France & Germany Take the Same Stance

by MrMoe 103 Replies latest jw friends

  • MrMoe
    MrMoe

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/22/sproject.irq.schroeder.chirac/index.html

    France, Germany stand firm on Iraq
    Wednesday, January 22, 2003 Posted: 12:20 PM EST (1720 GMT)


    Chirac (left) said Germany and France have the same judgement on the crisis







    Chirac said any decision on war in the end resides with the U.N. Security Council and that war should be avoided. Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder held a news conference at the Elysee Palace on Wednesday after a joint Cabinet meeting to mark 40 years of reconciliation. During the briefing, they were asked about Iraq. "Germany and France have the same judgement on this crisis," Chirac said. The French president said their mutual stance is based on two ideas. "The first is that any decision belongs to the Security Council and the Security Council alone, which will address the issue after having examined the latest inspectors' report. A report on the status of inspections will be delivered to the Security Council on Monday. "Secondly, as far as we're concerned, war always means failure," Chirac said. "Everything must be done to avoid war."
    "We will do all we can to make sure our position is understood by everyone," he added. Schroeder, standing beside Chirac, said he had nothing to add to the comments. Schroeder: 'No' to war in Iraq But earlier, at a political rally on Tuesday, Schroeder declared his country was not ready to back any new U.N. resolution supporting military action in Iraq. "Don't expect Germany to approve a resolution legitimising war, don't expect it," he told party members.
    His comments are the clearest indication yet on how Germany will vote if a resolution on a possible strike against Baghdad comes before the U.N. Security Council. In Wednesday's press conference, Chirac did not comment on whether, if a resolution on attacking Iraq were presented to the council, France would vote the same way as Germany. But his foreign minister hinted this week that it might use its veto to block any authorisation for war. "We see no justification right now for any military action," French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said on Tuesday during a visit to Belgium. Although Germany has no powers of veto in the U.N., analysts say Schroeder's speech points to a vote against, or abstention at this stage, of any resolution authorising military action against Iraq. Germany, which became a temporary member of the Security Council this month, takes over the rotating chair of the council in February. Schroeder has already refused to send German troops to any Gulf campaign and Germany is one of four key countries on the Security Council expressing reluctance to see a war in the region. France, Russia and China -- all permanent members of the council -- have made it clear they will not be rushed by any pressure from Washington for action against Saddam Hussein, and have backed a call by U.N. inspectors for more time to carry out their searches in Iraq. Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair said the inspectors should "have time to do their job" during a speech in the House of Commons on Wednesday. But he said inspectors should be given full access to sites. "Let us be clear about what their job is, their job is not to play an elaborate game of hide and seek with Saddam," he said. The U.N. weapons inspectors are due to report to the Security Council on its findings so far on January 27.

    Edited by - MrMoe on 22 January 2003 15:2:36

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    Yet, both countries voted for the US resolutions. Verbally, they say one thing and do another. I know the reason why, do you?

  • MrMoe
    MrMoe

    Cause they are looking out for their own butts. They will say what they have to in order to save their own hides, but when it comes down to it, will tuck tail and run like yellow dogs. Makes me sick.

  • email
    email

    It makes me sick too... it's ALL on THEIR own interest... and then you have people saying that the U.S. is looking for their own interests...

    The fact is that IRAQ VIOLATED a UN agreement!!!!!!!! PERIOD... now... the question to the nations in the U.N. was do we enforce that agreement?... AS EASY AS THAT...

    I can't wait till monday for that report from the Inspectors... then we'll see what they'll say...

  • JeffT
    JeffT

    1) We could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble and lives if we'd just let the Germans keep France to begin with.

    2) I think that the big reason both countries keep backpedalling is because when we get into Iraq we are going to find evidence that they've been skirting the sanctions. If that happens they are in big trouble.

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    JeffT: Good point. What the hell has ever come out of France lately? Inventions? Inovations? Thinkers?

  • MrMoe
    MrMoe

    Agreed agreed agreed.

    Why belong to the United Nations if you don't back your boys up? Why f***ing bother? Might as well not belong, correct?

    Why are guidelines set up if they aren't going to be followed through? The logic of this makes NO SENSE TO ME.

    I hate war. I hate death. The though of war scares the crap out of me. I don't want it, but sometimes you have to do certain things, even if it isn't pretty. If somebody living next to me sold drugs or assult rifles, you better damn well believe I would do something about it. This is the same thing, just a grander scale. We cannot allow another freak to gain power like Hitler, and if we just sat back, many like him would pop up as technology grew stronger.

    For France and Germany not to participate isn't going to change anything. If we go to war, we go to war. And the only person who can stop that is Saddam. Period.

    Edited by - MrMoe on 22 January 2003 15:58:20

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    MrMoe: Eloquently written!

  • MrMoe
    MrMoe

    Why war is even necessary ... (again, something I said on another forum - allow me to repeast myself.) I used to think war wasn't necessary. I used to think peace was the only option. I was a bit more dublike back then, and a lot more clouded in my judgment. What type of society would we become without rules? Without limitations? What type of society would we become if people or governments broke rules, sanctions, and regulations and were allowed to remain without punishment? If your family and friends we attacked (or even under threat of being attacked,) would you not defend them? And what if you knew in the very area where you lived or a few blocks over there was a huge underground ring of persons creating illegal weapons, including ones of a biological nature that could do such horrendous things to you no chemical could be conceived of doing? Would you sit back and do nothing? Would you say "who cares if the justice department steps in? I don't want to make waves after all?" NO!!!! You would have an opinion!!!! You would want somebody to do something!!! You may even be inclined to take action yourself. So, Saddam is far away. So Saddam does not live in our country. We as humans have a very bad habit, living inside our shells. People accuse Americans of not being aware of the outside world. HA! We are very aware of many things. Did you know Saddam has the option to snuff out you and/or your family within 72 hours? So shall we WAIT for him and other governments and political rulers like him to create and maintain such weapons of mass murder? so you sleep good at night, good for you! So your life is not in immediate danger, good for you! Guess what. Back not so long ago, there was a Jewish family, just like yours, that was gassed by the nazis. Think of that. To say everything is fine now may be ok, so be it. Maybe you are not American, maybe the country where you live wasn't attacked last year by terrorists. Maybe that could change. Saying it wouldn't is the same as an Ostrich sticking their head in the sand. Rules my friends - they are rules. If there is no punishment for not obeying the rules, the world would be in utter chaos. I rest my point.

    Edited by - MrMoe on 22 January 2003 16:18:33

  • Xander
    Xander

    We cannot allow another freak to gain power like Hitler

    Do recall that Hitler was even only able to take over most of Europe, hardly the world. And that was with the help of Italy, and Japan distracting both the US and Russia. Saddam has no allies. And Iraq, as a nation, is not as industrialized as even Germany, let alone Germany, Italy, and Japan.

    And while also many horrible things, Hitler was, for a while, a fairly brilliant tactician and politician. Can anyone say that about Saddam?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit