Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
There He Goes Again (Chirac)  
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16825 posts, RR: 51
Posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2113 times:

I think World Leaders should tell Chirac to "Shut up", that appears to be the language he's most familiar.

http://nypost.com/news/worldnews/32739.htm


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2093 times:

If a bell were struck everytime Bush said something stupid, nobody in the world would ever get any sleep.

User currently offlineCaptaingomes From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 6413 posts, RR: 56
Reply 2, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2088 times:

Somebody should shut Chirac up. If people complain about Bush's foreign policy, how do you rate Chirac on the same terms? It's shameful that Chirac is acting the way he is, and he is only going to make matters worse by continuing this destructive path in international relations.


"it's kind of like an Airbus, it's an engineering marvel, but there's no sense of passion" -- J. Clarkson re: Coxster
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16825 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2050 times:

More,

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/22/international/worldspecial/22BRUS.html



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineTeva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1871 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2047 times:

If Colin Powel does not understand, let me try to explain.
There has been no resolution authorising this war. Then, there can be no resolution declaring that this war is legitimate, because it is illegal.
The other thing President Chirac says is that , of course, he knows the result of the war. But he wants the UN to run Iraq (until elections are organized), and not a US or Brittish pro-consul.
Bush and Blair have deliberately bypassed the UN. Now, it is time for the UN to play their role again.
And if they really want reaaly want to appear as the liberators of Iraq, then they have to associate the international community . Otherwise, countries in the region may just consider this war as an agression, and it is an open door to terror actions.
and for those claming that Chirac is doing this only for Total and the oil, all the contracts and pre-contracts signed with Iraq represent less than 1% of the French foreign trade.
Teva



Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
User currently offlineErj190 From Portugal, joined Dec 2000, 397 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2025 times:

Well Teva, you must be reasonable here.

If a gang of thieves robs a bank, don't you think they should divide the bounty among them ?

I was almost believing this was not just a war for oil. Silly me  Innocent


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16825 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2015 times:

"Bush and Blair have deliberately bypassed the UN"

Bullsh!t, the US and UK have been going to the UN all along. You are aware that there are 17 UN Mandates for Iraq to Dis-Arm, all of which France voted for. It was Chirac's obstructions and threatening a Veto that prevented the last vote from even taking place.

There was a vote, resolution 1441, which stated severe actions if Iraq did not dis-arm they did not disarm and all of a sudden France threatened to veto any UN Vote. If Chirac really cared what the UN thought they would not have threatened a veto, the US/UK were persuing a UN Vote the whole time.

But gutless Chirac would not let that vote even take place.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1990 times:

"But gutless Chirac would not let that vote even take place"

Actually it was Bush and Blair who did not wait for the vote. The outcome of the vote would have been too embarrasing, so they said "the hell with it" and just invaded. It was France, Germany, and Russia who wanted to have the vote.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16825 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1980 times:

If they wanted the vote why was Chirac in every interview and speech saying France would veto the vote, how can you even have a vote if France is just going to veto.


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineTeva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1871 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1982 times:

STT757, Chirac has said he would vote NO.
But this vote can become a veto only if at least 9 countries vote YES.
If Bush & Blair were so sure that they had this majority, it would have been easy for them to say "the majority is behind us, but Chirac is blocking the UN with his veto".
But THEY knew THEY DIDN'T have the majority of 9. And instead of loosing the face, they decided not to go for a vote.
Bush said it: it was a poker game, and Chirac opened his mouth too early. But sorry, we don't play that much poker in France. And we consider that the future of the planet is something to serious to be reduced to only a poker game .
Teva



Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16825 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1970 times:

Im not saying the vote would not have been close, even the UK/US Govt's said it was going to be close. But Chirac came out and said he would not allow the vote to take place, he was threatening to use the veto in every interview or speech he made.

Even President Bush last week said that the vote might go against the US/UK but that they would hold the vote (call the whip) anyway to let Coutries voice their support or opposition openly.

But Chirac still insisted on vetoing any vote which made the whole thing pointless, if he cared or was confident the vote would be no against military action he should of let the vote go ahead.

He chose to continue the veto threat.




Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1962 times:

The fact is Bush wouldn't have cared what the UN said anyway. Who's worse? Chirac for promising the veto or Bush for promising to go to war regardless?

User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16825 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1952 times:

Bush would atleast let people make their positions known, Chirac totaly killed the whole process.

What's worse for the US, to have the UN say NO and then go ahead with the war.

Or for Chirac and the French to kill the process, thus allowing the US to take action on the last 17 UN Mandates.

Chirac showed how bad a Poker player (Statesman) he really is, they would have looked good if they let the UN vote go ahead and it turned out against US actions. Yet they're the ones with egg on their face for not even letting the vote take place.

Which shows Chirac was not confident the UN would vote no, or he's really a bad leader.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 13, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1941 times:

The problem with the French threat to veto any second (or eighteenth, depending on your point of view) resolution was that the elected members of the security council felt that if that was going to be the outcome anyway, there was no point in aligning themselves with the US/UK/Spanish position. Anything else became moot from that point. That is the problem with the French stance, it became so uncompromising that there was no point in putting it to a vote. Thus, we do not know whether a vote would have passed, because France's position made it impossible to know.

Interestingly, Jeremy Greenstock, the UK amabassador to the UN, said that he had ten votes at different times, but not together. Thus, there was support for the UK proposal, but it became impossible to pass.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16825 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1934 times:

"The French rejected the British proposal before the Iraqis",

UK amabassador's own words.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineTeva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1871 posts, RR: 16
Reply 15, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1937 times:

Once again, here is the voting process at the security coucil.
They first vote for the Yes, then the abstention, and finally the NO.
Chirac has said that France could only vote NO. But this NO becomes automatically a veto if there is the majority of 9 YES.
Saying you are going to vote NO does not prevent the 14 others members to vote.
And if you look at the history of the UN, France has used its veto less than 20 times. The UK, around 50, and the USA, more than 75 times.
(I don't count USSR and China)
but this proves that there have been at least 75 + 50 + 20=145 votes with a veto. But the resolutions have been proposed.
And as I said, it would have been a good way to show how France is isolated  Yeah sure
From the leader of a Super power, I expect more than something like "I will loose this game, then I change the rules" or "I don't like it, then I don't play anymore"
Teva



Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16825 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1932 times:

Chirac to World leaders who want to voice their support for dis-arming Iraq, "Shut up".


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 17, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1933 times:

That's ridiculous Teva. The mechanics of the voting are not in dispute. The problem is that France's position led to the elected members of the security council believing (and saying) that there was no purpose in voting for the UK proposal because France had already said it would veto it. THAT is the problem. There was never any possiblity of an open vote because France had already made that impossible. If Chirac had kept quiet and then vetoed it, we would know where we stand, but of course that was impossible, because France was afraid it might have to cast a veto to a resolution that would isolate it politically, so by saying what they said, they could prevent it ever passing.

Greenstock's comment about France rejecting the proposal before Iraq was spot on, and it destroyed any chance of a vote.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineTeva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1871 posts, RR: 16
Reply 18, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1924 times:

Banco, If you look at the 145 exemples I mentionnes, you will see that the position of the country using the veto was known in advance.
But let's imagine the vote took place.
And with a result such as:
France & Germany vote NO
Russia and China: abstention
the 11 other members vote YES
Then it is a success for Blair and Bush. They can claim France and Germany are isolated, and Chirac is blocking the process.
But maybe they wer afraid to have only 4 to 6 yes only, despite the political and economical pressures.....
Then, who would have been isolated? Who would have lost the face? Who would have lost more than 3 ministers?????
Teva



Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
User currently offlineSegmentKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1921 times:

Bush did not go against the wills of the UN Security Council. 1441 authorized military action to disarm if Saddam was caught violating it.

And he was.

(and still is violating it, firing Al-Saluud (SP?) missiles at allied forces)..

-nate


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 20, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1910 times:

That's pure sophistry. The circumstances of this vote were entirely different. For one thing, France voted to pass the previous seventeen resolutions on this issue. Have a read of this article below:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$EXYVYA3TJSZCXQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2003/03/22/njerem22.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/03/22/ixhome.html

It's an interview with Jeremy Greenstock.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1907 times:

Hey ! lets tell everyone we don't agree with to shut up rather than counter their issues with facts.

Yes, what a mature and intelligent move to make.

Perhaps you can explain to us why you disagree with him or is that too hard for you?







ADG


User currently offlineThumper From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 550 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1876 times:

Who really cares what Chirac or France says. Its not like an important person or country is saying anything. The U.N. has proved it is useless. France is nothing but a third rate want a be. Like G.B. or the U.S.really cares what Chirac or France has to say.

User currently offlineCPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 5981 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1850 times:

SegmentKing,
They were disabling those missiles, do you expect that they would continue to do so even after their country was invaded? Give me a break.

ADG,
indeed!

I still hear some distant voice in my head, I believe it's the US explaining that there will a second vote on whether a war should go ahead, if Iraq did not comply. But that couldn't be...  Insane


User currently offlineSSTjumbo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1847 times:

Funny how Chirac didn't want Bush and Blair to bake a cake, and now that it's in the oven he wants the whole friggin' thing for himself. That's just the way I see it.

Cheers
-Mike


25 N79969 : Actually the UN authorized force against Iraq...the war is legal. However the gutless members such as France wanted to make up new rules as Iraq innov
26 Post contains images CPH-R : N79969, then why was the US so keen on saying that a second vote would be held, if Saddam was to break 1441? Because they knew they wouldn't get the v
27 Banco : I don't think I would agree France was "gutless", although I have a great deal more respect for Germany's position, which is honestly held. As for wis
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
President Bush Goes Cowboy Again Over Iraq posted Fri Sep 7 2007 05:03:59 by Falcon84
Chirac Not To Run For President Again! posted Sun Mar 11 2007 11:21:27 by RootsAir
Materazzi. Oops, He Did It Again. posted Sun Jan 28 2007 23:53:29 by Thom@s
The Comeback Of Al Gore Will He Try It Again? posted Sun May 21 2006 14:40:08 by Columba
Gordonsmall Goes Mad. Goes "Rhaa" Again! posted Wed Nov 23 2005 11:02:18 by Gkirk
There Goes Your Tax Cut posted Wed Mar 10 2004 01:09:20 by 727LOVER
Do You Like Jacques Chirac? He Lived In US ... posted Tue Feb 18 2003 14:11:42 by Keesje
Clinton Campaign Again Taking Dubious Donations posted Fri Oct 19 2007 18:14:16 by RJdxer
Bush: Threat Of World War III If Iran Goes Nuclea posted Wed Oct 17 2007 13:31:22 by MadameConcorde
NYC Councilman Goes Nuts! posted Wed Oct 17 2007 10:15:54 by Alberchico