Re: A point of view from France...
Originally posted by headrock6
Fab-Sorry it took so long but i was thinking long and hard about a response to some of your comments...In the past,a couple of threads on this issue,have turned into pissing matches about whos right and wrong..I will try my hardest to explain my view and the view shared by almost 67% of the American people without turning this into one of those fights..Ill take your points 1 by 1...
Not a problem, it has not been so long
, and Im glad that you argue, and not doing a pissing contest.
First go check the UN Charter and you will find that any nation is well within its rights to attack pre-emptively if that nation feels threatened..There are clear reasons why the "World" and not just the US should feel threatened by Saddam Hussiens regime...
The problem is that it has not made it clear that Irak could be a threat, we saw that a big part of the documents (on mass destruction weapons) showed by USA and Britain was far from being right. I remind you the student paper, and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors dismissed that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons.
And you might be right about wars against Iran and Syria..A high level representative from Iran was quoted recently as saying"when we aquire nuclear weapons,we will not hesitate to use them on Israel..Even if they use them against us,it will be a small price to pay for wiping out half of the worlds Jews"..Now if you find this acceptable,and your country continues to run and hide when murderous regimes flex thier muscle,world peace will never be achieved...
Sure I don't find that acceptable, as I don't find acceptable the way Israel lead his policy of "expansion".
Im not sure if your saying the US is doing this for the oil but I think you are..If not then ill apologize ahead of time for distorting your views...If we really wanted Iraqs oil,we could have easily lifted the sanctions that cripple Iraqs oil industry and just let them have thier weapons of mass destruction..Yet on the other hand, your government over the past 12 years has tried everything in thier power to get more oil flowing out of Iraq..Also check Bacas comment about ELF,and how much they have riding on untapped oil reserves on Syrias border...Also remember we liberated Kuwait in 91 and what did we take away??Nothing!!Absolutely no oil contracts and no concessions...It would have been mighty easy then yet we didnt..So while the war itself is not about the oil,on the day AFTER,its all about the oil..That oil is vital in postwar reconstruction even if it doesnt fully cover all the costs..And that oil will be used to propel Iraq into the future..
Yes you misunderstood me, but I tried to do some irony and it didn't work
, so it was not enough clear from my part.
What I mean is that I think that the goal is not petrol but an another far more important to my eyes.
Actually Fab,the French position on the war is really starting to lose some of its appeal when it wont live up to its commitments at the UN..When Britain offered a new resolution that would have had Iraq comply with 6 tests to show disarmament and as our Press Secretary said"when France rejected it even before Iraq,we know where the French stand on seriously disarming Iraq"..Any resolution without the threat of force is a moot point..Weve been debating this issue for 12 years..Is another 12 years acceptable??Your governments policy of containment isnt working..12 years have shown that...And do you realise that maybe if your government choose to stand unified with other nations,Saddam actually might have disarmed by now...The French position only emboldens Saddam to defy the UN even more..Maybe if he saw that if the world would disarm him if he didnt,this process might have worked..With your position,all that hope has faded...
Iraq could not comply with the 6 tests, so they were useless, the result would be a war too.. Sorry I can't remember which one exactly, but if Iraq had to say yes to one they had to say no to an another and vice-versa...
Yes 12 years, and the "war project in Iraq" has been proposed in 1998 by Wolfowitz, Pearle, Rumsfeld...to Clinton who refused it.
It has been proposed a 1st time by the same people who are now in some of the highest place of US government to Bush Jr in 2000 it didn't make it too, and a second time in 2002.
And now the war will begin, why now, maybe US government need it now, or the US gorvernemet profit of the war against terrorism to do that "project" ?
Dont feel disapointed for us..Were fully aware of the consequences of war..Were also aware of the consequences of doing nothing(Cole Bombing,Bombing of 2 US Embassies,9/11) and that far outweighs the rest..We live up to our responsibilties to preserve world order..Your goverment has chose for many reasons to skirt that responsibility..And what you should really be concerned about is your country's government being responsible for the downfall of the UN and the effect it will have on your nation...Today we see them trying to offer concessions for a deadline but its just a little to late..Your government has showed all its cards on the issue of disarming Iraq and its a losing hand...They know theyve gone to far in trying to counter balance US hemogeny..There were better ways to do it and unfortunately this ones backfired big time...Maybe the UN will show some backbone in the rebuilding of Iraq after the war,but will have no relevance when trying to establish peace..They showed that in Rwanda,Yugoslavia,and now Iraq...But not anymore ..
I think that my country is doing the right choice at this time, maybe we are wrong, maybe you are wrong, or maybe both are wrong. Anyway, it will start and we will see.
And its not because France do not agree with US that France are trying to counter balance US...
[/B][/QUOTE]
And Fab-even though are views are different,we all want world peace...Thats a common connection for all of us to take advantage of for the future....
all the best-6 [/B][/QUOTE]
At least I agree with that
, all the best to you too.
