The US presence in Iraq, how long?

Frank, We all know that the US is guilty of a whole lot of **** in international politics and war. To make things clear, I never supported the US war against Iraq. Now, let's get back to the question at hand; "It's one thing for France to be against any preemptive attack on Iraq, but quite another to share confidence with a tyrant like Saddam." What do you think? We are talking about the present. If you wish to make claims about how the US has mislead the world community to this preemptive strike against Iraq - that's fine. Don't assume I'm in support of the US policies. c.i.

Do we know for sure that France has done this? Aren't we just as sure (evidence exists) that the US most other countries do this all the time? Iraq is/was not France's enemy. Hell, it wasn't even our enemy until it became convenient to so name that friend-in-trade.

Our government has behaved so badly that there aren't many people left, here in the US and abroad, who actually believe them. Every "barrel containing chemicals," every scrap of document "found at the ministry" needs to be examined thoroughly by an independent, international group.

The pattern is emerging: we call someone enemy; we find "evidence" to support our claim, only we don't show that evidence "for security reasons." In first grade I'd already dealt with kids who did that sort of thing. I wonder if Jeb isn't sitting there down in Florida thinking, "Hey, ol' Georgie used to try to pull that stuff with me!"

Tartar, Good point; we first need to 'verify' that France betrayed our trust and confidence, and we should wait for that verification. However, the question was posed as a "what if?" At what point does the US have the right to retaliate, and what is justified 'if' what was claimed by the Guardian is true? c.i.

ci,

What if? What if what? What is out of the ordinary? They think the war is unjustified and their actions support this. We do much more drastic things when we feel they are justified.

This is enough to prove treacherous behavior of France. If Mr. Bush considered it being necessary to inform Saddam on the contents of his talks with the French president, then Americans would inform Saddam themsleves. Any talks between statesmen of such a rank as Messrs. Bush and Chirac have confidential part that must not be transferred to the third party, and France deliberately did the latter thing. This was done not by some privately operating French pacifist, but by the official representative of the France in Iraq. France has abused the American trust, and it must pay for this heavy price.

Bull. Confidential talks are passed on all the time.

When the US tried to plant bugs in China's version of "Air Force One" China played nice, they didn't whine about treachery.

"See, it's not treacherous to do what we want but it's treacherous to do what we don't want."

Another item for the all time dumbest thinking list.

steissd

Any idea for the use of diplomats in foreign countries?

This was not a treason. It was an espionage. PRC has never been America's ally, hence it cannot be betrayed by the USA.
Diplomats are used for representing interests of their countries; the French ambassador in Iraq could inform Mr. Hussein on position of his bosses ( the French Secretary of State and President), but Mr. Bush did not authorize the French ambassador to inform Saddam about American administration approach. French could, at least, ask American permission, if they considered it necessary doing this.

This certainly gives a new meaning to the word "confidential", doesn't it?

This certainly gives a new meaning to the word "confidential", doesn't it?

treachery is the baseline of All politics for every nation.

roger,

No it doesn't. Unless one is new to the world of geopolitics.

Let's put it this way: If the US believes it should act exclusively according to its own interests, why shouldn't France? or China? or South Africa? or Colombia? or Chile?

dys, I guess all nations must accept that any confidential information shared with allies can be transferred to a enemy without consequences. Boy, what a crazy world we live in. Since we do it and everybody else does it, don't expect anything to remain confidential. c.i.

Ci -- Most of the time diplomats are very careful and when they pass on information, no matter how "secret" it might seem, it is done deliberately. Intended leaks.

LOL