Chirac and Bush will never reconcile.

eek. · Nov 16, 2004

Interesting international diplomatic moves.
The French have basically given up on America under Bush, and now regard it as a lost cause.

-------------------------------------------------------

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=629 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=3>Chirac sideswipe at UK-US alliance

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=416><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=416 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=bottom>Analysis
By Nick Assinder
Political Correspondent, BBC News website
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Tony Blair said it himself - attempting to offer a bridge between the US and Europe was often more like walking a "damn high wire".

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=203 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

Mr Chirac has different world view

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Even as he spoke, and as if to prove the point, French President Jacques Chirac was giving the prime minister's tightrope a good shaking.

In a blunt-speaking interview with British journalists before his two-day visit to the UK, Mr Chirac warned Mr Blair he was wasting his time with President Bush.

The prime minister had given the president support in the war on Iraq and received nothing in return.

"I'm not sure it is in the nature of our American friends at the moment to return favours systematically.

"I am not sure, with America as it is these days, that it would be easy for someone, even the British, to be an honest broker," he declared.

Rival visions

Probably worse for the prime minister, however, was the French president's support for a "multipolar" world in which Europe would offer a balance to the US.

That flies absolutely counter to both Mr Blair's and Mr Bush's world view - not to mention the vision of the so-called neo-Conservatives in Washington.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=203 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

Ms Rice is close to Bush

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>It suggests a far more serious and fundamental clash of rival visions for the world that cannot be squared, rather than a simple falling out over a single issue.

Mr Chirac's comments came on the day Mr Blair was delivering his big annual foreign policy speech and attempting, once again, to offer himself as that bridge between Europe and the US.

He urged the White House to do more to reach out to the EU in the wake of the divisions over the Iraq war.

His call came amid fears amongst some on the Labour benches over the likely political direction of the White House following the resignation of chief moderate Colin Powell and his reported replacement by the hawkish Condoleezza Rice.

The prime minister tied his plea to President Bush with an equal call on European leaders and others to stop ridiculing US arguments and parodying its leaders.

Continuing splits

Mr Chirac, however, had just described hardline US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - who once dismissed his regime as part of "old" Europe - as "that nice guy in America, what's his name again?"

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=203 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

Mr Chirac is at odds with Mr Blair

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>There are now real fears in Westminster that the French President may repeat his views during his visit to Britain later this week.

The two leaders will hold a summit and host a joint press conference during the trip.

And that may well serve to focus attention onto the continuing splits between the EU on one hand and the UK and US on the other.

Mr Blair's speech had been partly designed to dispel the image of him constantly standing alongside the US in opposition to the EU.

Mr Chirac's comments have made his task more difficult by suggesting it is time the prime minister paid more attention to his European alliances. That is a view held by many of the prime minister's critics at home, notably backbenchers led by the likes of former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook. They believe it is high time Mr Blair stopped trying to walk his high wire and started rebuilding bridges with Europe before he falls off and hurts himself.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4015441.stm

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

docmercer--banned · Nov 16, 2004

Dont worry about it ...

Cheney will probably tell Chirac to shut the hell up or the USA will nuke Paris ...

jeffry22 · Nov 17, 2004

France is like some old washed up actress that cant accept the loss of her looks,fame and importance.

bblight · Nov 17, 2004

Damned Doc, we agree again! Nuking Paris is the best idea you've had since you started posting on this board.

Three cheers for Doc!:banger:

TomKing · Nov 17, 2004

I will say it for the 1,000,000th time when in the last 150 years did anyone care wtf the French said?.

SportSavant · Nov 17, 2004

The responses in this thread prove that THERE ARE ALOT OF IGNORANT F*CKS IN THE USA.... (so does the voting in of president GW Bush)

congratulations on maintaining world sterotypes on your idiocy....:hitting:

xpanda · Nov 17, 2004

SportSavant said:
The responses in this thread prove that THERE ARE ALOT OF IGNORANT F*CKS IN THE USA.... (so does the voting in of president GW Bush)

congratulations on maintaining world sterotypes on your idiocy....:hitting:

I think it's pretty difficult to argue that Chirac isn't behaving like a complete boob. Frankly, he and Bush are one and the same, from where I sit. Two incompetent chess players who are so stubborn that their personal pride takes precedence over the proper course of action.

Chirac is trying to position the EU as a superpower, and he's using his newfound alignments with the ME to make this happen. He thinks he'll have the US by the nuts this way. It's ridiculous. The EU itself isn't strong enough or cohesive enough to warrant this bloated self-perception Chirac carries around.

And, since the subject is closely related -- I am glad at the moment that Chretien is gone. His determination to leave behind a cohesive federation in Canada (he did a better job with the Quebec 'situation' than any of his predecessors) via alignment with France, is precisely why we didn't go to Iraq with the US. While I fully support the decision, the reasoning behind it is a bit much. If Chretien were still in power today, he might well be moving us to a pro-France (as opposed to pro-EU) position and away from the US. With Paul Martin, I believe we can do both.

docmercer--banned · Nov 17, 2004

Sportsavant:

Well said!

Yep, most of the "Bushies Backers" could not tell you the capital of the state of Maine let alone Iraq ...

I sat between 2 of em in the voting line ... both of em all gung ho because Kerry was weak on defv ... not aware that Cheney had wanted the same items cut when he Sect of Defv and that Bush's hand picked puppet for the CIA had wanted to cut human intelligence by 20% in the late 1990's ...

Remember, the Leading spokesman for Bush is a racist and drug addict who buys illegal drugs in Denny's Restaurant Parking Lots ...

charleslanger · Nov 18, 2004

HHHmmm, in that case, out of curiousity: which current head of state / world leader do youse admire?

docmercer--banned · Nov 18, 2004

bblight:

Here in lies the difference between me and "Your types" that wake up in the morning after having a wet dream about Dick Cheney -

I make a comment about something that is not out of the reality of what Cheney would say ... you get all excited because Neo-Cons like yourself live for this country to bomb anything in sight and kill innocent civilians

The Neo-Cons like yourself are a sick bunch ... your kind actually high fives the daily reports of innocent civilians be killed by our bombs in a country we invaded because King George wanted to get the "man who tried to kill Daddy"

Hang in there .. in a few hours your fantasy lover Limbaugh will be on the airwaves with more of the "educated views" from a man who buys illegal drugs in parking lots of restaurants in Florida and is a bonafided big time racist

charleslanger · Nov 19, 2004

Ahhh, i see youse favor the Somali model.......

bblight · Nov 19, 2004

Doc - I don't usually listen to Limbaugh.

On my 5;30 AM commute to work, I listen to Bill Bennet's Morning in America program, and on my 5:00 PM commute home I listen to Howy Carr - a local radio talk show host. I also read the WSJ and the WSJ online.

Let's see - I bet your favorites are Jim-Bob Carvel and Chrissy Mathews, and Dan Rather and CNN, and the NY Times.

So now we've presented our credentials - so what! My guy still won!

peskypup · Nov 19, 2004

bloody hell!

this is a first. Never in my lifetime have I heard stuff from a French PM which was actually going to be more popular in the UK than the stuff from the UK PM.

Whatever party, whatever background, we're all heartily sick of our PM running over to wipe the fuckwit's arse whenever he calls for it. Just how much further does it all have to go wrong before Blair realises he's backed a loser?

jeffry22 · Nov 20, 2004

take a good hard look at jaques "********" chirac and tell anyone that bush is a loser. Bush has the strong backing of the american people to oppose evil, in all its forms. That includes both muslims and the french. I have a question for all those europeans that dont like the US involvement in Iraq. If things are going so badly for us and were losing, why aren't you happy.

petre · Nov 20, 2004

peskypup · Nov 20, 2004

to jeffrey

It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to see USA messing things up so badly in its foreign policy. Especially as us brits have been dragged along to the mess.

I like the American people and its very disappointing that at such a time you have one of the poorest Presidents ever, with the possible exception of Herbert Hoover.

Its interesting that Chirac as a right-winger has no time for Bush, whereas Labour leader Blair is so keen on him. The only thing that gives me joy from all the muckups is my dollar shorting is nicely in profit.

But I would sooner lose $3k on the dollar trade and see commonsense break out in the White House.

eek. · Nov 20, 2004

Clintons approach was more international in its application and outlook.
It was a team effort that benefitted the mutual participants.
(The West mainly)

Bushes approach is pure national self-interest.

The Bush approach means you have almost zip support in your endeavours, whatever they may be, and will run into resistance like the UN stuff you get from France.(resulting in the unilateral invasion of Iraq)
The Bush approach means you get less bang for your buck, anything achieved is less stable and secure, and it costs you more $$'s to hang on to whatever it is because you have no genuine external help and support.

In their infinite wisdom the American public voted overwhelmingly for the Bush approach. :>Grin>

It puts you head-to-head with emerging stuff like China, but without the relatively close knit western bloc system you had when dealing with Russian expansion.

This time around, with Bush, you've got no team, its a solo effort.

------------------------------------------------

As with Pesky, theres no pleasure in watching this unfold, there are plenty of Americans who wanted to be part of the team.(49%)
Its actually a recipe for instability.

However we're stuck with it until dum-dum goes.

jeffry22 · Nov 20, 2004

With friends like the french and germans who needs enemys? The facts are that the french(chirac and his henchmen) were bribed by the iraqis to oppose us and the germans are weak, misguided and irrelevant. We have plenty of support worldwide - poland, italy, korea, japan, ukraine, romania, etc. I have no fear of china at all, they will no doubt be extremly anti-muslim as time progresses. Rumsfeld is 100% correct in that old europe is no longer our main concern. After 911 bush stated that other countries have to decide weather they are with us or against us, if they choose to be against us thats ok as we will move foward anyway. We are at War - alot of europeans dont really believe that - americans do.

Marco · Nov 20, 2004

if the Germans are misguided, weak, and irrelevant.......and this "plenty of support" worldwide consists of a handful of countries sending like 4 soldiers each, who pull out as Dubya's policies get more muddled and extreme.....then I would conclude as eek has, that we have no team, and that it is a solo effort.

The kind of worldwide support the USA is receiving is comparable to a father supporting his child by just sending a birthday card every five years or so and skipping the child support check and the visits.....

peskypup · Nov 20, 2004

why is it that

the majority of jeffrey22's posts bear no relation to what is actually happening in the World?

The most ridiculous being the assertion that Iraq had - or could have had - any sort of credible nuclear programme which could have threatened anyone bigger than a mouse.

What concerns me about these is that it would seem that a substantial proportion of the US population have also bought into these myths, and hence voted for Bush. Admittedly the Democrats did the rest of the world no favors in fielding a weak opponent.

On the nuclear topic, everyone knows that Iran is having a go BUT so far all they have done is make highly enriched uranium. This in itself requires a plant 50m high and 50m plus long, hence not easy to hide from IAEA.

But to get from there to functional nuclear weapons requires a hell of a lot more investment, more very large scale plants.

Somehow we are expected to believe that Iraq had achieved all of this, or were close to it. Yet not one of these plants had been - or has been - identified, and we have uncovered the Iranian effort at the first hurdle.

A lot of people in the USA appear to have been duped on this one issue alone.