Why the French really support the war in Iraq

[JohnL]

The UK and US governments said that they would seek a new UN resolution to justify the invasion.

The French said publicly in advance that they would veto any such resolution.

If the French had kept relatively quiet after the US/UK announcement, they could then have actually vetoed it.

If the UK and US had had the new resolution rejected by the UN (because of the French veto), they would have had absolutely no leg to stand on in carrying out the invasion.

So the UK/US issued their own ultimatum and went into Iraq anyway - well the UN hadn't told them not to, after all, and there was that previous unanimous resolution to cite if they needed to.

The best way to have prevented the invasion, if that was what they really wanted, would have been to allow the new resolution to be subitted to the UN security council, and then to veto it. The UK/US could not have invaded in direct defiance of the UN security council telling them not to.

Sooo ... by stating in advance that they would veto a new resolution, the French government created a situation in which the invasion would go ahead, but they could be seen publicly to oppose it. One can speculate about why - avoiding terrorist revenge attacks? Their own public opinion? Don't have to commit troops?

And they call us perfidious!

[pss1]

They're damn clever those Froggies

[jesusbuiltmycar]

www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html

[judas]

Priceless

[Flying Trotter]

amusing but unfortunately at variance with the way the UN (and indeed international politics) works in practice

[JohnL]

Flying Trotter said: amusing but unfortunately at variance with the way the UN (and indeed international politics) works in practice

Why?

This wasn't intended to be amusing, it's the result of considering the effect of various public statements that were made by various governments in the run up. It's possible that the French didn't consider this potential impact of their statement - but unlikely I should think - they're not actually stupid.


>> Edited by JohnL on Thursday 3rd April 13:07

[FourWheelDrift]

.....because Saddam is being sponsored by some major French cosmetics companies.....

[JMGS4]

Naah they just supply nuclear reactors....... and funny thing they've to 2 ferking great carriers (Foch and deGaulle) cruisin' around by Israel and are flying daily over Jordan!!! wonder why???

[atg]

I'd say JohnL's explanation has a fair bit of truth in it. It may not have exactly been a plan thought out well in advance, but it most certianly would have been recognised by both the French and the US/UK that those were the dynamics that arose. I doubt either side planned to fight so openly in public, and I'm sure diplomats on both sides were horrified at the hole they were falling into. The promise of a veto gave both sides the option to declare "stalemate" and they both went for it.