Schroder/ Chirac & Iraq: Spine shown at last

bertiebowl

Taken from today's indo:

Schroder wins support from France as UN predicted to veto start of conflict


GERMANY will use its power as incoming president of the UN Security Council to try to head off war with Iraq by asking the chief weapons inspectors to report back on St Valentine's Day, it emerged last night.

The French and German leaders vowed to use all their influence to stop the war, while Washington and London fumed that efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein were being undermined at a critical stage.


Behind the scenes, ministers on both sides were involved in angry exchanges.


France's president Jacques Chirac confirmed the impression of a looming clash with Washington and London by announcing that he and the German chancellor, Gerhard Schroder, had agreed a common stand on Iraq.


"Any decision belongs to the UN Security Council and to it alone, speaking after having heard the report of the arms inspectors, in conformity with the resolutions it has adopted," Mr Chirac said after a Franco-German cabinet meeting in the Elysee Palace.


"For us war is always an admission of failure and the worst of all solutions. Everything should be done to avoid it."


Mr Schroder, in Paris to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Franco-German friendship treaty, said: "We agreed completely to harmonise our positions as closely as possible to find a peaceful solution to the Iraq crisis."

Well at least some European leaders are showing some spine on this issue - unlike Blair and Bertie who caved in and commenced a*s Kissing as soon as they could.......

Typedef

Well at least some European leaders are showing some spine on this issue - unlike Blair and Bertie who caved in and commenced a*s Kissing as soon as they could

This would be where I point out France has a vested interest (an economic one) in averting war with Iraq.

See the Iraqi government has already given oil contracts to France, Russia and China. Now call me a cynic, but, perhaps it is more then standing up to some etheral perceived "American Imperialism" that France is concerned with.

Not that the French (considering French history) have any right to lecture anybody on Imperialist foriegn policy.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/10/13/stories/2002101301131400.htm

Both France and Russia have stakes in the Government of Mr. Hussein as they have, over the last decade, done most of the groundwork for signing big oil extraction contracts with Iraq. Russian, French and Italian oil majors have been waiting for sanctions against Baghdad to lift, so that they can commence work in Iraqi oil fields. But their exertions could now go waste if Mr. Hussein is overthrown

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/0929courtesy.htm

While debate intensifies about the Bush administration's policy, oil analysts and Iraqi exile leaders believe a new, pro-Western government -- assuming it were to replace Saddam Hussein has given huge contracts to oil firms from France, Russia and China, which all have veto power in the Security Council.am Hussein's regime -- would prompt U.S. and multinational petroleum giants to rush into Iraq, dramatically increasing the output of a nation whose oil reserves are second only to that of Saudi Arabia

Oh look more on the Russians.

MOSCOW, Russia -- Iraq has signed a multi-billion dollar deal with Russian companies to develop oil sites in the Western Desert in an apparent snub to France.

http://europe.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/01/17/russia.iraq.oil/


Ah well, I suppose so long as it's the Americans who are vilified and not our "European partners" (France), it must be a righteous tirade.

mike65

See the Iraqi government has already given oil contracts to France, Russia and China. Now call me a cynic, but, perhaps it is more then standing up to some etheral perceived "American Imperialism" that France is concerned with.

Ah well, I suppose so long as it's the Americans who are vilified and not our "European partners" (France), it must be a righteous tirade.

Indeed, the French would'nt know a principled stand it they tripped over one.

Mike.

DadaKopf

And Germany has a large Muslim pupulation, so it's politically wise for Schroder, I suppose.

Snowball

as Typedef put it, its about time some heads of europe got some back bone. Maybe there is a chance that world war 3 may not happen.
Ok.. that is a bit extreem but I would not rule it out

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

PH01

It's all just posturing and grand-standing. Schroder and Chirac are just play to crowd. And politically in the short term this is very useful - it got Schroder elected. A quite useful stand to take especially when your country's economy isn't great and high employment.

However, at the end of the both France and Germany (and China and Russia) will want to be close to the US then be out in the cold. They'll make a lot of noise and create a lot of fuss, but in the end they'll be 100% behind the US and the UK to get Saddam removed.

nick_riviera

Yes,in the main it's complete posturing,a week from now they'll have probably changed their tune again.I really can't see Chirac and Schroeder alienating themselves from the US on this.Chirac in particular has always been hypocritical and self-serving on issues of foreign policy,as demonstrated by his inviting Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe to a conference in France next month,in violation of EU sanctions.

bertiebowl

Jazsus - its hard to please a lotta people here.

The only two to speak up against the war get a boll*cking from almost all commentators??

Your dammed if you do and your dammed if you don't

Snowball

Originally posted by daveirl
What's extreme? The war being world war 3 or it not happening?

WW3

Cork

It is so easy for Chirac and Schroeder to sit on the ditch. Their country was not attacked by a terrorist network on 9/11 or do they live in a country under Saddam.

Yet the French government are happy with Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe visiting France.

I think the US are the ones with spine to defend themselves.

Snowball

Originally posted by Cork
It is so easy for Chirac and Schroeder to sit on the ditch. Their country was not attacked by a terrorist network on 9/11 or do they live in a country under Saddam.

Yet the French government are happy with Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe visiting France.

I think the US are the ones with spine to defend themselves.

OMG, u know that Asama attacked on 9/11, right?

PH01

Originally posted by nick_riviera
Chirac in particular has always been hypocritical and self-serving on issues of foreign policy,as demonstrated by his inviting Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe to a conference in France next month,in violation of EU sanctions.

Didn't know that. Mugabe going to France for a conference? Could be a handy time for a 'coup d'tet'? France might be doing Zimbabwe a favour?

PH01

Originally posted by bertiebowl
Jazsus - its hard to please a lotta people here.

The only two to speak up against the war get a boll*cking from almost all commentators??

Your dammed if you do and your dammed if you don't

I reckon most people are against the war in Iraq. But in Saddams case it may not be possible now to avoid. This guy has been stringing the UN along for 12 years, and he's very good at it and he must be delighted to see the members of the security council fighting amongst themselves. Saddam must be delighted with this.
It would be even worse if the US/UK back down, the weapons inspectors find nothing in their searches over the next couple of months, Iraq given a clean bill of health, UN sanctions lifted, Iraq goes back into full oil production, and Iraq rearms. And part of that rearming will be WMD including nukes. If that happens, do you think a 300,000 strong US Army is going to stop him?

Cork

the weapons inspectors find nothing in their searches over the next couple of months, Iraq given a clean bill of health

The Iraqi authorities will not allow iqaqi scientiests be interviwed without iraqi officials present.

The report that Iraq has given the UN has been discredited - finding of chemical weapons shells.

The finding of notes on nuclear weapons.

I think that is good reason not to thrust Iraq - nometter what the UN report comes up with.

Typedef

Look lads, I honestly don't believe either side of the pro or anti war proponents has a shred of interest in Iraq, democracy or weapons of mass destruction.

Simply put, France, Russia, China and Italy have a vested interest in keeping Iraq under sanction and exploiting oil contracts signed with Iraq.

The US and UK, would rather have the oil reserves for themselves. The rest of what is going on in the UN is simply a charade, a show, put on to entertain the proles.

Political intrigue is the opium of the intellegentsia. So long as you realise that, with Ireland giving such early support to the Iraqi war, this State has secured itself cheap oil for the next ten years.

So long as it's quite clear that nobody actually cares that Iraqi people are going to die in this war, in real terms, not the French, who sold weapons to Saddam and not the Irish, who make weapon components and for me I find it hypocritical in the extreme, for people from either country to shout "J'Accuse", at the thought of people dying in war.

If the countries in question felt so strongly about, it, then why even build weapons (or components of the same) to begin with?

Hobbes

I agree with Typedef.

Originally posted by Cork
The report that Iraq has given the UN has been discredited - finding of chemical weapons shells.

The finding of notes on nuclear weapons.

Err, can you post links to those stories?

Snowball

I also agree with Typedef but I do care that inocent people are going to die.
The problem is that war some times may actualy be nessasery and that the reality is that the Iraqi people, American troops, British troops, Iraqi troops and the families and friends of the troops are all inocent. Its the world leaders but they send kids in their place. So what can we do? we elected them.... I want to voice my opinion so I do, I protest and I try to get like minded people to do the same.

rien_du_tout

Originally posted by mike65
Indeed, the French would'nt know a principled stand it they tripped over one.

Mike.

Incredibly insulting and hasnt been edited. anyhow,

I think that the French and German presidents are right to hold off till the report comes back. How many can disagree with that.
I think they're right that agreement should be found in the security council b4 any military action. WHo can disagree with that?

Dont forget that if the UK/USA go to war without the UN mandate they are undermining the UN and the security of the other secruity council members.
Don't forget that Iraq had nothing to do with Sep 11. And Blair admitted that himself (he was being questioned by something like a tribunal, twas on sky news) and the Osama bin Landen has been reported saying that he distrusts the Iraqi government (cant remember the source)
Dont forget the UK hasnt had a terror attack from Iraq so what's it defending itself against, and without the backing of the people there generally.

seán

Typedef

That's the point.

The UK is not 'defending' anything, except cheap oil prices for the UK. France is defending cheap oil prices for France.

Saddam Hussein is a distasteful character, so are lots of other dictators derided or not as such.

Honestly though, the notion that either side of the go to war, don't go to war debate, actually has any kind of 'principaled' reason (and yes that includes our neighbours across the pond) is so preposterous as to be laughable.

Iraq, is simply the prize in a great game being played over petroleum stocks, between competing blocs.

One bloc is the UK, US and yes even little old Ireland. Another bloc is the French, Italians and Germans, or rather more bluntely, the non-Pax-Americana countries, Russia and China and such.

Ultimately the Americans will get their way, until such time as America starts to loose it's grip on world politics and has to make allies to exponenciate it's interests, much like Britain.

For the British, it is keeping the Americans that is in their interests, the oil is, I think ancillary, for the British, at least, it is the maintenance of the 'special relationship' that is at stake in Iraq, but don't rule out the cheap oil.

Oh and before we deride the British for that, the Irish government caved in on Iraq and even showed enthusiasm for the idea of attacking Iraq.

I wonder, could that be because, shock horror, even the useless politicos in Ireland, want cheap petrol too? Hey, maybe the government 'is' doing something for Ireland's long term economic well being after all.

How touching.

Cork

Today - People were picked up in Italy and Spain suspected of being up to no good. Do Chirac and Schroeder think that terrorists will not strike France or Germany? Do our own Shannon protesters think Ireland will not be hit?

America also tought it would not experience an outside terrorism threat - until we got the horror of September 11th.

Do Chirac and Schroeder think that they will mend fences with the US after Saddam is sorted out?

I think that they are sitting on the fence for their own domestic audiences.

Come a UN vote - I think France will abstain.

mike65

Originally posted by rien_du_tout
Incredibly insulting and hasnt been edited. anyhow,

And it won't be editied (whoops there's a gauntlet thrown down!)

When I said that I was'nt just thinking about Iraq, remember The Rainbow Warrior? Even an Anti CND type like me was shocked at such behaviour. Of course the French might belive blowing up a defenceless ship was protecting a principle...

Mike.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Snowball

Originally posted by daveirl
Only cos the protests are like putting a big bullseye over the place

SO WFT R THEY SUPOSED TO DO? I HATE THAT SH!T, PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT OTHERS TAKING A STAND AND THEY DO NOTHING THEM SELVES. ATLEAST THEY R DOING AND SAYING SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




What do u realy think daveirl? should the US be in Shannon? and if so, why?

Snowball

Originally posted by daveirl
jesus christ man. lighten up. learn the concept of a smiley face!

Sorry it just gets to me that there are people who are giving up a lot so that they can protest against something that most people also would want to protest against but just don't back the courage (not speaking about u in particular, just general). People would prefer to insult and slag instead of help...

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mike65

Whoa! Freaky...

Mike.

bonkey

Snowball - clam down. If you have that big a problem with a post, then report it. Losing your head is not a good idea.

jc

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Do Chirac and Schroeder think that terrorists will not strike France or Germany?

America also tought it would not experience an outside terrorism threat - until we got the horror of September 11th

- cork

Cork, you do realise that prior to sept 11, america had never been hit by an external terrorist attack, whereas nearly every nation in europe has? Why do you think that France, Germany, & Britain have banded together to reduce terrorism over the last 20 years. How do you think that the SAS gained their reputation as one of the best anti-terrorist group in the world? before 9/11 terrorism in the world did exist........