French opposition

[bamcgee]

Why are the French so strongly opposed to war against Iraq? Brushing aside the somewhat naive assumption that they are a peace-loving nation (huh?), they must have something significant at stake that they would lose if war occurred. I am not sure of specifics, but I could speculate:

1) they have traded illegally with Iraq and fear it being uncovered during an invasion to their embarrassment.
2) they have significant oil claims that would be lost if the US invaded. I'm not aware of the particulars, but I do know that both France and Russia have deals worked out as soon as sanctions are lifted. These contracts would likely be voided if the government fell.
3) they feel the US is getting too big for its britches, so they're going to use their disproportionately large influence as a permanent security council member to gain concessions and generally make things difficult before invasion.

Frankly (heh heh), does France really believe that Iraqi citizens would be worse off after the US removes Saddam? Whose interests are they really protecting? As much as their leaders say otherwise, does anyone believe that "because war is wrong" is a sufficient reason? Listening to Russia and Germany say things like that is borderline hilarity.

What bothers me the most is how come the media doesn't examine the angles, only reports the spins of the foreign ministers? Or am I just missing the good articles?

[Qwikshot]

The French are against the U.S., simply because it is the strongest world power as of now. They think that by opposing it, they are helping maintain a balance. At least that is what www.slate.com had about it...I got a kick, one French diplomat complained that the hostility against the U.S. was because they didn't support France during the Treaty of Versailles...Gotta the love the French.

[Fritz]

Here is the problem - the goddammed french are a bunch of liars!

For instance, I put a REAL frenchman in my blender. Did I get french sauce? No sir. All I got was a mess.

[Drake]

Ha!

[MizzouRah]

I'm going to stop eating french fries, french toast, and french pastries.



Todd

[bamcgee]

an unidentified source in the gov called France and Germany the "axis of weasels."

perhaps their flip flop helped push Powell, who staked his credibility on going through the UN, to a more hawklike stance.

[The Afoci]

I refused to reply to a thread that has a title "French opposition". It is too unrealistic, even for the internet.

[Tasan]

One thing I've read about France is that they use a substantial amount of Iraqi oil, and an Iraq controlled by a US puppet is something they are not really interested in because of it.

[Bee]

Originally posted by The Afoci
I refused to reply to a thread that has a title "French opposition". It is too unrealistic, even for the internet.

LOL.

Reads kind of like Military Intelligence doesn't it?

[EagleFan]

You really have to change the title of this thread, I can't avoid the involuntary laugh reflex every time I read it. People think I'm crazy, well, maybe even more than normal.

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by bamcgee
an unidentified source in the gov called France and Germany the "axis of weasels."

That was actually made up as satire by a blogger on the internet....then was published in Europe as being true the next day.

[EagleFan]

I saw a great editorial cartoon about the situation. It shows a French diplomat standing in Paris. In the background is a mushroom cloud and other bombs falling from the sky. He is saying to a UN representative "Yeah, but do they have any MORE nukes."

[Qwikshot]

Gotta love the french...

[Buddy Grant]

Maybe they just are not as turned on by war as we all are, or maybe they just chicken, or maybe they don't have an election coming up. Could also be that their geographic proximity makes them less interested in a conflict unless there was a valid reason for one.

[tucker342]

I know it's a crazy thought, but maybe they don't want French citizens to die in an unnecessary war. Crazy isn't it, that there's a leader that isn't as trigger happy as Bush.

[Alf]

A little personnal comment by a frenchman.

We had 2 world war on our territory in a not so distant history (a lot of veterans are still alive, even from WWI). We also had a HUGE number of young soldiers die because of the war. So the basic idea of going to war always has the drawback of seeing your own people die. War is not clean, war is dirty !

Going to war should be the ultimate response (that's the first time I agree with President Chirac the thief/liar).

tucker342 and buddy Grant last comments do make a lot of sense too.

War is not a game ! War is about life and death !

[fantastic flying froggies]

Some more French input.

I don't think France is opposed to war against Iraq as such. France is more against the US becoming the self-appointed World Police and going to war on its own. Iraq now, who else tomorrow ? Do it thru the proper channels in the UN...

The economic aspect mentionned by Tasan is also undoubtedbly true, but hey, why do you think the US want to invade ? Are you so naive that you think it is for the good of the Iraqi people, or for the oil fields ?
And before you flame me, yes, personnaly I do believe they would be better off without Saddam. Unfortunately, today in the world maybe 75%, if not more, of all countries live in some kind of dictature, whether military, communist, islamist,... I don't like that one bit, but I also don't think the US should militarily take each such government down one by one...

[ACStrider]

I think there's one perspective that a lot of people aren't taking into account. One reason why Bush and his administration are so vehement about ousting Saddam and other regimes are because these terrorist states have declared war on us first. September 11th was the first (actually, the third of significance if you examine it closely) of a series of attacks against the United States and its symbols of power. In Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech he set forward a doctrine of eradicating terrorists AND THE GOVERNMENTS that support them. In the administrations eyes, they are one and the same. I don't know why this hasn't been emphasised, but there is very strong evidence that after the initial attacks in Afghanistan, Iraq provided medical services to fleeing Al-guida (I never spell that one correctly) operatives before they went on their way. We know that in the past Saddam has sponsered global terrorism and that for years he has given money to families of terrorist bombers who targeted Israel.

So where am I going with this? When the proposition of taking action (and probably going to war) is brought before the UN, it shouldn't be a surprise that the US and the UK are the primary supporters and that other nations (primarily France and Russia) are opposed. Consistantly throughout history the guiding force of international diplomacy is national interest. Why is the US and the UK so gung ho about war? Maybe the fact that they are the primary targets for these terrorists has something to do with it. You don't hear of many terrorist attacks going on in Libyian soil, or groups acting against French embasies around the world. What could possibly be behind French and Russian reluctance for war? Could the fact that economic trade deals between these nations and Iraq are in place might have something to do with it? Could it be that neither of these nations are threatened by international terrorism?

You can't really blame these nations opposed to war for being so opposed. After all, their national interests lay elsewhere. To expect nations to participate in global activity simply because it is the right thing to do is naive and hopelessly optimistic.

[Alf]

There is no proof that Al-Quaieda = Irak. Ben Laden comes from Yemen so why not bomb yemen either if you want to fight terrorism ?!

[Darkiller]

you have to understand one thing :

it's not war for what it is ...I mean, common, the United States versus tiny Irak is not a war...it's a blowout if it happens and everyone knows that. Where's the glory there ?

Why do you want that much to go there ?
for the "evil" Saddam ? for the sake of "saving the world from bad boy Saddam ??"
course not, he would have been killed by the CIA or the FBI long ago then...it's because of oil matters.

Why don't you go fight Afghanistan then ? why don't you go help us in Ivory Coast then ??
sure..no petroleum out there...no financial interest for the US.

Then again, Irak means something bigger to you.
For us, it is just a little country that has a moron as a leader, a guy that , I agree, should be killed right away.
but for that one guy do you need a SECOND WAR in ten years ???? involving ALL THE ALLIES of the US ???

that's ridiculous.
And what's more ridiculous is the need of shooting-friendly Bush to justify himself and his operations...

We're not idiots and we don't take your president's words seriously when he talks about IRAK.
Why can't he stop being an hypocryte and say clear and loud : "yes we go to fight IRAK because we need that oil" LOL...everyone out there knows it...so let's not pretend to send any human/social messages in this fight...if so, then again, why don't you join on the MANY OTHER FRONTS OUT THERE IN THE WORLD WHERE A DICTATOR IS IN PLACE AND WOULD NEED THE US AS WELL.

[fantastic flying froggies]

To ACSTrider : Just for info, a french oil tanker was attacked last october 6th. Action attributed to Al-Quaida.

In 95, a wave of terrosits attacks killed many people in Paris underground stations. Actions attributed to islamists
fundamentalists.

Last november or december in Russia, a band of Tchetchen (sp ?)terrorists took about 300 hostages in the Moscow Opera. Russian specials troops stormed the place, roughly 100 killed...

(and others I don't remember at the top of my head...)

Your point is actually quite valid, but slighty misinformed.

[Alf]

Some of our engineers in Pakistan were also attacked (read KILLED) last year, so we are aware of terrorism.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by fantastic flying froggies
Some more French input.

I don't think France is opposed to war against Iraq as such. France is more against the US becoming the self-appointed World Police and going to war on its own. Iraq now, who else tomorrow ? Do it thru the proper channels in the UN...

How to read this:

France does not mind the US doing all the work, but they want to approve things. Makes 'em feel like they are still important.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by Fritz
How to read this:

France does not mind the US doing all the work, but they want to approve things. Makes 'em feel like they are still important.

Which reminds me of that old rule of thumb about giving very short men guns & badges being a bad idea.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Cant believe I am defending the French.

Yes or no. Did France take the same stance in 1991?

Did France offer military aid to the coalition in 1991?

One could make the case the UN was formed in the first place to make the US feel important, but that would be stating the obvious.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Which reminds me of that old rule of thumb about giving very short men guns & badges being a bad idea.

There's another old rule of thumb too:

Never give a lackey a reason to think on their own.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple
One could make the case the UN was formed in the first place to make the US feel important, but that would be stating the obvious.

Ah yes, we created the permament member veto because it maximized our imortance in the international community.

Tell me, who was the last American Secretray General of the UN?

[ACStrider]

Originally posted by Alf
There is no proof that Al-Quaieda = Irak. Ben Laden comes from Yemen so why not bomb yemen either if you want to fight terrorism ?!

Bombing Yemen may very well be the next step if the Bush administration considers it a threat. It would certainly make their efforts consistant wouldn't it? Like I said, the administration has information which suggests that Iraq has supported Al-Quaieda...doesn't necessarily equate them, but according to the Bush doctrine, those who support terrorists are just as guilty as those who are.

[HornedFrog Purple]

None. Point?

Permanent member vetos go both ways, but again that would be stating the obvious.

Name the 5 permanent members of the Security Council and the reasons they were appointed.

[Fritz]

I am just saying that if the "UN was formed in the first place to make the US feel important" we made some poor design and implementation choices.

[ACStrider]

Originally posted by Darkiller
you have to understand one thing :

it's not war for what it is ...I mean, common, the United States versus tiny Irak is not a war...it's a blowout if it happens and everyone knows that. Where's the glory there ?

I don't think anyone is doing this for personal glory, but I can only speak for myself and what I understand of the Bush administration.

Originally posted by Darkiller
Why do you want that much to go there ?
for the "evil" Saddam ? for the sake of "saving the world from bad boy Saddam ??"
course not, he would have been killed by the CIA or the FBI long ago then...it's because of oil matters.

If the Bush administration is oil hungry, why is he proposing research into alternative fuels? Why is it that all of the proposals for aftermath of a potential war involve giving all oil rights to the replacement government?

Originally posted by Darkiller
Why don't you go fight Afghanistan then ? why don't you go help us in Ivory Coast then ??
sure..no petroleum out there...no financial interest for the US.

We've already fought in Afghanistan and utterly routed the Taliban. You raise a good point of assisting in the Ivory Coast...if there is terrorist forces in that area of the world. Maybe we should look that direction, but realistically we can only do so much. We've already activated nearly 100,000 reserves and that's just for Iraq.

Originally posted by Darkiller
Then again, Irak means something bigger to you.
For us, it is just a little country that has a moron as a leader, a guy that , I agree, should be killed right away.
but for that one guy do you need a SECOND WAR in ten years ???? involving ALL THE ALLIES of the US ???.

You're right, we shouldn't be even considering war right now. We should have taken care of it in the first place.

Originally posted by Darkiller
that's ridiculous.
And what's more ridiculous is the need of shooting-friendly Bush to justify himself and his operations...

Again, good point. If this affair is our business, then we probably shouldn't need to go to the UN. But if Bush is shooting friendly, why would he go to the other side of the world to pick a conflict for oil? Couldn't he find some excuse to intervene in the Venesulan conflict...plenty of oil there and it probably would be a lot easier.

Originally posted by Darkiller
We're not idiots and we don't take your president's words seriously when he talks about IRAK.
Why can't he stop being an hypocryte and say clear and loud : "yes we go to fight IRAK because we need that oil" LOL...everyone out there knows it...so let's not pretend to send any human/social messages in this fight...if so, then again, why don't you join on the MANY OTHER FRONTS OUT THERE IN THE WORLD WHERE A DICTATOR IS IN PLACE AND WOULD NEED THE US AS WELL. ...

I never said that you were idiots and actually tried to give the opposite impression in the first post. Each nation has their own legitimate national interest, and I don't expect them to deviate from it just because some other country says so. Notice that our anti-terrorism front hasn't been limited to just Iraq. We've been fighting in Afghanistan, and rooting out terror cells within our own country and around the world. Sadly, I'm sure this is the beginning of many conflicts. I really appreciate your comments, and like I said, no disrespect intended to yourself or France.

[HornedFrog Purple]

So why are you dissing the French for poor design? Maybe to give the rest of the world a voice? What a stupid idea...

The point is France took the same stance in 1991, meetings were held and France after deliberating on their own decided the coalition was the course of action. They also assisted militarily, your feelings about the French aside.

When the UN was formed, the permanent members were grossly in NATO's favor led by the United States. Now luckily the world has more of a voice, which is what you want in terms of world affairs since that is what this affair with Iraq is supposed to be.

[ACStrider]

Originally posted by fantastic flying froggies
To ACSTrider : Just for info, a french oil tanker was attacked last october 6th. Action attributed to Al-Quaida.

In 95, a wave of terrosits attacks killed many people in Paris underground stations. Actions attributed to islamists
fundamentalists.

Last november or december in Russia, a band of Tchetchen (sp ?)terrorists took about 300 hostages in the Moscow Opera. Russian specials troops stormed the place, roughly 100 killed...

(and others I don't remember at the top of my head...)

Your point is actually quite valid, but slighty misinformed.

Sorry, I did forget about those incidents. I didn't know about the October 6th incident, though. I guess with all the activity going on, the attention surrounds the US and discussion surrounding our efforts. I'm getting the US media after all. Normally I'm on top of things like that, but on the fly nothing came to mind. Thanks for the note.

[ACStrider]

And may I also add in my "God bless the French" moment, I don't believe enough thanks was publicly given for your help in rescuing our citizens in the Ivory Coast. I think a big "Thank you" from myself is in order.

[HornedFrog Purple]

All France has stated is to wait for the February 14th inspector reports and time to absorb the information presented by Powell. They also proposed increasing the number of inspectors to three times the amount they have now, although remember the speeches were already prepared and they did not have foreknowledge of the satellite photos Powell presented showing Iraq "cleaning up" potential weapon sites.

The Russian Federation also said they wanted time to deliberate this information. I dont see anything wrong with that.

[Fritz]

The point of yours that I am addressing is that "one could make the case the UN was formed in the first place to make the US feel important."

Please try to make that case.

----
FYI: The United Nations predates NATO by several years.

[HornedFrog Purple]

The case has been made, you're not seeing it. I cant help you see it.

You are also not addressing these direct questions:

Did France take the same stance in 1991?

Did France offer military aid to the coalition in 1991?

I appreciate the history lesson but it is unnecessary. Do you not see the stage of events here? Do you not see why one thing led to another?

[Fido]

Originally posted by Alf
We had 2 world war on our territory in a not so distant history (a lot of veterans are still alive, even from WWI). We also had a HUGE number of young soldiers die because of the war. So the basic idea of going to war always has the drawback of seeing your own people die. War is not clean, war is dirty !

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a HUGE number of young American soldiers gave their lives in france too. Woudl there be a France today if not for our intervention? Perhaps I'm being naive, but I think that our actions there deserve some consideration. I'm not saying tha France should blindy follow our lead, but that we deserve better than their open opposition to our goals.

And the French say Americans have no sense of history...

[Fritz]

You will excuse me if I don't see any case at all. Perhaps you can direct me to it.

I am ONLY addressing this.

----


Now I see where you are going with "did French help in 91."

Yes, they did send some forces. I should not have said "all."

[Fido]

Originally posted by Darkiller
Why do you want that much to go there ?
for the "evil" Saddam ? for the sake of "saving the world from bad boy Saddam ??" course not, he would have been killed by the CIA or the FBI long ago then...it's because of oil matters.

Th FBI had no international connections or authority, and the CIA has been greatly limited in what it can and cannot do. In the 70s this woudl not have been an issue, the CIA would have simply killed him and been done with it if they chose, but things are different today.

Besides, eliminitaing Sadam would not accomplish anything as one of his underlings woudl simply assume power and theregime would continue. The entire regime needs to be displaced.

Originally posted by Darkiller
Why don't you go fight Afghanistan then ? why don't you go help us in Ivory Coast then ?? sure..no petroleum out there...no financial interest for the US.

Are you saying (in the same post) that we shoudl mind our own business and help you inthe Ivory Coast? How could we do both??? And to answer your question, we don't go there because those countries have not spent millions fo dollars researching and producing "weapons of mass destruction". Combine that with an open hatred of the US, and this is much bigger than oil.

Let's face it. The US will always have oil available to it. How long could the Arab nations go without the huge profits they make from selling us oil? Granted the richest men in the world are in that region, but what about the country?

Originally posted by Darkiller
Then again, Irak means something bigger to you. For us, it is just a little country that has a moron as a leader, a guy that , I agree, should be killed right away. but for that one guy do you need a SECOND WAR in ten years ???? involving ALL THE ALLIES of the US ???

The allies of the US need not get involved, but the UN does. What power does it have? Not alow. UN Peace keeping forces? Get real. The power in the UN is that it can maintain peace because its member natins will act if its decisions are not met. If nobody does anything about this then the UN might as well lock its doors and send everbody home.

Let's say you're a parent, and you tell your child not to do something. The child does it again. You tell the child not to do it again. The child does it again. Repeat this 20 or so times. At some point you need to punish the child. You've taken away its allowance, and grounded it, but nothing so far has worked. You need to come up with a bigger punishment.

Originally posted by Darkiller
We're not idiots and we don't take your president's words seriously when he talks about IRAK.
Why can't he stop being an hypocryte and say clear and loud : "yes we go to fight IRAK because we need that oil" LOL...everyone out there knows it...so let's not pretend to send any human/social messages in this fight...if so, then again, why don't you join on the MANY OTHER FRONTS OUT THERE IN THE WORLD WHERE A DICTATOR IS IN PLACE AND WOULD NEED THE US AS WELL.

Again, this is not about the oil. If it were, why target Iraq and not a big producer like Kuwait or Saudi (both of which have much smaller militaries). Its not about Sadam being a Dictator - there are FAR worse than him. Its about self preservation. If he were to get a nuclear weapon into the hands of Al Queda, and they were to get it into the country (not really that tough, put it on a boat and detonate it in a harbor). How many thousands if not millions of Americans woudl die? How about chemical or biological weapons? Are we to sit idly by and not do anything to protect ourselves?

[fantastic flying froggies]

Originally posted by Fido
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a HUGE number of young American soldiers gave their lives in france too. Woudl there be a France today if not for our intervention? Perhaps I'm being naive, but I think that our actions there deserve some consideration. I'm not saying tha France should blindy follow our lead, but that we deserve better than their open opposition to our goals.

And the French say Americans have no sense of history...

You're absolutely right and I can assure you that most Frenchmen have not forgotten that you were there to help us when needed, and are still thankful for that. But like you say, this does not mean we should blindly follow your lead.

[Easy Mac]

If someone actually believes this war has NOTHING to do with oil, you really have your head in the sand.

And the Chechen thing was roughly 600-700 hostages, nearly 1/3 of the hostages killed by the gas the Russians used to invade the theater. Then they wouldn't tell the doctors the kind of gas they used. The terrorists, they killed 1 person. Who is the terrorist there?
We should target Saudi Arabia. THere's as much evidence that they've aided terrorists as there are that Iraq aids them. The problem is, there are already deals for their oil, so fiscally it makes no sense for us to attack them.

[Alf]

Originally posted by Fido
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a HUGE number of young American soldiers gave their lives in france too. Woudl there be a France today if not for our intervention? Perhaps I'm being naive, but I think that our actions there deserve some consideration. I'm not saying tha France should blindy follow our lead, but that we deserve better than their open opposition to our goals.

And the French say Americans have no sense of history...

I totally agree with you that the American liberated France, and that's the main reason I'd hate to see a war happen because we would have young innocent soldiers killed again. Whether they are americans, english, frenchs or germans makes no difference to me.

ACStrider : no problem about the Ivory Coast and our soldiers saving US (and other countries) citizen. That should be obvious no one should let civilians in danger. Ivory Coast is a real mess right now and all french people are strongly discouraged to stay there.

I really hope that the Iraq (Irak) problem can be solved peacefully, but if there is sufficient proof that a war is the only way to go, don't worry, France will give his share of soldiers/weapons (and we know we are not as good as the US, but we can help).

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by Fido
Again, this is not about the oil. If it were, why target Iraq and not a big producer like Kuwait or Saudi (both of which have much smaller militaries). Its not about Sadam being a Dictator - there are FAR worse than him. Its about self preservation. If he were to get a nuclear weapon into the hands of Al Queda, and they were to get it into the country (not really that tough, put it on a boat and detonate it in a harbor). How many thousands if not millions of Americans woudl die? How about chemical or biological weapons? Are we to sit idly by and not do anything to protect ourselves?

There are a loty of if's there, but lets see the certainties.

North Korea has nukes and are probably porducing them faster than Saddam. NK is a rogue state. Isn't there just as big if not bigger chance they could aid Al-Qaeda easier than Saddam. Pakistan has nukes, there are Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, surely they could get nukes easier than from Saddam.

[Darkiller]

Originally posted by Fido
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a HUGE number of young American soldiers gave their lives in france too. Woudl there be a France today if not for our intervention? Perhaps I'm being naive, but I think that our actions there deserve some consideration. I'm not saying tha France should blindy follow our lead, but that we deserve better than their open opposition to our goals.

And the French say Americans have no sense of history...

Fido, we're talking about this unique event that is occuring this year.
We're not saying Americans "did not give their support in 1939-45"...of course : sure they did !! and THANK YOU ! we probalby would't be here _I would speak German_ if you hadn't come...
that's not about this.

then again, we can go deeper in history and say that in the 18th century if Lafayette and the french army hadn't come to the rescue, the English would have kept for themselves the eastern american states and you _as well_ would not be "here" as an american 200 years later...

But that's not the point (that was just to show you that past actions_although they were immensely brave and successful and that we can't live without being thankful of them always) are not the point in this topic of a 2003 bombing of Saddam Hussein.

[Fido]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
There are a loty of if's there, but lets see the certainties.

North Korea has nukes and are probably porducing them faster than Saddam. NK is a rogue state. Isn't there just as big if not bigger chance they could aid Al-Qaeda easier than Saddam. Pakistan has nukes, there are Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, surely they could get nukes easier than from Saddam.

AND Nk stepped this activity up after our government had decided and started planning on action against Iraq. South East Asia is not an environment we're particularly well suited to fighting in, much less if we are also involved in a conflict in Iraq.

You also need to keep in mind that the tthreat of a nation state using a nuclear weapon is fairly insignificant, and I have no fear of Iraq attacking us directly. That is suicide, because it gives the victim a discernable target. If NK was to nuke us, we would not go to the UN, we woudl not seek permission/aid from our allies, we would make North Korea a glowing parking lot.

Iraq is a different matter. With the alleged (though I believe they exist) ties to Al Queida, Iraq has a way to deliver the weapon while remaining out of the cross hairs. Terrorist organizations are not nation states, they do not have a central area that you can retaliate against, and therefore do not have the same fear of reprecussions that countries would. Without concrete proof (which, given teh current state of affairs woudl amount to credit card receipts, video of the transaction, and sworn affadavits for all parties involved) that Iraq supplied the weapons to Al Queida, we woudl not be able to take action against them with UN approval.

[Easy Mac]

And they don't have those concrete facts to attack Iraq. They have circumstancial evidence of various things, but nothing thats says, hey they're helping kill americans.

[HornedFrog Purple]

You are taxing my brain but I believe the Yalta Conference (sometime in '45) had Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin draw up the charter.

When the veto came into being under pressure from the USSR and China there were cases of abstination equaling a veto vote. Now this is not the case. Abstination simply means nothing. This was reorganized and redrafted sometime in the late 90's. From 1945-1955, there were (I am guessing here) 80 or so vetos of which 75 or so coming from the USSR. They simply would abstain from voting.

The UN as it originally was drafted had the same flaws as the League of Nations. This was changed before the Korean War. So this led to the inclusion of the United States, France and Britian as permanent members opposed by China and Russia. The Cold War led to more abusive use of the veto or simply not voting.

At first there were only 6 other seats which later increased to 10. The original 6 were of a Western influence which I will dig up later if you are interested.

My point of all of this is as the UN was originally formed, it was heavily influenced by Western civilization, however as more nations became inducted the non-permanent seats increased to 10. Who led Western civilization? The United States.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
And they don't have those concrete facts to attack Iraq. They have circumstancial evidence of various things, but nothing thats says, hey they're helping kill americans.

So ... you want dead American bodies with Iraqi fingerprints before this vermin is finally addressed.

Charming.

And yet people wonder why I support charging some of the most vocal opponents of U.S. action with treason?

Amazing.

[Fido]

Originally posted by Darkiller
Fido, we're talking about this unique event that is occuring this year.
We're not saying Americans "did not give their support in 1939-45"...of course : sure they did !! and THANK YOU ! we probalby would't be here _I would speak German_ if you hadn't come...
that's not about this.

then again, we can go deeper in history and say that in the 18th century if Lafayette and the french army hadn't come to the rescue, the English would have kept for themselves the eastern american states and you _as well_ would not be "here" as an american 200 years later...

But that's not the point (that was just to show you that past actions_although they were immensely brave and successful and that we can't live without being thankful of them always) are not the point in this topic of a 2003 bombing of Saddam Hussein.

You're completely right, and I'm sorry if my idead didn't come across as intended. France should NOT blindy follwo our lead. But I also don't think they shoudl openly oppose us, and hint that they would veto any authorizatin of force.

(from MSNBC.com:
France: Says inspections are starting to work and sees no justification for military action now. Paris has hinted it could use its veto to block council authorization for military action at this stage.)

That is what private channels are for. You support your friends openly in public, but try to talk sense to them in private. All I was saying is that, if France considers America a friend, then it should start treating us that way.


[quote]Originally posted by Darkiller
then again, we can go deeper in history and say that in the 18th century if Lafayette and the french army hadn't come to the rescue, the English would have kept for themselves the eastern american states and you _as well_ would not be "here" as an american 200 years later...[/qoute]

I'll give you that, even though its a very tough argument to make. France was in no way helping America back then to help us. It was more of an FU to England. Would we have gained independance without your aid? Who knows? Woudl France have been liberated without our aid? Most likely, but it would have been from the East, and woudl that have been a good thing?