[Article]US signals action against France

bug

US signal's action against France-BBC world on-line

Just thought the above article may interest you. Although Powell didn't expand much on what this action would be, do you think it could possible come in the form of trade sanctions or such like? Things such as research equipment, chemicals, IT equipment? Will Microsoft not be answering french customer care queries.
I really don't understand how they could get away with taking ANY action whatsoever on France. Any opinions on what boards posters think the US administration may be planning on this front?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bug
Just thought the above article may interest you. Although Powell didn't expand much on what this action would be, do you think it could possible come in the form of trade sanctions or such like? Things such as research equipment, chemicals, IT equipment? Will Microsoft not be answering french customer care queries.
I really don't understand how they could get away with taking ANY action whatsoever on France. Any opinions on what boards posters think the US administration may be planning on this front?

The US is perfectly entitled, under international law, to take unilateral diplomatic and economic action against any country that it feels does not conform to its wishes. Any nation is. What it is not entitled to do, under international law, is to take unilateral military action - but that’s another argument.

The only reason that this may invoke concern is down to the US’s dominant position in the World - Were Canada, Britain or Japan to say the same thing, no one would notice much.

As for what is likely to happen:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2969329.stm

bug

cheers corinthian missed that


.....crazy though isn't it.. france makes a democratic decision within the UN and then may get penalised for it..

France is also seen as opposing US influence in the world from a philosophical and cultural standpoint.

Well thank God.

BattleBoar

My guess is that it isn't anything punative, as you are correct, this would not be allowed by the WTO. However, I believe that the most likely situation is an strategy to bring Australia, Poland, and Britain into the US's free trade zone as part of a more sustained attempt to devalue the Euro-economy. However, seeing as Tony Blair is pro-Euro, it seems odd. Then again, if a GBP is worth 2 Euro, you'd probably find a lot more people in the UK willing to go with the Euro.

bonkey

From the Corinthian's link :

French support for the young United States in its fight for independence against Britain (French naval power was important in defeating the old French enemy) does not guarantee them special favours in Washington.

I love that classically British understated subtlety

Anyway....

Yes, the US is most likely to try and punish France diplomatically. It will allow its media and hence its populace to pick up on this anti-French sentiment, hopefully (from the US' pov) causing economic impacts as well.

What is interesting is that the effective message that this is re-inforcing is "agree with us or suffer" - which is hardly the best image for a nation who is trying to sell freedom to the world.

Any American-initiated "consequences" will be interesting to watch unfold, though - especially as the EU reunites in terms of deciding how to deal with post-war Iraq.

jc

PHB

In the end this is all just a distraction for the election and I hope that the americans will become aware of the economic situation just as they did with his father.

pencil

I have just heard the news on Newstalk 106.

The US is a big girls blouse & is getting closer & closer to Fascist ideals by the day.


There is only one way to respond to this!

We (girlfriend & I) have been avoiding, as much as possible, American produce in the supermarket since the build up of the war.

My next car will definitely be a Peugeot or Citron (sp).
My next computer will be a Siemens.
Californian wine is out - French is in.
MacDonald's et al - well we never eat that sh!t anyway.
etc. etc. etc.

therecklessone

Originally posted by pencil

Californian wine is out - French is in.

Expensive choice...there's dedication.:D

vorbis

what did you want them to do? Hug the french for trying to humiliate the Americans on the world stage. I see nothing unusual in punishing a so called ally for adopting an aggressive stance against you.

Wook

Originally posted by vorbis
what did you want them to do? Hug the French for trying to humiliate the Americans on the world stage. I see nothing unusual in punishing a so called ally for adopting an aggressive stance against you.

I know I shouldn't be saying this , and the mod can even Ban for a two weeks but 'VORBIS' your such an idiot !

(ok small edit)

Americans, made a fool of themselves and most likely continue to do so. The way they handle things is just too much of a Gung Poo style.

I see nothing unusual in punishing a so called ally for adopting an aggressive stance against you
what aggressive stance should this be ? enlighten us , please do...
Voicing an opinion and not be intimidated by bully technique is an aggressive stance or would that be ..'you go along with us or we cut your Aid package ? ' as I have said before ...you must be with those 80% Americans who don't have a clue...

bonkey

No, just a one week ban.

jc

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

gandalf

Nope I think you'll find bonkey is serious !
Personal abuse is a big no no !!

Back on topic like pencil I am now making a effort to replace any US made or branded purchases with alternatives if they are available.

I think the arrogant attitude coming from the US is doing untold damage to International relations and their actions far from making the world a safer place have guaranteed that the world is now more dangerous and less stable.

Gandalf.

bonkey

<offtopic>
Dead serious....I dont see why I shouldnt ban someone for calling someone else an idiot. Same ban I handed out to others recently who knew beforehand (as Wook clearly did) that their actions were stepping over the line.

You think I shouldnt ban them just because they know they're gonna break the rules before they post? (That makes it premeditated...which most legal systems would consider more serious, not less so.) Personally, I think I'm being quite lenient. You're free to differ.

</offtopic>

<sortof_ontopic>
I'm doing nothing against the US right now, becuase quite frankly I dont really buy that much which is american in the first place where there are viable alternatives.

Living in the heart of Europe tends to have that effect

As an interesting question....for the people who say they're going for French instead of Californian wine now :

Would you drink Spanish wine? They were part of the "Coalition of the Drilling", but are now firmly behind post-war stuff being UN handled.

<sortof_ontopic>

jc

colinsky

Originally posted by The Corinthian
The US is perfectly entitled, under international law, to take unilateral diplomatic and economic action against any country that it feels does not conform to its wishes. Any nation is.

Not as a signee/memeber of the World Trade Organization, it isn't. WTO members are specifically banned from any trade policies, tarrifs, or limits which specifically target an individual country.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by colinsky
Not as a signee/memeber of the World Trade Organization, it isn't. WTO members are specifically banned from any trade policies, tarrifs, or limits which specifically target an individual country.

Fair 'nuf. Just unilateral diplomatic action then.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by bug
.....crazy though isn't it.. france makes a democratic decision within the UN and then may get penalised for it..

Regardless of what you think about the US, I don't see how this can be defined as "penalised". This isn't a comparable to, say, a UN sanction. The US are fully entitled to choose to act agressively (economically) towards who they like. Any country is entitled to do so. Ireland and the UK were doing the same to each other during the 1930s - and everybody lost out.

I do find it ironic that the "victim" of this potential US action is the very country that, for years, has been at the forefront of holding back the spread of US products: France. The shoe could now be on the other foot.

bonkey

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Regardless of what you think about the US, I don't see how this can be defined as "penalised".

Why not?

France pissed off the US. The US now say there will be consequences. We assume they mean punitive ones.

Exactly how is the US not penalising France if it takes any form of retribution? I mean, the series of events is :

1) Action
2) Punishment for having taken said action.

jc

BattleBoar

I agree with Bonkey on this one, of course this is a punative action. It will be interesting to see what they do. Of course the US has a right do do what it wants with regard to economic policies and how it relates to other nations, but it will be difficult to justify any type of sanction or import tariff without being reprimanded by the WTO.

DadaKopf

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Regardless of what you think about the US, I don't see how this can be defined as "penalised". This isn't a comparable to, say, a UN sanction. The US are fully entitled to choose to act agressively (economically) towards who they like. Any country is entitled to do so. Ireland and the UK were doing the same to each other during the 1930s - and everybody lost out.

I do find it ironic that the "victim" of this potential US action is the very country that, for years, has been at the forefront of holding back the spread of US products: France. The shoe could now be on the other foot.

Can someone tell me just how insulated America is against all this? If the US decides to take punitive action against France (and presumably Germany), how is that action going to affect the US economy? If it invokes retaliatory measures by the European sparring partners, how vunlerable is the US?

It's my impression that there's a huge irony in America global supremacy. The further they expand, the more they depend on cooperation from other countries (their politicians and their markets). While this makes the US very powerful, it also makes the US very vulnerable. However, it doesn't make the US vulnerable in an absolute sense (America's army is the most powerful in the world and she almost controls the WTO). It could make America extremely vulnerable because it'd cause market uncertainty, affect people's job security and hit people's pockets and that's political suicide.

Or maybe that's the intent. Treat 'en mean, keep 'em keen. Americans would just have someone else to blame.

Éomer of Rohan

Having read both of those articles I am seriously disturbed at the way this is heading; if the US feels so free to imply consequences for the exercise of a sovereign right by another nation against US interests, just how long will it be until these consequences become economic sanctions or military action? The later article stated that economic sanctions were unlikely since France was a member of the EU and the US naturally does not want to provoke a confrontation on this front with the economy ready to recede but how long until the US feels that the time is right to split the EU into pieces by destroying the currency or going after EU markets? I for one feel a twinge of cold fear when it is looked at like that, especially given the instability of international politics over which such a tete a tete might arise.

BattleBoar

My strong suspicion is that a strategy to highly depreciate the Euro and destabalize the European economy is already in development, Éomer. A successful, prolonged effort to greatly weaken the european economy will allow the US to much more easily fragment the power of the EU in the future, keeping it from becoming a strong, unified, economic front. Keep in mind the contributing members of the war in Iraq: Poland, UK, and Australia.

Of course, there will be collateral damage among countries that supported the US, ie. Spain, Italy, and perhaps this will prevent such a broad-based strategy.

However, I suggest reading this article, In Round 2, it’s the dollar vs. euro: U.S. will make Europeans pay for failing to back war on Iraq

It suggests the plans are already in motion...

Éomer of Rohan

But Bush isn’t going to rush to ask him — let alone the European Union or the United Nations — to join us in the back booth of post-Saddam Iraq

To join us?! This article smell to high heaven of propagandist crap to be honest with you. It may well be that America is looking to clash with the EU but I reckon that Britain, eventually will back the EU.

Given that most of us here agree that Europe seems to be shaping up to be the next US target (economically), surely the US must now be regarded as a foe to the peoples of the European Union?

vorbis

a foe is a bit harsh since it provides us with quite a few jobs. On the overall topic though, I think people are being slightly delusional. France excersising its soverign right to an individual opinion doesn't make it exempt to the consequences of that decision. Diplomatically France is supposed to be a US ally. Instead it chose to make political capital out of the war. The same applies to Germany. Indeed Schroeder rode a wave of anti-Americanism to get re-elected. I see nothing strange in the US seeking to punish France for attempting to publically humiliate them. If a co-worker tried to ridicule you in front of the boss at work, you'd hardly be happy about it.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by vorbis
Diplomatically France is supposed to be a US ally.

Well... technically no, it's not.

Captain Trips

That MSNBC/ProGovernmentNetworkNews article was interesting because most of the time they would ignore or try not bring to the US publics attention the dependence on imports.

Everyone's had a say since the "end" of the war, except OPEC have been suspiciously quiet. OPEC members agreed to sell only in dollars since 1973 I think. That changed with Iraq, and it's the first time such a *major* news site/corp took the story.

What I find even more interesting is that it is geared at a very base level to instil pride in the US reader "And we'll pay in dollars", i.e., the almighty buck.

So, if the theory goes, if the dollar continues to weaken against the euro, it means the US is losing control because dollars are not being kept for oil trade. The report that Saddam had 300 million dollars in cash was absolutely astonishing regarding this line of thought.

So
(i) US active propaganda, re: pride, dollar, ruler of the world, etc., nothing new there but quite new to be so direct
(ii) Dollar continues to weaken against Euro - US is losing grip on oil sales
(iii) That continues, US has every reason econmically to reduce increasingly costly EU imports, but says publically "This is because you went against us", whereas in reality it's because they *do* import 48% of general goods, etc., and 60% energy. They are very dependent on imports and won't be able to afford them. Now it's time to save face in the other markets that matter and are less impressive globally to the EU, i.e., NAFTA, etc., . Argentina alreayd went belly-up. Is the US worried that other trade countries may get edgy and that they need to maintain the image of the world leader?
(iv) The EU continues to enlarge economically and peacefully (*cough* Yugoslavia *cough*), generally speaking. The US cannot enlarge to the size of the where the EU will be in, basically, next year and 5, 10, 20 years.
(v) The US doesn't have a choice really - it's *only* response can be to instil authority on the weaker countries because in reality the EU will continue to enlarge and become the largest economy by far. Currently the EU/US are almost level, with the US slightly ahead in terms of GDP, etc., .

colinsky

I still suspect that the overall effect will be more diplomatic name-calling and some prominent invitation snubs, but nothing beyond that. Powell doesn't have any authority to endorse non-diplomatic (economic, etc.) policy, and while he may have some personal vendetta against France, most politicians don't.

Trebor

as far as i can see they will do nothing themselves economically, ie the government, but the way they are talking is firing up the public into not buying the imports, so in that way they are cutting down on imports.
They aren't saying to the public buy british wine and chesse, they are saying buy american wine and chesse.
i belive it's a plot to boost the home grown industries that have been lossing out to imports thus helping keep jobs etc, etc

ZeFrog

"what did you want them to do? Hug the french for trying to humiliate the Americans on the world stage. I see nothing unusual in punishing a so called ally for adopting an aggressive stance against you."

I m so fed up with the use of : 'so called ally' wording.


France is working closely with USA to fight terrorism, therefore helping USA protecting itself. Isn t it the definition of an ally ?

What did USA did when Paris metro was bombed in 1995 except refusing to extradite GIA terrorist members to France ??

We also could have called USA a 'so called ally' when they protected Klaus Barbie "the butcher of Lyon" by giving him a fake identity and sending him away from French justice.

Etc ...

I think those new expressions: so called ally, French sissies, freedom fries, French cowards etc are all just a direct result of the actual government communication policy + american conservatives( silly patriotics ) sheep attitude.

I mean I saw red necks over there burning French flags they don t even know where France is on a map and they ll tell us that we should bend over and kiss their *** because of WW2.


:mad:


btw : I am not anti american , I actually have family living in Boston!

Sand

A successful, prolonged effort to greatly weaken the european economy will allow the US to much more easily fragment the power of the EU in the future, keeping it from becoming a strong, unified, economic front.

I dont think it has to weaken the euro economy to be honest, fundamentally the US is economically stronger and better able to react to economic woes and take advantage of growth. Right now the US economy is in a downtrun and the euro strenthening is just a natural reaction to its( US economy) weakness than the EU strenths as a lot of the foreign investors which helped power the boom look for better investments.

Europe places a greater priority on social programs and other money traps - whilst theyre trying to do a balancing act of making the EU the most competitive place to do bussiness whilst also having loads of redistribution to set the world to rights- or lefts - theyll have to be damn good to have both.

surely the US must now be regarded as a foe to the peoples of the European Union?

Only in the circles where it has always been seen as the great satan i think. By the way would it terribly offend you if I was to use the above as a signiature - the one im using right now has made its point and im on the hunt for a new one.

I think people are being slightly delusional. France excersising its soverign right to an individual opinion doesn't make it exempt to the consequences of that decision. Diplomatically France is supposed to be a US ally. Instead it chose to make political capital out of the war. The same applies to Germany. Indeed Schroeder rode a wave of anti-Americanism to get re-elected. I see nothing strange in the US seeking to punish France for attempting to publically humiliate them.

Completely agree. France made its decisions, the US most certainly will react to them - it can hardly view France in a better light over the extremely bitter fracas over the past few months.

It reminds me of an article i read in the Irish Times over the mobs getting upset over Bertie keeping Shannon open for the US- the article dealt with the fact that there actually *are* consequences to foreign policy decisions - that if you go against someone they will hold it against you and vice versa.

France is working closely with USA to fight terrorism, therefore helping USA protecting itself. Isn t it the definition of an ally ?

France also did its best to undermine and derail the coalitions liberation of Iraq - to the point where it became clear the allies were wasting their time even talking to them anymore as they said they would veto any resolution allowing the overthrow of Saddam. Thats not the definition of an ally. France cant have it both ways - it cant act completely against the US and then claim to be their bestest buddies.

Its not like bush has announced theyre dropping the 101st on Paris with orders to shoot everything that moves. All thats going to happen is that France is going to get the cold shoulder and isnt going to get a christmas card for a whole long time. That and there seems to be a lot a semi-official boycotts and petty name calling.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Dawg

Like Daveirl said, wasn't it about WMD's? No country should be allowed to invade another for regime change regardless of what they think of that regime. Its internal politics.

Is there anything in the UN charter related to regime change in foreign countries? I doubt it. If the US had of said they wanted a resolution supporting the use of force in Iraq in order to depose a corrupt and evil regime they would have been laughed at. Not even the Bush administration were that stupid. They came out with every rubbish excuse (not to mention the blatant lies) they could but knew better than mentioning regime change until the war was under way, they'd exhausted every other reason and it was too late for anybody to do anything about it.

France opposed them, which they, and any other country has the right to do. After all, the US are pushing democracy right? So now its something like 'You're entitled to your opinion, as long as its inline with our opinion, if not we'll punish you for undermining our authority'. Screw that. As far as I can see, all their doing is adding insult to injury.
It makes me give a whole lot more consideration to the boycott America side of things. Maybe someone should explain diplomacy to George W's lot, they seem to need a little help understanding it.

surely the US must now be regarded as a foe to the peoples of the European Union?

My jury's still out on that one but the US aren't doing themselves any favours. I'll take the wait and see approach for the time being but as it stands I think 'foe' might be a little over the top. That being said, I do think more of myself being European since this conflict began, and would take any US action against France as action against Europe and would be highly opposed to it.

swiss

I'm a little drunk when posting, so please excuse any errors/omissions in the following diatribe .

I must agree with daveirl and dawg in their summation of the points raised above. For a start the US, in their determination of pursuing war against Iraq, has consistently underlined Iraq's posession of WMD's. Now that war with Iraq is over, and WMD's have not been found, the US is under increasing pressure to provide such evidence.

Now that war against Iraq is over, France seems increasingly justified in it's stance. Of course the US does not want this, and seeks to undermine the credibility of French diplomatic relations with both themselves and the rest of the world.

IMO, the US is not going to provide such evidence of WMD's on the part of Iraq, (or it would have done so already) or is going to provide some questionable evidence which it is going to propose is conclusive evidence that the war against Iraq is justified. Again IMO, this "evidence" is going to be used as a convenient excuse for the US to launch unilateral military action against any target that it deems open to "terrorist groups".

I actually find it disgraceful that the US should seek to punish the likes of countries like France that "opposed" it during the war, when really they should (IMO) attempt to justify this war by demonstrating evidence which they claim they have existed all along of WMD's. Economic sanctions against countries like Cuba and Iraq are not likely to affect the US, but I find a staggering confidence by the Bush administration that sanctions against France will not affect a struggling US economy very adversely. France is of course one of the largest economies in the world, and hence any sanctions against this burgeoning Economy will affect any other economy dependent on this thriving European economy very severely.

Given that the US economy is in a recess at the moment, arguably because of GWB's policies, demonstrating a diplomatic "coldness" towards France is likely to affect the US more than France. This is why I suspect any sanctions against France are likely to be no more than face saving exercises, involving no real executive power or sanctions. In a couple of months, excepting a large disaster, it will be business as normal.

If the US had of said they wanted a resolution supporting the use of force in Iraq in order to depose a corrupt and evil regime they would have been laughed at. Not even the Bush administration were that stupid. They came out with every rubbish excuse (not to mention the blatant lies) they could but knew better than mentioning regime change until the war was under way, they'd exhausted every other reason and it was too late for anybody to do anything about it.

Is there much difference though between , in the case of Kosova, for instance, the U.S knowing that Russia was going to Veto Regime change( because Milosevic was a friend ), and in the case of Iraq, where they knew Regime change was going to be opposed for selfish reasons by France, and Russia.

Several selfish reasons for the U.S involvement in Iraq have been openly speculated upon, and many are probably true.
But the equally selfish actions of Russia, Germany and France would have kept their interests in place while the people of Iraq remained under a brutal Regime.
It's interesting that, in both cases , there are similar results, ie, in Kosova, muslims are freed from guaranteed torture and on go-ing genocide while in Iraq, Musims are free to go to Karballa in their tens of thousands to celebrate Rituals that were banned under Sadam for 30 years or more.

To my mind, it's a question of which selfishness has more morality,paradox as that may seem.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Europe places a greater priority on social programs and other money traps

Would US military expenditure not cancel this out?

It reminds me of an article i read in the Irish Times over the mobs getting upset over Bertie keeping Shannon open for the US- the article dealt with the fact that there actually *are* consequences to foreign policy decisions - that if you go against someone they will hold it against you and vice versa.

So was the point of the article that its better to do what you're told than to exercise your right to choose freely, or was it just pointing out that choice carries reprecussions.

Did it point out, for example, that there actually are consquences (potentially some negative ones) for us having opened Shannon as well? Or was it just another "see, if you don't suck up to Uncle Sam, you will pay for it, so we were right all along" article?

France also did its best to undermine and derail the coalitions liberation of Iraq - to the point where it became clear the allies were wasting their time even talking to them anymore as they said they would veto any resolution allowing the overthrow of Saddam.

Can you explain why the US are still attempting to find a
solution with North Korea??? Surely it is clear that diplomacy has already failed here as well? They have been even more intransigent than the French, for a longer period of time. And yet strangely enough, the US wants to keep those negotiations going.

How can it be that when dealing with Korea, the US tell us diplomacy cannot be given any timeframe - things could last decades, and until every avenue is explored, diplomacy must continue.

When dealing with Iraq, 12 years of pseudo-diplomacy qualifies as diplomacy failing. The line here seems to be "we tried everything we were willing to try, and he didnt capitulate, so diplomacy has failed".

With France, 12 weeks seems more like the timeframe. The line here seems to be more like "we asked, they said "never", we declared diplomacy to have failed and not be worth pursuing. Sod them, those cheese-eating surrender monkeys. Dont they know diplomacy means doing what we tell them".

I'm just curious how anyone can claim that there was no way forward with France and yet insist that negoriations with other nations can realistically take years and that things shouldnt be rushed and all avenues explored.

Thats not the definition of an ally. France cant have it both ways - it cant act completely against the US and then claim to be their bestest buddies.

So what you are in effect saying is that the purpose of all allies is to shut up and do what the largest nation in the alliance tells them to do? Failure to do so signals the end of the alliance, because if you dont do what you're told, you aint an ally any more?

Since when did "alliance" become synonymous with "subservient" in the english language?

jc

Éomer of Rohan

Since when did "alliance" become synonymous with "subservient" in the english language?

When it became the American-English language.

These posts about how France embarassed America on the world stage have a really skewed perspective.
GWB "They hate our freedoms" referring to terrorists. One of these prided freedoms is freedom of speech and though it was used cynically by Chirac and Schroeder, neither the world stage nor NATO nor the UN are American dictatorships and I think it important to point out that by the recent bellicose behaviour they are treating it them all as such. France and Germany had every right to do what they did and what we ignore in the light of Gerhard Schroeder getting re-elected and so on is that these politicians acted in true democratic fashion, unlike Britain and Spain, in opposing the war on American terms just as their people wanted them to otherwise why would Chirac have soared in popularity over it, the same with Schroeder.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
When it became the American-English language.

These posts about how France embarassed America on the world stage have a really skewed perspective.

Oh here I go with my people and countries are similar argument again.
This is a true story though.
There is a shop down the road from where I live, where the owners wife, is an impossible person to get on with.
She snaps at the customers, can never find anything good to say about them and comments ad nauseum on their morals, while ignoring her own.
And for good measure, is in to the council objecting if anyone wants to build a house in the locality, even though it should mean more business for her in the long term.
I hardly ever go in there, because of that behaviour,it's hostile to me and a lot of other people, as I'm entitled to take that stand as much as she is hers.
The shop is still open surviving on it's captive market-just!

now as I see it, Americans or rather this administration may ( wrongly ) feel strong enough to feel the need to use their influence against French interests when they needn't as they are more than a little peeved with Chiracs behaviour towards them.
I feel strongly enough to avoid that shop, but I'm not going to the extreme of maybe making phonecalls to health inspectors, the VAT man etc.
what action the U.S take in relation to France, remains to be seen, but I reckon it will as suggested by some, of the cold shoulder diplomatically, and no Xmas cards for a while variety.
They are entitled to do that and are as open and entitled to their stand as France is for her's on Iraq.
mm

Sand

If the US had of said they wanted a resolution supporting the use of force in Iraq in order to depose a corrupt and evil regime they would have been laughed at.

Sad but true given the UNs membership.

Now that war against Iraq is over, France seems increasingly justified in it's stance.

If you held a poll of who is more popular in Iraq, Chirac or Bush and Blair whod youd think would be closer to the hearts of the Iraqi people?

I actually find it disgraceful that the US should seek to punish the likes of countries like France that "opposed" it during the war,

So was the point of the article that its better to do what you're told than to exercise your right to choose freely, or was it just pointing out that choice carries reprecussions.

You two lads should understand best of all that there are consequences to free speech and the choices we make - were I to come on this board, read a post and reply calling the poster this and that and saying what a beep beep they are then I could do that. Then one of you moderator lads would come along and demonstrate *some* of the consequences for my choice. The other consequences being that the other poster wouldnt think much of me, and perhaps bystanders as well wouldnt think much of me.

Wook, for example, made a choice, and exercised his freedom of speech to say what he really felt and then he suffered the consequences.

When nations are in disagreement and the stakes are infinitely higher are we suddenly to expect no consequences to actions taken?

Would US military expenditure not cancel this out?

Short answer I dont know - Id assume that milatary spending that creates jobs to the tune of at least half a million directly and god knows how many indirectly whilst also creating the sort of milatary that gives you a certain diplomatic prestige and ability to enforce your position abroad, with a bit of a sideline in research and development, wouldnt be my idea of a money trap.

Can you explain why the US are still attempting to find a
solution with North Korea??? Surely it is clear that diplomacy has already failed here as well? They have been even more intransigent than the French, for a longer period of time. And yet strangely enough, the US wants to keep those negotiations going.

Well I dont think theres any chance of the US going to war with either of them to start of with. The NKs are more likely just making life difficult for the US and sabre rattling so they can get a better deal out of them when they thrash this agreement out. The US thrashing of Iraq has probably alerted them to the fact that they can push things only so far.

So what you are in effect saying is that the purpose of all allies is to shut up and do what the largest nation in the alliance tells them to do? Failure to do so signals the end of the alliance, because if you dont do what you're told, you aint an ally any more?

Nah, your ally is meant to support you though - enemies oppose you. Failure to act as an ally means that in most cases you wont be treated as one.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sand
If you held a poll of who is more popular in Iraq, Chirac or Bush and Blair whod youd think would be closer to the hearts of the Iraqi people?

Justified, not popular Sand. And even the latter is becoming increasingly questionable.

Well I dont think theres any chance of the US going to war with either of them to start of with. The NKs are more likely just making life difficult for the US and sabre rattling so they can get a better deal out of them when they thrash this agreement out. The US thrashing of Iraq has probably alerted them to the fact that they can push things only so far.

The first and last sentences in that paragraph contradict each other.

Nah, your ally is meant to support you though - enemies oppose you. Failure to act as an ally means that in most cases you wont be treated as one.

Neither France nor Russia are allies of the USA.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
Nah, your ally is meant to support you though - enemies oppose you. Failure to act as an ally means that in most cases you wont be treated as one.

So shouldn't the US, as an ally of France, have supported the French position? Or do the most powerful nations get to have one-way alliances - you're my ally so you have to support me, but I'm not your ally so I don't have to support you?

If that's the case, all this talk of alliances is just diplomatic gamesmanship - the US is clearly not interested in real 'alliances' which might involve it tempering its own ambitions, or in fact in any kind of real 'relationship' with other countries that doesn't involve it getting its way all the time.

To be honest, I get very tired of this discourse of 'alliances' and 'special friendships' in international relations - they only last as long as countries agree, then everyone throws up their hands in horror when the 'alliance' dissolves and we start talking about the next world war.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Nah, your ally is meant to support you though - enemies oppose you.

So by opposing France, China, and Germany's insistence that a peaceful solution be obtained, the US is now an enemy of these countries, just as they are enemies of the US for opposing its plans for war?

Come on Sand - I know you dont believe that, but its a direct implication of what you're saying.

jc

Originally posted by The Corinthian

The first and last sentences in that paragraph contradict each other.

But don't tell the NK's that, I hope they don't read this board;)
Kim does have the interweb, you know:eek:
mm

vorbis

how could the US take Frances side ????
Its entire position was a reactionary response to US policy. As for being an "ally", France did not need to make the political capital they did out of the crisis. The French know themselves that they have as much dodgy history as the US yet they used the war as an opportunity to portray themselves as somehow superior. Also as mentioned before, Schroeder openly used Anti-Americanism to get re-elected. His entire campaign ran along the lines of "Aren't those Americans stupid".

Sand

So by opposing France, China, and Germany's insistence that a peaceful solution be obtained, the US is now an enemy of these countries, just as they are enemies of the US for opposing its plans for war?

Come on Sand - I know you dont believe that, but its a direct implication of what you're saying.

The US and its allies made a decision to deal with Iraq militarily/effectively - France decided to oppose that, for a variety of reasons. As I said, allies back each other up whilst enemies do their best to oppose each other - its almost a definition of the terms. Whilst I wouldnt view France as some sort of "neo-USSR thwarting the US at every turn with the threat of global nuclear conflict ever present" enemy, if political capital and national interests appear to be served by opposing US interests openly then they dont seem to be compatible as allies but quite suitable as enemies?

The shocking conclusion may be that if a supposed allys leadership can make political mileage out of opposing you then why would they bother supporting you at all? Why does France claim to be an ally of the US if it ( and nominally at least its people ) is apparently so idealogically opposed to the US and its actions? Clinton bombed countries to get attention off himself, Chirac wraps himself in the flag and gives the fingers to the US so that he can be a little more popular than the guy who was only elected cos the other one was le Pen - if it works for Chirac, why wont it work for other French leaders?

In short I dont see the US and the French as out and out enemies, but I cant see how they can be described as allies. The US is just treating them as such.

So shouldn't the US, as an ally of France, have supported the French position?

Bit of chicken and the egg there I think. Personally I view the French position as a reaction to the US position, so its hard for the US to make a position and then support the position opposing them because a supposed ally holds that position. Such paradoxes are solved by stopping the pretence their allies - which it seems is the US view on the matter.

the US is clearly not interested in real 'alliances' which might involve it tempering its own ambitions, or in fact in any kind of real 'relationship' with other countries that doesn't involve it getting its way all the time.

Its true - the US is a juggernaut in terms of world power and for any particular course of action doesnt really *need* widespread support - it can always bribe/intimidate two or three nations that it needs and do the rest itself. Thats frightening for mere mortals who can only accomplish their goals in a watered down fashion with the agreement of a wide assortment of other nations. How do you deal with that? Confrontation and bitterness? Didnt seem to work for the French, they damaged their relations with the worlds hyperpower, divided the EU, lost *ALL* influence over the way the war was planned and fought, and have lost any say in the reconstruction of Iraq. The British seem to have the right idea in that as allies they can influence the US - They managed to get the US to go the UN route and get one successful resolution and try for another ( And this despite the Washington hawks which viewed the UN, rightly in the end, as a waste of time and which are idealogically opposed to the notion of the UN in the first place ) before the French plainly said forget it.

The US cant be dictated to - thats just the plain reality of its sheer economic, diplomatic and milatary power. It can be influenced into courses of actions that it may be nominally opposed to as the British showed by getting them to go to the UN looking for international support.

Justified, not popular Sand. And even the latter is becoming increasingly questionable.

When you see US soldiers rescuing children from Saddams prisons I think it is hard to say its not justified. The Iraqis certainly seem to think it was justified, ask Mustapha - the disagreements with the US tend to stem from worries over the future, not the fact that the americans got rid of Saddam for them.

At the end of the day a good thing was done - an evil regime was overthrown, and people there are now able to do things that we take for granted - such as criticise the government:x

The first and last sentences in that paragraph contradict each other.

Not really - the first says the US isnt going to attack NK. The last says ( in a roundabout fashion ) if it comes to blows the US will win so the NKs arent going to do more than talk a good fight. No one is going to push to war on that one.

Neither France nor Russia are allies of the USA.

Id agree.

Éomer of Rohan

Neither France nor Russia are allies of the USA.

The US has one ally in the entire world! The rest are bought, dependent on US goodwill, were put into power by the US or find that their needs coincide with those of the US at that point in time. Only Britain has ever stood the whole way with the US on all issues - though this was only after the complete loss of her empire - the Suez canal debate being the real end to that debacle and the beginning of UK '52 state' mentality.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sand
When you see US soldiers rescuing children from Saddams prisons I think it is hard to say its not justified.

Depends of which version of the truth your listening to doesn’t it. CNN and Fox/Sky will give you one version and Aljazeera another. French, German, Italian and Spanish TV will give variations too. You’re very trusting.

Not really - the first says the US isnt going to attack NK. The last says ( in a roundabout fashion ) if it comes to blows the US will win so the NKs arent going to do more than talk a good fight. No one is going to push to war on that one.

Let me get this straight; the first says the US isn’t going to attack North Korea, while the last says if it comes to blows the US will win theoretically, even though it won’t attack.

Then what you’re saying is the US is bluffing?

Sand

Depends of which version of the truth your listening to doesn’t it. CNN and Fox/Sky will give you one version and Aljazeera another. French, German, Italian and Spanish TV will give variations too. You’re very trusting.

Whats the other version? US troops put the children in the prison? As for the story it was in the Irish Times, dont think it was Marlowe though.

Let me get this straight; the first says the US isn’t going to attack North Korea, while the last says if it comes to blows the US will win theoretically, even though it won’t attack.

Ummm, yes - if a war starts it will be when the NK artillery opens up on SK. And if a war starts the US will almost certainly win it. The NKs must know that, hence theyre not going to open up with their artillery hence the hand wringing over a war between NK and the US is extremely premature.

/me shrugs - whats the difficulty with that?

Then what you’re saying is the US is bluffing?

Diplomacy is pretty pointless unless there is the threat of force/something worse to concentrate minds. Both sides are bluffing in my opinion. Neither wants to go to war but both need to come to the table appearing strong and *willing* to go to war if their demands arent met.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
The US and its allies made a decision to deal with Iraq militarily/effectively - France decided to oppose that, for a variety of reasons.

Really? I coulda sworn that for the last 12 years, the international community at large was united in an approach (which had its ups and downs). The US then decided was no longer acceptable and decided that it wished to do something new.

France didnt oppose the US - it continued to take the stance that it had taken regarding Iraq for the previous 12 years - a stance that the US had also taken.

It was the US who chose to abandon the existing course of action, and oppose what was in place and functioning.

In short I dont see the US and the French as out and out enemies,

But hang on Sand...you say "enemies oppose". France opposed the US. Now you're telling me that they're not enemies.

Which is it?

I dont even agree that allies back each other up. Allies work towards a common goal. No more, no less. They do not have to agree on every aspect of every issue, regardless of whether or not those issues are relevant to the common goal.

Both France and the US are members of NATO - a military alliance which exists for a specific purpose. Your implication is that because France opposed the US on Iraq, they can no longer be considered allies. Does this mean that NATO is no longer functional, or that one of them must leave it?

Personally I view the French position as a reaction to the US position,

How have the French changed their basic position in the last 12 years? They have - from the end of the previous Gulf War - been in favour of a peaceful solution obtained through the UN, via the weapons inspection processes etc. They have never changed this position. They were opposed to the limited bombing form of "diplomacy" favoured by the US and UK, and they were opposed to this new abandonment of peaceful approaches.

They reacted to the US change of position by re-iterating the stance they have taken all along. It was the US who ceased favouring a peaceful solution and who wanted to go to war.

So, while its true to say they reacted, they didnt change their position - the US did. Their "reaction" was a reiteration of their established position.

So all the French are guilty of is not changing their stance when the US did. So surely it was the US who walked away from the existing position of the allied nations?

Such paradoxes are solved by stopping the pretence their allies - which it seems is the US view on the matter.

So - like I asked - which one will leave NATO, or will NATO just become another "non-functional" international body because its membership isnt subservient to the American dream?

Or is NATO not an alliance?

They managed to get the US to go the UN route and get one successful resolution and try for another

Sure - the US decided to go to war, started its preparations, and then decided that it might as well allow the UN to have a hand in it for a while because it wouldnt stop them and it might gain them some support.

If you have no intention of following the decisions of a body like the UN, then to say that they went "the UN route" is stretching it a bit. Again, its a classic case of the US stance being "the UN is useful if it does what we tell them".

Had 1441 not been passed, the US would have gone to war. 1441 was passed, and the US went to war.
Had 1442 (or whatever number it would have been) passed, the US would have gone to war. It didnt even get tabled and the US went to war.

You call this "going down the UN route"? I call it showing nothing but pure and utter contempt for the organisation from the get-go. I would have more respect for the US if they hadnt bothered going the UN route from the start and just had the courage to admit that they were dictating policy on this issue and that was that.

This pretence of "we're willing to work with the international community" is insulting. What it is saying is "we are willing to allow the international community to uphold the illusion that it has a democratic say in these issues, but only as long as it remains an illusion and they do what we tell them".

The US cant be dictated to - thats just the plain reality of its sheer economic, diplomatic and milatary power.

Thats not the issue. The issue is that the US wishes to dictate to others, and if they refuse to co-operate will face the ire of the juggernaut.

Indeed, if the US is so big and so strong, and doesnt need all this international assistance, then isnt it incredibly petty for it to complain when its not given to it?

You know..."we dont need your help, but because you didnt give it to us, we dont like you". If you didnt need it, what the hell is the problem?

When you see US soldiers rescuing children from Saddams prisons I think it is hard to say its not justified. [

Sure, but when you see children with their limbs blown off by weapons fired by the same soldiers, its just the reality of war.

Funny how the good stuff is always "justification" and the bad stuff is just "irrelevant".

The last says ( in a roundabout fashion ) if it comes to blows the US will win so the NKs arent going to do more than talk a good fight.

Yeah - those North Koreans are bluffing. They'd never take the US on in a fight.

The reason the US will never attack North Korea is because even if they won they'd have to explain to people why a nuclear exchange was really in everyone's best interests, because the NK (IMHO) would have no hesitation in using nukes.

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sand
Whats the other version? US troops put the children in the prison? As for the story it was in the Irish Times, dont think it was Marlowe though.

Regardless on who it is, one should be very weary of present media sources. Each is censored to one degree or other (either officially or unofficially) and each may be subject to commercial policies (For example, Murdoch’s policy of reports that refuse to criticise governments with human rights issues such as China is directly related to his attempt to open up such markets).

Manipulation of the news can also be much more subtle than that too: For example, following the explosion of the store or ordinance in a residential area of Baghdad, anti-American protests took place. Everyone reported that. However, depending upon whom you were listening, these were either “spontaneous” (giving an impression of popular support) or “carefully orchestrated” (giving an impression of subversion and conspiracy). Protests were the central to the report for some and almost an aside for others. Facts were not altered, but the manner in which they were presented was radically different in both cases.

TBH, if you’ve not seen the other versions of the news, you’ve not really been looking very hard. As with any conflict, the truth probably lies in between the lines of the two propaganda poles, and if you’re only watching one of them then you won’t get a very good picture of what is going on.

/me shrugs - whats the difficulty with that?

No, just you weren’t very clear about that when I questioned it - of course, it assumes that North Korea is not ruled by a completely insane fruitcake who might be deluded enough to believe his country to be powerful enough to handle the US, but that’s another discussion.

The US cant be dictated to - thats just the plain reality of its sheer economic, diplomatic and milatary power.

Is this in someway related to your argument about justification?

Cork

US signals action against France.

I would be far more concerned about the future US atitude to the UN security Council. I hope that the US will continue to use the UN security council as a forum to solve international desputes.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Regardless on who it is, one should be very weary of present media sources. Each is censored to one degree or other (either officially or unofficially) and each may be subject to commercial policies (For example, Murdoch’s policy of reports that refuse to criticise governments with human rights issues such as China is directly related to his attempt to open up such markets).

As far as I can tell, the story came from a reporter with the French news agency AFP embedded with US troops.