You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Britain
Ministers declare open season on French
2003-03-13
The British government declared open season on France yesterday in retaliation for its threat to veto the proposed UN resolution on Iraq.
Sssh-h-h! Be vewy vewy quiet. I'm hunting weasels!
Tony Blair, after weeks of restraint, openly criticised France in the Commons, as did other ministers. Officials have been told they have been freed by "the highest authority" to lay into the French. Relations have not been so bad since the Battle of Hastings De Gaulle vetoed Britain's entry to the common market in 1066 1963.

In Moscow, the US ambassador threatened the withdrawal of US support to Russia in just about everything several important areas. Russia has threatened to abstain or join France in using its security council veto.

At prime minister's question time, Mr Blair, whose aides have repeatedly ducked invitations to condemn French conduct, allowed himself a show of extreme irritation with the French president, Jacques Chirac, when he said he was working "flat out" to achieve a UN solution "on the basis of a compromise". That goal was "complicated when one nation is saying that, whatever the circumstances, it will veto a second resolution" — a clear dig at Mr Chirac's TV appearance on Monday night. The British government view is that France signed up to the previous Iraq resolution, 1441, last year, but every French action since has undercut attempts to save its own skin put pressure on Iraq.
And to attack their mortal enemy — us.
Last night, Mr Blair was dining privately with Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, but Whitehall sees Germany's political plight and its virtual pacificism since 1945 in a very different light.
"We'd prefer the Germans remain pacifists, thank you very much."
There was no official French reaction to Mr Blair's comments, but the size of his manhood difficulties did not escape the attention of the French press. "Bush's war destabilises Tony Blair" was Le Monde's front page headline, above a cartoon of a heavily armed GI telling a naked and vulnerable-looking Mr Blair: "You're a nice guy, Tony, but maybe I'll do the job without you." In Paris's view the real threat to the UN is not its veto but Washington and London's insistence on a necessary dangerous war they have failed to convince the world and the security council is necessary or justified.
Of course, if your fingers are in your ears ...
A French foreign ministry spokesman said its position was "perfectly clear and consistent, and has been since the very start of all this.
"Our hands are in the air. Of course that's our position, and we're sticking to it."
"First, the bumblers inspectors have failed miserably are progressing and must be allowed to do their job. Second, it must be they, and no one else reasonable, who decides when they have finished or been prevented from doing so.
Lots of people get reviewed by others to see what kind of job they're doing. Happens all the time. Why not the inspectors, Dominique?
"That means, third, we cannot accept an ultimatum that would cut short their work and give the green light to war." The US ambassador to Paris, Howard Leach, has given no newspaper interviews and has made only one brief television appearance, in English, in which he contented himself with saying that Washington would consider a French veto a "very unfriendly gesture".
"We're not saying that we'll nuke 'em tomorrow, but it'll be right unfriendly."
Analysts say it is difficult to see what direct economic sanctions the US could impose on France: consumer boycotts of wine, cheese and the like would have a limited but useful effect, and official trade sanctions are unlikely because they would have to embrace the EU and thus risk hurting such "loyal" partners as Britain and Spain. US corporate investment in France might tail off, as might American tourist dollars, and defence and aerospace companies dealing directly with the Bush administration would clearly suffer. But Washington cannot wave the carrot of development aid, debt write-offs or investment in infrastructure and industry, as it can in Russia.

The US ambassador in Moscow, Alexander Vershbow, urged Russia to "heavily weigh all the consequences" of using its veto. He said it could be cut out of rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure and oilfields. US investment in energy and joint work on security, terrorism, the international space station, and building an anti-ballistic missile system would be at risk, and he pointed out that Russia's relationship with Nato was only just ending beginning.
Posted by:Steve White

#8  France: TOTAL (FINAELF) Veto!
Posted by: tcc   2003-03-13 18:05:42  

#7  "de Villepin said France wanted to preserve Security Council unity and was open to all possibilities of keeping Saddam in power"
Posted by: RW   2003-03-13 13:08:29  

#6  WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Thursday there may be no vote on a U.N. resolution authorizing war against Iraq in a clear sign that Washington fears it may not garner sufficient support.

"The options remain, go for a vote and see what members say or not go for a vote," he told a U.S. congressional committee. "All the options that you can imagine are before us and we will be examining them today, tomorrow and into the weekend."

President Bush is feverishly lobbying members of the U.N. Security Council, where Washington needs 9 votes and no dissent from the five veto-holding powers to pass a resolution that may pave the way to a war to disarm Iraq.

The resolution would give Iraq a few days to satisfy the sponsors that it was giving up all weapons of mass destruction and fully cooperating in their disposal.

The U.S. push to use military force against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has run into dramatic opposition from powers like Russia and France, which earlier this week said it would veto any such resolution.

In what may be a hint at some flexibility, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said France wanted to preserve Security Council unity and was open to all possibilities.

"except what the U.S. wants"
Posted by: Frank G   2003-03-13 12:49:01  

#5  [The U.S. ambassador in Moscow warns Russia that] "building an anti-ballistic missile system would be at risk".

Help me on this one. Have we previously proposed sharing ABM technology with the Russians? Say it ain't so!
Posted by: Tom   2003-03-13 11:18:08  

#4  Sssh-h-h! Be vewy vewy quiet. I'm hunting weasels!

Damn! Good thing I wasn't drinking anything when I read that!
Posted by: Ptah   2003-03-13 10:36:36  

#3  The French aren't good at much, but they are very good at pissing people off. Let's see how good they are at groveling when all this shit blows up in their face.
Posted by: tu3031   2003-03-13 10:17:55  

#2  Is there a bag limit? And is one limited as to weapons of choice?
Posted by: Chuck   2003-03-13 09:31:23  

#1  The WP is reporting that the documents we have on Iraq's nuke capability may be falsified.

But vodkapundit links to a Safire article "A shipment of 20 tons of HTPB [a binding agent for solid-fuel missile engines], whose sale to Iraq is forbidden by U.N. resolutions and the oil-for-food agreement, left China in August 2002 in a 40-foot container. It arrived in the Syrian port of Tartus (fortified by the Knights Templar in 1183, and the Mediterranean terminus for an Iraqi oil pipeline today) and was received there by a trading company that was an intermediary for the Iraqi missile industry, the end user. The HTPB was then trucked across Syria to Iraq."
Posted by: Anonymous   2003-03-13 00:50:42  

00:00