France: Why?

[Disguy-youknow]

Many people have many differnt theorys as to why France is such a vocal opponent to the war. It is evident that France isn't objecting on a moral basis, and national soverignty; hell, look at France's continued meddleing in Ivory Coast's civil war. Some suggest the oil contracts, others suggest France's tradition of surrender. However, the oil contract theroy doesn't quite hold out because the contracts were loans for the future, and were written off. Hence, economicly France has little to lose. Instead, I think the reason for their opposition is a little less superficial as some may think. The French fear a one superpower world. Think about it. The US dominates in almost every area and has to comparible rival now that the USSR has collapsed. And so, what France is trying to do is to make the US toe the line to the UN, and will try anything to make the US subservient to the opinion of the UN, by welding their veto, their hope to stop the US from ebing all powerful. They did this back in the era of the genocide in Yugoslavia, and they do so again today. Looking objectivly, their efforts aren't doing anything but makeing the US Congress rename French fries "freedom fires" Ugghhh Doesn't our Congress have more importanty things to do?

[Jimsween]

At 3/22/03 11:57 PM, Disguy_youknow wrote: Ugghhh Doesn't our Congress have more importanty things to do?

You would think so but besides giving themselves raises every 2 months they dont...

[NJDeadzone]

1. France relies on oil from Iraq or else it would freeze over, and the gas prices are triple american gas prices.

2. Since the Ottoman Empire, France has the largest Arab population out of any Western European nation. This gives the probability of terrorist activity high if they support the US

[implodinggoat]

The French are essentially hypocrits. They support pacifism and diplomacy because it is the PC thing to do except when it comes to their own dealings.

[implodinggoat]

Your theory about France wishing to control the U.S.'s power is interesting and plausible. However recent events have shown the obvious flaw in such a strategy. Since the U.S. has proceeded without U.N. aproval the U.N.'s power has been greatly undermined. Personally I feel this is a good thing as the U.N. was getting too powerful for my tastes. It is an excellent forum for diplomacy however when it tries to dictate policy for member nations its actions reek of a world government.

[NJDeadzone]

At 3/23/03 12:22 AM, implodinggoat wrote: Since the U.S. has proceeded without U.N. aproval the U.N.'s power has been greatly undermined.

Yes and the US's power to veto will ensure that Iraq's new government will made in the interests of the US, since the UN indirectly required the invasion of Iraq and cost America alot of money

[karasz]

At 3/23/03 12:37 AM, NJDeadzone wrote:

At 3/23/03 12:22 AM, implodinggoat wrote: Since the U.S. has proceeded without U.N. aproval the U.N.'s power has been greatly undermined.

Yes and the US's power to veto will ensure that Iraq's new government will made in the interests of the US, since the UN indirectly required the invasion of Iraq and cost America alot of money

well france has said that they are ready to veto a resolution stating that britian and america run the show in iraq after the war... (CNN approx 330pm)