http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...&u=/nm/20030403/wl_nm/iraq_france_raffarin_dc "The Americans made a triple mistake: First of all a moral mistake, I think ... there was an alternative to war. We could have disarmed Iraq differently," Raffarin said in an interview on France 3 television. "Also, (they made) a political mistake, because we know very well the difficulties of this region of the world," he added. "And then, there is a strategic mistake: this idea that today one country can lead the world."
Sardinia/bim bom: The French have no credibility in the U.S. And why should they? Although I must say that I don't see where Chirac had much choice but to oppose the war, given that he risked political disaster from the Islamic backlash that would have occurred in what used to be France but is now an extension of North Africa. Antoninus
I guess this means I don't have any credibility either, I'm 1/30th French Hugonaut. Does this count towards my street cred too? Maybe I should call Snoop and Pdiddy to see what they think. I know Big Boi and Andre 3000 will agree with me!
Now you dont have any credibility I don't believe it me too. I wanted to be ironic... in italian credibility = credibilità, believe = credo, same root. In other words: You said you and everyone else won't believe me and I replied that I didn't believe you. ps this is the problem with thinking in italian.
We made 2 big mistakes, one was liberating France from Germanys control in WW1. The next was liberating France from Germanys control in WW2. Evidently France likes being Germanys bitch. Next time France bends over to Germany, and you never know it may happen again. Let France get out of it themselves.
Knee-Jerk Idiocy To rebuke the quote by Raffarin, so-called conservatives here would have to be actually submitting the following: (1) It was morally correct start a war with Iraq. Okay, I can see - however incorrect the notion - how so-called conservatives would try to argue this (2) It was politically correct to start a war with Iraq. Not a chance. (3) Strategically, the US CAN run the world, by itself! When you jump up and shout "NO!" just because someone with whom you currently disagree says "YES!" you subject yourself to looking stupid...
Re: Knee-Jerk Idiocy What's funny about you is the way you insist on carrying on arguments with yourself. This was much more effective when you used your...nevermind.
and how would you have 'disarmed them different' mister raffarin? they had 12 years of sanctions and that didn't effect the regimes willingness to give inspectors free range in their country, instead they blamed the sanctions of the 'evil' countries. yea, this part of the world is a powder keg...we all know it and he is saying this should be a reason to not remove saddam and his WMD? correct? one country? are we seriously gonna take over the world? if so, i want dibs of the italian rivera.
"The Americans made a triple mistake: First of all a moral mistake, I think ... there was an alternative to war. We could have disarmed Iraq differently," Raffarin said in an interview on France 3 television. "Also, (they made) a political mistake, because we know very well the difficulties of this region of the world," he added. "And then, there is a strategic mistake: this idea that today one country can lead the world." 1. If there is a moral mistake to be made related to this conflict it would have been to wait longer and try to disarm Iraq through weapons inspectors like the UN had tried over the last decade. Husseins time has come and despite the other reasons attached to this war, it is a good thing for the Iraqi people to be freed from his rule. 2. I don't think it was a political mistake as much as a political risk...a very big risk...that has not been handled as it should. 3. One country could, in theory, lead the world. Government of all kinds have a single top leader. I mean, the buck has to stop somewhere. But to be fair, the US has tripped over the word 'diplomacy' so many times in the last year that its 'I've fallen and I can't get up' buttom is out of batteries.
a) Moral - Saddam very very bad, Iraq people liberated. Would not have happened without war. b) Political - I agree that it is a political risk, but not a mistake. It is only a mistake if we can't find anything WMD related. We look really bad politically if that happens. c) Strategic - Even if I grant him the argument that one country can't run the entire world, what about 2? I mean we do have Britian with us. We get China its all over. Our technology, their population = world victory. So I think it takes three countries to rule the entire world.
This argument ticks me off. If you want to bring up history to make some idiotic point, then go full at it. France helped this nation immensely when we were just starting out, and without them, we wouldn't be here today. Pointing out history to bash or bolster a country's rep is asinine. Whatever your opinions on France, this diplomat made 3 very key and interesting points. If you're argument has any merit whatsoever, you can argue those points, and not the person delivering them.
The moral argument is the biggest one up for debate, and that one is all over every Iraq thread right now, so I won't waste bandwidth here on aspect #1 While that may be part of what he was saying, I don't believe that was his main point when he was talking about the political area. The middle east is a powder keg, and this is one big thing that hasn't been mentioned much. After the war, suppose a democratic government is set up? It'll be surrounded by the same hectic environment. It'll be the new target of choice for terrorists. Short of "liberating" the whole area, Iraq isn't a place that can be held safely or easily. It's taking a hill you can't hope to keep. This is the political error. The comment was that one country can't lead the world, not run the world. History shows us that, at least for a finite period of time, one nation can indeed run the world, but they can't lead it. Multiple viewpoints are essential for successful governance. This is one of the reasons the Bush admin fails so miserably in foreign affairs. They truly think our way is the only way. That ignorance is reflected by a large portion of the US population as well. We can force our way down the world's throat, but we can't make them swallow. That's the point he was making here. BTW, it's interesting you love China so much. Their track record for human rights violations is nearly as bad as Iraq's.
This is for you superdave 1.Moral mistake? An alternative to war.. yes that would be what we have been engaged in for the last 12 years. It involves being lead around on a leash by Saddam, while he continues to stockpile illegal weapons.But thankfully, we all know France's clear and defined stance on this issue... Jean Villepen says: "we know inspections can not go on forever." Jean Villepen later says: "we will not tolerate an ultimatum or deadline for the inspections. We believe this undermines the movement for peace." Please, i felt like i was being lead around in circles by both Iraq and France. So was it a moral mistake? Not in the least. 2. A political mistake? No, not the case. "We know the difficulties of the region." Yea, you're right guy;since it will be difficult we should just not do anything. We should just avoid doing anything difficult from now on. Please, with more and more Iraqis welcoming us with a wave, it is becoming harder and harder for the Arab media to find stuff for their front page. Sure, you can say anti americanism is being stirred up. But not in Iraq; more like Syria aka Mini Iraq (not advocating we attack Syria.) Look, there are going to be places where we are hated. But Syria has not liked us since......i don't even remember. I guess in between failed attempts to invade Israel, Syria has has found a national identity like that of Saddam's Iraq. Jordan is not a great place to be, but is sure is better than it was in the 60's or 70's. I view Jordan as a tolerant player. One who may not like what we're doing, but one who isn't going to do anything drastic. The Saudis, are well, the Saudis. Unpredictable as ever. Basically, what we're doing might raise everyones blood pressure, and we might create some new terrorist enemies. But weren't we guranteed that we would meet waves of "Muslim" volunteer fighters in Afghanistan? Sure, some did come, and they got killed. And then the volunteers stopped coming. This is how you defeat radical islamists. Radical Islam finds its power in the use of terror. With the barracks bombing in Lebanon, R.I scared the crap out of us, so we tucked tail and ran. This only furthered the radical movement;giving it an air of invunerability. It feeds on fear. The only way to defeat it to stand up to it, and kill it. In Afghanistan, we did just that. We stood up and took on these "muslim" fighters from Pakistan, and by chewing them up, we sent a message that we are not intidated by them anymore. We will do the same here. We might have to take on some Syrians or some Jordanians, but after word of their prompt death reaches back home, the US becomes someone they won't want to deal with. We can quell the fires of anti americanism by simply having a strong, but purposeful prescence there. We can also further this cause by helping the Iraqis as best we can with food, water, and medicine. Don't forget that alot of Arabs appreciate what we are doing. Jordan and Syria are not the Arab World. 3. There is a big difference between one country leading the world, and one country controlling it. I would argue we HAVE been leading the world since the end of WWII. We have lead it as best as anyone could, making more good decisons than bad ones. We have promted politcal freedom via democracy, and we also lead the free world against communism. We are, and have been, the stabilizing force in this world. France has to stop huffing and get over the fact that they arn't a major player anymore. Besides, i'm pretty sure they were grateful for our leadership back when we pumped billions into france to save it from communism, and when we guarded them from the Soviet Union. I don't think they were whining about America being a "leader" of the world then. I believe we will continue to lead the world in the fight against terrorism; terrorism that threatens everyone, not just western nations. Also, we will continue to promote democracy in the 21st century. There, i hope i was able do a decent job, becuase some claim i am not capable of adressing the issues. Sorry it got long there, but i wanted to put a lot of my thoughts down on paper.
Re: Re: French PM: U.S. Made Triple Mistake with War "they were whining about America being a "leader" of the world then" Call it whatever you want,"whine" about it if you wish, but at least be aware of it: http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org/en/books_art/fiches_t/cdg_otan.htm
Re: Re: Re: French PM: U.S. Made Triple Mistake with War That's just about France's problems with NATO. Notice how DeGaulle supported the Marshall plan, along with taking shelter under the American nuclear umbrella.