Wondering how France will try to jump on the Iraq victory bandwagon? Wonder no more!

[Baggle]

I've seen a lot of people predicting, on these boards and elsewhere, that once war is imminent, France will jump on board and want its piece of the pie after victory is achieved. Because of that information, this article made me laugh even harder.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/18/sprj.irq.france.chemicals/index.html

"If the war starts and if (President) Saddam Hussein uses chemical or biological weapons, it would change completely the situation for the French president and for the French government, and President (Jacques) Chirac will have to decide what we will do to help the American troops to confront this new situation. "

So if the US doesn't want France's money to rebuild Iraq after the war is over, France will have no right later on to say, "Hey! Give us money! We helped, too!" However, if France were to send troops, no matter how few, into Iraq once Saddam launches chemical weapons(which it is being reported he will do), it gives France a legitimate right to get into the economic action at the end of the war by insuring some of their companies a couple contracts in Iraq's rebuilding.

That's how I see the situation. Anybody see this differently? Sort of funny that this comment was made by the French just after reports of chemical weapons being loaded into Iraqi artillery in Southern Iraq came out. I certainly hope that the US politely declines the French assistance offer with a, "No thank you, we have it under control."

-Baggle

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Baggle
"If the war starts and if (President) Saddam Hussein uses chemical or biological weapons, it would change completely the situation for the French president and for the French government, and President (Jacques) Chirac will have to decide what we will do to help the American troops to confront this new situation. "

Yeah, but the problem is France will want the U.S. to stop fighting while it gets its troops into place.

[Richard G]

French soldiers entering the combat zone should be considered legitimate targets. I'd shoot every one I saw.

[Doctor X]

I think the Coalition forces will be too busy handling the surrending Iraqi troops to be bothered with surrending French troops.

--J.D.

P.S. However, in all seriousness, if one believes the Administration--stop laughing, damn you!--if one believes the Administration, the French have been very helpful with intelligence regarding the War on Terror [Coming soon to a theater near you!--Ed.]

The use of a WMD--which Saddam does not have, right?--would rather slap the naysayers silly--it may even bother their population.

So, if the French want to help--put in a UN resolution in full support--fine. "Forgive and remember." I want the "pie" of Iraq to go to the Iraqi people and pay for their liberation and ridding of Saddam.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Doctor X
...I want the "pie" of Iraq to go to the Iraqi people and pay for their liberation and ridding of Saddam.

As of course it will ... right after Big Oil takes the first cut.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Doctor X

So, if the French want to help--put in a UN resolution in full support--fine. "Forgive and remember." I want the "pie" of Iraq to go to the Iraqi people and pay for their liberation and ridding of Saddam.

To satisfy my personal outrage at the French (which today's developments have only made more intolerable), I would like to see the FRENCH submit a resolution to the UNSC to affirm what we will already be doing, and let THEM get on their knees to Russia and China to get it passed.

That is the kind of apology I think America is entitled to.

[DavidJames]

It seems clear to me the issue is simply that France has been very skeptical of the U.S. claims that Iraq has chemical and biological WMD. If Iraq, in fact, does have them and uses them, then France has the proof they have been looking for and will support the U.S. actions.

[Doctor X]

hammegk:

As of course it will ... right after Big Oil takes the first cut.

I am uncertain who "Big Oil" is. As stated in other threads if the US and others wanted the "big oil" they would have appeased Saddam way back when he went after Kuwait. They could have also "secured it for the Iraqi people" after Gulf War I.

Jocko:

I, too, have a viceral disgust for the behavior of the French Government. However, I think it important to leave that with the government and not with the people--all jokes aside. Too many times the Israeli people become painted with the behavior of their government, the Americans with Bill Clinton [Stop that!--Ed.], et cetera, et cetera.

Yyyyyeeeeesssssss . . . people do support their government and take some responsibility for it. Nevertheless, I am willing to "forgive the French" if their behavior changes. Otherwise we just move on.

--J.D.

[headscratcher4]

What does it matter? If at any point France decides to join in they should be welcomed to the extent that they can help. As to their jumping in just in time to "claim" victory, that is a very short sighted thought...the victory in Iraq will not be when the bombing stops or Saddam is dead/gone, it will be when Iraq can again function as a nation and has some sembelence of the rule of law and democracy. If that doesn't occur, than any military "victory" on the battlefield will, indeed, be hollow. So, even after the shoot'n match is over, I welcome France to join in an help with a little "nation-building" (remeber when George Bush thought that was a bad idea?).

[Reginald]

I for one would welcome their help, We made mistakes helping Iraq years ago, IMHO the French have made a mistake blocking the diplomatic process. I feel that a lesson will be learned if they did join.

Intercepted messages are now suggesting that chemical munitions are being distributed SE of Bagdhad. I used to be in doubt that he had many, I think I may be proven wrong, I think we may find weapons and attrocities that will shock the world.

[John Bryce]

Why don't I ever hear people bashing Russia for threatening to use its veto?
Why is it always the French?

[Doctor X]

Reginald:

I used to be in doubt that he had many, I think I may be proven wrong, I think we may find weapons and attrocities that will shock the world.

I will just note that it is nice to read people willing to change their opinions on a debate forum. This is, sadly, too often not the case. Nevertheless, I hope you are wrong in thinking you will be proven wrong.

John of Bryce:

Because they are French!

Seriously, part of it is the history of France--we have been allies to some extent with them. We are only very recently "allies" with Russia. Hell, I can remember a Fantasy Island episode where you could tell the KGB because they wore fur hats--on a tropical island!

The Russians were the "bad guys" for so long that I think US citizens are pleasantly surprised that we have relatively good relations. After 9/11, a consulate officer reported finding the steps covered with flowers, and people standing in grim silence. This is very different from the "red menace" attitude people grew up on.

But what about Germany? Well, France sort of overstepped things by:

1. Implying support back in 1441--if you believe Powell.
2. ACTIVELY pushing against the US and Co.

As far as I know, Russia, Germany, and even China have not been this aggressive. It seems like "too much" in American--and even British methinks--eyes.

It seems "personal" on the part of the French.

--J.D.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Because they gave us Postmodernism.

~~ Paul

[Frostbite]

I really don't understand the animosity against the French. They won't get into an armed conflict against Iraq without the approval from the United Nations. However, they will assist the US if Iraq uses illegal chemical weapons. Big deal.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Doctor X

But what about Germany? Well, France sort of overstepped things by:

1. Implying support back in 1441--if you believe Powell.
2. ACTIVELY pushing against the US and Co.

As far as I know, Russia, Germany, and even China have not been this aggressive.

A couple of other notes:
- France has a UN veto, Germany does not, so France can do more damage
- France and Germany both caused problems for NATO to help Turkey defend itself. (This is another strike against France that Russia and China do not have.)

[Doctor X]

Indeed, and to answer the objection from Frostbite:

They won't get into an armed conflict against Iraq without the approval from the United Nations.

France rather worked to make approval impossible.

--J.D.

[Baggle]

What I meant by the Iraqi "pie" is not that the USA is going to go in and take over the oil wells and tell the Iraqis to get lost, because they're ours now. I meant that the USA will award the contracts that will support the reconstruction of Iraqi almost exclusively to UK/US companies. The USA will pick up the tab and directly pay these companies from US taxpayer coffers. If the contracts were awarded to French companies, money would go directly to French companies from the American coffers. That is one part of this situation that I am opposed to. Oh ya, hammegk, the "no blood for oil," thing is real, real old and real, real debunked. It has been shown time and time again that France is the country that has the most economic oil interest in Iraq, and that the slogan should probably be, "No appeasement for oil." In any case, if you have nothing more to contribute to threads than that which has been discussed and debunked multiple times on this very forum, then I ask you not to reply to mine at all.

The other part of the situation that I am opposed to, and I must politely disagree with you headscratcher(never thought I'd say that:)), is that this will give the French the legitimacy they will assuredly someday seek in saying that they were a part of the force that got rid of that terrible, terrible, tyranical despot Saddam. No, I want the French to ride this one out and stick to their guns. However, if the French want to dedicate some forces to military police action in Iraq after the war is over, and do not want money and/or contracts as payment, then I have no problem with letting the French in. I think that if they took this stance, it would show that they honestly just want to help, and are willing to spend their own money to do so. I think that would do a lot to repair US-French relations. I do not see this happening, though.

As far as the post being about France...well, um, if the headlines on CNN today were "Russia says it will help with US invasion of Iraq if chemical weapons are used," then I would be bashing the Russians, too. I feel the same about them, as well. Do not award them with the rebuilding contracts for Iraq. Germany and China, too, for that matter. However, Germany, China and Russia were not nearly as actively aggressive in working against the United States as France was, so that is my personal reason for not feeling quite as much bitterness towards them as I feel for France, not to mention what happened in NATO. Funny what happens when the French aren't around. Germany and Belgium both voted yes to increased defense of Turkey once France was out of the room. Wonder why that was...

-Baggle

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

- France and Germany both caused problems for NATO to help Turkey defend itself. (This is another strike against France that Russia and China do not have.)

What do you mean? To which case do you refer?

[Doctor X]

Cleopatra:

Methinks he refers to the NATO vote on defense of Turkey. France was rather opposed; however, since they do not contribute militarily to NATO they were excluded from the final discussions.

I agree with Baggle's contention that those who did not help really cannot expect to benefit from the results.

--J.D.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Doctor X


I am uncertain who "Big Oil" is

Yeah, I suppose it was a little easier to keep track when they were the Seven Sisters. Today, same players, different names. All are firmly in bed with their respective countries State Departments & intelligence services.

[Doctor X]

Then--not to sidetrack the discussion--why did "THEY" not insist on appeasing Saddam?

They would have had a great financial interest to do this.

--J.D.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Cleopatra:

Methinks he refers to the NATO vote on defense of Turkey. France was rather opposed; however, since they do not contribute militarily to NATO they were excluded from the final discussions.

I agree with Baggle's contention that those who did not help really cannot expect to benefit from the results.

--J.D.

Yes of course but there is not much to benefit from this War anyway, since it's a War about democracy and human rights, isn't it? I am sure that French are not interested in a seat in the Iraqui Parliament...

edited to add the reply!

[Bluegill]

Regardless of how this is resolved, I think it's extremely important for U.S. diplomats and military leaders to behave graciously and bite their tongues when it comes to our "traditional allies." We need to be able to be both a good winner and a good loser. No matter how things turn out, the ability to resist saying "I told you so" will go a long way towards smoothing over international relations. Saying "I told you so" won't be necessary. Smart people, like most of the posters on this forum and most of the people in our governments, will know what the score is.

[Doctor X]

Cleopatra:

I am sure that French are not interested in a seat in the Iraqui Parliament...

I believe they are interested in oil and defense contracts.

Methinks Bluegill has a point. Perhaps it is best if Bush does not make his "I-Told-You-So" dance terribly public.

--J.D.

[Baggle]

Cleo, do not confuse the "benefits" of a war for companies with the causes of war. I assure you that we will spend MUCH more in waging this war than we will gain in contracts by rebuilding Iraq....especially since the money to rebuild does not magically appear; it comes from the US gov't.

Blue, I agree with you. I do not think we need to be sticking our tongues out at the French when they attempt to maintain normal relations with us after the war is over. I think we need to be as polite as can be to them, and everybody else, for that matter. However, I do not think that we should monetarily reward them after the war is over. If they want to help keep the peace after the war, that's excellent news, and I will be glad that they came around. However, if they want to send in troops, forget it. It will only bog down our forces, as it will add one more level of difficultly to planning attacks. If they want to send in troops to fight the war, and ask for money to pay for it, they can doubly forget it, IMO. I am sure we have it 100% covered, and to add in any French troops would be a purely political move. However, if they want to send some wine and cheese to our troops for a victory celebration, then they'd be welcomed ;) If they ask for payment, though, they can forget that too.

-Baggle

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Cleopatra:



I believe they are interested in oil and defense contracts.
--J.D.

Poor Frenchmen! President Bush was clear. Americans will be interested only in protecting Iraqui people interests.

Baggle I have some points I disagree with you but debating over the War is over for me :)

I am glad to hear though that people realize that it's not wise to take politics personally... All I can say for now is that in Europe , everybody laughts at the frenchmen, behind their backs of course, for their not achieving to get over the Napoleon syndrom... but let's talk about this after the War...

[Richard G]

France has made itself as irrelevant as the UN.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Then--not to sidetrack the discussion--why did "THEY" not insist on appeasing Saddam?

They would have had a great financial interest to do this.

--J.D.

Hmm, Total-ELF was making money, Russian interests -- maybe, and the UN itself was making big bucks out of the food for oil bs.

Think of the worldwide economic boost that will occur as the oil-well fires are put out, production facilities rebuilt, new discoveries made & developed. Lot's more folks will have a place at the table.

[Doctor X]

Took me a bit to figure out what you meant. Let me check . . . is it that more opportunity will occure after a war?

The problem with that is that the US could have had more exclusive rights in the past. Nevertheless, they could have done the same thing with Gulf War I. They did not.

--J.D.

[Michael Redman]

France is offering exactly nothing. If chemical weapons are used, it will be far, far too late for France to deploy any combat troops before the war ends, even if it drags out for a few weeks. It's a calculated gesture designed to make them look good, but with no potential cost.

Perhaps Americans would be less anoyed at the French (more in line with the Russians and Chinese) if France didn't insist on getting word out that it rejected the US-UK proposals to avoid war, even before the Iraqis had decided what to do.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Took me a bit to figure out what you meant. Let me check . . . is it that more opportunity will occure after a war?
Just a broader disposition of the spoils. Saddam's share, the French share & the UN's share will get re-distributed as well as increase substantially. Production will at least double.

The problem with that is that the US could have had more exclusive rights in the past. Nevertheless, they could have done the same thing with Gulf War I. They did not.
Nope, it would not work with Saddam at the helm, UN sanctions, blah, blah.

Or, if you could have made it happen, you are in the wrong business. ;)

[gypsonian]

Imho, (as a American of French descent whose ancestors left their homeland to escape religious persecution, to becoming pawns of the English, to fighting in the war liberating the colonies from the English!!), that after 200+ years of immigration the best of France has come here, to America. Freedom and democracy predate Judeo-Christian espousal of those values. We cannot always choose the vehicles that carry these to those that need them, but we should share the responsibility and consequences. Education is the key to the kingdom of humankind.:)

[hgc]

Hi gypsonian,

Welcome to the forum. Please see the forum rules regarding spaces after commas and periods. ;)

[gypsonian]

Originally posted by hgc
Hi gypsonian,

Welcome to the forum. Please see the forum rules regarding spaces after commas and periods. ;)



Thanks hgc :) - interesting place you have here ...

[Baggle]

Welcome to the forum, gypsonian. Glad to see a new poster show their face in this section and not automatically in Banter. I do not like that place ;)

Please continue posting. This section of the forum seems far too underused, and new members are much appreciated.

-Baggle

[Doctor X]

H::

Nope, it would not work with Saddam at the helm, UN sanctions, blah, blah.

However, the US would have "removed" him--march'd on Bagdad--"We weren't suppose to do that? Oopsie!"

Or, if you could have made it happen, you are in the wrong business.

Pay no attention to the large black car currently screeching into your driveway. . . .

Gypsonian:

You will be find so long as you do not engage in argumentum ad hominem, ad veritatum obfuscandum, ad capitatum vulgus, though we would welcome the occassional argumentum ad crumenam because we are poor. . . .

--J.D.

[Baggle]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Gypsonian

You will be find so long as you do not engage in argumentum ad hominem, ad veritatum obfuscandum, ad capitatum vulgus, though we would welcome the occassional argumentum ad crumenam because we are poor. . . .

--J.D.

Unless you go to Banter, where those fallacies are awarded with threads that span many, many pages and stay at the front page for weeks on end. bleh..

-Baggle