Hi Denys,

I'm always glad to exchange opinions and points of view even if we do not
agree on everything. It's not confrontation for confrontation's sake, and in
my mind it's not confrontation at all. Just an exchange. After all, what is
the point of exchanging ideas if we agree on everything ?

That being said, you wrote :

> 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?

I may agree with that, but, as I wrote in another post, why now ? Why not in
1991 when the troops were on the field and all the nations were belonging to
one grand coalition ? Why not in 1998 when Saddam kicked out the inspectors
? Why not at any time in between when it was well known (and well
documented) that he routinely cheated UN-mandated inspections, sacntions,
and everything else he could ? As I already wrote more than once, I'm not
disputing the fact that Saddam cheated, lied and deceived many times over.
It's with the timing that I have a problem. If I were cynical, I would even
venture out as far as to say that Bush (intentionally Bush, not the US) is
deflecting international attention off of a war it can't win (war against
Al-Qaeda) toward a war it can win easily (gainst Irak).

> 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.

His approval ratings tend to, to some extent, confirm that. But one does not
govern a country with approval ratings only.

> 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.

Whether that's true long-term, we'll see long-term. In the short term, he
his trying to hang on to his job, in the face of severely declining approval
ratings. Margaret Thatcher in the early-80s was quite successful at handling
severely depleted approval ratings at some point and riding to landslide
victories a few years after, so we'll see.

Of course, Schroeder's recent reelection was less than a landslide, as
everyone knows.

>  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.

This was done for purely political reasons. Whether we like that or not
(and, since you and I do not vote in Germany, there an almost nil chance we
are ever asked to give our opinion on that), he has to pay a little more
than lip service to his coalition partner the Green party.

Of course, equating an individual to Hitler does not show a great deal of
respect for the individual. I would think that, barring always possible
"speaking in the heat of the action, my_words_have _exceeded_my_thoughts",
it was the intention.

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

I do not have a problem with Bush the individual. I do not know enough of
him. However, I have a problem with Bush's attitude toward any other country
but the USA. The guy seems to lack the international exposure his dad has
shown over the years. He is probably a good President for the USA, but he
clearly does not have the clout of a world leader. He displays a way too
much unilateral attitude to earn the respect of the rest of the world. 9/11
came as a very pleasant surprise in that perspective, but Bush's world
stature has faded away back into unilateralism after that. Clearly, he is
perceived as a gung-ho cowboy by the rest of the world. Of course, since the
rest of the world does not vote in the US elections, there is only a very
slight chance he ever tries to enhance his image.

On that point, we may even say that 280 million US citizens get a chance to
express their opinion at the voting booth, and the remaining 5.9 or so
billion are totally isolated and left out of the process.

> 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.

This is right. My sincere apology for twisting your words out of their
intended purpose.

> 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.

He was selling it on the black market anyway, so I'm not sure France's (and
other coutries') attitude really changed a lot. But that can be argued
endlessly without ever reaching a meaningful conclusion.

> As you know, I speak French fluently.

Oh, do you ? So why the heck are we exchanging mail in English all the time
? OK, just a cheap joke. Very cheap indeed.

> I also travel through
> France quite
> often.

Good. Next time you come here, drop me a line. You are always welcome.

> 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.

Ah, here comes the fun part !!!!

> 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.

As I said in another post, the US and France accuse each other to be after
Irak's oil. Whether that's true or not could be irrelevant.

> 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?

This is where I have a problem. Did Saddam order 9/11 ? No. Did he fund the
terrorists who commited these attacks ? No. Did he order or fund any other
known terrorist attack ? AFAIK, no. So why go after Saddam when the real
target is OBL ? That sounds pretty inconsistent.

That does not make Saddam an innocent man, but if he's guilty, it's of OTHER
deeds, not of 9/11.

> If we
> do not stop terrorism and Iraq and other similar regimes,
> they will come
> after us next."

At best, the point is twisted. I have a hard time to understand whether and
how getting rid of Saddam will prevent thousands of other little bin Ladens
(not to speak of the original one, who has not yet been nabbed) from
sprouting all over the world. Getting rid of Saddam might right a few
wrongs, but it will (at best) do nothing about terrorism, and could even
worsen the situation to a point we would not want to experience. 9/11 (and
other heinous attacks before that - remember WTC'93 ?) has shown that the US
is not immune to terrorism. We are on the same boat, really, and we should
avoid rocking it too wildly, for fear of capsizing and drowning everyone.

I'm not questioning your translation, of course. I have great confidence in
your French skills and moral integrity.

> I was shocked;

I would probably have been shockes as well, though for different reasons.

> 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.

Of course, there are. Current polls show a roughly 70-75% support for the
official French Government's position. That is still somewhat short of
unanimity.

> 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.  :)

In that respect, you did much better than Bush is perceived to do.

> (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.

For some reason, I was ready to bet you still had your Canadian citizenship.
Or do you hold both ?

That being said, I know for sure there are many Americans with
French-sounding names. My favorite sport when I'm in the States is to check
the phone directories for peope with the same name as I have. Check for
Lheureux and L'Heureux and L'heureux, and you will find dozens of them in
any major city in the USA. Since most of them are n-th generation
immigrants, I would bet they don't speak a single word of French.

Hey, think of this : I almost immigrated to the States myself. I was
consireding doing it first in 1989, then in 1994, then again in 1997, then
again in 1998. It did not happen for purely family-related reasons. I would
probably have had great fun too, if I had been given the opportunity to
listen to other people's conversation, much the way you did that night in
Paris.

> This was
> one case where I was happy to demonstrate my fluency in
> French.

Air France has made a tremendous come-back in service and quality terms,
since the early-80s. They are one of the very few sucessfull airlines in an
otherwise depressed industry.

> 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.

I used to know Montreal pretty well. I've lived there for a time in 1982. I
even considered applying for political asylum at the time. Friends who had
emigrated earlier for more down-to-earth reasons bronght me back to a more
realistic perception of the situation (!!!).

> >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.

This, too, is for the sake of German domestic politics. Germany, like most
of Europe, has a parliamentary regime, unlike the US, which has a
presidential political system. The three main powers are not separated the
same way. In the case of Germany, the executive power (Chancellor and
government) is chosen with legislative elections. So a single election votes
in the two powers : executive and legislative. Thus, the legislative can
bring down the executive : just have a coalition partner switch its
allegiance, and there you go ! This is why Schroeder has to pay more than
lip service to his coalition partner the Green party. As a side efefct, the
opposition will take any chance it can to ruin the Majority's standing any
time it can. This is the rule of the game.

Of course, I won't teach you how different it is in the States. You know
that better than I do.

> 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."

Well, that's the curse of democracy and free speech. Dissenting voices are
allowed to express themselves freely, but they may blur the intended
message. This is true everywhere. In Europe, the Bush administration is not
perceived as speaking with only one voice. We are able to delineate pretty
clearly who's a hard-liner (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice to some
extent), who's softer (Powell), and who's standing by and counting the
points (Bush). At some point, Bush's message was so blurred that he called
his troops to order. And Ican't think that haviong Powell do the
presentation was at random. It was obviously a carefully calculated move by
the Bush administration to mollify European allies (including France and
Germany) into falling in line with the US.

> 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.

As far as NATO is concerned, I think that one of the provisions of the
Treaty is that an attack against one member is considered as an attack
against them all. So if Turkey is ever attacked by Irak, this would pretty
much qualify, since you correctly point out that Turkey is a full-blown NATO
member.

But to the best of my knowledge, Turkey has not been attacked, and there are
no obvious signs it is going to be. Of course, there is always a possibility
that Irak retaliates against Turkey after a possible US attack. I do not
know what the Treaty says about retaliatory strikes. I also have little
doubt that the mighty US Army, Air Force, etc, would wipe out any
significant Iraki force only slightly hinting at a possible move toward
Turkey in a matter of hours.

And let's not forget that the common border between Turkey and Irak is all
in the Iraqi Northern no-fly zone. So it gives Turkey and its allies ample
notice time. That being said, I sincerely hope that they won't be attacked
and they will never need that notice. Once again, the wrong people would be
impacted.

Makes me think ... Do you spell Irak or Iraq ?

> 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.

If I were the Turkish government, I'd probably do the same. And if I were a
Turkish citizen, the perceived current move toward war would scare the hell
out of my pants !

Now, who said Saddam's WMDs are "non-existent" ? I would say they have not
yet been found. And that is precisely why inspectors are on the field at
this moment.

> 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.

Technicalities, again...

France is and remains to this day (and, to the best of my knowledge, has no
plans to change that situation) a full-status NATO member. However, in 1966,
France pulled out of the Integrated Command of NATO due to (this is correct)
Charles de Gaulle's decision to pull out. Once again, his Memoirs are very
instructive on that point, though still as bulky !!!

Now what does that mean ? That France has a say about global, political
decisions impacting the general functioning of NATO. For instance, France
had a say when NATO was recently enlarged. France has a say when a new
Secretary-General is chosen. France would probably have a say if it or
another member is attacked (obviously Turkey comes to mind). However, since
it does not participate in the integrated command, France has no say about
military exercises, manoeuvers, tactics, choosing the weapons systems,
procurement, things like radio systems, etc. There was a similar issue in
Gulf War I, when French troops had to be placed under a specific UN chain of
command to avoid being directly placed under US command.

> However, Germany joined in 1955 and is a full member.  Or one
> would think.

To the best of my knowledge, they still are, with no plans for a change.

> 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.

The answer may lie in domectic politics.

[stuff snipped]

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

I have read it. It may confirm my hypothesis about German domectic politics.

> Whilst France will probably change its mind,

Depending on further factual onformation, I agree that could happen. So far
the publicly available information is less than convincing, but is all
information publicly available ? I have my doubts !

And, once again, while I have no probel with Bush's current big-stick
attitude toward Irak, I have a problem with the same attutude by the same
person toward my country. This is , at best, not due consideration for an
ally and, at worst, a plainly offensive attitude. Does Bush seriously thinks
he is going to blackmail France into submission by blocking French cheese
sales in the States ? This is ludicrous ! But it's what was announced last
night on TV anyway. He can use a big stick against an enemy, but he should
not use one against a friend.

Unless he seriously considers turning his friend into an enemy.

> Germany will
> not.

This may or may not be true. I don't know.

> At any rate,
> have you even read resolution 1441?

Not in detail. Globally speaking, these resolutions are always written in
relatively unspecific terms, simply to be voted. If they are too specific,
there is a strong possibility that one veto-carrying member uses their right
and scuttles the resolution. So I would expect 1441 to be writtent in
intentionally vage enough terms to satisfy France's and the US quite
divergent interests and objectives.

In other words, they can almost always be interpreted in more than one way.

> I have.

Is it available on a UN website ?

> Nowhere does it say the
> inspectors are there to play scavenger hunt finding Saddam's
> WMDs.

See my comment above !

> 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.

Vice-Prime Minister Tariq Aziz (sp?) announced just that on French TV last
night. But it may be too little, too late. And I would be very, very cautios
before extending trust to Saddam's righ-hand man. He has is own record of
lying, cheating and deceiving.

> What
> he did is state
> in 12,000 pages, that he never had and did not currently have any WMD
> whatsoever.

Did anyone believe he was telling the truth ?

> 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.

At that time, South Africa was negotiating its way back into the
international community. It had begun the first steps of dismantling
apartheid. It is not my perception that Iraq is at this moment attempting to
rejoin the international community. The situation of both countries is very
different. South Africa shows great care of its image aborad. Iraq does not.

> There is absolutely no way the 100 or so inspectors could
> find the WMDs in a
> country roughly the size of California.

I could not agree more ! Triple the number of inspectors, and you probably
still fall short of what's really needed for a careful combing of a whole
country, including its basements.

> 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.

I definitely need to read 1441 !!!

> (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 has already happened. Oh my, who said I'm allowed to use irony/humor in
the middle of a serious discussion ? BTW, who remembers the name of Francis
Gary Powers ?

> It is too bad we no longer have the use of the SR-71
> fleet.

I would have bet a fair amont of money that the U-2 would have been
decommissioned long before the SR-71, since it's more than 10 years older.
I'm wrong, it seems.

> It could
> image Iraq totally every few hours, with impunity. The schedule of
> satellites is know, SR-71 overflights would come without warning.)

True enough ! That may have given the inspections more leverage and more
relevance.

> 1441 warns of grave consequences to Iraq if it is found to be
> in material
> breach of the resolution.

"Grave consequences"... That's exactly the imprecise and intentionally vague
wording I was referring to in my comment above. It can be anything from
little more than a pat on the wrist "Saddam, you naughty boy, now you can't
travel in the West, and we'll starve your citizens 10 more years" up to
total annihilation.

The gravest consequence might be that it probably deprives the UN Security
Council of more means of action.

> 1441 does not mention the need for another
> resolution.

If it had done (like France would probably have wished it did), the US would
not have voted it.

> 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...)

Now North Korea has probably made progress one step forward in its WMD
program. Proof is that recently they re-opened a nuclear facility that had
been locked under the inspection program you mention. I would pay a lot of
attention to what Kim does in the coming months.

> Denys

Take care,

Christian

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