Do France & Germany have a plan to avert Iraq war? (merged)

The voices of reason. :k:

Schroeder: France, Russia, Germany United, Iraq View](http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=2230173) Reuters 14 Feb 03

BERLIN (Reuters) - Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said on Friday the foreign ministers of France, Russia and Germany would present a common position on Iraq to the U.N. Security Council and said he hoped there would be sufficient support.

Speaking in Berlin, Schroeder told a news conference this position would be presented by the foreign ministers from the three countries that have opposed a rush to war in Iraq to the 15-member Security Council at a meeting in New York on Friday.“We hope this position will find a sufficient majority,” Schroeder said.

Great articles, DhP, thank you.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by aishaA: *
Are these countries serious in their efforts to prevent war or are they just protecting their oil interests in Iraq.
[/QUOTE]

they protect only their interest and also dont want US to hold all resources in the middle east.

A welcome measure indeed from France. Some of these European politicians are refreshingly honest and courageous.

Chirac pledges to veto new resolution, Ian Black and Michael White, The Guardian, 18 February 2003

Tony Blair’s options for going to war on Iraq were shrinking last night after **Jacques Chirac publicly pledged that France would veto an early second United Nations resolution explicitly authorising military action.

“There is no need for a second resolution today, which France would have no choice but to oppose**,” Mr Chirac insisted as he arrived for the European Union’s emergency summit in Brussels. He called it “the worst solution”.

But Mr Blair, who is determined to avoid being provoked into a worse EU split over Iraq, repeated what he and his aides have said for weeks; that time is still needed to answer the key test: “Is Saddam co-operating or not?”

“The most important thing is to send a signal of strength, not weakness, because that is the language Saddam will understand,” he said. “That is also our best chance of avoiding war.”

There is dispute among military experts as to how ready even the US is for a land war in Iraq in the next few weeks - unless Washington is willing to risk trying to seize Baghdad and “decapitate” the regime.

France’s position dashed already slim hopes that the EU would be able to bridge the gap between those who back impatient US rhetoric and those demanding more time for UN weapons inspections.

i wonder US will now cause problem for these european countries for not backing them up.. they r not used to NO from other countries.. man their ego must be terribley(sp?) bruised.

"France saw no need for a new resolution and as long as inspectors were making progress under November’s resolution 1441 there should be no recourse to military action. "

France stands firm in its opposition to Iraq war](Clarifying the Complex | Homepage | Thomson Reuters) Reuters 18 Feb 03

By Alastair Macdonald

PARIS, Feb 18 (Reuters) - A day after signing up to an EU threat to back war on Iraq if it fails to disarm, France stuck to its guns on Tuesday in demanding that U.N. arms inspectors need much more time and resources to achieve a peaceful outcome. As the United States said it could propose a new U.N. resolution as early as this week – a resolution many expect will seek Security Council authority to go to war – Paris said it still wanted to hear a major report by the inspectors which is not scheduled until March 27, more than five weeks away.

Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin brandished France’s power of veto in the Security Council but said that for the time being Paris was trying to secure majority support for its views on the 15-nation body – which would avoid the issue of a veto. “The veto is a very strategic element of France’s independence,” he told reporters after meeting parliamentary leaders who pledged support across the party spectrum. “But…we are seeking a majority and gaining allies, so for now it seems important to us to play the card of a majority on the Council.”

President Jacques Chirac repeated during Monday’s European Union meeting in Brussels that France saw no need for a new resolution and as long as inspectors were making progress under November’s resolution 1441 there should be no recourse to military action. In Washington on Tuesday, however, the White House said a second resolution could be proposed this week or next. The chief inspectors are to report again to the Council on February 28.

Mubarak says Berlin and Paris on “right track”](http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1429_W_782362,00.html) DW-World News, Germany

Egypt’s president, Hosni Mubarak on Tuesday kicked off his two-day visit to Germany with a meeting with Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer. Mubarek praised Germany and France for working to ensure that United Nations Resolution 1441 is implemented without the use of military force. Mubarak told reporters in Berlin that a war against Iraq could destabilise the entire Persian Gulf region. The Egyptian president is to meet with Chancellor Gerhard Schröder this Wednesday.

“Chirac is adamant force is not necessary at this stage”

Chirac firm on Iraq war opposition](BBC NEWS | Middle East | Chirac firm on Iraq war opposition) BBC News

France’s President Jacques Chirac has reaffirmed his country’s opposition to war with Iraq, saying international weapons inspections can still resolve the crisis peacefully. Mr Chirac was speaking at the end of a summit meeting in Paris with leaders from 51 African countries, who unanimously backed the French diplomatic stance on Iraq.

Great articles, DhP :k:
An excellent, if short, article by Terry Jones, discussing the “appalling collateral damage already being inflicted on the English language”.

Powell speaks with forked tongue, The Observer, 23 February 2003

…] ‘Cowardice’, according to Colin Powell, is the refusal to injure thousands of innocent civilians living in Baghdad in order to promote US oil interests in the Middle East. The corollary is that ‘bravery’ must be the ability to order the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis without wincing or bringing up your Caesar salad.

I suppose Tony Blair is ‘brave’ because he is willing to expose the people who voted for him to the threat of terrorist reprisals in return for getting a red carpet whenever he visits the White House, while Chirac is a ‘coward’ for standing up to the bigoted bullying of the extremist right-wing Republican warmongers who currently run the United States.

In the same vein, well-fed young men sitting in millions of dollars’ worth of military hardware and dropping bombs from 30,000ft on impoverished people who have already had all their arms taken away are exemplars of ‘bravery’. ‘Cowardliness’, according to George W. Bush, is hijacking an aircraft and deliberately piloting it into a large building.

Then there’s ‘the international community’. Clearly, Colin Powell cannot be talking of the millions who took to the streets last Saturday. The ‘international community’ he’s talking about must be those politicians who get together behind closed doors to decide how best to stay in power and enrich their supporters by maiming, mutilating and killing a lot of foreigners in funny clothes whom they’ll never see. And while we’re at it, what about that word ‘war’. My dictionary defines a ‘war’ as ‘open, armed conflict between two parties, nations or states’. Dropping bombs from a safe height on an already hard-pressed people, whose infrastructure is in chaos from years of sanctions and who live under an oppressive regime, isn’t a ‘war’. It’s a turkey shoot.

But then the violence being done to the English language is probably the price we have to pay for cheap petrol.

Language is supposed to make ideas clearer so that we can understand them. But when politicians such as Colin Powell, George W. Bush, and Tony Blair get hold of language, their aim is usually the opposite. That’s how they persuade us to take ludicrous concepts seriously. Like the whole idea of a ‘war on terrorism’. You can wage war against another country, or on a national group within your own country, but you can’t wage war on an abstract noun. How do you know when you’ve won? When you’ve got it removed from the Oxford English Dictionary?

When men in power propose doing something that is shameful, wrong and destructive, the first casualty is the English language. It would matter less if it were the only casualty. But if they carry on perverting our vocabulary and twisting our grammar, the result will spell death for many who are now alive.