Regards, Ivan
Posted on 09/09/2002 9:55:37 PM PDT by MadIvan
America yesterday hailed the first success in its campaign to persuade the world to confront Saddam Hussein when France said that Iraq should be given a three-week ultimatum to admit weapons inspectors.
President Jacques Chirac shifted noticeably closer to the American position by proposing a two-step process by the United Nations Security Council that could lead to a formal authorisation for military force against Iraq.
As President George W Bush prepared a keynote speech to the UN General Assembly on Thursday, the White House said: "It appears that a movement is budding to put some force into previous UN resolutions."
M Chirac did not commit himself to supporting the use of force or sending troops, but French analysts believe that France would take part in a war if it were covered by a UN mandate.
Tony Blair has pressed America not to act alone and will be delighted by the signs that an international approach is possible.
At the TUC conference in Blackpool today he will challenge the UN to demonstrate that it has the resolve to tackle the "international outlaw", Saddam, who headed the world's "worst regime".
Downing Street said that the world was now "waking up" to the threat Saddam posed and that it was time for the UN "to deliver" after years of failure to enforce its rulings against Iraq.
Russia appears to hold the key to obtaining any UN mandate for war. The Kremlin, which has close trade relations with Iraq, has kept up a stream of hostile rhetoric about the risks of American action against Saddam.
But at the weekend Moscow insisted that Iraq must respect UN resolutions "without conditions".
Although Russia has threatened to veto a UN resolution approving force, British officials are convinced that it can be persuaded at least to abstain. China is likely to follow Moscow's lead.
Downing Street suggested that Mr Blair's case had been strengthened by the publication of a detailed report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a leading think-tank in London.
The institute said that Iraq had almost certainly stepped up its weapons programme since expelling UN inspectors four years ago.
It confirmed that Iraq could be only months from building a nuclear bomb if it could smuggle in weapons-grade material. Alternatively, it could take several years to make its own such material.
The Prime Minister's official spokesman highlighted sections of the report dealing with the devastating effects of biological weapons, such as botulinum toxin. "We are not talking about washing powder here," he said.
President Bush, who met Jean Chrétien, the Canadian prime minister, restated his case for toppling Saddam.
"We have become a battlefield," he said in a speech, "and we've got to confront those threats. We have no choice but to confront the threats head-on while we preserve the freedom and the openness of our societies."
Mr Bush spoke to Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, who issued a warning about the risks of war.
"What sort of Iraq do we wake up to after the bombing and what happens in the region?" Mr Annan asked. "These are questions leaders I have spoken to have posed."
A better Iraq without Saddam or his heir Uday, Kofi. - Ivan
Mr Bush also tried to drum up support from Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, President Ahmet Necdet Sezer of Turkey and Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish prime minister.
The most important move came from France, the western country with probably the closest relations with Iraq. France withdrew from patrolling the no-fly zones several years ago and has pressed for sanctions to be lifted.
M Chirac, in an interview with the New York Times, said that Saddam should be given a tough ultimatum to allow the return of inspectors within three weeks at most.
If he failed to comply, the Security Council could issue a second resolution on whether to approve the use of force.
M Chirac said he had discussed the idea of a deadline with Mr Blair last week. "It is a question of one, two or three weeks - very quick," he said.
Asked about the use of force, M Chirac said: "Everything will depend on the nature of the resolution.
"Nothing is impossible, if it is decided by the international community on the basis of indisputable proof. For the moment, we have neither proof nor decisions." Mr Chirac added: "I do not need to tell you that I condemn the regime in Iraq." But he urged America not to act alone.
"If we go down this road, where are we going?" he asked. "I am totally against unilateralism in the modern world."
Regards, Ivan
Who knows? Daschle can stonewall this as well.
LOL! You Brits can be sooo polite, even while you are kicking butt! 'Persuaded' = 'Bribed', of course.
I remember what an English comic once said and he got a huge laugh - he said that his foreign policy would be "Scotland, get out of here, Wales, p*** off" and "Saddle up, lads, we're invading France tomorrow!"
Best Regards, Ivan
At the beginning of the last century just 200 years ago, Britain kept the peace in a quarter of the entire globe. The sun they say never set on the British Empire. Now what have we got? The Channel Islands... The Germans have bought Rolls Royce... All the newsreaders are Welsh, although that may not be relevant. And most foreigners think that the Union Jack is based on an old dress design for one of the Spice Girls.
So what is to be done? Well the answer to my mind is very simple. If we are to re-establish our position in the world, the army must return to its traditional role, the very reason for which it exited in the first place. We must invade France.
No No, No No I'm serious. Our advanced guard of Mad Cows has already done a superb job. And the French are in disarray. Now is the time for actual occupation. Now you may say why France? Well that's a very good question. But I can think of three reasons.
Firstly whenever we try to speak their language the sneer at us and talk back to us in English. God they are so irritating. Secondly they deliberately won the world cup by maliciously playing better football than us. And thirdly, simple political strategy, look at the history books whenever Britain fought the French we were top dog.
For 500 years from Agincourt to the Battle of Waterloo, Britain went from strength to strength and gained the greatest empire the world has ever known. The minute we start getting chummy with the garlic chewers, within three short decades we're buggered.
Hello obvious connection alert!
So that's the secret, if Mr Blair wants us to be at the heart of Europe, let us simply go to the heart of Europe. Gather together those submarines, which don't leak; prime those rifles, which do not jam. Get the army to Waterloo Station buy 15 thousand tickets on the Eurostar and invade France...
Or, we could just wait for the Euro to drop a bit more and then simply buy the place. It?s just a thought sir, just a thought.
Iraq was already chummy with France - France after all sold Iraq their first nuclear reactor. Surely that trait passed on to Iraq already, considering what happened during the Gulf War?
Regards, Ivan
Enjoy your little EuroweenieUnion, I'll stick to American sovereignty and our unilateral right to defend our lives and homes, wherever it may lead us. But thanks for your help in the 1700's, although I think we've repaid that debt in full.
"France" and "Tough" mentioned in same sentence; Iraq trembles, prepares to be annoyed
Becki Snow
~~~~~~~~
A new day has joined September 11, 2001 in my list of memorable days; I hearby declare that September 10, 2002 shall always be remembered as the day that the words "France" and "Tough" were mentioned in the same headline. A qualifier: the word "cheese" did not appear in the search string.
To quote the bombshell article from the Telegraph UK article:
"M Chirac did not commit himself to supporting the use of force or sending troops, but French analysts believe that France would take part in a war if it were covered by a UN mandate."
Makes you wonder just what the French ARE planning on doing; perhaps they will sit down with Saddam and offer him an inferior wine, or worse yet force him to watch a mime's interpretation of "La Vie en Rose". However, a more likely explanation is that the French will so irritate the Iraqi dictator with their obsequious boot-licking (French- style, of course, with tongue inserted into the top of the boot) that he will simply be repulsed to death.
Yes, this viewpoint could be considered to be a biased and unfair representation of the French national resolve, but considering the river of anti-American rhetoric flowing from the heart of Paris, it is perhaps understandable, me oui? I must admit that even a hint of possible support from France should be cause for celebration, considering the mood of the Parisian press. But what exactly is the nature of this support? According to the Telegraph, well, nobody is sure...
"Asked about the use of force, M Chirac said: "Everything will depend on the nature of the resolution." "Nothing is impossible, if it is decided by the international community on the basis of indisputable proof. For the moment, we have neither proof nor decisions." Mr Chirac added: "I do not need to tell you that I condemn the regime in Iraq." But he urged America not to act alone. "If we go down this road, where are we going?" he asked. "I am totally against unilateralism in the modern world."
The French against unilateralism? This from the nation who single-handedly outlawed the word "ketchup" on French soil.
The real tragedy revealed in this article is that the French, like much of Europe, fancy themselves as a necessary ingredient of United States military policy. In all truth, I wish they WERE necessary... a strong France, a strong Europe would be an asset to the world. But at this juncture in time, France and the rest of Continental Europe are not necessary ingredients for anything remotely military; they are spices, welcome additions, but hardly indispensible in the bloody recipe of war. (The English, by comparison, are a meaty sausage with much to offer. But I digress.) This is War, after all - OUR War, not Europe's War - the smoking slag-heap that was once the World Trade Center is indisputable proof of conflict on our soil. All proof and evidence of Saddam's perfidy aside, it is merely logical that we should greet any war advice from France with scepticism. It is indisputable proof of American charity that we don't burst into gales of gauche, braying American guffaws... at least not in public.
We do not tell the French how to pronounce "je me rends" - that's "I surrender" for you English-speaking dogs - so it is only fair to politely insist that they should not tell us how to run our War.
--"Confessions of a Right-Wing Dove"
"What's wrong with the French?" His reply:
"Two words. Jerry Lewis."
Sounds like Ms. Snow is rather struck by us - I'm delighted that a lady of her apparent taste (as evidenced by her distaste for the French), would feel that way.
Regards, Ivan
Read any book by Sartre, then come back - it will become clear. Also Simone de Beauvoir's books qualify.
Regards, Ivan
Today's Hate The French thread. Posted by a bloke who just about vapourlocks when anyone says something critical of the UK. Sad to see you swimming in the populist mud, Ive.
Byron, I don't like the French, end of discussion. Are you suggesting that I am not entitled to my opinion? And are you suggesting that just because others agree with my opinions that somehow that debases them?
Being contrary is only a virtue if being contrary also means being right. You have been straining every sinew of yourself on here in one long rant crying "NO NO NO" to doing anything about Saddam Hussein. You must have been reading the reports now, and about who will inherit the WMD once Hussein passes on, yet you are stil crying out "NO NO NO". I realise you enjoy being contrary, but there are rational limits to it.
Ivan
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.