Article

2003-03-22 Europe

France Opposes Proposal for U.S.-British Rule in Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2003-03-22 08:32 am|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Even if France plays the 'illegal intervention' card and gets some international backing, whoâs going to enforce it if the US doesnât want to play along?

Posted by John Phares 3/22/2003 1:19:28 PM|| 3/22/2003 1:19:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Den Beste has a good analysis of how Jacques ~~La Ver~~ has painted himself into a very bad corner and can't back down...in addition, if he's removed as President, immunity's gone ~~poof!~~ , he's subject to indictment and possible jail over bribery charges. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy unless if that struttin' little peacock de Villepin went too

Posted by Frank G 2003-03-22 07:25:14|| 2003-03-22 07:25:14|| Front Page Top

#3 "France would not accept a resolution tending to legitimize the military intervention "

You watch, it's becoming obvious that his new little scheme is to claim the "gravest consequences" to the US for its illegal military intervention. Everything he does and says makes sense when viewed in this light. Russia and France greedily rejected US offers for fair and cooperative efforts to divide the "spoils" and now, being left out completely, they are looking for ways to make this war illegal, so their contracts in Iraq are still good.

Note the two other rantburg aticles today that support this....Russia Claims US Trying to Step on Economic Interests and Advisor Quits Foreign Office Over Legality of War.

I can't believe Putin is being so stupid and greedy. When will he get it that if he just sits down at the diplomatic table, we'll work out a better deal than he will ever get by playing all of these childish ego games. He can't see past the easy money in Iraq (and slapping Bush) to consider what's best in the long term for his country.

Posted by becky 2003-03-22 10:46:25|| 2003-03-22 10:46:25|| Front Page Top

#4 On second thought I can. It is their remaining bargaining chip. Give us good deals, US or we will play this card.

Posted by becky 2003-03-22 12:11:34|| 2003-03-22 12:11:34|| Front Page Top

#5 Even if France plays the 'illegal intervention' card and gets some international backing, whoâs going to enforce it if the US doesnât want to play along?

Posted by John Phares 2003-03-22 13:19:28|| 2003-03-22 13:19:28|| Front Page Top

#6 Don't get me wrong, I think we will prevail, but it seems clear that they will do their best to use this Clintonian tactic to try and (unsuccessfully) slap us around in the UN. It's all about the meaning of the word "consequences".

They will play to the same anti-US idiots that are out marching against the liberation of Iraq right now. It's sure to cause us headaches, but I agree with Alaska Paul (another article)..if we can hold firm, we can change the world into a better place.

Posted by becky 2003-03-22 16:23:42|| 2003-03-22 16:23:42|| Front Page Top

#7 Jacques doesn't seem to realize that a veto cannot *get* you anything, it can only deny something to someone else. The legal status of the invasion is moot, Sammy's regime is history, and *that's the way it will stay*. Any move to pass a "this is illegal" statement will be vetoed by the US and UK.

Simmer, simmer, simmer...

Posted by mojo 2003-03-22 18:04:24|| 2003-03-22 18:04:24|| Front Page Top

#8 Chirac cant pass "this is illegal statement" but he can veto a "this occupation is authorized by the UNSC" which would have been nice to have for a number of reasons (add legitimacy in US and UK for when times get rough, add resources, add legitimacy in Iraq and the region). But by doing so he's passing up a chance to reconcile with the "anglosphere" and get out of the corner. Makes it appear more like he is really commited to a geopolitics of counter balance. Which may make sense for France, China, and even Russia, but probably not for Germany, which seems to have been more motivated by pacifism - not a reason not to cooperate in the aftermath. If France continues hardline in aftermath, i would expect (perhaps i am too optimistic?) growing strain between Paris and Berlin, already uncomfortable with French dissing of eastern europeans.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-03-22 21:10:10|| 2003-03-22 21:10:10|| Front Page Top

#9 Saw an article yesterday that made sense: "First Afghanistan, then Iraq, next: France!"

The best way to deal with France, Germany, et al, is to pull out of their countries - lock, stock and barrel (or keg, whichever you prefer). Their socialist governments will fold without being constantly propped up by American dollars buying their goods.

As for what happens after the war is over, that will be up to the victors, as it has always been.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-03-23 00:13:44|| 2003-03-23 00:13:44|| Front Page Top

12:16 Hiryu
09:35 raptor
00:39 Old Patriot
00:26 Old Patriot
00:13 Old Patriot
00:01 Anonymous
23:57 Tex
23:55 Tex
23:51 Tex
23:51 Mac
23:46 Alaska Paul
23:00 tu3031
22:54 canaveral dan
22:24 Angie Schultz
22:22 tu3031
22:15 tu3031
22:12 tu3031
22:01 tu3031
21:46 tu3031
21:40 frank martin
21:26 JDB
21:21 liberalhawk
21:14 Bman
21:10 liberalhawk