Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Major US Ally in War on Terrorism: France!

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Major US Ally in War on Terrorism: France!
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Major US Ally in War on Terrorism: France!
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
The reason is simple, Dave:

In reply to: Major US Ally in War on Terrorism: France!

In France, which has a Muslim population reaching 8 percent -- the largest in Europe -- U.S. and French terrorism experts are desperate to take terror-group recruiters and new recruits off the streets, and have been willing to put their own anti-terrorism laws into the service of allies to lure suspects such as Ganczarski from abroad.

"Yes, without a doubt there are some cases where we participate that way," one senior French intelligence official said.

France sent its interrogators to Guantanamo Bay to gather evidence that could be used in French court against the French detainees the United States was holding there. France is the only one of six European nations that continues to imprison detainees returned to it from Guantanamo Bay.

Bruguiere and other French intelligence officials like to note dryly that France first realized it had become a target of al Qaeda-style jihadists when a group of Algerian radicals hijacked an airliner with the intent of crashing it into the Eiffel Tower in 1994. They viewed the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as another, if much larger, part of the jihadist campaign against western civilization.

So it did not surprise many intelligence officers when, in the days after the attack, President Jacques Chirac issued an edict to French intelligence services to share information about terrorism with the U.S. intelligence agencies "as if they were your own service," according to two officials who read it.


It's cynical, but it's the way the Euros have always done things. This way, European governments can play to anti-U.S. sentiments among their populations (and sometimes encourage them) while simultaneously cooperating with us, because they know that their public stances have only delayed, not prevented, the start of jihadist actions against their own nations, which the Islamofascists see as equally in need of destruction.

Another example of the same phenemenon: EU nations fail to comply with Kyoto Protocol:

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a 30-nation economic partnership dominated by the EU, reported on April 5 that its member nations are failing to meet their Kyoto emissions targets.

Of particular significance, the British Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) reported on April 13 that stronger than expected economic growth "more characteristic of American society" will prevent the United Kingdom from complying with its Kyoto goals unless drastic changes are made to the British economy.


Another link (1/3 down the page) explains it better:

According to the UN, the EU is way behind in reaching its Kyoto targets for Green House Gasses (GHG).

The targets are keyed to the year 1990 and represented fairly easy targets because of the events that took place after 1990; East German industry collapsed in the 90?s because of unification thereby eliminating huge amounts of emissions; and the UK switched to North Sea gas from coal after 1990 which also reduced emissions of GHG.

These events gave the EU a running start in complying with Kyoto?s targets keyed to 1990.

According to the report prepared by the UN for COP 9 in December 2003, the EU will miss its 2010 target by 311 million tons of GHG. According to the UN, the EU must reduce emissions by 7.4% to meet its target...

Using the WTO to force compliance could have a devastating effect on the US and world economies. While the EU only needs to reduce its emissions by 7.4% by 2010, the United States, according to the UN, would have to reduce its emissions by 29.7% by 2010. Japan, another large economy, would have to reduce its emissions by 11% by 2010.

While still only conjecture, even the threat of using the WTO to force compliance could derail the world economy. In this respect the Kyoto treaty could become the Smoot-Hawley (tariffs of 1933)of the 21st century.


Smoot-Hawley turned a serious economic downturn into the Great Depression. But again, the Euros get to blast us publicly while turning their backs on a treaty - something we cannot do, publicly or otherwise.
Collapse -
re: Kyoto

In reply to: The reason is simple, Dave:

But at least, Paul, they admit the reality of global warming, and are doing something about it, even if less than promised. That's two steps better than us!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Two steps better? Yeah right!

In reply to: re: Kyoto

Collapse -
So, they are admitting, at least on one level,

In reply to: Major US Ally in War on Terrorism: France!

that the policy of accommodation was useless? I read decades ago that this was their policy because they were afraid of taking a stand (to paraphrase a bit).

Collapse -
They never had a policy of accomodation, Dragon.

In reply to: So, they are admitting, at least on one level,

They just saw the reality that attacking Iraq was never a necessary part of the war on terror. BTW, they long ago offered to help train Iraqi troops -- but only in France.
bremer turned the offer down, back when he was chief pooh-bah in Iraq.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Darn, they missed out....

In reply to: They never had a policy of accomodation, Dragon.

on those valuable lessons on how to surrender.

Collapse -
I believe they did -- this was long before Iraq

In reply to: They never had a policy of accomodation, Dragon.

Im thinking in terms of something like 30 or 40 years ago, at least.

Collapse -
yes dave

In reply to: They never had a policy of accomodation, Dragon.

when your being paid nicely from sadam why kill your sugar dady

Collapse -
train iraqi troops how to use a white flag

In reply to: They never had a policy of accomodation, Dragon.

the new french flag of surrender.if the iraqis let the french gun droppers teach them to wave white flags

Collapse -
They had conflicting interests ...

In reply to: They never had a policy of accomodation, Dragon.

... and double crossed Colin Powell.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
And yet the no-qualms, hard-line French bashing WILL continu

In reply to: Major US Ally in War on Terrorism: France!

You mark my words! It was a two-fer. It was a greed for glory. Iraq was thought to be low-hanging fruit, and it might very well have been had Bush not been so dead set on excluding France, ME!, Russia, Germany, Canada, the UN, ad infinitum!!! Everyone, even, but his on-the-takers and the ***-kissers.

**Factions within the intelligence services of several countries opposed a multinational approach, according to current and former U.S. and European government officials who described its inception. The CIA's Counterterrorist Center did not want to lose control over all counterterrorism operations; the British service did not want to dilute its unique ties to Washington; Germany was not keen to become involved in more operations.

And no country wanted to be perceived as taking direction from the CIA, whose practice of extraordinary renditions -- secretly apprehending suspected terrorists and transferring them to other countries without any judicial review -- has become highly controversial in Europe. In Italy, 13 alleged CIA operatives are accused of kidnapping a radical Egyptian cleric off the streets of Milan in 2003.

...

In the run-up to the Iraq war, the White House drew the battle lines between countries that were tough on terrorists ... and those that were not. France's government believed U.N. inspections had successfully contained Saddam Hussein's development of weapons programs, and Bruguiere saw no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. At the Defense Department, on Capitol Hill and elsewhere, many cast France's opposition to war as evidence it was a slacker when it came to fighting terrorism.

French fries became ''freedom fries' on Air Force One and in congressional cafeterias. Rumsfeld prohibited general officers from telephoning their French counterparts, grounded U.S. planes at the Paris Air Show and disinvited the French from Red Flag, a major U.S. military exercise in which they had participated for decades.

...

Rumsfeld's symbolic jabs baffled some officials inside the Bush administration. ''Most things the secretary of defense did I could understand, even if I disagreed with him,'' said Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Powell. ''On this one, it was totally irrational, even dumb.''**


(underlining mine)

What a shame and a pity. And what an embarrassment! What a near thing to snatching defeat from the jaws of an easy victory. From the jaws of a collaboration with the Iraqi people, even. BUT NOOOOOO! Can't seem to coddle! Can't seem to compromise! Why share the parade, eh? Definitely NOT John Wayneish! WAY UNCOOL!</sarcasm> And so we WILL continue to feed the terrorist's propaganda machine, for coolnesses sake. ''Freedom fries'' my ***!


-->

Collapse -
so if your saying reward the french

In reply to: And yet the no-qualms, hard-line French bashing WILL continu

and the germans for being in saddams pocket.
your pity is such a farce.

when are you leaveing?

Collapse -
Nice rant ...

In reply to: And yet the no-qualms, hard-line French bashing WILL continu

... except we didn't exclude France. Chirac doublecrossed Colin Powell at the last minute.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
theres a big sale on white cloth in france

In reply to: Nice rant ...

its all being grabbed up by there gov.

Collapse -
Once again: EVERYBODY was onboard for the saber rattling.

In reply to: Nice rant ...

AND IT WORKED!!!! Step by step. Get the weapons! Get the damnable weapons! It was similar to what you describe but the other way around. It was Bush who doublecrossed Chirac... AND Powell!

the Powell Doctrine

BTW, Saddom never kicked the inspectors out. Three times they left because of the threat of a US strike.

Collapse -
your link is wrong

In reply to: Once again: EVERYBODY was onboard for the saber rattling.

What a Difference Four Years Makes
Why U.N. inspectors left Iraq--then and now

Extra! Update October 2002


"The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them."

-- Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98


"To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory U.N. inspectors once visited before they were kicked out four years ago."

--John McWethy, ABC World News Tonight, 8/12/02


"The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspectors and--as they had promised to do. As a result, the U.N. ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning"

--Katie Couric, NBC's Today, 12/16/98


"As Washington debates when and how to attack Iraq, a surprise offer from Baghdad. It is ready to talk about re-admitting U.N. weapons inspectors after kicking them out four years ago."

--Maurice DuBois, NBC's Saturday Today, 8/3/02


"The chief U.N. weapons inspector ordered his monitors to leave Baghdad today after saying that Iraq had once again reneged on its promise to cooperate--a report that renewed the threat of U.S. and British airstrikes."

--AP, 12/16/98


http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1123

Collapse -
Nonsense

In reply to: Once again: EVERYBODY was onboard for the saber rattling.

Powell had assurances from Chirac. He backed out on them. It was reported at the time.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) chirac is a typical frenchy

In reply to: Nonsense

Collapse -
France and Russia vigorously worked against us

In reply to: Major US Ally in War on Terrorism: France!

on the diplomatic front to keep potential allies away.

Collapse -
I went to a conservative site once

In reply to: Major US Ally in War on Terrorism: France!

where there was a board. There was a French lady there, said something of interest. She said that the people of France were more conservative than their leaders, but that they didnt have much choice in selecting their leaders. It made me wonder just how their system worked.

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

GIVEAWAY

Enter to win* a free holiday tech gift!

CNET's giving five lucky winners the gift of their choice valued up to $250!