French surprise

Remove all ads!

While all the bash-france-folks have either shut up or wandered off, they might be interested in reading this article about french diplomacy before the war:

France Sought Secret Deal to Approve War, Pacify Bush.

As usual, everything is more complex than it looks on the surface.

 

Wow: big news to me!

As always, absolutely nothing has been said about that around here...

We are all pigeons being plucked .

 

Uncomfortable actually.

Legally even the US troop buildup was illegal already, yet it could have led to the situation that Saddam might have resigned - but the US weren't interested in exile, for that they had demonised him too much - exile would have meant to be "weak on Saddam" after all the effort to paint him as the actual impersonation of antichrist.

Without a doubt the way things went was the possibly least lucky way. And yes, IMO resolution 1442 wasn't enough of a legal basis.

Of course, one has to be aware that international law is formed by politics - had everyone agreed on 1442 being a basis there would not have been much of a discussion about, illegal or not.

I have to chew and ponder on that a little and when I'm finished I'll let you know.

So everybody feel free to reply so I can post my second thoughts on it later and don't have to edit my post

 

Imagine that! Small time crook Chirac engaged in shady deals...

I wonder what the deal actually was though, that article doesn't seem to link to the said report. What were the stakes exactly?

France ultimately vetoed the resolution.

Is that true? Iirc, the new resolution never went through a vote.

[something] "Vanity Fair"... doesn't sounds serious, does it? [/something]

 

I'm glad you brought that up Oxy, because I thought the same thing. That the U.S. wasn't going to allow it to get vetoed - as then they would be openly defying the Security Council - so they never brought it up for the vote. They simply said the initial resolution was all they needed (despite the efforts to get a second one passed).

To me, this was old news. I heard about this months ago, although it was still in the realm of "conspiracy theories" at the time. But it basically was exactly what the article said - that France had told the U.S. that they didn't need a second resolution, but Blair insisted they obtain one. Honestly, I'm surprised the U.S. complied as Blair has basically been Bush's be-atch since he's been in office. My guess is that Britain represented the only other respectably powerful member of the "coalition of the willing" and so the U.S. had to make some concessions to them.

 

A while ago Donald Rumsfeld said: 'It is possible Iraqi leaders decided they would destroy (WMDs) prior to the conflict.' If that was true then Saddam had fulfilled the criteria of UN resolution 1441 (disarmament of his WMD) and so there was absolutely no legal right for the US and UK to go to war - and then, for France as well. That means, even the french plan would have violated international law.

But then, the WMD never were the real reason for war.

Except for this, had it been decided in the UN Security Council that would have decreed in 2003 that 1441 is a violated, or made another resolution, it would have been a difference - then it would have been 'legal' because the newer ruling would have overridden the older.

 

Actually the term for what the U.K. is to the U.S. is "ally." It's nigh impossible to overstate how close our military and intelligence agencies are to one another.

Yeah, Rummy and others have pointed out that Hussein could have destroyed his WMDs (instead of what he most likely did -- ship them to Syria and Europe), but he didn't have evidence that he destroyed them as he was required to. Did you expect us to just trust his word?

 

@Aldeth. The U.K may be small but we can have a vicious nip. I'll agree that Blair has been Bush's lapdog though.

 

Funny. After over a year of searching, no has been able to produce any evidence there were any WMD at all, despite Rummy, Cheney and Bush's insistance that "the jury's still out." Yet you still expect us, and the world, to trust their word? Have you considered the high likelyhood that he just wanted people to think he had them, and never actually did? In which case, he couldn't show evidence of destroying something he never had to begin with?

 

... shipped to Europe, eh? Ever considered that the proof of nonexistence, when documentation of destruction is missing, is already logical impossible, let alone practically?
The US demand to Iraq to bring up of proof of nonexistence of WMD was impossible to fulfill.

And I agree, the US had unlimited access and a year's time to search every rathole in that country - and found nothing ... considering the very high accuracy of the UN inspector's assessment, which was better than that of US and UK intelligence services, their word might indeed be something to trust in. But I guess that solution would have been unacceptable in your eyes, and unacceptable in Washington.

The war wasn't about WMD, disarmament alone wouldn't have brought the regime change Washington wanted so badly. And there we are again at Wolfowitz'es quote: "WMD was the thing we thought everyone could agree on."

 

Um, not to go off-topic, but...

Given that:

1) Hussein had used WMD both domestically (on the Kurds) and on his neighbors (Iran-Iraq war)...
2) Hussein lied about the amount of WMD he had in his possession after the 1991 ceasefire...
3) Inspectors in the early '90s found, and destroyed, far more WMD stocks than Hussein had admitted to possessing...
4) Hussein kicked out the inspectors in the late '90s...

Hussein was quite familiar with the process of both accumulating WMD and verifying its destruction, thanks to years of partial cooperation with the inspection regime. Suppose a parolee, convicted of gunning down his neighbors, starts swaggering around with an empty shotgun. He only has himself to blame if we suppose, logically, that he has ammunition.

I think the proper formulation is that the war was about WMD possession by an untoward regime. We don't mind restrained regimes like France or Russia having enough WMD to incinerate the world twelve times over, but heaven help us if a reckless regime gets ahold of a single nuke.

It's not as if the US is working for regime change for its own sake. Poor, WMD-free countries are free to keep their dictators.

 

Oh my God! Tal has given in to the temptation of loonyism! Actually it's nice to see those in responsible positions give in to their insane-ities.

 

takara --

He speaks a good bit of truth. Some people just don't want to see it.

 

So you all missed the chemical warheads we found? The mobile bio labs? The radioactive "waste metal" shipped to Europe? How about the (illegal) missiles? The buried MiGs?

When you also note that the largest naysayers to setting Iraq free from a brutal dictator were also the ones conniving to make billions in illegal profits from Iraqi oil sales, it's a bit hard to see the Saddam supporters in Europe as objective.

What exactly were you guys hoping to find in Iraq? In my mind, labs to create bio weapons and missiles capable of carrying chemical weapons are enough. Did you really think anyone was saying that we'd trip over a nuclear missile in a Baghdad foyer?

Those who think that this time was enough to find weapons stockpiles might reflect that it took Hillary Clinton longer to find the Rose Law Firm's billing records in the White House. Iraq is the size of California.

[Update:] It's worth noting that the Dutch thought Iraq had WMDs too. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3639977.stm

[ April 20, 2004, 19:05: Message edited by: Shralp ]

 

Actually, the verdict on that is still out:
Volcker Wants U.N. Backing for Oil-for-Food Probe

 

[Forum rules violation removed.]

But to some points...illegal profits? For the USA? That's a pretty strong statement you make with no evidence. I see the US of A spending billions in Iraq, building schools, building infrastructure, etc.

You know, it's funny. posing the question: "if you didn't want Saddam gone (whether for lack of will or an actual preference for his presence), then how is it that you're not at least materially responsible for the consequences of his reign?" people seem to get hysterical. They don't answer it, they just get hysterical.

[Warning pending.] -Tal

[ April 23, 2004, 14:37: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

Hmmm...what to say...

I'm saddened to see that Shralp has been banned, I feel that he made positive contributions to our discussions here.

Also, I feel a little chagrined that the reaction to WMD related waste appearing in European ports is "Damned Americans aren't watching things again". Shouldn't everyone have more concern over how the waste could exist in a supposedly inspected and disarmed Iraq to fall off a boat in Italy?

This has seemed to me to be the so-called "smoking gun", but it has been used only to attack the careless Americans.

If there are "American" profits, it is at the cost of American blood. Make that Coalition blood.

[edit] And in the blood of children on a school bus.

[ April 23, 2004, 12:31: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]