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

Skip to comments.

Australian MP lashes out at France: France was helping prop up a psychotic dictator with opposition
The Australian ^ | March 18 2003

Posted on 03/18/2003 2:36:20 PM PST by knighthawk

FRANCE was helping prop up a psychotic dictator with its trenchant opposition to an American-led war on Iraq, government backbencher Cameron Thompson said tonight.

France, along with Russia, Germany and China, helped sink a new resolution in the United Nations Security Council which would have paved the way for a UN-backed war in Iraq.

Instead, France was pushing for UN arms inspectors to be given more time to scour Iraq for weapons of mass destruction.

French President Jacques Chirac today condemned plans by the US, Britain and Australia to launch a unilateral strike to disarm Iraq, warning the decision ran contrary to the wishes of the international community.

But Mr Thompson said France had trashed hopes of a sensible outcome in the UN and was motivated by self-interest, rather than any genuine opposition to war.

We've witnessed (French nuclear tests on) Mururoa Atoll, we've witnessed the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior and we've also seen, for example, France selling nuclear power plants to Iraq," he said.

"Those sorts of things I think should rightly instill in Australians a view that France will do practically anything, will practically sell anything, will practically go anywhere, to advance French initiatives."

Mr Thompson said it was ironic that the Australian Greens, who supported the environmental movement, were supporting the Chirac government, which authorised the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour in 1985.

"In this exercise they have set out to promote French interests," he said.

He said the French were simply trying to flex their muscles in world affairs to set France up as an alternative power to the US.

"They saw in this an opportunity to relive the good old days French imperialism and they took it," Mr Thompson said.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: australia; axisofweasels; cameronthompson; china; chirac; france; franceiraq; french; frenchimperialism; germany; inspections; iraq; iraqfrance; jacqueschirac; lashesout; russia; thompson; un; unsc; warlist

1 posted on 03/18/2003 2:36:20 PM PST by knighthawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MizSterious; rebdov; Nix 2; green lantern; BeOSUser; Brad's Gramma; dreadme; Turk2; Squantos; ...
Ping
2 posted on 03/18/2003 2:36:48 PM PST by knighthawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk; *war_list; W.O.T.; 11th_VA; Libertarianize the GOP; Free the USA; knak; MadIvan; ...
OFFICIAL BUMP(TOPIC)LIST
3 posted on 03/18/2003 2:39:47 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (Nuke Saddam ( Bush is thinking about it ) and then what about Germany and France?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk
I hope that French goods are boycotted all over the world.
4 posted on 03/18/2003 2:40:46 PM PST by PoisedWoman (Fed up with the liberal media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk
"Those sorts of things I think should rightly instill in Australians a view that France will do practically anything, will practically sell anything, will practically go anywhere, to advance French initiatives."

But the US and Australia never advance their interests, never sully their hands with blood soaked dictators, never used covert ops.

5 posted on 03/18/2003 2:41:32 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk
US, Britain and Australia to launch a unilateral strike

Apparently, 1+1+1=1 according to this reporter.

6 posted on 03/18/2003 2:46:23 PM PST by Orbiting_Rosie's_Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
Oh, brother!
7 posted on 03/18/2003 2:59:21 PM PST by Lady Heron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Orbiting_Rosie's_Head
You don't understand. "Unilateral" now means "without the French."
8 posted on 03/18/2003 3:01:08 PM PST by p. henry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Orbiting_Rosie's_Head
I guess unilateral means english speaking.
9 posted on 03/18/2003 3:02:37 PM PST by smpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Orbiting_Rosie's_Head
"French President Jacques Chirac today condemned plans by the US, Britain and Australia to launch a unilateral strike"

Unilateral-done or undertaken by one person or party.

Chirac is an ignorant fool who makes no sense. No wonder he is so popular in France.
10 posted on 03/18/2003 3:04:18 PM PST by MidlandDesperado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Orbiting_Rosie's_Head
Binary logic

1 AND 1 AND 1 = 1

11 posted on 03/18/2003 3:04:24 PM PST by bobi (events before the event are more important than the event)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
Burkeman1 wrote: But the US and Australia never advance their interests, never sully their hands with blood soaked dictators, never used covert ops.

And your point is.....?

EVERY nation advances their interests! Just as you (hopefully) try to see to it that your family is safe and has enough to eat. There is no sin there, if tis done honourably. There is less blood on our hands than there might be, and our hands are far cleaner than those of some cheese-eating nations I might mention! Not to mention some Sattrappies in Asie and the Mid-east!

So what if we've used covert ops? This isn't "Chutes and Ladders" and if you think for one second that the oposition isn't and hasn't used Spec Ops on us then you are naive.

Tia

12 posted on 03/18/2003 3:12:38 PM PST by tiamat ("Just a Bronze-Age Gal, Trapped in a Techno World!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tiamat
I agree with you. Every nation does advance their interests as they see them. And no nation has "friends". I am just a little sick of this self righteous juevenile anti French bashing. They are doing what they think is in their best interests. We may disagree with them- but no need to pretend that we someone are more pure than they are.
13 posted on 03/18/2003 3:15:24 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk

BINGO

More courage from an Aussie than 99% of the Republican leadership.

Thank GOD for Rummy.

14 posted on 03/18/2003 3:18:43 PM PST by Enduring Freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: p. henry
without the french

How true. New definition for 'unilateral'. LOL

We thank the Australians for their kind words and support. When the chips are down, I can't think of any time that the Aussies were not with us.

15 posted on 03/18/2003 3:20:32 PM PST by meema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
France lies.

They are advancing their self-interest at the expense of your life, friend, and lying about the reason.

Like Clinton, French leadership are scumbag Socialists who trick the stupid populace into believing their self-sacrifice while lining their pockets.

The definition of EVIL.

Learn to name it and hate it, not excuse it.

16 posted on 03/18/2003 3:21:12 PM PST by Enduring Freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
Okay. That's decent.

No problem here, between thee and me!

Personally, i don't like the French perfidy and I *DO* think that for them, it is about the money and the oil-contract scandal that broke this morning... and Chirac covering his bottom, of course!

The fact that they have scuttled back so quick, only makes me want to kick them more...I mean REALLY! It has not even been 24 hours that they were calling us names and now here they are , wanting to be all helpful.

Makes my blood boil!

Tia

17 posted on 03/18/2003 3:21:51 PM PST by tiamat ("Just a Bronze-Age Gal, Trapped in a Techno World!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tiamat
Well- of course France is now craving admittance in this little war. Since they couldn't stop it they want to be a part of it. Not to help us mind you. But so they have a presence in a Post War Iraq and make sure US hegemony in the region is a least a little blunted. It shouldn't make your blood boil. That is how nations operate. We would do the same thing.
18 posted on 03/18/2003 3:26:40 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PoisedWoman
Got a reply today to my email to Michelin. They say I am hurting Americans. One thing they told me that I don't want to hear is that they give to the United Way.
19 posted on 03/18/2003 3:27:14 PM PST by Pushi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

To: Enduring Freedom
We are doing a little lying of own about the reason for the war. That France has economic interests in that region is of no surprise. That we claim purity in our actions rankles the rest of the world. All of NATO supported us in the last Gulf War because it was in their interests to do so. But they supported us knowing we would never go to Baghdad and occupy Iraq. This war is different. The US is proposing occupation of a country with the second largest oil reserve in the world. Of course France and Germany and many others would oppose this. But since war is going to happen they will try to get a finger in the pie as well- if only to counter our power in the region.
21 posted on 03/18/2003 3:39:18 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
Well, I know I should not get so upset, but I really hate that sort of thing, in nations or in individuals and I should like to think that we would at least be a little more honest.

The French do protest too much. They woold like to have back the good old Empire days! Look at their antics on Ivory Coast! Not to mention other little hot-spots! A lot of their gyrations are because THEY want hegemony, and Chirac wants France to be Leader of the European Hegemony!That idiot actually gets off on being referred to as "The First Gentleman of Europe"!

I guess I would have more respect for the French if they would just show a little grace

They tried, they wasted us a lot of time, they've been exposed for the frauds they are , and it didn't work for them. So they might consider following the advice Chiraq handed out to Romania last month:"They should not lose an opportunity to sit down and shut up!"

Tia

22 posted on 03/18/2003 3:48:33 PM PST by tiamat ("Just a Bronze-Age Gal, Trapped in a Techno World!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tiamat
France has had hundreds of military actions in Western Africa since she formerly ended her empire in the 60's. In fact- France is still a colonial power in Western Africa- except the people don't get the benefit of her rule of law- just wichever thug they support at the moment. That France is a deeply corrupt nation with an inflated sense of herself is not in question. But I have a problem with us not seeing why France and other nations would not suspect our intentions in occupying a nation that sits on the second largest oil reserve in the world. Of course they would! I understand your feelings. But emotion must be jettisoned in international matters. Nations have no "friends" and "gratitude" is a dog's disease.
23 posted on 03/18/2003 3:58:11 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
The reason for the war is simple.

Post 9/11, countries led by tyrants which harbor terrorists, threaten America, with a history of brutal deployment of WMD will no longer be contained, they will be eliminated pre-emptively.

It is simple. Do you understand that you cannot retaliate effectively when D.C. or N.Y. are no longer there?

Stop being a chump, and be a Crusader, a Warrior for Good.

Debating about U.S. oil motives is really infantile.

How many oil wells did we keep last Gulf war?

24 posted on 03/18/2003 4:05:39 PM PST by Enduring Freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Enduring Freedom
We didn't keep any and that was why we got so much support last time. This time we aim to occupy and rebuild Iraq in our image and sit troops there for years. I think that is why the rest of the world isn't so keen on this war.
25 posted on 03/18/2003 4:20:43 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
30 nations and counting support exactly what we are doing.

Others need the cover of yet another U.N. resolution to affirm it.

Problem is, certification has to be approved by dipstick countries like Syria, Guinea and Cameroon.

If it makes you feel better to have their Marxist and Islamist regimes affirm this liberation, more power to you.

But it means absolutely nothing to me.

Destroy the Iraqi regime for the love of mankind, President Bush. Kill anything that moves as an example to those who would harm America.

26 posted on 03/18/2003 4:33:38 PM PST by Enduring Freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Enduring Freedom
Yes- nations bribed with your dollars support us. But we need to bring freedom to Iraq.
27 posted on 03/18/2003 4:36:55 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
More Socialist tripe not worthy of discussion.

Enjoy life in the dark.

28 posted on 03/18/2003 4:49:14 PM PST by Enduring Freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
Liberation is a happy by-product of the War on Terrorism.

Unlike Clinton, Bush doesn't pretend it is solely for the children, the animals, the women, the elderly.

He says it all when he says NATIONAL SECURITY.

Even your sorry, if not over-sized, ass will be saved by the actions of this man.

Sleep well in the knowledge you are safe, not because of PETA, the Greens, or the 'Rat party.

But because of Bush.

Say a prayer from him, somewhere in the deep and murky part of your brain still cogent and honest enough to decipher truth, as you think of more ways to snipe and issue cheapshots from the safety of your creature comforts, your freedom and your protection from WMD and the ill-will of terrorists.

29 posted on 03/18/2003 4:54:24 PM PST by Enduring Freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: p. henry
You don't understand. "Unilateral" now means "without the French."

Did we ever figure out what the meaning of "is" is?

30 posted on 03/18/2003 5:11:25 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK ("He is a moss-gatherer, and I have been a stone doomed to rolling." Gandalf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
Against enemies. France does it against "friends".
31 posted on 03/18/2003 5:31:53 PM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
Burkeman1 writes;But I have a problem with us not seeing why France and other nations would not suspect our intentions in occupying a nation that sits on the second largest oil reserve in the world.

Well, sure and they would suspect that first, because it is what they would do!

It is true. Iraq has buckets and buckets of oil.

Now ask yourself this: if it were true that we were interested in the oil, i can think of a much cheaper, more cynical and evil way to get it: throw the Israelis to the wolves!

If we did that, would we not get all of the oil we wanted for cheap?

And yet we do not!

Instead, President Bush and Mr. Blair choose to remain steadfast to our friends the Israelis!

(Whom I personally believe are the only decent human beings in the be-nighted Middle East!)

I am sure that you have noted the rampent anti-Semetism running through Europe at the moment: this isn't the first time that France has sided with Islam or the Nazis for money. ....>p? tia

32 posted on 03/18/2003 6:07:27 PM PST by tiamat ("Just a Bronze-Age Gal, Trapped in a Techno World!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: tiamat
Yes indeed. If America had not invested billions in Isreal 9/11 would most likely never would have happened. And if the US didn't support Isreal we would never have backed the various repressive regimes that we support now in Arab lands. Perhaps we should re- think our support of Isreal? Or is that being a "Nazi Jew hater".
33 posted on 03/18/2003 6:15:14 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
burkeman_

No fooling. How does supporting Isreal relate to backing some of the ME despots?

I know we have done it, but how are the two things related?

Frankly, i am just glad that the government is no longer kissing up to Arrafat the way it had been!

Tia

34 posted on 03/18/2003 6:22:33 PM PST by tiamat ("Just a Bronze-Age Gal, Trapped in a Techno World!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Pushi
One thing they told me that I don't want to hear is that they give to the United Way.

Oh, that's funny! Glad to hear you wrote to them. WE need to lean hard on every Frahnsh company--perhaps forever.

I bought Les Schwab top-of-the-line 80K guaranteed all weather tires about four years ago and they are truly super. About $500..with free balancing and rotating for life of tire. The tires are superb in snow, rain, and on dry hot pavement. I have had many sports cars, including a Lotus Elan, so I'm reasonably clued about these things. You don't need Michelins.

35 posted on 03/18/2003 7:19:18 PM PST by PoisedWoman (Fed up with the liberal media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
But the US and Australia never advance their interests, never sully their hands with blood soaked dictators, never used covert ops.

Do I sense a bit of sarcasm in your statement?...Obviously you have forgotten that our country was "ATTACKED" on 09/11/01, which gives us the RIGHT, to act unilaterally if need be, to protect our freedom and way of life.

UN is a paper tiger with no claws, wich was proven lately to be an impotent world body (League of Nations comes to mind), by the likes of France, wich again is busy to cover up their shady deals with Iraq, even thou they were fully aware of their breach of the so called UN arms resolution, right after the '90 war.

I am not saying that US of A is an angel in it's international dealings and/or agreements, we might be somewhat arrogant and pushy at times in our behaviour, even show as a bully, but...at the end of the day we pretty much are on the right side of the issue more or less and get things done.

Since I do believe you think we are a world hegemony and try to tell anybody how to live and what to do, can you tell me how many colonies US of A has (speaking of bullies ) versus the French,Spanish,Portugiese,English,German?

36 posted on 03/18/2003 8:00:57 PM PST by danmar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Otto von Bismark
We were attacked on 9/11 by international Islamic terrorists- not Iraq. The Death of three thousand American citizens at the hands of extremists does not give us the right to attack any nation in the world pre-emptively (though we can.) And This nation did have colonies- not to the extent of the Old Europe powers but we had our concessions in China, We took over Spanish possessions and ruled them (even fought a rather nasty war in the Phillipines to protect our rule their). And one can't count the times the marines have landed in various caribbean and Central America nations to protect our interests. Old style colonial rule is not viable. New style colonial rule America is the master of- set up local elites to rule by proxy in our name even though they are formerely independent nations. Not as effective as outright colonial rule but effective enough (and about the only thing we can get away with since the American population would never suffer an outright empire.)
37 posted on 03/19/2003 1:58:45 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: tiamat
We back the Saudi Kingship because they keep a lid (or were supposed to) on their extremists. We backed Saddam because he was against Iran. We back Mubarak because if we didn't Eygpt would be ruled by radicals. We praised the military coup that took over in Algeria when an Islamic party won the free election and touched off a violent and brutal Civil War in which over 100,000 have died in 8 years. In short we back bastards and dictators in Arab lands because if we didn't they would be overthrown by fundamentalist regimes that would seek to destroy Isreal. We are to the Mideast what the Soviets were to Central Europe- supporting corrupt unpopular regimes that crush popular national and religious movements.
38 posted on 03/19/2003 2:08:54 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
Well, I CAN see what you are saying. And I DO sincerely wish we hadn't supported some of those.

I still believe that iraq is a rat's nest, and needs to be cleaned out.

Saddam is a thug, and his boys are worse.

I support deposing them simply because they are evil

It's ugly, but it needs doing,, and right now we are in a position to do so.

tia

39 posted on 03/19/2003 5:12:32 PM PST by tiamat ("Just a Bronze-Age Gal, Trapped in a Techno World!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: tiamat
Well- as I right this it looks like we are getting rid of him (and he is evil as you say). I just hope the people of Iraq won't forget how evil he was once we deliver them from him (the Kuwaiti's were not so grateful.)
40 posted on 03/21/2003 12:43:13 AM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

Comment #41 Removed by Moderator

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