Posted on 03/07/2003 5:45:49 PM PST by MadIvan
So often the grey man of British diplomacy, Jack Straw last night let rip at the French foreign minister in front of a shocked UN Security Council, calling on the international community to enforce the disarmament of Iraq "on its own terms".
In what one admiring American delegate referred to as a "diplomatic call to arms", Mr Straw spelled out in the clearest terms that time had effectively run out for Saddam Hussein, his lies and his prevarications.
He launched an impassioned tirade at Dominique de Villepin and France's policy on Iraq in an outburst that marked a new extreme of rhetoric in the row over how to deal with Saddam.
Staring M de Villepin in the eye and packing his speech with liberal references to "Dominique", Mr Straw directed what turned into an ad hominem assault on his French counterpart.
Mr Straw heaped scorn on the logic of countries - especially France - that are set on giving Iraq more time. "Dominique, you said that the choice before us was disarmament by peace or disarmament by war," Mr Straw said. "Dominique, that's a false choice."
M de Villepin, by far the most charismatic spokesman for the anti-war camp, had no option but to sit through his reprimand. But the expression on his face - and its colour - betrayed rage at his treatment.
The ambush - the French, like everyone else in the room, had no idea what was coming - was the most heated public spat between a senior British and French official in recent times.
It was all the more unexpected because, as Foreign Secretary, Mr Straw has earned a reputation as one of the most colourless, if solid, performers on the world stage.
Whether by accident or design, Mr Straw deployed two English borrowings from French to tear into his opponent. He attacked the concept of "automaticité", the notion that voting for UN resolutions against Iraq automatically triggered war, which was a "canard", he thundered.
Giving the UN chamber a taste of the invective and emotion normally confined to the Dispatch Box in the Commons, Mr Straw also laid into M de Villepin over his underplaying of the role of US and British troops in the Gulf.
The presence of "young men willing to put their lives on the line for this body, the UN", was the key factor in compelling Saddam to make concessions, not diplomacy, he said.
The passion of his argument over the impact of the military threat as opposed to diplomatic pressure appeared to put Mr Straw off his stride. "Dominique, with respect to you, my good friend, I think it's the other way round. I really do.
"The strong outside pressure is, and let's be blunt about this, the presence of over 200,000 US and UK young men and young women willing to put their lives on the line for the sake of this body the United Nations."
Mr Straw continued: "There is only one possible, sensible conclusion that we can draw. We have to increase the pressure on Saddam Hussein. We have to put this man to the test.
"The Iraqis have the answer already - it may take time to fabricate further falsehoods, but the truth takes only seconds to tell."
He said Britain, the United States and Spain were tabling an amended resolution giving Saddam 10 more days to disarm peacefully and warned fellow foreign ministers on the council that if Iraq did not comply, action must follow.
"The council must send Iraq a clear message that we will resolve this crisis on the United Nations' terms, the terms which the council established a month ago when we unanimously adopted resolution 1441."
Gesticulating to emphasise his points and straining to keep the reading of his notes to a minimum while making eye contact with those seated around him, Mr Straw demanded that the council must not retreat from its demands set out in 1441.
"What we need is an irreversible and strategic decision by Iraq to disarm, to yield to the inspectors all of its weapons of mass destruction and all relevant information which it could and should have provided at any time in the last 12 years."
The international community had a duty to remember that the only reason that Saddam had changed in recent weeks and furnished inspectors with more information "was for one thing only - the pressure on the regime. Strong outside pressure."
The only way to achieve disarmament "is by backing our diplomacy with a credible display of force".
"We have to increase the pressure and put this man to the test," he said of Saddam in a pointed attempt to heighten the impact of his words by demonstrating that Britain felt it was dealing with a recognisable figure rather than a faceless regime.
"He can act with astonishing speed when he wants", by handing over thousands of pages of documents within days when the pressure builds on him.
Yeah, you're in a perfectly unbiased position to claim this, Ivan. You know, I could play the same game, remind you of the documents from which this conversation started, a central topic you have VERY CAREFULLY avoided (oh, rather you answered with "SHUT UP!", how impressive), or of our conversation yesterday which abruptly came to an end when I posted the Sunday Herald paper, remember?
However, that would basically amount to behave like a three-years old kid sreaming "I won! I won!". You seem to enjoy that, obviously.
"What is has to say" has nothing to do with today's France, as I already said. In other words, emphasizing this paper is simply changing the subject. An "historical perspective" to illutsrate today's antisemitic incidents in France while these are comitted by muslims whose parents arrived 25 or 35 years ago is simply bullshit.
I generally don't have all day to beat you up. Today is Saturday, which is not a work day in most of the civilised world, however, and therefore different. I realise that French socialism affords you the luxury of not having to take into account such things, albeit temporarily.
I told you and your leaders to shut up, because quite frankly, you have nothing valuable to say. You then embroider my point by spouting off on this thread - you highlight your cowardice by expressing your fears of doing the right thing as opposed to the "popular thing". You highlight your lies by saying things about the East Europeans not being with the Allies, a claim for which you have no proof. You highlight your mendacity by claiming anti-Semitism is not a problem in France, when most decidedly it is - to the extent which I have described: record numbers of French Jews feel safer in a land full of Palestinian suicide bombers than in a land full of Frenchmen.
Finally, you are so insufferably arrogant that you prove absolutely everything that has been said about the French to an exquisite certitude.
And you claim you've "won"? Indeed, shut up, sir.
Ivan
There are 5 million Muslims out of a population of approximately 60 million French. If there was not this historical feeling of anti-Semitism, surely the disdain of the French public would hold the anti-Semitic activities of Muslim youths in check.
However, it merely is now a question - does Muslim Anti-Semitism in France come from a lack of assimilation into French culture, or perhaps too much assimilation?
Ivan
No, you did. And you're still avoiding the issues aforementioned: British report, "not authentic" documents provided to El Baradei, and the contents of the Sunday Herald's article.
In other words: answer. Now.
Ivan
Which is exactly what is under way right now, and which is exactly what you will refuse to acknowledge anyway, even now that every jewish association has praised the new government's handling of the problem.
One of my neighbors had a lobster boat in Maine with her first husband. I've cultivated her friendship carefully, if, for nothing else, but getting invited to some of her "I miss Maine" feeds.
It's on all the news channels out here in Califoria showing (angery)Beverly Hills resedents pooring French wine in the gutter. It is enough to look like a river. HeHe.
You have no proof of this. What has occured instead is that French Jews are immigrating to Israel in record numbers, the French police were very quick to accuse the Rabbi of stabbing himself.
even now that every jewish association has praised the new government's handling of the problem.
That's not what the first article I posted says at all. Where do you get this stuff, apart from the voices in your head?
Ivan
Still nothing on fake documents and the british reports. And, do you call your answer "an answer"? I finally reacted to the paper from frontpage: I repeated several times that its content has nothing to do with today's situation. You have just refused to answer, on the other hand. This being said, you are right on one thing: I don't trust Ritter either. But this is the first part on the paper that really matters, with whom Ritter has nothing to do, and which are based on official US documents. Answer to THIS. Now. And answer to the issues of the British report and fake documents.
Give me a list and a link, please.
http://www.uejf.org/uejf_detail.php?sid=&id_art=184&id_type=2
http://www.crif.org/index02.php?id=795&type=communique&menu=2
http://www.crif.org/index02.php?id=520&type=communique&menu=2
You dismissed Front Page as "ultra conservative" out of hand. And I have pointed out to you several times how precisely it fits in to the modern context. It is not my fault that you don't want to see it. You can lead a frog to water, apparently, but can't make him drink.
You have just refused to answer, on the other hand. This being said, you are right on one thing: I don't trust Ritter either. But this is the first part on the paper that really matters, with whom Ritter has nothing to do, and which are based on official US documents. Answer to THIS.
Under normal circumstances, this amount of insufferable arrogance would lead me to ask you to step outside.
But fine, I will go back to your filthy article and attack it line by line. And when I am done, I take it you finally get the message.
Now. And answer to the issues of the British report and fake documents.
You sir, are the biggest, most pompous arse I've ever had the misfortune to encounter. However, you do tremendous good in explaining to my American colleagues why precisely the French should be utterly and thoroughly despised.
Ivan
Stop promoting frontpage, everything you have said about it a positive to us here.
Good. I will send you a reminder if necessary tomorrow. Also, don't forget the british report and the documents provided to El Baradei.
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.