 |
| |
|
|
flash9286
|
|
http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq...s-france23.html
quote:
French now say war maybe was a good idea
April 23, 2003
BY CHENE BLIGNAUT
PARIS--Natalie Lavarra is having second thoughts about her position on the Iraq war.
''I still think it was right of [French President Jacques] Chirac to say no to the war,'' says the Paris secretary. ''But when I saw how happy the Iraqis were . . . I had to ask myself whether we didn't perhaps make a mistake.''
This sentiment reflects a growing uneasiness in France about Chirac's fierce opposition to the American-led campaign. Until a week ago, finding anyone here who disagreed with the government on the war was as likely as discovering oil in Paris.
But since the symbolic fall of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad and scenes of cheering Iraqis, signs have emerged that the antiwar sentiment is softening.
''Chirac was wrong to say no to the war,'' says bartender Georges Chabat. ''The Iraqi people wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein.''
''Since they saw the rapid fall of Saddam's empire, the French are asking themselves if they hadn't perhaps been wrong in making themselves irrelevant to the course of history,'' says Dominique Moisi of the French Institute of International Relations.
Until three weeks ago, 84 percent of the French were anti-war. Last week only 55 percent felt that way, according to the Sunday newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche.
Chirac's staunch resistance boosted his popularity to an all-time high. But despite still scoring 65 percent approval ratings in French polls, his role has changed from that of an international hero walking the moral high ground to what appears to be a sulking lone voice, fighting not to be excluded from sharing in the spoils of the war.
The result, says Alain Madelin, a Conservative politician who opposed France's war policy, is that Chirac has been presented as Saddam's best friend.
''The Iraqis feel today they had been liberated without--and even against--the will of France,'' he says. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
The french have actually won since they stood up against the US.
Broke ground for the EU.
Didnt cost them anything except some anger from the US which has always baffled me:
"we are angry at you because you dont let us go and kill people"
then of course it became apparent that americans are afraid of terrorism and they were feeling that france was actually prohibiting them to defend themselves (as they saw it)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
The article takes a very narrow perspective. I don't think there was much doubt that the Iraqi people in general are happy to see Saddam gone, and I doubt that many people who opposed the war in the west did so because they thought the Iraqis loved Saddam in the first place.
There is already growing animosity in Iraq towards US occupation, however, and we'll still have to see how detremental the invasion/occupation was to the already poor US sentiment in the region.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Menlas
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Menlas, The goal was to get Saddam to cooperate. Are you suggesting that nothing at all would have gotten him to cooperate?
There was interesting factoid that came out of the arrest of Aziz. A member of the Bush I admin said that he gave Aziz a personal note from Bush to Saddam urging him to capitulate and withdraw from Kuwait. Aziz never delivered that message to Saddam. Why?
The speculation is that Aziz feared Saddam's reaction. But this does indicate that Saddam was not getting any messages from his subordinates that were even potentially in the nature of capitulation. I have also read, I believe here on Apolyton, that Saddam held out hope to the very end that France and Russia would pull off a compromise that would allow him to save face. I believe he was looking for some concessions from the Kuwaiti's on their outstanding disputes.
So who knows what Saddam might have done if the UN message was uncompromising and direct? But clearly, without such a message, Saddam held out hope that France and Russia would again pull off a last minute compromise. |
Ned, i'm laughing because anyway, the goal of the coalition was not to destroy those WMD (which are still hidden if i'm not wrong, by the way  ), but to change the regime. So, what Straw said here is complete BS (sorry, but i can't find any other word for it) : Bush would have attacked Iraq even if those WMDs had been destroyed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Menlas
Ned, i'm laughing because anyway, the goal of the coalition was not to destroy those WMD (which are still hidden if i'm not wrong, by the way ), but to change the regime. So, what Straw said here is complete BS (sorry, but i can't find any other word for it) : Bush would have attacked Iraq even if those WMDs had been destroyed. |
Menlas, it is true that Bush never believed that Saddam would cooperate. However, I sincerely doubt he would have gone ahead without Blair and the rest of the coalition.
Now, it is clear to me that the coalition truly wanted Saddam to cooperate. We knew that without his cooperation, the weapons inspectors could be there permanently and never be able to give reliable information on Iraq's WMD programs, one way or the other. We had intel that Saddam made major investments in WMD even while the UN inspectors combed all over Iraq throught the '90s. Only Saddam's genuine cooperation could end this cat and mouse game and bring closure to this issue.
What we needed is the 5-point program proposed by Blair. The French really should have cooperated, even if they mistrusted Bush. In Straw's estimation, Saddam would have cooperated.
I, though, do not believe so. I think he would have found some way to half cooperate and still leave the whole question up in the air as to what to do.
But, back to your point. No Bush would not have gone ahead without Blair. But once the decision to act came, they made it clear that Saddam's regime was history.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frogman
|
|
Regime change was only an issue because Saddam proved himself to be a liar and a deceiver. If Saddam had any sense he would still be running Iraq which is quite sad. The global community must at some point stand up for human rights and not let them be stolen by thugs who can hide behind the borders of their stolen nation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LoneWolf
|
|
Yes, Americans are truly and uniformly complete idiots. And yet, we get by somehow...
As for the French being right, we have a saying about a blind pig eventually finding an acorn...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-04-2003 02:18
Dismiss it as biased.. fine.. but at least post an article that says otherwise.
|