Topic awaiting preservation: France supports proposal with deadline...sorta... (Page 1 of 1)

from http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/06/sprj.irq.main/index.html

quote:

---

As Bush was speaking, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell met with French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin and later sat down with German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer. Both France and Germany are opposed to a second U.N. resolution that could bring military action against Baghdad.

A French official told CNN that France would not be adverse to a "close of rendezvous," or a proposal saying weapons inspectors could give Iraq key disarmament tasks to accomplish in a certain time period.

The official did not want to use the word "deadline" or "ultimatum" but said that Baghdad could be given a reasonable time frame in which to finish the key tasks, and then the U.N. Security Council would judge whether Iraq has complied.

France would not, the French official said, allow the proposal -- which would not be a resolution, he said -- to include an ultimatum allowing the use of force.

---

so disarm by this day or else...we may get together and create another resolution/proposal?

Well, surprisingly (or not, depending on how you see it), all attempts by the Bush administration, have failed to sway Russia. They have now publically stated that they will Veto a second resolution (of going to war now). So much for that idea...Full Article here. This part backs up my opinion

quote:

---

After Russia's abrupt pledge on Wednesday to veto any United Nations authorization to invade Iraq, experts and politicians here are saying the White House fundamentally misread its ability to pressure the Kremlin into backing a war it fears will be ruinous to its own interests.

-- The New York Times

---

IMHO, the Bush Administration (and many experts and politicians feel the same way) has done a terrible job, of 'selling' the War...

Not the mark of good Diplomacy, IMHO. Or of a good Politician.

In fact, it is blatant failure, and one we can ill-afford, considering the serious nature of the situation.


WebShaman

Bush Sr. had the same problem. What this White House needs to do [IMHO] is create proposals that are effecient yet liked/understood by the public. People just cannot understand Bush's incredible desire to go to war with Iraq, when North Korea poses so much of a larger threat. Or I know I can't, well I can, but the reason isn't good enough [Oil, Family Honor, ect].

I'm going to the moon, I cant stand it here anymore.

well, by the same token, is it hard to argue that France isn't not going to war for at least some similar reasons? (oil, economy)

some valid points tho.

The article do not mention mention the name the name of the "French official"... hmm hmm... I don't won't to say that they are lying, but given the things CNN is used to do, I would not bet on the reliability of this information...

The other day I heard on radio a sentence said by W. Bush : "If the world don't want to go to war, we will do it to protect Americans" (or something like that, I don't exactly remember the sentence).

I wanted your opinion about it. If W. Bush wants to launch an attack without the agreement of the ONU, that is to say launch a personal war not justified, don't you think he really begin to act a bit like Saddam ?

I found it appropriated :

We tend to become like the worst in those we oppose.
--Bene Gesserit Coda

well, on nightline's town meeting that aired tuesday, the french ambassador said that the french weren't totally against the war, they just want to give saddam more time, try to be more diplomatic about it. said that the u.s. was rushing it and if they would take their time and give a longer deadline then they would be more likely to get behind the u.s. war plans. senator tom mccain replied to what the ambassador said by saying that he didn't see the point because the french weren't going to change. i was very shocked by how rude the senator was to the ambassador.....the ambassador just chuckled and shook his head. obviously, this isn't word for word and i've looked for a link for it...but no luck. so, i don't think cnn is lying about this one.

Thanks for the point on CNN.
Something really irritates me. You know, here we are "normal" people, we are not senators, nor any really important job (I guess). And everyone on this forum is able to think by him/herself to make his own opinion. Generally, even if the points of view may oppose we only have "intelligent" points of view based on arguments. But something really irritates me when I see this senator... They are "normally" supposed to have made the best schools, the more drastic and demanding ones (at least it works like that in France). They are supposed to represent the best of "common" people. So why do we see senators having childish behaviors, based on feelings, not even justified ? There is something I don't understand...

i agree moonshadow....
i generally like senator mccain....but the level of disrespect he showed the french ambassador....shocked me. there seems to be alot of that going around with government officals lately. i don't think it's something new....i just think we're able to see more of it.

quote:

---

They are "normally" supposed to have made the best schools, the more drastic and demanding ones

---

ROTFLMBO!!!!!!!! That is not how it works in the US and it never has. We are *not* an aristocracy. *Anyone* can be elected to our Congress regardless of class or education.

Senator McCain is a distinguished war veteran and a very passionate man. Politicians have feelings too and they will occasionally be very honest about the topics at hand. McCain is known to have a temper sometimes but I hardly think that means he is uneducated or childish.

quote:

---

(at least it works like that in France).

---

Maybe someday, if we're fortunate enough, we can rise to the level of the French

Well, we also have persons at elections that are postmans or actors... But in general, all our politicians come from a school called ENA, in which you can enter if you are the son of a minister, a lawyer, a doctor... So in general, our politicians are highly educated persons...

And another thing, if this senator is a war veteran, I don't really understand why he wants to go to war... I think most of the veterans know what is war and wouldn't appreciate to enlist into a new one... But this is his personal opinion and I have to respect it. Nevertheless, if USA really go to war, when the first dead will come back in America people will maybe become aware of what is really war, and stop thinking about like a game like showed by most American medias.

quote:

---

Maybe someday, if we're fortunate enough, we can rise to the level of the French

---

You are ironic Bugimus But I didn't meant it in the way you surely understood it. I didn't meant to say we were superiors on this point.

Mr. Bush said last night in his press conference that if the UN wouldn't approve, well, he didn't really need their approval anyway. He would do "what has to be done to protect the American people".

I've felt since this all started that he was going about it all the wrong way. But I can't seem to come up with the "right" way it should have been handled. The more I listen to the arguments presented by American officials, the more I think that our government is getting too big for it's britches...

Don't we have qualified special ops folk capable of just going in there and taking out the offending idiots in an assassination, rather than dragging the country into a war we can't really afford? This whole mess is going to get so far out of hand - "duck and cover" just ain't gonna cut it...


Bodhi - Cell 617

bodhi23, I'm sure that seems to be a "convenient" solution. But if you think it through you will find it ineffective. Taking out Hussein, the man, does not take out his regime since it is run by others in the Ba'ath party. You would simply succeed in killing one man while leaving his treachery intact.

We have moved from arguing whether to have the war to how to have the war and more importantly what will fill the void in the aftermath.

furthermore, saddam has numerous impersonators, and would be well hidden anyway, so finding the right man would be surprisingly difficult.

I hardly think America is numb to the costs of war, MoonShadow. Our share of soldiers have come back in boxes.

I'm getting tired of everyone assuming that those who haven't been directly involved in war don't understand that it is a terrible thing. Sure we don't understand to the same level as veterans... but that doesn't negate the understanding we do have. Nor does it negate our points of view nor our ability to discuss it.

GrythusDraconis
I admire a man who can budget his life around his pint of Guinness and I envy a man who's wife will let him. ME, inspired by Suho1004 here.

I agree, many American's have come home in boxes. Gulf War cost 148 lives, which is an amazingly small number, compared to Iraqi casualties. Vietnam cost somewhere around 30,000. Korea, 20,000. WW2 70+ thousand, WWI 356,000 lives. It's not like American's haven't been to war, we know the risks. I don't agree with this war in it's entirety, but I agree with GN when he says we aren't numb to the violence of war.

I'm going to the moon, I cant stand it here anymore.

quote:

---

A French official told CNN that France would not be adverse to a "close of rendezvous,"

---

OK, I won't pretend to know what's going on, but I'm pretty sure the whole point of that statement was to give the French official an excuse to say "rendezvous" and remind Americans just how many French words they have in their language...

*slinks back down into the basement*

[Edit: stupid UBB code...]

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 03-08-2003).]

On a serious level, assassination is only effective if you assassinate ALL who are involved in the regime. But in the time this has been allowed to go on it, we could have had that done too, if we were gonna.

More a statement of "come on guys, get with it" than a recommendation of action, really...



Bodhi - Cell 617

Hmmm...where to start first.

First of all, America doesn't do 'official' sanction work anymore...it's actually illegal. So sending 'secret ops' into Iraq would carry the risk of them being caught, and exposed...and would in that case create a crisis for the Bush Administration...I don't think Mr. Bush would want that.

As for the Veteran question...well, I am a Veteran. Would I go to war again? Yes, if the conditions demanded it. If my country was under attack, I would. But the Iraq situation...hmmm. Nope. I was there once...that is enough.

And to GN...certainly, you can have a valid opinion on War, and talk about it. That was never my intent, to suggest otherwise. However, one should never make the mistake, of having the experience...that is namely something different.