France on US hit list

“Bush Sr made it very clear he only had the mandate to free Kuwait, once that objective was accomplished,”

Absolutely agree, and that was also because the UN action to free a country from an aggressor (ie Kuwaite from Saddam) was an obvious, sane, normal thing to do. Invade Iraq and remove the regime was not considered, because the UN and the US wasn’t in the business of creating countries.

Which is why I don’t understand the US’ position over the current invasion… sure Saddam was a very bad person, and he wasn’t doing Iraq any good… of course most of their problems stemmed from sanctions, but at least he was an Iraqi. This time around the aggressor was the US and the UK, and their reason was that some time in the vague future Saddam might become dangerous again.
Action against a blatant invasion of a small neighbour mobilised the sensible world (at the time OBL is reported to have offered to provide the men if Saudi Arabia had provided the money to get saddam out of Kuwaite… an offer that was rejected)… plus a few other groups that hated the US probably disagreed with the action taken as well… but there is no convincing them.
Action against an impoverished and greatly weakened Iraq, already on its knees in case in some unstated time in the future the leader (whom everyone agrees is not good for Iraq or the region) might somehow get into a position to hold the world economy to ransom… sounds like a mini series plot to me… and it probably has Dolph Lundgren in it…

Sauron, GarryB

This is a major sore spot with me concerning Gulf War one, I was there, even earned a few medals! but I cringe when I hear some people say, “We should have finished the job” eetc etc, What alot of people forget is that there was quite a bit of protests back then concerning the war, the same old tired rhetoric, like “no blood for oil” yada yada yada, Bush Sr made it very clear he only had the mandate to free Kuwait, once that objective was accomplished, any further move would have been viewed harshly by the UN/press. Remember after Kuwait was freed, Saddam and his armies were totally decimated, on the run, and nobody would have bet Saddam would have remained in power for long, So if one American/coalition soldier was killed in an attempt to take Bahgdad the uproar from the press as well as the video of the crying mothers would have been a disaster. I agree we should have finished the job, in hindsight, but at the time it was the right thing to do. As for France, newscasts today are quoting some highly placed sources as stating that soon revelations concerning France’s involvement with Iraq and WMD’s will be revealed and should ultimately lead to the collapse of Chirac’s position, though wre have heard these type reports before, One must assume some of these Iraqii’s are starting to sing like canaries!!!

Garry

I seem to recall that France was part of the coalition. There is nothing ‘revisionist’ about that. The coalition decided to stop short in 1991.

Regards

Sauron

“all party to the decision not to overthrow Saddam which allowed him to take revenge on the Kurds and the Shia and for which the US is blamed totally.”

Hahahaha… talk about revisionist history… Bush snr asked the Iraqi people to rise up and overthrow saddam… when only the Kurds and the Southern Marsh Arabs did they were left to their fate…
Damn those evil French, somehow it must be their fault.

TTP

It’s interesting how much credit non-US coalition nations like to take for their military exploits and contributions in the 1991 Gulf war but it is equally interesting how they avoid the fact that they were all party to the decision not to overthrow Saddam which allowed him to take revenge on the Kurds and the Shia and for which the US is blamed totally. They are quick to share in the glory but as for the unintended consequences… blame the US.

I agree in general with comments about France but everyone also knows that the position it took over Iraq was simply a an attempt to thwart US influence and power and had nothing to do with concern for the UN, Iraq, internation order, etc.

Regards

Sauron

“The military cimeteries are very touching places.”

Hmm, just like brothels?

TTP
As a Kiwi I didn’t like the French for what they did to us in the mid 80s. With time and a few long chats to Snowman I got over it.
You should be thankfull that people can get over such things, otherwise many more would hate the US than you think do now.

It is a little pathetic really. The US wants to invade a country… for its own interests, which it has never been honest about, but it is now annoyed at France for not letting them do it the easy way, which is in fact BS anyway because even if France had abstained and didn’t speak to anyone Russia still would have vetoed, so they never would have got UNSC permission anyway.

Maybe it is surprise… Russia will always be considered an enemy and you’d expect an enemy to do that… Germany has always been too understanding of Russia to be fully trusted, but France…. Oh France… you used to do as you were told…

…hang on ….no they didn’t. They were the last western power in Europe to fully join NATO, and have always done what they wnated, when they wanted. It has just been in the past that they have never really spoken out about it before.

Maybe there is hope for the EU afterall… I was thinking it was going to remain a weakwilled junior partner to the US forever.

Originally posted by TTP
Snowman,

This will take YEARS. Personally after the Libya situation, and when the French protested EuroDisney, because it was ruining French culture, Is when I lost any interest in ever visiting. I’d like to see the Normandy beaches though, as I have an uncle buried there. Professionally when i flew in Europe alot, late 80’s early 90’s) you could always count on the French ATC to f#@k up your routing and cause much heart-burn as well, almost as if they enjoyed jerking the USAF.

Interesting post TTP. Anyway you’d be welcome in this country though.

About ATC the situation is much better now since ATC guys finally got what they were asking for , for years , a couple of years ago.

About Normandy beaches , that’s a very special place bringing up a lot of emotion.
The military cimeteries are very touching places.

Snowman,

Concerning the Schwartzkoff quote, I don’t know its origins or if its true, just the its been “making the rounds” along with tons of French jokes. I have a friend, who was an F-4 driver who was assigned a ground duty (ALO) during the first Gulf War, he was assigned the French Foreign Legion, and was with them throughout all combat ops. He has nothing but praise for them! Irregardless, all soldiers of every nation are fine, brave souls, its the leadership that shapes a nations policies. Your right about all the complexities surrounding events, what seem simple are often quite complicated, but from the perspective of the man on the street France and the French are viewed quite poorly here. I’m afraid that French exports will suffer dramatically for years to come as well, People don’t realize the anomosity that the French have garnered from this situation. There was a liquor store in a rural part of my state, whose owner threw out his entire stock of French wine! alot of French resturants are closing due to no sales, even if they are owned by Americans. This will take YEARS. Personally after the Libya situation, and when the French protested EuroDisney, because it was ruining French culture, Is when I lost any interest in ever visiting. I’d like to see the Normandy beaches though, as I have an uncle buried there. Professionally when i flew in Europe alot, late 80’s early 90’s) you could always count on the French ATC to f#@k up your routing and cause much heart-burn as well, almost as if they enjoyed jerking the USAF.

” don’t believe ‘Strykers’ were used in Iraq “

Strykers are what the US seem to be calling their LAV IIIs.

I saw more footage of them than of Bradleys in this war.

“Siding with Saddam just illustrates how far they are willing to go. “

What is it with this “you are either with us or against us” BS.

Do your friends just blindly agree with everything you say, what ever you say?
If they do, I got news for you buddy… they aren’t your friends.

As has been pointed out the first attack on Iraq got almost world wide support as it was an action against agression.
Why does it surprise you that not much has changed, except this time the agression was from the US and UK and Australia and Poland and everyone else who helped them.

If the US was interested in enforcing the will of the UN it would have gone through the UNSC. The fact that the UN didn’t actually agree with what the US was doing suggests it was really the will of the US and not the will of the UN to invade.
If the US was interested in saving the Iraqi people they could have helped them in 91 or any time since… they have never brought up the plight of the Iraqi people or lack of democracy in the region before, nor did they offer demcoracy to the people of Kuwaite in 91, so we can probably discount that too.
Can you see what this is leading too.

As jonesy stated keeping up oil production keeps oil prices low and the major economies of the world working properly and prosperously.
The Suggestons before the war was that in 10 years time Saddam would become a huge threat to the global economy through the use of WMD.
I really didn’t and don’t care if Saddam had WMDs coming out his a$$, even if he had more than he wanted what real threat would he be to any of his neighbours?
Even in 50 years I doubt he could be anywhere near the threat to the US that the UK is to Saddam… and I don’t think he could be any more of a threat to the US than that.

With the two wars and 12 years of sanctions the US has what it wants. All it has to do now is make sure religious fundamentalism doesn’t grow and create another Iran, or that seperatism doesn’t take hold and cause problems with the Kurds and the Turks… remember NATO does not require other members to aid in actions of aggression, but it does bind them in defence… ie Turkey doesn’t have to aid the US and UK to invade Iraq, but if Kurds threaten the border of Turkey all of NATO is required to help.

Garry

I don’t believe ‘Strykers’ were used in Iraq if indeed that is what you are referring to . The wheeled equipment you saw while similar are MC Lavs they received back in late 80’s.

As far as the French forces are concerned, I would agree that they should be very capable. As far as the motives of the French government re Iraq are concerned, they were clearly attempting to protect their interests in Iraq and the deals that they had signed with Saddam in the hope they would kick in once the sanctions were lifted. At the same time they are obviously bent on trying to regain some of the pride and leadership France once held prior to WW2 and one of the ways they have chosen is to attempt to curtail US power and influence. Siding with Saddam just illustrates how far they are willing to go.

Regards

Sauron

Interesting quote from Shwartzkopf (spelling).

In a documentary on the French foreign legion I saw within the last year he had nothing but praise for their ability to protect the flanks of the main drive in desert storm. Their high mobility and heavy firepower has actually become a model for the US… notice the Strykers were preferred over the Bradleys, much the same as the Foreign legion used french wheeled vehicles for speed and mobility.

He even mentioned he was given honarary position in the French foreign legion. He said he was given a card and on the back of it was a phone number. He was told if he ever got into trouble… anywhere in the world… ring the number and they’d look after him.

Sounds like respect to me… and it sound mutual… and he was saying this himself… it was not third person.

Hi TTP,

I don’t think that the French chose a dictator. The fact the the French government decided not to support a US initiative in this case doesn’t mean that they sided with Sadam Hussein. Simply that they disagreed with the stated US policy, an, as I remember, a fairly large number of other governments, as well as large numbers of citizens of many other countries didn’t seem to agree with the Bush administration either. It’s not like France was isolated in its opinion about the situation in Irak and the impending war, is it? Also why is France singled out on this?

You say “

The French seemed to relish thumbing their nose at us, and sabuetaging every diplomatic move.”

Seem? You are basing your judgement on appearances? Do you not think it would be more rational to actually try and look for the actual reasons why France chose that course of action? (preferably avoiding simplistic theories which only point to vested insterest because I think that argument cuts both ways).

Funny you should mention Lybia. I am reading a book written by a former member of the Mossad who claims that all was not what it seemed regarding the prelude to US intervention there. I think the gist of that passage goes along the lines of manipulation. If I understood him correctly, he claims also the French were right to dispute some of the intelligence which was revealed at the time. I would not dream of knowing what actually went on behind the scenes, and who is telling the whole truth (if there is such a thing)but this is a reminder that once again, things aren’t always as clear-cut as they might appear.

As far as Generral Schwarzkopf is concerned, what are you saying? That his comments were merely hypocrisy? I might be wrong but he doesn’t strike me as the two-faced type, quite the reverse. Why mention French forces if he thought they were rubbish? Why would he make himself look naive or misinformed by praising soldiers everyone thought were not good or did not perform well? Do you believe French forces achieved nothing during the first Gulf War then?
I too have read that quotation. What does it prove if it is genuine? (I have not yet seen either the source, or the context in which it was uttered). I really fail to see in what way trading insults and pandering to gratuitous and fallacious sterotypes is going to solve the situation.

Once again, you say at the end of you post that France “seem” to prefer dictators. Based on the recent disgreement? So you have forgotten recent military international operations France took part in, then…
Surely you don’t believe that France would chose a dictator. Somebody said recently that it was acceptable, and sometimes even advisable for friends to tell one another they wrong.

There’s so much hysteria surrounding this issue, that I firmly believe quick and simplistic judgement is bound to fuel the flames further. Do you think this is what we need?

Regards,

Snowman

Snowman,

Your 100% correct, the French did have the right to voice their opinion, and choose the course of action they took. On the flip side America has the right to”dis” the French for choosing a two-bit, brutal dictator, over an ally. Americans don’t necessarily expect the French to follow us lock step, but the under-handed, sneaky nature of French manuevering is what pissed off most Americans. I can vouch for this, Americans are not one-tenth as mad at the Germans for taking the same stand. The French seemed to relish thumbing their nose at us, and sabuetaging every diplomatic move. They did this to us back in 1986 with the Libya bombing as well, we forgave them for that, bu its not going to happen this time. France has chosen Khaddafi, and Saddam over the US so now, they have to be big boys and take the consequenses of their actions. If Americans would rather drink, Italian, Austrailian or Spanish wines then too bad. America doesn’t really import too many French products anyway. As far as Schwartzkoff’s comments, What do you expect him to say about an ally? I’m sure he said the same about the Syrian’s and egyptians that were part of the coalition too.
He’s also credited with this quote that made the rounds recently

“Going to war without the French, is like going hunting without your accordian”

Let France trade with Khadafy and leaders like Hussain, they seem to prefer them anyway. Maybe surrounding themselves with nations like that, the French may feel relevant again.

Interesting thread.

It’s veered off a bit from the original topic, but one of the things TTP wrote seemed to me to be very relevant indeed to the matter at hand:

“Bottom line is this
I want freedom!
Give me freedom to dare greatly, even if I fail I will have tried!, I don’t want somebody else responsible for my life!”

Isn’t this part of the issue? French leaders decided on a particular course of action, and followed it. Surely this is at the heart of the discussion. The French government disagreed with what the USA proposed to do and voiced their disagreement within the framework of an international decision-making organisation. I might be extremely naive, but isn’t this exactly the value that we ‘democratic countries’ are meant to cherish, promote and uphold?

As an aside, I was listening the other evening to an audio tape called ‘How we won the war’ which consists almost entirely of a press breifing given by General Schwarzkopf just before the formal end of the first Gulf War. In it, he underlines on a few occasion how well the French forces in the Coalition had performed. Quite apart from the fact that it flies in the face of some quite frankly tiresome and irksome half-jokes about French forces not being competent, it really brought home to me how fast things change…

I really can’t see how it would be in anyone’s interest to continue on this collision course within Western alliances.

if only….

Votex and TTP:

u are both right when u say that there are many problems in china at the moment, but the points u are focusing on are from 10, 20 years in the past, most are no longer relevent because THINGS HAVE CHNAGED. if CNN or FOX would tell u more abt the china of today, or if u have listened to anything i or WACHENR0DER have said so far then u would realise this.

for example:

TTP:

“Give me freedom to dare greatly, even if I fail I will have tried!, I don’t want somebody else responsible for my life! I am not content to do as well as my neighbor, I want to strive to do better to reach the heights of my capabilities, not what level the government says I should aspire to! I am not content to work at a job the government says I should do, Maybe I would be a great Lawyer, but I want to fly Jets!! so I did, nobody told me I couldn’t! I will take care of my retirement, I will buy what I want where I want, I will travel anywhere I want to go, ask any question!!!!! Are you getting this yet??? “

YES! me and my freinds and EVERYONE else in china, and it has been the case fro decades. the PRC NEVER tried to control all aspect of human life. even Mao did not try to dictate what roles ppl should play in sociaty. u seem to be confusing china with the borg or sth.

iu know what, i am very busy with an important project at the moment, and i just dont have time for this now, if u like, we can pick up where we left off here and coutinoue this in two months time when im free.

First of all there has been no real communist countries in the world. We saw Stalinist countries, who called themselves communist.

Those countries did not fail because the west did lie about them, but because their leaders lied to the population. That is why the GDR fell apart. It had nothing to offer the population. You had a small cadre of elitist party cadre that enjoyed freedom and luxury to a level the normal popualtion could not even dream of reaching.

Sure in the west you do have poor, average and rich people. But at least everyone has the basic chance to change his socail status. (It does not work every time , but you can at least try)

China has come a long way from the dark days of the culture revolution. China is country with many faces. You have the large prospering cities in which the life style and personal freedom are comparable to western countries. You have the poor rural areas which are still very much left in the old age. In those areas the party has much more influence on the individuals live, then in the cities.

But compared to other countires in the region the former communist countries are not doing bad. Although China is still a long way from an open and free society. But freedom has to be earned and the chinese are earning it every day with every small step they make into that direction.

I am being realistic, and I even stated that I believe China should allow the people to directly elect members in higher positions. I’m not from China, nor am I Chinese. All my knowledge of China is based numerous text books I’ve studied in the US that are published by American companies (trust me, I can spot Chinese propoganda and what is actually positive/negative). And I can point to you numerous positive and negative policies and events of China’s more recent system (the PRC’s government can best be divided down into 5 or 6 stages).

Since you’ve finally made it clear that your only discontent with the current China’s policy towards objective criticism. China has lately been more lenient towards protesting, and infact there’s a large rural protest (in the thousands) over the governments handling with SARS, now let’s see what happens there. Since the Tiannamen fiasco, China has beem more cautious towards objective criticsm on it’s domestic policies.

by the way I must applaud you for being a bit more civilized than other people whom i’ve debated with.

…

No, the hypothetical “votes” i’m talking about is IF a vote is now given for the people to vote for the President or any higher representative positions….not that any of those lower ranking votes must go a certain way. Many Chinese believe that those lower ranking votes is just as democratic as any western ones and i believe they’re missing the point. Those lower ranks are inconsequential to the closed group of national leaders where “relations” and “dealings” are the way to move up, not by popular or representative methods. Again, that’s fine as long as that’s what people wants, except why when there’s desent there’s death? Sure, if you’re Chinese, most likely you want to focus on the positive side but all i’m asking is objective criticism of ones own country where you’re bound to find many in ANY democratic countries. Why is that? That’s not propaganda you say? Isn’t not the fear to criticize ones own government a serious form of propaganda? I gave plawolf a proposal on when he goes back to China, go to Beijing, shot out anything against the Chinese leadership or post anything online and give his exact location and let’s see what happens. Certainly right now i can say Bill Clinton is an idiot and so is George Bush. I can do that everyday for a whole month, a whole year. Can he say the same thing when back in China about anybody in the leadership? And you call his 110% support of how great it is over there not the psyche of propaganda? Please. Be realistic. That’s all i’m asking.

The problem that have been brought up in regards to communism cannot be applied to all countries as a whole, each country should be taken on an individual basis. Things that occur in the USSR, Cuba, and the PRC are different. Likewise different democracies are different from each other, can we say the US is the same as post Leopoldo Argentina or India?

As for “brainwash” in regards to “that’s not communism”. You can pick up any book of Karl Marx, and read for yourself his ideas and contrast it with the past and communist governments. None of these countries fit Karl Marx’s description of communism.

Also you have brought up Mao alot, and your points are right and any sane person can agree that Mao’s leadership was strongly authoritarian, stalinist, and very very clumsy and irresponsible. However those days of his rule are in the past and since then, his rival political group, the reformers have dominated control of the PRC. Of course i do believe that the people of CHina should be able to vote those trying to be premier and such instead of only being able to vote for lower level cadres, I do not believe that at the present time or within the past 5-10 years the PRC has murdered those who voted for another way (if you can give an example then please do). After all this is not Iraq.

China is still currently going through a process of political transformation, and with their economy growing very fast within a short period of time (China now is a big difference from that of 10 years ago), eventually there will be new problems in trying to adjust to the pluralist political system and income gap between rich and poor which will force the government to further change their policies..who knows..it might end up being as bad as Mao or a further democratic elements installed, there will still be many issues China will have to solve, but I’ve yet to see you point out positive traits of current PRC, just strictly the negative. even in regimes such as Qadaffi’s Libya where much freedom of speech is lacking, at least the Libyans have right of housing (meaning they are all entitled to a place with electricity and water) and health care. Every government has it’s good points and bad points, but it seems that many who attack China focus strictly on it’s bad points.

Also, and very important, can a person from China say anything positive about his/her government with out being labeled as “brainwashed”? Or are they only allowed to say negative things?

WACHENR0DER

…i agree that people can live in what ever kind of system as long as they feel content and don’t harm anybody else. Basically it’s fine for me if everybody living in a certain countries WANT to work hard so their benevolent dictator can live a lavish life. That’s really ok with me…no problemo if that’s what everybody wants (hense your old musics like “Work Work Work for Mao”). But, the problem is that usually (if not ALWAYS) systems like Dictatorships or Communism people don’t have any other choices. Because if they dare to…..they are DEAD. That i have a problem with. If everybody in a certain country are fine with a communistic system…fine, ideally it’s great,….what happens is that practically you’ll have people who wants other choices and it’ll result in death for them. Hey i’m sure if i vote for someone rather unpopular with unpopular aggendas in the US, i will live another day. In non democratic countries….how you even get that person’s name on the ballot if he/she isn’t already DEAD? On top of that, you’ll have people saying “That’s not really Communism”….i think that’s what TTP means by “brainwashed”. The point is SO WHAT if it’s not….people are suffering under it. Hey Saddam has 100% of the vote and i can sure bet that if China have a vote today on their leaders they will get pretty close to 100% too. Why? They’re that great? No, most people in China aren’t that dissillusioned about the amout of political “freedom” they have. And most Chinese would question “why” should they challenge the leaders as long as the people get to make money and “live” like a middle class. There’s nothing wrong with that until those who do want to challenge is murdered.