France Vows to Block Resolution on Iraq War [CHEESE-EATING SURRENDER MONKEY ALERT]

Washington Compost ^ | 01/21/2003 | Glenn Kessler and Colum Lynch

[dogbyte12]

Bonjour, ya cheese eating surrender monkeys!

[alloysteel]

What is the surprise here? France has a HUGE internal problem, resulting from their years of considering Algeria as part of "metropolitan" France. Muslims from that land circulated widely and established residence all over the French mainland, as long ago as the De Gaulle era, back in the 1950's. When Algeria declared independence, many of the Muslims streamed back, but a disproportionate number remained in France, organized into their own communities, complete with mosques and the basis of a sharia court. These communities have assumed a more and more important position all across France, and their nominally Christian neighbors have been held in thrall by the growing excesses of their Muslim acquaintances. The ethnic Gallic French are pretty much wusses to begin with, and now they are thoroughly cowed by their more assertive compatriots.

Expect total capitulation within a few years, if not months, as France becomes the most Muslim of European countries outside of Kosovo. Closely folllowed by the Netherlands, Germany and possibly Denmark.

[Puddleglum]

I think the French, Germans, and Russians have a lot of resolution-breaking ties with Iraq to hide. It's all about conscience, of course - and making some bucks contrary to resolutions they passed thinking no one would really enforce them.

America has been and always will be the country people flee to from countries that give lip-service to liberties, like any member of the EU.

[GirlShortstop]

 

Oh, but of course!   They have more important things on which to spend their money and resources....   France moves to pay for mosques to curb terrorism     Bass-ackwards fools.

[sticker]

Rule Number 1: You cannot have a war, if the french can't surrender.

[johnb838]

Powell is untouchable. Imagine the outcry if he were to be fired.

We don't give any sensitive intel to the Senate and the Security Council for the same reason. Not until we're ready for it to be published.

[Mo1]

France suggested today it would wage a major diplomatic fight, including possible use of its veto power, to prevent the U.N. Security Council from passing a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq

Hey France .. We won't forget this one ..

[xzins]

The issue is this: "Do the facts warrant a preemptive attack on Iraq before Iraq does grave damage to the US?"

The answer is "yes."

We should act regardless of the security council. As soon as that happens, the UN is shown to be inconsequential. We should then get out of it OR simply use it as a "tool" for our ongoing information warfare.

[Petronski]

I would heartily suggest President Bush schedule a summit with Jospin and Chiraq in Vichy France, and unveil our evidence there.

[Petronski]

Vive L'Algerie!

[roses of sharon]

As usual, Powell is wrong, and Cheney is right.

What is this facination the Bush's have with Powell? He gave 41 the wrong advice in the Gulf war too.

Only liberals get promoted for being wrong all the time.

[Tax Government]

Who needs France?

[dfwgator]

F the French, we're better off without them.

[dfwgator]

Why don't the French get their troops out of Africa while they're at it.

[Publius Maximus]

Only liberals get promoted for being wrong all the time.

Well, it's called specialization. Everybody gets to do what they're best at.

[Dog Gone]

Bush made a huge mistake by listening to Powell and going through the UN.

I disagree. This UN stuff is an interesting distraction while we prepare to act, unilaterally if necessary. That was what Bush told the UN, and he hasn't backed off that.

What the UN route has permitted us to do is to put spies in Baghdad, and has allowed most nations to come around to the conclusion that Saddam is not cooperating. The weapons declaration Baghdad made is universally considered to be a joke.

Now, the French can bluster all they want, but we never said that a second declaration authorizing force is necessary. Quite the contrary.

France can't veto something that is not proposed, and we won't propose something that we know France will veto. So, this is all a bunch of French hot air.

[ladtx]

The cards haven't all been laid on the table, yet, France.

I agree. I think when the time comes to lay those cards, the Bush admin is holding all the aces. The French once again will come away looking like the sad sacks they really are.

[Petronski]

Now, the French can bluster all they want, but we never said that a second declaration authorizing force is necessary. Quite the contrary.

And I would gently add that what is being referred to in this context by the Europeons as a 'second declaration' is actually a third (when the original ceasefire agreements of 91 are counted).

[Publius Maximus]

France can't veto something that is not proposed, and we won't propose something that we know France will veto. So, this is all a bunch of French hot air.

<font face="Verdana" size="2> That is a very good point - this resolution they threaten to veto doesn't even exist yet. Notice how the media frames the issue, as if there is some second resolution that France is even able to veto. We never agreed to a second resolution, let them attempt to force it on us. Ping to you, sir. </font>

[philosofy123]

Eat corndog!