Chirac to Bush mind your own business!

squinney
More than 60% I believe did.

do you still support the invasion of iraq? even after discovering that bush planned on invading them before 9/11 and after declaring "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" after no WMD's were found?

P.S to be honest i dont really know much about world war II so just forget i said that

melbournian cheese
I do not now nor have I ever been supportive of the invasion of Iraq. I can not be counted among the noted 60%. I will however say now that we have we can not leave until we fix that which we have broken.

oh, righto then.

What is particularly telling with this story is that all of Europe is not telling Bush to butt out.

If Chirac did attempt to influence political affairs in North America, I feel quite certain that Canada, Mexico and the US would all tell him to butt out.

What this tells us is that, in the main, Europe realizes that the US plays a significant role in European politics, and yet Europe plays no role in North American politics.

How can this be?

Superficially, all of Europe should find Chirac's criticism appropriate, and yet there has not been an immediate echo from all of the European heads of state.

Why is this so?

The answer is simple. Europe depends upon the United States.

The US spends a ridiculous amount of its wealth on defense. This amount has created a defensive umbrella under which Europe can take comfort; without a significant contribution of Euros. Without a significant contribution of Euros, Europe has been able to maintain its welfare state society.

France has, since WWII, played the scoundrel's role. They have continuously thumbed their nose at the US while all the time realizing that with or without direct ties to the US, the defensive umbrella covered them as well.

One almost feels sorry for the so proud French. They can do nothing to stop the US, and so they content themselves with nipping at its heels, all the while considering their nips to be the mauling of the lion.

Equity would be served if a foe invaded France and we stood by and respected French wishes to not stick our noses in their business, but that will never happen, and the French know it.

Geo-politics depends upon quid pro quo. The US gets to stick its nose in the business of Europe because it provides Europe with something it values.

The US provides Europe with something it values because it believes it is in the best interest of the US to do so.

Imagine what the money the US spends on defending most of the world could do if spent within its own borders?

Europe is a remora on the underbelly of the American Great White.

If it had always been a remora, there would be no problem, but it once was at the top of the food chain and sometimes misses the big chunks of flesh.

A friend and ally of the Us? Where has he been for the last 60 years?France is a friend and ally to only one nation."France"



Chirac Avoids Criticizing U.S. on Iraq; Praises U.N. Role

By ELAINE SCIOLINO

Published: August 28, 2004



PARIS, Aug. 27 - Clearly the American election is on the mind of the president of France.

When President Jacques Chirac stood before his ambassadorial corps on Friday, there was no hint that the relationship between France and the United States had suffered one bit because of his fierce opposition to the American-led war in Iraq.

"The U.S. presidential election is due to take place in a few weeks' time," Mr. Chirac said toward the beginning of his speech.

"As a friend and ally of the United States for over two centuries now," he said, "France believes that, today and tomorrow, a balanced and dynamic trans-Atlantic partnership is essential to meet our common challenges."

He made no mention of either candidate, although it is no secret that he and President Bush are not at all close.

Nor did he criticize the war that overthrew Saddam Hussein last year, lavishing praise on the United Nations for restoring sovereignty to Iraq and portraying France as a participant in the process.

"France, which supported the restoration of a sovereign Iraq, fully integrated into its regional environment, wants to accompany it on its road to recovery," he said.

The Security Council resolution transferring authority to a new Iraqi government "commits us all to the same objective: namely the forming of a democratically elected government and return to civil peace in a unified Iraq," he added.

Mr. Chirac said nothing about the violence and terror in Iraq, except to say that the restoration of sovereignty was "merely the start of a long and what is proving to be an arduous and hazardous process. But at least we have embarked on it."

By contrast, at a news conference with Mr. Bush before their dinner at Élysée Palace to celebrate the 60th anniversary of D-Day in June, Mr. Chirac described Iraq as a place where "disorder prevails,'' adding that he did not share Mr. Bush's view that the liberation of Iraq from Mr. Hussein was comparable to the liberation of Europe from the Nazis.

"History does not repeat itself," he sniffed.

But Mr. Chirac is a thoroughly practical leader, and France was once one of Iraq's largest trading partners and arms suppliers.

So in his speech on Friday, Mr. Chirac said that "with a view to elections scheduled for early 2005," France was "open to dialogue with the Iraqi authorities on all subjects: the training of security forces, the debt and any other issue related to the reconstruction and well-being of the Iraqi people."

He added that to this end, he would hold talks in Paris early next month with his Iraqi counterpart, Ghazi al-Yawar.

Mr. Chirac has described Iraq as a "potentially rich country" despite its debt and said France would be willing to support what he called a substantial reduction in the Iraqi debt, but only about 50 percent. The United States, by contrast, has urged a 90 percent debt reduction for Iraq, while Japan and Britain favor about 80 percent.

Mr. Chirac has opposed giving NATO a meaningful role in training the country's military and police on the ground in Iraq.

France is not eager to see NATO personnel - perhaps including French troops - coming under United States command, nor does it want to further internationalize the current force in Iraq.

At a news conference at the summit meeting of the Group of 8 major industrial nations at Sea Island, Ga., in June, Mr. Chirac warned against the risks of NATO "meddling" in Iraq.

In his speech on Friday, he had harsh words for Iran, which has said it will resume producing parts for centrifuges used to enrich uranium. The enriched uranium can be used in nuclear reactors or nuclear weapons.

"Iran must imperatively understand that it is responsible for creating the conditions for confidence on the part of the international community, in particular by respecting its commitment to suspend enrichment," he said.

Still, Mr. Chirac is eager to salvage an agreement that France, Germany and Britain made with Iran last year in which Tehran pledged to allow stricter inspections of nuclear sites and to suspend production of enriched uranium.

But Iran has accused the trio of breaking its part of the bargain by failing to end the International Atomic Energy Agency's investigations of its nuclear activities and not providing Iran with the advanced technology it said it had been promised.

Without mentioning the Bush administration, Mr. Chirac delivered a scathing criticism of the absence of a negotiating process to bring peace between Israelis and Palestinians, saying, "It is essential that the international community assume its responsibilities, that it acknowledge the disastrous results of its inaction."

And without mentioning Israel, he criticized its policies in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, saying, "Occupation and settlements are unacceptable and must stop."

Very true. In fact France has never been an ally of the U.S. The support that King Louis XVI provided to the American Revolution was only a (relatively) cheap way for France to pursue its very serious struggle with England. (Even that brought the already strained finances of the French government to ruin.) Although some Frenchmen were sympathetic to the goals of the American Revolution, the motivation of the monarchist French government that dispatched Rochambeau and de Grasse to aid our revolution were entirely of opposition to England.

Soon after the French Revolution (which was of an entirely different character from ours) the new United States found itself in an undeclared commercial and Naval War against both the French and the English. Later a cash-strapped Napoleon sold us the Louisiana Territiry after realising he could not keep it in the face of British naval supremacy, and expressly to keep it out of the hands of the British.

Fifty or so years later the French put an army in Mexico in a foolish attempt to export European monarchy to the Americas, on our southern border.

The French and the other European powers got themselves into World War I, a horribly destructive war fought for -- almost nothing at all. Desperate to save themselves from ruin, the French and British suddenly discovered great bonds of affection for us (and the soldiers and munitions we could provide), and propogandized us into a war in which we had no real interest. The gullible Woodrow Wilson was completely flummoxed by Lloyd George and Clemenceau at Versailles, and a ghastly 'peace' ensued, which merely set the stage for both WWII and the eventual eruption of the Middle East and the Moslem world - issues with which we are dealing now. (with no help from France)

During WWII the French copped out and actively accomodated the Nazis in continental Europe and their North African posessions. In the invasion of North Africa in 1943, we took several thousands of casualties fighting the Vichy French forces who opposed our landings. It suited us to pretend the French were our strong allies, and give them both a zone of occupation in Germany and a seat on the UN Security Council, merely to prevent a Communist government in France during the early Cold War. Instead of intelligently and progressively disestablishing her colonial empire after WWII, the French, who sat out the German occupation, suddenly found the will to fight. 1947 saw French colonial wars in Syria, Algeria, Indochina, and equatorial Africa. Stung by their failure in these colonial wars the French quit the military arm of NATO, and kicked NATO forces out of their French bases in the '60s at a particularly dangerous phase of the Cold War.

France has never been the ally of the United States and is hardly even a friend.

But according to a recent Economist story, they were a very positive influence on the way Americans cook. À la longue, these things affect Americans much more than the boring question who goes to war with whom.

As for the topic of the thread: I wonder what American presidents might anwer if Cuba applied to join the United States and the president of France urged him to accept.

mirth...speaking of which, Chirac should urge the vacating of Gitmo...that'd stir things up.

I generally agree. There is much more cultural affinity between France and the United States than there is, or ever has been, political. Indeed the two peoples share many attributes: both put themselves at the center of things; believe the world should speak as they do; and both when discussing universal things usually have only themselves in mind. In many ways, of all Europeans, the French are more like Americans than any other. Perhaps that explains the political disaffection that has been evident for so long, and which I believe will endure.

With respect to your analogy to Cuba - I think we would hardly notice the comment. We get a good deal of advice from Europe and have long since tuned much of it out of our hearing. It is interesting that the sensitivities on such issues are so out of balance on the two sides of the Atlantic. I recall that at the start of the Bush administration when it was first announced that we would not attempt to regulate CO2 and would not support Kyoto, the EU Environmental Minister (some Swedish Brunhilda) immediately came storming over here, full of righteous indignation to set us on the right path.

The question of Turkey's alignment (or lack of it) with Europe is, in view of the history of the 20th century, an issue in which we and the European powers have a long-standing mutual interest,

He would laugh.