[The Great Satan]

In his SOTU speech, Bush warned that "one vial"of Saddam's biological WMD would be sufficient to inflict "a day of of horror like none we have ever known" (and 9/11 sets a pretty high bar for that). Obviously, by joining an attack on Iraq, France would be setting itself up for just such a "day of horror" -- as would we be, and as would any country which allied with us. You can therefore take it to the bank that we are not about to launch such an attack, notwithstanding the saber-rattling and posturing, and that we have never had any serious expectation that France, Germany, Russia, etc. are about to join us in an attack. Something else is going on.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Something else is going on.

Like what?

[ggekko]

Even if I concede your argument about US attempting to bluff Saddam, France's actions still don't make a great deal of sense. That is to say, France's stated reasons for opposing an attack are not credible.

During the Cold War and facing a similar situation, France would have a made public stink about opposing us and then at the list minute they would abstain from a security council vote and then cut a secret deal to protect their interests. They did in fact cut a secret deal this time about 6 weeks ago but then for reasons that remain obscure they repudiated that deal. I am most inclined at this point to believe Steyn's explanation for France's duplicity. Either that or Chirac is a complete idiot who has backed himslef into corner by letting fawning press coverage go to his head. If the 2nd explanation is correct, then maybe Chirac will have a nervous breakdown after a successful invasion just like Anthony Eden did during the Suez crisis of 1956.

I don't think we are bluffing; we would never have deployed the 101st Airborne division to the Gulf for a bluff.