Chirac Screws Over Iraq

Jacques Chirac is now saying that the only way he’ll sign off on a UN resolution is if the US transfers sovereignty "as soon as possible".

Either Chirac is a complete idiot and thinks that the Iraqi people can just build a completely new government and infrastructure out of nowhere when there is no force with enough legitimacy exists, or he’s making a completely cynical move to hinder the US at the UN Security Council.

In either case this is a demand that is completely unacceptable. Granting Iraq sovereignty now would virtually ensure that Iraq would collapse into anarchy. Either the Ba’ath Party would take power and continue Saddam’s bloody and violent reign, or the country would descend into a bloody civil war as Sunni, Shi’ite and Kurd fight for control of the shattered country.

The demands coming from France are simply unachievable. One cannot create democracy on a timetable. It takes years of civic and political development. Anything less than that risks destroying everything that has been done in the last six months.

Of course Chirac doesn’t give a damn for the Iraqi people. It doesn’t matter if they live in a democracy or are being slaughtered en masse by Ba’athist thugs. Iraq is no more than pawn in Chirac’s larger game of trying to constrain the US’ hyperpuissance and making France a global superpower. This entire debate his little to do with the future of Iraq, if Europe had the best interests of the Iraqi people at heart they would be giving aid immediately.

Instead the Axis of Weasels seem perfectly willing to let the Iraqi people out to dry. I simply can’t believe that they’d be dumb enough to think that they can say that on some arbitrary (and undoubtedly close) date the Iraqis will have a democracy from nothing and will be ready to run their own affairs. Such a position is ridiculous on a prima facie basis and the Weasels know it. This is has nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with Europe’s superpower ambitions.

When President Bush goes to the UN this week, he’d damn well bring hell with him.

11 thoughts on “Chirac Screws Over Iraq

  1. Wait a minute. Aren’t you the same Jay Reding who suggested that we turn over control of Iraq to the Iraqi people as much as possible just a couple short weeks ago? I guess you must have changed your position for the sole purpose of being on the opposite side of the French…and then criticizing Jacques Chirac for taking the very position you did earlier this month.

  2. Iraq can be democratized, but it cannot be done in a hurry. It will take years to bring the process to a point where Iraq can truly exist as a free and democratic state.

    April 28, 2003

    Zakaria’s piece should be standard reading for everyone involved in rebuilding Iraq. It is simply too optimistic to hope for a full-fledged democracy to spring up overnight. That isn’t a realistic goal. However, if the United States is willing to see things out for the long term, they can build the foundations for a stable democracy.

    April 16, 2003

    Go troll somewhere else.

  3. You told me at least three times last month that the US doesn’t need any help in Iraq, they just need for the Iraqis to start taking care of their own country themselves. Now, after Chirac has taken that position, you are distancing yourself from it, apparently to maintain your reputation of disagreeing with everything “French”.

  4. I’m in agreement with Jay here. While, like the French, I opposed the war, the French have revealed their true colors on this one. If they were merely saying “we objected to the war then, we object to the war now, you can expect no help from us but this, frankly (tehee) is none of our business”, that would be one thing. But telling us to turn over all authority to the Iraqis and pull out is lunacy. We’re there, we’ve got to finish the damn job.

    Fuck the frogs. Freedom fries forever!

  5. The US must either do it their way, but do it alone, or if they want to receive help, listen to the suggestions of the countries that would provide it.

    If France want to take the power out of US hands, it’s because otherwise, they will just put their own guys in charge(junte) like they did in many south-american, african and asian countries. This policy has proven to bring a real mafia dedicated to US corporates’interest in power, while being far from any kind of democracy. Nobody but halliburton will gain anything, and especially not the iraqi people.

    and by the way, frogs are delicious (legs only):fry it in butter with parsley and potatoes. It’s really tasty. I recommend some good french wine with it (not too “flowery”.just dry french white wine, from Alsace for example). You can say “yawk” as much as you want, you cannot understand if you never tried it. I seems you can find some in Minneapolis on…France Avenue!!

  6. Yes, the US will just install some puppet state like they did in Germany, Japan, South Korea, the Phillippines, etc…

    Oh wait, all of those are free and independent countries…

    It is fine to start giving the Iraqis more responsibility for policing themselves – that’s what needs to be done. However, full sovereignty without a functioning civil society is a recipe for complete anarchy. The French proposal is simply madness, and even the rest of Europe is wondering what the hell Chirac is thinking.

  7. all the examples you are giving are way in the past comparing to south-american states, and their deal with the CIA (drug dealers when needed for politics purpose).

    for the vote at the UN, and the division of the EU…wait and see.

    Oh and BTW, I don’t remenber you stating anything when the world decided (in full committee) to intervene in favorr of Arafat by 135 to 6(including abstentions)?

  8. Alright, let’s just look at South America:

    Nicaragua recently told the former Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega to take a hike, proving that the Marxists couldn’t win a free election and that allowing them to fall into Marxist hands would have been a tragic mistake.

    Chile: Despite Pinoche’s violence, Allende was hardly some great democratic hero. Had Allende not been overthrown Chile would have been a Soviet satellite state, complete with bloody purges of dissidents. The revolution of 1973 produced one of the strongest and most stable nation in Latin America. As bad as Pinoche was, the lost of life in Chile was far smaller than the loss of life in many of the undemocratic juntas that occurred thanks to Soviet intervention elsewhere.

    Columbia: Without US help, Colombia would be in the hands of the radical Marxist FARC militia, who have already killed thousands of civilians.

    Peru: The Shining Path militia were another group of Marxist thugs who had no compunction about murdering hundreds of civilians in cold blood. Thanks to US help, the Shining Path have been virtually eliminated and Peru is more peaceful once again.

  9. As you described it, as soon as the States are taking over a country, and set up a government that follows their own interest, a marxist group emerge and put the country in civil war for decades.
    Maybe we should try to avoid adopting a one-sided view, and set up real democracies instead!!

  10. As you described it, as soon as the States are taking over a country, and set up a government that follows their own interest, a marxist group emerge and put the country in civil war for decades.

    No, the US backed groups opposing Soviet attempts to install client states in the Western hemisphere as they did with Cuba. The left constantly seems to forget that the Soviets were the ones trying to destroy democracy in Latin America…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.