4 ms·

No, most of the Western governments don't do that. The reason "coalition of the willing" was so thin is that aside the US and the UK few bought that. France hav

by varjag 8y ago

No, most of the Western governments don't do that. The reason "coalition of the willing" was so thin is that aside the US and the UK few bought that. France have threatened veto in the UN, so it was not put to the vote… that's also how the whole "freedom fries" idiocy took off. And the rest of continental Europe was immensely sceptical.

adventured 8y ago
France had no problem supporting the conflicts in Libya and Syria that sought to accomplish similar outcomes as in Iraq (remove & replace Gaddafi and al-Assad). In fact, France has routinely urged Trump and the US to remain engaged in the Syria conflict. "Emmanuel Macron to urge Donald Trump to keep US in Syria during White House talks" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/23/emmanuel-macron-urge-donald-trump-keep-us-syria-white-house/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/23/emmanuel-macron-...
- varjag 8y ago
  Both Libya and Syria conflicts were started by their respective dictators massacring people.
  - adventured 8y ago
    There are a couple dozen vile governments all over the world doing terrible things to their people at any given time. That alone doesn't explain why France is so aggressively interested in keeping the US in the Syria conflict. That same exact justification that you just mentioned applied equally to Iraq, Saddam had massacred and brutalized his own people for a long time. You don't see France egging on the US to get militarily involved in Venezuela for example. What's going on there is a human disaster of a similar scale as Syria, with the Maduro dictatorship brutalizing and starving the people, and millions fleeing the country. There is rarely a shortage of civil wars and other assorted internal conflicts to get involved in around the world. So why is France specifically so amped up to keep the US in Syria?
    - mockingbirdy 8y ago
      It's about the refugees. Many EU countries lack basic decency and risk to destroy EU because of Syrian refugees. Solving the crisis there is indirectly one of the interests of the EU. The current situation also strengthens the position of Russia in the Middle East which is not in European interest. Disclaimer: I'm from Germany. We have a shift to the right in most EU countries. One of the reasons the Britains left the EU was the refugee crisis - populists used this to scare the voters. This concept was also very successful to get votes in Germany with AfD (alternative party for Germany, right-wing). Would love to hear other opinions instead of getting downvotes.
      - ben_w 8y ago
        The countries most upset by refugees, are those who have the least. This has also been the case in the UK (communities who hate immigrants and want less don’t have any) and from what I’ve seen of German voting patterns in recent elections. The fear of them has been amplified, but I don’t believe the actual refugees are the problem. And, in case you’re wondering about me mixing up refugees and migrants, part of the problem in the UK is that angry people can’t tell them apart, so I don’t actually know which they’re really objecting to.
        mockingbirdy 8y ago
        > I don’t believe the actual refugees are the problem. I don't think so, too. The underlying problem is growing inequality of wealth and opportunities. The very far right-wing people fear that the refugees will worsen their situation (and many are simply xenophobic, too). I think it's a shame that there is no differentiation between these problems of inequality and helping people who get attacked by their own government. It seems that many people here in Europe don't understand that it's our duty to help people who get killed in their home countries (by our own moral standards). - - - France (and other European nations) care about the Syrian conflict because of the fear that more refugees will seek shelter in the EU (most European countries could handle this, but they won't do it because they aren't humanitarian which is pretty sad to see). Bringing peace to Syria is therefore a critical part of EU's solution to this (another wave of refugees would seriously risk the EU because the people here seem to have lost their connection to humanism - we could easily handle it if we want to). I have a hunch that I got downvotes because people interpreted my opinion as being contra refugees, but I'm actually telling the opposite. The problem is that many European countries (i.e. people) have decided that it's not their problem when people are in life-threatening situations and die while trying to get into those countries.
  - sacado2 8y ago
    Khaddaffi (not sure about spelling) was a friend of France just a few years before he got killed. He was even invited to put his tent in the gardens of the Élysée by newly elected president Sarkozy, four years before. And back then, Khaddaffi was not especially a benevolent dictator. And there are tons of counter examples. For example, Eritrea is recognized as one of the worst dictatorship in the world, and we have no troops over here to free the people of Eritrea.
    - mousecorkkey 8y ago
      Are you referring to Gaddafi?
      - sacado2 8y ago
        Yep, we call him Kadhafi in French (and this time I checked the spelling).
        mcv 8y ago
        I notice Wikipedia now spells it as Gaddafi. I thought it used to be Khaddafi in English. Interestingly, Dutch Wikipedia now calls him al-Qadhafi.
        toomanybeersies 8y ago
        It's a transliteration of Arabic. There's no single correct transliteration so it depends on the publisher as to what spelling they use. Here's a very fun Stack Overflow question about using a regex to match the different spellings: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5365283/regular-expression-to-search-for-gadaffi https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5365283/regular-expressi...
        Koshkin 8y ago
        It's such a mess. We might be better off just translating the damn names (like they did in the remote past)...
  - sparkie 8y ago
    The reports that Ghaddafi was massacring people were rumors and were widely publicised when Genevieve Garrigos (Head of Amnesty International) appeared on French TV to report it. 6 months later, the same head of Amnesty International claimed that they had sent in investigators between Feb and July, and those investigators found no evidence that Ghaddafi had hired mercenaries to attack civilians. Of course that was too late. The French/UK/US operation had already begun well before the investigation took place, and they weren't interested in evidence. But your media probably didn't report on that.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - robdachshund 8y ago
    Nope, they were caused by those leaders refusing to deal oil with USD, just like Iraq.
- sacado2 8y ago
  Not sure why you've been downvoted there. Regarding Syria, the same thing happened as with Iraq. In Iraq, the US and UK said "Saddam has mass destruction weapons, we must attack him", and the French said "okay, just show us the proof, and we'll be on your side". USA said they had a proof but didn't want to show it. France did not support the attack. In Syria, USA, UK and France said "Bachar use chemical weapons on his population, we must attack him", and Russia said "okay, just show us the proof, and we'll be on your side". France said they had a proof but didn't want to show it. Russia did not support the attack.
  - SCHiM 8y ago
    How do you mean no proof? There's numerous reports by impartial agencies documenting the use of chemical weapons since early 2014. There is no failure to provide evidence, only the usual conflicts.
    - sacado2 8y ago
      I'm talking about the 7th of april to 16th of april, between the moment an attack happened and France/US/UK decided to attack because they had proof Assad was the author of this precise attack. If you could point me to one of these reports, I'd be grateful.
  - varjag 8y ago
    OPCW has provided the proof of multiple incidents perpetrated by Syrian government. That you decide to support Assad is a matter of conscience, not absence of facts.
    - sacado2 8y ago
      First, let's not call each other names. I certaninly don't support Assad, just as the fact you (or I) don't support Assad certainly doesn't mean you (or I) support ISIS. Our ennemies' ennemies are not always our friends. Now, I just reported the fact that France said back then "we have evidence", but didn't show it at that time. Then they published an official report [1] a few days later, basically saying "oh, we have good reasons to think it's true, with a high degree of confidence" (haut degré de confiance). Basically, that document says 1- there was probably a chemical attack a few days ago 2- it would be strategically a good idea for Assad to use chemical weapons. 3- we have not heard about rebels acquiring chemical weapons. 4- therefore, Assad is responsible. That's what happened at that time. Now, if you have a document from April 2018 giving factual proofs, and not just mentioning a "high degree of confidence", I'd be glad to revise my knowledge of the situation. [1] https://www.defense.gouv.fr/layout/set/popup/base-de-medias/documents-telechargeables/pdfdefense/180414-syrie-synthe-se-les-faits https://www.defense.gouv.fr/layout/set/popup/base-de-medias/... [pdf][French]
- emilsedgh 8y ago
  I think the key is "stay" (vs. initiate) U.S. started the war on Iraq for no reason but pulling out the troops too early was a mistake that allowed ISIS to exist. Pulling out of Syria in its current form might create a similar vacuum of power that allowed ISIS to exist. Asking the U.S. to stay in Syria is not comparable to how U.S. started the Iraq war.
- lmm 8y ago
  > France had no problem supporting the conflicts in Libya and Syria that sought to accomplish similar outcomes as in Iraq (remove & replace Gaddafi and al-Assad). And if the US had argued for invading Iraq on that basis, maybe we'd've supported it. But of course we're going to oppose an invasion when its proponents are basing their arguments on a blatant lie like the 45 minute claim. (If the US/UK thought there was a good case for invasion on genuine grounds, why did they feel the need to lie?)
  - varjag 8y ago
    Indeed, if we look back France committed 18,000 troops for the first Gulf War that was widely considered a just cause. Similarly most of the NATO allies supported the USA in Afghanistan. But that going into a war on a false pretext is morally corrupt, and fortunately most Western governments were above that.
    - nicolas_t 8y ago
      Not to mention that the French total had a cosy relationship with Saddam Hussein's government after they negotiated in 1997 for access. It was really not in the interest of France to have a war in Irak
- nova22033 8y ago
  Assad is genuinely using chemical weapons against a civilian population so I don't think this makes the point you're trying to make.
TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
> And the rest of continental Europe was immensely sceptical. You mean: sat by and did nothing. Everyone's wailing about US <> Saudi relations with regard to Khashoggi. Was anyone suggesting trade relations with the US should be dropped due to their war on Iraq, which, by all accounts, killed more than one person. Coalition of the complicit.

by varjag 8y ago

adventured 8y ago

France had no problem supporting the conflicts in Libya and Syria that sought to accomplish similar outcomes as in Iraq (remove & replace Gaddafi and al-Assad). In fact, France has routinely urged Trump and the US to remain engaged in the Syria conflict. "Emmanuel Macron to urge Donald Trump to keep US in Syria during White House talks" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/23/emmanuel-macron-urge-donald-trump-keep-us-syria-white-house/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/23/emmanuel-macron-...

varjag 8y ago
Both Libya and Syria conflicts were started by their respective dictators massacring people.
- adventured 8y ago
  There are a couple dozen vile governments all over the world doing terrible things to their people at any given time. That alone doesn't explain why France is so aggressively interested in keeping the US in the Syria conflict. That same exact justification that you just mentioned applied equally to Iraq, Saddam had massacred and brutalized his own people for a long time. You don't see France egging on the US to get militarily involved in Venezuela for example. What's going on there is a human disaster of a similar scale as Syria, with the Maduro dictatorship brutalizing and starving the people, and millions fleeing the country. There is rarely a shortage of civil wars and other assorted internal conflicts to get involved in around the world. So why is France specifically so amped up to keep the US in Syria?
  - mockingbirdy 8y ago
    It's about the refugees. Many EU countries lack basic decency and risk to destroy EU because of Syrian refugees. Solving the crisis there is indirectly one of the interests of the EU. The current situation also strengthens the position of Russia in the Middle East which is not in European interest. Disclaimer: I'm from Germany. We have a shift to the right in most EU countries. One of the reasons the Britains left the EU was the refugee crisis - populists used this to scare the voters. This concept was also very successful to get votes in Germany with AfD (alternative party for Germany, right-wing). Would love to hear other opinions instead of getting downvotes.
    - ben_w 8y ago
      The countries most upset by refugees, are those who have the least. This has also been the case in the UK (communities who hate immigrants and want less don’t have any) and from what I’ve seen of German voting patterns in recent elections. The fear of them has been amplified, but I don’t believe the actual refugees are the problem. And, in case you’re wondering about me mixing up refugees and migrants, part of the problem in the UK is that angry people can’t tell them apart, so I don’t actually know which they’re really objecting to.
      - mockingbirdy 8y ago
        > I don’t believe the actual refugees are the problem. I don't think so, too. The underlying problem is growing inequality of wealth and opportunities. The very far right-wing people fear that the refugees will worsen their situation (and many are simply xenophobic, too). I think it's a shame that there is no differentiation between these problems of inequality and helping people who get attacked by their own government. It seems that many people here in Europe don't understand that it's our duty to help people who get killed in their home countries (by our own moral standards). - - - France (and other European nations) care about the Syrian conflict because of the fear that more refugees will seek shelter in the EU (most European countries could handle this, but they won't do it because they aren't humanitarian which is pretty sad to see). Bringing peace to Syria is therefore a critical part of EU's solution to this (another wave of refugees would seriously risk the EU because the people here seem to have lost their connection to humanism - we could easily handle it if we want to). I have a hunch that I got downvotes because people interpreted my opinion as being contra refugees, but I'm actually telling the opposite. The problem is that many European countries (i.e. people) have decided that it's not their problem when people are in life-threatening situations and die while trying to get into those countries.
- sacado2 8y ago
  Khaddaffi (not sure about spelling) was a friend of France just a few years before he got killed. He was even invited to put his tent in the gardens of the Élysée by newly elected president Sarkozy, four years before. And back then, Khaddaffi was not especially a benevolent dictator. And there are tons of counter examples. For example, Eritrea is recognized as one of the worst dictatorship in the world, and we have no troops over here to free the people of Eritrea.
  - mousecorkkey 8y ago
    Are you referring to Gaddafi?
    - sacado2 8y ago
      Yep, we call him Kadhafi in French (and this time I checked the spelling).
      - mcv 8y ago
        I notice Wikipedia now spells it as Gaddafi. I thought it used to be Khaddafi in English. Interestingly, Dutch Wikipedia now calls him al-Qadhafi.
        toomanybeersies 8y ago
        It's a transliteration of Arabic. There's no single correct transliteration so it depends on the publisher as to what spelling they use. Here's a very fun Stack Overflow question about using a regex to match the different spellings: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5365283/regular-expression-to-search-for-gadaffi https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5365283/regular-expressi...
        Koshkin 8y ago
        It's such a mess. We might be better off just translating the damn names (like they did in the remote past)...
- sparkie 8y ago
  The reports that Ghaddafi was massacring people were rumors and were widely publicised when Genevieve Garrigos (Head of Amnesty International) appeared on French TV to report it. 6 months later, the same head of Amnesty International claimed that they had sent in investigators between Feb and July, and those investigators found no evidence that Ghaddafi had hired mercenaries to attack civilians. Of course that was too late. The French/UK/US operation had already begun well before the investigation took place, and they weren't interested in evidence. But your media probably didn't report on that.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- robdachshund 8y ago
  Nope, they were caused by those leaders refusing to deal oil with USD, just like Iraq.
sacado2 8y ago
Not sure why you've been downvoted there. Regarding Syria, the same thing happened as with Iraq. In Iraq, the US and UK said "Saddam has mass destruction weapons, we must attack him", and the French said "okay, just show us the proof, and we'll be on your side". USA said they had a proof but didn't want to show it. France did not support the attack. In Syria, USA, UK and France said "Bachar use chemical weapons on his population, we must attack him", and Russia said "okay, just show us the proof, and we'll be on your side". France said they had a proof but didn't want to show it. Russia did not support the attack.
- SCHiM 8y ago
  How do you mean no proof? There's numerous reports by impartial agencies documenting the use of chemical weapons since early 2014. There is no failure to provide evidence, only the usual conflicts.
  - sacado2 8y ago
    I'm talking about the 7th of april to 16th of april, between the moment an attack happened and France/US/UK decided to attack because they had proof Assad was the author of this precise attack. If you could point me to one of these reports, I'd be grateful.
- varjag 8y ago
  OPCW has provided the proof of multiple incidents perpetrated by Syrian government. That you decide to support Assad is a matter of conscience, not absence of facts.
  - sacado2 8y ago
    First, let's not call each other names. I certaninly don't support Assad, just as the fact you (or I) don't support Assad certainly doesn't mean you (or I) support ISIS. Our ennemies' ennemies are not always our friends. Now, I just reported the fact that France said back then "we have evidence", but didn't show it at that time. Then they published an official report [1] a few days later, basically saying "oh, we have good reasons to think it's true, with a high degree of confidence" (haut degré de confiance). Basically, that document says 1- there was probably a chemical attack a few days ago 2- it would be strategically a good idea for Assad to use chemical weapons. 3- we have not heard about rebels acquiring chemical weapons. 4- therefore, Assad is responsible. That's what happened at that time. Now, if you have a document from April 2018 giving factual proofs, and not just mentioning a "high degree of confidence", I'd be glad to revise my knowledge of the situation. [1] https://www.defense.gouv.fr/layout/set/popup/base-de-medias/documents-telechargeables/pdfdefense/180414-syrie-synthe-se-les-faits https://www.defense.gouv.fr/layout/set/popup/base-de-medias/... [pdf][French]
emilsedgh 8y ago
I think the key is "stay" (vs. initiate) U.S. started the war on Iraq for no reason but pulling out the troops too early was a mistake that allowed ISIS to exist. Pulling out of Syria in its current form might create a similar vacuum of power that allowed ISIS to exist. Asking the U.S. to stay in Syria is not comparable to how U.S. started the Iraq war.
lmm 8y ago
> France had no problem supporting the conflicts in Libya and Syria that sought to accomplish similar outcomes as in Iraq (remove & replace Gaddafi and al-Assad). And if the US had argued for invading Iraq on that basis, maybe we'd've supported it. But of course we're going to oppose an invasion when its proponents are basing their arguments on a blatant lie like the 45 minute claim. (If the US/UK thought there was a good case for invasion on genuine grounds, why did they feel the need to lie?)
- varjag 8y ago
  Indeed, if we look back France committed 18,000 troops for the first Gulf War that was widely considered a just cause. Similarly most of the NATO allies supported the USA in Afghanistan. But that going into a war on a false pretext is morally corrupt, and fortunately most Western governments were above that.
  - nicolas_t 8y ago
    Not to mention that the French total had a cosy relationship with Saddam Hussein's government after they negotiated in 1997 for access. It was really not in the interest of France to have a war in Irak
nova22033 8y ago
Assad is genuinely using chemical weapons against a civilian population so I don't think this makes the point you're trying to make.

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago

> And the rest of continental Europe was immensely sceptical. You mean: sat by and did nothing. Everyone's wailing about US <> Saudi relations with regard to Khashoggi. Was anyone suggesting trade relations with the US should be dropped due to their war on Iraq, which, by all accounts, killed more than one person. Coalition of the complicit.