Late entrant in Coalition of the Willing? Guess who. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/18/sprj.irq.france.chemicals/index.html France offers possible military assistance in the event Iraq uses chemical weapons.
US Intelligence, if you choose to believe them, has already reported that Iraq has been handing out chemicals to put in war heads
I thought the inspectors worked in disarming them, or they were working with the inspectors to disarm themselves, or whatever, the line was. I think their intentions are obvious. Especially with the "they should go back to the UN to assist with the rebuilding process" statement. If Iraq uses chemical or biological weapons then of course France's position will change as they would have been proven wrong. (I know not technically because they just wanted the inspectors to continue).
Re: Late entrant in Coalition of the Willing? Guess who. They can stay home and eat their f*ing brie. That's a chemical weapon unto itself.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1084093,00.html France has announced it could assist any US-led military coalition if Iraq uses chemical and biological weapons. The turnaround comes after strong French opposition to a war in Iraq, including threats to veto a UN Security Council resolution paving the way for armed conflict
Re: Re: Late entrant in Coalition of the Willing? Guess who. what? brie is some great stuff...michigan, makes sense. regardless. the general thought has to be that if saddam lauches chemical or biological attacks on the invading forces that the entire world is going to change their position on 'helping' out...for him to use illegal weapons <according to the geneva convention> will change things big time.
Per CNN, When asked why the situation would change matters, Levitte said that "no army is allowed by treaties to use chemical and biological weapons. This is absolutely forbidden and if Saddam Hussein were to use these weapons then he would a create a completely new situation for the whole world." As opposed to 12 years of breaking UN resolutions and agreements which France sees as permissable.
As the French might say, touché. Read between the lines, people. They'll help us if Iraq uses banned weapons, which the French really don't think Iraq has. Therefore, they're not really offering to help. They're basically saying that Bush is full of it. Nice one for Chirac. I'm going to drink a bottle of burgundy with dinner tonight in honor of France.
if chemical weapons are used and they have the ability to help, why would we not agree to their help? what b/c they didnt agreee with war to solve the problem of WMD? i don't really care...if they are willing to help and could lessen the burdon put upon this country i would welcome them in a somewhat limited capacity.
It's no surprise that Mssrs. Loney and Lastort take an open hypocrisy by the French ambassador and spin it as dry humor. That permits them to maintain clear black-and-white images of Bush and the anti-war members in the security council. Makes things nice and easy for small minds seeking a home. Yes - the ambassador publicly affirmed military support in the event of a potential human catastrophe, but he really meant it as a clever joke. That must be it.
The French committed political suicide. They know it. So they are trying to recover now by this ploy. When WMD is found or used they can then claim that they would have supported the action all along had they known Hussein had WMD. They will say that they simply did not know from the inspectors whether that was true, and since the US did not provide it - they did not feel compelled to support disarmament by force in theUN. Why do you think they are doing the Texas two step now? Because it is the dance of the weasel. They want to have it both ways - the leader of the EU (stand up to big bad USA) and a noble leader in the Security Council, and yet now they see they have really screwed the pooch.
Why won't the United States be asked why they didn't support disarmament by inspection? Exactly what was inaccurate about any of Hans Blix's presentations, again?
Tell me you are not this dense Dan? Please - you are giving me a headache. Do we have to go on this merry go round explaining the obvious once again?
because he failed to point out the major point - which was the previously documented WMD of anthrax etc. is unaccounted for and given the nature of the threat - that alone is enough evidence of material breach and reason to take immediate action. Not dance like a weasel.
Let's suppose that VX is found (or Sadaam uses it). Under these facts, why would you focus on whether the US withheld information? Iraq would then have agreed to an inspection regime and be shown to have actively not complied. You are always looking under the wrong rock for your dirt.
Those clever frogs. No matter how things turn out, they end up looking great. If Iraq has WMD and uses them, they look good for saying, "Hey, we're big enough to admit we were wrong and we're happy to help a friend out." If Iraq doesn't have WMD, they look good for opposing the war in the first place. The only way they don't end up looking good is if Iraq has WMD, but doesn't end up using them. Why that would happen, I don't know. But it's a possibility.
amazing huh If Iraq has WMD but doesn't use them - Joe and Dan will claim that validates the French position - that Bush lied and hid the evidence and that is why the French did not support us in the Security Council - but the fact that they did not use them proves that Hussein was not to have been feared all along - and that we should have stuck to disarmament by inspection, and should not have disarmed by force. See how twisted logic can be for some people.
Can I answer this post, or do you want a third try at answering? The threat of anthrax dating from the early 1990's is miniscule. We've been over this before, too. The idea that Blix withheld information has been proven - how's the best, most tactful and delicate way to put this - a bucket of clamshit.
then Bush is proven wrong. IF Saddam doesn't use them while going down, then he was never going to use them.