France on the outside looking in?

[jjones]

American State Department officials say the United States may seek to exclude France from key decision-making within Nato in response to French opposition to the US-led war in Iraq.

The officials said a range of possible steps against France were under discussion including ensuring that Nato decisions are made by the organisation's Defence Planning Committee, of which France is not a member.

Nato decisions are usually taken by the North Atlantic Council (NAC) which contains all 19 members of the alliance, but they can also be taken by the Defence Planning Committee, which would exclude France.

I would think that this would be a rather serious slap in the face for France, effectively sidelining them in a manner that highlights the US administration's opinion that the French leadership has made itself irrelevent. I think we'll see more of this kind of political undermining of France's credibility. In some ways, I hope it doesn't go too far as it will just make the US look vindictive, but I haven't thought too highly of France's leaders for quite a long while. It seems that whenever the US is taking the lead on international concerns, France gives its cooperation either grudgingly or not at all. And I'm not referring to this latest issue over Iraq, but I will concede that I most likely view the US / France relationship somewhat myopically.

Full story

And I can't help taking a shot at France. Is it any wonder that France is not a member of Nato's Defense Planning Committee?

 

[HappyPuppy]

Chirac fvcked up big time. The fact that he opposed the U.S. wasn't a big concern, but the active and intentional undermining of our plans was unacceptable. In the past, as you said, France has set itself against just about anything the U.S. wanted to do. They had/have the right to do so for whatever their reasons are. They lost sight of the fact, though, that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I think the Bush admin is going to slap them around a little to get their attention before it lets them play with the big boys again.

 

[guigui38]

so what you say that all countries must agree with the policy of your president??
in that case it is not a democracy any more but a dictatorship
every democratic country can have its opinion and to advertise about it without being threatened with economical retaliations.

 

[Zebo]

It's obvious we care not about democracy. France followed it's peoples will and is punished. Bush mislead us to con pubic opinon. Now in Iraq, Bush finds all the democratic choices unacceptable..

Just keep saying WMD, Saddam, 9-11, liberation in the same sentence long enough bush. Maybe you can convince them otherwise.

 

[phillyTIM]

The US already looks vindictive. The GALL the Bush regime has, now that the war is over, to consider punishment of those against it. Humph. Doesn't look like Bush's Election '00 "compassionate conservatism" to me--"PASSIONATE neoconservatism" is more like it.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: guigui38
so what you say that all countries must agree with the policy of your president??
in that case it is not a democracy any more but a dictatorship
every democratic country can have its opinion and to advertise about it without being threatened with economical retaliations.[/L]

The actions of France went way beyond just having an opinion and disagreeing with the what the U.S. is trying to accomplish in Iraq.

 

[guigui38]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: guigui38
so what you say that all countries must agree with the policy of your president??
in that case it is not a democracy any more but a dictatorship
every democratic country can have its opinion and to advertise about it without being threatened with economical retaliations.[/L]

The actions of France went way beyond just having an opinion and disagreeing with the what the U.S. is trying to accomplish in Iraq.

brief answer which answers nothing
france was not the only country to denounce the behaviour of the us on this situation ; russia was the first to say they would veto any resolution for the war, france followed the next day. But only france is bashed by the us media why ?
france only advocating against a immediate war
france was for on going mission of blix, following their results and in case of non result would have advocated for the replacement of the iraqi government.
France was for the exile of hussein
Is this way beyond just having an opinion and disagreeing?
or u mean u can have an opinion only if u keep it for yourself?

 

[Ynog]

France was against war with Iraq thats fine. There people didn't want war and their government followed the peoples will.
And Russia did say they would veto a resolution but they recanted and decided they would reconsider one, but France
stated they would veto ANY new resolution. Even the Germans were open to other options. But it was Frances hard line
stance that is being punished. Its one thing to be against something, but when you won't consider other options.

Lets face it people we live in a world when someone screws you, you'll try to screw them. It holds for countries too.
When someone undermines you at work (IE France undermining the US's attempt for UN Sponsered Iraq War), do you
take it or do you try to undermine them back.

 

[guigui38]

not when you try to resolve the situation diplomatically with further inspection, france proposed a resolution in that sense
us wanted to go there to make war for some reason and not in others country for jesus knows other reason
us also undermine the resolution for further inspections , they also said they would veto ANY resolution which would allow that

well tell me did iraq screw you???
there was no proof of help from sadam to bin laden
yes they may have wmd but they wouldnt have used them against the us, too far away when u have some countries nearby you really hates (koweit, israel)
so iraq was not the most important threat to the us
u blame terrorism well go to pakistan or as....

 

[Stark]

Originally posted by: guigui38
not when you try to resolve the situation diplomatically with further inspection, france proposed a resolution in that sense
us wanted to go there to make war for some reason and not in others country for jesus knows other reason
us also undermine the resolution for further inspections , they also said they would veto ANY resolution which would allow that

well tell me did iraq screw you???
there was no proof of help from sadam to bin laden
yes they may have wmd but they wouldnt have used them against the us, too far away when u have some countries nearby you really hates (koweit, israel)
so iraq was not the most important threat to the us
u blame terrorism well go to pakistan or as....

France opposed the war because it benefitted from having a madman like Saddam in power. Saddam owed them more $ than he could ever repay them. Chiraq used all the political muscle he had to defend Saddam's regime. They didn't want a liberated Iraq, so they should have no say in matters concerning it.

And they should never see a penny of the debt Saddam owed them. Pakistan is different than Iraq. They already have WMD and their leader has given us as much support as he can without facing a bloody rebellion. Fighting against Pakistan would almost guarantee a nuclear war with India.

NK is a much more serious thread that can still be dealt with without nukes involved. And it is ruled by a socialist dictator.

 

[dabuddha]

Agree with our policy or not, that's not the issue. It's France's actions that are in question here. They tried everything to stop us from going to war when it was necessary for their own monetary gain.

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: guigui38
so what you say that all countries must agree with the policy of your president??
in that case it is not a democracy any more but a dictatorship
every democratic country can have its opinion and to advertise about it without being threatened with economical retaliations.

No one said that France should be punished for having a differing opinion.

What France is being questioned about is why they felt the need to abandon the UN resolutions they already agreed on which were passed. France is considered an ally of the U.S. and a member of the UN, who signed more then one resolution stating that if Iraq failed to provide proof of disarming then action will be taken.

Instead France turned its back on its ally, refused to enforce the resolutions it agreed on, and did everything in its power to stop the US from fighting Iraq. They single handedly made the UN look like a joke internationally and it can be debated that the war in Iraq wouldn't even have happened if France hadn't take such a hardline stance that it would not get involved in Iraq. This dispute in the UN gave Saddam ground to stand on where he shouldn't have had any. A unified UN acting together may have been able to peacefully force Saddam to be more lenient.

 

[tk149]

Didn't France also threaten to block the admission of some countries into the EU, if they did agreed to side with the United States on the Iraq issue?

France is entitled to their own opinion and UN vote, but doing crap like that is why they should be sidelined.

 

[SuperTool]

I thought France already quit the NATO's military decision body?
NATO is an outdated institution anyways. It's protecting Europe from the Russian Commies, at the time when the Europeans are now bigger commies than the Russians.

 

[Dari]

france has always been anti-american, which is a derivative of anti-saxonism. That's why we have so many french jokes. this "challenge" from the french is not new.