France, Germany, and Russia and the War on Iraq

[EltonJohn]

I don't want to start a debate about this, but I really want your opinions on this.

Earlier today I was watching CNN, and they said that 3% of Russins are for war in Iraq. I was watching another news show (perhaps it was Greta, or Hannity and Colmes) and they said that 3/4 of France's population is against this war. In Germany, Schroeder supposedly got elected on an anti-war/anti-American platform.

Let's assume all of the above are true, that most Germans, Frenchmen, and Russians are against the war.

My problem is when my fellow Americans criticize Chirac, Putin, and Schroeder for being against this war. Since they have free elections like we do, why should we criticise them for being against the war? Most of thier people are against the war, they are simply representing the people who elected them. Do you think it is right that Americans criticise these three countries and thier leaders?

I've heard the argument many times that, in France's case, there is oil at stake. That may be true, but is Chirac looking out for his country's best interests? Why should we expect other countries to do what is the best for us? The United States does what is best for the United States, and that is how it should be. The U.K. does what is best for the U.K., and that is how it should be. France will do what is best for France, and that is how it should be, and so on and so on.

Isn't that how democracry works? You elect leaders to represent you, and the leaders do thier best to do what is best for thier nation. I really don't understand the criticism against these three nations or thier leaders.

diane

 

[rob@rar.org.uk]

I think the question "are you for war, or against it?" is the wrong question. A much better question would be: "do you think Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction programme presents a risk to your country, and if so what would be the best way of dealing with this problem?". Unfortunately all the media coverage of this debate has tried to polarise it into a simple for/against scenario, which makes it virtually impossible to have a sensible debate about an enormously complex issue.

I'm not "for war". I think it is a terrible, evil thing in which too many people, including the innocent, the volunteers and the conscripted, will die. However, I do think that Saddam's WMD programme presents a risk to the UK. Not because I think Iraq will use such weapons, but I do think that there is a growing risk that such weapons will fall into the hands of extremist groups who would have no hesitation in using them. The recent discovery of traces of Ricin poison in London is a good example of my growing fear that sooner rather than later something more terrible than 9/11 will happen, and this time far closer to my home. So to answer the second part of my question, what is the best way of dealing with Saddam's WMD prgramme? On this I'm not entirely sure, but I'm not convinced that the current (or even an escalated) UN inspection mission will ever provide enough confidence that WMDs are not being developed. Saddam has the resources of an entire country to employ in confusing and disrupting the inspection teams. So unless there is another option that no one has yet mentioned, I think that removing (by force) Saddam and allowing the Iraqi's to install a new form of government is the only viable way of dealing with the problem. You will notice that in this paragraph I have not once said "I am in favour of war". I'm not in favour of it, but in this case I don't think we have a choice.

To come to why there is such division amongst Western allies, especially NATO countries, I have to put the blame squarely on the current American administration. I can not believe how terrible the Bush administration is at foreign relations. For example, sending Rumsfeld on a diplomatic mission to Europe to persuade a number of countries to support force against Iraq is just incompetent. Much of the opposition to "the war" is not anti-war, but anti-Bush or anti-American (there is differnce in my opinion). Bush's unilateral stance on so many issues (particularly pre 9/11) such as trade, environment, foreign relations, etc was already forming a divide between the USA and Europe. Is it any wonder that on such an important issue as possible war that the majority of people in countries such as France or Germany equate anti-war sentiments with anti-Bush sentiments. This was illustrated all too clearly in the Blair interview with members of the public on the BBC a couple of days ago. If the Bush administration had been a little bit more multi-lateral on other issues in the past perhaps it could have expected a slightly warmer reaction from the people of Europe on this issue? As for whether Chirac and Schroeder are doing what is best for their countries, or doing what the electorate want I have my doubts. Certainly in the UK at the moment Blair is not doing what the electorate wants, so I can only conclude he is doing what he thinks is best for the country. As an aside, I think the view that the war is just about oil is plain wrong. Unless the allies intend to invade Iraq, run the country themselves and steal the oil (an impossible scenario) then it would be far cheaper just to buy the oil than drop lots of expensive bombs on the country!

So to conclude a rather rambling post, I think those Americans who are actively criticising France, Germany, Russia and others for being "against the war" should look to Washington first to see where the problem lies. If you want support and understanding from your friends, you have to be prepared to support and understand them as well. Sadly I think that the Bush administration has never understood this simple fact, so now that multi-lateral action is required Bush is finding it impossible to work with countries that should be his natural allies.

Apologies if my words offend any of my American friends!

Regards

Rob

 

[SpottyDog]

I don't want to start a debate about this, but I really want your opinions on this.

Der, doesn't one lead to the other?

This is too contentious for me, so I'll leave it to others to voice an opinion without openin a debate.

 

[EltonJohn]

Hi Rob,

"To come to why there is such division amongst Western allies, especially NATO countries, I have to put the blame squarely on the current American administration."

After reading your post I can see why some feel that way.

"I can not believe how terrible the Bush administration is at foreign relations."

I can. He's also the former governor of my state (Texas), and really does not have any experience with foreign relations.

"So to conclude a rather rambling post, I think those Americans who are actively criticising France, Germany, Russia and others for being 'against the war' should look to Washington first to see where the problem lies. If you want support and understanding from your friends, you have to be prepared to support and understand them as well. Sadly I think that the Bush administration has never understood this simple fact, so now that multi-lateral action is required Bush is finding it impossible to work with countries that should be his natural allies."

Sadly, I agree with this. I don't think we look at issues through your eyes and how it will affect you as well.

"Apologies if my words offend any of my American friends!"

They did not offend me
diane

 

[pwwhitehead]

Diane

I accept your issues regarding countries undertaking decisions that are best for thier own nation. However I do have strong opinions regarding France, Germany and Russia and their respective decisions.

France: Well they have provoded various arms and the know how to build a nuclear processing plant whick Israel eventually destroyed. They also provided most if not all the military hardware which was used against the UK in the Falklands war.
They do tend to have the attitude: "Do as I say not what I do"

Example they bring out EEC laws which we must all abide by. Yet they flout various laws if they do not agree.

Germany: Now a weak country on the world stage,economy in ruins. They pally up with France to appear great on the world stage.

Russia: They don't give a dame about the other two. Just a game to break up NATA.

Sorry. Had my blast for the day