Quote Originally Posted by sharrukin

Do you think the USA should look out for France's interest above it's own? Would you vote for any President that did?
Why then should France, or Spain, or anyone do what you will not?
Actually I would, if I felt it was in the world's best interest. If France were stuck in some sort of peace keeping role with some aggressive nation taking shots at her armed forces regularly, I would support France in kicking the snot out of the aggressor and removing him from power, even if it cost some U.S. business or was not popular here. I'm not a "populist" voter and I have a long time horizon. Siding with terrorists or ultra aggressive authoritarian dictators is NEVER the right thing to do. Many nations including the U.S. have done so in the past under the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach. It almost never ends well. I'm a citizen of the world, not just my own country or little piece of it. Depressingly few folks seem to share that view.

My problem with the French gov't is their obstructionist approach that actually drives countries away from diplomatic solutions. Taking a principled stand is one thing, but their business ties, etc. left a bad stain (I seem to recall that they built that Iraqi reactor that the Israeli's took out.) And their efforts were obviously counterproductive to avoiding war. While I'm none too happy with the current U.S. administration and its way of conducting the present war (particularly the justification for it), France has been a pain about dealing with terrorists for a long time. It is my very strongly held belief that they have been working counter to world interest in resolving these issues. Their role has been very reminiscent of Russia's role in the Serbian mess.

Bush wanted this war and it was clear he was going to get it unless Saddam changed his ways rapidly. So the French stepped in to run interference for Saddam, sending the wrong signal. (Remember Bush, Sr. sending the wrong signal about Kuwait?) Result, no resolution with teeth to force Saddam to open back up. I really don't think Saddam thought we were going to invade until the final week or two. France's actions were a tremendous diplomatic blunder that guarranteed that Bush would get his war. I was hoping the French would change their stance in order to PREVENT a war.

WMD was the wrong reason to go to war because the evidence wasn't there. I freely admit that I was duped into thinking it was...until I saw Powell's presentation before the war. My reaction: that's it? I though we had clear proof? However, Saddam could not be left in place forever. Remember the French were agitating to lift all restrictions on Saddam. Meanwhile the U.S. was stuck over there with some clown taking pot shots at our aircraft and no way out. The funny thing about WMD is that Saddam had bluffed other arab nations into believing he still had them. The really ironic part is that while it appears he did destroy the known weapons early after the 1st war, his record keeping was so terrible and he had worked so hard to obstruct weapons inspections that he had no proof of their destruction. (And when you've used chemical weapons on your own people...you are gonna need some proof.)

As for the Spanish, I can't blame them for being angry with the ruling party of the time when they had accused Basque separatists of the Madrid attacks. However, Spain caved in to a terrorist attack and demand, and it sets a horrible precedent. The timing of the terrorists was perfect, and the govt did the opposite of what they should have done at the time, so I can't blame the Spanish people for reacting as they did. It was an internal matter in a time of much grief and anger.