Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chirac Opposes NATO Force in Lebanon (France Surrenders in Advance)
Jerusalem Post ^ | 07/26/06 | AP&JPost staff

Posted on 07/26/2006 2:04:16 PM PDT by mojito

French President Jacques Chirac said Wednesday that NATO should not lead a proposed international force in Lebanon, saying the alliance is seen in the region as "the armed wing of the West."

"As far as France is concerned, it is not NATO's mission to put together such a force," Chirac told the daily newspaper Le Monde. "Whether we like it or not, NATO is perceived as the armed wing of the West in these regions, and as a result, in terms of image, NATO is not intended for this."

Israel has suggested it would prefer a NATO-led coalition in Lebanon, not the traditional UN peacekeeping force that has tried but failed to bring peace to Lebanon over the last three decades.

France has said a multinational force should be placed under United Nations authority.

Chirac's comments were published as officials from the United States, Europe and several Arab nations met in Rome to try to agree on a plan for ending more than two weeks of fighting between Israel and Hizbullah guerillas.

Meanwhile, Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Wednesday that without Israel, there would be no bilateral solution to the Middle East crisis. Peres made his remarks in response to the fact that Israel was not represented at the Rome conference.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Israel; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: fwance; israel2006war; scheeseeating; surrendermonkey
Could someone pass the brie?
1 posted on 07/26/2006 2:04:17 PM PDT by mojito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mojito
Another dark day in French history....

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

2 posted on 07/26/2006 2:07:08 PM PDT by AdvisorB (For a terrorist bodycount in hamistan, let the smoke clear then count the ears and divide by 2.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

Thank You France for the warning that we didn't need.


3 posted on 07/26/2006 2:08:10 PM PDT by The South Texan (The Democrat Party and the leftist (ABCCBSNBCCNN NYLATIMES)media are a criminal enterprise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The South Texan
Saves fuel and coffins to quit before you start....

the French way....

4 posted on 07/26/2006 2:09:25 PM PDT by pointsal (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mojito

5 posted on 07/26/2006 2:11:48 PM PDT by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

what was the over/under on France's surrender?


6 posted on 07/26/2006 2:14:09 PM PDT by npg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

Isn't it NATO forces that are in Afghanistan???

Why can a "WEST" organization go into Afghanistan, but not Lebanon?


7 posted on 07/26/2006 2:15:08 PM PDT by Txsleuth ((((((((((( ISRAEL)))))))))))))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

Surrendering before hostilities breakout is now a very progressive thing to do. France pioneered waging peace.


8 posted on 07/26/2006 2:17:42 PM PDT by crazyhorse691 (Diplomacy doesn't work when seagulls rain on your parade. A shotgun and umbrella does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth

Because it's closer to France? You got me.


9 posted on 07/26/2006 2:19:34 PM PDT by RedCell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mojito

Chirac's right this time.


10 posted on 07/26/2006 2:22:24 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

If the French do show up, they should wear brightly colored bulls-eyes on their uniforms, to make 'em easier to pick off.


11 posted on 07/26/2006 2:36:12 PM PDT by Ukiapah Heep (Shoes for Industry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

Didn't the Frogs pull out of NATO sometime last century?


12 posted on 07/26/2006 2:38:15 PM PDT by AFreeBird (... Burn the land and boil the sea's, but you can't take the skies from me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito
I hate to say this but France got it right for once.

NATO has no more business in Lebanon then it had in Bosnia. The NATO charter spells out its role as a mutual defense pact designed to provide for the common defense of the signator members of the pact. Their clear purpose was the defense of Europe against Soviet aggression.

Since the eclipse of the former USSR, NATO lacks a clear mission. It is clear however that since neither Lebanon nor Bosnia were party to the "mutual aid" treaty, NATO should not be asked to provide troops for any purpose.

In my humble opinion NATO is no more relevant then the "Warsaw pact" or SEATO for that matter. Its' mission faded away when detente replaced MAD. It should be disbanded as the cold war relic that it is. Former NATO funding should be retained in the defense budget to support fast reaction special forces units to continue the WOT.

Regards,
GtG

13 posted on 07/26/2006 2:41:08 PM PDT by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth
Why can a "WEST" organization go into Afghanistan, but not Lebanon?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

C'est parceque Lebanon est du langue Francais et une colonie de France. Notez bien qu' il ya beaucoup de Lebanois Francais en France et Quebec.

Les gens de Lebanon sont special; Ils sont Francaise et plus superiour de toute le monde.

Just more colonial crap from a country that has not awakened to the fact that French Imperialism is dead except in the imagination of a few aristocratic "Gens de les laissez manger gateau."

They need a national BINKY!

14 posted on 07/26/2006 2:41:34 PM PDT by Candor7 (Into Liberal flatulance goes the best hope of the West, and who wants to be a smart feller?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

Oh, I love that you posted in French...what is awful is that I took 3 years of French and I still couldn't translate all of it...LOL


15 posted on 07/26/2006 2:43:19 PM PDT by Txsleuth ((((((((((( ISRAEL)))))))))))))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AFreeBird
"Didn't the Frogs pull out of NATO sometime last century?"

The puffed up, inferiority complex ridden Charles de Gaulle pulled the French out of the military wing of Nato, and kicked Nato headquarters out of France.
That's how it ended up in Brussels.
16 posted on 07/26/2006 2:59:41 PM PDT by Jameison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth

Spelling really sucks though. Becuase I can communicate in 2 fricken languages, I can't spell in either! LOL.


17 posted on 07/26/2006 3:13:33 PM PDT by Candor7 (Into Liberal flatulance goes the best hope of the West, and who wants to be a smart feller?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Jameison

So then Chirac doesn't have much say in the matter.


18 posted on 07/26/2006 3:22:35 PM PDT by AFreeBird (... Burn the land and boil the sea's, but you can't take the skies from me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jameison
DeGaul also wanted to be the first to enter Paris after our armies did all the heavy liftin'. Eisenhower humored him, used him to pacify Paris and high diddle diddled right up the middle of Paris and chased the retreating Germans all the way to the border. I hope Condi understands that she can use exactly the same approach with the modern day Frogs.

A token UN force surrounded by NATO power, thats all the UN can offer anyway.

Notice how the UN cut and run when the Iraq UN HQ was blasted to smitherines and their Envoy killed a couple of years ago? And we are STILL there while the UN and their wimpy supporters in this country cry sour grapes and bile over each success in Iraq? What good in this situation could the UN possibly be. Their inaction created the present problem. I hope Bolton waves that fact in the UN faces, and then tattoos it on each UN A$$ that he can get his hands on!

All Condi has to do is give UNFOR a few latrines in South Lebanon to look after to keep them quiet. And put Nato in charge of policing the no fire zone with a deadly air cap from a constructed strip in the zone, with orders to seek and destroy all Hezbollah Activity. Get the UN to PAY for it ALL!!!!

19 posted on 07/26/2006 3:29:21 PM PDT by Candor7 (Into Liberal flatulance goes the best hope of the West, and who wants to be a smart feller?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mojito
France has said a multinational force should be placed under United Nations authority.

A multinational force under UN authority is there now, and has been there all along observing the Hezbollah buildup. They were there to observe Hezbollah attacks over the years, and they are there now to observe Israel's belated response.

A multinational force under UN authority is the precise instrument you need if your purpose is to observe, monitor, report. It is not particularly useful if you intend to confront.

20 posted on 07/26/2006 3:33:54 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Candor7
"DeGaul also wanted to be the first to enter Paris after our armies did all the heavy liftin'."

DeGaul was always a pain in the but, and always full of grandoise visions of "La belle France"..kinda like the current French leaders.
The more things change....



"Notice how the UN cut and run when the Iraq UN HQ was blasted to smitherines and their Envoy killed a couple of years ago? "

Oh yes.
Funny thing is, it was entirely their fault.
In an attempt to stay "independent" of America, the UN people refused all offers of protection by the American forces, and had about the worst security anyone could have.
They paid the price for that when they got bombed.
21 posted on 07/26/2006 3:46:15 PM PDT by Jameison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Gandalf_The_Gray
The NATO charter spells out its role as a mutual defense pact ...

The NATO Pact was changed years ago to include first strike as a means of defense or humanitarian prophylactic. Remember what once was Yugoslavia? That was the first time it was used.

yitbos

22 posted on 07/26/2006 3:56:22 PM PDT by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds. " - Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AFreeBird
"Didn't the Frogs pull out of NATO sometime last century?"

France detached itself from the NATO military command structure in 1966. The frogs are still a member of NATO.

yitbos

23 posted on 07/26/2006 4:02:00 PM PDT by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds. " - Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Gandalf_The_Gray

You may be correct, but don't spoil the fun. It's hard to beat a good froggie bashing thread :)


24 posted on 07/26/2006 4:17:14 PM PDT by muleskinner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mojito

No reason to postpone the inevitable French surrender. Best to do it up front and nobody gets hurt.


25 posted on 07/26/2006 5:06:49 PM PDT by Hamilcar_Barca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth
"Why can a "WEST" organization go into Afghanistan, but not Lebanon?"
Because when it goes in, Israel would have to stop pounding the hezbollai, at least for a while. And since they deserve unlimited pounding, no pounding-limiting force is desirable.
26 posted on 07/26/2006 6:01:21 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mojito
France WOULD however surely consider sending troops if it were outside of NATO. Why? France is anti-NATO and they are a former colonial power which still has those ambitions. Under NATO the self proclaimed "multilateral" thinking nationalist French government would be limited in what kind of ulterior motives they could pursue while there. Outside of NATO France could play big man on the block and expand their power base in this region.

You need to understand how the French operate. Syria is a former French colony 1918 - 1944 and France still tries to expand themselves into this region when afforded the opportunity. Under NATO France would have to "toe the line" as in the Balkans, where they also were an obstructionist force.

Frankly it's a good thing if the French are not part of any international peacekeeping force "IF" and when such a force ever gets stood up. In the Sinai we (The US) have had fantastic results with such a concept, but you also are dealing with governments that have in part control of their people and are pragmatic (A word that is important in politics). The Egyptians and Israelis can come to a settlement and the US could enforce it. Unfortunately with Lebanon this will not be the case. You have outsiders (Syria and Iran) with their fingers in the pot and they have NO interest in peace. The Palestinian leadership has no control of its own people! Peacekeepers in Lebanon will either be one of two things:

1. Safe and worthless, as the UN troops were. If Hezbollah does not see you as a threat and you allow them to do whatever they want, they won't target you.

2. You "WILL" get tangled up in a serious fight for a long time if you choose to make a profound difference and change things. If you go in and truly act as a neutral broker and take action when you see violations it WILL get messy.
27 posted on 07/26/2006 6:06:20 PM PDT by Red6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: npg

Nobody would take the bet.

It is interesting that they are all meeting in Rome and didn't invite the Israelis. I guess they just assume Israel will do what they are told?


28 posted on 07/26/2006 6:09:12 PM PDT by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

Well, if they ain't in the military part of NATO then they don't have a say.


29 posted on 07/26/2006 7:37:11 PM PDT by AFreeBird (... Burn the land and boil the sea's, but you can't take the skies from me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman
... humanitarian prophylactic. Remember what once was Yugoslavia? That was the first time it was used.

It wasn't legal then and it's still not legal.

The UN, F***** Up as it is, still has a fig leaf of a charter to hide behind as they try ineffectually to play at soldiers. On what bases does the NATO organization claim authority to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign nations?

Regards,
GtG

30 posted on 07/27/2006 11:56:29 AM PDT by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Gandalf_The_Gray
" what bases does the NATO organization claim authority to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign nations? "

Perceived threat.

Ask Klintoon. He refused to act until the NATO pact was changed, remember? Hillary (along with the rest of EU) harrassed him for at least a year to bomb until he acquiesced. Then only with "no U.S. lives lost". Bombing from high altitude. NATO would not have acted without the Toon's first step.

yitbos

31 posted on 07/27/2006 10:05:17 PM PDT by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds. " - Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson