The French only want peace

[Drooper]

Hmmm. Now run that by me one more time Jacques.

Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826535496.html)

A French company has been selling spare parts to Iraq for its fighter jets and military helicopters during the past several months

Hypocrites

[BillyTK]

But surely this French company would be pushing for war against Iraq to ensure further demand for their goods (as the US blow 'em out the sky)?

No biggie, just a thought...

[Drooper]

Originally posted by BillyTK
But surely this French company would be pushing for war against Iraq to ensure further demand for their goods (as the US blow 'em out the sky)?

No biggie, just a thought...

Once there's a war, there goes the market. Iraq won't have anything left to put spare parts on to.

Besides, it is the hypcrisy of their supposed moral pacifist stance.

[BillyTK]

From the article
An administration official said, however, that intelligence reports did not indicate that the activity was sanctioned by the French government or that Paris knows about the transfers, The Times said

it's always possible that Pres. Chirac had his fingers in his ears and was shouting "Nyah nyah, I carnt hear you!" at the top of his voice. But somehow it doesn't surprise me that France's claim to moral high ground is no less shaky than the US/UK line...

[Shane Costello]

Nor would the French ever dream about taking unilateral action on a pact that was agreed on at a multilateral level. I mean, unilateralism is a uniquely American sin.

France shrugs off breaching Euro growth and stability pact (www.no-euro.com/mediacentre/dossiers/display.asp?IDNO=1151)

[iain]

Can someone explain what the relevance of this is. Information is being presented, which I don't necessarily disagree with, but I'm not clear what point is trying to the proved.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by iain
Can someone explain what the relevance of this is. Information is being presented, which I don't necessarily disagree with, but I'm not clear what point is trying to the proved.


Just another point of view.... Did you miss:


Drooper:
Besides, it is the hypcrisy of their supposed moral pacifist stance.

[Drooper]

Ian, it is comments like the following from Jacques Chirac that leave me gasping at his arrogance.

"We know the price of bloodshed. We can guess at the disastrous consequences, the harm war would do in a region already so ravaged and fragile,"

Now, let's see if we can sell this well established despot some more arms. That will really help to defuse tensions in the region and heap more pressure on Saddam to disarm.

[iain]

Originally posted by Drooper
Ian, it is comments like the following from Jacques Chirac that leave me gasping at his arrogance.



Now, let's see if we can sell this well established despot some more arms. That will really help to defuse tensions in the region and heap more pressure on Saddam to disarm. Ok, so Chirac is as hypocritical as every other Western leader and may even be a match for Blair and Bush on this one. Has anyone ever claimed that he's a paragon of virtue?

[Drooper]

Originally posted by iain
Ok, so Chirac is as hypocritical as every other Western leader and may even be a match for Blair and Bush on this one. Has anyone ever claimed that he's a paragon of virtue?

Well, yes in fact. He does. Nobody else put him there, he did. He made a moral stance also when he vetoed the transfer of defensive NATO assets to Turkey.

He is making a very public global stand on moral grounds. The quote I gave oozes with that smug moralistic tone. "we know the price of bloodshed..." etc. etc.

If France was planning on making a moral stand over military action against Iraq, it might have made their position a little more tenable if they had not been exporting arms to Iraq for the last year.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Drooper


If France was planning on making a moral stand over military action against Iraq, it might have made their position a little more tenable if they had not been exporting arms to Iraq for the last year.

Its not like they were selling him scuds and anthrax. We're talking spare parts for copters and jets. Which Iraq is allowed to have.

I dont buy these sinister motive arguments. That france + Russia dont want war because they have monetary interests in Iraq. Thats as silly as the GW wants revenge for trying to kill his dad, or the bllod for oil arguments

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Tmy


Its not like they were selling him scuds and anthrax. We're talking spare parts for copters and jets. Which Iraq is allowed to have.

I dont buy these sinister motive arguments. That france + Russia dont want war because they have monetary interests in Iraq. Thats as silly as the GW wants revenge for trying to kill his dad, or the bllod for oil arguments

Well, it really would have taken the cake if it was WMDs. But selling any military hardware to this regime at this time by a country making the claimed moral stand that France is, is simply ridiculous.

Forget the words, France, by deed has revelaed itself to be a significant supporter of Saddam's regime.

[iain]

Originally posted by Drooper
Well, yes in fact. He does. Nobody else put him there, he did. He made a moral stance also when he vetoed the transfer of defensive NATO assets to Turkey.

He is making a very public global stand on moral grounds. The quote I gave oozes with that smug moralistic tone. "we know the price of bloodshed..." etc. etc. You might be right Drooper, but I'm still having trouble seeing what the difference is between this and the stances of Bush and Blair who are advocating war on moral grounds. Blair in particular has spent the last couple of weeks being "holier than thou"; yet neither the UK nor the US has any higher moral claims than France in International affairs.

All you've suggested so far is that Chirac is no better than Blair or Bush. It might be true, but so what?

[Drooper]

Originally posted by iain
You might be right Drooper, but I'm still having trouble seeing what the difference is between this and the stances of Bush and Blair who are advocating war on moral grounds. Blair in particular has spent the last couple of weeks being "holier than thou"; yet neither the UK nor the US has any higher moral claims than France in International affairs.

All you've suggested so far is that Chirac is no better than Blair or Bush. It might be true, but so what?

Welll, I tend to think that the moral case against Saddam and for any action required to have him removed has been made - most eloquently by Iraqis themselves (the most recent on an MTV interview with Blair last night).

From that starting point I am willing to listen to any argument for action that could neuter Saddam politically and militarily without resorting to war, but NOT from someone who is busy selling Saddam arms.

edited to add:

Just to make it clear. I am not FOR Blair or Bush. Nor am I AGAINST Chirac.

I am FOR the removal of Saddam by any means possibly (I believe he has passed any reasonable time limit to comply with UN resolutions).

I am AGAINST spurious moral arguments that flatly rule out military action on principle. And it tends to get my gander up when those arguments emanate from a country busy selling Saddam arms.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Drooper


Well, it really would have taken the cake if it was WMDs. But selling any military hardware to this regime at this time by a country making the claimed moral stand that France is, is simply ridiculous.

Forget the words, France, by deed has revelaed itself to be a significant supporter of Saddam's regime.

Why don't you pull your finger out your arse and read the whole original article in the Washington Times?

It's obvious that the whole delivery was illegally organized from the arabic emirates from wher the stuff was smuggled into Iraq.

Quote from the original article

The official, however, said intelligence reports of the parts sale did not indicate that the activity was sanctioned by the French government or that Paris knows about the transfers.


Now, the world is full of crooks and you can hardly blame the french government for the fact that France has got its fair share of those.

Zee

[Drooper]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman
Why don't you pull your finger out your arse

Nice, thanks.

"French arms, Quelle surprise!!"

Or as your compatriots might put it "I know nussink"

I've got an idea. you pull YOUR finger out of YOUR arse and let your brains dribble out.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Drooper


Nice, thanks.

"French arms, Quelle surprise!!"

Or as your compatriots might put it "I know nussink"

I've got an idea. you pull YOUR finger out of YOUR arse and let your brains dribble out.

OK, I apologize for the finger and the arse.
Now, don't you think that the content of the whole article reveals your whole point as Strawman?

Zee

[Drooper]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman


OK, I apologize for the finger and the arse.
Now, don't you think that the content of the whole article reveals your whole point as Strawman?

Zee

Apology accepted.

I don't think it is a straw man. I started thread. It is my topic. The argument is that a country that is selling arms to Saddam's regime is in supporting that regime in deed and is bering hypocritical in espousing moral arguments against military action.

It makes no difference whether these exports were "official". How could they be? Even if the French Government avow any knowledge of the shipments and even if that were true, the French government is still responsible and accountable for arms exports. Also, it displays their less than committed attitude towards touted anti-war principles.

In the same way, the US government was accountable for the export of arms to the contras, despite the fact that Oliver North acted without the required permission or knowledge of the administration of the day.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Drooper


It makes no difference whether these exports were "official". How could they be? Even if the French Government avow any knowledge of the shipments and even if that were true, the French government is still responsible and accountable for arms exports. Also, it displays their less than committed attitude towards touted anti-war principles.




But it does of course make a whole lot of a difference. What do you think is currently going on on the illegal weapons market? There is an awful lot of money to get if you have the criminal energy. France is not a command economy and so the government cannot be held responsible for all illegal actions of french companies.

As long as you don't prove that the French government is somehow involved, your point is simply not a point but a straw man, imho.

Zee

[Drooper]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman


But it does of course make a whole lot of a difference. What do you think is currently going on on the illegal weapons market? There is an awful lot of money to get if you have the criminal energy. France is not a command economy and so the government cannot be held responsible for all illegal actions of french companies.

As long as you don't prove that the French government is somehow involved, your point is simply not a point but a straw man, imho.

Zee

Firstly, a Straw Man is a distorted representation of an argument offered by another.

The French arms exports represent the substance of the debate I initiated. It cannot be a Straw Man.

Secondky, I refer you back to my previous post. Every government is responsible and accountable for arms eminating from their country. The Mirage is a national arms project of France. If they allow illicit exports to a regime that the already know might want them, as is the case here, they are culpable.

Ignorance is no defence, it is just as bad.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Drooper


Secondky, I refer you back to my previous post. Every government is responsible and accountable for arms eminating from their country.

We have to agree that we disagree then.

Zee

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Drooper

Secondky, I refer you back to my previous post. Every government is responsible and accountable for arms eminating from their country. The Mirage is a national arms project of France. If they allow illicit exports to a regime that the already know might want them, as is the case here, they are culpable.

Ignorance is no defence, it is just as bad.

But France didn't allow this export. Perhaps they should have had better controls in place; but I really can't see how this somehow makes the anti-war standpoint of the French government "hypocritical."


Leif Roar Moldskred

[Drooper]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman


We have to agree that we disagree then.

Zee

c'est la vie :cool:

[BillyTK]

Drooper,
The argument is that a country that is selling arms to Saddam's regime is in supporting that regime in deed and is bering hypocritical in espousing moral arguments against military action[...]
Slightly off-topic here, and as an academic point really, but would you agree that the US support for Saddam's regime in the '80s undermines their moral argument for regime-change now?

[Drooper]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Drooper,

Slightly off-topic here, and as an academic point really, but would you agree that the US support for Saddam's regime in the '80s undermines their moral argument for regime-change now?

Not now no. That was another time, with different circumstances. Iran was slighlty less liberal in those days and had stated their objective to destroy America and demonstated their commitment with the hostage crisis.

I would say that with 20/20 hindsight, it might have been better not to support somone who has turned out to be such a pimple on the face of humanity as Saddam, but there you go. And who knows how things might have turned out if 1980s vintage Iran had become the ascendant power in the Middle East.


edited for spelling

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Drooper


Not now no. That was another time, with different circumstances. Iran was slighlty less liberal in those days and had stated their objective to destroy America and demonstated their commitment with the hostage crisis.

I would say that with 20/20 hindsight, it might have been better not to support somone who has turned out to be such a pimple on the face of humanity as Saddam, but there you go. And who knows how things might have turned out if 1980s vintage Iran had become the ascendant power in the Middle East.


edited for spelling

Interesting. Something I read was that as a result of the of the fatalities of the Iran/Iraq war, 70% of the contemporary Iranian population is under 30, and they're not as interested in fundamentalist Islam as their leaders...

I'd say that back in the '80s Saddam was already a pimple--he'd used chemical agents against civilians between 1986-88--and considering, he's been relatively quiet and contained since (except for the issue of UN sanctions, which is probably for a different thread); but anyway... at least you didn't use the "that was a different administration with different people" clause! :thumbs up:

[Giz]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Interesting. Something I read was that as a result of the of the fatalities of the Iran/Iraq war, 70% of the contemporary Iranian population is under 30, and they're not as interested in fundamentalist Islam as their leaders...

I'd say that back in the '80s Saddam was already a pimple--he'd used chemical agents against civilians between 1986-88--and considering, he's been relatively quiet and contained since (except for the issue of UN sanctions, which is probably for a different thread); but anyway... at least you didn't use the "that was a different administration with different people" clause! :thumbs up:

I think the 70% probably owes something to a high birth rate, not that great an old age life expectancy double act. See it in a lot of developing countries. It's not neccesarily a sign of a recent armaggedon.

And I think you may be going overboard when you carp on about the US support for various dictators in the Cold War. That support (the enemy of my enemy is my 'short term' friend) was based on the same logic as the aid given to Stalin's USSR in WW2. Do you deplore that?

[Supercharts]

" An administration official said the French parts transfers to Iraq may be one reason France has so vehemently opposed U.S. plans for military action against Iraq. "No wonder the French are opposing us," this official said."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030307-545570.htm

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Supercharts
" An administration official said the French parts transfers to Iraq may be one reason France has so vehemently opposed U.S. plans for military action against Iraq. "No wonder the French are opposing us," this official said."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030307-545570.htm

So an administration official wildly speculates. And your point is...?

Zee

[Reginald]

Well whatever the reasons, once the US and UK troops crawl all over the country looking for the proof they need to justify the action in the first place, I am sure that lots of nasty skeletons will fall out of cupboards.


Despite all the hot air on both sides, I dont think the Russians will Veto, and It has been speculated on UK TV that if the only Veto comes from France then that will be just as good for Tony B as getting the thing through unscathed.

[Richard G]

The French are violating a U.N. resolution here. There is a U.N. mandated arms embargo against Iraq which they are clearly, and deliberately ignoring. I'd give the French say...10 days to come into compliance or face "serious consequences".

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Giz


I think the 70% probably owes something to a high birth rate, not that great an old age life expectancy double act. See it in a lot of developing countries. It's not neccesarily a sign of a recent armaggedon.

It is in Iran's case. You'll just have to trust me.

And I think you may be going overboard when you carp on about the US support for various dictators in the Cold War. That support (the enemy of my enemy is my 'short term' friend) was based on the same logic as the aid given to Stalin's USSR in WW2. Do you deplore that?

What the devil are you on about? I wasn't "carping on" about "US support for various dictators in the cold war". Please refer back to my exchange with Drooper. :rolleyes:

[iain]

Originally posted by Reginald It has been speculated on UK TV that if the only Veto comes from France then that will be just as good for Tony B as getting the thing through unscathed. Luckily (or perhaps unluckily, depending on your view) speculation on UK TV does not equal compliance with International law.

The legal situation seems to be pretty clear that if a country with a veto uses it, that's it as far as the legality goes.