Powell Says France will Face Consequences for Stannding up to the US

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by yago


What makes you think, that the other NATO-members would accept that ?

If Bush goes on like he's doing now, the only allies our American friends (I'm using the German terminology now) will have left, are going to be Georgia, Albania and some pacific Islands.

at: MichaeltheGreat: Michelin is a French company.



South Carolina is French property. Well, not the whole of it.

Is South Carolina worth anything ??

Hey

Australia and England are our permanent *****es

and Israel is with is as long as the rest of the world is agaist them

Jon Miller

[yago]

Australia and England are our permanent *****es

Ahm, Israel is certainly true.

But I wouldn't count on the British and Australians.

[Ned]

Blair is now arguing that it would be better for France and Germany to cooperate with the US than oppose it. He argues that it not necessary to have a multi-polar world because that leads to antagonism.

So far, France and Germany have not responded. I expect Blair would like to get the US, France, Germany, the UK and Spain together for a frank talk.

But, just let me say that the US cannot forget what France did. We are supposed to be allies, not enemies. So, what I expect is some adjustment in our formal relationship as allies. Perhaps, suspension from Nato?

[Ned]

Have you heard the latest from Iraq? Numbers of documents have been uncovered showing that France routinely briefed Saddam on private conversations between Chirac, and Bush and Blair, kept him well informed of the goings on at the UN, etc.

Ally, yes. But not with the US.

[Drake Tungsten]

Tony Blair is one of the few voices of reason left in a world gone mad.

Blair calls for Europe-U.S. unity

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Europe and the United States should work as "one polar power" to tackle the world's problems rather than bickering as they did over Iraq, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said.

Speaking to the Financial Times newspaper, Blair said the best way to stop Washington acting unilaterally was to join forces with it rather than opposing it.

"I don't want to see a situation develop again in which either Europe or America sees a huge strategic interest at stake and we are not helping each other," Blair said in what the paper described as a warning to French President Jacques Chirac.

"Some want a so-called multi-polar world where you have different centers of power, and I believe will quickly develop into rival centers of power.

"And others believe, and this is my notion, that we need one polar power which encompasses a strategic partnership between Europe and America."

"Those people who fear 'unilateralism' -- so called and in inverted commas -- in America should realize that the quickest way to get that is to set up a rival polar power to America."

France led bitter opposition to the war in Iraq while Britain was easily Washington's closest and most important ally in the toppling of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Blair strove to reconcile the differing views in the United States and Europe but ultimately failed in his bid to get a second resolution from the United Nations Security Council sanctioning the use of force in Iraq.

While Blair insisted on the need to stand side-by-side with the United States, he also stressed the importance of Europe to Britain -- traditionally more sceptical about the drive towards European unity than many of its neighbors.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe...eut/index.html

[Japher]

You've described the French as a relationship like a marriage of 225 years, and it's now seeking marriage counseling.

Too many jokes!!!

It's obvious now who wares the pants... It are days like this - when I see those who were designated to guide the country are actually standing up for it - that I am proud to be an American.

France (and Germany) gots some splain' to do!

{I Love Lucy joke}

[gsmoove23]

Speaking to the Financial Times newspaper, Blair said the best way to stop Washington acting unilaterally was to join forces with it rather than opposing it.

What a *****! The only way to stop the US from doing stupid stuff is to join in, that way it won't seem so stupid I guess.

The only way to achieve one polar power that encompasses a strategic partnership between Europe and America, as Blair puts it, is to allow equal weight and consideration for each opinion within the partnership. Otherwise its just one guy bullying everyone else, but as long as their are politicians like Blair willing to bend over...

[Dauphin]

What's the best way to control a horse - by trying to push it in the direction you want to go or by trying to hold the reins and ride it?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
What's the best way to control a horse - by trying to push it in the direction you want to go or by trying to hold the reins and ride it?

Note that this situation bears no resemblence to the "coalition of the willing."

[Drake Tungsten]

Tony Blair achieved far more in moving US policy his way by supporting the US than France did by being obstinate and pissing off the US. The man is a genius.

[DanS]

Blair is hitting on the central issue. France trying to set up a rival power to the US, with France as the center, is about the dumbest diplomatic and geopolitical move I have seen in a long time. Why did France try it? Are Chirac and De Villepin that clueless?

Edit: None of these analogies work, so why not just say what we have on our mind? We felt obliged to the UK to give them the support that they needed, when they gave us the support that we needed. Add in a lot of respect and gratitude.

[Japher]

What's the best way to control a horse

The best way to control a horse is to love and nuture it so that it earns your trust and allows you to ride it without pushing, proding or leading.

Silly question. I can't figure out it's rhetorical nature. I can see being addressed to both sides (french and US).

Drake

[GePap]

Don't care to read most of the thread, but did anyone figure out what a realisitc "consequence" would be, anyway? You kow, one that did not violate something or other we have signed, and something we could do without some third party nixing?

[Japher]

Gepap: Does it reall matter? As long as "consequence" did not mean nothing... which is what was being done.

[DanS]

GePap: It doesn't mean much. Just going out of our way to deny France the influence that it craves.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
Blair is hitting on the central issue. France trying to set up a rival power to the US, with France as the center, is about the dumbest diplomatic and geopolitical move I have seen in a long time. Why did France try it? Are Chirac and De Villepin that clueless?

I personally think it is one of Chirac's bright ideas. Since his 82% victory last year, he fathoms himself as a stateman rather than a clown.

I personally don't think the constitution of a EU pole is fundamentally a bad idea, but the timing was poor, and the insistance was ludicrous. In the multipolar world that lies before us, the US will act more and more out of egoism and ad-hoc alliances, which will let the European countries no choice but to be crooked by the US, or look for their interests by themselves.
The opposition towards a common rival is the easiest way to achieve a military and diplomatic unity. The US happen to be the most convenient rival, as it is today's undisputed hyperpower.

However, the very idea of having France, or any other country, at the center of the EU pole is utterly stupid. For a pole to emerge, the power structure must be united under a common rule (say, a significant European parliament and an elected executive). The EU can not hope to be a power as long as individual nation states pretend to guide Europe.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Japher
Gepap: Does it reall matter? As long as "consequence" did not mean nothing... which is what was being done.

So what "not nothing" would this be? for Chirac not to get invited to the ranch (poor him...), and for us to keep French companies form bidding in Iraq (lsome legal question to be had)?

GePap: It doesn't mean much. Just going out of our way to deny France the influence that it craves.

And how could we do that, beyond showing that they don;t currently have our ear, which has been true since Bush came into Office anyway?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I personally think it is one of Chirac's bright ideas. Since his 82% victory last year, he fathoms himself as a stateman rather than a clown.

I personally don't think the constitution of a EU pole is fundamentally a bad idea, but the timing was poor, and the insistance was ludicrous. In the multipolar world that lies before us, the US will act more and more out of egoism and ad-hoc alliances, which will let the European countries no choice but to be crooked by the US, or look for their interests by themselves.
The opposition towards a common rival is the easiest way to achieve a military and diplomatic unity. The US happen to be the most convenient rival, as it is today's undisputed hyperpower.

However, the very idea of having France, or any other country, at the center of the EU pole is utterly stupid. For a pole to emerge, the power structure must be united under a common rule (say, a significant European parliament and an elected executive). The EU can not hope to be a power as long as individual nation states pretend to guide Europe.

Common language would help.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GP
Common language would help.

I don't think it'll happen during my lifetime. Except if everybody agrees to speak French

[TCO]

Those shared conversations may not have leaked any classified information. But they definitely show a betrayal of confidence. The case for excluding France from NATO meetings gets stronger...

[TCO]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I don't think it'll happen during my lifetime. Except if everybody agrees to speak French

You look like you've already converted to the universal language...

[TCO]

dp

[gsmoove23]

All they could possibly show is France trying to convince Iraq to meet security council resolutions by more diplomatic means as opposed to US brinksmanship. I thought the US and France were doing an excellent job of good-cop bad-cop before Bush had to screw it all up by going to war. There is no betrayal evident in that article, only normal diplomatic relations.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GP
You look like you've already converted to the universal language...

I am speaking English when I'm speaking to foreigners (except Germans, since I speak German too). But I will never abandon my language for the sake of the EU, no matter how diehard European I am.

If you ask for a common working language, that is only used in interactions between foreign people, it will soon be a complete reality, since it is already a reality in most of the educated class.
In Europe, the possible solution will be the adoption of 3 working languages to avoid France and Germany to be pissed and block the idea. From my experience in the European Parliament, most people from a "minority language" speak English, French or German on a daily basis.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I am speaking English when I'm speaking to foreigners (except Germans, since I speak German too). But I will never abandon my language for the sake of the EU, no matter how diehard European I am.

If you ask for a common working language, that is only used in interactions between foreign people, it will soon be a complete reality, since it is already a reality in most of the educated class.
In Europe, the possible solution will be the adoption of 3 working languages to avoid France and Germany to be pissed and block the idea. From my experience in the European Parliament, most people from a "minority language" speak English, French or German on a daily basis.

And of those 3, they speak English by far preferentially.

[Spiffor]

The European parliament, like all the other EU institutions, is located either in Strasbourg or Brussels (the important institutions are located in Brussels, the unimportant ones in Strasbourg, and the Parliament is located in both places ). Both are (partly) French speaking cities.

I was actually surprised so many people were talking French when speaking to foreigners rather than English. Don't forget French is much easier for other latin people to speak (such as Italians and Spaniards), who are a significant chunk of the population.

I'd assume the Commissioners speak mostly in English, but I wouldn't bet my hand on it.

[TCO]

I did an assignment at a Swiss-based international conglomerate. The official language was English. That's what all the documents were in. That's what people would talk unless it was an all native-German speaking group. All official meetings were in English. You may be used to it. But if you step back and look, it is amazing. English is the "lingua franca".

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The EU can not hope to be a power as long as individual nation states pretend to guide Europe.

That's a especially combined with Chirac's view on the role of the EU vs that of the nation-state.

[Myrddin]

And this is where it gets really confusing:

Lingua franca is now an English phrase meaning common language (usually English), which is actually borrowed from the Italian for the French language

English is so successful because it is simple and borrows ideas well

[yago]

I did an assignment at a Swiss-based international conglomerate. The official language was English. That's what all the documents were in. That's what people would talk unless it was an all native-German speaking group. All official meetings were in English. You may be used to it. But if you step back and look, it is amazing. English is the "lingua franca".

You know, that english consists to 60% of French ???

Well, anyway, English, as bastard between French and German, is by far the easiest language to learn. So, it's way easier to learn as italian, swedish or dutch.