WTF? (Latest Iraq Strategy)

[HDPM]

Huh? I thought france worked against us? Running to them now is stupid beyond belief. Whether you are/were pro/anti war, this strategy is crazy IMO. web page (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm)

[Stu Pidasso]

Asking for France's support for the war and asking for Frances help in protecting the UN are too different things. I say give them the opportunity to step up to the plate, or once again, show the world that they are a bunch of cowards.

Stu

[Bill Murphy]

John/Anyone:

Just hit me last night. Fuggit. We orta pull out of Iraq immediately; lock, stock & barrel. WTF else; 2-300K troops there for 20 years at $1KKK+/wk and a 10/wk snuff rate; magnet-rally point for every Islamic extremist, etc.

Wouldn't be appeasement. No one to appease. Worked in Nam, after a fashion. Doubt it would be seen as weakness a la Somalia; esp if we just move on down the road to the Pak-Afgh border. Have to give Iran & Syria major warnings if we pullout; mebbe a coupla shots cross the bow.

What are the immed & unintended consequences? Seriously. But, thinking of this as a football game("show resolve", "stick it out") ain't gonna work.

Gotta let 'em work it out themselves. These are educated people, 99% of whom have zero interest in terrorism or a Taliban-style theocracy.

[HDPM]

I don't think we can just pull out, but I think we had a muddled idea of what to do in Iraq going in. My jackass idea would be topple saddam, give a general ass kicking to a country who helped terrorists (I think they did and we have enough to go on, but Bush made a terrible case for it) get a foothold in the middle east to deploy troops to countries who help terrorists in the future (Saudi) and steal enough oil to pay for it. When the Iraqis ask 'What are you going to do for us now?" We answer with 'What did you do for us after 9/11? Nothing? Well, that's what. We kicked your ass, took your oil, have a huge military reservation. Now go about your business." It would make more sense than what we are doing, but I don't know that it would be the best policy. I really don't know what we ought to do right now.

[Cyrus]

"I think [Iraq] did [help the 9/11 terrorists] and we have enough to go on, but Bush made a terrible case for it."

You will be glad to know then that you are in the majority! According to the polls, at the time of the Iraq War last year, a majority of Americans were convinced that (a) Saddam Hussein has WMDs, (b) Saddam used WMDs against the troops, (c) Saddam helped the 9/11 terrorists. Every single one of those premises has been convinclingly shown to be false but Americans are still sticking to their guns (pun intended).

Carry on.

"We answer [the Iraqis question about what willAmerica do now] with 'What did you do for us after 9/11? Nothing? Well, that's what. We kicked your ass, took your oil, have a huge military reservation. Now go about your business." It would make more sense than what we are doing."

And what exactly were the Iraqis supposed to do for America after 9/11?

Saddam had nothing to do with Muslim terrorists. As a matter of fact, he had chased the various Muslim extremists out of the country -- he was running a pretty secular ship down there. And even if the Iraqi people wanted to "do something" and help America (how?), don't forget that they were under an American-sponsored dictator. In order to get rid of whom, the Americans put through hell the whole people. To get ONE man!

It's always personal with the the United States...

"I don't know what is the best policy."

Bill Murphy has the right idea : <font color="red"> FOLD. </font>

[Cyrus]

"I say give [the French] the opportunity to step up to the plate, or once again, show the world that they are a bunch of cowards."

You think the actions of the French were due to cowardice? You think too highly of political leaders. Wake up.

Chirac is basically not much different from any other policial leader. He would just as soon sacrifice the lives of French young men (to "advance France's national interests" of course) as break wind. Political leaders never had any problem being brave with the lives of others! The reasons for France and Germany leading the anti-Iraqi War coalition should be identified elsewhere.

--Cyrus

[MMMMMM]

...the French were petrified at the thought of losing all those lucrative Iraqi contracts

[MMMMMM]

"Gotta let 'em work it out themselves. These are educated people, 99% of whom have zero interest in terrorism or a Taliban-style theocracy."

Fine, but let's at least finish disarming and getting rid of the Sunni Triangle Insurgents and that chubby young radical imam's private militia first. Then the decent normal Iraqis who have no interest in Talibanism or Saddamism will have a chance.

[Cyrus]

"The French were petrified at the thought of losing all those lucrative Iraqi contracts."

So, let me understand what you're saying.

You are saying that the French government midsjudged the American resolution to go to war and believed that there would be no war? Even at the last stages of pre-war diplomacy, when everyone knew there would be war, and the French could get on board, they still foolishly thought that there would be no war?

Try to have a specific answer to the above and then move on to the rest of the post.

***

Are you saying next that the French could not understand that those "fat contracts" would be even fatter for anyone who would help the Americans rather than oppose them? If the French were after those "fat Iraqi contracts", why didn't they jump onboard with the coalition, to get them contracts, and double them?

Answer the above please before moving on to the rest of the post.

***

Unless of course, you are saying that the French believed that the Americans would lose the war! Is this what you are saying? (If No, thanks for clearing that up. If Yes, please share your justification for such a preposterous judgement on French abilities.)

Answer the above please, then one last question.

***

If nothing above can explain the French attitude, then where is the net benefit of the French, in terms of "fat contracts" or "cowardice", when they opposed the way the war in Iraq was conducted ?? How exactly were they hoping to retain those "fat contracts"? Where is the justification for such a fantastic argument?

Au revoir.

[Cyrus]

They are reckless gamblers.


Blind Into Baghdad (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/media-preview/fallows.htm)

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Bill Murphy has the right idea : <font color="red"> FOLD. </font>



[/ QUOTE ]

The correct answer is <font color="green">RAISE</font>.

W

[superleeds]

The French ultimately want to be the leading nation in a United States of Europe. Their actions are almost always a way for them to try and realise this goal. Got a lot in commom The US and the French.

[MMMMMM]

The French had ucrative contracts were with Saddam/Baath party. Saddam/Baathists gone----&gt; contracts subject to nullification. Same reason Russia opposed the war which they knew would lead to a complete change of Iraqi government, thereby jeopardizing their lucrative deals with Saddam.

[MMMMMM]

The time of leadership for the French has long passed. They don't like that and seem to think their historical laurels entitle them to more than present realities indicate. They are leaders today in no meaningful sense of the word--not economically, not militarily, etc.

Their time will stay passed for as long as they remain mired in near-socialism.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
The time of leadership for the French has long passed. They don't like that and seem to think their historical laurels entitle them to more than present realities indicate. They are leaders today in no meaningful sense of the word--not economically, not militarily, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't agree more.

[Bill Murphy]

Then when would we <font color="blue">STACK </font> ?

[Cyrus]

You cannot be that inadequate at debating, nor that thick. I am sure of that. So why didn't you answer straightforwardly a few straightforward questions?

I asked you three questions. Now I have to also supply the answers, for you! Read and understand, please, the reason why your claim that "the French were petrified at losing those fat Iraqi contracts" is nonsense :

1. The French government midsjudged the American resolution to go to war and believed that there would be no war?

ANSWER : No. The French did not misjudge anything. The French knew, like everybody else who is not blind or stupid, that the United States was going to go to war with Iraq, in the near future.

2. The French could not understand that those "fat contracts" would be even fatter for anyone who would help the Americans rather than oppose them?

ANSWER : Obviously, if France helped the Americans, then France would have stood a better chance of retaining those "fat Iraqi contracts". The French understood that. Unless of course, the French thought that the Americans would not win the war!

3. The French believed that the Americans would lose the war?

ANSWER : No. Unless you are assuming things from La-La-Land (or Oooh-la-la-Land.)

CONCLUSION : It is nonsense to claim that the French opposed the American War in Iraq because they were cowards (as I explained in another post) or because they wanted to keep their Iraqi contracts (as was demonstrated above). To claim otherwise is indicative of political naivete. Pardon, but that's what it is.

[Chris Alger]

Ever notice how difficult it is to argue with anyone of common sense (much less Cyrus) when your mind remains stuck in the tar pits of the right-wing propaganda machine?

1. Where's the evidence that the U.S. was determined to irreplaceably "nullify" France's contracts with Iraq even if France had supported the war, perhaps even sent troops? It doesn't exist.

2. What contracts? Under oil-for-food, France was a minor contractor compared to the U.S. The "contracts" in Timmerman's book never existed, he doesn't break down his figures for contracts he claims were promised to France (he says he relied on "experts"), and France was prohited by the very sanctions it backed from entering into oil contracts with Iraq without U.S. approval (along with the rest of the Security Council). Notice that the only media outlets that take Timmerman seriously are the Christian Broadcasting Network, Limbaugh, NRO, etc.

3. With Saddam gone, Iraq would no longer be hobbled by sanctions and oil-for-food, and would be controlled by a White House determined to open Iraq to foreign investment, and pumping in U.S. tax dollars to stimulate same. France stood to gain by supporting the war.

4. France stood to gain even more as a member of the very small club of countries that supported the war. Since the U.S. decreed that countries that supported the war would receive favorable treatment, France stood not only to retain its old contracts but to gain a slew of lucrative new ones, such as recontruction projects immune from competitive bids from countries that opposed the war.

5. Apart the facts, the logic of the argument is absurd. In essence, it assumes that France's opposition to the war was based on losing Iraq's business to the U.S. (and those favored by the U.S.), but that the U.S. pro-war policy had nothing to do with acquiring this lucrative power.

It's the same argument-by-emotional-assumption that they always dish out to the gullible patriot crowd. Our country is noble and brave, caring only about defending freedom and spreading liberty around the world. Countries that oppose us are craven and self-interested, and care only about their material interests. To make it simpler: U.S. ugh ugh good, France ugh ugh bad. Duhhhh. (Bangs club agasint wall of cave).

[Cyrus]

Then we'll talk about your <font color="blue"> BANKROLL!</font>

(You are very easy with other people's money ... I mean other people's lives. Let's have the draft back and then we will see how many of those armchair patriots still think Iraq is worth the bother.)

[MMMMMM]

There didn't have to a certainty that the French would lose all their Iraqi contracts in order for them to fear the possibility of losing deals. They had a deal with Saddam...not with the U.S. Surely, as a lawyer you can understand this.

And especially for Cyrus: the French were not at all sure that if they sided with the U.S., their contracts and deals with the Iraqis would be preserved: because the French were afraid of losing those contracts TO THE U.S., their most imminent and dangerous competitor! Halliburton was going to be in Iraq, remember; don't you think the French feared the competition just a wee little bit, especially since they knew that Saddam would no longer be caling the shots before long?

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, I thought your 3 questions were off the mark and therefore I tried to be succint in my response. I'll try again. See my response to Alger.

[scrub]

Naahhhh, let's not bring the draft back.

I'd prefer not to get my petty effete leftish centrist ass blown off. Particularly in the service of something that seems so stupid.

The last few weeks has made me more and more concerned that this thing is going to turn into a real long term quagmire...

scrub

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
There didn't have to a certainty that the French would lose all their Iraqi contracts in order for them to fear the possibility of losing deals.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since no one argued this it's another non-response.

For France "to fear the possibility of losing deals," France had to believe (1) that opposing the war would keep kept Saddam in power (?!?) and also (2) that it's business opportunities with Iraq after sanctions went away would be lesser than those that existed under sanctions, when its contracts had to be approved by the Security Council (which means the U.S.).

Rather than dealing with these questions, you respond with the assumption that U.S. "liberation" meant the stealing of France's business with Iraq, even though the U.S. has not tried to monopolize its power over Iraq to steal business from any country that supported the war.

Nor have you explained why France, with much smaller business interests in Iraq than the U.S., necessarily was motivated by those interests while the U.S. necessarily was not.

This is just another example of how you thoughtlessly promote the right-wing line, help defame large groups and kill thousands, and then fail to offer any rational excuse for your conduct when the facts and logic are laid out for you. Honest people prefer a forward moving discourse, but you seem to just want to kill something.

[MMMMMM]

Chris, you wrote: "1. Where's the evidence that the U.S. was determined to irreplaceably "nullify" France's contracts with Iraq even if France had supported the war, perhaps even sent troops? It doesn't exist."

I responded to this by pointing out that this didn't have to be a certainty to still be a French concern. Nor did the U.S. have to be 'determined' to nullify French contracts for it to be a French concern. M: "There didn't have to a certainty that the French would lose all their Iraqi contracts in order for them to fear the possibility of losing deals."

Now you write: "Since no one argued this it's another non-response." Well you didn't argue it, but your remark left me thinking I should clarify that it need not be irrefutably proved in order for the French to still have worried about it. Hope this clears things up a bit.

...."Rather than dealing with these questions, you respond with the assumption that U.S. "liberation" meant the stealing of France's business with Iraq, even though the U.S. has not tried to monopolize its power over Iraq to steal business from any country that supported the war. "

No, I respond that the possibility of that is something the French feared.

This is just another example of how you thoughtlessly promote the right-wing line, help defame large groups and kill thousands, and then fail to offer any rational excuse for your conduct when the facts and logic are laid out for you. Honest people prefer a forward moving discourse, but you seem to just want to kill something."

Amazing...we've discussed this before. Killing thousands to save tens or hundreds of thousands from future barbaric and murderous acts of Saddam's regime: is that your definition of "killing thousands"? I have rarely encountered a more unbalanced method of accounting or a more immoral viewpoint. The lives saved:lost ratio (based on Saddam's history) weighs heavily in favor getting rid of Saddam even at the expense of thousands of lives--not to mention the benefits of 25 million people being freed from the fear of being dragged out of their beds in the middle of the night and hauled off to torture, interrogation and imprisonment by Saddam's Baathist thug machine. You couldn't take a more wrong or more immoral position.

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/tongue.gif that richard nixon delayed peace talks and extended viet nam; just so he would get re-elected...ya gotta get real..

power corrupts..or ya gotta be corrupt to get power??

jmho..

gl /images/graemlins/smirk.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
to save tens or hundreds of thousands from future barbaric and murderous acts of Saddam's regime

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we haven't discussed this before, you just keep saying the same thing over and over and over: Saddam was intent on murdering nad torturing "tens of thousands" of people. I keep asking for the evidence of this, and you keep pointing "to the past," a device that you contend is illogical if applied to the U.S. Just how many Ireaqis did Saddam kill during his last 5 years in power, more or fewer than the U.S. in 2003?

It follows just as logically that since the U.S. killed millions in Vietnam, it will kill millions in Iraq, and by its own assumptions your argument makes no sense.

[MMMMMM]

Chris Alger: "No, we haven't discussed this before, you just keep saying the same thing over and over and over: Saddam was intent on murdering nad torturing "tens of thousands" of people. I keep asking for the evidence of this, and you keep pointing "to the past," a device that you contend is illogical if applied to the U.S. Just how many Ireaqis did Saddam kill during his last 5 years in power, more or fewer than the U.S. in 2003?

It follows just as logically that since the U.S. killed millions in Vietnam, it will kill millions in Iraq, and by its own assumptions your argument makes no sense."

No, it DOESN'T follow just as logically. The US hasn't had the same administration for over two decades, but Iraq has had Saddam for over two decades. Don't you think one man completely controlling a country (Saddam controlling Iraq) is more likely to act according to previously demonstrated form, than is a mixed-bag representative republic in constant flux?

This exemplifies what is perhaps the largest and most typical flaw in your thinking and debating: the use of analogies or comparisons which are fundamentally unsound. Most analogies used in discussing complex topics are not a perfect fit, granted; but at least please try to use analogies or comparisons that are not inherently flawed in such a manner that they adversely impact the logical progression of ideas.

Moreover, the fact that Saddam may have taken a 5-year hiatus from mass murder, and concentrated instead on various scattered tortures, murders and political imprisonments, should be of little reassurance. A mass-murdering tyrant needs more and longer change than that to instill confidence, don't you think, Chris? You can't think he had truly changed hois ways, can you? And what price can be put on freedom from arbitrary arrest and torture at Saddam's whim, or the whim of his two sadistic half-animal sons who used to like to kidnap young women and rape them, before finally killing them?

It turns my stomach to even think about such things and it is further revolting that so many would have preferred to have consigned the Iraqi people to continued subjugation to such evil and tyranny for decades yet to come, rather than losing a relatively modest number of lives (by comparison with those Saddam killed and probably would have killed in the future) in a much-needed war of liberation.

[ACPlayer]

Where can I play poker with you?

[Cyrus]

"I thought your 3 questions were off the mark and therefore I tried to be succint in my response."

You claimed that the French did not support the U.S. in Iraq because they did not want to lose their "fat Iraqi contracts". I asked you three questions, whose answers are patently obvious, in order to show your position's silliness.

You find something to be "irrelevant" when it proves you are wrong. You call your responses "succinct" when they are just repeating in a few words your position despite it having being completely debunked.

Go figure.

[ACPlayer]

preferred to have consigned the Iraqi people to continued subjugation to such evil and tyranny for decades yet to come, rather than losing a relatively modest number of lives (by comparison with those Saddam killed and probably would have killed in the future) in a much-needed war of liberation.

One more chance for you to present some facts rather than the usual ignorant opinion you offer ad nauseum, if you can.

a. How many Iraqis have Americans killed in the past year?
b. How many Iraqis has Saddam killed since 1991?


Seperately please offer your view based on whatever one-sided bigotted crap you are reading these days, is an average Iraqi more likely to die today or was he more likely to die 2 years ago by the use of violent force.

[Cyrus]

"Saddam ... mass murder ... tortures ... tyrant ... turns my stomach."

Before you throw up on us, let me remind you that we are not talking about Saddam's brutality here. Nobody disputes the brutality and nobody disputes that no Saddam is better than Saddam.

What is discussed is your cavalierly dismissive attitude towards opponents of the war. You call the French "cowards" for refusing to back the United States (!) and then you hurriedly divert it to "cowards for losing their Iraqi contracts". Well, this position too was shown to be utter and total bull.

Keep mum and stop embarassing yourself by drawing more attention to the snafus. JJMHO, but do yer worse.

[Chris Alger]

That's funny: the reason why it is ridiculous to think the U.S. will kill as many Iraqis as it did Vietnamese is that there's a different President than the four Presidents responsible for Vietnam policy. Nevermind the obvious point about a completely different historical context with a different calculus of goals, costs and constraints. You can't raise the obvious reponse because you'd then have to concede that your pretense of imminent slaughters by Saddam is subject to the same questions, which you've never even tried to answer.

Namely: how can Saddam wipe out Kurds if he wassn't able to invade Kurdistan for 10 years? Ditto with the Marsh Arabs.

[ QUOTE ]
the fact that Saddam may have taken a 5-year hiatus from mass murder, and concentrated instead on various scattered tortures, murders and political imprisonments, should be of little reassurance.

[/ QUOTE ]
Before you said that Saddam was so imminently was going to murder tens or even hundreds of thousands of people that war was justified, along with the certain deaths of thousands of innocents. You have bragged again and again that supporting the war means fewer deaths.

Now you describe Saddam as being on a "hiatus" from "mass murder limited to "scattered" human rights violations. Now you claim the invasion was justified because we could never be "confident" that Saddam had changed his ways. And you still ignore the probability that Saddam's "ways" or character were irrlevant, that he had neither the political need nor the ability to commit the level of mass atrocities that he did in the 1980's.

This is so vague that you're basically admitting that you'd be willing to line up 10,000 innocent civilians, and execute them one by one (or hire someone to do this), on the grounds that they live in a regime where you are less than confident that something worse can be prevented sometime in the future.

Like I said, you just want to kill something.

[MMMMMM]

Firstly it is a ridiculous supposition that the U.S. will kill millions of Iraqis. Secondly, maybe Saddam's means to mass murder Iraqis were curtailed, as you suggest--but I rather doubt it. At any rate, his means to arbitrarily arrest, torture and kill anyone vaguely viewed as a political threat remained intact, as did his sons' ability to kidnap, rape and kill young Iraqi women whom they fancied. So your presumption that Saddam would not be killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis is unproven, but it is still clear Saddam was tyrannizing and terrorizing Iraqis.

Guess you prefer tyranny over freedom if that freedom costs some lives. Disgusting, IMO, and precisely the attitude that tyrants throughout the ages have always banked upon.

[MMMMMM]

"Before you throw up on us, let me remind you that we are not talking about Saddam's brutality here. Nobody disputes the brutality and nobody disputes that no Saddam is better than Saddam."

Apparently Chris Alger (and certain others) think that removing Saddam wasn't worth 10,000 lives.

"What is discussed is your cavalierly dismissive attitude towards opponents of the war. You call the French "cowards" for refusing to back the United States (!) and then you hurriedly divert it to "cowards for losing their Iraqi contracts".

The first I broached this subject (in this thread) was with this post:

[ QUOTE ]
Yes It Was Cowardice...
04/08/04 03:10 AM

...the French were petrified at the thought of losing all those lucrative Iraqi contracts


[/ QUOTE ]

Now Cyrus, you see I didn't hurriedly divert anything, that that was my first post on this topic in this thread. And I might have known that you of all people would fail to see the humor in it, but since I believe it is probably largely true anyway, I went ahead and argued the point with you.

"Well, this position too was shown to be utter and total bull."

It was not "shown" to be anything of the kind, except maybe in your mind. If memory serves (and I think it does), before the war, when de Villepin was lobbying the world against us, it was in mainstream news sources (not only conservative commentary) that France and Russia had substantial business with Saddam that might be lost should Saddam be toppled.

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer:
"a. How many Iraqis have Americans killed in the past year?
b. How many Iraqis has Saddam killed since 1991?

Seperately please offer your view based on whatever one-sided bigotted crap you are reading these days, is an average Iraqi more likely to die today or was he more likely to die 2 years ago by the use of violent force."

C'mon ACPlayer, use your haid;-) Don't forget to take into account the future ten or twenty years, which is the point of the whole thing.

Obviously during a war or battle of liberation there will be an uncommon number of casualties.

I want a straw hat too;-)

[MMMMMM]

Your questions proved nothing; France was afraid of losing business in Iraq, especially to the U.S.A.

[Cyrus]

"Your questions proved nothing; France was afraid of losing business in Iraq, especially to the U.S.A."

I suppose this passes, in your mind, as "succinct answer"...

Well, you are only repeating an untenable position. One that has proven to be untenable, moreover. No one seriously suggests anywhere (except perhaps the right-wing loonies) that the French were "cowards" or that they are after the "fat Iraqi contracts". Either you are part of the loonie Right or you are an amazing exception!

To recap : You were asked to justify your preposterous claim, and you declined. My questions still stand and you still have not dared answer them. Here they are again:

1. The French government believed that there would be no war?

2. The French did not know that those "fat Iraqi contracts" would be there for anyone who would help the Americans rather than oppose them?

3. The French believed perhaps that the Americans would lose the war?

[Cyrus]

"Chris Alger (and certain others) think that removing Saddam wasn't worth 10,000 lives."

I do not think so either.

But enough about lives! What about money?? How much ado you think the United States should be spending to remove Saddam from office ? (Who, remember, had nothing to do with 9/11 or the terrorirst attacks against the United States.)

$40 billion? Maybe $80 billion? Or $200 billion? One Trillion $ perhaps ?? How much? And who's gonna pay for it? I guess Saddam is the greatest danger that the U.S. has ever faced...

"[My] position was [not] shown to be utter and total bull except maybe in your mind."

Oh, it was, most certainly it was! Didn't you just fail to answer those questions about the French? You did not answer because the answers show that your position about the French (as so many of your positions about the war in Iraq) are contradicting reality.

"Before the war, when de Villepin was lobbying the world against us, it was in mainstream news sources that France and Russia had substantial business with Saddam that might be lost should Saddam be toppled."

Is there something seriously wrong with your eyesight? I have not disputed what you just wrote! I have actually accepted it. But why don't you extend your syllogism?

What was the best course of action for the French and the Russians if all they wanted was to retain those Iraqi contracts? Oppose the Americans or help the Americans?

[MMMMMM]

"What was the best course of action for the French and the Russians if all they wanted was to retain those Iraqi contracts? Oppose the Americans or help the Americans?"

You are mistakenly presuming that France and Russia thought the U.S. going to war with Iraq was a foregone conclusion. They did not think so initially, else they, especially France, would not have lobbied so hard if they were certain their efforts would all be for nought. Now reconcile that!

France for quite some time thought there was a chance of averting the war. France feared losing business to the U.S. if there was a war.

P.S. Your earlier tres preguntas do not address this, the actual, scenario.

[MMMMMM]

Man, you are mulish. Now here I will answer the questions and hopefully be done with this..

"1. The French government believed that there would be no war?"

No, they hoped that there would be no war and were committed to doing whatever it would take to try to avert it.

"2. The French did not know that those "fat Iraqi contracts" would be there for anyone who would help the Americans rather than oppose them?"

There wasn't any guarantee, was there, that the Americans wouldn't help themselves first to those "fat Iraqi contracts"--or didn't that occur to you? But how could you overlook that possibility, with Halliburton figuring so prominently in discussions at the time (even so far as to be accused by some of being part of a "war for oil"?

"3. The French believed perhaps that the Americans would lose the war?" No.

[MMMMMM]

Man, you are mulish. Now here I will answer the questions and hopefully be done with this..

"1. The French government believed that there would be no war?"

No, they hoped that there would be no war and were committed to doing whatever it would take to try to avert it.

"2. The French did not know that those "fat Iraqi contracts" would be there for anyone who would help the Americans rather than oppose them?"

There wasn't any guarantee, was there, that the Americans wouldn't help themselves first to those "fat Iraqi contracts"--or didn't that occur to you? But how could you overlook that possibility, with Halliburton figuring so prominently in discussions at the time (even so far as to be accused by some of being part of a "war for oil"?

"3. The French believed perhaps that the Americans would lose the war?"

No.

[jokerswild]

The French didn't side with Bush becuase they have experience with fascist dictators invading and occupying countries without provocation.

I can just M doing his best jack boot heil bush step.

Jesus would be ashamed of George W Bush, and cry that the ususrper does so in his name.

[Cyrus]

Ah, finally some answers! This means, like, twenty more posts or thereabouts.

"[The French] *hoped* that there would be no war and were committed to doing whatever it would take to try to avert it."

Nations do not have "feelings" or "hopes" or "dreams", they only have interests. And policies. To the achievement of which, strategy is employed. And proper strategy first and foremost weighs and assigns probabilities to events. So the French, by your logic, must have assigned Prob(w)=0. Brilliant...

You are saying that the French "hoped" there would be no war. What happens, then, when they realize at a certain point in time, call it T(w), that the United States will go to war? (I hope the war was not a great surprise for you! If it wasn't, you must accept that it wasn't for the French either.)

I submit that, if the French were so interested (so "petrified" as you put it) about those "fat contracts", they would have changed course and backed the U.S. at a certain point in time T(w+1). The fact that they have not demonstrates that (a) the French are not as clever as you are, or (b) the French were not interested so much about those "fat contracts" as you think.

(Hint : No, I already gave you your hint about the true reasons behind the French --naturally selfish-- reasons for opposing American policy in Iraq. But you were too busy searching for ways to support your untenable position, formulated in a moment of levity, as you admitted, but then supported stubbornly and unthinkingly, like a mule. So, no more hay for you.)

"There wasn't any guarantee [for the French], was there, that the Americans wouldn't help themselves first to those "fat Iraqi contracts"--or didn't that occur to you?"

If the French had backed the U.S. like the British did, they would have kept those "fat Iraqi contracts" (which were much "thinner" than you think but let's not digress). If all the French wanted was to keep those "fat contracts", as you said, by far the best play would have been to back the U.S. rather than oppose them!

The proper reasoning (and don't think you are the only reasonable man on the planet /images/graemlins/grin.gif, the French are reasonable too, merde) for the French, the best +EV play by far, would be to back the U.S. ---Even to salvage as much of those "fat" contracts as possible.

I hope you can understand this trivial deduction.

"No. The French [did not] believe that the Americans would lose the war."

Phew. That was close.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[MMMMMM]

"The French didn't side with Bush becuase they have experience with fascist dictators invading and occupying countries without provocation."

So are you suggesting that the French viewed Bush as more of a fascist dictator than Saddam? Time for a reality check, maybe, Jokerswild?

[MMMMMM]

The best EV play for France initially would have been to avert the war. This they tried, and tried hard, for many months. When it finally became apparent that their lobbying was to no avail, they tried delaying tactics. When that didn't work, it was too late to reverse course on a dime and the French probably had too much pride to do so at that point anyway. Yes, they would have made a better EV play had they reversed course at the last minute. But by that time they had taken such a strong stance that they would have appeared buffoonish--something no Frenchman cares to do--had they performed a 180 and backed the USA for no apparent reason.

[Cyrus]

"When [delaying tactics] didn't work, it was too late to reverse course on a dime and the French probably had too much pride to do so at that point anyway."

There are a thousand ways that the French could have changed tactics, at any stage of the pre-war diplomatic confrtontation, without appearing to be inconsistent at all. I could rpovide you with three examples, readily, but I'm sure you are capable of thinking up twice as many.

But "pride" ?? You are saying that the French dismissed all options and chances of retaining as much of those "fat Iraqi contracts" as possible out of pride??

You can't be serious. (Oh. You are.)

"They would have appeared buffoonish , something no Frenchman cares to do."

Ah, finally, we get to the bottom of this stupid and stubborn support of an untenable position. This is where it's at. You see things through prejudice and stereotypes.

Dan Quayle was right. What a waste it is to lose one's mine, indeed.

[MMMMMM]

"There are a thousand ways that the French could have changed tactics, at any stage of the pre-war diplomatic confrtontation, without appearing to be inconsistent at all. I could rpovide you with three examples, readily, but I'm sure you are capable of thinking up twice as many."

No, Cyrus, I can't think of a way they could really do that convincingly all of a sudden after lobbying the world for 6 months to do just the opposite.


M: "They would have appeared buffoonish (to have reversed course after lobbying the world against us for 6 months), something no Frenchman cares to do."

Cyrus: "Ah, finally, we get to the bottom of this stupid and stubborn support of an untenable position. This is where it's at. You see things through prejudice and stereotypes."

Cyrus you obviously have no sense of humor whatsoever. Might you perchance be French?

[GWB]

The simple fact is that the French have a culture of defeatism.


http://www.rondagates.com/images/surrender.gif

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
You are mistakenly presuming that France and Russia thought the U.S. going to war with Iraq was a foregone conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]
You might as well claim to be the only person on the planet that didn't think the war was a foregone conclusion.

[ QUOTE ]
They did not think so initially, else they, especially France, would not have lobbied so hard if they were certain their efforts would all be for nought. Now reconcile that!

[/ QUOTE ]
France and Russia believed the U.S. wanted an unjustified, risky war that their citizens opposed, and were therefore compelled to make the case against the war to the U.S. and the world. Nothing hard to reconcile about that. And if their opposition was based on contract losses, you're ignoring that they could have supported the war and nominal cost (compared to the contracts) once the U.S. invaded.

[MMMMMM]

Yeah right, France spent untold millions and developed bad relations with the U.S.A. just because they thought they needed to take a strong moral stance and speak out against an unjustified war. Sure, that's the reason. Money had nothing to do with it whatsoever.

What planet are you living on, anyway?

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly it is a ridiculous supposition that the U.S. will kill millions of Iraqis. Secondly, maybe Saddam's means to mass murder Iraqis were curtailed -- but I rather doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]
In other words, your evidence to support your argument that the war was necessary to prevent Saddam from murdering tens or hundreds of thousands of people is no better than Saddam's record of doing so more than a decade ago, and therefore no better than the evidence of the U.S. (to say nothing of many other countries) to imminently kill comparable numbers of people. I agree: your argument is "ridiculous."

[ QUOTE ]
At any rate, his means to arbitrarily arrest, torture and kill anyone vaguely viewed as a political threat remained intact, as did his sons' ability to kidnap, rape and kill young Iraqi women whom they fancied.

[/ QUOTE ]
The second you concede that your imminent mass murder theory is unsupportable, and shift instead to less human rights violations, you essentially admit to a contradiction. Namely, you support Bush and his efforts to actually arm and support a dozen countries that do the same thing -- arbitary arrest, torture under detention, etc. (E.g., Turkey, Uzbekistan, Colombia). So all you're saying here is "I support the killing of innocents necessitated by the Iraq war because I think it's necessary to prevent torture, but OTOH I support politicians that want to use my taxes to support torturers if my government prefers to look the other way. Which boils down to: I'm against torture but I'm for torture."

You must therefore support the war on some other grounds than human rights, and I submit that it's because you want to see Iraqis killed. Probably because you reflexively support everything the government says when the war powers are invoked, or perhaps because Iraqis belong to the "wrong" religion.

[MMMMMM]

Firstly, you need to understand the difference between "unproven" and "unsupportable."

Secondly, to equate the chances of Saddam (had he been left in power) killing tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands more Iraqis, with the chances of the U.S.A. killing millions of Iraqis, shows you have no idea of how to even roughly judge respective probabilities or how to reasonably handicap anything of this ilk.

"The second you concede that your imminent mass murder theory is unsupportable, and shift instead to less human rights violations, you essentially admit to a contradiction.

I don't concede that Saddam would not have continued his mass murdering ways. I think he very well would have, but even if he didn't, or was constrained from doing it on quite as grand a scale, he still would have continued doing the same sort of thing albeit on smaller scale.

"Namely, you support Bush and his efforts to actually arm and support a dozen countries that do the same thing -- arbitary arrest, torture under detention, etc. (E.g., Turkey, Uzbekistan, Colombia)."

Who the hell said I support efforts to arm these countries? I certainly didn't.

I support war to remove true despots from power and replace totalitarianism with democracy, but realize we can't do it everywhere or all at once. Therefore I support it mostly where we have interests as well, since cost is a limiting factor in the real world, and the fact that we also have interests in certain spots helps to mitigate the enormous costs of such undertakings.

You on the other hand make apologies for Stalinists and terrorists, and rebuke efforts to remove them. Morally speaking you are very much on the wrong side of the fence in most such matters.

[ACPlayer]

You would have needed a straw hat here in SE Asia if you were travelling with me. It would have kept the sun off your head but would not have helped you think straight.

So, when given a chance to present facts you hide behind opinion. That is normal for someone who thinks he knows the answer but is really full of himself.

[MMMMMM]

Not at all, I am merely pointing out that you are comparing improper time frames.

For a more meaningful comparison, compare the numbers when Saddam was in power with the numbers yet to come--which of course we don't know yet, but say in a couple years or so. After the war and rebellions are pretty much over, in other words. It really isn't fair to compare the rate of what are essentially wartime casualties, with the rate of deaths during Saddam's regime. At least not unless you expect the current casualty rate to continue indefinitely, and that is not very likely, IMO.