Hello Christian,

>This is not true. France and Germany are dead set against going to war
>without giving peace a chance

That is incorrect, France and Germany are dead set against doing anything to
Saddam.  Peace has been given a chance for 12 years and 17 UN resolutions.
I ask you simply this, when would you say peace has been given a chance, and
it failed so now it's time to act?

>You may dislike Schroeder and Chirac as much as I dislike Bush (I do
>not have a problem with that), but ... please ... why nearly call my
country
>a Saddam allie ? This is not true, has never been and, most likely will
>never be.

I do not dislike Jacques Chirac at all, actually, I was glad to see him
elected.  I do not know a whole lot about him but I think he is a definite
improvement over Francois Mitterand.  I do not have any respect for
Gerhardt, I think he is a weak-kneed, spineless little so and so who is
doing a great disservice to his country on many fronts.  The fact he
repeatedly attacked the US during his last campaign and condoned one of his
cabinet when she equated Bush to Hitler simply makes me respect him even
less.

I do not know why you dislike Bush, you never explained why, but it is
certainly your prerogative to do that.

I did not say that France was an ally of Saddam, I chose my words carefully
when I said they almost act as if they were.  Remember, it is France who has
repeatedly intervened on behalf of France to allow Saddam to sell more and
more of his oil until there are no longer any sanctions against him selling
as much as he can.

As you know, I speak French fluently.  I also travel through France quite
often.  A few months ago, I was having dinner by myself in a restaurant in
Paris.  I usually never announce or demonstrate that I speak the language;
it's more fun this way.  At the table next to me, a man and a woman were
also having dinner and they were talking loudly.  So, I said to myself,
reading the International edition of USA Today, "ha ha, dinner
entertainment."  So the lady said to the man, in French, but I will
translate: "The Americans just want to take over Iraq and the oil.  We need
that oil."  The man replied, "No, they want to get rid of Saddam and get rid
of terrorism.  Don't you remember "le onze septembre", September 11?  If we
do not stop terrorism and Iraq and other similar regimes, they will come
after us next."

I was shocked; here was a Frenchman who actually understood the import of
the situation.  I would suggest there are many more like him in your country
and they are pretty angry at their government for their current position.

So I chose my words carefully and even though your government may seem to be
acting as if it is an ally of Saddam, you are correct, France would never BE
an ally of such a despot.  But they will do lots of business with him.  :)

(As an aside, earlier that day, I had flown Air France from Hamburg to
Paris-CDG.  When I boarded the plane, the flight attendants (2 ladies and
one gentleman) came over looking at their list and were wondering if an
American with a name like Beauchemin could actually speak French.  This was
one case where I was happy to demonstrate my fluency in French.  The service
was excellent and we had a lot of fun talking about stuff.  I never told
them that I was originally born in Montreal and had lived there for the
first 30 years of my life.  They didn't ask.:)  )

>This is true, but it is for entirely different reasons that have nothing to
>do with the current international situation but everything to do with the
>current German domestic situation.

I am sure you are mostly correct here, however, the German opposition party
is taking exception to Gerhardt's conduct vis-a-vis Iraq and they are saying
that Germany should be more proactive and not be seen as defending Saddam.
Here is a link to a recent story and notice the 4th paragraph from the
bottom.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-573483,00.html

"He was also wrong-footed when the Chancellor announced that Germany would
never accept a UN resolution "legitimising a war" against Iraq."

Now, with respect to NATO.  Currently France Belgium and Germany do not want
to allow preparations for the defense of a fellow NATO member, Turkey, in
the event of a war.  Turkey, which has a common border with Iraq and which
is 95% Muslim and which is on board with the US and 18 other countries in
Europe against Saddam, wants to invoke the clause where each NATO member is
pledged to defend any other member.  They want some AWACS planes and some
anti-missile missiles in case Iraq sends some of their "non-existent" WMDs
their way.

As I am sure you know, France is not a full partner in NATO ever since de
Gaulle pulled them out in 1965 so France doesn't really have a say here.
However, Germany joined in 1955 and is a full member.  Or one would think.

No, I do not know why Germany is acting the way it is, and that was one of
the questions I had in the last post.

>No, that's exactly the contrary ! Germany, France, and other countries, are
>advocation another UN resolution precisely because they believe in a
>possible UN mandate for going to war with Saddam. If these countries wanted
>to make a farce of the UNO, would they advocate yet another resolution ?

>Does anyone seriously believe that Saddam can't shuttle things around
>between a few hundred sites at will ? Remember, the UN inspectors are only
a
>few dozens on the field, and they can't make sure that a site that has been
>inspected one day won't be stocked full of WoMDs the next morning. In other
>words, inspections are one thing, but ensuring compliance would come next.
>Like itwas done until a recent period in North Korea, sealing facilities
and
>setting up cameras to monitor the sites.

>> What is interesting is that in the last
> >few weeks, they
> >have actually discovered WMDs.  They were certainly not
> >supposed to find
> >anything,

>Then what are inspections for, exactly, if not for finding what Saddam has
>to hide ?


Please refer to the link above about Germany's position.

Whilst France will probably change its mind, Germany will not.  At any rate,
have you even read resolution 1441?  I have.  Nowhere does it say the
inspectors are there to play scavenger hunt finding Saddam's WMDs.  Saddam
was to present a full and complete list of the WMD he has or had, and their
disposition.  If he had destroyed his weapons, that was to have been fully
documented and proven.  If he had them in stockpiles, that was to also be
documented and verified.  He was also to give total and unconditional access
to his scientists for full interviews or debriefings.   What he did is state
in 12,000 pages, that he never had and did not currently have any WMD
whatsoever.

BTW, this type of inspection was done in South Africa in 1993.  At that
time, that country rid itself of all WMDs and fully and meticulously
documented their disposal.  They then presented all this documentation to
the UN and inspectors went in to verify everything and it was done.

There is absolutely no way the 100 or so inspectors could find the WMDs in a
country roughly the size of California.  And that was not the intent of nor
was it written in 1441.  The inspectors have only gone to known sites, there
are not scouring the countryside or digging everywhere.  They are NOT
supposed to do that.

(An aside.  Saddam has had 12 years to prepare for this "inspection."
Currently we can only rely on satellite imagery to find his stuff.  We would
rather use U-2 aircraft, but he has threatened to shoot them down, which he
can.  It is too bad we no longer have the use of the SR-71 fleet.  It could
image Iraq totally every few hours, with impunity. The schedule of
satellites is know, SR-71 overflights would come without warning.)

1441 warns of grave consequences to Iraq if it is found to be in material
breach of the resolution.  1441 does not mention the need for another
resolution.  1441 is complete within itself.

(And BTW, Korea, even under full "surveillance" and with signed treaties was
able to create one or more nuclear weapons.  Inspections?  Please...)

Denys

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *