Chirac Opposes NATO Force in Lebanon (France Surrenders in Advance)

Jerusalem Post ^ | 07/26/06 | AP&JPost staff

[Jameison]

"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.

[bruinbirdman]

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

[bruinbirdman]

"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

[muleskinner]

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

[Hamilcar_Barca]

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

[GSlob]

"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.

[Red6]

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.

[monkeyshine]

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?

[AFreeBird]

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

[Gandalf_The_Gray]

... 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

[bruinbirdman]

" 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