**OFFICIAL** Why France sucks!

Stark

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2000
7,735
0
0
I recently got a PM regarding my sig. Most of what is in it came from story the local radio statio (KFI in LA) did on the morning drive. The host was Bill Handel. Well, here's the transcript of the story, from the station website.

FRANCE IRAQ RELATIONSHIP

INTRO: By now you know about France?s intractable position with regards to the UN Security Council vote. It will veto this current resolution which calls for war with Iraq. France has taken the lead position in opposing the US and Britain with regards to taking out Saddam Hussein.

The question is why?
To understand the French/Iraq relationship you have to look to the past.

HISTORY: Let?s start back at 1958.
More than a decade has passed since the end of WWII and the globe is separated into two super powers?the US and the Soviet Union.
French President Charles de Gaulle is busy trying to set up the Fifth Republic?a political group dedicated to the rebirth of France as a world power.

One of the methods to achieve this is to make friends with Third World nations. During the late 50?s and early 60?s, De Gaulle developed good relations with several nations in Africa.

In time, these contacts enabled France to make new friends in the Arab world. De Gaulle stated to a French politician: "Don't you see we have traded Grandpa's empire for the much broader empire of the future, and the limited oil of the Sahara for the much more plentiful oil of Arabia?"

THE ARAB CONNECTION: While most of the Arab nations were under monarchies ?Iraq?s government had been overthrown by revolutionaries. The French exploited this opportunity by warming up to then Iraqi regime. One of the men instrumental in this relationship was a guy called Jacques Benoist Mechin?a French historian and military expert. He was very familiar with the Middle East and a confidant to most Arab leaders?.BUT his ties to Iraq were the strongest.

Benoist-Méchin told President De Gaulle: "Iraq really is the key to your Arab policy. Its oil reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia's. And the most reliable people in Iraq are the Baathists."

SADDAM IS IN: It is now 1969.
President DeGaulle resigns and Saddam Hussein begins his ruthless ascent to power in the Baath party. The contacts and relationships developed by Benoist Mechin thru out the 60?s begin to pay off in the 70?s. That?s when Saddam Hussein made the acquaintance of Jacques Chirac.

In 1974, then French Premier Chirac traveled to Baghdad to meet Iraqi VICE-president Saddam Hussein. During that visit, Chirac and Hussein conducted negotiations on a range of issues, the most important of these being Iraq?s purchase of nuclear reactors.

In September 1975, Hussein traveled to Paris, where Chirac personally gave him a tour of a French nuclear plant. During that visit, Chirac said, ?Iraq is in the process of beginning a coherent nuclear program and France wants to associate herself with that effort in the field of reactors.?

France sold two reactors to Iraq, with the agreement signed during Hussein?s visit. The Iraqis purchased a 70-megawatt reactor, along with enough weapons-grade uranium to produce three to four nuclear devices. Baghdad also purchased a one-megawatt research reactor, and France agreed to train 600 Iraqi nuclear technicians and scientists -- the core of Iraq?s nuclear capability today.

France also agreed to sell Iraq $1.5 billion worth of weapons -- an integrated air defense system, about 60 Mirage F1 fighter planes, surface-to-air missiles and advanced electronics. The Iraqis, for their part, agreed to sell France $70 million worth of oil.

During this period, Chirac and Hussein formed what Chirac called a close personal relationship. In 1987, the Manchester Guardian Weekly quoted Chirac as saying that he was ?truly fascinated by Saddam Hussein since 1974.?

That fascination continued thru the decades.


COMPLICATED RELATIONSHIPS: It is now 1981.
Iraq?s nuclear reactor is destroyed by the Israeli?s and Iraq goes to war with Iran.
Newly elected French President Francois Mitterand continues the relationship with Iraq?.betting that Iraq will win the war and therefore become the dominant power in the Middle East!

Mitterrand eventually agrees to resume and even upgrade French cooperation with Iraq, both supplying weapons and entering into industrial partnerships.
However, Saddam was bad business.

By 1989, when the Iraq-Iran war ended? about $10 billion worth of French arms had been delivered to Iraq. Saddam had paid less than $5 billion of the bill. (NOTE: Iraq-related orders accounted for about half of all French arms production.)

A couple of years later in 1991?when Iraq invaded Kuwait?the French had to re-evaluate their support of Saddam AGAIN.
The majority of French people?across the political spectrum? stood by Iraq. (French defense minister, Jean-Pierre Chevènement, resigned from the cabinet rather than condone military intervention. An even larger share of the public was inclined to neutrality.)


Mitterrand, however, decided to be practical than to hold on to his ideals.

Even after engaging in last-minute negotiations with Baghdad, France joined the American-led international coalition for the liberation of Kuwait.

It was obvious to Mitterand that Iraq was no match for the United States and that France?s old strategy made no sense now that the Cold War was over and the Soviet Union was disintegrating. It no longer served the national interest of France to challenge America, but to be among the winners and so have a say in the final settlement, whatever it might be.

THE PROBLEMS TODAY: SO?in the 12 years between the end of the first Gulf War til the present ?
France has been a solid supporter of the US in other international events?such as Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. The rationale is still to be seen as a peer of the one and only superpower--and incidentally to keep in touch with the superpower's ever-improving military technology and training.

Right now, France confronts an ironic situation. After the first Gulf War, Saddam was allowed to survive. The only sensible response for the French was to keep their distance. Now that George W. Bush, is serious about getting rid of Saddam?France is trying to hinder that.
Partly because of Chirac?s history with Saddam?or because of France's growing Islamic population?or because France wants to emerge as a world player by taking on the strongest power on earth.

SOURCE: Weekly Standard

You can only be allies with one side. France has clearly chosen its ally. It's not us.

As Dennis Miller said, "We should bomb Iraq, then bomb Chiraq!"
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
And? How convenient you don't point out who put Hussein in power in the first place (*cough CIA cough*)
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
You might as well put up the picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hands, or give details about the vast amounts of weaponry we gave to Iraq while you are at it.

What do you think will happen with the next guy in power in Iraq?
 

Stark

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2000
7,735
0
0
Originally posted by: Phokus
And? How convenient you don't point out who put Hussein in power in the first place (*cough CIA cough*)

the choice was iraq or iran. iraq hadn't taken our embassy hostage. we used saddam to punish iran. unfortunately he turned out to be a crazed dictator.

The difference is, we aren't supporting him now. France is.
Our President isn't a charter member of the Hussein fan club. Chiraq is.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Phokus
And? How convenient you don't point out who put Hussein in power in the first place (*cough CIA cough*)

Take some cough medicine and provide a link that shows that the CIA put Saddam in power please.

 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
France isnt supporting him now, they just arent supporting the US. Dont believe the tripe Bush spits out about "either you are with us or against us", that isnt how foriegn relations work, muchless any issue that needs compromise.

 

Stark

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2000
7,735
0
0
Originally posted by: HendrixFan
France isnt supporting him now, they just arent supporting the US. Dont believe the tripe Bush spits out about "either you are with us or against us", that isnt how foriegn relations work, muchless any issue that needs compromise.

um, ok...
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
Originally posted by: Stark
Originally posted by: HendrixFan
France isnt supporting him now, they just arent supporting the US. Dont believe the tripe Bush spits out about "either you are with us or against us", that isnt how foriegn relations work, muchless any issue that needs compromise.

um, ok...

If you think issues are resolved with one party dictating with complete and announced close-mindedness, you are mistaken. When dealing with issues in the international arena, bi-partisonship is magnified greatly. Different cultures bring about different opinions and approaches to "problems". To keep everyone happy as much as possible, you have to carefully craft yourself and your policy in the international stage. See Colin Powell and his speeches to the UN and his meetings with foreign leaders.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: HendrixFan
Originally posted by: Stark
Originally posted by: HendrixFan
France isnt supporting him now, they just arent supporting the US. Dont believe the tripe Bush spits out about "either you are with us or against us", that isnt how foriegn relations work, muchless any issue that needs compromise.

um, ok...

If you think issues are resolved with one party dictating with complete and announced close-mindedness, you are mistaken. When dealing with issues in the international arena, bi-partisonship is magnified greatly. Different cultures bring about different opinions and approaches to "problems". To keep everyone happy as much as possible, you have to carefully craft yourself and your policy in the international stage. See Colin Powell and his speeches to the UN and his meetings with foreign leaders.

Sort of like how France is threatening to veto any resolution that the US, Britain, Italy and Spain present no matter what it contains.

That sort of announced close-mindedness?
 

Syringer

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
19,333
3
71
Originally posted by: Stark
Originally posted by: Phokus
And? How convenient you don't point out who put Hussein in power in the first place (*cough CIA cough*)

the choice was iraq or iran. iraq hadn't taken our embassy hostage. we used saddam to punish iran. unfortunately he turned out to be a crazed dictator.

The difference is, we aren't supporting him now. France is.
Our President isn't a charter member of the Hussein fan club. Chiraq is.

We support Saudi Arabia, which has been proven to have terrorists links to it. What's your point?

Don't get me started in the other middle eastern countries we support either..
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Originally posted by: Stark
Originally posted by: Phokus
And? How convenient you don't point out who put Hussein in power in the first place (*cough CIA cough*)

the choice was iraq or iran. iraq hadn't taken our embassy hostage. we used saddam to punish iran. unfortunately he turned out to be a crazed dictator.

The difference is, we aren't supporting him now. France is.
Our President isn't a charter member of the Hussein fan club. Chiraq is.

That's not what i was refferring to. I'm talking about how the CIA had a hand in helping Saddam get into power in the first place. The Iran/Iraq conflict is a whole 'nother mess.
 

Stark

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2000
7,735
0
0
Originally posted by: HendrixFan
Originally posted by: Stark
Originally posted by: HendrixFan
France isnt supporting him now, they just arent supporting the US. Dont believe the tripe Bush spits out about "either you are with us or against us", that isnt how foriegn relations work, muchless any issue that needs compromise.

um, ok...

If you think issues are resolved with one party dictating with complete and announced close-mindedness, you are mistaken. When dealing with issues in the international arena, bi-partisonship is magnified greatly. Different cultures bring about different opinions and approaches to "problems". To keep everyone happy as much as possible, you have to carefully craft yourself and your policy in the international stage. See Colin Powell and his speeches to the UN and his meetings with foreign leaders.

do you think france listened to one word that came out of powells mouth? They said they will veto ANYTHING that comes before the security council. And Powell said yesterday that the US is viewing simply walking away from any UN vote as an option.
 

Descartes

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
13,968
2
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Phokus
And? How convenient you don't point out who put Hussein in power in the first place (*cough CIA cough*)

Take some cough medicine and provide a link that shows that the CIA put Saddam in power please.

Because a link will somehow quantify his statements?
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: HendrixFan
Originally posted by: Stark
Originally posted by: HendrixFan
France isnt supporting him now, they just arent supporting the US. Dont believe the tripe Bush spits out about "either you are with us or against us", that isnt how foriegn relations work, muchless any issue that needs compromise.

um, ok...

If you think issues are resolved with one party dictating with complete and announced close-mindedness, you are mistaken. When dealing with issues in the international arena, bi-partisonship is magnified greatly. Different cultures bring about different opinions and approaches to "problems". To keep everyone happy as much as possible, you have to carefully craft yourself and your policy in the international stage. See Colin Powell and his speeches to the UN and his meetings with foreign leaders.

Sort of like how France is threatening to veto any resolution that the US, Britain, Italy and Spain present no matter what it contains.

That sort of announced close-mindedness?


Exactly, just as the US has said that they will attack Iraq regardless of the UN's wishes and regardless of what the inspectors do or dont find. The US has made it painfully obvious that there was no debate on this issue, the rest of the world be damned. How would you expect other countries to react to such statements? It is the US that has forced the rest of the world to be a counter balance. Creating worldwide allies should be a priority, but its not. We are pissing off other countries and acting offended when they act accordingly.

Is it right that France has stated they will veto any US resolution?

No.

Is it right that the US has stated they will move without any UN support?

No.

Both are instances of close-mindedness, and the only difference is one is reactionary. Either way, both countries need to live up to the responsiblity of sitting on the UN and start working on diplomacy.
 

arynn

Senior member
Feb 16, 2001
234
0
0
The CIA helped Saddam come to power many years ago when we were in the midst of the cold war. At that point in time, we were much more concerned with the spread of communism and the power of the soviet union. The world is a different place now and we are trying clean up our mess.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Phokus
And? How convenient you don't point out who put Hussein in power in the first place (*cough CIA cough*)

Take some cough medicine and provide a link that shows that the CIA put Saddam in power please.

*YAWN*

http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/walden/sad_about2.shtml

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg01267.html

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1762/3626448.html

"Some writers claim that the CIA played a role in the 1968 coup, as well. "

Some writers probably claim that the CIA didn't. I would not call that proof.

Also, at that time Saddam was not the Baath party.

 

adlep

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2001
5,287
6
81
the choice was iraq or iran. iraq hadn't taken our embassy hostage. we used saddam to punish iran. unfortunately he turned out to be a crazed dictator.

Great, angry Iranians have taken over 80 Americans as hostages, but no one got hurt...
As a return, the US is starting a war which kills 1000000 people...
I am embarrased to be an American :eek:
 

DaiShan

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2001
9,617
1
0
A couple of years later in 1991?when Iraq invaded Kuwait?the French had to re-evaluate their support of Saddam AGAIN.
The majority of French people?across the political spectrum? stood by Iraq. (French defense minister, Jean-Pierre Chevènement, resigned from the cabinet rather than condone military intervention. An even larger share of the public was inclined to neutrality.)

That is the very same apathy laden neutrality that was the root of appeasement, which ended with half a million nazis occupying France. Appeasement did NOT work then it WILL not work now. If we do not learn from history it is doomed to repeats itself. The french have an aweful Napoleon Complex, they need to understand they are not a superpower, and have not for sometime been one, as such their efforts are detrimental to world peace, and in fact detrimental to the French people (ala WWII) All I know is Bagdhad is closer to Paris than to Washington.
 

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
34,931
2,084
126
Originally posted by: adlep
the choice was iraq or iran. iraq hadn't taken our embassy hostage. we used saddam to punish iran. unfortunately he turned out to be a crazed dictator.

Great, angry Iranians have taken over 80 Americans as hostages, but no one got hurt...
As a return, the US is starting a war which kills 1000000 people...
I am embarrased to be an American :eek:

Hey, how'd you get the casualty totals already?
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Phokus
And? How convenient you don't point out who put Hussein in power in the first place (*cough CIA cough*)

Take some cough medicine and provide a link that shows that the CIA put Saddam in power please.

*YAWN*

http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/walden/sad_about2.shtml

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg01267.html

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1762/3626448.html

"Some writers claim that the CIA played a role in the 1968 coup, as well. "

Some writers probably claim that the CIA didn't. I would not call that proof.

Also, at that time Saddam was not the Baath party.

Nice job copying and pasting a tiny part of the article and throwing the whole thing out of context. Is that American Flag wrapped a bit tightly over your eyes? That was the first attempt by the CIA, read what the author says in the next paragraph:

In 1963, the Baathists overthrew Qassim, with help from the CIA, and this time they killed him, but held power only briefly, setting off a a period of coups and counter-coups.

I believe that's fairly unambiguous.



 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: adlep
the choice was iraq or iran. iraq hadn't taken our embassy hostage. we used saddam to punish iran. unfortunately he turned out to be a crazed dictator.

Great, angry Iranians have taken over 80 Americans as hostages, but no one got hurt...
As a return, the US is starting a war which kills 1000000 people...
I am embarrased to be an American :eek:


Don't be embarrassed. Saddam started the Iran/Iraq war. The US supported him to help keep the Iranians from winning and taking over Iraq. The fear of the fundamentalists in Iran was a valid concern.
 

DaiShan

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2001
9,617
1
0
Originally posted by: HendrixFan
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: HendrixFan
Originally posted by: Stark
Originally posted by: HendrixFan
France isnt supporting him now, they just arent supporting the US. Dont believe the tripe Bush spits out about "either you are with us or against us", that isnt how foriegn relations work, muchless any issue that needs compromise.

um, ok...

If you think issues are resolved with one party dictating with complete and announced close-mindedness, you are mistaken. When dealing with issues in the international arena, bi-partisonship is magnified greatly. Different cultures bring about different opinions and approaches to "problems". To keep everyone happy as much as possible, you have to carefully craft yourself and your policy in the international stage. See Colin Powell and his speeches to the UN and his meetings with foreign leaders.

Sort of like how France is threatening to veto any resolution that the US, Britain, Italy and Spain present no matter what it contains.

That sort of announced close-mindedness?


Exactly, just as the US has said that they will attack Iraq regardless of the UN's wishes and regardless of what the inspectors do or dont find. The US has made it painfully obvious that there was no debate on this issue, the rest of the world be damned. How would you expect other countries to react to such statements? It is the US that has forced the rest of the world to be a counter balance. Creating worldwide allies should be a priority, but its not. We are pissing off other countries and acting offended when they act accordingly.

Is it right that France has stated they will veto any US resolution?

No.

Is it right that the US has stated they will move without any UN support?

No.

Both are instances of close-mindedness, and the only difference is one is reactionary. Either way, both countries need to live up to the responsiblity of sitting on the UN and start working on diplomacy.

When has the United States outright stated that they will attack no matter what the world thinks? Thats right, never, your fallacy ridden post disgusts me. First look up the term hegemony, next try to apply it to the current world situation and see if you do not believe that a hegemony has a duty to the world; to keep the peace.
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: adlep
the choice was iraq or iran. iraq hadn't taken our embassy hostage. we used saddam to punish iran. unfortunately he turned out to be a crazed dictator.

Great, angry Iranians have taken over 80 Americans as hostages, but no one got hurt...
As a return, the US is starting a war which kills 1000000 people...
I am embarrased to be an American :eek:


Don't be embarrassed. Saddam started the Iran/Iraq war. The US supported him to help keep the Iranians from winning and taking over Iraq. The fear of the fundamentalists in Iran was a valid concern.

So how is the US's pre-1991 support any different than the top level post which detailed France's pre-1991 support with Iraq?