest compromises made achieving even a moral majority on the council impossible.

Sure doesn't sound like they wanted to 'be on board all along' and from their own actions it could be interpreted that they did not wish to be friends either.

Did you read the article? The French knew that Saddam was no threat (and I am convinced the Bushies knew that as well) but the French could not join the 'Coalition' without further proof that Saddam was indeed a threat. That would have been political suicide as 80+ per cent of the French people were against the invasion. The French and the Russians wanted their share of the spoils too but the US wouldn't have them.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: SuperTool
France was right to not go along with the Iraq invasion. They took a lot of flack for it, but standing up for what's right often involves that. Had we listened to our allies, we would not be in the mess we are in.

There are other threads if you want to bring up Iraq. Lets stay on topic please.

OK, without bringing up Iraq: France was right on a previous issue of great importance that the US was wrong on. We should listen to them more.

:laugh:

:thumbsdown:

"In a phone call with Bush, Chirac told him, "I am convinced there is no immediate or urgent threat," but Bush insisted that Iraq "threatens the American people." Rightly or wrongly, the administration believed that vital U.S. interests were at stake and thus regarded Chirac's veto threat as profoundly unfriendly."

Yeah Bush has a problem with thruth tellers. That is nothing new.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: GrGr
Did you read the article? The French knew that Saddam was no threat (and I am convinced the Bushies knew that as well) but the French could not join the 'Coalition' without further proof that Saddam was indeed a threat. That would have been political suicide as 80+ per cent of the French people were against the invasion. The French and the Russians wanted their share of the spoils too but the US wouldn't have them.

I did not read all of it, but from your excerpt it does not appear that the French wanted to be friends in the beginning. I'm not talking about wether the French were right or not orthat the French government did not want a share of Iraq or profits at the expense of Iraq or anything else.

 

[Gaard]

We'd all be dead if we didn't oust Saddam.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: GrGr
Did you read the article? The French knew that Saddam was no threat (and I am convinced the Bushies knew that as well) but the French could not join the 'Coalition' without further proof that Saddam was indeed a threat. That would have been political suicide as 80+ per cent of the French people were against the invasion. The French and the Russians wanted their share of the spoils too but the US wouldn't have them.

I did not read all of it, but from your excerpt it does not appear that the French wanted to be friends in the beginning. I'm not talking about wether the French were right or not orthat the French government did not want a share of Iraq or profits at the expense of Iraq or anything else.

The French loved Clinton. It has long been a major point of policy for the French to have good relations with the US. It was just that Bush's claims about Saddam were so patently absurd.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: GrGr
Did you read the article? The French knew that Saddam was no threat (and I am convinced the Bushies knew that as well) but the French could not join the 'Coalition' without further proof that Saddam was indeed a threat. That would have been political suicide as 80+ per cent of the French people were against the invasion. The French and the Russians wanted their share of the spoils too but the US wouldn't have them.

I did not read all of it, but from your excerpt it does not appear that the French wanted to be friends in the beginning. I'm not talking about wether the French were right or not orthat the French government did not want a share of Iraq or profits at the expense of Iraq or anything else.

The French loved Clinton. It has long been a major point of policy for the French to have good relations with the US. It was just that Bush's claims about Saddam were so patently absurd.

OK, but that doesn't mean that they wanted to be friends with the US, especially under Bush. Friendship goes both ways.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: GrGr
Did you read the article? The French knew that Saddam was no threat (and I am convinced the Bushies knew that as well) but the French could not join the 'Coalition' without further proof that Saddam was indeed a threat. That would have been political suicide as 80+ per cent of the French people were against the invasion. The French and the Russians wanted their share of the spoils too but the US wouldn't have them.

I did not read all of it, but from your excerpt it does not appear that the French wanted to be friends in the beginning. I'm not talking about wether the French were right or not orthat the French government did not want a share of Iraq or profits at the expense of Iraq or anything else.

The French loved Clinton. It has long been a major point of policy for the French to have good relations with the US. It was just that Bush's claims about Saddam were so patently absurd.

What you fail to point out is that one of the major reasons they didnt want us to invade Iraq is because of all their dealings with Saddam. Chiraq and Saddam were good buddies in fact. I heard of a story that whenever Chiraq came to Iraq, he would order a meal of a very famous fish in Iraq. Its a delicacy. Chiraq loved this Iraqi dish, believe the fish was from a famour river in Iraq. Now this is a side story, but still interesting.

In fact Saddam owed France a lot of money.