I'm Sorry

France wasn't even a staunch ally to France.

Vichy....

French government is totally dependent on its Muslim voters. If nothing changes regarding her immigration policies, too lenient toward the North Africans, the Sixth Republic will be Islamic. How can France be a staunch ally of the USA?

Excuse me, but I thought the United States "saved" the French from the German attacks in WWII. Then, following that war, I thought the United States contributed massive amounts of money to rebuild Germany.

I am sorry if my history is incorrect. I didn't know that France and Germany were enemies of the United States. Now, I am Able2know.

Thank you all for setting the record straight . . . and you did it ever so kindly, too. I have learned so much :wink: :wink: :wink:

Even in the France of today, Muslim immigrants and their children are a relatively small minority. On the net, using Google, you'll find figures of 3-5 million Muslims - on a population of some 60 million. You'll find the figure of 7%. Even the National Catholic Reporter, cannot offer more than that "some estimates" hold that "one in four residents of France will practice Islam" - in another twentyfive years. To suggest that "the Sixth Republic will be Islamic" is therefore mere rhetorics.

In terms of voter-dependence, Chirac's main concern surely is Jean-Marie Le Pen, the extreme right, anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic but also strongly anti-Muslim populist who came in a surprising second in the last presidential elections with some 18% of the vote, not the Muslim immigrants.

If France comes out against the US on this, it won't be b/c it's under the influence of Muslims. It wil have enough reasons of its own.

Well, yeah, right, williamhenry. But do we neen allies we only see when they've got a hand out?

So much is uncontestedly and universally clear. The sad thing about this world is that in principle, at least until the precedent war over Kosovo, nobody cares what a dictator does against population groups in his 'own' country. The US traditionally doesn't either, and didn't in Iraq's case. At the time Hussein was gassing the Kurds, the US was providing him with arms - Rumsfeld himself had an important role in that.

Personally I do think potential genocide by a dictator against his own population (after the example of Pol Pot) or against minorities among his population (too many examples) should constitute a casus belli. In that respect I can imagine an argument for war against Iraq, too - but that is not very relevant here, as that is not the reason why the Bush administration wants to go in, at all, and will thus not determine much of the shape and results of the intervention, either.

The reason they give is, formally, his access to WMD and willingness to use them to do harm beyond his country's borders, and connected with that, the implied equation of Hussein and Bin Laden, an equation that most Americans - and few Europeans - seem to have bought in to. At the moment, evidence on the WMD is still pending while on the Bin Laden connection there is no evidence whatsoever.



To Iran? That is highly unlikely to say the least. Iraq and Iran are mortal enemies, and the recent, near-decade-long war between them is still commemorated every year in Iran. They have nothing in common, history nor religion (Iran is shi-ite, Iraq sunnite), and least of all political interests. Iran is on the US's hitlist too (with even less proportional cause), and has way too much at stake now to draw attention to itself. Iran is also in a process of complex, precarious democratic reform and neither of the rivals in that process could use such an extra complication. Iran does potentially have something to gain by Iraq's downfall, as a large shi-ite minority in Iraq is more or less loyal to Iran.



I'd agree that Bin Laden and his supporters are "hell bent on destroying Western civilization", no need to defend that argument (it's the argument where and how they've come to attract such a huge following across Arabia that's more complex), just - what's it gotto do with Saddam?

Concrete ties have not been proven, even the Bush-government isn't seriously trying to sell the rest of the world that argument anymore - it merely served its purpose of redirecting the anger and patriotism of his own population to Saddam as the new target, now that Osama has proven to be unfindable.

Neither do they share some kind of common historical struggle against the West. No love lost between the nationalist, originally socialist dictator in whose country God is written with a smaller capital than Saddam, and the pan-Arabic Muslim fighters, with their vocal criticism of current regimes, their roots and funders in (US ally and Iraq enemy) Saudi-Arabia and their bases in Afghanistan or Yemen.

I don't know about that, nimh. Towards the end of the gulf war, when it became painfully apparant that Iraq could do nothing in the air except sacrifice fighters, they moved them to Iran. Relations between the two were hardly more cordial then than now.

So far as WMD are concerned, the burden of proof is now on Iraq. They have yet to meet it.

Nimh, Le Pen is not an anti-Semite. He is not concerned with Jewish presence in France, since the local Jews are in general loyal citizens with French as a mother tongue, they are not involved in terror, and they do not try to change the cultural pattern of the country. Their only difference from the "Arian" Frenchmen is that they attend synagogues, and not Catholic temples, but the modern anti-Semitism in Europe bears rather racial than religious nature.
Le Pen has ideologic dispute with a group of influential liberal French politicians and media people of Jewish origin, and they depict him as a neo-Nazi, while he is not. He simply wants France to retain its French character (I guess, it is quite a legitimate goal: unlike the USA or Israel, France is not an immigrants' country by its origin).
About percentage of Arab voters: 4-7% may be quite enough to change the balance in favor of any of the alternative candidates. And since France is not a purely bi-partisan country, influence of any ethnic group may be sufficient. Birth rate among the people from the North Africa is much higher than this of Frenchmen, both Christian and Jewish; influx of the Muslim immigrants from the former French colonies continues, and some day they may constitute a very sufficient part of the French population. If their percentage in general population exceeds 10-15 percent, then some undesirable and irreversible changes may occur in the political system of the country. Of course, Islamic Republic of France was a kind of exaggeration of mine, but Lebanization of the political scene cannot be totally excluded. I want to remind that 50-70 years ago Christians were a majority in Lebanon...
I think that if Le Pen won the recent French elections, then it would be possible to get France as a staunch ally of the USA in the Iraqi war case. It would be enough to guarantee certain participation of the French companies in distribution of the post-war Iraqi oil, and French troops would even directly take part in the war.

I'm ringing the bell on agreement with nimh's most recent post. It synthesizes beautifully everything i've heard and learned.

Assuming that western forces go into Iran and dispose of Saddam, what happens then ? Do we put a puppet in charge, who hands out gas/oil permits whilst it suits him or do we turn it into a western society clone and everyone lives as if they were in NYC or London or Sydney and are ruled accordingly .
The whole culture at all levels, begins to change radicaly once you are south of the Alps. You can't impose western culture or beliefs on Asian or African society at the snap of the fingers or a Senate/CIA decree. The British found that out, as did the French, Russian and American Govs., in many blood filled streets of death. Saddam plays his own game and he's not for quitting. Sending in a million hi-tech troops will only stall things. The Ogre will rise in some place like a Phoenix from the ashes of hate.
Do we want another Korea or Vietnam stretching out in front of us. And if anyone does, don't forget, they get to play in your back yard as well as you in theirs. None of us will be fireproof.

IraQ! For Chrissakes, if "we" are gonna invade the country because we assume to know all about what's good for them, at least we could get the names of the countries right.

I'm sorry, oldandknew, that wasn't targeted personally at all, and I did read on to note that you actually oppose the war. But after reading one internet forum thread on this thing too many, I get pretty darn freaked out at so many people on their high horse argueing for and against war, who assume to know all about what these cultures there are like, what is good for them, what they really want or what will never work with them, who can't even tell the countries apart the right way around! Cause you sure ain't the first to make the "typo".

That very observation alone would make me oppose war, for better have people pass by on war out of ignorance than go into it out of ignorance.

A concern few voice is the clear, evidenced, and continuing danger Saddam presents to minorities and opponents among his own people and to his neighbors. By any definition, Iraq is a Rogue State, and many of her Leaders, not exclusively Saddam, are guilty of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity at the present time, regardless of US/UN/Iraq disputes currently ongoing. These thugs must be brought to account.

As far as UNR 1441 goes, I see it as another in a string of 16 previous Resolutions in over a decade which Iraq has flouted with impunity. Resolutions, all with explicit or implied "Serious Consequences", have done nothing but grant Saddam time. I feel strongly Iraq has had more than enough time, and has damned itself many times over.

That there are other problems in the world is immaterial and irrelevant. That this matter is being addressed in lieu of other problems is of no consequence either. It is a problem which must be dealt with, and among the many problems, as meritorious of resolution as any other. If Saddam does not bow to pressure and step aside, he should in my opinion be swept aside.

One less problem to deal with frees resources to deal with other problems, ans if one doesn't start somewhere, one will never start anywhere. I would prefer to avoid war. If Saddam prefers to not avoid war, I say get it on, get it over, and move on. Saddam has a bit of time left. I imagine he will waste that time, and find himself confronted with yet another "Final Opportunity". I sincerely hope world patience for granting him "Final Opportunities" runs out soon. Obviously, Saddam does not consider stern words to be "Severe Consequences".

We are wasting time and resources we could be devoting to other problems.



timber

timber, I will believe everything you've said if the job continues after Saddam is gone. If the US and it's puppets (Britain and Australia) go after Mugabe or someone similar then your argument may hold water.

At the moment though it's about as solid as a tea strainer.

Actually, on a theoretic level I agree with you, timber - I'm not again intervention per se, and I don't believe in the two classic non-interventionist arguments either, which I tend to simplify into a) "not us, then not them either" (i.e., nothing's done about [name favourite victimised people], so you're not allowed to do anything about this either, cause that would be hypocritical) and b) "you (the US) are not allowed to do anything, period, cause you were so bad in the past". Worst is when they are combined: "when your dictatorial allies in Latin America were on the rampage, you stood by, so now you're not allowed to act against Milosevic either". I'd be quite pragmatic about it: use any opportunity of a great-power consensus when one of the most brutal dictators has gotten too out of hand to have him be taken out. And I wouldn't mind at all if in the end we have some kind of global intervention force, that is able to take out those most brutal of dictators even if it is in random order.

One problem with that force however would be that I, for one, wouldnt at all be as reassured by it if it acted on the orders of one state solely, on the basis of its own particular interests (the US). With which apprehension we come to the problem with intervening in Iraq. Because there is no consensus on that. Thus far, the Czech Republic is the only non-Anglo country to openly come out behind Bush on this. Which neatly brings me back to the way you phrase it: if it is, indeed, "among the many problems, as meritorious of resolution as any other", why would one insist on doing this one, out of the many that are as meritorious, so single-mindedly when it is abundantly clear that it will provoke a torrent of rage throughout the Arab world, and drastically boost distrust and unease about the US in the rest of the developing world and even Europe?

I would also like Saddam to "be swept aside", by force if need be, but not at all costs. The end goal should be making the world a safer place, not a more hostile place. It's a question of picking your fights. Saddam doesnt deserve the loyalty of other Arabs and he wouldn't have it if his fate wasn't so starkly becoming the symbol of a seemingly autistic American hell-bent determination on this, and only this, specific topic. Focus the force of UN-backed American power on some of those other problems that are "as meritorious of resolution", then come back to Iraq with more credibility and without arousing the global-wide resentment and suspicion that Bush Jr's one-track mind pigheadedness is arousing now.

In fact, I've got a novel idea: take out Osama and Al-Quaeda, and rout his funders and backers in Saudi-Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan and even Afghanistan still, first. With the added benefit that the resentment over a perceived American crusade against a country which, unlike Osama, hasn't actually harmed it, can't strengthen the armies of said Osama anymore.

All that apart from Wilso's point about how an intervention only yields a positive net result in the long-term if the follow-up's done properly, too, and the Bush government has thus far shown extremely little interest in that part of the solution.

Wilso, a brilliant idea about Mugabe. If the insane Black African dictators will know that they may be forcefully replaced, then the real chance will appear of improvement of quality of governments in this part of world. I do not mean even any democratic regimes; let them be autocratic, but led by sane and civilized leaders. And without such a process no aid to the continent trying to survive the total systemic collapse will be efficient.
I hope, Mugabe will join Saddam in the hell some day.

"Iraq, Iran, I speak very fluent Spanish.
Everybody got a thang,
but some don't know how to handle it..."

Ahh, Little Stevie!

>...Thus far, the Czech Republic is the only non-Anglo country to openly come out behind Bush on this.

Also Poland, Spain, Italy and some others. Who are against the war besides France and Germany - Russia, China, Cuba, Lybia, Iran. Will Shiraq and Shreder ever see what allies they found?

>The end goal should be making the world a safer place, not a more hostile place.

Do you think that the UN do the world secured? These marginals have already discredited themselves in all possible ways. Just remember who is their main human rights defender now. What position are they going to defend Iraq from? Basing on ideas of humanism and human rights? Don't you see it ridiculous if Putin after his actions in Chechnya teaches America to be humanist?

I still can understand a question "whether to begin the war or not?" but "whether to find the UN's permission?" is absolutely ununderstandable for my poor brains. The UN is a ratty batch of Marxists and all other kindes of crazy American haters with not so little salaries :wink: guided by China. It has had no respection, power or authority for ages. What hell does America have to subordinate it's interests to China? If so may be it's better to add suitable amendment to the American constitution or to include Chinesse representatives to the Congress? IMHO it would be cheaper than to spend American dollars for this nut-box.

Docent, can you give some evidence for your assertion that the UN "is a bunch of Marxists guided by China"?

I am not sure that China is the only leader in the UN, but it is difficult to ignore the general "anti-imperialist" (euphemism used to cover anti-Americanism) spirit of this organization... Anti-American bias was established there by the USSR and her satellites, but it remains after 01.01.92, becoming even more malignant under influence of Islam and corrupt Third World leaders. Chiraq and Shröder try to use the general spirit reigning in the UN for some local tactical purpose, but in future, anti-First World spirit of the UN may affect interests of their countries as well.