General Chat / This is disgusting... to me anyway.

From Yahoo: WASHINGTON (AFP) - Senior aides to US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) met this week to consider ways to punish France for its opposition to the war on Iraq, including sidelining Paris at NATO and limiting its participation in transatlantic forums, officials said.

Participants in the meeting, held Monday at the White House after a similar gathering last week was postponed, did not arrive at any decisions but are expected to gather again, possibly next week, in an effort to reach consensus, the officials said.

The officials, speaking to AFP on condition of anonymity, said Vice President Dick Cheney's office had been particularly vocal in pressing for some kind of punitive measures to be taken against France.

"They are trying to find ways to create alternative mechanisms for dealing with the French, or rather without them, and not just at NATO, but more broadly," one senior official said.

Dissatisfaction with France has reached such a point that the State Department, which has registered opposition to the punitive suggestions under consideration, appears to be resigned to the possible moves.

"The recent events and disagreements will have an effect on our views and our relationships," spokesman Richard Boucher said.

"There will obviously be an effect of the recent disagreement, but I am not prepared to draw specific conclusions at this point," he told reporters.

Among the ideas discussed at Monday's meeting included bypassing the North Atlantic Council, NATO's governing body, in favor of the alliance's Defense Planning Committee from which France withdrew in 1966, the officials said.

But perhaps more significantly, participants also looked at possibly not inviting France to numerous US-sponsored or -hosted consultative policy meetings held regularly with Washington's European allies, they said.

"Traditionally there have been meetings of senior officials with the Europeans and we could dispense with them altogether, expand them to water down French influence or just cut France out altogether," a second official said.

"What's being looked at is less consultation with the French at all levels from ministerial on down," the official said.

Bush's most senior advisors -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and national security advisor Condoleezza Rice -- did not attend Monday's meeting, but sent deputies instead, the officials said.

Rice's number two, Stephen Hadley, chaired the meeting with Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman sitting in for Powell's deputy, Richard Armitage, the officials said.

It was not immediately clear who represented Rumsfeld, although Pentagon officials said Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was at the White House for several meetings on Monday.

Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice had been set to meet last Thursday to go over the issue of France but that meeting was postponed at the last minute after French ambassador to the United States intervened to stop it and the Pentagon asked for a delay to better prepare its arguments.

The defense department is in general agreement with Cheney's office that France should pay some price for its opposition to the war on Iraq and its refusal to back the deployment of NATO assets to help defend Turkey during the conflict, the officials said.

The State Department, however, wants to move beyond the split over Iraq and focus more on areas of future cooperation with France, including in Iraq where Boucher said there would be "opportunities" to work with allies on reconstruction.

...good greif. Even if you were for the 'War On Iraq', you should be able see how morally wrong and childish this bullshit is.

Just because somebody doesn't agree with you on a single matter, it doesn't mean you shut down relations with them entirely. And when it's an entire country, you certainly don't do it!

Bush really needs to understand the basic concepts of good leadership, and diplomatic relations...

that is VERY childish. If they hate the french so much, why don't they take down the statue of liberty.

just because a nation is exercising its power (just like we do) we should punish France for disagreeing with us,

honostly we make more enemies than friends with these wars.

Just when I had a shred of respect for this administration...they turn 'liberate' Baghdad into a post-war zoo and now pick playground fights at recess.

Idiots.

Wow, yes, I was/am very pro-war, and find this discusting. I have had few complaints about this administration until this.


Of course, like everything else about this war so far, there might just be a great deal of inportant facts that have remained unexplained by U.S. officials, that might change our minds on this matter if revealed.


Then again, maybe not.


What I do know judging from the given facts though, is that this is bullshit.

Today's lesson, children, is on taking articles in "context"!

Chauncey, you of all people should know better than taking things as fact, without looking at where the information came from, since you refused to believe scientific surveys of 5,000 people as they "were not representative". (and then reffered to a survey of 12, mind you)

I've done some Googling to look for other articles on, what seems to be, a big story only to realize that there aren't any. The only organization reporting it is the AFP. (For those who don't know, that stands for "Agence France-Presse".)(For those who don't speak French, I'm guessing that means "France-Press Agency") Odd.

The only other article I could find even alluding to the meeting on Monday discussed post war Iraq and whether or not the sanctions could be lifted on Iraq. (Maybe that's it. The oil-for-food program provides a huge income for France, and if it's ever lifted, bye bye contracts)(Edit: I take that back. France now changed and supports lifting sanctions. Guess we're not hurting them that way, either.) Darn this childish government. They, clearly, only want revenge on those cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

I'm not saying that it didn't happen. It very well could have happened (maybe not the extent that the article makes it out to be, but happened, nonetheless). In terms of foreign policy, this type of thing isn't unusual for any country. You don't undermine an ally and expect everybody to move on. The world never has worked like that.


But, if you can find one other sorce talking about it, other than a French organization, let me know.

MSN report 4/22/03

    PRESIDENT BUSH called last week for sanctions to be lifted quickly so Iraq’s oil revenue could be used to finance reconstruction.
    But the issue — as well as any U.N. involvement in postwar Iraq — was expected to be heatedly debated at the U.N. Security Council, which was deeply divided over the Iraq war.
    Russia and France, veto-wielding members of the council, did not support Washington’s drive toward military action, which torpedoed U.S. efforts to gain support for a war resolution last month.
    France’s U.N. ambassador, Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, appeared to pave the way for a compromise Tuesday with his unexpected proposal.
    “We should immediately suspend the sanctions,” de la Sabliere said. “And about the oil-for-food program, we think there should be some adjustment to the program with a view of a phasing out of this program.”

Seems like our adminisrations little "meeting" made the French a little jumpy. First: we are not going to "punish" France for stabbing us in the back, The Bush administration has repeatedly stated France and the UN will have an apropriate role in the rebuilding of Iraq. second: Why wouldn't France want the sanctions to be released?

same article:

— French companies did $3.7 billion in trade with Baghdad under the oil-for-food program last year — and has been fretting about being shut out of the reconstruction

that's a very large amount of money that has seemingly not gotten to the people of Iraq for whom it was meant for, wonder if France knew about that? I believe there is much more going on here than we could know about, or a reporter could possibly let us in on. I'll take my info from the pres thank you much

But if you think the U.S. government does not participate or consider such actions, you're a fool. The government is not as "noble" as it seems. Few governments are. All major nations--the U.S., France, Germany, Russia, Britain--have their corrupt, power-hungry sides. That's what politics does to you.

Shame shame shame.

it could be that the U.S. IS being childish.
it could also be french reporting propaganda to brew anti-U.S. sentiments in France.

who knows? I certainly don't...

Actually, I doubt its French propaganda as you are all putting it as despite what Colin Powell might like (he is, after all, the childish bafoon who called France 'wimps' like some dumb kindergarden bully), France has completely, totally downplayed the situation.

Also, while there are no articles reporting what AFP reported, from purely American news sources, there are articles about France's downplaying what AFP reported.

How could France downplay it, if it never actually fucking happened?

This is practically admitting, to me, that it did actually happen and US press agencies didn't want to portray their country in a bad light. Not suprising, but a little dissapointing, of course.

Heres one of those articles, once again, found at Yahoo...

"France played down a warning from the United States about paying for its anti-war stand on Wednesday and stressed its surprise readiness to suspend U.N. sanctions on Iraq was a pragmatic approach to the crisis.


But officials refused to elaborate publicly on French conditions for suspending the sanctions, leaving unclear how Paris can find a consensus with a Bush administration that insists the trade barriers must be lifted completely.


In Ankara, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin vowed to defend international law in the Iraq issue, a phrase hinting he wanted a key role for the United Nations, but gave no details on how France planned to cooperate to help rebuild Iraq.


France infuriated the United States in the run-up to the war by threatening to veto any pro-war resolution in the U.N. Security Council. Washington gave up trying to win U.N. support and went ahead to attack Iraq with British help last month.


When asked about Powell's comment that France would have to pay a price for opposing Washington, government spokesman Jean- Francois Cope said: "This does not correspond in any way to the reality of our current relations with the U.S."


Cope cited a telephone call earlier this month between Presidents Jacques Chirac and George W. Bush as proof bilateral relations were not bad. The White House qualified that call as "businesslike" -- a diplomatic way of indicating disagreement.


Spokeswoman Catherine Colonna quoted President Jacques Chirac as saying France made its sanction proposals "such as to work with its partners on the different problems at hand."


A Foreign Ministry spokeswoman declined to comment on Powell's interview or to elaborate on Paris's proposal for an immediate suspension of sanctions, which seemed to catch off guard fellow anti-war powers Russia, Germany and China.


SEPARATE SANCTIONS FROM DISARMAMENT


In comments in Ankara, during a regional tour due to include a visit to Iran, Villepin indicated Paris still sought a role for the U.N. in Iraq, but left open how this could work.


"During the whole Iraq crisis, France has acted along with a very large majority of the international community and according to its convictions and principles to defend international law," he said. "It will continue to do this in any circumstances."


Villepin repeated on Tuesday evening his post-war view that France was taking a pragmatic stand on reconstructing Iraq.


French diplomats said privately that Paris wanted to get civilian sanctions against Iraq suspended quickly to help the suffering population there and deal with the more complex question of lifting military sanctions at a later date.


U.N. resolutions say the sanctions can only be lifted if the Security Council determines Baghdad has no more weapons of mass destruction -- a condition that could lead to disputes because Washington does not want U.N. arms inspectors to return to Iraq.


The diplomats said Paris wanted the U.N. to verify Baghdad had no illegal weapons, but accepted its experts could do this with the U.S. experts Washington wants to do the job.


The U.N. would also have to be involved in managing revenues from oil sales, possibly by having the International Monetary Fund run accounts that would distribute the funds to U.N. agencies and the occupying forces to help rebuild Iraq."

...so, yeah. You could probably find a few of those yourself, if you actually wanted to. But why would you want to? Mostly its alot of bable about nothing.

Although, as I've said, that their must be enough legitemacy behind the other article (and at least a somewhat wide-spread occurance of them), to warrant an article about France downplaying such reports.

But, quite interestingly, one has not been published by the AFP.

Its pretty wierd. I dont feel like getting warped up in a retarded online debate but I dont think we need to [punish them after all they were only exercising thier right to international free speech.

I never said it didn't happen. I said that, unless I can find another article, I doubt that it happened to the extent that you origionally posted. And, oddly enough, France agrees with me.

And no, I couldn't have found that article, since it was just released today.

Even if it happened just a pinch or in a giant meeting, it happened. Which is just ridiculous for the administration to do, and will only cause more worldwide problems.

And I thought Anti-Flag were a bunch of conspiracy theorists.

How hypocritical.

I said that, unless I can find another article, I doubt that it happened to the extent that you origionally posted. And, oddly enough, France agrees with me.

France doesn't agree with you, actually. They never said that it didn't happen, or even happened to less of an extent. They merely said that the meetings being held were in direct contrast to the relationship they feel they have with the United States.

And, obviously, they are. Which could lead to severe problems in the future. Trying to candy it over is silly, even though France is doing it themselves.

But they are doing it in the sake of diplomacy, or perhaps even to quell thoughts like some of the ones posted above, about propaganda and the like. You, on the other hand, are doing it to defend George W. Bush, for lord knows why.

As QOTSA-2002 said, anywho, if it happened, it happened, and it did happen, and it sucks. How 'bad' it was has little to do with it, imo.

Ah, this whole ordeal reminds me-



The WW2 French gun advertising slogan- Never fired and only dropped once.

However childish or wrong it seems to ounish France, it does make sense in the large scheme of things. To put it simply, this is putting France in their place, reminding them that US support is important to them. To get that economic support, France might think twice about opposing US initiatives in the future, something that could be very valuable to Bush because France is a member of the Security Council. Is it right, no. But it is a political move and politics are never clean.