how much farther can they go?...

[frenchbread]

Powell: France Must Face Consequences

By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell is warning France it faces consequences for trying to block the U.S.-led war with Iraq, and Bush administration officials are exploring ways to exclude France from some NATO meetings.

A senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Wednesday the recommendations would be based on the notion that the U.S.-French relationship must be altered.

Potential punishments were discussed Monday at a meeting of top assistants to Powell, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser.

These could include excluding France from meetings with U.S. allies and bypassing the North Atlantic Council, of which France is a member.

Bypassing the council, NATO's governing body, could mean excluding France from U.S. deliberations with European and Canadian allies because France is not a member of NATO's Defense Planning Committee, where the talks would be shifted.

Such a step was taken in February, when NATO convened the little-used committee to get around French opposition and break a stalemate about protecting Turkey from possible retaliatory attacks by neighboring Iraq in case of war.

The issues of whether NATO peacekeepers would go into Iraq and whether they would look for hidden weapons may also become matters for this committee, said a State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Powell, in a PBS interview Tuesday night, said there would be consequences for France's opposing the United States in the United Nations. He described it as "a very difficult period," but did not say what the administration had in mind.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said on Wednesday that "it's more than philosophical. Potentially, it will affect how some decisions are made in the future."

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said France's opposition to the war "has put a strain on the relationship and that's a consequence that was paid."

In the end, Bush believes the two countries and two people have common values and that the alliance will continue, Fleischer said.

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin telephoned Powell Wednesday while traveling in the Middle East, Boucher said. Among the issues they discussed were sanctions against Iraq.

The United States proposes eliminating them as an unnecessary burden on Iraqis people now that Saddam Hussein and his government have been toppled. France favors suspending the sanctions, which Boucher said implies that could be reimposed.

"Sanctions should be lifted," Boucher said. "The president said that. It should be ended. And we need to get together and talk about how to do that."

On the overall relationship, Boucher "having had disagreements like this in our relationship doesn't change the fact that we are allies."

de Villepin said en route to Iran that France would continue to uphold its principles. "Throughout the Iraq crisis, France, along with a very large majority of the international community, acted in conformity with its convictions and its principles to defend international law," he said.

"It will continue to do so in all circumstances," the French official said.

Powell outlined in the PBS interview how de Villepin tried to block a second U.N. resolution approving the use of force to disarm Iraq.

Powell said the French foreign minister went to the three African countries that had votes on the Security Council — Angola, Cameroon and Gabon — to get their votes against the resolution.

Powell said he countered with telephone calls before each of de Villepin's three stops "making sure that he did not get" the three votes.

Still, the resolution did not come to a vote. "France said there's nothing you can write that we wouldn't veto," Powell said.

France's veto threat would defeat any resolution. France favored extending U.N. weapons inspections instead of using force. Germany and Russia also opposed war with Iraq.

The United States and Britain went to war anyhow, relying for legal authority on a resolution approved unanimously by the U.N. Security Council in November that threatened Iraq with serious consequences if it kept defying disarmament resolutions.

incredible...

so now, if you don't vote like the u.s. gov't wants you to on any international council: they're taking you out...

if possible, they'll take you out of that council...

your country can have a sit at that table as long as they're going to vote like the u.s. gov't wants them to...

and we're the champion of democracy?...

that's dictatorship...that's dictating your will to others...

i wonder how long it will be until the u.s. gov't declares france a terrorist nation...

after all, the rest of the world belongs to the u.s.a. doesn't it?...isn't it like it like a protectorate or something?...

[sassa]

i agree, it is bullshit...and interesting, considering the fact that france was one of nato's first members...

[igloo]

Is there no end to the stupidity that pours from the two of you....

[Drunk]

So France has the right to use its political muscle by attempting to sway international opinion on a second UN resolution, but the United States doesn't have the right to use ITS political influence to treat France as a political pariah. Please. Go cry me a river and drown in it.

[ghhhhhost]

Originally posted by igloo

Is there no end to the stupidity that pours from the two of you....

say something intellingent for once

[frenchbread]

Originally posted by Drunk

So France has the right to use its political muscle by attempting to sway international opinion on a second UN resolution, but the United States doesn't have the right to use ITS political influence to treat France as a political pariah. Please. Go cry me a river and drown in it.

how is that comparable?...

it's one thing to try to influence people to vote like/for you...

it's a completely different thing to eliminate the person to make sure nobody can vote like/for them...

you don't see the difference?...

france: we don't agree we'll vote no

u.s.a.: you didn't agree, we'll make sure you can never vote again

and that's the same thing for you?...

the u.s. is basically saying: all countries that don't agree with us will pay the price and be "punished"...

that's normal to you?...

[mrmatas2277]

Originally posted by frenchbread

france: we don't agree we'll vote no

u.s.a.: you didn't agree, we'll make sure you can never vote again

its not the simple and u know it...the arguement has been France's constant undermining of what's going on in Iraq...

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by frenchbread

how is that comparable?...

it's one thing to try to influence people to vote like/for you...

it's a completely different thing to eliminate the person to make sure nobody can vote like/for them...

you don't see the difference?...

france: we don't agree we'll vote no

u.s.a.: you didn't agree, we'll make sure you can never vote again

and that's the same thing for you?...

the u.s. is basically saying: all countries that don't agree with us will pay the price and be "punished"...

that's normal to you?...

Dude where is your logic? You condem the actions of your own govt because you beleive we have alterior motives but won't condem the acts of the french what's wrong with this picture?? If anyone stands to make a buck on the suffering of the Iraqi people than it's the French which controlled where the money for the oil for food program went and I can give you one guess where...In the pockets of French defense companies where is the outcry from the antiwar people??

I hope the fench and who ever we don't agree with..pay out the ass for their back stabbing... unfortunatley we have to bring a international presence in Iraq so that people don't view us as occupiers but anything else is free game... If we can strip them of the last grip of authority in the irrelevant U.N then so be it... Thye were useless in that post anyway..

[frenchbread]

Originally posted by mr mahs

Dude where is your logic? You condem the actions of your own govt because you beleive we have alterior motives but won't condem the acts of the french what's wrong with this picture?? If anyone stands to make a buck on the suffering of the Iraqi people than it's the French which controlled where the money for the oil for food program went and I can give you one guess where...In the pockets of French defense companies where is the outcry from the antiwar people??

I hope the fench and who ever we don't agree with..pay out the ass for their back stabbing... unfortunatley we have to bring a international presence in Iraq so that people don't view us as occupiers but anything else is free game... If we can strip them of the last grip of authority in the irrelevant U.N then so be it... Thye were useless in that post anyway..

why do you have to go off in a tangent...

you guys are always about taking sides...

"you think this, then you're a liberal"...i got news for you: i'm not a democrat...ok?...

i'm not talking about the motives of the u.s. or french gov'ts...

i'm talking about how fucked up it is to do exactly what you say...

you're saying, they didn't want to go along with us, so we're going to fuck them as much as we can...

what's the point of having an international community, if its only acceptable behaviour is to agree with the u.s....

doesn't that defeat the purpose of having that community in the first place?...

then it's just a front for the u.s. to impose their way...

other countries can cast their vote, but if that vote doesn't go how we want it to, then they won't get a vote again...

the u.s. gov't is basically saying we're going to let you speak only if you agree with u.s., otherwise, we're going to fuck you up...

well that is terrorism...

[cintron]

Originally posted by frenchbread

france: we don't agree we'll vote no

u.s.a.: you didn't agree, we'll make sure you can never vote again

it's one thing for the French to simply vote "No", like many other nations did.

However, it's an entirely different story to go build, organize and lead an opposition front against the US.

If we were truly mad at countries who just voted "No", then there would be many others we would be dealing with.

Besides, doesn't France look like a little snivelling wimp?

First, they get together with Russia, Germany and China and get all courageous about opposing the tyrannical United States. For a while, they think they're the sole representative of all opposition the entire world over... [which is an ego boost, since France wishes it could have that sort of glory again]

then the US ignores them and does its thing anyway.

Then all of a sudden France gets quiet...

Next thing, you're not hearing anything about opposition once the bullets start flying. You're hearing talk about how the French want a role in the rebuilding of Iraq...

Then there's talk about "punishment" of France through increased diplomatic isolation...

And shortly thereafter, France backs us in a "suprise measure of cooperation". Suprise indeed.

I don't see Germany, Russia and China backing it, because they're sticking to their guns. France is only out for France and nobody else... and since that really pissed us off this time, it wouldn't hurt to give them a little bit of their attitude back.

[igloo]

Originally posted by ghhhhhost

say something intellingent for once

With who?..you?....Sassa?...frenchbread?....abnormalnoises??

You are incapable of having an intelligent debate....it has been proven time and time again.....

Simple fact

I have no problem with those who present differing views in an intelligent manner and with an educational and factual foundation--but the endless stream of Blame America First bullshit, uneducated nonsense, and clueless ramblings is something different...

It's tired, and done.....

[frenchbread]

Originally posted by cintron

it's one thing for the French to simply vote "No", like many other nations did.

However, it's an entirely different story to go build, organize and lead an opposition front against the US.

If we were truly mad at countries who just voted "No", then there would be many others we would be dealing with.

Besides, doesn't France look like a little snivelling wimp?

First, they get together with Russia, Germany and China and get all courageous about opposing the tyrannical United States. For a while, they think they're the sole representative of all opposition the entire world over... [which is an ego boost, since France wishes it could have that sort of glory again]

then the US ignores them and does its thing anyway.

Then all of a sudden France gets quiet...

Next thing, you're not hearing anything about opposition once the bullets start flying. You're hearing talk about how the French want a role in the rebuilding of Iraq...

Then there's talk about "punishment" of France through increased diplomatic isolation...

And shortly thereafter, France backs us in a "suprise measure of cooperation". Suprise indeed.

I don't see Germany, Russia and China backing it, because they're sticking to their guns. France is only out for France and nobody else... and since that really pissed us off this time, it wouldn't hurt to give them a little bit of their attitude back.

ok...

first look at my post...teh one just before yours...

i'm not justifying the french gov't or their actions...

i'm talking about how messed up it is to send the message that "if you don't do what we want you too in an open forum, we're going to fuck you up"...

forget it being france...because it'll be the same for any other country that doesn't agree with the states...

as far as france quieting down when the bullets started flying...

of course they quieted down (btw, all opposing countries quieted down), because they knew that once the war started, there would be no use to keep voicing the opposition...

the opposition has been heard...overrode...it would have been pointless for them to keep pushing...(it obviously wasn't going to do anything at that point)...

and france wanting to get involved in the rebuilding of iraq...

i'm not saying that france doesn't have ulterior motives (like i said before, i think most politicians are prone to corruption...regardless of the country)...

but if they didn't want the u.s. to go to war against iraq...you know they don't want them to rebuild the country alone...

and as they just saw, opposing the states doesn't work right now, because the gov't in place doesn't give a fuck about anybody...so they're trying to work around that...

as far as i'm concerned, the more countries are involved in rebuilding iraq, the better for the iraqi people...

so again...

the point of my post is not to justify or support france(but you guys always have to turn everything around)..

it's to show how messed up it is to do what the u.s. gov't is planning on doing right now:

fucking up countries that don't go along with their plan...

[cintron]

Originally posted by frenchbread

so again...

the point of my post is not to justify or support france(but you guys always have to turn everything around)..

it's to show how messed up it is to do what the u.s. gov't is planning on doing right now:

fucking up countries that don't go along with their plan...

okay, now read the first few lines of my post.

Yeah, it would be fucked up of us to punish someone for simply disagreeing with us. I don't think that's what's the issue here though.

Like I said, there were many other countries who disagreed and voted No on a second resolution... but they're not the issue here. Why?

Of those countries, the most notable: France, Germany, Russia and China were the ones who made their opinions known the loudest.

Okay... but of thouse four countries, France was the self-proclaimed leader. Fine.

So what's the problem? Well, the problem is that instead of simply saying No to a resolution, France took it upon themselves to attempt to sway world opinion against the United States. By being the political figurehead for the anti-war movement, France gave the impression that it was attempting to use the voice of world opposition as leverage to bring the United States to heel. The language they used in the UN ["we will veto ANYTHING you bring to us"], along with the fact that they chose to exercise their veto power, is what pissed us off. At one point, remember they pretty much stated that any revised propsal we presented, even ones with an extended deadline or alternative measures, would be VETOED. They could have simply voted "no", but they chose to exercise their power to throw a monkey wrench into the whole works... and THEN go out and spend time building a "coalition of the unwilling" to bring us to heel.

So it didn't work.

So we did what we were going to do anyway.

So we're done with conflict, but we haven't forgotten the people who made things a royal pain in the ass for us on the way...

It's not to say we're going to invade France or place sanctions on them... it's more like we're just going to diplomatically withdraw from them a little.

If a friend disagreed with you about something you had to do, and then went and stabbed you in the back in front of everyone... wouldn't you remember what they did when things were over and they came up to you, smiling as if nothing ever happened?

[frenchbread]

Originally posted by cintron

okay, now read the first few lines of my post.

Yeah, it would be fucked up of us to punish someone for simply disagreeing with us. I don't think that's what's the issue here though.

Like I said, there were many other countries who disagreed and voted No on a second resolution... but they're not the issue here. Why?

Of those countries, the most notable: France, Germany, Russia and China were the ones who made their opinions known the loudest.

Okay... but of thouse four countries, France was the self-proclaimed leader. Fine.

So what's the problem? Well, the problem is that instead of simply saying No to a resolution, France took it upon themselves to attempt to sway world opinion against the United States. By being the political figurehead for the anti-war movement, France gave the impression that it was attempting to use the voice of world opposition as leverage to bring the United States to heel. The language they used in the UN ["we will veto ANYTHING you bring to us"], along with the fact that they chose to exercise their veto power, is what pissed us off. At one point, remember they pretty much stated that any revised propsal we presented, even ones with an extended deadline or alternative measures, would be VETOED. They could have simply voted "no", but they chose to exercise their power to throw a monkey wrench into the whole works... and THEN go out and spend time building a "coalition of the unwilling" to bring us to heel.

So it didn't work.

So we did what we were going to do anyway.

So we're done with conflict, but we haven't forgotten the people who made things a royal pain in the ass for us on the way...

It's not to say we're going to invade France or place sanctions on them... it's more like we're just going to diplomatically withdraw from them a little.

If a friend disagreed with you about something you had to do, and then went and stabbed you in the back in front of everyone... wouldn't you remember what they did when things were over and they came up to you, smiling as if nothing ever happened?

ok...

i agree with some of stuff you said...france didn't act in the more diplomatic way possible...

and i still disagree with some stuff...

like france trying to lead the oppostion...it's only normal to have a country lead the opposition just like the u.s. were leading the pro-war side...

but in any case, it was nice post...

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by cintron

okay, now read the first few lines of my post.

Yeah, it would be fucked up of us to punish someone for simply disagreeing with us. I don't think that's what's the issue here though.

Like I said, there were many other countries who disagreed and voted No on a second resolution... but they're not the issue here. Why?

Of those countries, the most notable: France, Germany, Russia and China were the ones who made their opinions known the loudest.

Okay... but of thouse four countries, France was the self-proclaimed leader. Fine.

So what's the problem? Well, the problem is that instead of simply saying No to a resolution, France took it upon themselves to attempt to sway world opinion against the United States. By being the political figurehead for the anti-war movement, France gave the impression that it was attempting to use the voice of world opposition as leverage to bring the United States to heel. The language they used in the UN ["we will veto ANYTHING you bring to us"], along with the fact that they chose to exercise their veto power, is what pissed us off. At one point, remember they pretty much stated that any revised propsal we presented, even ones with an extended deadline or alternative measures, would be VETOED. They could have simply voted "no", but they chose to exercise their power to throw a monkey wrench into the whole works... and THEN go out and spend time building a "coalition of the unwilling" to bring us to heel.

So it didn't work.

So we did what we were going to do anyway.

So we're done with conflict, but we haven't forgotten the people who made things a royal pain in the ass for us on the way...

It's not to say we're going to invade France or place sanctions on them... it's more like we're just going to diplomatically withdraw from them a little.

If a friend disagreed with you about something you had to do, and then went and stabbed you in the back in front of everyone... wouldn't you remember what they did when things were over and they came up to you, smiling as if nothing ever happened?

I agree!

Good post

[frenchbread]

Originally posted by mr mahs

I agree!

Good post

btw, i wasn't being sarcastic...

i think cintron's post was good...

it goes so much further when you post like that than when it's "fuckin' french pussies" i tutti quanti...

i think i'm much more inclined (and others too) to listen to what cintron has to say when it's done like that...

again...good post...

[vicman]

anyway, this is retarded, whatever the french said or did not say, or whomever back or did not back the war. a lot of countries backed it, a lot of countries did not.

it would be retarded if the current administration goes out and "punishes" everyone that didnt support the intervention. you might or might not agree or like the current UN system, but its there, they all made it up. if the administration doesnt like it, tough luck, they did what they thought was right regardless.

punish russia, punish china, fucking punish the other 150 countries that didnt back the intervention, where will this get them to? who will benefot from this? the UN system will still be in place and then everyone will be vetoeing everyone on everything.

[frenchbread]

Originally posted by vicman

anyway, this is retarded, whatever the french said or did not say, or whomever back or did not back the war. a lot of countries backed it, a lot of countries did not.

it would be retarded if the current administration goes out and "punishes" everyone that didnt support the intervention. you might or might not agree or like the current UN system, but its there, they all made it up. if the administration doesnt like it, tough luck, they did what they thought was right regardless.

punish russia, punish china, fucking punish the other 150 countries that didnt back the intervention, where will this get them to? who will benefot from this? the UN system will still be in place and then everyone will be vetoeing everyone on everything.

like i said...

regardless i think it's very bad for the gov't to come out and say that france is going to get "punished"...

that's bassically a policy of fear..."to any other country that's going to try and oppose us, we'll fuck you up (i.e. fear us)"...

that's a big no-no...

and again...i wasn't try to justify the way france acted...

i started this thread to show how messed up it is for the gov't to act like that...

not to discuss france...

...

but anyway...