Thibaud: Regarding French interest in Iraq:

1) Iraq was from the 70s on, France's #1 buyer of military hardware.
2) Saddam has a 60 billion oil contract with Total that would become active when sanctions are lifted. Those who have looked at it say it is incredibly one sided.

These are significant economic interests.

Now, you ask why Americans are feeling hostile towards the French? Because the French have been doing anything they can to screw us on this. We don't need or want France to help fight in Iraq. But they have gone and lobbied various countries, including Turkey to try to thwart US efforts. That's not how you treat an "ally".

In the end, France will get what it deserves out of it. The UN is finished now as a meaningful body. The US won't be asking for UN authorization in the future because no US president is going to want to deal with it. And it was only in the UN that a minor power like France had any clout.

But it didn't have to be that way. France could have simply abstained and said they didn't see the need for action. But no, they had to go and lobby other countries to vote against the US and lobby countries in the region not to support the US.

I suspect after this is through we'll learn that French inolvement in Iraq was much greater than we knew. We'll see.

I personally would like to see EU countries get more military might. Then they would be open to other solutions other than chattering.

I think if say Germany had a reasonable military today they would have been open to other solutions with regards to Iraq. When endless diplomacy is your ONLY option, one tends to jump through amazing logical hoops to justify that lone option.

I don't see the EU counter balancing the US unless the EU is significantly undemocratic, which it may become. Democracies don't counter balance one another. Let us not forget that the UK has sufficient military might to counter balance the US if it wanted to. No, it's not as powerful but you don't have to be. If UK said "No, you will not invade Iraq." that would have been the end of the story. The nonsense with the UN these past few months was to help Tony Blair. Without the UK, I doubt Bush would have had sufficient domestic support for going into Iraq.

I think we also have to think at this "war" in its entirety.

The main objective of the US is to go in, eradicate Saddam and his supporters, then help the people rebuild their government (and, help them prosper).

Say, that instead, the people somehow got enough of an edge to overthrow Saddam and his army. (Which, first Saddam would have to be disarmed of WMD and the people would somehow have to get arms, which would be hard, but just say that they did). So, how many people (civilians) do you think would die? How would they then be able to rebuild? (Wouldn't they be looking for assistance from the US like many other countries have?)

The way I see it, we are helping Iraq. We are removing a dictator, then we will be assisting the people in rebuilding their nation. (We have already sent food supplies for them, set up stocked medical facilities, and will continue to send relief to them.) I can only see how there will be less lives lost this way, and the country won't have to suffer for generations rebuilding their nation.

Also, I really don't think that this war is an "economic" decision. Does anyone have any idea how much (%) oil we import? Compare the loss of that to how much this war (plus financial support) will cost? Now, the way I look at it, The US is losing money in a major way. It would take the rest of my life plus some to say that it is financially in our best interest to go to war. I don't have those stats, but I'd like to see somebody prove it wrong.

I am not pro-war, but I am pro-freedom. And, that's freedom for everyone, not just the US.

frogboy,

Ivory Coast is a totally different pb since it was a french colony and there is a permanent treaty of mutual assistance in case of the gvt in place has any pb. That's why french troops are permanently based over there. What have been sent to Ivory coast are policemen and NOT military ppl. That makes a big difference. Nothing to see with invasion...
As for oil interest, I've read on several websites that contracts between US and iraki companies were already on negociation. Hmmm.., as you said, we'll see. If you're right, then for sure, it will be a great deception over there.

For you, we deserve that bad feeling from american ppl. Fine, that's your opinion. Being an ally doesn't mean that france must always agree with US gvt. After all, US put a veto to france several years ago and you never saw that kind of reaction inside france.
Sure, you're right to say that UN is useless if all members should always say OK to any US resolution. That's why vote -and democracy- exists. Everyone has the right to express his own opinion and say that he doesn't agree with others.

About lobbying other countries, what do you think about US gvt trying to *buy* yes votes to poor countries ? Was that moral ?

Oh and again about the ally thing, I'm pretty sure that France would help US if things would turn in a bad way in Irak (eg. irak using gaz etc...). I can't swear it but that's my own feeling. That's what an ally is : we can disagree, but if one or other have troubles, then we're there to help. It's called friendship.

Frogboy, I agree with you that the current permanent members of the security counsil is not up to date with today's world. As you know, the current structure of the UN security consil is a consequence of WW2, with the four winners of the war (GB, US, France, Russia) as permanent members, to which tey also added China. Germany and Japan were excluded because they were then the vilains who lost the war. For sure I believe it needs to be changed to add (not remove) more countries a permanent. But I woud not change the rotating other countries. All countries of this planet should have a say. Besides, you are wrong to say that Cameoun have the same weight was the US, Russia, France, the UK or China. The difference is huge, and everybody knows about it: when a vote is taken, if any permanent member votes against a resoluion, it is automatically rejected. Which is not true for the other rotating 10 members.

And BTW: I have nothing against a more socialist oriented direction. Canada in that way is way more socialist than the US. But I will look more deeply into the proposed EU constitution, but I greatly doubt it proposes a dictator as a EU leader.

It doesn't matter to me whether a country is socialist or not. What does matter to me is that that goverment is responsible to its people. The EU's design is socialist AND not responsible to the people.

Thibaud: Again, it's not a matter of France not agreeing. It's a matter of France actively trying to thwart US efforts. Such as lobbying Turkey to not let the US use its air bases there. That is not how an ally acts.

Regarding Ivory Coast: Your argument could be used on Iraq then. The US has an agreement that states that the US can go back in if Iraq fails to disarm. The US has been patrolling the skies of Iraq for a decade now.

And from what I've seen, French presence in Ivory Coast isn't appreciated by the natives.

Frogboy, our socialistic society is a democracy too. In our country we have more than two parties, and the outcome of our elections make parties to negotiate about the policies and forming of the government. I agree with Thibaud, but it is useless. Europe hasn't been happy with your president since he was elected, he has managed since his presidency to decay the goodwill the US has built since WW2. A president that says: Anyone that is not with us is against us, and then I see people react the same way, isn't a real good basis to earn trust. It is even scary. You are good and I am bad. As I said I accept your the way you feel and your point of view, but I wholeheartedly disagree with your stance. Now that makes me bad. Very scary.

frogboy,

"French presence in Ivory Coast isn't appreciated by the natives" .. hmm, are you sure that US one in Cuba is appreciated by the natives ?
If Turkey changed his mind, it has nothing to deal with France. Turkey is a parliamentary democracy that's why they need to vote to accept the US base on their land, so if they vote no, then it's just a ... democratic result.

First, when you say "Europe" who do you mean? I have friendsin Eastern Europe woh are pretty pro-US.

Secondly, I am talking about the EU constitution that is being floated around. It is NOT a democracy. Its leaders are appointed by a handful of individuals. Saying the EU is a democracy would be like saying that the US supreme court is "elected".

Lastly, no one is saying you are "bad". You and I can disagree with one another and there are no ill effects. The problem with France is that not only does it disagree with the US, which is their right, but they are working very hard to undermine the US. Tryng to get Turkey to not let the US use its bases there will cost Americans their lives. In effect, France's actions will result in the deaths of Americans.

Mexico doesn't agree with US actions either. But you don't see Mexico trying to pressure Turkey and Saudi Arabia to not let the US use bases there.

I have great fear for the people of Europe because I fear that the EU will be dominated by just a couple of countries. Look at your own post, you speak of Europe as a monolithic entity. Most European governments are on the US side. Of 21 countries in Europe, most of them side with the US.

And "good will" works both ways. You speak as if the US is losing out by not having the "good will" of say France or the Netherlands or something. But it goes both ways. You may no tlike Bush but he has overwhelming support by the American people. In a Reuters poll over the weekend, 40% of Americans consider France either an enemy or an unfriendly nation. That is going to have far reaching effects. I certainly consider France a friend. Not an ally but a friend.

Think of this: one country losing the good will of many versus many countries losing the goodwill of one. It's not the same.

Will EU leaders be elected by elected members? A bit like the US president is elected?

. Hey Thibaud, if you want to agree that French action in Ivory Coast is the same as US action in Cuba then that's fine with me. Though again it speaks of your lack of knowledge on this subject. The US has a naval base there. It's not like the US is allowed to send its troops throughout Cuba.

But hey, how do you think France would react if the US sent troops into Cuba to "police" the countryside? Which is what the French are doing in the Ivory Coast.

France has been applying pressure to Turkey to get their government to vote against the US in using their bases. That pressure has come in th eform of whether Turkey gets to join the EU. Let me spell it out: France is actively working to thwart the US effort. The net result will be the deaths of US servicemen. It's too bad France didn't work so hard to defeat the Nazis. How many Americans died in World War II due to French collaboration? Fast forward to 2003 and the French are aiding another evil dictator.

frogboy,

"In effect, France's actions will result in the deaths of Americans". Wow, that one is great ! So we are responsible for war, then we are responsible as well for american deaths ! huh, what's next ? Chaos in the middle-east maybe ?

"It's too bad France didn't work so hard to defeat the Nazis" : Ok, for me topic is closed !

Paxx, don't bother posting until you at least take a cursory glance at the EU constitution okay? Sheesh.

Craeonics - most European states agree with the US position. Secondly, the US is 50 states too. California has a bigger GDP and higher population than many if not most of the countries of Europe. So does New York, Michigan, Texas, Florida, and countless other US states. Sorry, if you want to equate Luxemberg with the US, that's your business. But it doesn't make for a compelling argument.

If you really feel strongly Craeonics, why not demand leaders who will take your beliefs and put htem towards concerted action. Demand trade sanctions against the US. Demand military intervention to protect poor Saddam.

And also, what do you mean by most of the 21 countries in Europe side with the US? In general or in this particular attack of Irak?
Because I doubt it's the latter. I'd like to know the names of the countries who sided officially with the attack of Irak. If you mean that they side with the US in general, I don't think there is such a thing. Countries can be friends with another country, but it doesn't mean that they "side" with it no matter what. I don't think there is such a thing as a "side". Countries in the Europe (or the World) are not divided in two groups: for or against the US. Countries can take their own decisions by themselves when they need it.

Ta-ta Thibaud.

Facts are stubborn things. The US not being able to use Turkey is going to cost some Americans their lives. The fewer points of entrance the US has, the more dangerous. The more dangerous, the more casaulties. No one asked for France's "help". France instead has sought to hurt US efforts. And while you may find the historical facts loathsome, they are nevertheless true. Even during the cold war France sought to put itself as an intermediary between the USSR and USA. As if a moral equivalence existed between the two. France's political culture has long had a problem distinguishing good fromm evil.

Frogboy, post 188 was a question, not an affirmation. I don't have the answer and you haven't given it to me.

"France's political culture has long had a problem distinguishing good fromm evil."

I should refer you to another post on that topic.

OK, case closed for me too.

Frogboy, sorry but I can't discuss this with you without loosing my calm. You are being extremely nasty in your remarks for France. Talk about evil. Your words hurt greatly.

Sure, here's off the top of my head:

Countries that have publicly stated their support for the US position:

UK, Spain, Italy, Poland, Bulgaria, Portugal, Albania, Croatia, Macedonia, Hungary, Romania, Lithuania.

These are just off the top of my head and these are ones who have, in writing, explicitly supported allied military action in Iraq even without UN sanction.

In addition to them there are the countries who would have supported military action if a second UN resolution had passed which includes: Czech, Estonia, Slovokia.

And those who are against or mostly against:
Germany, France, Belgium, Luxemberg, Netherlands.

The thing is, whether you are pro-US or anti_US, it shouldn't really matter. But somehow it does affect us. I find that sad. And then people tend to give qualifications to each other. In trade you get sanctioned or some other measures are taken. When we speak of freedom, there really isn't any because one always wants to have its way. There is the difficulty. Gee, this thread goes quick. We might get along perfectly well together Frogboy, and I think you are an easy going person, but somehow when our governments take different stances we might start shooting at each other. That's what I meant. I've seen it happening in former Yugoslavia. Just because of a different descent. It still isn't a stable country. The EU will not work if it will be dominated by Germany, France and UK. It will simply fall apart. With Europe I meant the western countries.

Paxx -- I'm sorry if my words upset you. But I can say that a large percentage of Americans feel the way I do or much more strongly. Since I have a lot of friends who are French (the net being a wonderful thing) my views are at least tempered by that.

But facts are facts. France's actions have consequences. In 1986 when France forbid use of its airspace by US F111's in striking Lybia, it may have cost one of our pilots his life (no one knows if not having to fly around France would have made a difference but I suspect it did). When it comes to fighting evil dictators, France seems to consistently be the one who resists that.

If the French don't like these facts, I can only suggest that they try to change their actions going into the future. The US is going to liberate Iraq and when it does, I suspect that we will hear horror stories that will make us all cringe. And what will you say then? What will France say to the Iraqi people who, if France had their way, would still be suffering under Saddam?

EU leaders are appointed. US Presidents are directly elected by the citizenry.

The Netherlands are not quite against the US. We have provided the anti-scud weaponry to Turkey. Netherlands government would not take part in military actions against Iraq, unless there is consensus in the UN. There isn't. We take part in military action in Afghanistan though. Even though we are a small country and highly outnumbered by the people of the US it should not make a difference when it comes to feeling powerful. I have yet to see a government that felt very powerful that would still be humble to its people.