THE USA MUST NOT GO IT ALONE!

  • Thread starter LoafingOaf - All Praise to Allah
  • Start date
L

LoafingOaf - All Praise to Allah

Guest
Oh wait, we aren't "going it alone"! Whoops! I guess you'll have to find a new catchphrase for the anti-regime-change-in-Iraq movement.

(This is just an update. No need to respond and make it a whole thread.)

As William Safire in the NY TIMES put it:

====
A politically weak chancellor of Germany, followed by a president of France eager to exploit popular anti-Americanism, had joined to drive a rift in the Atlantic Alliance. "Old Europe," in our Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's apt phrase, was presuming to speak for all the nations of Europe in resisting an American-led disarmament and liberation of Iraq.

The underlying purpose of the Schröder-Chirac push was less about protecting or defanging Saddam Hussein than it was about a much more parochial goal: to assert permanent Franco-German bureaucratic dominance over the growing federation of European states. Opposition to American superpower, they thought, was their lever of Archimedes to move the Old World.
====

But NO! True statesmen in Europe decided to speak out, and here is what they said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-559907,00.html

====
Europe and America must stand united

THE real bond between the United States and Europe is the values we share: democracy, individual freedom, human rights and the Rule of Law. These values crossed the Atlantic with those who sailed from Europe to help create the USA. Today they are under greater threat than ever.
The attacks of 11 September showed just how far terrorists — the enemies of our common values — are prepared to go to destroy them. Those outrages were an attack on all of us. In standing firm in defence of these principles, the governments and people of the United States and Europe have amply demonstrated the strength of their convictions. Today more than ever, the transatlantic bond is a guarantee of our freedom.

We in Europe have a relationship with the United States which has stood the test of time. Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and far-sightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and Communism. Thanks, too, to the continued cooperation between Europe and the United States we have managed to guarantee peace and freedom on our continent. The transatlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the current Iraqi regime’s persistent attempts to threaten world security.

In today’s world, more than ever before, it is vital that we preserve that unity and cohesion. We know that success in the day-to-day battle against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction demands unwavering determination and firm international cohesion on the part of all countries for whom freedom is precious.

The Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear threat to world security. This danger has been explicitly recognised by the United Nations. All of us are bound by Security Council Resolution 1441, which was adopted unanimously. We Europeans have since reiterated our backing for Resolution 1441, our wish to pursue the UN route and our support for the Security Council, at the Prague Nato Summit and the Copenhagen European Council.

In doing so, we sent a clear, firm and unequivocal message that we would rid the world of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. We must remain united in insisting that his regime is disarmed. The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international community are our best hope of achieving this peacefully. Our strength lies in unity.

The combination of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism is a threat of incalculable consequences. It is one at which all of us should feel concerned. Resolution 1441 is Saddam Hussein’s last chance to disarm using peaceful means. The opportunity to avoid greater confrontation rests with him. Sadly this week the UN weapons inspectors have confirmed that his long-established pattern of deception, denial and non-compliance with UN Security Council resolutions is continuing.

Europe has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Indeed, they are the first victims of Iraq’s current brutal regime. Our goal is to safeguard world peace and security by ensuring that this regime gives up its weapons of mass destruction. Our governments have a common responsibility to face this threat. Failure to do so would be nothing less than negligent to our own citizens and to the wider world.

The United Nations Charter charges the Security Council with the task of preserving international peace and security. To do so, the Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those Resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result.

We are confident that the Security Council will face up to its responsibilities.

José María Aznar, Spain
José Manuel Durão Barroso, Portugal
Silvio Berlusconi, Italy
Tony Blair, United Kingdom
Václav Havel, Czech Republic
Peter Medgyessy, Hungary
Leszek Miller, Poland
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark
====

Ah well. I'm sure France will still go on feeling they're so moral and pure,
as they and Germany "unilaterally" and cynically try and undermine the United Nations, and even though France were the asswhipes who built Saddam a nuclear reactor.

But um, what are they up to in the Ivory Coast, anyway?

Here's what some on the Ivory Coast "street" had to say to Frnch imperialistslast week (LOL!):




ivorycoast
 
Never trust a nation that bombs environmental activists

France's position in international politics is almost as confused as the US's is. Personally I'm a bit averse to having the French on board on this one, anyway. Worth noting, however that opinion polls in those nations whose leaders you've included here are not that divergant from German or French polls on the question of whether to support unilateral action against Iraq.

If this is really going to be accepted part of an ongoing "war against terror", Dubya needs to accept that there's a battle of ideas to be won which is as significant as any military exchange, and it's not clear that's the case yet.




pic96237.gif
 
heh

Well I gotta admit that's a funny piece of propaganda you've got there.

But propaganda nonetheless.
 
Re: heh

Admittedly so.
But it would be selfish not to share, right?
 
emtpy rhetoric

> But NO! True statesmen in Europe decided to speak out, and here is what
> they said.

Sure, you fail to mention that France, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands weren't even asked to sign the letter.

Next: "true statesmen in Europe" - heck, what does it mean?
Let's see:

> José María Aznar, Spain

not really a leading figure in Europe, he's the one who started this letter.

> José Manuel Durão Barroso, Portugal

neither - perhaps his first attempt to raise his voice - or merely follow suit?

> Silvio Berlusconi, Italy

great - what a reference. Someone who's facing conviction for bribery when he still was (sorry, still is) an entrepreneur - great reference ! True statesman? Yeah, if statesmen are necessarily linked to illegal financing and links with organised crime.

> Tony Blair, United Kingdom

has never fully integrated in Europe and always blindly backed the USA - is hardly more credible according to the people inside his party.

> Václav Havel, Czech Republic
> Peter Medgyessy, Hungary
> Leszek Miller, Poland

They are not part of Europe yet. Go figure about their importance in the European policy ! Come on, this is hardly a real "European" motion.

> Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark

Having finished a very weak presidency, this is not a really a good candidate for embodying a "new (read strong) Europe" either.

Whew. We do have to be impressed by your copying and pasting. Is there any room for some critical analysis?

> Ah well. I'm sure France will still go on feeling they're so moral and
> pure,
> as they and Germany "unilaterally" and cynically try and
> undermine the United Nations, and even though France were the asswhipes
> who built Saddam a nuclear reactor.

And do you really believe that morals are the cause of France's and Germany's reluctance? You don't even know France and Germany are principally against invasion because Saddam still owes them a lot? Overthrowing or toppling the whole of Saddam's regime might cause France and Germany to never see the repayment of their debts ever again.

Whew. What do you do all day? Copy, paste and rub your belly?

Good boy, do try better next time, like trying a more reasonable and pragmatic approach to the problem at hand.

Your post is once more a soufflé of empty phrases and rhetoric. Propaganda or ignorance?
 
Re: emtpy rhetoric

very good points.

i wonder what would happen if we "liberals" posted every article we could find in support of our cause. oh wait, i already know. it would get derided as anti-american trash. it really is funny how some people are incapable of critical thought. you know you're not capable of independent thought if you take every word a man with an iq of less than 100 says as fact.
 
Re: heh

> Well I gotta admit that's a funny piece of propaganda you've got there.

> But propaganda nonetheless.

Propaganda...it's liberal whining bullsh*t.

If it was all for oil, why didn't we take it in 91? Because it WASN'T ALL FOR OIL!
 
Re: heh

> Propaganda...it's liberal whining bullsh*t.

> If it was all for oil, why didn't we take it in 91? Because it WASN'T ALL
> FOR OIL!

You bet your ass it is, read this (tho you probably won't) http://www.nonviolence.org/iraq/
 
Re: I'm glad the USA will be going it alone....

> Oh wait, we aren't "going it alone"! Whoops! I guess you'll have
> to find a new catchphrase for the anti-regime-change-in-Iraq movement.

> (This is just an update. No need to respond and make it a whole thread.)

> As William Safire in the NY TIMES put it:

> ====
> A politically weak chancellor of Germany, followed by a president of
> France eager to exploit popular anti-Americanism, had joined to drive a
> rift in the Atlantic Alliance. "Old Europe," in our Defense
> Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's apt phrase, was presuming to speak for all the
> nations of Europe in resisting an American-led disarmament and liberation
> of Iraq.

> The underlying purpose of the Schröder-Chirac push was less about
> protecting or defanging Saddam Hussein than it was about a much more
> parochial goal: to assert permanent Franco-German bureaucratic dominance
> over the growing federation of European states. Opposition to American
> superpower, they thought, was their lever of Archimedes to move the Old
> World.
> ====

> But NO! True statesmen in Europe decided to speak out, and here is what
> they said.

> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-559907,00.html ====
> Europe and America must stand united

> THE real bond between the United States and Europe is the values we share:
> democracy, individual freedom, human rights and the Rule of Law. These
> values crossed the Atlantic with those who sailed from Europe to help
> create the USA. Today they are under greater threat than ever.
> The attacks of 11 September showed just how far terrorists — the enemies
> of our common values — are prepared to go to destroy them. Those outrages
> were an attack on all of us. In standing firm in defence of these
> principles, the governments and people of the United States and Europe
> have amply demonstrated the strength of their convictions. Today more than
> ever, the transatlantic bond is a guarantee of our freedom.

> We in Europe have a relationship with the United States which has stood
> the test of time. Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and
> far-sightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that
> devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and Communism.
> Thanks, too, to the continued cooperation between Europe and the United
> States we have managed to guarantee peace and freedom on our continent.
> The transatlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the current
> Iraqi regime’s persistent attempts to threaten world security.

> In today’s world, more than ever before, it is vital that we preserve that
> unity and cohesion. We know that success in the day-to-day battle against
> terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction demands
> unwavering determination and firm international cohesion on the part of
> all countries for whom freedom is precious.

> The Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear
> threat to world security. This danger has been explicitly recognised by
> the United Nations. All of us are bound by Security Council Resolution
> 1441, which was adopted unanimously. We Europeans have since reiterated
> our backing for Resolution 1441, our wish to pursue the UN route and our
> support for the Security Council, at the Prague Nato Summit and the
> Copenhagen European Council.

> In doing so, we sent a clear, firm and unequivocal message that we would
> rid the world of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass
> destruction. We must remain united in insisting that his regime is
> disarmed. The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international
> community are our best hope of achieving this peacefully. Our strength
> lies in unity.

> The combination of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism is a threat
> of incalculable consequences. It is one at which all of us should feel
> concerned. Resolution 1441 is Saddam Hussein’s last chance to disarm using
> peaceful means. The opportunity to avoid greater confrontation rests with
> him. Sadly this week the UN weapons inspectors have confirmed that his
> long-established pattern of deception, denial and non-compliance with UN
> Security Council resolutions is continuing.

> Europe has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Indeed, they are the first
> victims of Iraq’s current brutal regime. Our goal is to safeguard world
> peace and security by ensuring that this regime gives up its weapons of
> mass destruction. Our governments have a common responsibility to face
> this threat. Failure to do so would be nothing less than negligent to our
> own citizens and to the wider world.

> The United Nations Charter charges the Security Council with the task of
> preserving international peace and security. To do so, the Security
> Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its
> resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those
> Resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose
> its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result.

> We are confident that the Security Council will face up to its
> responsibilities.

> José María Aznar, Spain
> José Manuel Durão Barroso, Portugal
> Silvio Berlusconi, Italy
> Tony Blair, United Kingdom
> Václav Havel, Czech Republic
> Peter Medgyessy, Hungary
> Leszek Miller, Poland
> Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark
> ====

> Ah well. I'm sure France will still go on feeling they're so moral and
> pure,
> as they and Germany "unilaterally" and cynically try and
> undermine the United Nations, and even though France were the asswhipes
> who built Saddam a nuclear reactor.

> But um, what are they up to in the Ivory Coast, anyway?

> Here's what some on the Ivory Coast "street" had to say to Frnch
> imperialistslast week (LOL!):

Because if there was anyone left in the world with the slightest doubt that the US is the most selfish, shortsighted, irresponsible country, they will now no longer have a question in their mind.

I don't know about you all, but bombing the snot out of a third world country with out any clear and consistent motives makes me feel GREAT about my country!

I'd like to thank ol' Georgie boy in advance for making my trip to Europe this summer (that's if WWIII doesn't break out) a lot more difficult and unpleasant. The French are going to be so much ruder to us Americans than usual, as well as the Germans. For our safety we are going to have to walk around Europe with Canadian flags on our bags.
 
Re: I'm glad the USA will be going it alone....

> Because if there was anyone left in the world with the slightest doubt
> that the US is the most selfish, shortsighted, irresponsible country, they
> will now no longer have a question in their mind.

> I don't know about you all, but bombing the snot out of a third world
> country with out any clear and consistent motives makes me feel GREAT
> about my country!

> I'd like to thank ol' Georgie boy in advance for making my trip to Europe
> this summer (that's if WWIII doesn't break out) a lot more difficult and
> unpleasant. The French are going to be so much ruder to us Americans than
> usual, as well as the Germans. For our safety we are going to have to walk
> around Europe with Canadian flags on our bags.
Don't worry. I heard France will be joining in very soon. Our French Friends are a little concerned about the prospect of the US and England having control of the oil wells in Iraq.
 
Re: and all your crap isnt propaganda?

Posting a letter from 8 European countries in order to prove that those saying
America is "going it alone" is not propaganda. It's refuting misinformation with fact.
 
Re: emtpy rhetoric

> Sure, you fail to mention that France, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands
> weren't even asked to sign the letter.

So?

From the NY TIMES:
====
The draft document was then circulated by the Europeans among other leaders thought to be (1) critical of the Franco-German proposal to assert dominance in the European Commission; (2) genuinely worried about their nations' exposure to weapons of mass destruction being developed by Saddam; and (3) eager to express solidarity with the United States, which three times in the past century had saved them from tyrannous takeover.

As deadline time approached, Schröder and Chirac, not invited to sign, got wind of the document and leaned hard against it. The Netherlands caved in, but Denmark and Poland did not waver.
====

Apparently you want the opinions of the signing nations to be brushed under the rug.

> Next: "true statesmen in Europe" - heck, what does it mean?
> Let's see:

Oh, here's where you have to try and demonize everyone who signed
the letter. LOL! Even though the letter is a perfectly reasonable
statement, and in perfect harmony with what both the UN and NATO
declared a few months ago.

> [Aznar] not really a leading figure in Europe, he's the one who started this
> letter.

Well, I liked what he said afterwards:

"The only people who will gain from Europe and America coming apart are those people who do not have the true interests of Europe or America at heart."

> They are not part of Europe yet. Go figure about their importance in the
> European policy ! Come on, this is hardly a real "European"
> motion.

It proves that the USA is not "going it alone." And I hate to tell you, but
the probable coalition that's going to be put together right now is looking like it'll be at least 23 nations and growing.

This letter was not meant to speak for all of Europe, since obviously there's a range of European points of view. It was meant to show that France and Germany don't speak for all of Europe, even though they arrogantly try and claim to. And it was meant to remind Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder that they signed on to the multilateral Resolution 1441.

As for your attacks on me, the fact that you replied shows that it got under your skin, which is cool with me!

Anyway, the fact is now clear: Anyone who says America is "going it alone"
or is acting "unilaterally" is a liar.
 
Re: emtpy rhetoric

Oh, I love that your screenname is a number. LOL, can't even put your normal screenname behind what you say.
 
Re: emtpy rhetoric

> i wonder what would happen if we "liberals" posted every article
> we could find in support of our cause. oh wait, i already know. it would
> get derided as anti-american trash.

We already saw the sort of web sites you get your info from, Mindy.
Even you yourself came back and expressed shame about where you were getting
your info from.

And what on earth could be liberal about supporting the status-quo in Iraq?
I guess you have a different definition of liberal than I do.
 
Let's see...do people in America support the war even though the press would have you believe otherwise...The two on the left of different shots of people who protest the war. The one on the right is the pro war demonstration...by the way...those people that have the chairs are scheduled to speak. All three shots are from DC.




pic96326.jpg
 
Re: emtpy rhetoric

> We already saw the sort of web sites you get your info from, Mindy.
> Even you yourself came back and expressed shame about where you were
> getting
> your info from.

i do not get my info from those websites in general. i did a search on bush is a fascist just to show that i am not the only person saying things like that. normally, i get my information from places like znet and salon.com -- both of which are pretty reputable. just because they don't have a big corporation's name on them doesn't make them bogus.

> And what on earth could be liberal about supporting the status-quo in
> Iraq?
> I guess you have a different definition of liberal than I do.

notice liberals was in quotations. furthermore, i don't support the status quo in iraq. i just don't support our using war to implement a regime change. it's ridiculous and you know as well as i do that a lot of the civilians we're supposedly trying to help are going to get killed. oh, and i'm sure they're NOT going to benefit from our taking over their oil resources either. i am fairly sure that we will merely install a new ruler there who is more accomodating to our wishes who won't give a f*** about the people and who will grow rich off the oil alongside bush and his oil baron cronies.
 
Re: and all your crap isnt propaganda?

it's really disturbing how riled up you get about any propaganda other than your own. i think if you go back through the threads, you'd notice when people would concede to you on certain points (points of fact, and not opinion). however, oaf, for you fact and opinion (your opinion at least) seem to be the same thing. arguing with you is completely pointless since you refuse to accept anything outside of what the dubya and CNN tell you to think. i am not calling what you posted cheap propaganda, but many of your other posts have been that and nothing more. i think the only reason i or anyone else bothers to argue with you is to make sure other people on this site don't assume that your way of thinking is automatically the right one. there are two (or more) sides to every story -- a fact which you seem to forget.
 
"Frankly, people are getting fed up with this French-German axis" says a EU official in Brussels

Well there you go, more propaganda.

So what percentage of the the American public went to the pro-status-quo-in-Iraq rallies?

Anyway, in more ligitimate news, check out what's happening to the French-German attempt to undermine European-American relations. And take note of what German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer says about "primitive anti-Americanism." = )

International Herald Tribune
http://www.iht.com/articles/85349.html
====
German outcome douses flame of anti-war alliance

John Vinocur

PARIS After the masquerade, the debacle: Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s massive provincial election defeat on Sunday now may well tear apart German-French resistance on Iraq, coming on the heels of eight European Union partners’ making clear they would not accept France and Germany as a self-imposed leadership tandem for Europe.
.
The real message from the rebellious eight last week — not the excruciating reality of Europe’s being divided and the EU’s having no common foreign and security policy — was the group’s success in exposing as a near-empty shell a German-French effort to turn European governments against the United States on a war-and-peace issue.
.
Instead, in an EU expanding eastward to an increasingly pro-American membership of 25, there is incontrovertible evidence that neither the numbers nor instincts are there for a Europe ready to clasp a wavering, tentative French-German pair as its guide on the world stage, and toss out America as de facto leader and guarantor of its survival.
.
Now, with Schroeder’s humiliating defeat, described as a debacle a week before the event by Der Spiegel magazine, the tandem has dramatically lost legitimacy. Four months after re-electing a chancellor candidate who rejected standing with the United States on Iraq, voters in his own home state chose censure of his Social Democratic party as a more urgent gesture than embracing Schroeder’s stop-the-war alliance with France.
.
Short of resignation, Schroeder has nowhere comfortable left to maneuver. But the French, who hoped to be playing the pacifist card with Germany to challenge the Americans, still have the option of going along with the United States at the United Nations UN Security Council and in an eventual strike against Iraq.
.
When President Jacques Chirac meets Tuesday with Prime Minister Tony Blair he will have the chance to tilt France back toward the majority that will dominate the EU for years to come. With Blair gently holding the door open, it would no longer matter that on Jan. 14, although France never excluded military action, Chirac called the French and German view on blocking an Iraq war ‘‘identical, essentially the same.’’
.
Over the weekend, and before Schroeder’s defeat, clear statements were at hand demonstrating both a specific lack of taste for a French-German condominium to run the EU, and the expectation that the French would be on the American side soon.
.
Former Chancellor Helmut Kohl pointed to exactly such a flip. He said in an interview Sunday, ‘‘I expect it.’’
.
Wolfgang SchaeubleSchaeubele, the most widely respected active Christian Democratic leader, made the same point.
.
Other Europeans clearly shot at what they suggested were the pretensions of the French and the Germans. Antonio Martins da Cruz, foreign minister of Portugal, one of the eight countries aligning with the United States last week, said France and Germany were going to have to get used in a 25-member EU to ‘‘geometrical variations’’ outside their own axis.
.
For General Klaus Naumann, the retired German commander of NATO’s military committee during the Kosovo intervention, the eight’s declaration was ‘‘a reaction against Paris and Berlin’s trying to pin the others to their own predecided positions.’’
.
This attempt, he suggested, resulted in the ‘‘worst blow ever suffered by the common foreign and security policy in Europe.’’
.
‘‘Frankly,’’ said a high European Union official in Brussels, ‘‘people are getting fed up with this French-German axis. They outbid their possibilities. There are more empty gestures than willingness to work on the bread-and-butter issues.’’
.
Even voices from France’s own community of security analysts, normally not inclined to challenge French policy on its most basic levels, were raised to say that the French-German initiative was botched and opposed to France’s deepest interests.
.
Rather than preparing French public opinion by explaining the stakes in Iraq, said Dominique Moisi, deputy director of the French Institute of International Relations, there had been ‘‘demagoguery’’ in France. ‘‘On one side, there’s talk like Germany’s. On the other, there are [military] preparations like Britain’s, although to a lesser degree.’’
.
At another level, a question was raised about what France had really gotten itself into with Germany. No doubt, it had offered the Schroeder government a boost out of the isolation of its stand-alone position, coupled with the goal of building a French-German front to move the rest of Europe in its direction.
.
But in the view of much of Europe, this was a contradictory, hardly confidence-generating partnership. It didn’t add up on the details on Iraq, or on the deepest historical evidence of Europe after the Berlin Wall.
.
After all, as much as France under Francois Mitterrand had tried to block German reunification, Schroeder’s Germany had sought in December 2000 to gain greater voting rights for Germany than France in the EU, what Chirac called the attempted ‘‘unhooking’’ of the two countries’ semblance of parity.
.
Now, while France’s intervention troops were poised in Ivory Coast to engineer the historic evacuation of 16,000 French citizens from its African showplace, Germany’s pacifist instincts appeared to point radically away from the French desire to remain a global, unmistakably military player.
.
Traditionally, France has dreaded the notion of a pacifist, neutralized Germany, suffused with a renewed, righteous nationalism. German slippage in that direction appeared so marked that Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer stepped in last week with a seeming at tempt to call the situation to order. He warned against ‘‘primitive anti-Americanism,’’ and said that the United States was irreplaceable as a factor in the security in the world.
.
It may have been intended as irony, but in a column appearing just before the eight-nation statement, Hans-Ulrich Joerges, of Stern magazine, one of Germany’s most acute political writers, laid out what he said could be the ‘‘victory scenario’’ for Schroeder’s Germany: ‘‘The most important Allies, Tony Blair included, spurn the United States because their people would otherwise turn their backs on them. The conflict becomes the birthing hour of European Unity. NATO and the United Nations are democratized. The Old Continent becomes a world power.’’
.
German brushes with political wit apart, leaders who have asked Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin in the last few days to define the differences between the German and French positions in this context have gotten unequivocal answers.
.
A high Allied official said he was told, with what he described as alacrity, that the French position was absolutely not that of Germany. The high official was informed that France would behave responsibly in the Security Council.
.
With their diplomatic capacity to create the satisfactorily ambiguous, that French choice of responsibility on Iraq seemed to the high official to be one that would bring France along, more firmly than Russia or China, to the side of the United States. For the French that meant, with the French-German masquerade at an end, finding a formula sooner rather than later to slough off Schroeder’s losing team. Coordinated stand with Paris loses legitimacy
====
 
Back
Top Bottom