--- Jean-Marc Chaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think France, as the broad majority of the > council, was agreeing with > the necessity of a verifiable set of compliance > tests, with the presence > of a deadline (which length was under discussion) > and the presence of > the threat of military action. This was a > considerable step forward. > The thing France didn't want was the automaticity of > the start of a war > as a mere consequence of a grammatical conjunction. > France wanted the > security council, i.e. humans beeings to convene > formally and declare > the start of military action.
If that were true, it would have proposed some of those tests. Instead it rejected the tests proposed by the British unconditionally. If France's position really was in favor of putting pressure on Iraq, why did it: 1. Oppose all attempts by the US to do so? and 2. Not send its own troops to the Middle East to increase the pressure? At least one major reason that Saddam didn't cooperate was France's decision to split the council and weaken all attempts to put pressure on him. If France's intentions were what you say, it's actions would have been essentially the exact opposite of what they were. > But the United States rejected it outright, > immediately, even before > Iraq did. Because we, correctly, believed that France was negotiating in bad faith. France lied to us about 1441. It opposed every attempt to put pressure on Iraq. There was no reason - none at all - to believe anything other than that this was yet another attempt to defer pressure into the future, so that when the US finally did lose patience and invade, the American and Iraqi casualties would be still higher. > > I still think it was a valid point of view, even if > one disagrees, I mean > not indefensible. Are you sure you don't confuse > yourself with Germany > position (no war no matter what) ? > > Jean-Marc Actually, Germany's point of view was far more defensible. Germany essentially was saying - no war under any circumstances, we don't care, we're pacifists. France was basically saying - no war to topple a genocidal dictator with weapons of mass destruction who sponsors terrorists against the United States, but wars to protect, say, French economic interests in Africa, those are okay. One of the two positions is foolish, the other malign. Gautam __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
