France's Game

Iraq Forum

French opposition to the U.S. is not about Iraq but about who runs the world


Monday, Mar. 24, 2003

What is it with France? It is one thing to oppose American policy on Iraq. Germany, China and many others have done so. France, however, has gone beyond mere opposition. France has been bent on organizing a worldwide coalition — a coalition of the unwilling — to stop the U.S., not just lining up other major powers like Russia but even sending its Foreign Minister on a tour of Africa to persuade three members of the U.N. Security Council to vote against the U.S. and ensure an American defeat.

Why? The usual reasons apply — France's enormous Iraqi oil contracts and enormous unpaid Iraqi loans that would vanish with Saddam Hussein. But they don't suffice to explain such an ambitious enterprise. There is another reason, far more powerful. The Iraq crisis, and the roiling uneasiness in the world about U.S. policy, have provided France with an opportunity for the ultimate grand stroke — an attempt to actually break the American monopoly of power in the world. This is geopolitics at the highest level, and the French, who have been banished from the game for a good half-century, cannot resist the lure of playing it again.

France is not trying to contain Iraq. After all, it spent the 1990s at the U.N. relentlessly trying to undo containment of Iraq. France is trying to contain the U.S.

In 1991, the bipolar world of U.S.-Soviet domination collapsed. At the time, it was assumed that the new world would be multipolar, with the U.S., the European Union, Japan, Russia and a rising China sharing power and balancing one another.

That did not happen. What emerged instead was a unipolar world, the U.S. bestriding the globe like a colossus, more dominant in every field of endeavor — economic, military, diplomatic, cultural, even linguistic — than any other nation since Rome.

This the French cannot abide. We Americans marvel at the polls showing how many people consider George W. Bush a greater danger to the world than Saddam Hussein. Yet the President of France himself flirts with this demonology when he tells TIME, "Any community with only one dominant power is always a dangerous one." Translation: American power in and of itself is a global menace.

"This is not about Saddam Hussein, and this is not even about regime change in Iraq or ... missiles or chemical weapons," explains Pierre Lellouche, a conservative Parliament member and former foreign-policy adviser to Jacques Chirac. "It's about whether the United States is allowed to run world affairs."

Chirac does not imagine that he will create a military bloc to confront the U.S., as did the Soviet Union. What he is trying to establish is something only slightly less ambitious: an oppositional bloc, a restraining bloc, a French-led coalition of nations challenging the hegemony of American power and the legitimacy of American dominance.

It was Charles de Gaulle who first charted this course. He tried to break away from the U.S. by, for example, ordering American troops out of France and withdrawing from the military structure of NATO. But during the cold war this was not realistic. The Soviet threat loomed. Today, with the Warsaw Pact dead, France can safely make its reach for grandeur.

De Gaulle said he was motivated always by "a certain idea of France." Nostalgia for that exalted status, hunger for imperial gloire, is what animates French policy today. France does not expect to rival America but to tame it, restrain it, thwart it — and to accept the world's laurels for having led the way.

Not only would this make France leader of the global opposition. It would also restore France to what it sees as its rightful place as leader of Europe. Which is why the great subplot in the Iraq drama is the fate of Tony Blair. Blair represents precisely the alternative vision — Churchillian vs. Gaullist — of accepting and working with American leadership in the world. Chirac's U.N. stand has caused Blair huge political difficulties at home, where much of his own Labour Party opposes him on Iraq. If Blair can be politically destroyed, France will have demonstrated to the world the price of going with America — and defying France. Other players — such as the East Europeans, whom Chirac has already rudely threatened for supporting the U.S. — will have to think twice when deciding whether to go with America or the French-led opposition.

Dean Acheson famously said, "Britain has lost an empire but has not yet found a role." France too lost an empire but has found its role: giant killer. Remaker of the post-cold war world. Leader of the global anti-American camp.

Heady stuff. And Iraq is the least of it.


—CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

Please go here

Frensh bashing is not so up to date anymore.

I already posted the following link; anyway, it is intended to bring some stuff for those interested in mature and objective argumentation (so, Curley is not concerned) on the so-called good old "France strong ties with Saddam" issue:

www.inthenationalinterest.com/Artic...ue26Vaisse.html

Even though is dates back to one year ago, it is more relevant than ever.

French bashing by short-sighted close-minded individuals like you Curley, is indeed probably still up to date. No doubt about it. Any country that does not consider geopolitical concerns the simplistic and Bush admin-affiliated desastrous way you do are worth to be bashed by the way.
I have got a piece of news for you Curley: your country did not become what it is today thanks to ignorant hateful people like you. On the contrary, you are the dark side, some kind of burden. For sure, sensible Americans consider you with sadness and annoyance.

It's always my intense pleasure to bring to light the decades-long anti-Americanism of your government and your countrymen, Frenchie. Too bad you and your fellow Euro-puppets choose to ignore reality and the sentiments of all decent Americans—indeed, all decent people in general.

It is always your intense pleasure to undermine any attempt to dialogue honestly with spinned propaganda, biased accusations, categorization of people. Your claim of decency smells, Curley, while the only thing you shed light on is certainly your deep ignorance of world concerns at large.
But, anyway, I don't feel hate, contempt, or anything of the like for you. Simply, your immaturity is blatant from all of your contributions. If you want people to react in any other way than my kind of disappointment in you, please take time to elaborate something of your own with facts and arguments. Otherwise, this is simply waste of time for you as for the others.

Right, Frenchie. It's quite simple really. Your so called hypocritical "attempt to dialogue honestly" by accusing the U.S. Administration of anything and everything under the sun is what we Americans call Euro-anti-Americanism. I commend Mr. Krauthammer for cutting through all the diplomatic numbness and reporting it so succinctly:

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/...,557703,00.html

There's not a single day without an event happening in Iraq confirming what we warned you about...

So much for a "freeing the Iraqi people". With that kind of freedom, give me bondage any day.

They just exchanged one mess for the next that's all. And since we never knew there was a minimal tie to Al Qaeda at best, we know they are there in full force today.

While the war on Afghanistan was worth it, I don't think Iraq was worth the lives, especially since we now know there aren't any WMD. This doesn't make anyone anti-America JY & Frenchie. It's our right to protest what we deem unjustifiable.

First, it was how he got the job. Now it's how much he's doing with it


Bill Moyers may have his politics, but his deferential demeanor and almost avuncular television style made him the Mr. Rogers of American politics. So when he leaves his neighborhood to go to a "Take Back America" rally and denounces George W. Bush's "government of, by and for the ruling corporate class," leading a "right-wing wrecking crew" engaged in "a deliberate, intentional destruction of the United States way of governing," you know that something is going on.

That something is the unhinging of the Democratic Party. Democrats are seized with a loathing for President Bush — a contempt and disdain giving way to a hatred that is near pathological — unlike any since they had Richard Nixon to kick around. An otherwise reasonable man, Julian Bond of the N.A.A.C.P., speaks of Bush's staffing his Administration with "the Taliban wing of American politics." Harold Meyerson, editor at large of The American Prospect, devotes a 3,000-word article to explaining why Bush is the most dangerous President in all of American history — his only rival being Jefferson Davis.

The puzzle is where this depth of feeling comes from. Bush's manner is not particularly aggressive. He has been involved in no great scandals, Watergate or otherwise. He is, indeed, not the kind of politician who radiates heat. Yet his every word and gesture generate heat — a fury and bitterness that animate the Democratic primary electorate and explain precisely why Howard Dean has had such an explosive rise. More than any other candidate, Dean has understood the depth of this primal anti-Bush feeling and has tapped into it.

Whence the anger? It begins of course with the "stolen" election of 2000 and the perception of Bush's illegitimacy. But that is only half the story. An illegitimate President winning a stolen election would be tolerable if he were just a figurehead, a placeholder, the kind of weak, moderate Republican that Democrats (and indeed many Republicans) thought George Bush would be, judging from his undistinguished record and tepid 2000 campaign. Bush's great crime is that he is the illegitimate President who became consequential — revolutionizing American foreign policy, reshaping economic policy and dominating the political scene ever since his emergence as the post-9/11 war President.

Before that, Bush could be written off as an accident, a transitional figure, a kind of four-year Gerald Ford. And then came 9/11. Bush took charge, declared war, and sent the country into battle twice, each time bringing down enemy regimes with stunning swiftness. In Afghanistan, Bush rode a popular tide; Iraq, however, was a singular act of presidential will.

That will, like it or not, has remade American foreign policy. The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy is the subtitle of a new book by two not very sympathetic scholars, Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay. The book is titled America Unbound. The story of the past two years could just as well be titled Bush Unbound. The President's unilateral assertion of U.S. power has redefined America's role in the world. Here was Bush breaking every liberal idol: the ABM Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, deference to the U.N., subservience to the "international community." It was an astonishing performance that left the world reeling and the Democrats seething. The pretender had not just seized the throne. He was acting like a king. Nay, an emperor.

On the domestic front, more shock. Democrats understand that the Bush tax cuts make structural changes that will long outlive him. Like the Reagan cuts, they will starve the government of revenue for years to come. Add to that the Patriot Act and its (perceived) assault on fundamental American civil liberties, and Bush the Usurper becomes more than just consequential. He becomes demonic.

The current complaint is that Bush is a deceiver, misleading the country into a war, after which there turned out to be no weapons of mass destruction. But it is hard to credit the deception charge when every intelligence agency on the planet thought Iraq had these weapons and, indeed, when the weapons there still remain unaccounted for. Moreover, this is a post-facto rationale. Sure, the aftermath of the Iraq war has made it easier to frontally attack Bush. But the loathing long predates it. It started in Florida and has been deepening ever since Bush seized the post-9/11 moment to change the direction of the country and make himself a President of note.

How do you know that terrorism wouldn't be worse if we hadn't? You don't. So you can't say it has increased.
Even though terroism may have increased in Iraq at one point, it is already on the decline. Also, Saddam was on a track to kill 1200 people every month. there are no where near that number of lives being lost. You can't tell me things are worse no matter how hard you try.
Now, banning head scarves may increase terrorism in itself. Let's hope not.

Well I guess I'd bet not try an tell you that, I'll just simply tell you instead.

The first question USA is a good one, however you must be open to the opposite with posting this type of question. You don't invade a country on "what ifs". Terrorism may have gotten worse and it may have not. However, invading Iraq has surely made it worse now didn't it?

Secondly, where do you get that Saddam was killing 1200 people per month? That is ridiculous and doesn't sound plausable at all. But even if he did, did you know that Uzbekistan's president Islam has killed thousands of his own people too? He even boiled a man alive because he wanted to practice his own religion.

What was the US's position on this? We had none. Just like when Saddam was our buddy. Why not? Glad you asked. Because we now have military bases in Uzbekistan since we launched a war to get rid of Milosevic. That is right in the middle of the world resource countries, so we say nothing. Just like we did when Saddam was fighting with Iran and gassed them. Just like we did when he gassed the Kurds in his own country.

Don't hand me that "we did this for humanitary reasons" argument, it's full of holes. What we need to do is either find those WMD or admit we messed up (lied). Fess up here. If you believe Iraq is better today than it was prior to our invasion, you need to take a trip abroad. Just tell me where to wire your ticket.

Anybody who spins Iraq—or the world for that matter—as worse off without Saddam, ought to get their head out of their liberal ***** and draw a deep breath.

Another good article regarding democrats, Curley.

JY - so your article is implying that EU didn't want to go to war because of it's long-time history of armed conflicts and stuff like that. Trade with Iraq is not important, Chirac's popularity is not important, profits France would make selling goods to rich Iraq are not important either.

Another argument is "dont trouble trouble until trouble troubles you" - trouble has troubled us already, wake up people! Why do you think unemployment is high, jobs are under-paid, companies go bankrupt, etc.? Does it make any sense to you if i say that 9/11 was a very strong hit on our daily lives, even though i am not from NYC? Why did corporate scandals turn out when Bush came to power? Maybe because he is not a kind of president who tolerates corruption?

Saddam was never convincingly linked to Al Qaeda. OK. What about all the latest discoveries of documents pointing at relations between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda operatives? Nobody says Saddam was behing 9/11, and that he did cooperate with Al Qaeda in regards to some particular attack. But, he WAS linked to other terrorists organizations, and hell knows about his behind-the-scenes relations with other terrorists or terrorist harbouring countries.

Anyways there are so many flaws in this article's argument... I dont feel like discussing each one of them, i've done it many times already.

P.S. My favourite quote:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Better answer this: here we have 9/11 and many-many more attacks all over the world, mostly done my islamic radicalists. We know that terrorism is caused by low quality of life in muslim-arab countries and that they need to be modernised towards democracy. What is your, JY, solution to this problem? What would you do to bring democracy to the Middle East and stop violence?

"Anybody who spins Iraq—or the world for that matter—as worse off without Saddam, ought to get their head out of their liberal ***** and draw a deep breath."

Talking about well-known illnesses accompanying liberalism, like denial, invertion of the obvious, following the ideology regardless of the reality....

The best thing to do is to ignore the ill. For them not to have anything to deny, lets just leave them alone and let them think about it.

Thank you very much:

http://www.inreview.com/showthread....108&forumid=371

I can’t help but address some repeated points made concerning this Iraq invasion deal. All I ask is that we apply some logic to what’s taken place here.

First, the events of 9/11 was horrifying for a nation that hasn’t been baptized in the fears of terrorism as many eastern and European countries has been. So now we have the aftermath and investigation.

Afterward the US left no doubt that this was the work of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden (personally I believe ole Bin has gotten more credit than he deserves for this mess but none the less). We give warnings to Afghanistan/Taliban and subsequently we bomb and invade. Well deserved in my opinion and any other country harboring such a menace should be dealt with equally.

So what did we find out? Not only was it Al Qaeda but their nationalities were Saudi. Remember for years Saudi Arabia denied Al Qaeda were even in their land so now legitimate questions come to mind.

Clearly this is more than a smoking gun so why are we not investigating Saudi Arabia for their alleged ties to 9/11? After all isn’t this where the funding was funneled from? But instead we’re digging in Saddam’s backyard trying to find any minuscule connection to Al Qaeda and after nearly a year, we still haven’t found anything concrete.

Some say that Saddam had indirect links to Al Qaeda. What we do know is that Saddam had direct links to Hamas, however his links to Al Qaeda is fuzzy at best. But if we investigate Iran or Syria, Jordan and Pakistan, India and Lebanon and definitely Saudi Arabia with the intensity in which we investigated Iraq, do we not believe that we would find nothing in any of these countries as well? The families and friends of these extremists are from these countries, so would this be so unusual to find some minimal links to their members?

The mere mention of Al Qaeda takes American minds back to 9/11. So by mentioning Saddam and Al Qaeda, is it unreasonable to believe that a seed was being planted in the American psyche?

Given the problems with alleged “bad intel” how are we to believe other information coming from this administration as accurate? Certainly being in the position of not finding the “clear and convincing evidence” you’ve stated you had poses some serious questions here, especially if you are saying the intel was bad. Isn’t it convenient that intel is bad only in this particular area while all other assertions are not being defined either but left open to interpretation?

So far, we’ve seen 3 shifts in this administrations view of Iraq.

1. Saddam has been kept from his weapons and sanctions worked
2. Saddam has tons of WMD and is an imminent danger
3. No WMD makes any difference because he was a ruthless murderer.

Pardon me if I have some reservations about the real agendas here. There is definitely credibility issues here and hopefully they will be resolved soon one way or another. As of today Monday 3/1/04, it’s not looking as if Bush was being square with the US and world on why we really invaded Iraq.

Peace,

I see that we draw more or less the same conclusions from the facts stated. Beyond questions of nationality and related sensitivities, intellectual honesty can make people from different countries reach a significant common ground. Personally, I feel reassured about this. I wonder how much of the people in the US are willing to apply the same deductive rationales to their statements. I mean - months of discussion here and many individuals, able to think on their own apparently, keep on following the official line whatever false are proven to be the claims for the move on Iraq. I won't include people like Curley in the numbers, he seems to be lost for science.

Caution here. I am not asserting that they should disown their country whatsoever. On the contrary, it is question here of democratical values which are the basis of the American society. I believe in them personally, that's why I consider with an extreme worrying what's going on with the Bush crowd.

I read recently that, in a last attempt to convince Chirac to join the so-called "coalition of the willing" at the begginning of 2003, Bush openly made reference to Biblic references coming from his evangelist church. Chirac had to ask to his advisors the meaning of some names to get the "message" - the divine speech should I write.

I mean - no problem with religious beliefs, everybody is entitled to his faith - but something dangerous is going on. It is just like if this Iraq war was motivated by some religious inspiration. Even if partly true, this should have no grip on decision making, all the more when they imply death and destruction.

I am not aware about the religious state of the US right now, but it seems to me that it is a seculiar society in the first place. The sole fact to hear Bush employing the word "crusade" is in itself a big, big problem regarding the important historical significance of this word in the minds of millions of Arabs. Willing to pacify a whole area - the middle East - with such a biased discourse is disastrous.

Sunday, February 29, 2004 Posted: 9:58 PM EST (0258 GMT)


BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Iraq's Governing Council has agreed on an interim constitution and is expected to sign the document after the end of the Shiite feast Ashoura on Wednesday.

Entifadh Qanbar, spokesman for council member Ahmad Chalabi, said the meeting ended at 4:20 a.m. (0120 GMT) with "full agreement ... on each article," The Associated Press reported.

He said the draft charter will recognize Islam as "a source of legislation" -- rather than "the" source as some officials had sought -- and that no law will be passed that violates the tenets of the Muslim religion.

The constitution is intended to govern the nation until an elected assembly can draft and make into law a permanent charter.

The agreement missed its Saturday deadline, but the handover of power to an Iraqi transitional government will still take place on June 30, according to various officials.

Earlier, council member Mowaffak al-Rubaie said the meticulous crafting of an appropriate document was more important than meeting the February 28 target date, set down by the political handover agreement in November.

"We are building a new Iraq and this needs to be done properly," Rubaie said, adding, "failure is not an option."

Paul Bremer, the U.S. civilian administrator, has to sign off on the draft. Among the tough issues in the session were the role of Islam and issues concerning the Kurds.

Bahram Saleh, the prime minister of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan's region, said it is "an important night" and the negotiations reflect "an exciting moment in history."

The PUK is represented on the council by Jalal Talabani and Saleh sat in for him at the press conference.

"This is the very first time in the contemporary history of the Middle East that such a wide range of opinions are engaged in a serious discussion about the future of their country," Saleh said.

The draft law is seen as an unprecedented democratic blueprint for a permanent constitution with Western cornerstones, such as a bill of rights and civilian control of the military.

The transitional law is designed to expire after a permanent constitution is approved and elections are held sometime after the June 30 handover of power to Iraqis.

The United States and the Iraqi Governing Council are intent on adhering to the June 30 deadline and are now determining the appropriate Iraqi body to be handed power this summer.

I'm hoping that there is enough sides to the Bush administration to curtail the excesses of guys like Rumsfeld and Cheyne who with a few others like John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz were know during the Bush Snr admin as "the Crazies".

Terrorism hasn't increased. It's the media coverage that has increased it's visability. Obvioulsy you're not reaing enough news papers to come the that conclusion.

I disagree USA. Never until after the US invasion have we heard of these extremist groups bombing even their own people for cooperating. Never have we heard of Turkey being bombed, and Iraq bombs going off.

They've even inspired terrorism among other groups fighting for different causes like in Russia.

Clearly there is a real rise in terrorism and a real rise in the threat levels of it. This has little to do with the media as it does with Bush's foreign policies (or lack thereof).

If you are talking Iraqi terrorism, I beg to differ. Secretly, Saddam murdered thousands a year. If that's not terrorism, I don't know what is.
I think you and peace disagree just to disagree.
This was terrorism in general, not just Iraq.
Arabs and Muslims have been killing each other for a thousand years, we just didn't see it on CNN.

Alah forbid that there be a real chance for long-term progress in Iraq! Undoubtedly, if the U.S. had no involvement in the liberation and democratization of that country then you pathogens—who kneel and pray right along with the murdering jihadis (albeit to different gods) for the U.S. and the coalition to stumble and fail in their worthwhile endeavor—would be all a'tingle, cheering at each and every hard-earned victory. Instead you hover like miserable buzzards, eager to pick at and celebrate over every morsel of negativity that feeds your anti-U.S. bellies.

There is something that will never appear in your brilliant posts, Curley. You are claiming that now the Iraqis are in a best situation; that the US did all fine and will prevail, and that those who may disagree with the coalition want it to stumble and fail - plain and simple. Motivation is anti-americanism and, if I get the message, those opponents simply take side with djihadists.

I would just like to remind you a little detail, Sir. What the US has undertaken - which is not the problem in itself, it is rather how they did - has and will have consequences for all of us. We have in this case all interest in having the US reaching some success. Unfortunately, the mess we are the witnesses right now is worrying, because the likelihood of a civil war in Iraq, expanding to a conflict in the whole area, does not appear to be neglictible in those troubled conditions. Here is the point, and that's exactly why your extremist's position, dismissing problems, disregarding important issues, is immature and schocking - may I remind you that people are dying there.

Negativity ? Euro-propaganda ? Give me a break.

Curley Joe, you should go in Iraq. Ask the people in the street their opinion. Ask American soldiers theirs. Mix all of it up and start drawing some thoughts of your own.

Being faced to your attitude, your multiple-posting kind of censorship, your blatant immaturity, with as a conclusion your assertion that it brings you immense pleasure to do so, is sickening.

In real life, when one has to deal with individuals like you, once the vain discussion ended, the sensible interlocutor comment would be "Let be it, wait and see. History will judge". Yeah, it will judge, "negativity" and "propaganda" all the same. But we might be all judged in the same mess. You are definitely unable to fathom the stakes behind your simplistic black and white conception of the world.

By the way, a remark to the other readers: this post hereabove is intended for you - Curley will never engage any discussion. Anyway, his agenda is clear by now. Propaganda and censorship by dilution of all those whose opinions do not please him. This is a forum here, so a reaction following the same pattern would be of no other effect than to kill discussion, and everybody would lose.
Anyway, the crap we are given to read, the fact that it is admittedly intended to undermine intelligent debates, should not be left sprawling and consuming the forum. Forum of discussion = democracy. People like Curley are minded to live in a dictature. Let's not accept them to dictate their nasty rules.

Curley, your crap won't work. People are able to think on their own. They demand truth to make an opinion of their own. You chose the deadend option.

Exactly, Frenchie! HISTORY will judge. Not you. You will neither be the judge nor the pre-judge of the U.S. Not your legion of bitter anti-Americans with your rhetoric ever at the ready to be hurled at America and not the Democratic liberals who would sell short the President and what this country stands for and strives for just for the opportunity to reside in the White house. WE the people of the United States of America will judge our performance—as far as the short term is concerned—on Nov. 3. WE will vote! While all the while, you are free to rattle on with your decades-old Euro-manure. But your rhetoric doesn't amount to a hill of beans as far as Americans are concerned. Yes, I will vote for Bush. But when the voting is done and the polls are closed and the ayes have been counted, I will fully support the President of The United States—be it Bush OR Kerry. This is what is America. This is what is democracy.

And this is what Iraq is moving toward.

And yes, I'll say it again. God forbid that there be a real chance for long-term progress in Iraq! Undoubtedly, if the U.S. had no involvement in the liberation and democratization of that country then you pathogens—who kneel and pray right along with the murdering jihadis (albeit to different gods) for the U.S. and the coalition to stumble and fail in their worthwhile endeavor—would be all a'tingle, cheering at each and every hard-earned victory. Instead you hover like miserable buzzards, eager to pick at and celebrate over every morsel of negativity that feeds your anti-U.S. bellies.

From what I have seen, he knows a lot more than you.

http://www.inreview.com/showthread....15&pagenumber=1