Jean-Marc Chaton wrote: > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Mon, 31/03/2003 at 21:44 -0500] > > It is true that the indefensible position > > of the French (no war ever no matter what) made things more difficult. > > It was not the position of France. It was 'no war as long as progresses > were made'
Two problems with that: 1) Without firm criteria for "progress", *anything* can be stretched to be defined as progress, and Iraq could maintain its passive-aggressive blocking of the inspections forever. 2) When the US/Britain tried to create a verfiable set of tests for compliance, France rejected them outright, immediately, even before Iraq did, because they had a specified consequence for failure. France then said they would veto any UN measure that had war as a consequence or set a deadline. So, as you say, France's position is 'no war as long as progresses were made'. But France refused to even set an ultimatum or deadline or condone any talk of war, so we can translate this to "no deadlines, no consequences, no war as long as progress is made". Combine that with there being no firm definition of " progress", and a refusal to define a set of clear tests of compliance, and France's stance then effectively becomes "no war no matter what". _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
