Pentagon Advisory Board - "French no longer an ally."

[Queasy]

D'oh! for the frogs

Pentagon adviser: France 'no longer ally'
By Martin Walker
UPI Chief International Correspondent
From the International Desk
Published 2/4/2003 8:43 PM
View printer-friendly version


WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 (UPI) -- France is no longer an ally of the United States and the NATO alliance "must develop a strategy to contain our erstwhile ally or we will not be talking about a NATO alliance" the head of the Pentagon's top advisory board said in Washington Tuesday.

Richard Perle, a former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and now chairman of the Pentagon's Policy Advisory Board, condemned French and German policy on Iraq in the strongest terms at a public seminar organized by a New York-based PR firm and attended by Iraqi exiles and American Middle East and security officials.

But while dismissing Germany's refusal to support military action against Iraq as an aberration by "a discredited chancellor," Perle warned that France's attitude was both more dangerous and more serious.

"France is no longer the ally it once was," Perle said. And he went on to accuse French President Jacques Chirac of believing "deep in his soul that Saddam Hussein is preferable to any likely successor."

French leaders have insisted the country will oppose any military action against Iraq without a second resolution by the United Nations Security Council, where it holds one of five crucial veto powers. Last November France did vote for Resolution 1441, which promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors verifying that Iraq has indeed dismantled its programs for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

"I have long thought that there were forces in France intent on reducing the American role in the world. That is more troubling than the stance of a German chancellor, who has been largely rejected by his own people," Perle said, referring to the sharp electoral defeat suffered by Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's party in state elections Sunday.

Although he is not an official of the Bush administration, Perle's position as the Pentagon's senior civilian adviser gives his harsh remarks a quasi-official character and reflects the growing frustration in the White House and Pentagon with the French and German reluctance to support their U.S. and British allies.

"Very considerable damage has already been done to the Atlantic community, including NATO, by Germany and France," Perle said.

"But in the German case, the behavior of the Chancellor is idiosyncratic. He tried again to incite pacifism, and this time failed in Sunday's elections in Hesse and Lower Saxony. His capacity to do damage is now constrained. Chancellor Schroeder is now in a box, and the Germans will recover their equilibrium."

Perle went on to question whether the United States should ever again seek the endorsement of the U.N. Security Council on a major issue of policy, stressing that "Iraq is going to be liberated, by the United States and whoever wants to join us, whether we get the approbation of the U.N. or any other institution."

"It is now reasonable to ask whether the United States should now or on any other occasion subordinate vital national interests to a show of hands by nations who do not share our interests," he added.

Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International

 

[Nemesis77]

yep, countries with their own opinions is a bad, bad thing

"Very considerable damage has already been done to the Atlantic community, including NATO, by Germany and France," Perle said.

Couldn't it also be said that "Very considerably damage has been done to the Atlantic community, including NATO, bythe USA"? Unilateralism, steel-tariffs...

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: axiom

Couldn't it also be said that "Very considerably damage has been done to the Atlantic community, including NATO, bythe USA"? Unilateralism, steel-tariffs...

And the same could be said of Europe for blocking agricultural aid to Africa from North America.

Huh? Links?

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77
yep, countries with their own opinions is a bad, bad thing

"Very considerable damage has already been done to the Atlantic community, including NATO, by Germany and France," Perle said.

Couldn't it also be said that "Very considerably damage has been done to the Atlantic community, including NATO, bythe USA"? Unilateralism, steel-tariffs...

Unilateralism is only bad when it's practiced in the interests of the US. France is attempting to act in its own interests in several ways: They have a significant Islamic constituency that needs to be paid attention to; they have a significant investment in oil contracts with the current Iraqi regime; and they are trying hard to avoid being marginalized in the post Cold-War geopolitical reality.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: axiom
Show me yours and I will show you mine.

Europe blocks aid to Africa

Ummm, africans turned down the GGM-food, how exactly is that Europes fault? Sure, the US accuses Europe for that, but where's the evidence?

 

[freegeekss]

Yet Another French - Europe Bashing Thread

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Unilateralism is only bad when it's practiced in the interests of the US. France is attempting to act in its own interests in several ways: They have a significant Islamic constituency that needs to be paid attention to; they have a significant investment in oil contracts with the current Iraqi regime; and they are trying hard to avoid being marginalized in the post Cold-War geopolitical reality.

And how exactly is steel-tariffs and the like not unilateral in a bad way? And US is doing it's Iraq-dance for their own benefit, they couldn't give a rats ass for the people of Iraq. That's how it always works, and I'm not claiming that Europe is somekind of saint when it comes to Iraq. But saying that US isn't after their own self-interests in the Iraq-issue is simply wrong.

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: axiom
Show me yours and I will show you mine.

Europe blocks aid to Africa

Ummm, africans turned down the GGM-food, how exactly is that Europes fault? Sure, the US accuses Europe for that, but where's the evidence?

From the article:

The US has accused Europe of leaning on poor countries and threatening to withdraw economic aid unless they prohibit modified crops.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: axiom
Show me yours and I will show you mine.

Europe blocks aid to Africa

Ummm, africans turned down the GGM-food, how exactly is that Europes fault? Sure, the US accuses Europe for that, but where's the evidence?

The US has accused Europe of leaning on poor countries and threatening to withdraw economic aid unless they prohibit modified crops.

Yes, so? US has accused of EU doing that, but that accusation doesn't make it fact. Or do you blindly believe everything US says?

Many in Europe (and in USA as well) say that US is going to Iraq for the oil. By your logic, that makes that statement true.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: axiom
EU influence buddy.

http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=21926

Again, where is the evidence? Only thing I could see in that article was that US claims Europe is forcing African nations to reject GM-food. All I see are claims made by US-officials, I see zero evidence.

 

[StinkyPinky]

The French wont care. Why would they? Their future is with the EU and I doubt they care about not being an "ally" of the US. In reality they haven't been for decades anyway.

In time the UK will go the same way. Their future is with the EU.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: axiom
Nemesis77: STFU right now. You are making yourself out to be an hypocrit. You claim the US is basing their Iraq response on their own self interests yet you know this is theory, but if someone else presents a theory you trash it. Don't thrash the same methods you employ.

this may come as a shock to you, but every country does things for their self-interest. Or are you seriously saying that US is willing to put their soldiers at risk just for the kindness of their hearts so they could liberate the oppressed Iraqi-people? No. They do it because there's something in it for them. And I'm _not_ saying that US in it to get the oil.

Me a hypocrit? I don't think so.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: axiom

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: axiom
Nemesis77: STFU right now. You are making yourself out to be an hypocrit. You claim the US is basing their Iraq response on their own self interests yet you know this is theory, but if someone else presents a theory you trash it. Don't thrash the same methods you employ.

this may come as a shock to you, but every country does things for their self-interest. Or are you seriously saying that US is willing to put their soldiers at risk just for the kindness of their hearts so they could liberate the oppressed Iraqi-people? No. They do it because there's something in it for them. And I'm _not_ saying that US in it to get the oil.

Me a hypocrit? I don't think so.

What did I just say? I countered your theory with my theory, yet my theory isn't good enough for you. You've got no argument. Stop trying.

What argument? My original message was about how steel-tariffs and unilateralism is bad for relations. You started talking about aid to Africa and I requested evidence. You failed to provide that evidence. What evidence would you like me to provide to you?

But make it snappy, I have to leave soon.

 

[SnapIT]

This discussion is getting old real fast.... When the US needs their allies because there is an immediate threat, they will have their allies by their side.... THAT is what being an ally is all about....

Most of the world is against a war, thankfully there are leaders in the world who actually care about what the people they represent thinks...

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Unilateralism is only bad when it's practiced in the interests of the US. France is attempting to act in its own interests in several ways: They have a significant Islamic constituency that needs to be paid attention to; they have a significant investment in oil contracts with the current Iraqi regime; and they are trying hard to avoid being marginalized in the post Cold-War geopolitical reality.

And how exactly is steel-tariffs and the like not unilateral in a bad way? And US is doing it's Iraq-dance for their own benefit, they couldn't give a rats ass for the people of Iraq. That's how it always works, and I'm not claiming that Europe is somekind of saint when it comes to Iraq. But saying that US isn't after their own self-interests in the Iraq-issue is simply wrong.

My comment was intended to be negative towards the concept of multilateralism, due to the fact that nations such as France use it as a means to blunt US influence. I, for one, really don't give a rat's ass about the people in Iraq, either; as a citizen of the US, I want the US government to act in its own interest, and in my interests, and my concern right now is that I would like to eliminate the possibility that Saddam can either directly or indirectly use weapons of mass destruction against us.

I can't comment on the steel tariff issue until I have a chance to research it.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
I can't comment on the steel tariff issue until I have a chance to research it.

Basically it something like this: in Europe, steel-companies went through their round of consolidation. Companies merged, uncompetetive companies disappeared, steel-mills were modernized. And thanks to that, they became more competetive than US mills (that still used outdated mills and hadn't had the consolidation European companies did). They (US companies) were unable to compete in the open markets, so US decided to go against WTO-rules and set up steel-tariffs to protect their industry from competition.

Time for me to go. I might check this thread at a later time though

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: axiom
EU influence buddy.

http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=21926

Again, where is the evidence? Only thing I could see in that article was that US claims Europe is forcing African nations to reject GM-food. All I see are claims made by US-officials, I see zero evidence.

Is there ANY evidence that you will accept? Any link that can be posted, you will just claim the same thing or you will say it's biased.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: axiom

Basically it something like this: in Europe, steel-companies went through their round of consolidation. Companies merged, uncompetetive companies disappeared, steel-mills were modernized. And thanks to that, they became more competetive than US mills (that still used outdated mills and hadn't had the consolidation European companies did). They (US companies) were unable to compete in the open markets, so US decided to go against WTO-rules and set up steel-tariffs to protect their industry from competition.

Links? Or is this another theory?

I'll back up Nemesis on this one. You certainly can't deny that Bush imposed those tariffs if you read/watch the news regularly.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: axiom

Basically it something like this: in Europe, steel-companies went through their round of consolidation. Companies merged, uncompetetive companies disappeared, steel-mills were modernized. And thanks to that, they became more competetive than US mills (that still used outdated mills and hadn't had the consolidation European companies did). They (US companies) were unable to compete in the open markets, so US decided to go against WTO-rules and set up steel-tariffs to protect their industry from competition.

Links? Or is this another theory?

Linky

 

[Nitemare]

France is only a fair weather ally. They assist only when they get something directly out of it.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
France is only a fair weather ally. They assist only when they get something directly out of it.

The same can be said for the United States.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: Queasy
D'oh! for the frogs

Pentagon adviser: France 'no longer ally'
By Martin Walker
UPI Chief International Correspondent
From the International Desk
Published 2/4/2003 8:43 PM
View printer-friendly version


WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 (UPI) -- France is no longer an ally of the United States and the NATO alliance "must develop a strategy to contain our erstwhile ally or we will not be talking about a NATO alliance" the head of the Pentagon's top advisory board said in Washington Tuesday.

Richard Perle, a former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and now chairman of the Pentagon's Policy Advisory Board, condemned French and German policy on Iraq in the strongest terms at a public seminar organized by a New York-based PR firm and attended by Iraqi exiles and American Middle East and security officials.

But while dismissing Germany's refusal to support military action against Iraq as an aberration by "a discredited chancellor," Perle warned that France's attitude was both more dangerous and more serious.

"France is no longer the ally it once was," Perle said. And he went on to accuse French President Jacques Chirac of believing "deep in his soul that Saddam Hussein is preferable to any likely successor."

French leaders have insisted the country will oppose any military action against Iraq without a second resolution by the United Nations Security Council, where it holds one of five crucial veto powers. Last November France did vote for Resolution 1441, which promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors verifying that Iraq has indeed dismantled its programs for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

"I have long thought that there were forces in France intent on reducing the American role in the world. That is more troubling than the stance of a German chancellor, who has been largely rejected by his own people," Perle said, referring to the sharp electoral defeat suffered by Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's party in state elections Sunday.

Although he is not an official of the Bush administration, Perle's position as the Pentagon's senior civilian adviser gives his harsh remarks a quasi-official character and reflects the growing frustration in the White House and Pentagon with the French and German reluctance to support their U.S. and British allies.

"Very considerable damage has already been done to the Atlantic community, including NATO, by Germany and France," Perle said.

"But in the German case, the behavior of the Chancellor is idiosyncratic. He tried again to incite pacifism, and this time failed in Sunday's elections in Hesse and Lower Saxony. His capacity to do damage is now constrained. Chancellor Schroeder is now in a box, and the Germans will recover their equilibrium."

Perle went on to question whether the United States should ever again seek the endorsement of the U.N. Security Council on a major issue of policy, stressing that "Iraq is going to be liberated, by the United States and whoever wants to join us, whether we get the approbation of the U.N. or any other institution."

"It is now reasonable to ask whether the United States should now or on any other occasion subordinate vital national interests to a show of hands by nations who do not share our interests," he added.

Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International

I'd expect something like that coming from Richard Perle. Either you do what the US wants, even if its wrong, or else you're out. I'd like to see all the European countries opt out of this one sided relationship. And Canada opt out of the NAFTA, NATO and NORAD.

 

[Doggiedog]

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky

Originally posted by: Nitemare
France is only a fair weather ally. They assist only when they get something directly out of it.

The same can be said for the United States.

I'd take the US version of a fair weather friend any day. What has France done for the world recently? The US basically rebuilt Europe after WW2, rebuilt Japan, protected West Germany, South Korea and Taiwan, kept Communism at bay, liberated Kuwait etc. etc. Should I go on?

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky

Originally posted by: Nitemare
France is only a fair weather ally. They assist only when they get something directly out of it.

The same can be said for the United States.

Yeah really - sure, we like the UN and all...until they don't give us what we want. Then we just do our own thing. Doesn't the "U" in U.N. stand for "united," the same as it does in U.S.? United we stand?

Originally posted by: Doggiedog

I'd take the US version of a fair weather friend any day. What has France done for the world recently? The US basically rebuilt Europe after WW2, rebuilt Japan, protected West Germany, South Korea and Taiwan, kept Communism at bay, liberated Kuwait etc. etc. Should I go on?

Which country is the superpower, with the greater ability to do all that?

 

[Dari]

Like it or not, the french are being marginalized in the geopolitical sphere. No ones takes them seriously outside of Europe. They are an absolutelty farce when it comes to sending forces outside their territory, bar Africa, where the people there fight with machetes and pistols.

Even in the EU, they will be marginalized as more pro-american countries become members. Finally, the germans will tell the french that they've had enough of holding their coattails and want to go their own way. The french are stucp-up a$$holes that aren't appreciative of anyone (even those that came to their rescues in two global wars, the English and Americans).

All of this makes me want to watch Pepe Lepeu (sic?).