Why didn't the countries that were against the U.S. invasion of Iraq ally with Iraq?

[JAR]

Why didn't the countries that were against the U.S. invasion of Iraq send troops to aid Saddam Hussein in the defense of his country?

Why aren't these countries at war with the U.S. right now?

The governments of countries such as France and Russia felt the U.S. attack on Iraq was immoral, yet they did little to stop it.

 

[corplinx]

Apathy? or is that too simple?

 

[Goshawk]

Well, JAR, I think "immoral" is too strong a word. France, Germany, and Russia didn't object to the proposed Iraq war because it was "immoral"--they objected because it was the UN's job to deal with Iraq. Which isn't the same thing as being "immoral".

Sample speech by Chirac.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2223854.stm

He thought it was pointless, and setting a bad precedent, and just generally not a good idea, but he didn't express it as a "heinous and evil thing to do". Just, like, "misdirected", or "misguided".

"Dumb". He thought it was a dumb idea. Not an "evil" idea.

 

[Gem]

Well other Arab countries sent "unofficially" some men in, some young men in russia also registered to go fight.

A number of reasons, I believe.

First, military logistical reasons. All those countries don't really have nay real navy, or long range airplanes. But even if they did, the USA would "own" them. A match between US and English navy versus French navy sound any good?

Second, economical. Most of these countries had interests in Iraq, and now lost them. Not to mention the billions in debt Iraq had. Although Iraq is a lost investment, the economic trade with the US is far more important.

Third, diplomatic. Leaders probably knew the US was going to win anyway, that's why the UN was "bogged down." They used diplomacy as a tool to try to stop the US. They hoped it would work, but it didn't stop the US. Also, it is not wise to declare war over another country over such a small thing. Their survival or allies's survival aren't in jeopardy.

Fourth, political. Although an overwhelming majority of Europeans did not want the war in Iraq, I don't think anyone but the Russians actually wanted to go in Iraq and fight (human shields are another diplomatic tool). To them, it wasn't worth human lives to defend.

Fifth, reelection. I think that leaders in Europe, those who opposed the war, wanted to ride the popular tide. They opposed the war and went to long lenghts (Chirac said that he would veto any resolutions enabling the use of force in Iraq), no one wanted to see their soldiers fighting the US incredible war arsenal.

And I'll say it before anyone else say it: The French declaring war is a precursor to their surrender. There.

Gem

 

[Mendor]

Maybe because, however much France, Germany and Russia thought the war was a Bad Thing, they thought actually joining in on the side of a bloodthirsty tyrant would have been a Worse Thing?

These countries did try to stop the war. They tried to derail it at every turn. But once the war started, from their point of view, the damage had been done - the unilateral action had been taken. No good would have been done by militarily resisting the US.

Mendor

 

[Frostbite]

Against war doesn't mean against the US.

 

[tedly]

This reminds me of a button I saw recently.

We are not with you.
We are not terrorists.
We are not alone.

Canada did not support the attack on Iraq, for very good reasons. We are a staunch ally of the US, on a national and personal level. But we are now in the position of a teen ager whose best friend wants to date a girl who is no good for him. We know it, France, Germany, and most of Great Britain knows it, but he's going to do it anyway. All we can do is hope it works out.

At the Nuremburg trials a category of 'crime against peace' was defined, some Nazis were I think, hanged for it. Invading another country to overthrow its government (even if you REALLY REALLY believe they're holding WMDs), just may be such a crime (even if you call it regime change). And it sure is a bad example for places like India and Pakistan, who've got the bomb.

So no, we don't support you , and we will speak against your actions, but to say that means we should fight on the other side is an example of the fallacy of the excluded middle. And a fallacious argument isn't wrong, it's just falllacious.

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Against war doesn't mean against the US.

You are either with us or you are with the terrorists

- paraphrasing Bush

 

[LucyR]

First, military logistical reasons. All those countries don't really have nay real navy, or long range airplanes. But even if they did, the USA would "own" them. A match between US and English navy versus French navy sound any good?

Actually, the French navy is quite formidable. However, the suggestion that France would contemplate going to war against the US and the UK over Iraq is utterly ridiculous, and not just for military reasons.

And I'll say it before anyone else say it: The French declaring war is a precursor to their surrender. There.

Example?

 

[Gem]

Example?

World War 2. But it was intended as the popular "joke" the French surrender quickly. But I don't beleive that.

Gem

P.S.: I don't know much about the French Navy, but even if it was a good navy, going against the UK and US at the same time, both martime powers, is just foolish.

 

[Frostbite]

You are either with us or you are with the terrorists

- paraphrasing Bush

F*ck you.

 

[Crossbow]

Re: Why didn't the countries that were against the U.S. invasion of Iraq ally with Iraq?

Why didn't the countries that were against the U.S. invasion of Iraq send troops to aid Saddam Hussein in the defense of his country?

Why aren't these countries at war with the U.S. right now?

The governments of countries such as France and Russia felt the U.S. attack on Iraq was immoral, yet they did little to stop it.

To: JAR

That is a very good question and one which bears repeating.

I think that was one of the real flaws with the 'pro-war' camp; they seemed to think that everyone who was opposed to the war was somehow siding with Iraq and the 9/11 terrorists.

However, as you have noted, nothing like this was done. While they may have opposed the war, they did nothing to actually help Iraq in any real way.

If you want my answer, I think in many ways the countries were very sympathetic to the Bush view, however they thought that an actual shooting war was going too far too fast and that is why they did not actively oppose the US and actively help Iraq.

 

[svero]

France wanted to protect it's economic interests. That's not served by siding with Iraq in a war against the US. It's as simple as that The french anti war policy was self serving as was/is US policy and it had nothing to do with morality.

 

[Tricky]

As many have pointed out, the sort of black-and-white, "either you are for us or against us" mentality is extremely stifiling to critical thought. The term used in logic for this sort of argument is false dichotomy, meaning that the arguer makes the assumption that the two end points are the only possible answers to the problem.

From the very begining, I was against the war, but I stated often that if the war did come (and it was pretty certain to) that I wanted the US to win quickly, decisively and with as few casualties as possible. That, in my mind, was the best possible outcome of what I still think was a bad decision. To suggest that I somehow like Saddam because I disapproved of the aggressive way we removed him is ludicrous.

Other countries, like us, think of their own best interests. They would not give up their best trading partners because they disagreed with some of the things we do, although France certainly did give up a big chunk of their tourism income, as well as export business because of their principled stand.

---
To comment on the sidebar discussion, France did knuckle under easily in WWII. This was mostly because they had lost an extremely large number of young men in World War I (1,400,000 French deaths as compared to only 110,000 for the US). They simply had not enough soldiers to resist. However, they ran a very diciplined and effective guerilla resistance program using mostly women and elderly "soldiers". (The French Underground is quite famous).

 

[rikzilla]

Actually, the French navy is quite formidable. However, the suggestion that France would contemplate going to war against the US and the UK over Iraq is utterly ridiculous, and not just for military reasons.



Example?

Sorry, but beg to disagree. The last time the French navy was "formidable" was on monday morning, 21st October 1805. By 4pm that same day they found themselves much less so. A state they have grown used to ever since.

Ever since the last French soldier shouted "Vive l'Empereur!" the French army has been in much the same state.

Countries do not go willingly into war unless they suppose that they can win. There is currently no military force on Earth that can hope to beat the US/UK on a battlefield. Since coalition building is hard...and suicide considered unacceptable foreign policy... I doubt the US will be opposed by anything more than a strongly worded letter of protest. Unless of course things change drastically in the world....I'm not holding my breath.

-zilla

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

F*ck you.

Just reminding the forum of the Bush Administration's propensity for using false dichotomy.

 

[Jedi Knight]

You are either with us or you are with the terrorists

- paraphrasing Bush

lol

JK

 

[Giz]

---
To comment on the sidebar discussion, France did knuckle under easily in WWII. This was mostly because they had lost an extremely large number of young men in World War I (1,400,000 French deaths as compared to only 110,000 for the US). They simply had not enough soldiers to resist. However, they ran a very diciplined and effective guerilla resistance program using mostly women and elderly "soldiers". (The French Underground is quite famous).

The effective French underground is the "Metro". There was also the maquis, who all stood up to be counted when the US/UK troops rolled through in late 1944 (Allied generals calculated that the Frenchmen who'd come forwards after liberation claiming they'd been in the resistance must have numbered over 2 million - strangely this mammoth armed force were never as effective during the occupation as that number might suggest!)

 

[baldrick]

Because France and Russia are both nuclear powers, and if they helped Iraq, trigger-happy George Bush would happily nuke France and Russia off the face of the planet, call it a premtieve strike, and quite possibly cause WWIII (russia has a major stockpile of ex-soviet atom bombs)

 

[Denise]

Because France and Russia are both nuclear powers, and if they helped Iraq, trigger-happy George Bush would happily nuke France and Russia off the face of the planet, and quite possibly cause WWIII (russia has a major stockpile of ex-soviet atom bombs)

Trigger happy? Can you give evidence of this?

 

[baldrick]

I'll rephrase that;

When I said George Bush was trigger happy I meant the U.S president in general. Over the last fifty years the U.S has, among other things:

1) Armed Al-qaida

2) Armed Iraq with chemical weapons

3) Sprayed Agent Orange (which causes horrific birth defects) over the Vietnam Jungle

What is to say that this President isn't any different, and I do believe that the vice-president was in charge of selling chemical weapons to Iraq in the 80's. Please correct me if im wrong.

Also, one more thing. In a speach after 9/11 George Bush said something along the lines of "the U.S., as the leader of the free world will....". Surely this is a contradiction, for a free world wouldn't have a leader, unless it's about empire building......

 

[Lemastre]

You are either with us or you are with the terrorists

- paraphrasing Bush

I assume your tongue is in your cheek as you cite Bush's simplistic logic. I wonder whether someone who actually held that opinion would be able to comprehend the machinations of a congress whose members from time to time may abstain from voting on various issues rather than coming down on one side or the other.

 

[Segnosaur]

Canada did not support the attack on Iraq, for very good reasons. We are a staunch ally of the US, on a national and personal level.

Sorry, I don't think this was the reason Canada did not support the US. I think the real reasons are as follows:

- A personal anamosity that Cretien (and other Liberals) have to Bush (remember all the comments that have been made against the US, like calling them "b*stards", often without apology)
- People in Cretiens family had economic ties to Iraq (through shares in European oil companies)
- A knowledge that our military has been so underfunded that we could not contribute militarily at all
- Just plain incompetence on the part of the government
- Anti-war attitudes ran strongest in Quebec, and the federal government realized that they could help boost Liberal popularity in the province by taking an anti-war stance. (Overall, in English Canada, the majority of people supported the war; in fact, I think something like 60% of all people thought we should have sent in troops.)

Canada is not a "staunch" ally of the US... We are a pathetic nation of morons who are quickly descending into irrelevance, accelerated by poor leadership.

 

[Segnosaur]

Over the last fifty years the U.S has, among other things:

1) Armed Al-qaida

2) Armed Iraq with chemical weapons

3) Sprayed Agent Orange (which causes horrific birth defects) over the Vietnam Jungle

When you mention things like that, you have to put them in context. In global politics, sometimes a country has to make decisions which are 'not good', because the alternative is even worse. (The situation was even worse several decades ago, when the US was in a cold war with Russia, and a failure to support one dictator meant that a Russian-backed dictator would come to power.)

Sometimes these 'decisions' end up turning out bad in the long run, but 'at the time' they may have seemed optimal

1) Arming Al Qaeda... Yeah, the Americans gave them weapons. But at the time they were fighting a Soviet-backed occupation of Afghanistan. At the time, the soviets were considered the bigger threat.

2) Armed Iraq with chemical weapons... First of all, it should be noted that the US was NOT the only country arming Iraq. Only about 1% of their conventional arms came from the US. Also, the US was not the only (and may not have been the biggest) supplier of chem/bio weapons. Germany and Britian also sold them materials.

Also, it should be noted that at the time the US was 'friends' with Iraq, they were at war with Iran. At the time, Iran was threatening to overthrow Iraq and install another islamic republic, something the US didn't want. (Can you blame them for that?)

3) Sprayed Agent Orange... Yes, as part of a war that was a bit misguided, but was supposed to prevent the expansion of communism

 

[Mike B.]

I'll rephrase that;

When I said George Bush was trigger happy I meant the U.S president in general. Over the last fifty years the U.S has, among other things:

1) Armed Al-qaida

2) Armed Iraq with chemical weapons

3) Sprayed Agent Orange (which causes horrific birth defects) over the Vietnam Jungle

What is to say that this President isn't any different, and I do believe that the vice-president was in charge of selling chemical weapons to Iraq in the 80's. Please correct me if im wrong.

Also, one more thing. In a speach after 9/11 George Bush said something along the lines of "the U.S., as the leader of the free world will....". Surely this is a contradiction, for a free world wouldn't have a leader, unless it's about empire building......

Darn where is Aerocontrols when you need him? He has a great Sweedish study that shows who really armed Iraq.

Here is a hint...

It was two countries in the dual Alliance before World War I...

I know people repeat ad nasueum that the US armed Iraq it simply is not true.

 

[LucyR]

Sorry, but beg to disagree. The last time the French navy was "formidable" was on monday morning, 21st October 1805. By 4pm that same day they found themselves much less so. A state they have grown used to ever since.

-zilla

Trafalgar, yes.

On the other hand, the French navy has deployed several nuclear attack submarines as well as ballistic missile boats. This being the case I think it's reasonable to assume that their surface fleet has also had some money spent on it. Overall, their navy certainly does not compare with that of the US, but against most other nations it could probably give a good account of itself.

Also, you're correct about US/UK military strength on the battlefield. But this fact is, by the way, a double-edged sword as it makes nuclear weapons so much more attractive to otherwise impotent nations.

 

[Flo]

Trafalgar, yes.

On the other hand, the French navy has deployed several nuclear attack submarines as well as ballistic missile boats. This being the case I think it's reasonable to assume that their surface fleet has also had some money spent on it. Overall, their navy certainly does not compare with that of the US, but against most other nations it could probably give a good account of itself.

Errr ... thank you for your high opinion of our marine forces, but have you heard about our latest aircraft carrier and its little problems about some propeller that jammed and its discutable seaworthiness ? It sure had "some money spent on it", but ...

 

[JAR]

Errr ... thank you for your high opinion of our marine forces, but have you heard about our latest aircraft carrier and its little problems about some propeller that jammed and its discutable seaworthiness ? It sure had "some money spent on it", but ...

Wow, Flo, you're the first person I know of in this forum who lives in France. Sometimes us forum goers talk about France, and I never get to hear what the French have to say about our opinions. I always wondered if it was because there wasn't any French people in the forum.

 

[Flo]

Wow, Flo, you're the first person I know of in this forum who lives in France. Sometimes us forum goers talk about France, and I never get to hear what the French have to say about our opinions. I always wondered if it was because there wasn't any French people in the forum.

There are a few others ... I suspect (but I don't claim to be psychic) most of them react like the majority of the French public: "ils sont cinglés, ces 'ricains !"

Personnally, I think many of the "opinions" expressed here are on the intellectual level of a school playground ... not exactly the best material on which my compatriots might be able to form a favourable opinion of political discussion "American style".

 

[Ove]

Personnally, I think many of the "opinions" expressed here are on the intellectual level of a school playground ... not exactly the best material on which my compatriots might be able to form a favourable opinion of political discussion "American style".

Hear hear, i wish that Giz would try someday to make this statement:

The effective French underground is the "Metro". There was also the maquis, who all stood up to be counted when the US/UK troops rolled through in late 1944 (Allied generals calculated that the Frenchmen who'd come forwards after liberation claiming they'd been in the resistance must have numbered over 2 million - strangely this mammoth armed force were never as effective during the occupation as that number might suggest!)

at a reunion of old "Maquis" members i wouldn't like to wiew the remains of him afterwards. Making a statement like that is utterly absurd and shows the level of education today at it's worst.

This being said i can't add much that haven't been said. The utterly silly person calling himself PM in Denmark (Anders Fogh Rasmussen) Decided to do a "Tony Blair" and ignore the public opinion. I can assure you i am NO fan of Hussein, he is a b***** and all other fitting words you can imagine nut i just wish Bush had had the gut's to tell us the real reson for going into war.

 

[Mike B.]

I think the French army does have a record of heroism in the 20th Century. I mean they lost what like 300,000 men defending Verdun in 1916?

 

[Flo]

Hear hear, i wish that Giz would try someday to make this statement: [...] at a reunion of old "Maquis" members i wouldn't like to wiew the remains of him afterwards. Making a statement like that is utterly absurd and shows the level of education today at it's worst.

Actually, he might be better received than you think. I think the numbers he reported are exagerated, but there has been far more people claiming to have been part of the resistance than actual combattants (one example is Le Pen, who claims to have been, although he was too young for having been included and nobody in the Brittany resistance movement had ever heard of him before his claims in the 80's). Hence the "epuration" at the end of the war, with all the horrible infighting, reporting and false accusations of collaborations, etc. Scars are still sore in some places, with rifts across villages and even families.

However, those who actually fought with the resistance were admirable in all details: they were mostly very young, had to hide from a formidably organised army aided by local militias, had to think of protecting their families that could at any time be taken hostages, ran the risk of being reported, tortured, and ultimately killed or sent to death camps.

I think those who rail the attitude of the French population during WWII haven't got a clue of what it means to be invaded and to live under the rule of a totalitarian regime. They should hear the stories coming from Iraq's citizens under Saddam's rule ... or any other dictature their (and too often my) government supports or lets have their way.

 

[Mike B.]

I think those who rail the attitude of the French population during WWII haven't got a clue of what it means to be invaded and to live under the rule of a totalitarian regime. They should hear the stories coming from Iraq's citizens under Saddam's rule ... or any other dictature their (and too often my) government supports or lets have their way.

I think this is a good point.
I would also add during 1914-1918 the French lost something like 1-2 million troops in the trenches. The US never had anything quite like that as far as numbers or a percentage of the population. (with the possible exception of the South in the Civil War)

I can understand the reluctance of the people to sacrifice that many of their young men again. It is easy to be critical of Daladier and Chamberlin because we know how bad Hitler was, however I can understand the revulsion in France and elsewhere to the type of massacres that they went through just 20 years before.

 

[blackpriester]

This reminds me of a button I saw recently.

We are not with you.
We are not terrorists.
We are not alone.

Canada did not support the attack on Iraq, for very good reasons. We are a staunch ally of the US, on a national and personal level. But we are now in the position of a teen ager whose best friend wants to date a girl who is no good for him. We know it, France, Germany, and most of Great Britain knows it, but he's going to do it anyway. All we can do is hope it works out.

At the Nuremburg trials a category of 'crime against peace' was defined, some Nazis were I think, hanged for it. Invading another country to overthrow its government (even if you REALLY REALLY believe they're holding WMDs), just may be such a crime (even if you call it regime change). And it sure is a bad example for places like India and Pakistan, who've got the bomb.

So no, we don't support you , and we will speak against your actions, but to say that means we should fight on the other side is an example of the fallacy of the excluded middle. And a fallacious argument isn't wrong, it's just falllacious.

nice one, I completely agree (being German and VERY Pro-US, as well as very ANTI-Bush (who is himself Anti-US-Ideals))

 

[LucyR]

Errr ... thank you for your high opinion of our marine forces, but have you heard about our latest aircraft carrier and its little problems about some propeller that jammed and its discutable seaworthiness ? It sure had "some money spent on it", but ...

Fact is you have aircraft carriers. End of discussion.

 

[Segnosaur]

Fact is you have aircraft carriers. End of discussion.

Yeah, but its made by the same company that makes Le Car....

Its Le Aircraft Carrier.

 

[rikzilla]

nice one, I completely agree (being German and VERY Pro-US, as well as very ANTI-Bush (who is himself Anti-US-Ideals))

So...are you in San Fran....or Frankfurt am Main??

I was stationed in Hoechst from the late 70's to early 80's. I climbed the Fernmeldeturm when it was still under construction.. and hung out way too much in Greuneburg park.

-z

 

[Ove]

Actually, he might be better received than you think. I think the numbers he reported are exagerated, but there has been far more people claiming to have been part of the resistance than actual combattants (one example is Le Pen, who claims to have been, although he was too young for having been included and nobody in the Brittany resistance movement had ever heard of him before his claims in the 80's). Hence the "epuration" at the end of the war, with all the horrible infighting, reporting and false accusations of collaborations, etc. Scars are still sore in some places, with rifts across villages and even families.

Yep, we had those in Denmark too, they was known as "The last days holy's" (also a name of a religious sekt).

However, those who actually fought with the resistance were admirable in all details: they were mostly very young, had to hide from a formidably organised army aided by local militias, had to think of protecting their families that could at any time be taken hostages, ran the risk of being reported, tortured, and ultimately killed or sent to death camps.

Those was off course the ones i was referring to but mainly i was trying to fight the typical US attitude that we Europeans just hung around during WW2 waiting for good ole Uncle Sam coming to rescue us. We actually did a fair amount of fighting ourselves. True, we couldn't have beaten Hitler without the USA, or without Russia for that matter but the implication that we did nothing during the War allways p***** me off.

I can understand the reluctance of the people to sacrifice that many of their young men again. It is easy to be critical of Daladier and Chamberlin because we know how bad Hitler was, however I can understand the revulsion in France and elsewhere to the type of massacres that they went through just 20 years before.

Yes who can't . The trouble is that USA has never had a war within their borders since the civil war. They simply don't know what a war is all about. How it feels to dig your loved ones out from the rubble that once was your home and then go to work afterwards. Most of europe lived that way for 5 years. They (the USA) had a taste of it with the twin towers but then think, that was everyday life for most europeans FOR FIVE YEARS. Then perhaps you can understand why most europeans resent war.

 

[Mike B.]

Yes who can't . The trouble is that USA has never had a war within their borders since the civil war. They simply don't know what a war is all about. How it feels to dig your loved ones out from the rubble that once was your home and then go to work afterwards. Most of europe lived that way for 5 years. They (the USA) had a taste of it with the twin towers but then think, that was everyday life for most europeans FOR FIVE YEARS. Then perhaps you can understand why most europeans resent war.

Ove,

I am not sure what you mean by "Yes who can't." But I was agreeing with the above sentiments. My point was the horrendous loss of life in 1914-1918 in Europe was a reason many people reacted with such horror over any war. Who would want to sacrifice all those young people again?

Often the leaders at the time, are accused of being simply "appeasers." My point was in the historical context of the time, they were understandabley trying to do everything they can to avoid what happened a short time before.

 

[Flo]

Ove,

I am not sure what you mean by "Yes who can't." But I was agreeing with the above sentiments. My point was the horrendous loss of life in 1914-1918 in Europe was a reason many people reacted with such horror over any war. Who would want to sacrifice all those young people again?

Often the leaders at the time, are accused of being simply "appeasers." My point was in the historical context of the time, they were understandabley trying to do everything they can to avoid what happened a short time before.

Don't exonerate them so lightly. Quite a number of the leaders of the time knew what they were doing and into whose hands they were playing, and, as every single leader in history caught with their pants down, they were very good at using the excuse "our intentions were pure, we did our best to protect our people".