I have yet to see an apology or any photos of French soldiers out scrubbing those marks off of the memorial. Until I do, I can only assume that Chirac approves of the defacement. What... does he expect us to clean up this mess too?
That's a big leap to make--blaming the outbreak of a war on a non-combatant. If Saddam is as irrational or as inflexible as he has been portrayed, do you really think Saddam would have changed his response if France had joined the side of the U.S.?
a.) Many wars are started or aggravated because of non-combatants. France should know about that. Weakness has never prevented a single war, ever.
b.) Yes, Saddam may be nuts, but I don't think he ever had a deathwish. He likes his power and palaces too much. Given a credible and global threat to his stance, he may well have buckled. I think it is entirely fair to point out that it is precisely the inability of the UN to deal with him (due to France) that gave him the resolve to continue his duplicity before the world stage.
I'm sure Saddam knew that the U.S. was coming anyways, regardless of what the French said or did about it.
He does now.
Bush himself made it clear from the outset that the French opinion, or even that of the UN at large, wasn't going to affect his decision to go to war.
No, he didn't. You're drinking the DNC koolaid again.
All that UN resolution wrangling was just a way of Bush trying to buy time for the troop build-up and give Tony Blair some political cover domestically. France did exactly what Bush expected from the beginning, and it didn't change anything. France acted its part very well, like in a Hollywood production. It was all for show.
This is so disconnected from reality... what, are you on the DNC morning talking-points fax list? This is fantasy.
Bush is a master strategerist, after all. :)
Finally, we agree on something. :-)
Regards,
Why would the French government apologize for the acts of criminals who deface property? The French government didn't commit the crime--I'm sure if they could find out who did it, the perpetrators would be prosecuted. And how often are soldiers anywhere assigned to clean up graffiti? And why would you see widely-broadcast photos of the clean-up? It's not like it's a "Made for TV, breaking-news production." I guess I have a hard time seeing why the French government at the national level, or any government of any country, would take such special measures and involve itself in the middle of what is basically a street crime. I think you're setting your expectations and standards a little high.
Weakness has never prevented a single war, ever.
You're right about weakness, but to choose a non-involved third party as being "responsible" for the war is a bit much. If this was a factor, then France alone can't be blamed--what about the other countries that had misgivings about the plans of the U.S., like Germany and Russia or China?
b.) Yes, Saddam may be nuts, but I don't think he ever had a deathwish. He likes his power and palaces too much. Given a credible and global threat to his stance, he may well have buckled. I think it is entirely fair to point out that it is precisely the inability of the UN to deal with him (due to France) that gave him the resolve to continue his duplicity before the world stage.
He does like his power and palaces--which is why he's over there now putting up a fight. It was clear from the beginning that what Saddam supposedly did with his WMD was not going to satisfy the U.S.--Bush wouldn't take yes for an answer. Several times on the news I heard it said from the Bush Administration that Saddam would have to "allow democracy" besides disclose/get rid of his WMD. They didn't emphasize that "leaving power" part until almost before the war began, but it was referred to as a side note before that. Saddam must have known that the U.S. would only be satisfied with his leaving power, and Saddam instead chose to die in office.
As far as a credible and global threat, the UN has never been credible. The U.S. is the only power who commands credibility, so the UN and France were irrelevant from the beginning.
Bush himself made it clear from the outset that the French opinion, or even that of the UN at large, wasn't going to affect his decision to go to war. No, he didn't. You're drinking the DNC koolaid again.
No DNC involved here. I heard Bush say in several speeches something to the effect that "America has the right to act in its self-defense," and that therefore, in the final analysis, action against Saddam does not depend on UN authorization. It's clear that Bush only bothered with the UN because there were still men and equipment on their way to the Gulf before the war could be launched, and the British public were demanding UN involvement according to the polls, so Bush played the UN game for a little while so that Tony Blair's government wouldn't collapse under pressure from the anti-war/multilateralist types over there--Bush and Blair had to make it look like they were at least trying.
Actually, an ironic thing came about from Bush's footsies with the UN--he was trying to avoid the perception that he was a "cowboy" who goes rushing in alone, and by waiting so long with the UN, a lot of Americans started griping that Bush was wasting too much time. Hard balance to strike. Before the UN debacle, Americans had been expressing in the polls that they'd support the war more if the UN or other coalition members would go along with it too.
Don't get me wrong, I think the UN is irrelevant and ridiculous anyway, so I'm not criticizing the Administration over the UN factor.